What is essential to being a human being?
Last night I was listening to explanations of the philosophy of education and one began with a question about the qualities of being human. I do not agree that intelligence is an essential characteristic of being human. I work with people who can not read and can not do even the most basic math. They are adults living in a foster home because they can not safely care for themselves. I think we can agree they do NOT have the intelligence necessary for survival yet I think we also agree they are human.
I am wondering what others have to say about the characteristics of a human being and also how are these characteristics gained? It is my understanding children who have not been touched and nurtured do not develop the ability to bond. They may not learn a language and may not adjust to social living. Can we have human form without the characteristics normally associated with being human?
I am wondering what others have to say about the characteristics of a human being and also how are these characteristics gained? It is my understanding children who have not been touched and nurtured do not develop the ability to bond. They may not learn a language and may not adjust to social living. Can we have human form without the characteristics normally associated with being human?
Comments (194)
Cats have bodies.
Are cats in the species homo sapiens? I do not think so.
The trap consists of looking for a conclusive answer, something stable, reasoning with a mentality oriented towards static concepts. Since we are immersed in history, which means a lot of epochs and a lot of places, any answer is easily exposed to be demolished, criticized or, as I said, it becomes just a sterile endless discussion.
We know that, over time and according to different places of our planet, a lot of different ideas, even opposite, conflicting and oppressive ideas have been kept as stable about what means to be human, or a person, but the question can be extended to everything: what is truth, what is freedom, and so on.
So, I think the best answer to your question is a methodology of work, with some criteria like the following ones:
1) as I said, try not to fall into traps of static thinking
2) which means: let’s work on provisional answers, and then work again, and then again and again;
3) in this work let’s use the best resources we have: dialogue, space for opposite perspectives, welcoming criticism, research, space for science and for criticism of science;
4) let's make decisions, but they must be always considered provisional, temporary decisions.
So, today I would say: what is essential to being human being is to be perceived as human by other humans. It seems circular, but I think it is not: I think that, as a starting point, everybody assumes they are humans, so, let’s consider humans those you think are humans, by using your sensitivity, history, culture, science.
Your question involves the huge debates about abortion: by considering this you can realize, again, how sterile it is to look for definite conclusions.
My answer is aimed at opening discussion by helping towards perspectives, not to be a conclusion.
I would add that we need to make a good use of subjectivity and objectivity in order to work well on it.
A human cell has human DNA, it is human, but it is not a human being.
Exactly my point. How can having a body be definitive of being a human when all kinds of clearly non-human things have bodies?
So apparently it does need to be more complicated than that.
Am I supposed to list every cell combination within the human body? You know what I meant. I'm sure you want people to respect your intent when you post, give it to others as well please.
It was not my intention to be rude: I just did some criticism, by applying some reflection. If criticism, disagreement, looking from another perspective, becomes lack of respect, what else can we do here?
I think I see your point: if a certain number of cells with a human DNA are organized in a certain way to give as a result a whole, complete, living body, then that being can be definitely considered a human being.
Well, let’s think of a terminal person: that person is unable to give signs of conscience, electronic devices are unable to tell us if that person has still any sensitivity. Hopes of survival are maximum a couple of hours. The body of that person is terribly suffering for a consuming cancer. Shall we kill that person to stop that suffering or not?
I created this hypothesis to support what I said: I am sure that, for any static, definitive, conclusive answer, it is possible to find at least one hypothetical case that puts that answers in a crisis, in a difficulty, showing that that answer is not definitive at all.
I take the view that the defining characteristic is language. At least that appears the most obvious, in that non-human primates and other animals don't have it.
I think Heidegger et al. would disagree with this. In his view, human being is an openness, or a "clearing." I'm sympathetic to this view as well.
What is openness or a clearing? Potential?
Quoting Athena
I've never explored this question in depth as I suspect it is largely a product of perspective and I'm not sure it is of significant use to me. I generally hold that humans are clever animals who use language to manage their environment. Most humans seem to require social contact and some form of validation and emotional comfort and an experience of love (however that looks for them). How do we develop our characteristics? Not sure it matters to me. In talking to people who have suicidal ideation, the most common themes (apart form traumatic histories) are that they feel isolated, misunderstood and devalued by family/friends/society. Seems to me human desire to connect meaningfully with others and how successful we are in achieving this, tends to determine whether we are content or resentful.
Personally I think both are words for awareness. Dasein gets translated as the "there," "being-there." I think the "there" is existence, being -- "there-being," in other words. The "there" -- existence -- is this awareness, this opening.
I think Heidegger is referring to being in a particular situation. Being-here, Being-there. The situatedness of being.
I perfectly agree, it is obviously fundamental to human rights that such people are cared for. I lived for a long while beside a group home for intellectually disabled men, who had carers and social workers to look after them. I often reflected that in many poorer countries such people would be left in the care of relatives or abandoned to their fate. It was heart-warming to see the lengths that had been gone to to care for these people some of whom had the mental age of small children.
However, that said, intellectually disabled persons are not representative of being human. I suppose to put it in classical terms of essence and accident, their disability is an accident whilst their humanity is essential. I also agree with the Aristotelian classification of the human as 'rational animal', in that we're clearly descended from and related to all other species from a biological perspective, but that the ability to reason, think and speak distinguishes humans from other animals in a fundamental way.
This is a non-answer but surely draws the point home. Understanding of the passage of time and its ability to utilize it to extend what is beyond yourself. Not mechanistic acknowledgement of impulse based on biological analysis vetted by either direct process or evolutionary "killing floor" (though that's a theory as well). Creation. Preservation. Beyond "I hunger", beyond "I am here, you are there", "this works, therefore it will work again". Imagination. Dreams. The squirrel stores nuts away for the winter because every squirrel that did not froze to death, rather it is probable the modern squirrel was singled out by said now-frozen-to-death squirrels at the squirrel luncheon.. whatever they have and so had to store them elsewhere. The squirrel who stored his food elsewhere lived, those who didn't, did not. Just as the beaver builds a dam. It knows not what it does, it simply does. A monkey can paint a cave painting if taught to, just as cats flick their tongue at you if you try to give them a kiss, or a dog "shakes hands" with you.
