Human bias inherent to philosophy?
A stream of consciousness / thinking / musings
The belief that human beings are the central or most important entity on the planet is termed Anthropocentrism. Other similar terms include humanocentrism, human supremacy or human exceptionalism. The belief, or others similar to it, tend to order life on Earth within in a hierarchy, with humans at the top. Animals, plants, and all other things on Earth fall somewhere beneath.
Many philosophical endeavors seek to study knowledge - what is it? Can it be objective? And, ultimately, is there a true 'right' and 'wrong?' Humans have seemingly been fascinated with finding the 'right' or moral way of living for some time. A common assumption within many philosophies appears to be that only humans - not animals or plants - are capable of such pursuits. Demonstrations of morality are presented as out of reach to non-humans.
As far as I know, humans have only ever existed on Earth or its immediate surroundings. However, humans are not the only living thing that has existed on Earth. What differentiates living things from non-living things?
Whether we have an answer to that question or not, I think it is OK to consider two roughly-defined groups within the material (physical) world: Living & Non-living. For my own sake, I am only thinking about Earth-bound things in these groups. Let's not get too worried about fringe things (aliens) or things that might be in one group or the other (ex: viruses).
Big picture (Any and all levels you want; overlaps & duplicates, yes I know) Living things: animals, trees, humans, plants, insects, mammals, reptiles, gnats, giraffes, molds, ferns, rock fish, squid, etc.
Non-living things: air, rocks, plastics, rivers, elements (atomic), etc.
Obviously these lists are not complete. What I want to get at is the nature of our philosophies to rely on human languages to convey our ideas and concepts. This isn't novel. Branches of philosophy are dedicated to language.
Things I note:
'Human' is only 1 of the living things in the list above. For the most part, we lack the ability to communicate with other living things.
Philosophy 'feels' like an extension of the physical sciences, trying to give explanation to what those sciences otherwise cannot / have not.
We recognize the concept of "the laws of physics." Rules that we believe exist and apply to all forms of matter in space-time.
Do any schools/ branches of philosophy consider "laws of living things?"
I think of evolution, and how (apparently) living things prior to humans, more or less continued on (not individual species, but things went on living) despite drastic environmental threats/changes (asteroids, ice ages, oxygen levels, etc.)
Do human 'assumptions' about life / ourselves violate some "laws of living things?" see note
By violate, I don't suggest humans are going unpunished. The laws of physics are not 'violated' - that's what makes them laws. Humans may tend to believe we are separate from all other living things due to our intelligence / lack of ability to hold conversations with our living-Earth-siblings.
Are our assumptions leading to actions that threaten the continuation of living things on Earth?
Note: I borrow that above idea/ question from Ishmael