What do you think?
Rate this book
La zarigüeya de Schrödinger. Cómo viven y entienden la muerte los animales
Cuando la zarigüeya se siente amenazada, se paraliza, con los ojos y la boca abiertos en una mueca petrificada, la temperatura corporal y respiración reducidas al mínimo, la lengua desplegando un tono azulado y sus glándulas anales oliendo a podrido. Pese a este disfraz de cadáver putrefacto, sigue pendiente de su entorno, lista para volver a la acción. Como el gato en la famosa paradoja de Schrödinger, la zarigüeya está viva y muerta al mismo tiempo.
En este libro exploraremos lo que la zarigüeya nos puede enseñar acerca del concepto de la muerte de otras especies. Asimismo, aprenderemos cómo los animales viven la mortalidad de la mano de hormigas que asisten a su propio entierro, chimpancés que limpian los dientes a cadáveres, perros que se meriendan a sus dueños, cuervos que evitan los sitios donde vieron un muerto, elefantes obsesionados con recolectar marfil y ballenas que cargan con sus fallecidos durante semanas.
A lo largo de la historia, el ser humano se ha creído el único animal con una consciencia de la mortalidad. En este libro, que mezcla teoría filosófica con los últimos descubrimientos en etología y psicología comparada, veremos que esta creencia no obedece más que a nuestros sesgos antropocéntricos y que, también en nuestra relación con la muerte, somos tan solo un animal más.
En este libro exploraremos lo que la zarigüeya nos puede enseñar acerca del concepto de la muerte de otras especies. Asimismo, aprenderemos cómo los animales viven la mortalidad de la mano de hormigas que asisten a su propio entierro, chimpancés que limpian los dientes a cadáveres, perros que se meriendan a sus dueños, cuervos que evitan los sitios donde vieron un muerto, elefantes obsesionados con recolectar marfil y ballenas que cargan con sus fallecidos durante semanas.
A lo largo de la historia, el ser humano se ha creído el único animal con una consciencia de la mortalidad. En este libro, que mezcla teoría filosófica con los últimos descubrimientos en etología y psicología comparada, veremos que esta creencia no obedece más que a nuestros sesgos antropocéntricos y que, también en nuestra relación con la muerte, somos tan solo un animal más.
240 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 2024
330 people are currently reading
6295 people want to read
About the author
Susana Monsó
2 books18 followersSusana Monsó es doctora en Filosofía por la Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia y profesora ayudante doctor en el Departamento de Lógica, Historia y Filosofía de la Ciencia de esta misma universidad. Ha sido investigadora post-doctoral en la Universidad de Graz y en el Instituto de Investigación Messerli de Viena, donde fue receptora de una beca Lise Meitner del Fondo Austriaco para la Ciencia (FWF). Ha publicado en revistas internacionales como Erkenntnis, Synthese, Mind & Language, Journal of Ethics y Philosophical Psychology, entre otras. Su trabajo se centra en las habilidades socio-cognitivas de los animales y sus implicaciones éticas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 261 reviews
October 23, 2024
This was interesting but for me didn't dive particularly deep into any one subject. For being so short, I found several chapters repetitive to the point of being ridiculous, and the audiobook narrator insisted on reading the entire book like a breaking news broadcast.
A weird time altogether.
A weird time altogether.
November 10, 2024
I need more books like this one. I expected a book on animal behavior—which I got, but through the lens of a philosopher. At first I thought that was weird, but it was absolutely perfect: how do we know what we know is so relevant to studying animal behavior, especially for something as existential as mortality. The author explores the biology, of course, but beginning with that philosophical framework made this a really special read. There are so many examples of how animals seemingly understand and grapple with death, and ultimately the author does an excellent job of reminding us that humans are just another animal species in the complex, messy world.
August 5, 2025
Less of a science book and more of a philosophical dissertation. Prepare for lots of definitions of terms and concepts, not to mention the definition of "term" and "concept"! Seriously, Monso spends more time defining the concept of death than talking about actual animals and how they deal with or respond to other dead animals.
It's still intermittently interesting as a philosophical investigation into what it means for humans to react to death and what it might mean for an animal to react to death and how our human-centric viewpoint could affect how we view animals viewing death. But yeah, if that sentence is any evidence, it's hard to wrap your head around. 90% of the book feels like throat-clearing. Monso is often saying "which we'll get to later," as if there's going to be some big unifying chapter later on (there's not, really).
