• Moliere
    5.8k
    What Does It Mean to Be Human?
    By: @Vera Mont

    BCE 384 – 322
    Aristotle defines man as an animal with a rational soul. He has the capacity to question, learn and reflect. Reasoning is his primary function. While possessing instincts and emotions like other animals, he is not driven by them. This is what sets man apart from all other species. He must develop and exercise this capacity with the goal of achieving intellectual excellence and moral virtue.

    Is that a definition? It seems to contain a description, though hardly and exhaustive one, and a comparison to other animals, largely based on conjecture. He attributes a function to mankind in general and assigns a purpose that in observed reality is not the goal of many purposeful human activities. Does that tell us what it means to be human?

    BCE 551-479
    Confucius says that humans are naturally social, shaped and defined by their relationships in a community. Every human being has the potential to achieve ren - a state characterized by goodness, benevolence and love. Man must strive toward this moral excellence through learning, reflection, self-improvement and commitment to ethical behaviour.

    Is that a definition? It’s a different description from Aristotle’s; it takes society into the consideration of individual character and posits an innate potential. He sets a goal for man to achieve, which, in observed reality, very few men actually achieve. So, does it constitute an explanation of what it means to be human?


    800–870 CE
    Al Kindi, the first Islamic philosopher, was heavily influenced by Aristotle, but also brought his own faith to bear. He believed in a specifically human soul, rational and eternal. While also containing the lust and emotion of lower animals, man is distinguished by his intellect. The aim of man ought to be the development of intellect from potential to actual, through free inquiry and seeking after truth.

    Similar to Aristotle’s, this description also compares man to other animals and adds immortality to his rational soul. He, too, assigns a goal, which in observed reality is not pursued by the majority of humans. Does he tell us what it means to be human?


    1138-1204
    Maimonides was a prominent rabbi. He, too, distinguished man by his rational soul, which Maimonides considered a reflection of the God who created man and imbued him with the capacity for reason. Therefore, his highest aim must be to perfect his intellect; to comprehend reality and attain; his ultimate purpose, to attain a state of intellectual union with God.

    A theistic description and an injunction to strive for something that very few actual humans either comprehend or spend energy on.


    1712-1778
    Jean-Jacques Rousseau contends that human beings are essentially good; that in the state of nature, man is solitary, amoral, happy and free. This fundamental character is corrupted and constrained by civilization; only in the structures of society does man require an ethical system to safeguard individual liberty.

    Besides the inaccuracy of the solitary human, which he got from Hobbes, the description is somewhat fanciful and quite idealistic. In a solitary, amoral state, what's the point of being good, and how could you tell? But he wasn't really interested in the meaning of humans; he was interested in their social condition.


    c 5000 BCE – 1600 CE
    In Anishinaabe philosophy, being human means living in harmony with the natural world and other beings, guided by the Seven Grandfather Teachings of wisdom, love, respect, bravery, honesty, humility, and truth. This involves a lifelong commitment to being good, understanding one's place in the universe, and respecting the interconnectedness of all things.

    This is a description of North American indigenous life and ideals. Social influence is introduced via the grandfathers, and the virtues men are urged to strive for are social virtues. We see a perspective very close to that of Confucius, but no closer to a meaning.


    1818- 1883
    According to Karl Marx, human beings are inherently productive and sociable. They imbue their life with meaning through the creation of material things that express who and what they are. They find fulfillment through the free exercise of their natural powers and in interaction with their community.

    Like Rousseau’s, this view is practical. It draws a comparison, not between man and other species, but man in different relationships to his own species. Society is the major factor; no special soul or exalted intellect. Meaning is not in the species, but in individual lives.

    1963 – present
    Joanna Bourke's understanding of mankind is more subtle and malleable. She puts the human species in the context of nature and evolution, as well as its own history and cultures. She sees mankind as connected to an ecosystem that necessarily contains all other life forms. She argues that previous definitions have been too rigid, limited and self-serving. No instructions in virtue or assignment of goals; no higher purpose.

    What these philosophers are discussing is the nature of man. Because they use the word ‘human’, we may take a leap of faith and assume they include female humans. The meaning of the words ‘human’ ‘mankind’ and ‘man’ are being defined and their subject described in very narrow terms. Then each philosopher, with one exception, goes on to burden his subject with a blanket function, purpose, task and ultimate goal. All men are this; all men should do thusly; all men must aspire to that.

    What does it mean to be lettuce?

    Lettuce is a member of the daisy family, which are dicotyledonous flowering plants. Lettuce is distinguished from other plants in the Asteraceae family in that it is cultivated by humans for its edible leaves. Its purpose is to nourish humans and small livestock. It should be harvested before reproductive age and used in salads. Its main virtues are being low in calories and containing vitamin A, vitamin K, folate, and vitamin C. Lettuce must be constantly improved to maximize its nutritional benefits and become part of the very best possible salad.