Understanding of Passage of time meaning past, present, and future. A dog remembers the face of a person who abused them and so experiences fear or other emotion if the same person is around. The same dog will also know when they are being rewarded and showered with affection. Also (though I can't name the study) a dog in a cage with other dogs in slaughter who witness dogs before them being killed will sense dread and impending doom. This is something like elephants "mourning" their dead. They see their reflection in a pristine pool of water as they drink. They see one another as they grow up and such image becomes a visual cue of biological value, the herd moving together is strong, a still version of oneself is troublesome and biologically "off".
There are stark differences between animals and people. Though I agree the definitions for both, rather distinctions between have somewhat lost meaning as of late.
To avoid the language game, I find it more important to ask the moral question, as in how ought we treat people and what are the aspects we most highly value in people.
In the folks you work with, surely I would not claim myself more human than they because I'm smarter and more intellectually gifted, but I still find those traits specially (although not uniquely) human. That is, as much as we realize they'll never read and do math, we would provide them educational opportunities and instruction befitting their ability. To deny them intellectual development that they could achieve would be inhumane.
So, no, I don't think intellectualism makes us human, but to deny it, denies our living up to the height of our creation, and so it is a human thing to link our intellectual, emotional, and spiritual development to our humanity.
Heidegger’s questionable take on the difference between Dasein and animals:
“The specific manner in which man is we shall call comportment and the specific manner in which the animal is we shall call behaviour.
An animal can only behave but can never apprehend something as something-which is not to deny that the animal sees or even perceives. Yet in a fundamental sense the animal does not have perception.”
“Now if something resembling a surrounding environment is open for the animal and its behaviour, we must now ask whether it is possible to clarify this any further. Instinctual and subservient capability for ... , the totality of its self-absorbed capability, is an interrelated drivenness of the instinctual drives which encircles the animal. It does so in such a way that it is precisely this encirclement which makes possible the behaviour in which the animal is related to other things.
But these encircling rings belonging to the animals, within which their contextual behaviour and instinctual activity moves, are not simply laid down alongside or in between one another but rather intersect with one another. The wood worm, for example, which bores into the bark of the oak tree is encircled by its own specific ring. But the woodworm itself, and that means together with this encircling ring of its own, finds itself in turn within the ring encircling the woodpecker as it looks for the worm. And this woodpecker finds itself in all this within the ring encircling the squirrel which startles it as it works. Now this whole context of openness within the rings of captivation encircling the animal realm is not merely characterized by an enormous wealth of contents and relations which we can hardly imagine, but in all of this it is still fundamentally different from the manifestness of beings as encountered in the world -forming Dasein of man.”
I agree with this, but I think it's an extremely unpopular opinion. I think the social dynamics are like this: in secular culture, 'nature' is the nearest remaining thing to the idea of the sacred. Hence the prominence of environmentalism, respect for first nations peoples, and so on - both of which are commendable in themselves. But the idea that humanity is something separate from nature is then attributed to the Judeo-Christian mythology of 'stewardship' and identified with colonialism and the rule of dead white males. So the assertion of the difference, let alone the superiority, of h. sapiens, is highly politically incorrect.
But the problem is, this attitude doesn't allow us to take responsibility for the fact that we obviously are completely different to other animals (something which I've found hardly anyone will agree with). We build cities and machines....well, where do you stop. We have to own up to our differences, and to understand what it means to be human - which of course no other animal can do. And regarding ourselves as kinds of animals helps us evade that rather terrible responsibility.
But in the spirit of sportsmanship, I won't identify who that is. For personal purposes, I'm scoring the answers. :cool:
No, it’s a good question. At this point I wouldn’t speak for anyone but myself, so I won’t pretend to give any authoritative answer.
But for me, I see awareness as synonymous with consciousness — and what is consciousness? Just “being” here. It’s this. The most basic thing in the world. I can’t give a much better description, unfortunately.
Quoting Jackson
Hmm. I think there’s something to that, in the sense that we’re always “up to” something. Seeing a human being as a kind of situation is interesting.
Appreciate the quotations. Interesting stuff.
I don’t want to digress into Heidegger here, so I’ll just leave it at that.
The reason I care is because he’s original, challenging, and interesting.
You have asked an interesting question and it is fairly difficult because people vary so much. However, there may be some underlying aspects of human nature, or essential aspects of motivation. Maslow speaks of the hierarchy of needs which begin from physical to the social ones with the need for self-actualization as the highest ones. All these aspects may be linked to what a human being may become.
Part of the issue of what is essential to being human is the way in which life circumstances can bring out so many different aspects and education may be about cultivating the best possibilities. There is the question of nature and nurture as a questionable area with genetic determinants but what happens in early life may be extremely influential, as stressed by the child psychologists, including John Bowlby. The role of trauma may have a critical effects on core development of personality.
The process of becoming is a life long art, and what happens at any stage can either make or break a person. However, it may be that working on oneself, in spite of difficult life experiences, as the idea of 'the examined life's may be about reflection on the narrative of experience, as an important process of being human in a consciously aware way. This conscious awareness can be about becoming a person in a unique sense.
On the contrary, I think this is one of the most important questions we face. How we answer it, even tacitly, has significant social/political repercussions.
We can throw our hands up and say it’s futile to discuss. That’s fine — but answers are held anyway. I’d rather be participating than sitting out simply because a permanent solution doesn’t exist. I don’t find it futile talking about God either, despite how amorphous a term it is— especially when such a term is used as justification for immoral behavior.
I think creativity, especially in the use of language, is an essential aspect of human being/human nature. I believe this factually, and I like to emphasize it morally. I don’t see anything futile about that.
We can hold tentative beliefs and operate on the basis of them. They do not have to be static, ultimate truths on which there is no disagreement.