The individual animal stories are interesting, when they show up. Ants remove other dead ants, but they don't really understand death in the way humans do because they're just reacting to pheromones. Other animals, usually mammals, usually predators, might understand death because it benefits their ability to hunt or not be hunted (see: lions > hunting and possums > playing dead). There, that's the book.
It's still intermittently interesting as a philosophical investigation into what it means for humans to react to death and what it might mean for an animal to react to death and how our human-centric viewpoint could affect how we view animals viewing death. But yeah, if that sentence is any evidence, it's hard to wrap your head around. 90% of the book feels like throat-clearing. Monso is often saying "which we'll get to later," as if there's going to be some big unifying chapter later on (there's not, really).
The individual animal stories are interesting, when they show up. Ants remove other dead ants, but they don't really understand death in the way humans do because they're just reacting to pheromones. Other animals, usually mammals, usually predators, might understand death because it benefits their ability to hunt or not be hunted (see: lions > hunting and possums > playing dead). There, that's the book.
October 25, 2021
"Los científicos llevan mucho tiempo tratando de encontrar aquella característica que nos separe definitivamente del resto de especies. De momento, todos los candidatos han ido cayendo. Ni el uso de herramientas, ni la cultura, ni la moral, ni la racionalidad son exclusivos del ser humano. Tampoco el concepto de muerte. No somos una especie aparte. Somos tan solo un animal más. Y como tal, somos cuerpos que funcionan hasta cierto punto, pero acaban por romperse irreparablemente. Quizá sí logramos reconciliarnos con nuestra condición de animales podamos también reconciliarnos con nuestra propia mortalidad." (Monsó, 2021: 232 y 233)
Susana Monsó distingue las reacciones estereotípicas a la muerte de las reacciones cognitivas a la muerte. Asimismo, distingue conceptos como el antropocentrismo, el antropomorfismo y la antropectomía, los cuales pueden estorbar en la investigación sobre el concepto de muerte en los animales no humanos, y los sesgos antropocentrismo intelectual y el antropocentrismo emocional. Por otra parte, para establecer lo que ella considera el concepto mínimo de muerte, de los 7 subcomponentes que conforman el concepto complejo de muerte desde el prisma científico y biológico de la muerte, los animales no humanos tan solo necesitan, en principio, los dos primeros, que son la no funcionalidad y la irreversibilidad.
"La zarigüeya de schrödinger: como viven y entienden la muerte los animales", es un libro fresco, divertido, interesante, emotivo y escrito por una filósofa de la mente animal, a caballo entre la filosofía y la ciencia. Muy recomendable. Además, comienza con un hermoso prólogo del filósofo de la mente Mark Rowlands (el cual por cierto se dedica a la investigación de la moral en los animales no humanos.
Susana Monsó distingue las reacciones estereotípicas a la muerte de las reacciones cognitivas a la muerte. Asimismo, distingue conceptos como el antropocentrismo, el antropomorfismo y la antropectomía, los cuales pueden estorbar en la investigación sobre el concepto de muerte en los animales no humanos, y los sesgos antropocentrismo intelectual y el antropocentrismo emocional. Por otra parte, para establecer lo que ella considera el concepto mínimo de muerte, de los 7 subcomponentes que conforman el concepto complejo de muerte desde el prisma científico y biológico de la muerte, los animales no humanos tan solo necesitan, en principio, los dos primeros, que son la no funcionalidad y la irreversibilidad.
"La zarigüeya de schrödinger: como viven y entienden la muerte los animales", es un libro fresco, divertido, interesante, emotivo y escrito por una filósofa de la mente animal, a caballo entre la filosofía y la ciencia. Muy recomendable. Además, comienza con un hermoso prólogo del filósofo de la mente Mark Rowlands (el cual por cierto se dedica a la investigación de la moral en los animales no humanos.
May 5, 2022
El libro muestra un absoluto vacío en el conocimiento filosófico, existencial, linguistico, psicológico, literario o poético de la muerte humana (que no es un mero concepto, como la autora subraya hasta la extenuación haciéndose eco de la tradición más paupérrima del modelo cognitivo reduccionista de la mente).
