What do you think?
Rate this book
The Philosopher's Dog: Friendships with Animals
The philosopher Raimond Gaita has always been fascinated by animals� their obvious intelligence and disturbing brutality, their uncanny responsiveness to our moods and needs, the deep feelings they elicit from us and seem to return. In this marvelous, luminous book, Gaita trains the lens of philosophy on the mystery and beauty of the animals he has known and loved best. The Philosopher’s Dog is one of those rare works that engage the heart from the very first paragraph and haunt the mind long after one has finished reading.
What does Gaita’s dog, Gypsy, think about while she sits on her mat gazing out to sea for hours on end? Why did the irascible cockatoo Jack greet Gaita’s father with kisses each morning but bite everyone else? How can we acknowledge that animals are sentient and yet deny that they have consciousness? Is it possible to love animals and still eat meat? In contemplating questions like these, Gaita weaves together personal stories–inspiring, sometimes heartbreaking accounts about the animals he and his family members have sheltered–with the reflections and analysis of a professional philosopher.
A graceful, engaging stylist, Gaita is perfectly lucid as he grapples with great thinkers through the ages–from Socrates to Wittgenstein, Descartes to Hannah Arendt. And yet, as important as formal philosophy has been to him, Gaita frankly acknowledges that he has learned much about the nature of life from Gypsy and Jack and his courageously arrogant cat Tosca. In the end, he argues that love should be the essence of our bond with animals, the critical factor that guides how we treat them and think about their place in our world.
In pondering the meaning and morality of his relationships with animals, and with the natural world more generally, Raimond Gaita has created a surprising masterpiece, a book of startling insights, spellbinding stories, meticulous observations, and wise reflection. At once engrossing and thought-provoking, The Philosopher’s Dog i s a supremely enjoyable book.
What does Gaita’s dog, Gypsy, think about while she sits on her mat gazing out to sea for hours on end? Why did the irascible cockatoo Jack greet Gaita’s father with kisses each morning but bite everyone else? How can we acknowledge that animals are sentient and yet deny that they have consciousness? Is it possible to love animals and still eat meat? In contemplating questions like these, Gaita weaves together personal stories–inspiring, sometimes heartbreaking accounts about the animals he and his family members have sheltered–with the reflections and analysis of a professional philosopher.
A graceful, engaging stylist, Gaita is perfectly lucid as he grapples with great thinkers through the ages–from Socrates to Wittgenstein, Descartes to Hannah Arendt. And yet, as important as formal philosophy has been to him, Gaita frankly acknowledges that he has learned much about the nature of life from Gypsy and Jack and his courageously arrogant cat Tosca. In the end, he argues that love should be the essence of our bond with animals, the critical factor that guides how we treat them and think about their place in our world.
In pondering the meaning and morality of his relationships with animals, and with the natural world more generally, Raimond Gaita has created a surprising masterpiece, a book of startling insights, spellbinding stories, meticulous observations, and wise reflection. At once engrossing and thought-provoking, The Philosopher’s Dog i s a supremely enjoyable book.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
27 people are currently reading
239 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
April 28, 2016
Having read and enjoyed this book, I was astonished to find that it had been rated poorly on here, and many reviewers questioned the author's reasoning, methodology and his target audience. I do not ordinarily write reviews, but thought I would write down my thoughts on this book while they were still fresh.
The Philosopher's Dog is a work of philosophy, and as such, having only read it once, there will be much that I didn't allow time to seep in or grapple with as I read the book. It is well written and does not lack for clarity, and the only reason why it needs time and rereading is because of the subject matter, not the quality of writing. There are many different points put across in the book, and many seeming contradictions that Gaita does not shy away from, given that he does not believe ethics to be easy. It seems that he believes that we can hold seemingly contradictory views about animals because our ethical considerations cannot simply be filtered down into the things that we believe. Every word we use is packed with meaning, and it could take an age to pick our terms apart.
This attitude justifies his method of using stories to make his point clear. He does not include these to make his book more accessible to non-philosophers, but because they are at the heart of what he is getting at. An interaction between a human and animal can involve a huge amount of understanding on the part of both without any language involved even in the thoughts of either. His examples allow us to see his message and follow the discussion instead of getting lost on the way as difficult concepts are picked apart.
Gaita's book perfectly balances sensitivity and reason, and shows you what perfect friends the two can be. It is well worth reading, but its sincerity and scope should not be underestimated - just because it has a dog on the front, does not mean that it will be a walk in the park.