Heidegger got his model of animal functioning from Jakob von Uexküll, a pioneer in biosemiotics.
Let's see if I can tackle these ones together. Right up there with DNA is identifying the shape of the skull and the hand and footprints. I am thrilled by the explanations archeologist give for their discoveries of these things and related artifacts, such a as chipped stone, signs of a controlled fire, etc.. That kind of goes with Quoting Angelo Cannata. There are times we conclude something is the sign of humans because of what we believe we know of the history of our development. We have determined there were different species of humans, with different characteristics, and drawing that line between a human and the more ape-like animal we evolved from is an interesting prospect.
I am not sure about language being a determinating factor? Our language and bird languages share commonalities. And back to Angelo's concern what is that history? Sumerians did not have a language for classification that is essential to our sciences. The consciousness we have today is very different from past consciousness, and this is right up there with my concern that we can be human and not be every intelligent. All this thinking comes out of thinking about education. How should we prepare children for life? My intended goal is to break through assumptions that might be a problem when making education decisions.
Having a good notion of what a human is, and how they come to be as they are, is essential to education and the society it manifests. The language of the Bible and the language of science will manifest very different civilizations. Back in the day, women stayed home to care for the family and their domestic language and mental patterns were very different from the language and mental patterns of college graduates. We classify things and concepts, so we can be conscious of the things and the concepts and then manifest the civilization we value through conscious effort.
Not all people seek love. For many, what is most important is the power to get what they want. That power to get what we want is more apt to get us what we want than "love". Social status may be more fundamentally important than love? I am glad you made me aware of this in the context of this thread.
"devalued by family/friends/society" My concern is our education for technology has greatly increased the problem of feeling devalued and the violent outbreak of suicides and mass murders that we are experiencing today. Thank you for participating in this thread.
I do not think any other animals can have a notion of spirits.
You all have made this thread everything I hoped it would be and more. :heart:
:up:
When quibbling has become a habit then all discourses become quibbling. Which obviously doesn’t even come close to a collaborative dialogue.
While acknowledging the fact that ‘western philosophy’ has become nothing but ‘essentially’ an expression of quibbling, each trying to defend their ‘beliefs’, one cannot help but recognize the fact that philosophy essentially is a love for wisdom as defined by the so called ‘founding’ fathers. (Rather silly when one recognizes the love for wisdom is as old as the beginnings of humanity and existed even before the Greeks developed their alphabets).
Naturally, a superficial discourse with little or no interest for the fact of the matter (which we may also call truth of the matter) will indeed be nothing but quibbling, especially when these so called ‘discourses’ are covert vehement defenses of one’s beliefs and affiliations, one’s lifelong investments. The box one lives in.
But if the fact of the matter/truth of the matter, along with a love for wisdom, is of any importance, than one cannot be biased to the accident without looking at the essence. The entire thing is looked into, as it should. Course this implies (requisite) one is already free from the box, which is perhaps a tall order considering the state of so called ‘humans’. It seems they would rather quibble and do anything possible to be secure in their box.
However, if at some point they succeed in breaking the box (Ha!) and are able to walk out from the illusory safety of “linguistic definitions”, or shall we say their House of Cards, then they will realize that every real problem is solved by living, not by definitions. In fact continuous living has no room for problems, it is entirely expression. Every problem so far is an incapacity for life. So to get out of this defensive quibbling linguistic box is the initial challenge, eh.
As always, your thinking is compatible with mine, which is always so surprising to me because we are so different! Why does so much of our thinking appear to be the same? Our life circumstances are very different.
Yes, I am concerned about lifelong learning and I totally believe, in the past, education for citizenship in the US was about lifelong learning. Voters are supposed to learn so they can figure out the best reasoning and base their votes on the best reasoning for what is good for the nation, not want is good for them personally at the moment. Democracy comes out of philosophy and the belief that humans can learn and live by reason. The pursuit of happiness means gaining knowledge. As you said "The process of becoming is a life long art," Our democracies are not worth defending without that understanding.
"the idea of 'the examined life's maybe about reflection on the narrative of experience," This is the wonderful benefit of having long-lived people. When we are young we need to fill ourselves up with life. Our later years are a time of reflection as we are full of life and wonder what the meaning of it is. We have so much to offer but in a technological society centered on money, what is best about being human, is wasted.
We naturally pay more attention to what threatens us so "The role of trauma" can play a controlling force in our lives, but so can a loving supportive family play a controlling force in our lives. We must keep both in mind, so we know not only want to avoid but what to seek and manifest. ?Daniel Kahneman's books about thinking are very important to our understanding of being human and how our brains work.
Human beings can be as animals. They can be reactive and may go through life with almost zero thinking! Just because we have thoughts in our heads it doesn't mean we are thinking. Some people believe the Bible is the word of God, and others can not understand how a thinking person can believe that. How do I say this? There is a difference between holding a thought and reacting, and being a thinking person. This video clarifies the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU
Pleasing God does not require thinking. In fact, the Bible is very clear about the wrong of wanting knowledge. Having a successful democracy does require thinking. Preparing the young to be products for industry is equal to training dogs. It is not education for thinking. At least not in the US. I think some countries are doing much better in preparing citizens to think.
Oh dear, I want to pull this back to what this has to do with being human. :lol: Humans come in different flavors. Some of them do more thinking than others. How we are taught to think really matters, but now I am on my soap box and that isn't what I want to do. I want to know what others think.
Perhaps it's just an advanced understanding of consequences. "If I do this I might go to jail" or "people will find out and come after me", even "God might punish me", etc. I'unno. :confused:
Edit: Beaver dams are actually pretty advanced. They're little lodges and together something like a little city. Sure not like a human city, perhaps because since it meets all their beaver needs as-is, it doesn't have to be. Despite their size, ant cities are incredibly advanced and they even practice agriculture within them. Fascinating.