Seguramente, empero, este bagaje no sería necesario para hablar sobre cómo experimentan o actúan los animales ante una defunción o un cadáver, a no ser que lo embrolles de los supuestos arrogantes de la autora, cayendo en la contradicción y la paradoja, amén de unos reduccionismos lógicos donde solo cabe la retórica simplista. Quiere acercarse al estudio animal de modo desinteresado, pero parece excesivamente interesada; quiere no caer en en el antropocentrismo pero cae en descripciones humanizadoras continuamente. Pero esto es sólo anecdótico.
La autora critica la sobreintelectualizacion de los filósofos acerca de la muerte, pero ella es la que convierte todo en un mero juguete conceptual (muerte= un concepto) donde ella decide qué es el concepto de muerte "inclusivo" para tener en cuenta a los animales, y así no caer en el antropocentrismo por el cual "creemos que sólo nuestro modo de ver el mundo vale". No obstante, es ella la que está todo el tiempo partiendo de una supuesta comprensión sobre la muerte y mente humana que se da por hecho y evidente. Ingenuidad narcisista cuanto menos.
Si de repente sale a colación un filósofo que ha tratado la muerte en sus abismales profundidades (Heidegger), la autora, ¡que es filósofa en la UNED!, no sólo demuestra no tener ni idea de el, sino que lo arroja a la basura con tacto infantil. Cierto es que Heidegger es muy complejo y que no a todos los filósofos les gusta, pero él no consideraba la muerte un concepto sino muchas cosas que actúan de trasfondo en nuestra vida, anudado a la vida. Esto mismo lo han desarrollado escritores, autores filosóficos, etcétera...durante miles de años. Pero Susana Monso dice que como estos no han tenido en cuenta a los animales y eran pedantes, pues solo eran antropocéntricos. Fin.
Lo que de interés tiene el tema de los animales ante la muerte (entendida de forma verdaderamente no humana, o como acción o experiencia de un cadáver, aún cuando en ocasiones haya paralelismos o similitudes con el modo humano), se viene al traste una y otra vez por la retórica falaz simplista de la autora (ella se teje su discurso, emplea términos asu gusto, les atribuye la carga semántica que le es útil). Pero encima, sus argumentos son inconsistentes. Ella asegura que en un "concepto mínimo de muerte" no hace falta introducir el sentimiento de universalidad, mortalidad personal o inevitabilidad. Para ello nos invita a un experimento mental. Pero no se da cuenta de que experimento mental similar se puede hacer igualmente con la irreversibilidad o la no-funcionalidad de los cadáveres. Pero no parece haberse dado cuenta.
En general, básicamente, parece como si la autora se sorprendiera de comportamientos animales que todo aquel que tenga perro o gato podría señalar sin problemas, sólo que ella le confiere un marco intelectual inquietante.
El libro es apto para lectores de Paulo Coelho o gente sin aparato crítico, o... para algunos profesores de universidad superfluos sin pasión por el saber. También puede serlo para interesados en comportamientos animales, siempre y cuando seas capaz de aguantar tanta simpleza y empleo superfluo de los terminos. Para mí es un ejemplo de como una ideología animalista puede desarrollar una nininana postmoderna que, por ser asequible a cualquier lector, se promete como auténtica.
Huelga decir que mi problema no es con adjudicar emociones ni cognición a los animales, ni tampoco una forma propia de "entender" (como metáfora) lo relacionado con la muerte dentro de un marco determinado. Pero el modo en que lo hace la autora es..paupérrimo.
Es mucho más recomendable leer a Peter Singer o Frans de Waal, pese a que no siempre hay que estar de acuerdo con el primero y pese a que el segundo cae en muchos forzamientos comparativos animal-humano (y reduccionismos). Pero al menos la narración de experimentos y análisis lógico es mas consistente y se puede separar grano y paja. También es mucho mejor leer a Godffrey-Smith, mucho más cuidado en sus análisis sobre lo que pueden ser "otras mentes animales", o a Philip Kitcher. Incluso recomiendo leer el ensayo de Plutarco sobre los animales (del siglo II d.C.).
No obstante, recomiendo, especialmente, leer a Felice Cimatti (Unbecoming human), un autor que otorga lenguaje y emociones a los animales no humanos pero cuyo aparato filosófico es bien potente. Conoce la etología, la primatologia y, cosa que Monso ni de broma- la filosofía.
P.D: La conclusión de Monso es un ejemplo de narcisismo idealista postmoderno revestido de supuesto objetivismo.
