I have thought about this question many times, although I can’t find a satisfying answer I found some interesting points. Firstly I see being human as being everything that animals dont’ have. With this we can see that being human would be to abstain from our desires. I say this because, animals follow what ever they desire, their desires dictate their life, yet i also see that we should indulge in some desires such as the desire to live. Another aspect would be that we must not react instinctively, since this is what animals do in nature, we should transcend that by using reason to govern life. These are the two main ideas that are fundamental to human nature in my belief. I want to see what you guys think of this, as I know Locke, Dennet, Baier and Warren commented on what it is to be a person, i wonder what is it to be human.
How do you distinguish between the self and the instinct or the desire?
Man is an animal whose type is not yet fixed - Nietzsche (he was right, too)
Being human means we have more and more refined attitudes,senses, feelings, responsiblities, needs, desires, mental abilities, then our fellow creatures, I have always seen human qualities in all creatures or shared qualities if you will, we all share common things with all creatures. Our ability to apply these qualities or aspects may be the reason we are who we are. From the smallest insect and plants to the largest animal, I see parts of our makeup in them. Scientists have fancy names for all the chemicals and biologies we share. We are not the fastest, nor the largest, nor the oldest, we don’t have the longest life spans, we don’t have to rely on specialized diets, we can be at home in the water air or land, certain animals can be smarter then certain humans, we don’t have the largest population, Our society can be less complicated or more complicated then certain other creatures. So what makes us human? We do, we are the ones that can destroy the entire world with a button. No other creature here can do that, we can destroy the world by breeding apathy. we took ourselves out of the loop and made it all ours by deciept, honesty, greed, generousity, theft, giving etc. we are human hear us burp.
The truth of what it is to be a human being, I’ll tell you after I am perished.
For now human being is nothing more then what society made you. A human being is a slave to society’s ideas, and we can’t do nothing but to accept this.
The truth of what it is to be a human being, I’ll tell you after I am perished.
For now human being is nothing more then what society made you. A human being is a slave to society’s ideas, and we can’t do nothing but to accept this.
end of discussion
The “what is it to be human?” question I believe belongs more properly to anthropology, though since all questions are ultimately philosophical questions, it certainly has a place within the discourse of philosophy. However, the most important data we can collect in order to answer this question must be gathered from the real world, that is, we must go out and study humans within various cultures and societies. The impossibility of placing oneself absolutely outside of all cultures seems to cast doubt on any final possibility of answering this sort of question (“What is it to be human?”) in any way that isn’t linked specifically to ones culture. Now to the specific points raised:
Blindseer:
Good post! A few things…
Shouldn’t it be: ‘everything that animals AREN’T’? And what if people are animals?
Desire can be thought of as the common motivator of all animal AND all human actions. Perhaps you’re getting at the concept of duty, that is, doing what is morally right even when it conflicts with my desires or self-interest.
You bring up the necessity of continued survival, but with it comes an endless circle: an animal exists only to continue its existence, so what’s the point? With humans there certainly seems to be a “point” to our existences that lies beyond simple physical continuation of our bodies. That is, because we’re conscious, we’re able to perceive and ascribe meaning to events, to others, to ourselves, etc.
It’s this ability to reflexively contemplate our situations–and make ethical decisions based on these contemplations–that ultimately separates us from animals. Note that I’m not saying that animals are unconscious or subconscious… merely that they’re not self-consciously ethical as humans are (or can be, anyway.)
A good point. Animals don’t seem to possess that quality in humans we identify as ‘rationality.’ I want to say that reason can be thought of as self-reflective consciousness and so fit in nicely with the statement I’m making above. However, the question remains whether reason is singular–that is, is logic objective or subjective?
Western thought tends to objectify logic and reason to a large extent, yet I am still unconvinced–one merely needs to consider the Austrailian aboriginals response during WWII to the missionaries reports of war. After being told that all men are brothers and that many tens of thousands of men were being killed by other men, they decided (quite logically) that either the missionaries were lying about Jesus or about the war.
Yet those two (seemingly contradictory) beliefs were ‘rationally’ held simultaneously by the Western missionaries. Maybe reason isn’t as singular and simple as we tend to think!
someoneisatthedoor:
This reminds me of Sartre’s famous dictum that existence precedes essence. If we’re still asking the question of what man is, it’s only because we haven’t decided who we are!