    The word ‘lettuce’ means all of the above.
    That’s what a lettuce is. But what does it mean to be one?

    The word ‘banjo’ means a stringed musical instrument with a long neck and a round open-backed body consisting of parchment stretched over a metal hoop like a tambourine, played by plucking or with a plectrum. It is used especially in American folk music.

    Yes, but what does it mean to be a banjo?
    What, for that matter, does it mean to be a word?

    Whether created by some intelligence for a purpose or evolved naturally to fill a niche in its ecosystem, an entity exists. It has certain specific characteristics, properties and capabilities; that is every example of a species is similar to all the other examples – but not identical to any. Every individual has a lifespan containing a series of events, experiences and encounters that are not an exact duplicate of any other life. Sentient species perform purposeful acts; social species interact, are influenced by and form relationships with other members of their species, and intelligent ones set short- and/or long-term goals.

    Only one species, as far as I know, demands a meaning beyond its own life; asks what its significance is in some larger context, preferably the whole universe.
    So far, this quest for a meaning seems to have produced nothing more profound than descriptions, injunctions and aspirations.
    Perhaps no existence has a meaning beyond its simple, stark reality. Perhaps meaning is a human idea that cannot be made universal.

    Refences
    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Philosophy-of-mind
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-kindi/
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/
    file:///C:/Users/tomes/Downloads/286-Article%20Text-521-1-10-20210719-1.pdf
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/ojibwa
    https://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/96class22.html#:~:text=Marxism%20:%20According%20to%20Karl%20Marx,expression%20of%20what%20they%20are.
    https://www.themarginalian.org/2011/12/09/what-it-means-to-be-human-joanna-bourke/
  • hypericin
    1.7k
    I like this one a lot, very readable and compelling. Not a dry survey, we take a brief and personal trip with the author on a search for meaning.

    One strength the author may not realize: these little summations made me more sympathetic to these thinkers than I might have otherwise been. Even if the author found their answers to the question of human meaning wanting, the author succinctly made it clear to me that they all capture something significant. All answers are different, all are worthy, and all are incomplete.

    Do we have to conclude with the author that
    perhaps no existence has a meaning beyond its simple, stark reality.Moliere
    ? Not necessarily. What does 'meaning' mean, anyway? My take: properly speaking, 'meaning' is the significance in a sign-significance relationship. So properly speaking, it is a category error to ask of some thing that is not a sign, 'what is your meaning?'. But it is the most productive kind of error, the kind that makes thought rich and endless. "If human life as a whole were a sign, what would be it's significance?" There is no answer out there waiting to be discovered to such a question, any answer must be constructed by the asker. Hence the rich diversity of answers, and that no one answer can be wholly satisfactory.

    These are my thoughts, not the author's. But that's what a good essay should do, stimulate your own thinking. Thanks, and well done!
  • Amity
    5.8k
    I like this one a lot, very readable and compelling. Not a dry survey, we take a brief and personal trip with the author on a search for meaning.hypericin

    I agree - I love the quick jaunt through history from the ancients to moderns. A personal pic of mostly male thinkers pondering the question:
    What Does It Mean to Be Human?Moliere

    Interpretations and comparisons concisely summarised, leaving the reader wanting more.
    The author always questioning definitions and where meaning can be found. A snappy, critical appraisal of individual, social, traditional and ethical responses.

    The only woman, unknown to me, got my attention. Her views are refreshing, including the ecosystem.Thanks for the introduction even if, as in the other eras, another thinker could have been mentioned for balance:
    1963 – present - Joanna Bourke
    I like the pertinent summary. The nature of man. What it means to be a man ( as opposed to a woman?)

    What these philosophers are discussing is the nature of man. Because they use the word ‘human’, we may take a leap of faith and assume they include female humans. The meaning of the words ‘human’ ‘mankind’ and ‘man’ are being defined and their subject described in very narrow terms. Then each philosopher, with one exception, goes on to burden his subject with a blanket function, purpose, task and ultimate goal. All men are this; all men should do thusly; all men must aspire to that.Moliere

    A male bias in e.g. existentialism and absurdism is clear enough. I love the author's use of 'leap of faith'. It reminds me of the scorn of Camus (absurdism - absurd man) as he attacks the 'philosophical suicide' of existentialists in The Myth of Sisyphus. I laugh at the term 'the absurd hero'. What does it mean to be 'absurd'? Another story full of meaning, meaning nothing. From nothing to nothing.

    Then the fun turn to:

    What does it mean to be a lettuce? Can't help but think of the UK's unfortunate spell of Trussism. A banjo, a word. Stringing us along in a song and dance.