Seguramente, empero, este bagaje no sería necesario para hablar sobre cómo experimentan o actúan los animales ante una defunción o un cadáver, a no ser que lo embrolles de los supuestos arrogantes de la autora, cayendo en la contradicción y la paradoja, amén de unos reduccionismos lógicos donde solo cabe la retórica simplista. Quiere acercarse al estudio animal de modo desinteresado, pero parece excesivamente interesada; quiere no caer en en el antropocentrismo pero cae en descripciones humanizadoras continuamente. Pero esto es sólo anecdótico.
La autora critica la sobreintelectualizacion de los filósofos acerca de la muerte, pero ella es la que convierte todo en un mero juguete conceptual (muerte= un concepto) donde ella decide qué es el concepto de muerte "inclusivo" para tener en cuenta a los animales, y así no caer en el antropocentrismo por el cual "creemos que sólo nuestro modo de ver el mundo vale". No obstante, es ella la que está todo el tiempo partiendo de una supuesta comprensión sobre la muerte y mente humana que se da por hecho y evidente. Ingenuidad narcisista cuanto menos.
Si de repente sale a colación un filósofo que ha tratado la muerte en sus abismales profundidades (Heidegger), la autora, ¡que es filósofa en la UNED!, no sólo demuestra no tener ni idea de el, sino que lo arroja a la basura con tacto infantil. Cierto es que Heidegger es muy complejo y que no a todos los filósofos les gusta, pero él no consideraba la muerte un concepto sino muchas cosas que actúan de trasfondo en nuestra vida, anudado a la vida. Esto mismo lo han desarrollado escritores, autores filosóficos, etcétera...durante miles de años. Pero Susana Monso dice que como estos no han tenido en cuenta a los animales y eran pedantes, pues solo eran antropocéntricos. Fin.
Lo que de interés tiene el tema de los animales ante la muerte (entendida de forma verdaderamente no humana, o como acción o experiencia de un cadáver, aún cuando en ocasiones haya paralelismos o similitudes con el modo humano), se viene al traste una y otra vez por la retórica falaz simplista de la autora (ella se teje su discurso, emplea términos asu gusto, les atribuye la carga semántica que le es útil). Pero encima, sus argumentos son inconsistentes. Ella asegura que en un "concepto mínimo de muerte" no hace falta introducir el sentimiento de universalidad, mortalidad personal o inevitabilidad. Para ello nos invita a un experimento mental. Pero no se da cuenta de que experimento mental similar se puede hacer igualmente con la irreversibilidad o la no-funcionalidad de los cadáveres. Pero no parece haberse dado cuenta.
En general, básicamente, parece como si la autora se sorprendiera de comportamientos animales que todo aquel que tenga perro o gato podría señalar sin problemas, sólo que ella le confiere un marco intelectual inquietante.
El libro es apto para lectores de Paulo Coelho o gente sin aparato crítico, o... para algunos profesores de universidad superfluos sin pasión por el saber. También puede serlo para interesados en comportamientos animales, siempre y cuando seas capaz de aguantar tanta simpleza y empleo superfluo de los terminos. Para mí es un ejemplo de como una ideología animalista puede desarrollar una nininana postmoderna que, por ser asequible a cualquier lector, se promete como auténtica.
Huelga decir que mi problema no es con adjudicar emociones ni cognición a los animales, ni tampoco una forma propia de "entender" (como metáfora) lo relacionado con la muerte dentro de un marco determinado. Pero el modo en que lo hace la autora es..paupérrimo.
Es mucho más recomendable leer a Peter Singer o Frans de Waal, pese a que no siempre hay que estar de acuerdo con el primero y pese a que el segundo cae en muchos forzamientos comparativos animal-humano (y reduccionismos). Pero al menos la narración de experimentos y análisis lógico es mas consistente y se puede separar grano y paja. También es mucho mejor leer a Godffrey-Smith, mucho más cuidado en sus análisis sobre lo que pueden ser "otras mentes animales", o a Philip Kitcher. Incluso recomiendo leer el ensayo de Plutarco sobre los animales (del siglo II d.C.).
No obstante, recomiendo, especialmente, leer a Felice Cimatti (Unbecoming human), un autor que otorga lenguaje y emociones a los animales no humanos pero cuyo aparato filosófico es bien potente. Conoce la etología, la primatologia y, cosa que Monso ni de broma- la filosofía.
