From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Anthropocentrism and Human Exceptionalism merge[edit]

I made a new version Human exceptionalism should be redirected to Anthropocentrism. This is better for future maintains SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


The article itself was really well written, I found it really interesting and easy to follow. Formatting is fine except for a few areas like the sources at the bottom where it has things like [1] and [2] can be fixed to read as text so that the readers know what they are clicking on. I also noticed a "[citation needed]" symbol in the article which should be adressed for copyright issues! I got a little confused when I got to the "article is in the process of merging" banner. Does that mean you're article is going to be merged under a new name or that another articles information is going to be merged onto your article? All in all though, it was an easy, informative and interesting read! Good job:) Kgroblee (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)kgroblee

neutraility, again[edit]

It seems that the page is no longer neutral. The page seems to consist entirely of why biocentrism is greater than anthropocentrism. The only information about anthropocentrism is in the introduction, and everything after that just slams it. All of the sources cite pro-biocentrism articles, so this page no longer seems neutral or useful at all, considering it has little to no information about anthropocentrism itself. Jumpercable (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

anthropos=man= human or just anthropos=human?[edit]

internal contradiction: 1st sentence: anthropos, "man, human being" 2nd sentence: anthropos refers to both man and women. ...does anthropos explicitly exclude hermaphrodites and other sexes?

whatever- easiest solution: suggest removing 'man' in first sentence, then " anthropos (the term, like “human”, refers to both men and women)" in second sentence can be cut.

The simple answer is: andros refers to "man", i.e. "male human being", whereas anthropos refers to "Man", i.e. "humankind" -- all members of the species H. sapiens sapiens.
Androcentrism: a value-system that places primacy on males.
Gynocentrism: a value-system that places primacy on females.
Anthropocentrism: a value-system that places primacy on humans.
And so forth. An ambiguous case is homocentrism, which could be interpreted either as equivalent to anthropocentrism or as referring to a value-system that places primacy on homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Since wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, lets reduce the anthropocentrism in articles about stuff like extra terrestrial life and planets. T.Neo 11:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to limiting anthropocentrism to matters of exobiology. It is a wide-ranging topic, not limited to species perhaps living on other planets. I have added content to the religious portion of the definition and hope it adds the balance seemingly requested. (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are there christian points of views in every other article (including this one)? Who allows it? There must be some enthusiast groups about with a common project to add them everywhere. (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There definitely doesn't need to be a Christian Point of View section in every article, but I do think it's quite pertinent to this one, which should be developed further. Arguably, a big part of the reason for the pervasion of anthropocentrism is the Christian tradition, which grants man dominion over non-human animals and the earth. The two main stems of Western thought, the Greek and Western tradition, both emphasize anthropocentrism to some extent.--James O'Callaghan 08:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick summary of Wikipedia's anthropocentrism page[edit]

Anthropocentrism (Homocentrism) – Viewing man as the center of the universe ; Human chauvinism ; Relating all that happens in the universe to the human experience ; The root cause of ecological crisis and extinction of species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Biocentrism as antonym[edit]

I don't see how biocentrism can be a suitable antonym to anthropocentrism, as biocentrism by definition would include humans, it would be an overlapping definition. Perhaps the term Agrarocentric, as "Agrari" means "wild" in Greek, it would set up the contrast between Man and Wild.

How would one then account for the homeless, or stone-age tribesmen living in the wild? Would such "feral humans" be covered under "anthropocentrism" or "agrarocentrism"? (Asked only partly in jest.) Paulburnett (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand that vivicentric is an antonym to anthropocentric. --Lbeaumont (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Twain Quote Interpretation[edit]

From the article:

Mark Twain praised Alfred Russel Wallace's "anthropocentric' theory" that the universe was created specifically for the evolution of mankind:

If the Eiffel Tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; and anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for.[1]

I cannot agree with the interpretation that Twain here is praising the anthropocentric theory. Clearly, he's ridiculing the entire notion that this chip of paint at the top would ever be perceived as the reason for the tower's existence. This is classic Mark Twain sarcasm.

Suffice it to say, changing "praised" to "ridiculed" would work perfectly to call attention to the true meaning of the quote. Change made, this is here for explanation. --trisweb (Talk) 04:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned comment[edit]

This page is not neutral at all! As noted below. How can you have a quote that ridicules Anthropocentrism to begin the entry! This page would be better off deleted than existing in its current form. It sits like an entry on dogs written by cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

We can present a non-neutral point of view in a neutral fashion. We explicitly acknowledge the position and biases of the author in our caption. I think as a quote, it does an excellent job of giving the reader a feel of the character of the philosophical debate. Gigs (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

