Content deleted Content added
Treetoes023 (talk | contribs) These concepts could be easily confused. |
Omnipaedista (talk | contribs) italics for series titles |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 30:
==In religion and mythology==
{{see also|Euhemerism|Anthropomorphism and corporealism in Islam}}
In religion and mythology, anthropomorphism is the perception of a divine being or beings in human form, or the recognition of human qualities in these beings.
Line 38 ⟶ 39:
Anthropomorphism has cropped up as a [[Christian heresy]], particularly prominently with [[Audianism]] in third-century Syria, but also fourth-century Egypt and tenth-century Italy.<ref>{{Cite CE1913 |wstitle=Anthropomorphism |first=James Joseph |last=Fox |volume=1}}</ref> This often was based on a literal interpretation of the [[Genesis creation myth]]: "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them".<ref name="1728Cyclopedia">{{1728|title=Anthropomorphite|url=http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/HistSciTech/HistSciTech-idx?type=turn&entity=HistSciTech.Cyclopaedia01.p0147&id=HistSciTech.Cyclopaedia01&isize=L|no-prescript=1}}</ref>
[[Hindus]] do not reject the concept of a deity in the abstract unmanifested, but note practical problems. The ''[[Bhagavad Gita]]'', Chapter 12, Verse 5, states that it is much more difficult for people to focus on a deity that is [[Nirguna|unmanifested]] than one with [[Saguna brahman|form]], remarking on the usage of anthropomorphic [[Icon|icons]] ([[Murti|murtis]]) that adherents can perceive with their senses.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Fowler |first=Jeanne D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RmGKHu20hA0C&q=Hinduism+murtis+shiva+linga&pg=PA42 |title=Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices |publisher=Sussex Academic Press |year=1997 |isbn=978-1898723608 |pages=42–43}}{{Dead link|date=June 2023|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Narayan |first=M. K. V. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ewRfp4qpvt4C&q=Hinduism+murtis+saligrama&pg=PA84 |title=Flipside of Hindu Symbolism |publisher=Fultus |year=2007 |isbn=978-1596821170 |pages=84–85 |access-date=8 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210813203006/https://books.google.com/books?id=ewRfp4qpvt4C&q=Hinduism+murtis+saligrama&pg=PA84 |archive-date=13 August 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
===Criticism===
Line 46 ⟶ 49:
In the [[Isma'ilism|Ismaili]] interpretation of [[Islam]], assigning attributes to God as well as negating any attributes from God (''[[Apophatic theology|via negativa]]'') both qualify as anthropomorphism and are rejected, as God cannot be understood by either assigning attributes to Him or taking them away. The 10th-century Ismaili philosopher [[Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani]] suggested the method of double negation; for example: "God is not existent" followed by "God is not non-existent". This glorifies God from any understanding or human comprehension.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Virani|first=Shafique N.|date=2010|title=The Right Path: A Post-Mongol Persian Ismaili Treatise|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00210860903541988|journal=Iranian Studies|volume=43|issue=2|pages=197–221|doi=10.1080/00210860903541988|s2cid=170748666|issn=0021-0862|access-date=17 November 2020|archive-date=13 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210813203006/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00210860903541988|url-status=live}}</ref>