P.D: La conclusión de Monso es un ejemplo de narcisismo idealista postmoderno revestido de supuesto objetivismo.
February 4, 2025
3.5 rounded down. It’s interesting but, like all philosophy books are to me, tedious and boring at points. If you’ve got a higher tolerance for and enjoyment of speculative thanatology (an undoubtedly interesting field, I’m just weak in my capacity to roll with an x amount of tedium) and you can deal with the denser bits, you might love it. Definitely worth the read.
As a side note, not to be That Bitch, but the audiobook narrator’s voice was obnoxious.
As a side note, not to be That Bitch, but the audiobook narrator’s voice was obnoxious.
i-give-up
November 19, 2024DNF at 55 pages
I had high hopes for this one, but I’m really not enjoying it. It’s dense and philosophical, and not what I’m looking for at the moment
I had high hopes for this one, but I’m really not enjoying it. It’s dense and philosophical, and not what I’m looking for at the moment
Want to read
October 23, 2025thank goodness my cat is immortal so will never have to deal with death <3 but ready to be thrown into an existential spiral by this!!!
January 14, 2025
Close but no cigar. I was super excited about this book, and it was very interesting. Indeed, I could read many more books on this subject, but that is perhaps the reason for my awarding only three stars. Should I really need to?
There was a lot of repetition of fundamental philosophical concepts. I was, as a biologist, at times grateful for this, but because Playing Possum does read like an essay, it is hard not to judge it as one, and in doing so, feel compelled to be slightly mean about the experience of feeling a little short changed by what is essentially a very long introduction. After all the pre-amble, I’d have liked the author to have really driven home a convincing argument for the presence of a concept of death in diverse taxa and discussed the subject matter in some depth in the context of the philosophical concepts introduced. If I’m being really catty, I was also hungry for a conclusion that didn’t fall into the pure Stilton of an epilogue circling back to humans being just animals, a trope that so many popular science books stumble into.
I really enjoyed the style of writing, the author is qualified, intelligent, likeable and convincing, and the subject matter is so inherently interesting that it practically sells itself.
There was a lot of repetition of fundamental philosophical concepts. I was, as a biologist, at times grateful for this, but because Playing Possum does read like an essay, it is hard not to judge it as one, and in doing so, feel compelled to be slightly mean about the experience of feeling a little short changed by what is essentially a very long introduction. After all the pre-amble, I’d have liked the author to have really driven home a convincing argument for the presence of a concept of death in diverse taxa and discussed the subject matter in some depth in the context of the philosophical concepts introduced. If I’m being really catty, I was also hungry for a conclusion that didn’t fall into the pure Stilton of an epilogue circling back to humans being just animals, a trope that so many popular science books stumble into.
I really enjoyed the style of writing, the author is qualified, intelligent, likeable and convincing, and the subject matter is so inherently interesting that it practically sells itself.
October 8, 2025
3.5 rounded up
I liked the layout of the book as well as the writing style quite a bit, however I felt it was a little repetitive at points. I enjoyed the emphasis on the philosophical elements of this topic, but I left feeling like I didn’t really get as much information out of it as I wanted to.
This was such an interesting topic, but the chapters on infanticide and the violent behavior of chimps and dolphins were difficult to read.
I do not recommend the audio; in my opinion, it was a very poor narration style for this topic and I could barely tolerate it. Speeding it up to 1.75 helped a little. I don’t want to be mean, but it was terrible!
I liked the layout of the book as well as the writing style quite a bit, however I felt it was a little repetitive at points. I enjoyed the emphasis on the philosophical elements of this topic, but I left feeling like I didn’t really get as much information out of it as I wanted to.
This was such an interesting topic, but the chapters on infanticide and the violent behavior of chimps and dolphins were difficult to read.
I do not recommend the audio; in my opinion, it was a very poor narration style for this topic and I could barely tolerate it. Speeding it up to 1.75 helped a little. I don’t want to be mean, but it was terrible!
April 18, 2025
I enjoyed it but I was constantly waiting for the stories of how we've seen animals understand death and overwhelmed by science talk.
October 16, 2024
In "Playing Possum," Susana Monsó explores how animals perceive death, shedding light on what these insights can teach us about our own mortality. The book delves into a fascinating array of behaviors across species, challenging the notion that only human-like emotional responses to death are significant. Monsó's work prompts us to consider the myriad ways in which animals navigate mortality, ultimately highlighting that in the realm of death and dying, we are simply another strand in the intricate web of life.