I disagree with the person who left the comment directly above this one. I believe that this is a work in progress, and that there is a better way to fix up your article rather than deleting it. My first advice would be to perhaps compile definitions of Anthropocentrism based on multiple sources rather than one definition from a dictionary. With Multiple sources it is much harder to claim that one is bias, because it will prove that more people support what it is you are trying to say, and will add more validity to the article and the topic it covers. The initial definition needs to be more concrete, and a little bit longer, this needs to summarize Anthropocentrism in a way that is informative enough to grasp the concept, and intrigue readers to investigate further. The rest of the article is well supported by citations and I think that it is fairly well written. I like that there is a large amount of reading suggested in the "See Also" section. (Thursday March 15th 2012) -BMPog — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMPog (talkcontribs) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Greater Value Assumption[edit]

Those who would support the Greater Value Assumption assume that humans and animals are not equal; humans are superior to other animals. A primary reason for rejecting this view is that it could lead to biases in favoring humans over animals and mistreating different species. The opposite of the Greater Value Assumption would be deep ecology; humans and animals stand on equal grounds. [2]Clhen88 (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


The section on Christianity claims

The use of the word "dominion" in ¿the? Genesis is controversial.

Then goes on to say Catholics...

consider this to be a flawed translation of a word meaning "stewardship"

and that Catholics believe

[mankind] is not inherently better than any other form of life.

The citation that follows (#12) points to the Vulgate, which contains the latin word "præsit" (jurisdiction) instead of "dominamini" (dominion). "dominamini" is then used two verses later in the exact same context. While it is true that Catholics believe in stewardship of the Earth (and that mankind should thus have an environmentally friendly mindset), I don't see how the word "præsit" (if that's what this citation is even referencing) suggests that "dominion" would be a flawed translation; nor that having jurisdiction of the Earth would suggest that mankind is no "better" (depends what you mean by "better") than other forms of life. I guess I'd like to see a few citations in this area: one that establishes that there is indeed controversy over the word "dominion"; a second to show something authoritative from the Catholic church that contests the translation of dominion in Genesis; and a third that clarifies the Catholic position on mankind's relationship with other life--if we're really "not inherently better than any other form of life". I think actual Catholic teaching is perhaps being misrepresented here, but I'm not the pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

in any case if the text is going to claim something about the Latin Vulgate bible, it should give us the Latin text. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


Should it be "Judeo-Christian" instead? Genesis is also a major part of Judaism and is not just exclusively Christian.Satanstorm (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Genesis is the beginning of the Jewish Pentateuch, which along with other "books", became what could be called the Jewish Bible. As Jesus himself was understood to be a (Jewish) Rabbi, when his followers decided he was the Messiah, this was in the context of Judaism and therefore the Hebrew scripture provided the foundation for this. Only later, when the original followers were dying off, were the various accounts of Jesus' ministry written down and shared, leading to the Christian Bible, aka the New Testament. Calling the Hebrew scripture the Old Testament is, obviously, from the perspective of those who followed Jesus, i.e., Christians. Finally, any time there is a discussion pertaining to both religions, Judeo-Christian is certainly fitting. Soulfulpsy (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


I tried bringing this up with Macropneuma. But he deleted my comment on his/her talk page. So I'll bring it up. Now the reason I've made those edits are for two reasons: 1) the perspective of people like William Grey is highly relevant to the lead. 2) Without this balance in the lead, and with the language of 'debunked' - that's NPOV presenting the idea that anthropocentricism is wrong. My edits present both, fairly, neutrally, not implicitly siding with either. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 01:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not waste my time. Do not take me for the fool you see, as that is in the eye of the beholder. –quotation from: myself. --macropneuma 01:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
If you're not going to address my concerns don't blindly revert my edits. Re: "can't possibly have even read the dead link that they’ve aggressively tried to frame as and pretend as an equal source part of a false dichotomy balance. Representative weight of sources leaves Grey 1994 as a very poor quality scholarship source". For the record, I never added the Grey link, but with the pre-existing information on Grey, as well as external proponents of which I am aware; I'm not concerned with the sources for their page, I'm concerned with NPOV and balance: you have to acknowledge Grey and others (even if they need to be sourced) as highly relevant: their perspective that anthropocentricism requires sustainability is a huge counterpoint that you can't dismiss through exclusion from the lead and blatantly biased language of 'debunked' to describe those views. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 01:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Oh, look, sources:
  • "For example, Aristotle (Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 8) maintains that “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man” and that the value of nonhuman things in nature is merely instrumental. Generally, anthropocentric positions find it problematic to articulate what is wrong with the cruel treatment of nonhuman animals, except to the extent that such treatment may lead to bad consequences for human beings. Immanuel Kant (“Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Lectures on Ethics), for instance, suggests that cruelty towards a dog might encourage a person to develop a character which would be desensitized to cruelty towards humans. From this standpoint, cruelty towards nonhuman animals would be instrumentally, rather than intrinsically, wrong. Likewise, anthropocentrism often recognizes some non-intrinsic wrongness of anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) environmental devastation. Such destruction might damage the well-being of human beings now and in the future, since our well-being is essentially dependent on a sustainable environment (see Passmore 1974, Bookchin 1990, Norton, Hutchins, Stevens, and Maple (eds.) 1995)."
  • "Although many environmental philosophers want to distance themselves from the label of anthropocentrism, it nevertheless remains the case that a number of coherent anthropocentric environmental ethics have been elaborated (Blackstone, 1972; Passmore, 1974; O’Neill, 1997; and Gewirth, 2001). This should be of little surprise, since many of the concerns we have regarding the environment appear to be concerns precisely because of the way they affect human beings." Sb101 (talk|contribs) 02:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia’s sources are not read, and carefully, then don’t edit Wikipedia. A uni. student who’s lecturer told them their personal opinion that Grey 1994 1993 was right and others wrong? Well that’s a personal opinion of a uni. lecturer and inadmissible as a source for or basis for editing in Wikipedia.