In secular thought, one of the most notable criticisms began in 1600 with [[Francis Bacon]], who argued against [[Aristotle]]'s [[teleology]], which declared that everything behaves as it does in order to achieve some end, in order to fulfill itself.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals|url=https://archive.org/details/anthropomorphism00mitc_634|url-access=limited|last1=Mitchell|first1=Robert|last2=Thompson|first2=Nicholas|last3=Miles|first3=Lyn|publisher=State University of New York Press|year=1997|isbn=978-0791431252|location=New York|pages=[https://archive.org/details/anthropomorphism00mitc_634/page/n71 51]}}</ref> Bacon pointed out that achieving ends is a human activity and to attribute it to nature misconstrues it as humanlike.<ref name=":2" /> Modern criticisms followed Bacon's ideas such as critiques of [[Baruch Spinoza]] and [[David Hume]]. The latter, for instance, embedded his arguments in his wider criticism of human religions and specifically demonstrated in what he cited as their "inconsistence" where, on one hand, the Deity is painted in the most sublime colors but, on the other, is degraded to nearly human levels by giving him human infirmities, passions, and prejudices.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Hume's Critique of Religion: 'Sick Men's Dreams'|last1=Bailey|first1=Alan|last2=O'Brien|first2=Dan|publisher=Springer Science+Business Media|year=2014|isbn=9789400766143|location=Dordrecht|pages=172}}</ref> In ''Faces in the Clouds'', anthropologist Stewart Guthrie proposes that all religions are anthropomorphisms that originate in the brain's tendency to detect the presence or vestiges of other humans in natural phenomena.<ref name="SE Guthrie religion ref">{{cite book
Line 137 ⟶ 116:
Some of the most notable examples are the [[Walt Disney]] characters [[Aladdin's Magic Carpet|the Magic Carpet from Disney's Aladdin franchise]], [[Mickey Mouse]], [[Donald Duck]], [[Goofy]], and [[Oswald the Lucky Rabbit]]; the [[Looney Tunes]] characters [[Bugs Bunny]], [[Daffy Duck]], and [[Porky Pig]]; and an array of others from the 1920s to present day.
In the [[Pixar|Disney/Pixar]] franchises [[Cars (franchise)|''Cars'']] and [[Planes (franchise)|''Planes'']], all the characters are anthropomorphic vehicles,<ref name="Laurie 2015">{{Citation | title= Becoming-Animal Is A Trap For Humans | first= Timothy | last= Laurie | journal= Deleuze and the Non-Human | year= 2015 | url= https://www.academia.edu/10912960 | access-date= 23 June 2015 | archive-date= 13 August 2021 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210813203008/https://www.academia.edu/10912960 | url-status= live }} eds. Hannah Stark and Jon Roffe.</ref> while in [[Toy Story (franchise)|''Toy Story'']], they are anthropomorphic toys. Other Pixar franchises like [[Monsters, Inc. (franchise)|''Monsters, Inc'']] features anthropomorphic monsters and [[Finding Nemo (franchise)|''Finding Nemo'']] features anthropomorphic sea animals (like fish, sharks, and whales). Discussing anthropomorphic animals from [[DreamWorks Animation|DreamWorks]] franchise [[Madagascar (franchise)|''Madagascar'']],
All of the characters in [[Walt Disney Animation Studios]]' ''[[Zootopia]]'' (2016) are anthropomorphic animals, that is an entirely nonhuman civilization.<ref>{{cite magazine|last=McNary|first=Dave|title=Watch: Disney's 'Zootopia' Trailer Introduces Animal-Run World|url=https://variety.com/2015/film/news/disneys-zootopia-teaser-trailer-1201517794/|magazine=Variety|access-date=18 June 2016|date=11 June 2015|archive-date=5 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305051904/http://variety.com/2015/film/news/disneys-zootopia-teaser-trailer-1201517794/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
The live-action/
==In television==
Line 151 ⟶ 130:
The [[PBS Kids]] animated series ''[[Let's Go Luna!]]'' centers on an anthropomorphic female Moon who speaks, sings, and dances. She comes down out of the sky to serve as a tutor of international culture to the three main characters: a boy frog and wombat and a girl butterfly, who are supposed to be preschool children traveling a world populated by anthropomorphic animals with a circus run by their parents.
The French-Belgian animated series ''Mush-Mush & the Mushables'' takes place in a world inhabited by Mushables, which are
==In video games==
{{see also|Animals in video games}}
[[File:Armello - 'Horrors & Heroes' Trailer.webm|thumb|thumbtime=89|In ''[[Armello]]'', anthropomorphic animals battle for control of the animal kingdom.]]