The Philosopher's Dog is a work of philosophy, and as such, having only read it once, there will be much that I didn't allow time to seep in or grapple with as I read the book. It is well written and does not lack for clarity, and the only reason why it needs time and rereading is because of the subject matter, not the quality of writing. There are many different points put across in the book, and many seeming contradictions that Gaita does not shy away from, given that he does not believe ethics to be easy. It seems that he believes that we can hold seemingly contradictory views about animals because our ethical considerations cannot simply be filtered down into the things that we believe. Every word we use is packed with meaning, and it could take an age to pick our terms apart.
This attitude justifies his method of using stories to make his point clear. He does not include these to make his book more accessible to non-philosophers, but because they are at the heart of what he is getting at. An interaction between a human and animal can involve a huge amount of understanding on the part of both without any language involved even in the thoughts of either. His examples allow us to see his message and follow the discussion instead of getting lost on the way as difficult concepts are picked apart.
Gaita's book perfectly balances sensitivity and reason, and shows you what perfect friends the two can be. It is well worth reading, but its sincerity and scope should not be underestimated - just because it has a dog on the front, does not mean that it will be a walk in the park.
September 17, 2007
I admit, I couldn't make it all the way through this book. The personal anecdotes are great, but sections on the "philosophy" of our relationships with dogs and other animals were ponderous and boring. I am too pragmatic to read 200 pages of wandering prose discussing whether or not dogs are "sensate creatures." I mean, duh! Of course they are! (Which is the conclusion of the book, too, but he just takes longer to get there.) Don't waste my time!
July 30, 2020
Gaita asks some very good questions and makes some equally good points, but the book is still full of the usual human arrogance that's (as good as) ubiquitous in philosophy: we are so amazingly special, no other living thing can compare... Maybe people who make a living with their brains have to think like that. Also, just as common and just as annoying to me: creating an artificial competition between philosophy and science that is, of course, already won. By philosophy... Gaita is at least addressing these issues and where he's aware of them, he's trying to overcome them- so I was able to finish the book without throwing it at the wall a single time (high praise for this kind of book!) but still...
February 19, 2015
Essay-style writing in this book can make you think about life & death, automatons, emotions, meaningfulness/meaninglessness of killing, saving, protecting and loving animals. One theme/question that seems to come up repeatedly seems to be: 'why so affectionate towards some animals some times and why not so affectionate at other times and towards certain other species?' Well, answer to this one is not really quite intriguing: Because this is life, and we are practical creatures, and that makes our connection to pet-world complicated. Oh, well. Obviously, I was expecting more from this book. Perhaps, somethings that incorporated the views/data from neuropsychology, more of first-hand experience and so on; not just Wittgenstein or Coetzee citations. I can go look them up myself. Reading this, instead, I found myself repeating page after page, "OK, so we are practical animals. We kill and love the same sort of things at the same time. Reasons we show more affection to animals than to humans are horrid. Other life forms are interesting because they tell us something about ourselves." The last sentence sounds a bit too obvious, doesn't it? But that was what I repeated to myself, trying to get a sense of arguments included in the book, to be able to follow why and how the author jumps from animal-human affective interaction to human-baby affective interaction and one human killing another one. The link is not very convincing in the way it is presented by Gaita here. Pushing for "human needs animal to find a meaning for his/her life" should not be what a reader gets from the book, right? But, honestly, that's come up in my mind several times while reading through the chapters. I am sure Gaita is doing more than that and has done more elsewhere (in other books) too. However, there should be another way to approach such affective relation.
Now I am off to find some intriguing source to understand why the Fool (in tarot) seemingly stands by the cliff together with its dog, whereas they actually walk (not for completion or a feeling of being complete, safe, happy; instead, for the sake of moving).
Now I am off to find some intriguing source to understand why the Fool (in tarot) seemingly stands by the cliff together with its dog, whereas they actually walk (not for completion or a feeling of being complete, safe, happy; instead, for the sake of moving).
June 4, 2012
I found this a tremendously moving and thought-provoking book. I have to confess that although I was well aware that there would be quite a lot of philosophy (unlike some reviewers who seem to have been taken unawares) I did find it quite difficult in parts. As with all philosophy, though, I suspect the meaning will become clearer on further readings and it is certainly a book I woud like, and feel I ought, to re-read some day. Very beautiful in its own way, and I will have to have a good long think about the things Gaita says and whether I should adjust some of my beliefs and behaviours because of them. I think that is the greatest compliment I can pay this book.