Once again, do not waste my time—now with post hoc sources for your personal opinion, whitewashed as balance. Wikipedia is not a place to make a point, neither political points, nor personal points. --macropneuma 02:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about - where did this 'uni student' 'lecturer opinion' come from? I didn't have to read the source to see biased language: e.g. debunked and exclusion from lead. I've cited reliable sources that reveal lots of people that could be cited that your edits exclude. You're the one adding a personal opinion by presenting the sides of the debate in a biased way. None of my edits tried to say Grey was right or wrong. You're the one inserting that (aka your edits say Grey is "debunked" I never say the opposite, just that debunked is biased). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 02:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

no comment—on opinions … --macropneuma 02:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My goodness, you're insufferable. How have I added my opinion? It's not my opinion that to call Grey debunked is biased against Grey (whom I have not tried to say is correct or not); it's not my opinion that there are many anthropocentrists who think that entails sustainability. It is you're opinion that they're wrong. THAT is inadmissible. NPOV inclusion and balance is what I'm concerned with. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 04:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
factually wrong again. again, uninformed, emotionally interpreting words, personal opinions. again politely saying what was said three times since 01:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC): not deserving comment, nor proper, capitalised, sentence writing from me, nor explanation. --macropneuma 08:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
So now you're just name calling. Suffice it to say that, as quoted above, you should not exclude relevant opinions such as: Aristotle (Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 8), Kant (“Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Lectures on Ethics), Passmore 1974, Bookchin 1990, Norton, Hutchins, Stevens, and Maple (eds.) 1995), Blackstone, 1972; O’Neill, 1997; Gewirth, 2001, etc. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 08:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My two cents: I think Sb101's edit is appropriate. It appears that there is some view here which was seemingly endorsed on the page itself that anthropocentrism is 'bad' or fundamentally opposed to environmental awareness. As someone who serves on the board of a regional environmental nonprofit, I don't agree with that. I've had this discussion with various environmentalists over the years and most agree that human interests are fundamental to environmentalism. The well-known Shellenberger & Nordhaus piece about the death of environmentalism makes the related point that emphasizing the human interest is essential to successfully protect the environment. II | (t - c) 08:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


Where's the criticism section? (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Reason for naming[edit]

I'm curious on what basis the name anthropocentrism has been chosen, over human exceptionalism, that I see it has been merged with, or human supremacy? Personally I'm of the opinion that the latter name, human supremacy accurately describes the phenomenon, as well as making it align more clearly with the supremacism article, as a basis for discrimination. Should it be renamed?

Interstates (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

POV claims[edit]

A paragraph has just been deleted on the grounds that it does not have a neutral point of view. As I read the paragraph, it was a summary of history. Whether we like what has happened or not, to say that a summary of history should be removed for "obviously POV" seems like a pretty strong POV edit itself. We are all allowed to edit topics we are interested in, but we do not have the right to mold the articles to align with our view of history, or the present.Pete unseth (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an Important Topic that Needs Further Thought & Development[edit]

This is a topic to which I have given a lot of attention recently. It also is complicated in the same way as any time we reflect upon our fundamental nature, seeking to bring deep background into the foreground. We are the ones lifting out what we believe are special traits and abilities; all of this is done from our own perspective. In so doing, we also separate ourselves from the rest of all living entities as either implicitly or explicitly superior. Working against this bias, J. Panksepp, U of Washington, has shown the mammalian neurocircuitry for 7 innate emotions all mammals share. This means we can understand what our fellow creatures are or may be subjectively experiencing.

The section on Human Rights again reveals an implicit anthropocentrism and a limited understanding of mental processes limited to the rational, analytical functioning of the left hemisphere. As Iain McGilchrist in The Master and His Emissary has pointed out, the experience of connection to the totality is mediated by the right hemisphere. This could include the experiences of empathy and compassion, for example; they provide the foundation for an implicit morality that is guided by what we sense others are experiencing at our hands. The irony of Adler's words is that everything he names human beings have done and continue to do to each other as a matter of course.

Soulfulpsy (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Twain, Mark (1903). What is Men? Reprinted in Mark Twain and Bernard Augustine De Voto, Letters from the Earth: Uncensored Writings (2004), 226.
  2. ^