Kenneth · Feb 12, 2011 at 9:50am
Fluffy Dish
Fluffy and Ben Franklin

At the risk of seeming self-indulgent, I'd just like to inform the Ricochet community that my bull terrier, Fluffy, has left us. 

I'm grateful for the kind comments of all those who responded to this post.  With your compassionate counsel, I was able to muster the courage to send her on her way to Elysium and to be there to hold her in my arms as she passed away.  I questioned my decision right up to the last second, but as I felt over each passing day that I was watching her die by inches, sustained only by the bravest of hearts, I opted to summon my strength, rather than to allow her to suffer.

I will miss her beauty, her loving nature, her undaunted courage and, most of all, her sense of humor.  Bull terriers have a better sense of humor than 95% of humans I've ever known.  So, just a small remembrance:

My wife, Elena, was somewhat intimidated by Fluffy when they first met.  In Russia, where Elena comes from, bull terriers have a reputation as ferocious animals.  Fluffy somehow sensed Elena's trepidation and rejoiced in seizing one of Elena's shoes, shaking it provocatively and growling, as if to say, "Come and get it, if you dare."

For the first two years of our marriage, due to arcane immigration requirements, Elena had to remain in Siberia, though I could bring her to America every few months or so.  On one of Elena's visits, Fluffy recognized her as soon as she came through the door.  As Elena and I embraced, Fluffy raced upstairs to the closet where Elena stored her clothing, pushed open the accordion doors with her nose, seized one of Elena's shoes and raced back down to the living room to taunt Elena. 

I hope Fluffy now dwells in a place where she makes Jesus and the angels laugh.  She surely deserves that, much more than I. 

RIP: 1994 - 2011.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs

A dear old professor of mine used to say that the first and most momentous distinction in metaphysics is between Absolute Being and contingent being.  The second is between personal being and non-personal being.

That distinction is what makes euthanizing a human being gravely immoral, while "putting down" a sick dog, as Kenneth did, can be an act of kindness.  

It's not wrong to own dogs; it is wrong to own other persons.  It's not wrong to use animals for meat or fur or labor (provided we do it humanely), but it is wrong, as Kant says, to use another person as a mere means.  

Sorry to go all philosophical on you.  It's just that you've touched the tender core of everything crucial in life and society.

Robert Bennett
Joined
May '10
Robert Bennett

Sorry Kenneth.  That was beautifully written.  I suddenly lost my Portuguese water dog Cookie this week too from cancer.  Thanks for cheering me up a little bit.

The Other Diane
Joined
May '10
Diane

Ah, a little anthromorphism never hurt anyone, katievs. I thought dogsbody's post was lovely. EJ Hill's, too, and several others. If the powers that be create a category for classic Ricochet threads that reflect the spirit of our online community I'd nominate this thread in a Philadelphia minute.

katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs

It can be harmless.  But it isn't always. 

And it isn't when it involves real moral confusion.  Loving our pets is great.  Grieving their loss natural, and touching.  

Imagining that they're just as much persons as actual persons is not okay.

dogsbody
Joined
Sep '10
dogsbody

katievs

dogsbody: If love, loyalty, a sense of fun, a thirst for adventure, even a sense of right and wrong are the traits that characterize people, then your dog and my Siamese were people as much as I am.  I don't mean this to sentimentalize the issue;  I just think it is as good an explanation of our friendships with animals as any other. · Feb 12 at 5:14pm

Objection!

The witness is anthropomorphizing. 

Pets are marvelous creatures--in every sense of the term.  We owe them tender loving care.  To abuse them is a moral crime.  But they are not persons--and ought not to to be confused with persons.

They do not "possess themselves in freedom," for instance.  They are not bearers of rights.  · Feb 12 at 5:27pm

OK, katievs, since you want to get philosophical:  what does the phrase "possess themselves in freedom" even mean?  It is hopelessly vague.

As for "bearers of rights," Alasdair MacIntyre has questioned whether rights are a well-defined concept.