By deciding who I am, I make an ethical decision that decides what the rest of humanity should strive for–not only because we all set examples for one another, but because as a singular consciousness, the responsibility lies solely on my shoulders for my own behavior.
As Nietzsche pointed out, this doesn’t really square with the idea of an absolute God, or at best makes Her irrelevant, to most of the decisions faced by humans.
dan020350:
I see what you’re getting at, but I can’t buy this at all. We’re slaves, perhaps, in an economic sense, but our beliefs are free. Certainly there are societal influences–our family, the dominant political party, the media, our teachers, etc. But at root society is simply other people. And so you’re saying everyone is enslaved to everyone else.
Yet we have free will, so we can choose to believe what society says or believe what we want. Likewise in our actions. The fact that we can’t escape society except by escaping all other people makes my point exactly: the existence of another person necessarily limits my freedom, yet does not make me a slave to him, unless he’s got a gun to my face–and even then, he cannot control my ideas, only attempt to use force to influence my actions.
We are separated by an infinite gulf from the actions and faces of others and of society. Yet–the substance of an individual seems to stem essentially from society. What do you think, Dan?
Damn right he was! Problem is he may never get fixed and the statement stands for the rest of ‘human’ history.
I think what it means to be human is to rise above
instincts. Animals cannot, no matter what, cannot rise above
their instincts. The human creature can.
Kropotkin
I’m still not sure how we’ve decided that instincts and desires are different from the ‘self’ that’s supposed to rise above them. To be human isn’t to reject everything that’s similar to the animal: without instinctive desires and selfishness, there really isn’t an identity from which rationality and awareness can stem.
I agree with someoneisatthedoor’s quote as well: humans are developing toward something, although I don’t think that something will completely reject what’s being referred to as animal instincts.
Discussion is very much a part of being human, I don’t think you can end it so arbitrarily. The problem with your thesis is that humans created society and its ideas, so humanity is humanity’s slave; while that’s certainly true, just as a rock is that same rock’s slave, it doesn’t get us very far in discussion.
The right sequence of DNA.
so insightfull, thanks Doc 
…in which the chimpanzee is a 98% shareholder. It seems we haven’t yet reached escape velocity and the reason why we’re still a bunch of nitpickers.
Lets hope the gap doesn’t become more narrow then it already is.
JoeTheMan, you ever read any Xunzi? He believes that the only thing which seperates man from animals is the sense of duty.
What about Ethiopian naked moles? What about prarie dogs? They both demonstrate altrustic behaviour. Is that not duty? Does sacrificing one’s self not count as rising above instinct?
Are we free of instincts control? Are our pets? Any pet owner will tell you that all their animals demonstrate a variety of personality traits that it would be difficult to argue are governed purely by instinct.
Man is a social animal, but not a terribly special one. We’re just a touch smarter than the rest, but suffer all the same limitations of any other animal.
I think as time progresses the only thing that will really separate humans from anything else (I’m thinking robots here) will be the capacity for humor.
We don’t even understand it yet really…
Try having a text convo with what could be big blue and try and deduce whether it’s a human or a robot. The body is the easy part, it’s getting the algorithms.
Doc said DNA sequences but is a clone a human? Is a manufactured robot with our biological structure human?
I say if it can make me laugh it might as well be. Or perhaps it is the start of the overman, for instance when we start putting our consciousness into computers/robots.
The question of ‘What is it to be human?’ is one which is already answered by each of our existences. Our subjective, individual experiences of the universe are only half of this equation; that elusive self-conscious reflective experience of ‘what-it-is-to-be-myself’ is the other half. Note that contrary to Dr. Satanical’s point about DNA, the question of ‘What is it to be human?’ is a different one than ‘What is a human?’ The second is, at least on the surface, a question answerable by physical science. The body of a human is an animal’s body. Yet, to a degree, it is certain qualities of our bodies and physical behavior that separate us from the other animals-- but this whole line of argument leaves the first question–that of human existence–out of the loop completely. To answer this question involves both an outward look at society (as abstract) and other people (as particulars.) This question also requires an inward gaze…
Xunzian:
I confess I’m not extremely familiar with Xunzi, but I believe he was a reformer of Confucianism, which would corroborate what you’re saying about the idea of duty, which was certainly as central a theme in Confucius’ writings as honor or tradition.