November 14, 2024
I didn't realize this was a book from a philosophical lens, so I was not expecting the language and thought process of philosophy to be so prevalent. However, I adjusted my expectations and rolled with it. It was interesting and accessible (it is written for a layperson), though at times it lacked the sort of connective moments I like in nonfiction. I would have been happier with a short book, tbh... I just don't need that much philosophical reasoning on the topic. Yet, not sorry I read it. A solid middle of the road experience for me.
Again, I didn't know what I was getting into, so take what I think with a grain of salt. I'm sure this is super appealing depending on your interests in the subject and/or philosophical reasoning.
Again, I didn't know what I was getting into, so take what I think with a grain of salt. I'm sure this is super appealing depending on your interests in the subject and/or philosophical reasoning.
November 12, 2024
If you want to read someone’s dissertation, this is the book for you. If you want an engaging story about animals navigating death, this is not it. Over 3 hours into the 7 hour audiobook, we were still defining “a concept of death” and other key terms. The narrator also made this a hard one for me to get through—it felt as if they were bored by what they were reading. I was so excited by the idea of this book, but it wasn’t what I was expecting and I don’t feel like I have any better understanding of the topic than I did when I started it.
December 29, 2024
Okay, so, this book was fascinating and I did learn a lot. However, its philosophy heavy and written by a philosopher. Every time I’ve tried to dive into philosophy in a non-superficial way, I end up just not clicking with it. This is completely a ME issue and I did still glean a lot from this book like the concept of anthropocentrism, etc. this is less animal stories and more theory about animal stories.
Still giving this five stars as much of my qualms are more personal preferences. The writing is good and much more accessible than many other philosophical texts.
Still giving this five stars as much of my qualms are more personal preferences. The writing is good and much more accessible than many other philosophical texts.
June 29, 2025
Everything I learned from this book is about to make me even more insufferable at social gatherings, which I do kind of love. I find there were aspects of this book that were lacking but I can't fault the author for being limited by a field of science. It's hardly her fault scientists show very little interest in the exploration of the topics of the book outside of certain animals.
July 6, 2025
Great job with analysing the perception and processing of death with a variety of species in a philosophical way. I very much second Ms Monsó's conclusion that we are just animals like all the others.
February 4, 2026
4 rather than 5 as I wanted more information, but that's mainly because more research needs to be done! The examples were all familiar, but I enjoyed the conceptual breakdown of the different points and the wiring style.
December 3, 2024
"Humans hide death as much as they can. On the contrary, for animals in the wild, [death] is a day-to-day reality that can't be avoided."
A disclaimer to those who are considering reading this book: THIS IS AN ACADEMIC BOOK, specifically a PHILOSOPHY BOOK. It is NOT creative non-fiction, or a cute fun quick read that you can do in a couple hours. It requires your mind to be constantly engaged in order to get the full picture of what the author is doing.
That said, I found it to be much more accessible than a lot of other philosophical writing. I don't normally read philosophy papers for pleasure, let alone books, but I understood this book and even enjoyed it very much. So as the philosophy book that it was advertised as, I am giving it the full 5 stars.
It made me think about what death is really supposed to mean, or what it means for someone or something to understand death. Monsó argues that non-human animals can have a concept of death, going against what most other philosophers and scientists throughout history have said. She carefully lays out an argument that incorporates many concepts that I have only just been introduced to, such as "anthropectomy." I appreciate her not presupposing knowledge of basic vocabulary on the reader, like anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism. Her biggest, and I'd argue most brilliant, move is introducing the idea of a "minimal concept of death," which is the minimum amount that a creature should understand in order for us to say that it has some understanding of death. Her process of getting to the minimal concept of death was so fascinating! But honestly, I just really enjoyed reading every chapter in this book!
HOWEVER, if you're not used to reading academic books like these, where the author lays out an actual argument, giving sub-arguments and evidence for each premise or claim, defining terms multiple times in different ways, then this book may not be for you. But if you DO have experience with reading this kind of thing and this topic interests you, then I'd say that this may be an even enjoyable read for you. If you're interested in philosophical writing, I'd say that this is an example of philosophy done well. At least, in my humble opinion. I'm sure other philosophers could find things to argue against or places where she argues poorly.