April 7, 2020
I had two overarching problems with this book, and then more particular ones. Firstly, there wasn't enough about animals, and there weren't enough animal anecdotes. Most of the book was just philosophical pontification. Secondly, I didn't really like the writing (which was leaning heavily on the writing styles of Continental philosophers), and it appeared that Gaita didn't understand moral philosophy at all. Obviously he does understand it, given he's a named professor at King's, but the way he dismissed various positions and seemed to attribute bizarre claims to different groups of philosophers and scientists made it seem as if he really didn't know what they were talking about. Dismissing these groups so arrogantly and then asserting something that appears to contradict the views of these groups, as Gaita did, was annoying.
My more specific complaints related to various of his claims. For instance, he claims that we can't wrong non-human animals like we can wrong humans because we can't seriously consider animals' moral value similarly to humans'. It's not obvious that (a) that latter claim is true or (b) that the former claim follows from the latter. Another example is that a large chunk of his evidence for how we value humans dissimilarly to non-human animals is that we find the slaughter and mistreatment of humans to be highly motivational (e.g. we would take up arms to stop it), but we don't find this same thing with animals. That may be true (to some extent), but if so that is only a very recent development. Only a few hundred years ago in the West the mistreatment of black people was commonplace, just like the mistreatment of animals is now. So why can't there be an expanding of the moral circle to encompass animals, just like there was to encompass black people? Gaita seems to ignore this point.
Overall, the book was sometimes interesting and often frustrating, and severely lacking in animal anecdotes.
My more specific complaints related to various of his claims. For instance, he claims that we can't wrong non-human animals like we can wrong humans because we can't seriously consider animals' moral value similarly to humans'. It's not obvious that (a) that latter claim is true or (b) that the former claim follows from the latter. Another example is that a large chunk of his evidence for how we value humans dissimilarly to non-human animals is that we find the slaughter and mistreatment of humans to be highly motivational (e.g. we would take up arms to stop it), but we don't find this same thing with animals. That may be true (to some extent), but if so that is only a very recent development. Only a few hundred years ago in the West the mistreatment of black people was commonplace, just like the mistreatment of animals is now. So why can't there be an expanding of the moral circle to encompass animals, just like there was to encompass black people? Gaita seems to ignore this point.
Overall, the book was sometimes interesting and often frustrating, and severely lacking in animal anecdotes.
May 16, 2018
Yes, I picked up this book for the cover. I even expected to like the book. After about 50 pages, I decided that life is too short to read books that I'm not enjoying or from which I'm not learning anything. The animal-related anecdotes in this book have too many horrific endings, and the "philosophy" is really just pedantic and pompous musings. I'm sending this book on its way to the thrift shop, but I'm keeping the cover.
September 2, 2017
I very much enjoyed this book, though it was slow going. It's quiet dense in ideas, and much more philiosophy than anecdote. I find myself musing over Gaita's notions, though, and thinking that we have moved to a different place in our attitudes towards animals since this book was written. I find myself not entirely convinced by the arguments put forward here, but then, I am not a philosopher.
I think I will dive into this book in the future for thinking material, especially as I continue to write my own fictional animals, to help me consider their outlook and position in life as we know it. Definitely a keeper!
I think I will dive into this book in the future for thinking material, especially as I continue to write my own fictional animals, to help me consider their outlook and position in life as we know it. Definitely a keeper!
December 28, 2008
Gaita's use of anecdote is an effective tool--at first. However, it quickly becomes apparent (and maddening) that he relies almost entirely upon these anecdotes, to the detriment of the work as a whole. The end result is, unfortunately, a book that comes across as absolute fluff for mass-consumption, whatever the original intent. This is, in essence, a less efficient, less compelling attempt at what Scully so elegantly penned in [Dominion].
July 4, 2012
Filosophy can be written either extremely interesting or eccentricly boring. This author, unfortunately, chose the last option. Didn't even make my way through it.
January 19, 2021
I picked this up on a whim thanks to the excellent cover (a detail of the awesome dog in Piero di Cosimo's painting A Satyr Mourning Over A Nymph, which is one of my favourites at the National Gallery in London), and because I tend to like both philosophy and dogs.
I was hoping for / expecting something that either explained the distinctly different human-dog relationship in philosophical terms, or used dogs as a starting point for philosophical musings on a range of different issues. This is the latter - and is particularly good for its passages on humans' sense of mortality (well timed for me following the joys of 2020 and coming a day after receiving news of an old friend's imminent death from cancer), as well as the author's anecdotes about his own and his farmer father's experiences with animals.
