Joe, I was instantly attracted to this article for two principal reasons: Arthur Schopenhauer is one of my favorite philosophers (like A.A. Milne’s ‘Eeyore’, I am pessimistically optimistic) and I am a ‘dog person’. Your tactic of giving us a philosophical slant on the matter of human/dog interactions is rather unique and also nicely developed in the relative brevity of the concept you have delineated here. I found myself very much drawn into your words, but I also quickly took issue with that quality that we humans categorise as ‘love’ and your failure to qualify it perhaps a bit more precisely.

Love is a uniquely human quality and we humming beans are quick to anthropomorphise love in non-human creatures (such as dogs). Our relationship with dogs (and with love for non-human critters) is quite complex and it certainly does involve complicated patterns of mutual inter-dependence among several things, but ‘love’?… Love is a one-way exchange, I’m afraid. We humans love things. Other creatures, incapable of the relatively high order of thoughtful reflection common to us ‘highest evolved sentient beings’ (although that statement is arguable, if one talks to marine biologists over a good glass of port), do not ‘love’ in the sense we are accustomed to. They instead develop mutually advantageous interactive dependencies with us that we are ever predictably too eager to identify as ‘love.

It is extremely easy to fall into that reflexive mode when dealing with objects and/or creatures that please us inordinately, of course, and I am just as falably sentimental as the rest of us. I also tend to engage in what animal behaviorists term ‘infantilising’ domestic animals that I am fond of (usually when my more critical cohorts & colleagues aren’t looking over my shoulder, LoL). As someone who has spent a lifetime with Canis familiaris and Canis lupus (specifically Spitz type breeds, notably Siberian Huskies, Alaskan Malamutes, East Siberian Laikas and Northern Inuit Dogs), I have also come to dearly love these beautiful and wolf-like members of the dog family.

When it comes to their response to my attention and ministrations, however, I am careful to consider their ‘love’ as more of a wonderfully mutual interactive relationship that brings substantial intuitive fulfillment to both of us. Author Mark Derr, in his seminal ‘How the Dog Became the Dog’ (2011, ISBN 978–1–59020-353–8) carefully traces the patterns of mutual inter-dependence that evolved between canines and humans over the centuries and to his immense credit, he does not let ‘love’ interfere with his analyses. But then, he is an academic, not a philosopher.

Dr. Bruce Vogel also delves usefully into the background of evolving dog/human symbiosis (in his book ‘The Dog’s Mind: Understanding Your Dog’s Behavior’, 1990, ISBN 978–1–63026–196–2), and does so from a very valuable psychological standpoint. Through his illustration of how a dog’s mind works (as well as we can presently understand it, if one may use those words to describe the process), we are given a much more practical insight into how this marvelous dog/human inter-dependency has developed. Yet he also cautiously refrains from temptation to use the word ‘love’.

Another excellent reference on canine behavior and intelligence is Dr. Stanley Coren’s landmark tome (‘The Intelligence of Dogs: A Guide to the Thoughts, Emotions and Inner Lives of our Canine Companions’, 1994, ISBN 0–553–37452–4). Dr. Coren, who is a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, also steers carefully around the stance of bringing the ‘L’ word into the conversation about dog/human associations.

Of course, we are constantly learning more about how little we truly know or clearly understand about our canine companions (and love, for that matter). No more certainly is this the case than in the remarkable studies emerging out of the Russian Federation, involving domestication of wild foxes by Dr. Dmitry Belyayev and his team of researchers. Although Belyayev is now departed, his colleague Lyudmila Trut continues his work and the results are impressive, to say the least.

All of that having been shared, I am just as drawn in by the look given me by the Alpha Bitch in my family ‘pack’ as any other imperfect human would be and it produces in me all of the positive sensations and emotions that you (along with Sarte and Schopenhauer) cite, and more. Furthermore, when I watch that terribly cute (but intellectually dishonest) Wells Fargo advertisement starring a Siberian Husky, I am just as impacted by the effect as the Wells Fargo advertising department knew (and millions of others) I would be (but I do worry about the consequent spate of ‘husky fascination’ that will result in many of these dogs ending up in rescue, after the naive owners discover that they’ve simply gotten in waaaay over their heads with the requirements of the new pup!).

Although I am not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination (although I am spiritual to a degree), I occasionally reflect on another of Sam Clemens memorable observations about our ‘beloved’ canines: “If dogs don’t go to heaven, I want to go where they go when I die!”

Thanks for this thought-provoking article on a subject that is dear to the (‘loving’) hearts) of so many of us out here…