During the 12th C, several animal stories were developed by the Romans and the Greeks. The stories impacted significantly into the psychologies of the people, to the extent that they began putting themselves in the situation of other animals. This general perception attempted to transform the way human beings perceived themselves in correlation to the other animals in the Universe (Coetzee, 2003). The demarcations that had been established between animals and human beings began to fade off. Questions like whether animals were to be slaughtered for meat were cropping up into the minds of the people. I may be tempted to think that Elizabeth existed then, but I don’t think so, she must simply have had of such stories that could otherwise be to fulfilling for her.
According to the expression of Elisabeth Costello with Thomas Nagel and David Forster Wallace. The expression of Elisabeth Costello was quite different from those two writers, but somewhat similar to David Foster Wallace. In her expression, a sigh of consciousness and affection towards the animals has reflected, on the other hand David Foster has just restrained his analysis towards the lobster and its illegal slaughtering. On the other hand, Thomas Nagel elaborated about the bats and their symptoms. He declared that bats are blind and deaf to their birth and their consciousness and the consciousness of a common human being is quite similar.
In the third question, we have to answer whether the arguments of Elisabeth, were in the favor of the other two writers or has some sort of contradictions. From the analysis, we have found that the arguments of Elisabeth are somewhat similar to David Foster because both have identified the illegal killing and violence of the animals. Both the writers have shown an immense affection towards saving the animals from unimportant killings and illegal slaughtering. On the contrary the arguments of Elisabeth have nothing to do with the argument of Thomas Nagel as the issues identified by him is somewhat else.
Between AD 400 and 1400, the notion that human beings had much in common with animals picked up, notably by the 13th C Chronicles titled, “Gerald of Wales”. The Christian Philosophers however begged to differ from this perception that animals and human beings shared some things much in common, on the spot was Albert the Great, a notable Christian thinker of the 13th C. Albert cataloged a number of differences that he maintained existed between animals and human beings (Coetzee, 2003). Reacting from the same perspective, Thomas Aquinas argued that brutality and savagery of other animals by human beings was rather irrational and unreasonable, at leas Elizabeth Costello had somebody thinking in the same line with her.
With the many arguments posted, it becomes quit intricate telling whether there are indeed apparent distinctions between animals and human beings if not borrowed from the biological school of thought. Biologically, it would be easier to cite many differences and similarities, well, both animals and human beings are all mammals’ right? And so this is an unchallengeable scientific fact. Animals have the highest intelligent quotient (IQ) in the animals’ kingdom, arguable though if we have to consider the views of Thomas Negel, right? Now the question is, which way do we go? Whom do we believe? Why do we have to believe in what we know and to what extent are we wrong or right in our believes?