Through these, he gradually builds up a subtle (never explicit) theory of the differences between people and animals, which hints at a general theory of what it means to be human. But there are issues, and significant gaps (perhaps unsurprising in a book of a little over 200 beautifully typeset pages)...
"The follies of philosophers are easily ridiculed, but... sometimes they go deep. Only if one has struggled long and hard with the fundamental problems of philosophy will one understand, I think, how easily even the greatest of philosophers can speak nonsense without the slightest awareness that they are doing so." (p. 68)
It'll come as no surprise that Gaita seems to fall into this trap himself on a few occasions here, from logical inconsistencies (accusing two other authors of only presenting anecdotal evidence for their case that animals have feelings, despite his own evidence consisting solely of his own anecdotes and quotations from novels) to a long, largely irrelevant and utterly unconvincing sidetrack (on the differing nature of parenthood between humans and animals) in the penultimate chapter.
But the biggest issue I had were the constant assertions, made evidence-free, about the inability of people or animals to do / think / feel various things.
For animals, despite this being a book of philosophy, some reference to scientific evidence for their mental capacity / alleged behaviours could have been helpful (or helped Gaita avoid fallacious arguments like those he develops on parenthood in the penultimate chapter). This would have turned this into a different, but more interesting and compelling contribution.
For people, his general conclusions are more difficult to *disprove*, per se - but he ends up digging himself into a bit of a structuralist hole without seeming to realise it. Once you get into such a position, as a philosopher, there are numerous elegant ways out. Gaita takes none of them, instead choosing to stay at the bottom, staring at the sky, assuming that is the entire world. Because of this, his ultimate argument boils down to "people treat animals differently due to cultural conditioning" (a paraphrase, not a quote).
As conclusions go, this would be fine (if a bit obvious) - but again, to make such an assertion requires more evidence than has been presented here. Pretty much the *only* evidence he presents for anything is from his own personal experience or from J.M. Coetzee novels. There's a single aside to "an Indian wise man" who might treat all animals as if they have value (an oddly dismissive description for a philosophical/religious tradition that's lasted millennia and covers a sizeable chunk of the world's population), but beyond that this is a very Western, perhaps even very Anglo-Saxon, view of the world.
So I guess I'm complaining about what this book is *not* - but only because despite these flaws it's thought-provoking enough to make me want more. It's still worth a read, and I'll be keeping it on the shelf for more than just the cover. Hence the four stars - it's a book I have some affection for as well as some frustration with.
I was hoping for / expecting something that either explained the distinctly different human-dog relationship in philosophical terms, or used dogs as a starting point for philosophical musings on a range of different issues. This is the latter - and is particularly good for its passages on humans' sense of mortality (well timed for me following the joys of 2020 and coming a day after receiving news of an old friend's imminent death from cancer), as well as the author's anecdotes about his own and his farmer father's experiences with animals.
Through these, he gradually builds up a subtle (never explicit) theory of the differences between people and animals, which hints at a general theory of what it means to be human. But there are issues, and significant gaps (perhaps unsurprising in a book of a little over 200 beautifully typeset pages)...
"The follies of philosophers are easily ridiculed, but... sometimes they go deep. Only if one has struggled long and hard with the fundamental problems of philosophy will one understand, I think, how easily even the greatest of philosophers can speak nonsense without the slightest awareness that they are doing so." (p. 68)
It'll come as no surprise that Gaita seems to fall into this trap himself on a few occasions here, from logical inconsistencies (accusing two other authors of only presenting anecdotal evidence for their case that animals have feelings, despite his own evidence consisting solely of his own anecdotes and quotations from novels) to a long, largely irrelevant and utterly unconvincing sidetrack (on the differing nature of parenthood between humans and animals) in the penultimate chapter.
But the biggest issue I had were the constant assertions, made evidence-free, about the inability of people or animals to do / think / feel various things.
For animals, despite this being a book of philosophy, some reference to scientific evidence for their mental capacity / alleged behaviours could have been helpful (or helped Gaita avoid fallacious arguments like those he develops on parenthood in the penultimate chapter). This would have turned this into a different, but more interesting and compelling contribution.
For people, his general conclusions are more difficult to *disprove*, per se - but he ends up digging himself into a bit of a structuralist hole without seeming to realise it. Once you get into such a position, as a philosopher, there are numerous elegant ways out. Gaita takes none of them, instead choosing to stay at the bottom, staring at the sky, assuming that is the entire world. Because of this, his ultimate argument boils down to "people treat animals differently due to cultural conditioning" (a paraphrase, not a quote).