It is true that animals like dogs are not the same form of life as we, but that does not necessarily imply they are not persons.

Johannes Allert
Joined
Dec '10
Johannes Allert

 Kenneth -

As a dog owner since the age of six, I truly am sorry for your loss. With the loss of each dog goes a piece of your heart. Robert Burns said it best "Laying quietly by the fireplace and as fond of the fire as I, oh there was something in that big dog's heart, I thought that could not die.."

katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs

dogsbody

OK, katievs, since you want to get philosophical:  what does the phrase "possess themselves in freedom" even mean?  It is hopelessly vague.

It's a defining feature of personal existence, dogsbody.  Persons are (as Vatican II puts it) "the only creatures created for their own sake."

We belong to ourselves and not another.  We determine our destiny through freedom. 

This is the ground of human rights.  My life is my own.  No one else can dispose over it as if it were his.  

Think of Thomas More in A Man for All Seaons, holding his self in his hands.

dogsbody
Joined
Sep '10
dogsbody

katievs

We belong to ourselves and not another.  We determine our destiny through freedom. 

This is the ground of human rights.  My life is my own.  No one else can dispose over it as if it were his.  

Feb 12 at 6:53pm

I do not mean to be unpleasant, but you do realize that this is merely a sequence of assertions, and not an argument, right?

Moreover, St. Paul would have disagreed with you, at least as regarding members of the Church.  "You are not your own, for you were bought with a price" - First Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 6, vv. 19-20.

Of course, a mere appeal to authority is not a good argument either.  But perhaps the words of Paul indicate that the concept of self-ownership is at least problematic. 

George Savage

Oh Kenneth, I am so sorry for you.  Please accept my condolences.  

Theology and metaphysics being far beyond my powers, I offer you the thoughts of a truly brilliant thinker--William F. Buckley, Jr., from Atlantic High (page 123):

To describe the Heaven of my fantasy requires a series of negations, principal among them that Heaven is a place where you cannot be unhappy.  When I was a schoolboy, we heard, during a three-day Lenten retreat, from an amiable old Jesuit who ruminated on a friend of his, a widowed lady of advanced years who had said to him, "Father, do dogs go to Heaven?  Because if my Fido can't go to Heaven, I shan't be happy there."

"I told her," the priest explained, "that if it were true that she would not be happy in Heaven save in the company of Fido, then she could absolutely be confident that Fido would go to Heaven."

So take comfort that you and your beloved Fluffy will see one another again. 

Edited on Feb 12, 2011 at 8:13pm
katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs

dogsbody

...this is merely a sequence of assertions,,,

Moreover, St. Paul would have disagreed with you, at least as regarding members of the Church....

Ack.  I see that once again I've bitten off more than can be properly chewed in such a forum. 

Let me at least say, first, that I don't find you at all unpleasant.  I appreciate straight-forwardness very much.  Second, I didn't pretend to make an argument, but to expand on and clarify my earlier claim (or assertion, if you like), viz. that "self-possession" is a defining feature of personhood (as loyalty, say, or love of adventure, is not).  

To grasp this, compare persons with any non-personal beings.  Or read Josef Pieper's great and rewarding small book: "Leisure the Basis of Culture" or John F. Crosby's. "The Selfhood of the Human Person."

Our self-possession is not absolute and unqualified.  (God is the Author of our being and we belong to Him.)  But it is real, and definitive--setting us apart from every other kind of being--and, as I said before, it is the ontological ground of what we know as human rights. 

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

There are lovely comments on this thread from Members to whom I have at times addressed myself in an uncivil manner.  You know who you are.  I thank each of you.

This shows what a decent, noble community Ricochet has attracted. 

Your compassion is a great comfort to me at this time.

Kervinlee
Joined
May '10
Kervinlee

Near this spot 
Are deposited the Remains of one 
Who possessed Beauty without Vanity, 
Strength without Insolence, 
Courage without Ferocity, 
And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices. 
This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery 
If inscribed over human ashes, 
Is but a just tribute to the Memory of 
FLUFFY, a DOG 
Who was born 1994, 
And died a2011. 