Line 193 ⟶ 171:
== Animals ==
{{see also|Talking animal|Talking animals in fiction}}
[[File:Fernand Khnopff - Caresses - Google Art Project.jpg|upright=2|thumb|right|''[[Caress of the Sphinx]]''|alt=The painting ''The Caress'' depicting a creature with a woman's head and a cheetah's body]]
Other examples of anthropomorphism include the attribution of human traits to animals, especially domesticated pets such as dogs and cats. Examples of this include thinking a dog is smiling simply because it is showing his teeth,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Woods |first1=John |title=Do Dogs Really Smile? The Science Explained |url=https://www.allthingsdogs.com/do-dogs-smile/ |website=AllThingsDogs |date=28 September 2018 |access-date=18 March 2021 |archive-date=11 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210411021021/https://www.allthingsdogs.com/do-dogs-smile/ |url-status=live }}</ref> or a cat mourns for a dead owner.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Filion |first1=Daniel |title=Anthropomorphism: when we love our pets too much |url=https://educhateur.com/en/anthropomorphism/ |website=Educator |date=22 January 2020 |access-date=18 March 2021 |archive-date=4 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210304162341/https://educhateur.com/en/anthropomorphism/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Anthropomorphism may be beneficial to the welfare of animals. A 2012 study by Butterfield ''et al.'' found that utilizing anthropomorphic language when describing dogs created a greater willingness to help them in situations of distress.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Butterfield |first1=M. E. |last2=Hill |first2=S. E. |last3=Lord |first3=C. G. |year=2012 |title=Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare |journal=Journal of Experimental Social Psychology |volume=48 |issue=4 |pages=957–960 |doi=10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.010 }}</ref> Previous studies have shown that individuals who attribute human characteristics to animals are less willing to eat them,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bastian |first1=B. |last2=Loughnan |first2=S. |last3=Haslam |first3=N. |last4=Radke |first4=H. R. |s2cid=22757046 |year=2012 |title=Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption |journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=247–256 |doi=10.1177/0146167211424291 |pmid=21980158 }}</ref> and that the degree to which individuals perceive minds in other animals predicts the moral concern afforded to them.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gray |first1=H. M. |last2=Gray |first2=K. |last3=Wegner |first3=D. M. |s2cid=31773170 |year=2007 |title=Dimensions of Mind Perception |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=315 |issue=5812 |page=619 |doi=10.1126/science.1134475 |pmid=17272713 |bibcode=2007Sci...315..619G }}</ref> It is possible that anthropomorphism leads humans to like non-humans more when they have apparent human qualities, since perceived similarity has been shown to increase prosocial behavior toward other humans.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Burger |first1=J. M. |last2=Messian |first2=N. |last3=Patel |first3=S. |last4=del Prado |first4=A. |last5=Anderson |first5=C. |s2cid=2109021 |year=2004 |title=What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance |journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=35–43 |doi=10.1177/0146167203258838 |pmid=15030641 }}</ref> A study of how animal behaviors were discussed on the television series ''Life'' found that the script very often used anthropomorphisms.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sealey |first1=Alison |last2=Oakley |first2=Lee |date=24 May 2013 |title=Anthropomorphic grammar? Some linguistic patterns in the wildlife documentary series Life |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2013-0017/html |journal=Text & Talk |language=en |volume=33 |issue=3 |pages=399–420 |doi=10.1515/text-2013-0017 |issn=1860-7349}}</ref>
==In science==
Line 273 ⟶ 249:
* [[Anthropomorphic maps]]
* [[Anthropopathism]]
* [[Anthropomorphized food]]
* [[Cynocephaly]]
* [[Furry fandom]]
Line 283 ⟶ 260:
* [[Pareidolia]] – seeing faces in everyday objects
* [[Pathetic fallacy]]
* [[Prosopopoeia]]
* [[Speciesism]]
| |||