Hypotheses

Are dogs really faithful?

Or for that matter what is actually faithful? Who are faithful and who are not?

 

To study all these aspects it’s imperative that we define faithful. Again my rationality takes me back to my friends and makes me ask them on facebook and by email “what is faithful?”

 

The results scared me and I saw a clean distinction between two types of people.

Out of 20, 14 answers gave a very skewed and corrupted meaning to ‘faithful’, while the other 3 weren’t much sure and hinted towards honesty and trustworthiness using complex words to define complex words but these 3 weren’t at least bad; while the last 3 had given me an answer which I had expected.

The clean distinction was found between first 14 and the last 6 answers.

 

Definition

The last three answers could be reduced down to:

“Faithful is someone or something who keeps promises made expressly or impliedly.”

The second meaning on Merriam Webster[1] is very close to the meaning put forth here.

 

I love to reduce complex concepts to one line definitions and expect you to accept it. If you can’t accept this definition sadly this whole article won’t fit your purpose of life. All my articles are intrinsically based on the definition and the assumptions I put forth in the opening lines.

 

Moot point

The question “Are dogs faithful?” though got many visitors to this article, it itself is wrong. The question should have been “Do dogs promise anything?”

And considering the wide application of this hypothesis I am increasing the question’s ambit to “Does any animal promise anything?”

 

The answer should unequivocally and inevitably be “No.”. Animals never promise anything, and as per the definition therefore they can neither be faithful or faithless.

 

It can’t obviously end here, I have to satisfy many other questions regarding the faith of a dog and other animals. Also I have to answer the second question of this article “Who are faithful and who are not?”

 

Logic

Animals can be distinguished by their traits: active-inactive; probable-improbable; domestic-wild; smart-stupid; sociable-secluded; etc.

 

And then there are certain traits which are desirable in an animal and we prefer them and let them stay along with us. Dogs are one of them; among almost all animals we have domesticated, dogs are the package in which all the aforementioned desirable traits come.

 

Dogs are active, probable, domestic, smart and sociable and these makes it our greatest companion.

Being our companion would also mean that we start expecting things out of it. The very fact that dogs are very probable give us the ability that we can actually foretell how it will react in different environments, therefore they can never go out or beyond our expectations.

 

As human beings we corrupt every aspect of ours in due course of time, and we have corrupted the definition of faithful too. Most of us (here comes the definition by the first 14 people) have unashamedly further reduced the definition of faithful to “anything/anyone who never goes out of expectations”.

 

Therefore the prerogative of being faithful is no more with the subject but it is taken away by the onlookers. It’s more like some fundamentalist group deciding which woman is more promiscuous while being judged by what she is wearing.

 

Dogs being our companion for so many years had to inevitably go through all this objectification of human beings, and had thus been seen fulfilling the requirements of the corrupted form of faithful.

 

Now under the light of these arguments it is much clearer that dogs are not faithful out of their options but it’s us the humans who would bestow upon them the tag of faithful, and expect things out of them.
Faithful Dog

Extension of logic

Now that dogs aren’t faithful or faithless. And no other animal can be tagged faithful or faithless. Only human beings remain for this basis of discrimination.

 

And how do we discriminate between human beings on this basis? Those around us who are mentally stable, act as expected, keep their promises are someone who can be called faithful. And the rest we can’t trust.

 

Leave the option of being faithful or faithless to others. If you had tagged someone or something ‘faithful’ without that person even knowing it – you had objectified that person or thing, that also means you are quite selfish (corrupted).

Amendment

Recently I came across this poem[2] by Kathryn Brashier. I was not too surprised, majority of human beings live in this utter selfishness and corruption; and the sole purpose of this post was to provide better reasons to love dogs. A dog is an animal who doesn’t have to submit to human being’s greatness but it does so due to its own instincts. Please read this post[3] published here as complementary to this hypothesis.

 


2 thoughts on “Are dogs really faithful?

  1. Manohar Lal

    Donnie is studying B.A.LL.B at Gujarat National Law University; he thinks economics is the governing principle. So Donnie, I have a question for you, do you think that there is economic principle behind it which makes people to objectify others as “faithful and faithless”. I hope that you will bring our your Karl Marx in your response.

    1. DonnieAshok

      Economics is always there, all that matters is if you find money as the only driving force. In a resource based economy, we will always objectify every thing which comes across us. Objectifying reduces the value of other things, it helps us to feel richer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *