>>19254152Subscribing to pre 20th century opinions about the divide between animals and humans is about the most boneheaded and scientifically illiterate thing you can do, especially when citing philosophers with about as much biological knowledge as medieval 'surgeons.' I'm happy to say, as a matter of fact, that I don't Kant very much at all since he was wrong about many many things. Animals think. The reason it is hard to reconcile their thinking is because they do not communicate with human beings, but they do in fact think. Whether they think about thinking is unclear, but what is clear is that human mental processes are just more complicated versions of those shared with animals.
Logic is rational in that it is a system for considering the cues that are taken from empirical observation, but said observation still unambiguously precedes logic. Similarly, thought cannot exist independently of the ability to observe. Descartes saying "I think, therefore I am" is the observation of the thinking process—that ~observation~ is what allows for rationality at all.