    Perhaps no existence has a meaning beyond its simple, stark reality. Perhaps meaning is a human idea that cannot be made universal.Moliere

    Is it in the quest itself, the process of thinking, creating, providing, writing that we find meaning?
    For some, it is found in caring relationships; love, hope and courage.
    For others, carrying a burden is what makes humans human.
    We each have our mountain to climb. Even Maslow.
    Being and becoming the best we can be in the circumstances.
    A mole making a mountain.

    Excellent references to explore. A lot of work in this essay but lightly shared. Not a great burden to read. I learned about stuff I didn't know and some long forgotten. Thanks for the stimulation.

    Edit: can't access the reference: file:///C:/Users/tomes/Downloads/286-Article%20Text-521-1-10-20210719-1.pdf
  • Amity
    5.8k
    Whether created by some intelligence for a purpose or evolved naturally to fill a niche in its ecosystem, an entity exists. It has certain specific characteristics, properties and capabilities; that is every example of a species is similar to all the other examples – but not identical to any. Every individual has a lifespan containing a series of events, experiences and encounters that are not an exact duplicate of any other life. Sentient species perform purposeful acts; social species interact, are influenced by and form relationships with other members of their species, and intelligent ones set short- and/or long-term goals.Author

    This was the first essay I read. I return now to share this thought. The structure intrigued me.
    I wondered why or how the author chose the representations. Is there an element of bias? Well, yes, it's personal. Does it matter?

    I remember picturing the evolution of man. That strong image, seen here:
    The Seven Stages of Human Evolution: Discoveries and Special Traits
    https://krmangalamvaishali.com/blogs/7-stages-of-human-evolution/

    ***
    I counted all the fascinating eras under consideration:

    1. BCE 384 – 322
    2. BCE 551-479
    3. 800–870 CE
    4. 1138-1204
    5. 1712-1778
    6. c 5000 BCE – 1600 CE
    7. 1818- 1883

    Seven male-oriented. Finally one woman!

    8.1963 – present

    Still evolving.

    At 8.
    Joanna Bourke's understanding of mankind is more subtle and malleable. She puts the human species in the context of nature and evolution, as well as its own history and cultures. She sees mankind as connected to an ecosystem that necessarily contains all other life forms. She argues that previous definitions have been too rigid, limited and self-serving. No instructions in virtue or assignment of goals; no higher purpose.Author

    From the References, I note the Marginalian article. Some excerpts:

    Bourke also admonishes against seeing the historical trend in paradigms about humanness as linear, as shifting “from the theological towards the rationalist and scientific” or “from humanist to post-humanist.” How, then, are we to examine the “porous boundary between the human and the animal”?

    In complex and sometimes contradictory ways, the ideas, values and practices used to justify the sovereignty of a particular understanding of ‘the human’ over the rest of sentient life are what create society and social life. Perhaps the very concept of ‘culture’ is an attempt to differentiate ourselves from our ‘creatureliness,’ our fleshly vulnerability.

    Curiously, Bourke uses the Möbius strip as the perfect metaphor for deconstructing the human vs. animal dilemma. Just as the one-sided surface of the strip has “no inside or outside; no beginning or end; no single point of entry or exit; no hierarchical ladder to clamber up or slide down,” so “the boundaries of the human and the animal turn out to be as entwined and indistinguishable as the inner and outer sides of a Möbius strip.” Bourke points to Derrida’s definition as the most rewarding, calling him “the philosopher of the Möbius strip.”

    Ultimately, What It Means to Be Human is less an answer than it is an invitation to a series of questions, questions about who and what we are as a species, as souls, and as nodes in a larger complex ecosystem of sentient beings. As Bourke poetically puts it,

    'Erasing the awe-inspiring variety of sentient life impoverishes all our lives.'

    The question of what makes us human becomes not one of philosophy alone but also of politics, justice, identity, and every fiber of existence that lies between.
    The Marginalian - What Does it Mean to be Human - 300 years of Definitions and Reflections
    [my emphasis]

    I like that there is no one answer to the essay's question: What Does it Mean to be Human?
    Any answers/ideas not found in philosophy alone but philosophy interacting in other spheres.

    So far, this quest for a meaning seems to have produced nothing more profound than descriptions, injunctions and aspirations.
    Perhaps no existence has a meaning beyond its simple, stark reality. Perhaps meaning is a human idea that cannot be made universal.
    Author

    The tentative conclusions make sense to me. Sometimes, all we can do is to describe.
    To share the particulars of being human as we interact with other beings in the ever-changing world. The universe and our place in it beyond our comprehension...but we never stop imagining.
  • Vera Mont
    4.8k
    Every now and then, you read a movie or book review that includes the sentiment: "explores/illustrates what it means to be human". The question has been exercising human minds since antiquity, in all cultures and belief-systems, yet none of those great minds has found a satisfactory answer.

