In response to the 1st blog, I really feel he just doesn't like the human race. He feels humans have tainted the world in a bad way and screwed with natures natural course (which we kind of did).  I feel he uses those words for humans almost as if we would have been better of without intellect and primal like all the other animals around us. That he feels like intellect shouldn't have ever existed.. I also feel like this is why he likes to mock humans, and science I guess, because science was a subject created by human intellect.

I also feel that from our discussion before in class, he is trying to make an argument that he feels is unarguable. There are no words to argue his point because he feels the basis for his point doesn't exist. I think he just trying to put into words for other people to understand what he is trying to say, yet he fails because there is no understandable way to get his message across. I think that's why he seems to never fully back up his argument, because maybe he is trying to get across that he can't, because it's impossible.

Yes. He definitely is questioning why humans think they are so important, or rather why humans think their intellect is so important, and therefore is suggesting that we shouldn't think that way. For example in the second paragraph he explains how intellect is solely created by humans, and we are the only ones who give it such importance but if we could talk to a mosquito, he/she would think the world revolved around them (but we haven't so how would we know?). Then explains how humans are proud because they think they know the ways of the universe due to their grand  knowledge of everything because of their own actions and thoughts ( yet I think he is trying to say either that we do not or cannot know because it's nature or something OR that we are so distracted by our own intellect that we think we know everything, and therefore we're looking at the world biasly or something. someone can help me out with this..)