The Human Definition Of Human

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The man is only such, because he has the ability to wield human definition.

Without his own essence, he could never profess his existence, or begin to classify it. Because we need ourselves to define ourselves, and this very judgment is under those same definitions; the spectre of consciousness is something more than a tangible physical process.

Is the pinnacle of evolution finally being able to question it? Or is a question evoked from a more mysterious resonance of circular consciousness, not associated with evolutionary tendencies. Because humans, to their own existence, have surpassed evolutionary “law”, and are now able to observe and qualify it; are we now at the pinnacle of progressive growth?; having the ability to define its tendencies.

Is the epitome of relative exponential superiority being able to question that superiority and recognize it?

Beastly things do not find meaning in skeptical thought, but the untrusting “unnatural” human does. Do we finally surpass the common day evolution of physical spectrum when we are able to recognize it as such?
To some, this is circular logic, but to me, the break in the flow of semantic stimulation is concieved by yet, another form of human consciousness.

We cannot concieve messages to destroy our consciousness, and this compilation of ideas is also subject to that discretion. The only thing holding these ideas forward is yet, another observational form of human consciouness defining the definition of itself. Once these levels are met, the audience consciousness is the true break in human vicarious observation; it is closer to a collective approach at defining humanity as a whole.

Can we observe ourselves, retaining our humanity, and still find credibility in human observation? We are truly human, so how can we define ourselves in relation to a larger whole; humanity? We are insignificant. Is our relation to this larger whole credible, because again, we are only a small portion?

Tell me.

2

We are not insignificant as (as far as ‘we’…well I, you may know something I don’t :stuck_out_tongue:) can define significance.

We can observe ourselves, the act is not binary; we can still achieve some measure of success pursuing a flawed endeavour.

The pinnacle of evolution is not its observation (in others) but the observation of it in ourselves and overcoming it.

Your Post probably deserves more than this but that is all I can offer.

3

In my relative proportions, my existence is already defined as an insignificance. Again, going back to my original point, however: How can we define that insignificance if we ourselves are subject to it’s tendencies. If we are insignificant, how can we derive truth from a lack of omniscience. Without the complete and total knowledge of the universe, we cannot begin to define our relation to it and still expect credibility from a higher vantage point.

Basically. When we look at ourselves, we utilize our own abilities to define those very abilities; thus creating circular consciousness. But because of this, there is an inherent bias in that definition for it was also subject to the inabilities of that observation that disable it from seeing a total circumstance.

We need eyes to see our eyes. Without them we are blind to the truth of sight, but opened to a different perspective. So: with those eyes in place, how can we expect to define the other senses without using them. Some what of an analogy.

Haha. If only wisdom was quantitative. I like your words, they are quick and objective.
What you’ve said is enough of a point.