The post about "humans build cities" and all the innovations (medicine, exploring and surviving in hostile places be it a parched desert, a frozen tundra, an oxygen-deprived mountain, or space itself is unique seeing as few animals with the exception of microscopic life can "survive anywhere on Earth") would probably be my answer as well but it has a caveat attached. Animals can't perform surgery or splint a broken limb but they can lick their wounds and kill bacteria, sometimes performing medicine. They can't build a spaceship and go to space but they can explore otherwise hostile environments using objects, not a great example but a snail or similar animal that moves into a shell. These seem almost laughable to compare to human endeavors but scaled down to their needs and abilities, it works for them and frankly isn't too dissimilar.
I think restraint is a part of it. One has so many more options if one can slow down the reactions.
A lot of inventing is about giving oneself more time. A situation seems impossible, and we tread water and combine ideas to see the problem a different way. Patience as a result of urgent demands.
That aspect is a feature in parenting as a model. It goes both ways.
The sugestions:
Quoting Jackson
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
all pretend to be discoveries, as if being human had to be this way, and no other, but when you look closer each is an imposition. Each will rule someone in as human and someone else out - the physically disabled, the genetically divergent (non Aryan...), the non-verbal, the unconscious; and in ruling out some folk who we would otherwise call human, each fails. But further, each has political implications, each implies that we ought act one way towards some folk and another way towards others.
One way to view this is as a failing of the idea that there are essences, that there is an indispensable quality to this or that concept. It's just not so; there need be no single quality or group of properties that rule this thing in but that thing out. This is the point behind Family Resemblance: we do not need essences in order for a word to be useful. Indeed, we commonly use words without being able to provide a rule for that use. And if you look further, you might see that this must be so; if we are ale to judge if this or that rule sets out the essence of some category, we must be able to judge wether this or that fits the category without reference to the rule.
sets this out nicely. Asking for an essence is a way to ensure a long and fruitless thread.
says much the same thing as I have, that definitions are "not at all be metaphysical, but will be linguistic". Hanover suggests that a moral approach is preferable. I'll go a step further and say that including ethics here is inevitable. Again, each definition has political, and hence ethical, implications. It's a shame he then goes on to posit intellect as somehow essential to being human. It might be worth asking what other characteristics are found in the human family: compassion, empathy, curiosity; and certainly @Tom Storm's "connect meaningfully with others" plays a part - we are political animals. Or @Jack Cummins's mention of the existential notion of "becoming", of growth.
So I would make two points: The first is that any definition that claims to set out the essence of being human will be wrong. The second is that the process of defining what it is to be human is ethical and political.
So it might be worth giving some consideration as to if one ought try to set out such an essence.
I agree with this. I do not believe there can be a definition setting out what it is to be a human and I am not an essentialist. And arguably the groups who have sought to define what is human have tended towards genocidal projects.
But I didn't. I just said it's an important part of what it is to be human, and I wouldn't deny the most intellectually deficient an iota of humanity.
I point out that it would be a terrible loss to deny someone their intellectual development, which is consistent with how we treat the most intellectually challenged. We spend tremendous energy trying to teach them whatever they're able to learn. It's why being an educator is a higher calling. You're shaping human beings.
But should someone be entirely without any intellectual capacity at all, so much so there is nothing to advance, they too are as human as you or I.
Ok, I withdraw. Perhaps we might agree that any categorisation of what it is to be human will fail?
Consider Diogenes response to Plato.
Outside of religious claims, where much has been said of the soul. A human being has a human soul, which isn't reducible to a physical attribute. Not helpful to you I realize, but that is where the conversation of human essence belongs.
Where there is an intersection with the theists and secular humanists is the positing of humanity in a special place, the theists infusing the soul with the divine and the secular humanists making humans just as holy, but using different language.
For something to be holy just means that it is set apart from all else, but I digress. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/05/24/what-does-the-word-holy-mean-bible-definition-of-holy/
Each of us has one, but is directly familiar only with their own. They drop out of the discussion... we can't use beetles to set out what it is to be human, except to say that to be human is to have a beetle.
So the beetle cannot answer the question "what is it to be human?" in any way that is not arbitrary. Those people over there, they say they have beetles, they talk as if they have beetles, but their boxes are empty.
I ask because I don't hold that I obtain knowledge of my soul through private thoughts. The term "soul" obtains meaning through use like any other term. I acknowledge the soul is claimed to be known in a non-empirical, faith based way, but that doesn't make it a beetle in the box. That just means it's known through an alternative epistemological system.
Quoting Wayfarer
Some of the arguing in this thread is outside my interest, but I like your distinction of what is the essence of being human and what is accidental, such as a person without intellectual capabilities. It causes me to think and I appreciate your opening statement about those among us who are incapable of joining mainstream society. To what degree can they be socialized? How important is our socialization to being a human? Your thoughts bring to another.
I am thinking of aboriginal tribes that are destroyed by invaders who radically change their way of life, leading to the end of their social structure, and leading to alcoholism, and death. We destroyed the aboriginal tribes in North America and this caused untold human suffering. The same happened in varying degrees wherever Europeans went. It seems we have traveled the world with the opinion that our social order and values are the only legitimate ones and those who are different from us are not equal to us. They are lesser humans. I hope we do some thinking about what is essential to being a human.
I think the metaphor quite powerful.
If yes, isn't greater inspiration and meaning found invoking the sacred as opposed to beetles?
Quoting What Does The Word Holy Mean?
Hmm. So much for the sacred?
Still seems not to help us decide what it is to be human in a way that suits 's project...
The Greeks asked impossible-to-answer questions and then set out to answer them. That is how the progress of humanity that led to the modern world began. We need to agree on the definition of words, but starting an argument about a definition will not lead to useful thinking. It is a distracting power game that I rather we avoid. My project is education and a better world. I hope this discussion leads to useful thinking.
We are just on a planet. Not much more to it.
Perhaps a better approach would be asking what it worthwhile in being human. Martha Nussbaum has my favourite answer at present.