_Lord Byron

 

Kervinlee
Joined
May '10
Kervinlee

Rob Long: Kenneth, I'm a dog lover.  I can only say that I feel for you.  It's a hard thing.

Here's a poem by Robinson Jeffers that I read at my first dog's memorial service.  (See?  Told you I was a dog nut...) I couldn't get through it without falling apart, but it's a lovely poem to read.

I'm crazy about dogs, too. And I dig Robinson Jeffers!

Kervinlee
Joined
May '10
Kervinlee

When some proud son of man returns to earth,

Unknown to glory, but upheld by birth,

The sculptor's art exhausts the pomp of woe,

And storied urns record who rest below:

When all is done, upon the tomb is seen,

Not what he was, but what he should have been:

But the poor dog, in life the firmest friend,

The first to welcome, foremost to defend,

Whose honest heart is still his master's own,

Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,

Unhonour'd falls, unnoticed all his worth,

Denied in heaven the soul he held on earth:

While man, vain insect hopes to be forgiven,

And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven.

Oh man! thou feeble tenant of an hour,

Debased by slavery, or corrupt by power,

Kervinlee
Joined
May '10
Kervinlee

Who knows thee well must quit thee with disgust,

Degraded mass of animated dust!

Thy love is lust, thy friendship all a cheat,

Thy smiles hypocrisy, thy words deceit!

By nature vile, ennobled but by name,

Each kindred brute might bid thee blush for shame.

Ye! who perchance behold this simple urn,

Pass on --- it honours none you wish to mourn:

To mark a friend's remains these stones arise;

I never knew but one, --- and here he lies. 

-Lord Byron, again.

Melanie Graham

I had a wonderful bull terrier named Clementine. They are such wonderful funny dogs. I'm sorry for the loss of your bully.

Dave
Joined
Oct '10
Dave

My condolences Kenneth. As a dog owner and lover I have been in a similar situation before so I relate to your grief. I fully expect that when my time to "cross the river" comes I will be reunited with family, friends, and beloved pets.

Leslie Watkins
Joined
Sep '10
Leslie Watkins

You and Fluffy were apparently a perfect pair, Kenneth: simpatico in heart and spirit. My sincerest condolences for your loss.

Cranky1
Joined
Jan '11
Cranky1

With no disrespect intended to the people who want their dogs with them in eternity, God is not Santa Claus and Heaven is not Disney World.  "I wouldn't want to be in a Heaven that wouldn't allow my dog" is a statement made by people who would like to be perceived as open minded and compassionate and I don't doubt that they are, but I take this very seriously.  I believe in God.  I believe in consequence.  I believe in Heaven and Hell.  If a dog can go to Heaven then he can also go to Hell. 

Maybe Hell is too inconvenient a concept as well.  We can start cherry picking what we keep and what we throw away, but with that "Thy will be done" becomes, "I love ya, God.  But we're going to need to do things my way from now on."  I'm sorry.  I most certainly would want to be in a Heaven that wouldn't allow my dog if that was God's will.  His house.  His rules.

katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs

Cranky1, 

I believe in heaven and hell too.  But I'm not convinced that according to "God's rules", "If a dog can go to Heaven then can also go to hell."  That's true of persons, who have immortal souls and who "possess themselves in freedom", i.e., who determine their own ultimate destiny through their own free acts.

Dogs are not persons.  But by close association with persons who love them dearly and truly, they do seem to take on amazingly human-like traits that transcend natural dogginess. (Likewise, people who live their lives very close to God, become more and more like Him, and even begin to surpass natural human limits.)

I don't know why it would be beyond God's will or His sovereign power to "raise up" such creatures and bring them to heaven to dwell there among the saints.  I don't see a Bible passage or a dogma of the Christian tradition that declares it impossible. Do you?

I'm thinking of that charming song about a dog named Blue: "When I get to heaven first thing I'll do, is grab my horn and blow for Blue."


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In