Ave, I am new to this site and this is my first post. I will say nothing more of myself other than that I am Solus Animus and I am no older than 18. Anyway, as regards your question, I have my own beliefs upon human nature and the human “self.”
I believe a great margin of difference between humans and other animals is awareness. By awareness, i mean the question. Humans waste their time wondering where they come from, why the live and such, while animals do not. They are much less aware of such things because all that matters to them is 1) Survival 2) Nourishment and 3) Reproduction. The human nature is of curiosity, one of our basic driving forces. Would a man possessing no curiosity whatsoever put the chocolate chips in the cookie? Would he waste his time to try putting meat in front of fires to see if it tasted better? Why would any of that matter if, either way, survival was there?
Right now, I’m trying to tackle the idea of abstract thought and fit it into my model of belief. Another difference between humans and animals is this abstract thought, Whereas an animal is direct and worries about only the three things, humans are exactly the same but we “rationalize and abstract.” Although I myself believe in a God, religion is a good example of abstract thinking to complete one of the three goals. If there is a God, then of course we get to live forever (that would be number one of the list). Do animals think about God? Hardly because it is very indirect to survival, nor do they possess that curiosity.
At any rate, it’s best I stop myself now because I tend to ramble on writing my thoughts as they come to me. I hope this helped in some way to job your thinking. Maybe you’d be interested in reading my post about human “selfness” whenever I post it. Look for it.
Because unknow, unknow how to love make human desire to seperate human being from non human life.
Because unknow how to love make human compare human-self with non human life.
Because unknow how to love make human look down non human life.
Because unknow how to love make human think human-self superior to non human life.
Have you ever seen a dog desired to bite someguy but change its mind because that guy has a clud in his hand? That’s a self protection like a human.
Have you ever seen a cat tried to eat a fish in jar but change its mind after several trial? That’s a learning, like a human.
Have you ever seen a bull ran away but chang its my and come back to protect its baby? That’s a love of parenthood, like human.
Have you ever seen a guy hit someone on head because anger? That’s like animal.
Have you ever seen a girl left her newborn in trash because unwanted pregnant? That’s like some animal.
Have you ever seen a crowd of people fought for food because of poverty? That’s like animal.
If human know how to love other life, they would not seperate human-self from non human life.
If human know how to love other life, they would not compare human-self with non human life.
If human know how to love other life, they would not look down non human life.
If human know how to love other life, they would not think what’s human what’s non human life.
If all life know how to love together there would not be human or non human life.
"There is nothing less noble for a human than to show that he is one. "
(Adlerian’s good friend, Balthasar Gracian)
I am a bit reluctant to set the immovable boundary between humans and other animals on principles like rthe ability to reason or morality, as both of these have been found in small traces in other creatures too. Elements of morality have been discovered in non-human species, particularly other primates. Some possess a ‘sense of fairness’, and many have certain codes of conduct that “underlie their social interactions and almost certainly developed as adaptive strategies to help individuals cooperate and cope with conflict.” It is also an accepted fact that a hand-full of monkeys can associate objects to use them as tools; chimps can develop a sense for understanding abstract messages, and I can particularly remember an experiment where one chimp could perform simple mathematical operations applied to bananas or something. Rare cases, such as Old Gobbo, develop a superior intelect and can even go by as witty humans.
Nothing conclusive yet, then.
And indeed, some people are more of a monkey than the monkey itself.
The only thing that I would like to singularize about humans as a good thing and a plus (and the one which I think is exclusive to our species) is the ability to unite harmonious design into a feature we call ‘beauty’, the capacity of being affected by its numerous avatars, and the desire to recreate it through art. This is man at its highest, and it is truly a good reason why I am proud for not being a hedge-hog.
Just take a look:
[/list]
Humans desire to learn. Other creatures may be capable of “learning”, but they all do it out of instinct rather than desire.
…Just my two cents, anyways. 