At first he would hide in his run and never make a noise when strangers would be present. His oral communication consisted of howling when he chose. However, he did develop a "wannabe" bark after awhile and would sometime use it when strangers came. We thought he might have believed the cocker spaniel had certain privileges he did not have and it might help his status to bark. He also started raising his leg to urinate and scraping the ground afterward, although he never could master the right leg or motion.
His favorite food was venison scraps hunters would bring or he would find on his walks. However, he discovered discarded fries and Frosties on his walks and became a fast food junkie. He would tire of his dog food and raw pork bones, picking out well-seasoned leftovers and scraps, being especially partial to Italian and Chinese food.
Our stories of human-wolf social boundaries and accommodations are many, memorable and often amusing. They are also a lesson of diversity and tolerance.
A wolf's life expectancy in the wild is about five to eight years; Nietzsche lived twice as long. If wolves would evolve as did other domesticated canines they would have much longer and easier lives. Some might suggest that. I would resist such an evolutionary policy in respect of the value, beauty and positive aspects of social diversity. I'll never coerce a wolf to sit beside me in the front seat of a truck. Wolves should run free.
Many individuals are ridiculed today for "selfishly" holding onto a social order that other factions within our diverse and pluralistic country finds archaic, dysfunctional, reactionary and anti-progressive. They assert these individuals -- and all society -- would be better off if they adopted the same behavior, practices and social order to which society has, allegedly, progressively evolved. They are entitled to their beliefs but can traditionalists be "trained" to behave within the precepts of a new social order that others have determined would benefit them? Or does such attempted coercion result in conflict and chaos?
Should, or can, these traditionalists, be trained by government to abandon the values of their social order without causing severe disruption and destruction? No doubt, analogies to the wolf's situation will be greeted with ridicule and derision, noting that, unlike wolves, humans can "reason". Perhaps, but what does that really mean?
Nietzsche adopted certain contemporary human and domesticated pet behaviors, e.g., love of Frosties and fries, but never abandoned his core social order values. They were "hard wired." Are we to believe that all human social values are the result of contemporary social and religious environmental beliefs that can be disproved and discarded by science and "reason?" Are we to believe that over time social values can be "hard wired" into other species but not humans?
Are we to accept that it is natural for a wolf to refuse to abandon his social order values if he is to survive but humans can easily abandoned them when confronted with reason and science? Perhaps such coercion, real or perceived, significantly contributes to social chaos, conflict and acrimony.
Finally, Nietzsche prospered by accommodating certain human behaviors but retaining his core social values. Given the recent rise of violence and destructive behavior in U.S. human society, I am not convinced discarding many traditional social values has brought increased social prosperity.
In today's contentious society one's ideology will likely determine if one either accepts and embraces -- or derides and discards -- any potential lessons. That would be unfortunate but probably appropriate. On learning of Nietzsche death, my youngest brother sent a quote from his philosopher namesake, "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh."
Felsen, of Capon Bridge, is a retired public health physician.