Introduction
It is an assumed notion that all objects of the world are of natural kind. However, philosophers have been arguing over the rational that establishes if species are of natural kind. This paper will attempt to establish the model that shows that animals are of natural kind. It will display the characteristics that animals share with others of the natural kind. Notably, natural kinds are analyzed using these three segments. They include physical, chemical, and biological. However, despite the fact that classification is weighed using the above stated measures, the physical and chemical may be affected by impurities, isotopes, and the fact that sometimes the inability to measure these factors (Koslicki 800).
Emotions
The first argument that philosophers pursue is that a common characteristic among natural kinds is the ability to have emotions. Traditional and modern philosophical experts have always had trouble in defining emotions. Nevertheless, most agree that emotion can be anger, joy, fear, actions, or decisions made. For animals to qualify as natural kinds, they have to show discrete emotions. They could also be called basic emotions. The problem is whether these basic emotions meet the scientific value and standards.
Natural kinds exhibit similar observable functions that relate in a very trivial way. They include universal capacities that activate and ignite cognitive functions that help maintain their existence. They activate emotions like hunger, overheating, thirst, and suffocation. There exist other complex emotions like emotion schemas that do not characterize natural kinds. They are neglected since this kind of emotion will vary on environment and individuals. The notion of basic emotions is a fairly new idea.
Animals could conclusively fit the natural kind if compared using this measurements. They depict a much defined system of emotions whether basic or more complex. All animals breathe, feel hungry, thirsty and all this and other emotions control their bodily functions as well as existence. Using this method, they are of the natural kind.
Izard (261) is therefore very hopeful that philosophers who do not agree with this notion will read the findings as well as definitions and concur with the idea. In addition, the definition offered by this study is hopefully viewed to make the give a definite definition of emotion. Most contemporary philosophers that have viewed this research findings have astounding agreement to the definition presented and components of emotions issued in this study.
Essentialism
Different philosophers may wish to tackle proving that animals are of natural kind by suggesting the essentialism. Essentialism has no restrictions to the biological kinds but all groups of natural kind. This philosophical idea can be traced back to Aristotle and other 20th Century philosophy (Ayers 260). Essentialism has three main foundations. The first is that all members of the natural kind must share a common essence. Second, the essence is a kind of property that members of that group must share. Finally, that essence enables other groups of organisms to be associated with that kind.
Comparing animals with this essentialism, they meet all criteria. First, all animals are quite similar and share certain essence such as being alive. Secondly, all animals depict several characteristics such as feeding, breathing, and reproducing and others. Third, animals have been well known to be interactive with other natural kinds. They may include minerals and chemicals. Acids bring similar effects in all animals as well as minerals like iron. They are therefore of the natural kind.
Individualism
Another method that can be used to prove that animals are of the natural kind is individualism. Individualism may also be used to prove non-biological factors are of the natural kind (McOuat 222). Individualism means that the parts of kind must be restricted to a certain space and time region. This means that if a kind has several parts or organs, all the parts must be localized in one location and time.
Animals meet this criterion since all their functioning body parts are always in a localized position in all their time in existence. Their body parts would not function if separated. Once body parts are separated, the separated part stops functioning and is no longer part of the animal. Also, when vital organs are separated from the animal, the animal may cease to function and its life ends. Therefore, in their ordinary normal functions, animals meet this criterion in their most basic form of existence.
Homeostatic property cluster theory
The fourth is the homeostatic property cluster theory (McOuat 220). This property diminishes the property of essentialism. Essentialism excludes numerous kinds from the natural kind as well as biological organisms. Essentialism advocates for numerous similar properties but the latter only requires one basic characteristic (Elder 340). For example, for an organism to be classified in a certain group, if they meet any of the basic characteristic of any organism in the group, they qualify to be of natural kind. Similarly, all animals have characterizes that they share no matter how simplistic. Therefore, they are of the natural kind.
Historical Essence
Historical essence is the final property. This property does not diminish the original property of essentialism. It focusses on the ancestral origin of a kind. Philosophers argue that any organism of a natural kind must have basic ancestral origin that explains its origin. This is because all members of a natural kind according to evolution originated from one organism (Bird). Animals meet these properties due to the fact they share a common origin. This property is responsible for the numerous similarities in this group.
Conclusion
There are two different ways to tackle proving groups in the natural kind. There is the traditional method and the contemporary way as well. Some organisms may meet certain properties but fail to meet others. The criterion that should be followed is that they should meet most requirements to be classified in the natural kind. Different philosophers and biologists may however differ and this is the major challenge facing the fixed characteristics of natural kinds. It is my hope that these arguments will not last forever and a conclusion will be met in the near future. On the other hand, animals meet all requirements effortlessly. It is conclusive that animals are of the natural kind and all philosophers will agree on that.
References
Ayers, Micheal. “Locke Verses Aristotle on Natural Kinds.” The Journal of Philosophy 78. 5 (1981): 247-272.
Bird, Alexander and Tobin, Emma. "Natural Kinds." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 17 September, 2008.
Elder, Crawford. “Biological Species Are Natural Kinds.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (2008): 339-362.
Izard, Caroll. “Basic Emotions, Natural Kinds, Emotion Schemas, and a New Paradigm.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 2. 3 (2007) 260-280.
Koslicki, Kathrin. “Natural Kinds and Natural Kind Terms.” Philosophy Compass 3. 4 (2008): 789-802.
McOuat, Gordon. “The Origins of `Natural Kinds': Keeping `Essentialism' At Bay in the Age of Reform.” Intellectual History Review, 19. 2 (2009): 211-230.
