Ricardo asked:

I know what Barbara means (Answers 20) when she asked her question about human beings and
ants. Firstly, sometimes the individuality of people can be overlooked in favour of what is often termed
'the general public' or as Sartre put it 'the impersonal flock', I too loathe these terms yet they remain
inescapable all the same. Speaking for myself here, these terms make me feel insignificant, almost
like an ant. I don't know whether or not ants or humans have or have not immortal souls, I don't wish
to go there, not because I am a sophist, opting for 'the answer is complex and life is short', but rather
that I do not wish to be dogmatic or assuming. The existence or absence of 'souls' is not something
which can really be proved. However, I do believe that if humans have souls then so then do ants,
why not? I recently went on the London Eye and trust me up there it's hard to see people in the same
way as one might on the ground, and in fact to me at least the city did look just like a giant kind of ant
colony.

============

That we look like ants as you tower above us on the Eye doesn't mean that we are ants. Did you not
see little cars, buses and bridges and the Houses of Parliament?

I think that it is not only sometimes that individuality is overlooked, but that it always is when group
descriptions such as 'the general public' are used. This is because when people use the description it
doesn't apply to every member. If you say the general public are in favour of increased support by the
government of public services, there will always be individuals who are not. These are simply
generalisations. For any ascription to the general public, or any description of them, there will be
exceptions not, of course, that they are people but this is part of the meaning of general public any
further comments are false. So you might feel easier if you realise that any such statement is not true.

Another way of looking at it is that Sartre might have seen people as an impersonal flock, but within
that flock the reality is that there are people deeply in love with each other and people who have
strong attachments with one another and people with ethical commitments which arise in relation to
those they do not even know. What Sartre wrote probably didn't even reflect his personal experience
amongst others.

The way forward is to think of our connectedness with one another rather than existential alienation.

The reason we don't think that ants have souls (and we could be wrong) is that their interactions with
the world and one another don't seem to be of sufficient complexity to reflect a creative and
imaginative inner life. They are thought simply to work. If you like, one way to look at it is that their
lives must be so boring that they indulge in a great deal of imaginations and also in ant
communication when in small groups to compensate. Watching them closely, they don't acknowledge
each other as they pass. Very much like London.

But more realistically, why was it that when you were on the eye you didn't marvel at the little cars
and bridges?

Rachel Browne

Of course from a distance we may as well be ants too! But humanocentrism may consider things
otherwise.

Do ants have immortal souls? Why not? Concerning the Judeo-Christian tradition, the opinion of the
majority is that animals have not immortal souls. However there always were and are many eminent
theologians, religious personalities and plain believers who claim that animals do have immortal souls
too. The minority's opinion is based on various biblical and theological elements.

For further consideration I would suggest to read the book After Noah(Mowbray, first published 1997)
by the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey and the Rabbi Professor Dan Cohn-Sherbok.

Jean Nakos