It’s not a discovery, it’s just a fact. Humans have language. Pretty obvious. This is also a unique species property, and so is in the running for how to identify what makes an entity a human. Notice I don’t use the word “essence” myself.
If this is considered an “imposition,” then any talk about differentiating one thing from another is as well. In which case, so what?
Quoting Banno
The exceptions in the aspect I mentioned (language) are rare indeed, but are themselves identified as such based on the norm. A human is still a human even if they’re non-verbal, deaf, or language-impaired. In the same way if someone can’t walk. These disabilities tell us little about human beings.
Rules aren’t thrown out simply because exceptions exist. This again assumes we’re after some ultimate, unchanging essence — I don’t see this as being the case.
Quoting Banno
Yes. Which is why “What is a human being?” is an important question. Whether “right” or “wrong,” answers have been given — and these answers have important consequences indeed.
Perhaps categorization of anything whatsoever will fail. Of rocks and trees and stars and donuts.
Is this an argument?
What is the need for a definition of human in order to properly educate children?
Why is a DNA-based definition too broad? For reasons already mentioned by other posters.
Why is mathematical-ability-based definition too narrow? Clearly this is an interesting question as far as I'm concerned.
1. There are humans who do not use language. Hence the definition leaves out some who should be included.
2. There are language behaviours in non-humans. Hence the definition includes animals that are not human.
3. In making the above two judgements it is clear that we can use the word "human" accurately without being able to provide the (supposedly necessary) definition.
Hence we must conclude that we know what is and what isn't human, despite not having to hand an explicit definition.
Quoting Xtrix
Any explicit (ie, stipulative) categorisation will leave some things in and some out. How useful that is depends on the task in hand. If one's task is to reduce the cost of dealing with disability, it might be useful to stipulate that those without language are not human.
Given that any posited explicit definition will leave some in and some out, it is essentially a power play and ought be treated as such.
So I'm not doubting that "what is a human being" is an important question, but the suggestion that it be answered by stipulation, by setting out an essence.
I do not think you would disagree with me here.
Humans that do not use language are very rare. Their existence doesn’t change that language is a human property, any more than those born blind don’t change the fact that vision is a human property. Again, I’d say that the existence of exceptions doesn’t necessitate throwing out all rules/categories.
I mentioned language specifically because it’s a property unique to human beings. Does this property “define” human being in some absolute way? No. But it’s as close a contender as I can find.
Quoting Banno
There’s communication in animals. But no other animal has language. No animals can speak or sign, for example. So I’m not sure what you mean by language “behaviors.”
Incidentally, species properties aren’t uncommon. So I’m not arguing we’re very special in that regard. But I think it’s just sheer confusion to ascribe language to any other animal. It’s just clearly not the case.
Quoting Banno
I don’t like “essence” either. But attempting to classify or define something doesn’t have to be mystical or religious. In fact it happens all the time in biology. We don’t kick up too much fuss about ants and frogs, yet it seems when it comes to humans we have to throw all that out. I don’t see why.
Regardless, I think we more or less agree. The question is an important one — with real world implications — and so it should be discussed. That’s good enough for me.
Every living thing has DNA. So that’s too broad when asking about a bird or a tree. For these things we look for specific attributes.
Humans have many attributes— they have atoms, DNA, cells. They have nervous systems. They have opposable thumbs. They’re bipedal. And so forth.
Some of these traits they share with other animals, some they don’t. Some are unique to them. Language and mathematics (and music, arguably) and logic are such unique traits. I don’t think it’s controversial to make this claim.
Given this is the case— yes, it’s narrow. But rightfully so— because you’re asking a narrow question: what is a human being? If we were asking “what is an animal?” then we could give human beings as an example. Or living thing. Or mammal. Or primate. But we’re not doing that— we’re asking specifically about one class of beings.
In some ways, I still largely agree with Aristotle. We’re the zoon echon logon. The animal with logos. “Rational” and “reason” are often how this is translated— but speech is fine too. That’s what I go with anyway.
That's pretty much the whole of my comment on your comment about language. It's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for humanity.
Going against the establishment here, but I'd recommend a definition that's too broad rather than too narrow.
Then you’re not answering the question. “Mammal” is also broad. It’s also true. Is that a satisfying answer to the question “what makes a human being a human being?” I don’t think so.
The problem as I see it is that no single trait humans have a potential for are manifested in all of us - absent/present and deficit/excess in re some of our qualities.
The Turing Test doesn't specify the definition of a human being. I believe even garden variety computers can mimic a small child with above-average language skills. Truth be told, my laptop with the appropriate software could mimic a deranged or a specially-abled person.
So what?
Not all eagles fly. Should we throw out the term “eagle”?
I dunno! That's not my department.
I don't think "definition" is the correct word for this discussion. I ask questions to get people to think about what they think. Or sometimes, I ask questions because I am really curious about what others think and experience intense pleasure when they cause me to think. I dearly want everyone to drop their concern for "technological correctness" and get into the spirit of enjoying this exchange of ideas. I totally hate the education for technology that we have had since 1958 because I hate the social, economic, and political ramifications of education for a technological society with unknown values. That is education that thinks of children as products for industry, rather than amazing creatures with great potential.
Our liberty is 100% dependent on our education to be rational, cooperative, creative, and inventive human beings. Only when our democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. Only when we are prepared everyone for independent thinking are we capable of doing the thinking that raises the human potential. That is human potential not the potential of technology, to destroy or save our planet. So what is our human potential and how do we prepare our young to manifest it? How do we liberate them and maintain a social order that lifts everyone up?
No, a computer is far from the human capacity for thinking. Sometimes spell check is helpful and sometimes it is very irritating. I find our reliance on computers terrifying! Spell check is better at spelling and correct form than I am but these rules are not equal to understanding concepts. The rules can prevent us from being aware of concepts. Such as the concept of "industry" is not "the industry". If spell check had control of the words I use, I would not be able to discuss concepts. Educating children to rely on this technology is education for following rules, and is not education for independent thinking.
