ANIMAL psychology has its philosophical background like every other specialized science; yet no position towards philosophical questions need to be taken up by those who undertake research into animal psychology. This independence is not reciprocal, for the philosopher who fails to inform himself on questions of animal psychology allows suggestive matter which would be invaluable for his own researches to escape him.1 Let us briefly explain this.
With the help of animal psychology the logician, for instance, can inform himself about the performances of intelligence which occur without abstract means. The nature of speech-borne normative thought becomes clearer when contrasted with those performances which still occur intuitively. A study of the social psychology of animals makes it easier to understand the social instincts of man, which govern his communal life as postulated by ethics. The problem of natural beauty in æsthetics is certainly a vexed one. But can the student of æsthetics seriously remain indifferent to the song of birds and their graceful dance-like movements, to say nothing of other similar phenomena in the animal world, which are primitive manifestations of beauty? So much for the normative branches of philosophy.____________________