I found Bradley’s post interesting, because he points out something that Phillip K. Dick postulates, but I disagree with. He says that the difference between animals and humans is that humans feel emotions and empathy, while animals do not. I disagree with this statement, and give the counter evidence of dogs, and their obvious emotions, as well as empathy towards their owners. However, I leave you with Bradley’s excellent explanation of what Dick is trying to get across with this quote, and the rest of his analysis on the differences between humans and animals, and humans and androids.
“Empathy, evidently, existed only within the human community, whereas intelligence to some degree could be found throughout every phylum and order including the arachnida.” Page 29
This sentence on the surface does not appear to be important, however in context, I feel it is incredibly significant. There are two distinctions which I think are very important that are made in this sentence, one which is directly stated and one unstated. The first, stated one, is the distinction between humans and the rest of the animal world. The author was previously describing the process by which androids are found from among human communities (an empathy test.) He states directly that empathy is only in humans as a way of establishing their distinctions from the rest of the natural world, and also (indirectly, this is just an inference on my part) on top of the natural order (or what’s left of it in this post-nuclear war Earth.) Humans are the only ones who can feel empathy for other things or people, and empathy (as well as what it means to empathize) is a continuing theme of the novel.
The next distinction is between humans and androids. Androids in the story are an integral part of life in the colonies, however their presence on Earth is illegal, and men like Deckard make a living out of eliminating them. Just before this sentence, the author recounts the history of android development, and how they now possess greater intelligence than humans. Now, the only way to determine androids from humans is by measuring empathy (in our world, a relatively immeasurable emotion, however in the story the test can quantify it.) If it weren’t for empathy, there would be no way of knowing who was an android and who wasn’t, and no way of separating the natural world from the machine.
The story, as I interpret it, is all about distinction: the distinction between real and fake animals, between man and android, between the colonies and Earth, and between the strange utopian-esque religion (Mercerism) and the grim reality that Deckard and Isadore find themselves. Deckard, as a bounty hunter who kills androids, lives at the very fine line between them and works to keep them separate. However, at the same time, he crosses over between both worlds: he owns a machine sheep and keeps up the illusion that it is real, he interacts with multiple androids without killing them (Rosen, and technically Garland,) and begins to empathize with the androids as well. One can interpret it positively or negatively as they see fit, but the story (to me) outlines a process by which technology and innovation are breaking down the barriers which hold natural society separate from the synthetic. As seen in this sentence, empathy is one of the last true barriers remaining, and even throughout the story that barrier is called into question repeatedly.