Hello, Naxi Germany, the mother of this education for technology, and all those charged with war crimes who were in complete dismay that they would be charged with a crime when they were just following orders. Because of the education they had, they were incapable of the independent thinking required to conceptualize doing anything but follow orders. And look at this thread. Nit-picking about the correct word and stupid arguments that go nowhere, but to me, look like stupid power games, not a desire to explore and understand.
We once used the "Conceptual Method" for education, and teachers were told not to pay too much attention to technological correctness but focus on a child's understanding of a concept. I know this because I have the old books that told teachers what is important. A child could disagree with the teacher or not have the correct names or dates and be right if the child understood the "concept". Now we argue about technological correctness and the concept gets lost in this need to be "correct".
Can you feel an awareness of a difference in feeling that is also a difference in behavior?
:gasp: You did not mention the most important characteristics. What about imagination, ability to conceptualize, ability to make moral judgments, feeling passionate about justice and liberty, and taking care of our planet so future generations can have good lives. There is no bloody way our discussion about being human is narrow, no matter how narrow-minded some people are.
I think how we prepare our children for life is about much more than being on a planet. If we destroy this planet and take good care of it, matters a lot.
Chardin said "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man."
It is no longer the gods in charge but it is what we make it.
Ok.
If you're looking for a set of attributes, then, no, we don't have a definition we can resort to in all situations to determine if X goes in the bucket we mark "humans" and Y into some other bucket. But that's what we all knew would happen regardless of whether we were defining humans are any other thing.
My approach was to ask instead what it was that made humans of ethical value. The answer is that they have been set aside as holy and therefore occupy a different metaphysical place in the world. It's why the interference with a person's ability to live out their full capability is a terrible loss, and why I insisted upon offering an education to those who will surely never be able to use it for any societal or economic purpose. That a holy being is being restrained is the sin, so to speak.
To the question of how we distinguish the person from its seed or close variants, I don't really know, but I can say that once we have satisfied ourselves with a particular case where the thing is a person, I can define very clearly what respect that thing is to be afforded.
So, what is a person? It's that sacred thing we treat differently than all else. That's my definition, wholly wanting in the respect that it doesn't offer a description of what it takes to be a person, but it does otherwise tell you what a person is.
I didn’t once say the discussion is narrow. I said the question is narrow— which it is, in the sense of asking about one species.
Ok, I agree that humans have moral worth.
But "they have been set aside as holy" does not provide an answer as to why they have moral worth. It simply repeats the sentiment.
Unless you have more to add, by way of explanation as to what that "different metaphysical place" consists in, then nothing is added to the notion of having moral worth by ascribing that worth to being "sacred".
Humans have moral worth in virtue of their being human. That worth does not derive from their relation to a god or gods, or to a background of spiritual discourse. It does not depend on any discourse. The moral worth of humans is not derived, but intrinsic.
Can a being without moral worth be human? If not, is that the essence of a human?
But there are things that have moral worth that are not human.
Hence having moral worth if not the essence of being human.
So is this a presuppositon? What exactly does it rest upon? Asking for a friend... :wink:
What does moral worth really mean? Is it the same as intrinsic value?
Nothing. Or rather, everything.
It's not a conclusion, but a choice.
That stuff I write about direction of fit, and naturalistic fallacies, and so on... it's not how things are that decides how things ought to be. We decide how things ought to be.
"Moral worth" is not my favourite term. "Ethical standing" might be better.
"Intrinsic value" might be thought to imply that values are found, but that's exactly wrong.
Nice. I like 'ethical standing' more too. 'Moral worth' sounds like a Christian apologist.
If we decide how things ought to be, is there a preferred philosophical approach to resolve a difference of views?
Well, yes, conceptual analysis...
But I would say that, wouldn't I?
You must have noticed by now that philosophy is not of much help in deciding between the various systems of ethics. All it can do is set out the relationships between them.
Unfortunately, the choice is down to us.
But I say "us" advisedly. Far and away the commonest mistake hereabouts is to suppose that the choice is down to "me", and hence some form of relativism. But we are social, and ethics is a political act.
Though it is not often made explicit, in the end the demise of the Liberal Party is down to their moral failure ("lack of ethical standing"); to not looking at the greater interest of out common wealth, apparent in climate denial, cronyism , pork barrelling, non-action on corruption, cruelty to refugees and the poor (robodebt), and so on.
Ethical considerations have a way of rising to the top.
Indeed.
Quoting Banno
Yes, and this much is also clear to me.
Quoting Banno
Which is a good thing - especially when 'the mob' is in agreement with my own values.
Thanks
I though a philosophy WAS a ‘system of ethics’.
But then you are a late-sipping left-leaning do-gooder from Melbourne.
A tantalizing prospect.
How would that work?
Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Kant , Hegel, etc:
Each of these implies an original approach to ethics.
So that's five different systems for a start...
Which one is the ‘system of ethics’?
Whichever one makes the most sense to you. You already have a system of ethics you prefer, which I would guess matches up with something between between Kant and Marx.
I get to decide which one is right? Or is it that whichever one I choose is right (Relativism)? Or that it doesn't matter whch one I chose?
So you agree with me that philosophy is not of much help in deciding between the various systems of ethics, that all it can do is set out the relationships between them. but you add that I get to choose whichever I prefer?
What of my further point, that it's not down to me alone, but to us?
Whichever one you choose must earn and re-earn that privilege by validating its usefulness repeatedly in your relationships with others. Philosophy is vital to this endeavor , since a personal philosophy or worldview is what is being decided on. Worldview, personal philosophy, ethical system, these are all synonymous, so it makes no sense to say that a system of
ethics we prefer doesnt help decide between various systems of ethics.