A disclaimer to those who are considering reading this book: THIS IS AN ACADEMIC BOOK, specifically a PHILOSOPHY BOOK. It is NOT creative non-fiction, or a cute fun quick read that you can do in a couple hours. It requires your mind to be constantly engaged in order to get the full picture of what the author is doing.
That said, I found it to be much more accessible than a lot of other philosophical writing. I don't normally read philosophy papers for pleasure, let alone books, but I understood this book and even enjoyed it very much. So as the philosophy book that it was advertised as, I am giving it the full 5 stars.
It made me think about what death is really supposed to mean, or what it means for someone or something to understand death. Monsó argues that non-human animals can have a concept of death, going against what most other philosophers and scientists throughout history have said. She carefully lays out an argument that incorporates many concepts that I have only just been introduced to, such as "anthropectomy." I appreciate her not presupposing knowledge of basic vocabulary on the reader, like anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism. Her biggest, and I'd argue most brilliant, move is introducing the idea of a "minimal concept of death," which is the minimum amount that a creature should understand in order for us to say that it has some understanding of death. Her process of getting to the minimal concept of death was so fascinating! But honestly, I just really enjoyed reading every chapter in this book!
HOWEVER, if you're not used to reading academic books like these, where the author lays out an actual argument, giving sub-arguments and evidence for each premise or claim, defining terms multiple times in different ways, then this book may not be for you. But if you DO have experience with reading this kind of thing and this topic interests you, then I'd say that this may be an even enjoyable read for you. If you're interested in philosophical writing, I'd say that this is an example of philosophy done well. At least, in my humble opinion. I'm sure other philosophers could find things to argue against or places where she argues poorly.
November 7, 2024
This book answered (?) questions I didn’t even know I had, like what does it mean to understand death and do animals understand death and how can we understand what animals understand? I’m not sure it answered though, it was strongly argued?
Fascinating, but quite a lot of the philosophical topics completely flew over my head.
Fascinating, but quite a lot of the philosophical topics completely flew over my head.
March 5, 2025
Interesting topic but overlong.
April 15, 2025
Interesting analysis of what minimal concept of death we can assume animals to have. Mostly well argued. Just the last chapter on thanatosis didn’t feel as well argued and convincing as the others.
But I do think the writing is a bit rambly. I feel like the same could have been said in half the words. Also, the style of the narration of the audiobook was definitely a wrong choice. A philosophical non-fiction text like this is not the book to play with changes in speed, pauses, and enunciation to artificially add emotions to the text. Highly irritating and I wonder who during the production of the audiobook thought this was the way to go.
But I do think the writing is a bit rambly. I feel like the same could have been said in half the words. Also, the style of the narration of the audiobook was definitely a wrong choice. A philosophical non-fiction text like this is not the book to play with changes in speed, pauses, and enunciation to artificially add emotions to the text. Highly irritating and I wonder who during the production of the audiobook thought this was the way to go.
February 6, 2025
I liked this! The stories about insects and animals encountering the dead were really thought provoking. The philosophy behind the interpretations of different acts was interesting too. But there was a lot of repetition through the book and I wondered if maybe this isn't quite a book but rather a long journal article or essay. Some of the reviews I read "gave it away". I wouldn't dissuade anyone from picking this up, however.
January 28, 2025
Highly enjoyable book which carefully delineates the different ways that animals conceive (or perhaps don’t conceive) of death. Full of interesting anecdotes and experimentation results, the author discusses just how varied animal approaches to death can be. If you have an affinity with animals, or death (or both)you will find this an extremely interesting read!
November 3, 2024
DNF. Repetitive, all over, a little too philosophical (for me), and didn't dive into animal patterns the way I thought it would. My mind couldn't keep up!
February 16, 2025
Me ha gustado - es interesante, se lee fácil, y he aprendido un puñado de cosas chulas sobre cómo actúan/viven/mueren/matan algunos animales.
June 11, 2025
Excellent communication of the careful scientific analysis of what animals likely do and do not understand about death, and their varied reactions to death.
August 22, 2025
I was really disappointed by this one :/ it read like the author was trying to hit a word count at times. I liked all of the animal anecdotes and wanted more of that and less philosophizing.
April 12, 2025
⚠️This is a HIGHLY TECHNICAL book⚠️
A more appropriate title would be "Postulating the Extent to Which Animals May or May Not Understand Death" (opossums are only mentioned a few times towards the very end).
