The rationalist platform of this title is obvious. The successor of Descartes, she convinced us for a long time and confirmed the hierarchy among living beings derived from the Bible. Only man thinks, therefore, all other kingdoms of men can exploit and devastate. It was only one step to considering that the “different” – the blacks, the natives of the colonies – were subspecies that were enslaved and sold.

It was the 17th century, the splendor of Europeanism both in philosophizing and in reaping the fruits of its conquests. Other perspectives had to come, so the formula of the Cartesian subject was reversed: the other exists, therefore he thinks. And from there look with a mirror effect at the one who shares the territory and ancestors with us (although they are faintly indicated on the face).

I remember that the catechism made great use of the “use of reason” to make us distinguish between virtue and sin and how much it was worth to overcome weakness. We were taken to our first communion when we were believed to be able to distinguish between good and evil, unfortunately sustained by guilt and the need for forgiveness. It was all a good set of ideas that were challenged by the concept of faith, which always seemed very mysterious to me. But I headed there, confident that my reasoning ability would allow me to choose the right path.

University classes in logic and psychology enabled my generation to think about subjectivity and the unknown contents of the psyche. The matter was complex because emotions were also a language and a means of interpreting reality. In studying poetry I realized that language struggled hard with the inner self to approach the overflowing flow that broke the obvious meanings in search of the dark, intense, broadly semantic. Therefore, not everything could be said by direct use of reason. There was no perfect correlation between idea and expression, which is even worse with works that could deviate from the true path of Dante dixit, because they followed an attractive path.

Then it was necessary to understand that the human being is not the king of the planet (the hated monarchical metaphor), but the life companion of other sensitive beings whose existence has a place within nature and rights based on identified functions. Human reason does not allow us to be predators or to kill animals in order to display their stuffed heads on the walls. If some species serve us as food, we are under an ethical obligation to provide them with a painless and respectful way out. If it is domestic animals, the care is top notch because we live with them in an integration that forces us to practice a kind of understanding and love. There is no way to look a dog in the eye without feeling a current of communication.

The plant kingdom gives people their best gifts. From shelter to food, from air purification to beauty, from clothing to spiritual expansion. I already read scientists who defend the sensitivity of plants, their needs that are neglected and destroyed by the human species. The only thing that separates us from these wonderful beings is that we can say all these things and, many, fight in their defense. (OR)