Is that ‘relativism’ becuase its relative to your construal? I guess so, although you are arriving at the determination of its usefulness with the aid of results from many social interactions. Just because the way those interactions shape you is not identical to the way they shape others doesn’t mean this ‘relativism’ walls you off from others. It just means that agreed on ethics must be negotiated among individuals with somewhat differing vantages, while each ethical perspective must itself be open to constant test and adjustment as a result of social experience.
So its down to ‘us’, but an ‘us’ which must take into account the vantages of its participants rather than attempting to swallow them up in a group anonymity.
That an essential element of a cup is that you be able to drink from it doesn't make a river a cup it just makes a shattered cup no longer a cup.
Sure, and an essence sets out both the necessary and the sufficient conditions.
So it remains that, in answer to , ethical standing is no the essence of being human.
All of this is religion. Don't let the terminology fool you. The difference in positions only being in how much we wish to admit to our religion. I accept mine full on.
You say humans have moral worth because it's inherent in their being.
I say humans have moral worth because of their divine essence.
Tu-may-toe tu-mah-toe.
I build my magical castles in the heavens. Yours are built from the ground, but all is magic nonetheless.
Now we're debating what the essence of an essence is I suppose.
I can see that. Seems to me that most philosophy boils down to some kind of magic.
Playing at scholasticism?
Please explain. That does not sound like philosophy.
That is not philosophy. That is just opining.
Goodnight.
I define an essence as "a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is."
So, if the essence of a person is that he have moral worth, than an entity without moral worth is not a person.
However, if a goat has moral worth, it is not a person simply because it shares a property with a person. It is also the case that a goat that has no moral worth can still be a goat because that property is not essential for goats.
An essential element of mammals is that they breath air, which is also an essential element of birds, but birds aren't mammals.
I didn't make that definition up.
Identity of indiscernibles.
Is "technological correctness" a new concept? This is the first time I've heard of it. Care to explain what it is? Danke.
Actually, just getting back to this, I don't say that that humans have ethical standing (moral worth) as inherent. I am not sure how 'inherent' functions. As you have pointed out, that is very close positing a 'sacred'. I think society makes choices about how we identify or construct the human and one such act of intersubjective agreement is that humans have rights - which may in some instances equate with ethical standing, but I am not sure if it does.
And yes, before you say it, it is likely that societies arbitrarily determine who is human and who is not, who gets rights and under what circumstances. My government has for many years violated the rights of refugees and Aboriginal people. If I say this is wrong, I say this as a consequence of my own presuppositions about such matters which do not contain any transcendental justification. But I am willing to concede that some of my formation in the area of moral thinking arises from my cultural Christianity.
An essence of a rat are those qualities without which a rat would cease to be a rat.
The essence of a definition (for a word) are the sufficient and necessary qualities that determine the correct application of that word. For example in the definition of a dog as a domesticated wolf, domesticated and wolf are individually necessary and collectively sufficient to identify a dog.
Re "technological correctness," I found this article from 1996 - and not much else:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1576269
It may be nothing.
That's a very interesting question, but really it's one of history, economics and politics. The question in the OP could be re-phrased: what makes a human ‘human’? When people are abused en masse, we say they were ‘treated like animals’ or ‘treated like they were nothing’. And equal rights relies on recognising that all humans are persons, regardless of disability or ethnicity or what have you, which is the ground of the idea of rights. So I think that's the philosophical issue behind it.
Quoting Tom Storm
It's worth reflecting on the distant origins of 'essence' in Greek philosophy. It goes back, of course, to 'esse', which is simply 'what is'. The gist of the term is judgement - seeing what truly is. It sounds trite, but in the larger scheme, it might not be so simple, as any of us might be under the sway of some persuasive delusion or error of judgement that distorts our vision. (Science itself grew out of the attempt to correct for that.) But, in any case, notice the element of judgement - which is something characteristic of humans. And that's where I think morality enters the picture - because we can envisage how things might be, or ought to be, or ought not to be. It goes with the territory of self-awareness and language, of ideas of property and justice. I think that's a plausibly naturalistic basis for ethics.
I think that's a helpful frame. Thanks.
In addition to , courage seems to me most indispensably "human".
[quote=The Unnamable]You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on.[/quote]
In defiance, Sisyphus will "imagine Sisyphus happy".
How very parochial and lusterless my point of view is compared to yours.
That said, in my humble opinion, courage & defiance are as impotent as hope - they really don't change the outcome do they now? What do you feel about different strokes for different folks?
Descriptively, yes. Seems reasonable to say that morality arises out of judgment.
Quoting Wayfarer
What would you say is the most convincing case for rights? As far as I can tell whether one looks supernaturally or naturally the case is not easy. The ancient Greeks considered those with disabilities - especially speech disabilities - as either cursed by the Gods or at best deficient. There is vast variation among homo sapiens. IMHO the Bible is leagues better on disability, but rights don't seem to extend to idol-worshippers or those who practice religion differently. Rights seem to be conditional on following God. I suppose that could serve as the seed of the idea.
EDIT: Thank you for your response on Martin Luther in our last discussion. I didn't have any immediate feedback/disagreement but it was an insightful read.
4.9k
?ZzzoneiroCosmDanke. I also want to know Athena's take on what "technological correctness" means.[/quote]
Quoting vocabulary
And other explanations come up in a google search. I don't think the explanations are easy to understand without understanding conceptual thinking versus technological thinking. Understanding the difference is vital to understanding the cultural change we have had, since the best a doctor could do was be compassionate because we did not have enough information to correct the life-threatening health problem. Today, we can feel like something processed on a conveyer belt but our chances of surviving are much greater.
A concept is not a technologically correct thought, however, it may aim to explain a truth, such as why humans are moral. I don't exactly agree with that truth but it was mentioned in the thread and is an example of a concept, not a technologically correct statement.
Just for fun, "morale" is what we feel when we believe we are doing the right thing. The "e" following the word moral means coming out of. That is a technologically correct explanation of how spelling tells us something of meaning but moral is a concept, not a technological material reality. "Human" comes for words meaning moist soil, so even if we and not Christian we are using a Christian concept when we use the word "human". Believing a god made a man of mud and a woman came from his rib, is not technologically correct, but many believe such stories literally mean what they say. ? Does that make sense?