If, based on the cute cover and playful title, you are expecting a brisk summer read of soul-stirring anecdotal animal stories, you will most likely end up frustrated.
If you think that the tone of a philosophy book could never be the same as a neuroscience dissertation: buckle up.
If you're comfortable with some technical scientific jargon, this book can introduce you to new philosophical concepts and brief overviews of many interesting animal studies.
Here's a sample [transcribed from audiobook]
[footnote: I would love to see xkcd tackle this topic to present it in a more accessible medium, i.e. stick-figure drawings.]
A more appropriate title would be "Postulating the Extent to Which Animals May or May Not Understand Death" (opossums are only mentioned a few times towards the very end).
If, based on the cute cover and playful title, you are expecting a brisk summer read of soul-stirring anecdotal animal stories, you will most likely end up frustrated.
If you think that the tone of a philosophy book could never be the same as a neuroscience dissertation: buckle up.
If you're comfortable with some technical scientific jargon, this book can introduce you to new philosophical concepts and brief overviews of many interesting animal studies.
Here's a sample [transcribed from audiobook]
I'm using the term "intentional" in its most colloquial sense, as a synonym for "on purpose", and not in order to refer to the "aboutness" of mental states. This is why I talk of Levels of Intentionality, rather than Orders of Intentionality à la Dennett. For all the mental states that I will discuss, I assume First Order intentionality.
[footnote: I would love to see xkcd tackle this topic to present it in a more accessible medium, i.e. stick-figure drawings.]
July 31, 2025
Será que os animais conhecem o conceito de morte? Essa é a pergunta que guia o livro, não necessariamente a explicação que o subtítulo pressupõe.
Grande parte dos capítulos revolve na ideia de abordar o que é um conceito de morte e como podemos visualizar isso. O caminho traçado passa por: entender o que é a morte cognitivamente, como se entra em contato com a morte, como criar um critério básico para os animais e como descobrir se isso existe na mentalidade animal - e, já que sim, como o exercício da tanatose (se fingir de morto, como um gambá) é uma forma de chegar nessa conclusão.
É interessante como grande parte do livro se propõe a apresentar como: o conceito que a gente tem de morte é muito mediado pelo antropocentrismo intelectual e emocional, ou seja, só conseguimos pensar em uma morte nos termos intelectuais humanos (como se houvesse a reflexão espiritual e filosófica) e pela mediação dos nossos sentimentos (como os processos de luto e pesar). Aqui, ela mostra que o conceito de morte é bem mais simples, como o significado de inteligência também tem passado por desconstruções em outros campos de vidas não humanas.
O grande problema, me parece, é a falta de desenvolvimento de algumas questões e capítulos para a apresentação do problema. Existem casos que são apresentados e não são respondidos ou analisados, mas se perdem no fluxo, algumas apresentações que são repetidas pelo fluxo de escrita… ficam alguns buracos, talvez até pela novidade no campo. Como livro introdutório, é bem bacana.
Grande parte dos capítulos revolve na ideia de abordar o que é um conceito de morte e como podemos visualizar isso. O caminho traçado passa por: entender o que é a morte cognitivamente, como se entra em contato com a morte, como criar um critério básico para os animais e como descobrir se isso existe na mentalidade animal - e, já que sim, como o exercício da tanatose (se fingir de morto, como um gambá) é uma forma de chegar nessa conclusão.
É interessante como grande parte do livro se propõe a apresentar como: o conceito que a gente tem de morte é muito mediado pelo antropocentrismo intelectual e emocional, ou seja, só conseguimos pensar em uma morte nos termos intelectuais humanos (como se houvesse a reflexão espiritual e filosófica) e pela mediação dos nossos sentimentos (como os processos de luto e pesar). Aqui, ela mostra que o conceito de morte é bem mais simples, como o significado de inteligência também tem passado por desconstruções em outros campos de vidas não humanas.
O grande problema, me parece, é a falta de desenvolvimento de algumas questões e capítulos para a apresentação do problema. Existem casos que são apresentados e não são respondidos ou analisados, mas se perdem no fluxo, algumas apresentações que são repetidas pelo fluxo de escrita… ficam alguns buracos, talvez até pela novidade no campo. Como livro introdutório, é bem bacana.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 261 reviews