Man is a social animal.

10:22 Mar 13, 2012 

Why when it is saying ANIMAL you use a broader term? this is called generalization and of course inaccurate. we are talking about a sentence in philosophy and of course you can find thousands of sentence where human being and mood are collocated. I was even well aware I can use حیوان/موجود as the first term which comes to your mind is موجود when you want to make a sentence and I still consider this an inaccurate rendering. let the community decide about this.

10:16 Mar 13, 2012 

Please search the phrase: انسان موجودی ناطق است .
For sure you will find entries. The same is true about انسان حیوانی ناطق است.
So according to your comments these should have different origins and philosophies, but I don't think if this is true.

10:05 Mar 13, 2012 

when a scholar uses "animal" there should be a philosophy behind it otherwise the person could have used "creature" or sth else. Plants (nabatat) are also creatures. obviously "creature" has a broad meaning and in philosophy there is much discussion about the difference between human being and animals and different circles have been created over this controversy.

09:54 Mar 13, 2012 

Please consider:


انسان موجودی اجتماعی است ( 1 )

1

یکی از بنیادهای مفهومی علم جامعه شناسی بر این گزاره استوار است: " انسان موجودی مدنی بالطبع یا اجتماعی است" بدون ادراک کافی از این گزاره نمی توان بسیاری از مفاهیم موجود در این علم را فهمید.
http://amatanijameeshenasi.persianblog.ir/post/9

I don't think if there is a difference when one says: انسان موجودی اجتماعی است and the other says: انسان حیوانی اجتماعی است they have different philosophies.
I can't understand how Mr. Ebrahimi says that The difference between موجود and حیوان renders a difference in philosophy or ideology.