A Short Philosophy Of Birds, by Philippe J. DuBois and Elise Rousseau

This book is at its best when it is describing the life of birds, and at its worst when it is philosophizing from the behavior of birds. While it can be an enjoyable thing to see how animals behave–part of the joy of animals is the way that they live differently from people and from each other, and express diverse aspects of creation, the writers of this book spends far too much time treading on the dangerous ground of looking to the behavior of animals to provide legitimacy to similar behavior by human beings. There are multiple fallacies when it comes to the authors’ approach of seeking to draw conclusions about what is right for human beings to do based on how animals behave that are beyond the scope of a mere book review like this one, but those problems are serious enough that any deep enjoyment of this book is highly problematic. One of the most difficult challenges in writing any sort of philosophy from an animal is that animals do not have the capacity to philosophize, something that the authors seem to recognize but not fully understand, in that human beings have little choice but to philosophize, but animals are unable to do so, and this alone makes it impossible to come up with a coherent basis of life taken from beings who, by their very nature, live life differently from ourselves without blame for either party.

This short book is about 150 pages long and it is divided into 22 short chapters. Some of the chapters look at particular birds and some attempt to comment more on birds in general. We have chapters, for example, on the vulnerability of the female duck (1), the doves and their approach to equal parenting (2), birds as being a model for how to practice everyday life (3), the sense of direction of Mongolians, the godwit, and the cuckoo (4), as well as the parenting habits of the cuckoo and goose as a sign of the need for acceptance of alternative “family” (5). The authors comment on the courage of the eagle and the robin (6), the tenderness of the dove (7), the hedonism of the dust-bathing hen (8), the dance of the bird of paradise (9), and on the need for freedom from being caged in (10). The authors speak of the supposed fidelity of the dunnock (11), the audacity of the robin (12), the traveling nature of the tern (13), the power games of the crow and vulture (14), and the simple pleasures of the lark (15). The authors discuss the intelligence of bird brains (16), the morality of the cuckoo (17), the flight of the chaffich and its relation to our fears (18), the accents of provincial French chaffinches (19), as well as whether we should make love like ‘rational’ penguins or passionate ducks (20). Finally, after discussing the lessons of beauty we can learn from ducks (21), as well as the way that swallows can teach us how to die gracefully (22), the authors end with a short conclusion where they urge people to live carefree lives like the birds do.

There is something, moreover, more than a little bit intellectually dishonest about seeking to draw a philosophy from beings who are unable to speak their own minds. If a bird was able to communicate its own philosophy, I could either take it or leave it, but I would respect the sincerity of the bird for so doing. When writers attempt to use dishonest means of promoting their own philosophies, though, it is far more easier to mistrust what is being said because it is not being said openly. Had this book been approached from the point of view of an honest and transparent exploration of the way that birds live, then one could have an honest conversation about why it is that birds sometimes live less than ideal lives, or have behavior that would certainly be unacceptable for people to engage in. One could have a conversation about the harm that has come to birds from living in a world full of sin and suffering, and how sin pollution affects even animals, and have a similarly rich discussion about how it is that human beings need to overcome our own nature and rise above the sometimes problematic and troublesome desires and longings we carry with us from early on, perhaps even from the beginning. Yet that is not the discussion that the authors choose to have, which brings their approach, unfortunately, into considerable disrepute.