Reza Ebrahimi Mar 13, 2012:

Why when it is saying ANIMAL you use a broader term? this is called generalization and of course inaccurate. we are talking about a sentence in philosophy and of course you can find thousands of sentence where human being and mood are collocated. I was even well aware I can use حیوان/موجود as the first term which comes to your mind is موجود when you want to make a sentence and I still consider this an inaccurate rendering. let the community decide about this.

Younes Mostafaei Mar 13, 2012:

Please search the phrase: انسان موجودی ناطق است .
For sure you will find entries. The same is true about انسان حیوانی ناطق است.
So according to your comments these should have different origins and philosophies, but I don't think if this is true.

Reza Ebrahimi Mar 13, 2012:

when a scholar uses "animal" there should be a philosophy behind it otherwise the person could have used "creature" or sth else. Plants (nabatat) are also creatures. obviously "creature" has a broad meaning and in philosophy there is much discussion about the difference between human being and animals and different circles have been created over this controversy.

Younes Mostafaei Mar 13, 2012:

Please consider:


انسان موجودی اجتماعی است ( 1 )

1

یکی از بنیادهای مفهومی علم جامعه شناسی بر این گزاره استوار است: " انسان موجودی مدنی بالطبع یا اجتماعی است" بدون ادراک کافی از این گزاره نمی توان بسیاری از مفاهیم موجود در این علم را فهمید.
http://amatanijameeshenasi.persianblog.ir/post/9

I don't think if there is a difference when one says: انسان موجودی اجتماعی است and the other says: انسان حیوانی اجتماعی است they have different philosophies.
I can't understand how Mr. Ebrahimi says that The difference between موجود and حیوان renders a difference in philosophy or ideology.