    I remember picturing the evolution of man. That strong image, seen here:
    The Seven Stages of Human Evolution: Discoveries and Special Traits
    https://krmangalamvaishali.com/blogs/7-stages-of-human-evolution/
    Amity
    And to think they did it all without female participation!
    Until the briefcase stage - and women's role in that is still hotly contested.
    I wonder what the next stage is.
  • unenlightened
    9.7k
    Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
    The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
    Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
    But the heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCy9k_RWlvA

    This too is a kind of looking - to look is to question the world. 'Who are you?', the world asks itself. My only criticism is of that parochial, speciesist locution "human". Does anyone out there still think we are the crown of creation?
  • Vera Mont
    4.8k
    Does anyone out there still think we are the crown of creation?unenlightened
    I strongly suspect the majority of humans do. More sadly, a large proportion of that majority still restrict that crown to male humans of European origin.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.5k
    A nice little reflection on human nature, an issue which can be explored from so many different angles. Here, historical examples are included. I felt that the present era was glossed over a bit too lightly, but that probably shows how understanding of human nature is so bound up with thinking about human meaning and theories in general.

    One book which I I found extremely useful for thinking about human nature is 'Seven Theories of Human Nature', by Leslie Stevenson. It compares the approaches of Plato, Christianity, Freud, Marx, Lorenz, Skinner and Sartre. This choice of thinkers definitely doesn't have any female perspectives! It all shows the various partialities of any descriptions and understanding of what it means to be human.
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.9k
    It’s a different description from Aristotle’s; it takes society into the consideration of individual character and posits an innate potential


    Yes, but in some ways it is surprisingly similar. Also, if you consider that for Aristotle man is also "the political animal," the society part is definitely a major theme too.

    I'd consider the wide appeal of virtue ethics, in not all that dissimilar forms, in Europe, the Near East, India, and China, throughout most of history, to be a sort of "robustness check" on the idea. It only really gets opposed by a late movement in the West that is explicitly trying to tear down everything about the old order.
  • Amity
    5.8k

    Thanks for the reminder. To engage with the passages. I meant to return, especially to this:

    c 5000 BCE – 1600 CE
    In Anishinaabe philosophy, being human means living in harmony with the natural world and other beings, guided by the Seven Grandfather Teachings of wisdom, love, respect, bravery, honesty, humility, and truth. This involves a lifelong commitment to being good, understanding one's place in the universe, and respecting the interconnectedness of all things.

    This is a description of North American indigenous life and ideals. Social influence is introduced via the grandfathers, and the virtues men are urged to strive for are social virtues. We see a perspective very close to that of Confucius, but no closer to a meaning.
    Author

    Why no closer to a meaning? What does it mean to be human? Story telling in a community? To reach a better understanding of life as a work in progress. To keep it real.

    Wiki says more but this excerpt appeals:

    The Anishinaabe follow an oral storytelling tradition.[32] Storytelling serves as an integral part of Anishinaabe culture as "stories teach the stock of wisdom and knowledge found in the culture" and "promotes 'respectful individualism," wherein individuals do not force their thinking upon others.[33] Instead of directly teaching right and wrong, the Anishinaabe often use storytelling to share their history and cultural truths, including but not limited to the Teachings of the Seven Grandfathers.[33] Stories often "provide important lessons for living and give life purpose, value, and meaning."[34]: 184  They can further "include religious teachings, metaphysical links, cultural insights, history, linguistic structures, literary and aesthetic form, and Indigenous 'truths'."[32] By understanding traditional stories, individuals can better understand themselves, their world, where they came from, and where they are going.[34]: 184–185 

    Storytelling is situational, meaning that storytellers must be mindful of audience, of listener, and [should] keep the oration accessible and real."[32] When a story is shared, "[t]he teller and the listener are equally activie; the listener is not passive."[32] Furthermore, stories told are not static: "Once they become public, people will play will them, embellish them, and add to them ... There is no need for any particular story to have any particular form. Nor is it the case that any one story can ever be said to have achieved its final form. Instead, all stories are works in progress."[33]
    Wiki - Anishinaabe
  • Moliere
    5.8k
    I regret not having responded in time for your passing Vera. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Yours is a good reflection on one of those perennial philosophical questions, and I enjoyed the quirky contrast between asking what it means to be human and what it means to be lettuce -- two questions of the same form but which we'd probably want to treat differently, so what's the difference?

    Rest in Peace, Vera.
  • I like sushi
    4.9k
    Purpose. Do we make it, are we drawn along by it, or are we the substance of purpose itself?

    Whatever purpose means to us it seems to be inextricably the primary feature of human life lived rather than existed.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.