What does Derrida observe about the different ways philosophers and creative writers think about animality? (see p. 377 ff.) Note that a bit later, Derrida supplements this contrast with “two types of discourse” about animals (382). What are these two ways of looking at animality, “the animal,” animals, an animal?

• Derrida points out that in the case of creative writing, writers would depict animal characters in their work as a being capable of responding to humans. Derrida shows this using the Alice in Wonderland part of his peace where he talks about the Cheshire Cat. The Cheshire Cat is not in any sense, maybe apart from its looks, a cat the way we would define a cat. No, the Cheshire can speak, it can have or imitate human emotions, and can even hold a conversation with Alice and last time I checked, my cat can only meow and not speak perfect English to me.
• In the philosopher’s case Derrida observes that they define animal as not man/not human which is to say that it can’t communicate or respond like humans can therefore they are below humans. Derrida shows this when he says “all of them say the same thing: the animal is without language. Or more precisely unable to respond…the animal is without the right and power to “respond” and hence without many other things that would be the property of man”. Thus, giving us humans the power to do whatever we want with said animal.
• Derrida supplements these two ways of thinking about animals into the two types of discourse that are occurring regarding animals. One is more of a philosophical discourse in which the animal is something that is “seen and not seeing” which is to say that the Animal is an object because it can neither respond nor communicate with me therefore, I have the ability to do with it whatever I want, the same way I can with other objects. The other form of discourse is a more ethical discourse in which Animals can in fact respond and communicate with humans, the problem with this however is that, well if they can communicate and respond to me, how is that possible when the ability to talk or respond is only available to the human, the man. If animals have the ability to do that then what makes them the animal and me the man? And for that matter, if animals can respond, does that make me an animal? But animals are supposed to be below humans, if that’s the case can I really treat the animal as just another object knowing this key detail?