As conclusions go, this would be fine (if a bit obvious) - but again, to make such an assertion requires more evidence than has been presented here. Pretty much the *only* evidence he presents for anything is from his own personal experience or from J.M. Coetzee novels. There's a single aside to "an Indian wise man" who might treat all animals as if they have value (an oddly dismissive description for a philosophical/religious tradition that's lasted millennia and covers a sizeable chunk of the world's population), but beyond that this is a very Western, perhaps even very Anglo-Saxon, view of the world.
So I guess I'm complaining about what this book is *not* - but only because despite these flaws it's thought-provoking enough to make me want more. It's still worth a read, and I'll be keeping it on the shelf for more than just the cover. Hence the four stars - it's a book I have some affection for as well as some frustration with.
July 10, 2017
I think this is one of those books that I would appreciate more if I had more background knowledge of the subject, in this case, philosophy. It tries to make some sense about the relationship of people and animals, and the lengths the former would go through to preserve the latter's healh and well-being. I was unable to form a cohesive idea/conclusion of what Mr. Gaita was getting at, apart from the notions of being a unique individual and of what it means to be a creature.
I will note that the anecdotes provided often involves bad things happening to animals, so if that puts you off, you might want to look elsewhere.
I will note that the anecdotes provided often involves bad things happening to animals, so if that puts you off, you might want to look elsewhere.
December 12, 2017
This is a somewhat "philosophy heavy" writing interspersed with personal experience. The author discusses societies treatment of and attitudes towards animals in the context of our own animalness. I found the philosophy (for me) is too deep for a layman to readily absorb, and not enjoyable. The personal anecdotes were very relatable and saved this book for me.
September 18, 2023
I was excited to read about the many journeys of different pets, however, this wasn’t the case. There were very few animals and most had awful endings to their lives. The rest of the book was repeated rambling. Some points made you think and others made you skip entire chapters. Of course you would pay for your dogs medical expenses as you would a child!
July 4, 2017
Interesting and made me think a bit more about animals. I found some statements a bit generalistic and definitive. I think we do know how dogs are thinking, at times, because humans and dogs have a unique and deep communication which is not evident between other species.
April 3, 2021
Failed the 50 page test
July 25, 2022
korkunç bir kitap vakit kaybı
April 17, 2023
When I find a book that I love I generally buy multiple copies and give away to friends and this was one of them. This is very quaint story.
April 22, 2024
Augh 🥱
December 21, 2019
Thought provoking but unpleasant, not because it has something ugly but his prose style was hard to read.
September 22, 2010
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this book. I liked how thoughtful it was and how it seemed torn between objective analysation and what we actually experience in the begining. The stories were nice, but simply not enough, and after a while he starts repeating himself. I agree with the final conclusion, but I think it could have taken a lot less long to come up with it. And perhaps could have had some more depht. The intent was good and after reading it I'm pretty sure I'd probably like the author, as a person. But that's not what you read this kind of book for. It was just a little too slow and the final conclusion could have been made after half this book already.
June 25, 2012
I've never wanted to finish a book so badly because I was frustrated by it. Rather than put it down, I was pushed to finish it because I could not understand the continuity between the author's arguments. His argumentative style at times leaves much to be desired. While at times searingly thought-provoking, I found some of his actual evidence he used misunderstood and not well connected. The author appears blind to his own statements made earlier in the book. I don't think I'll ever pick this book up again.
December 2, 2019
Not exactly what I was expecting, but still pretty good. It's mainly about whether or not we can posit that there are other minds, and what we can know about them, but also some cool stories about animals, of which I am a big fan.
December 1, 2010
Wow, this was heavy. Too heavy for me. I was expecting some nice stories of people and their relationships with their pets. While there is some of that, it's really more a deep philosophy treatise. Not exactly a quick, pleasant read. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I'd know what I was getting into.
August 26, 2016
I enjoyed reading this book, but did not find it particularly innovative in terms of philosophy and animal rights. The book is, however, very readable, and might prove thought provoking for anyone in need of a little nudge towards thinking about animal ethics.
August 12, 2008
Have finally finished this book - and found a lot of thoughtprovoking things in it - but on the whole I am not sure I really like it.
Read
August 11, 2011engaging stories, a little on the preachy side.
Read
January 9, 2017eindelijk :)
Laatste hoofdstuk was weer iets makkelijker te lezen of het sprak me meer aan of ik was gewoon wat meer wakker..
Laatste hoofdstuk was weer iets makkelijker te lezen of het sprak me meer aan of ik was gewoon wat meer wakker..
August 22, 2007
Enjoyable when you can give it the attention it deserves.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.