Believing you are a human being.
Yes, the question could be what makes a human human. People talk about, it is nature and it is nurture. When I googled for more information I found the consideration of divine law as well. Divine law appears to be what religious people imagine it to be and I think it is important to have such an imagined notion of goodness because it would bring out the best in us. Teaching people to be the best they can be is like training a horse to be the very best it can be. Without the training, neither horse nor human will be the best its can be.
I do say inherit functions in humans are just like inherit functions in horses that are bred for different characteristics. Our DNA creates us with a lot of verity. Some rules such as social rules seem easy for most people to learn, and nervous people might learn to stay calm but it can be very hard for them to do that if their nervous system is high-strung like a yappy little dog compared to a Saint Bernard. Making all children sit quiet and still in a classroom is just wrong! Our education system right now is a nightmare and that is why I am writing.
"notice the element of judgement - which is something characteristic of humans." Would not the judgment depend on our own individual nervous system and hormonal condition at the moment and our age and what we have learned and experienced? This is what we need to discuss before we can have just laws and just reactions to violations of law, and just education that enables each individual to discover and develop his/her talents and interest so s/he can make his/her best contribution to society and we stop neglecting the education of those who are not going to college and stop closing them out useful and fulling lives! I don't think education for technology is taking all of that into consideration.
No, technological correctness is not about being human. We are suffering from an increasingly dehumanizing bureaucratic structure over our lives. We are a mechanical society just like our world war enemy because we have adopted its bureaucracy and education.
A human is a being that I determine to be a human.
If the buck stops right there, then there is no more argument.
In fact, I feel sorry for the human who can't recognize another human.
Dehumanizing, here, is an equivocation. It is a figure of speech, but in effect it describes a process that does not make humans into non-humans.
Quoting Athena
Nazi Germany was a unified follower of Hitler. Individuals had no voice.
Today, the Internet gives voice to anyone who wants to have one. Diversity under free speech is incredibly wide. Heck, we even have people who refuse to take the Kovid shot.
Education is the same as then? I wonder why you say that, Athena.
Today at least half of society's elements do not have a job. That means that half of the entire population is not directly forced into a belief, a behaviour pattern, or a plastic jar.
Quoting Athena
You see how these two are linked. What you're getting at here is the question of moral realism - are there standards and mores that are universal in scope, or are all such ideas social constructs or a matter of individual predeliction?
Secular cultures tend to instinctively reject, or at least call into question, any idea of 'Divine Law'. So as an alternative to that it seeks biological reasons, or evolutionary reasons, or at any rate something that can be grounded scientifically as distinct from in what is thought of as religious lore.
Which is quite reasonable - as far as it goes. But as you're asking fundamental questions, it would be worth taking a wider view. What, after all, is 'the phenomenon of man'? I suppose that's a kind of 'why are we here?' question. There's no easy answers to such big questions, but it's worth calling out the fact that the general consensus in scientific cultures is the belief that life is a game of chance (oh, and the ability to adapt and survive, which generally translates into 'success'). In the presumed absence of a 'higher power', life is something that seemingly just happened. And that has consequences of its own. One of the common responses is that we 'create our own meaning'. In other words, the answer to the question 'why are we here?' is 'it's up to you'. But then, if there are no templates or patterns around which to base a response - and there's precious few in consumer culture - then it's a much bigger question than it looks.
So - it might be something more than 'individual nervous system and hormonal condition at the moment and our age and what we have learned and experienced'. It's where such questions as natural law, human rights, and many other large topics intersect. (I'm not trying to give answers here, just teasing out the question.)
Do you mean you wonder why I say the US adopted the German model of education for technology for industrial and military purposes?
No one is forced to believe anything. They are programmed by education and know nothing of the drive behind this, nor how things could be different, and this is directly related to a change in bureaucracy that shifts power from the individual to the state. However, many Christians are homeschooling because they do not like what is happening in public schools.
Aren't Christians homeschooling because they are very conservative and are scared of liberalism?
I love your post. As all animals of a species tend to behave the same, so do all humans because they are social creatures dependent on each other. The rules for civilizations are the same around the world however they can be variations. Some civilizations are more authoritarian than others, some are more liberal, some are more secular and some are more religious, and they have different myths but all the myths prepare the people to live together with a degree of human decency.
Quoting Facing History
I don't think believing in the laws of nature is so different from believing in divine law, but in the US there is little understanding of deism and almost no understanding of what Greek philosophy has to do with democracy. The Greeks and Roman philosophers were working with a notion of unversal law. Cicero a Roman statesman was essential reading for anyone wanting to understand democracy and his quotes are here... https://www.quotetab.com/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes-about-law and as you said looking for nautres laws and biological explanations. So it is both better medicine and our laws for living together. But in Greek philosophy, even the gods could not violate the laws of nature. I don't think a god that creates miracles and can violate laws of nature does not come from the Greeks philosophy. Drawing the line between secular and divine can be tricky because we did begin with notions of gods and calling on them does work.
The laws of nature are a higher power. They are a higher power than a god. There is no god who can protect us from damage caused by global warming. A belief system that turns people against science is a human tragedy.
I see another problem. Roman was very materialist. By that I mean they believed in matter not spirits. But notions of spirits came from the east. Ouch, my head hurts trying to figure out how to say what I want to say. Romans adopted other people's gods but it did not have the Greek words needed to understand a god with 3 aspects, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so they fought each other over it Jesus was the son of God or God. Language is so important to all this and I am not coming up with the right words so I will jump to the East.
Quoting Wikipedia
That is a different language and a different understanding of everything. It is more in line with The Mayan Factor a reality of action, not materialism and concepts.
The question "why are we here?' is 'it's up to you'." assumes we all have individual egos and that is not universally true. Native Americans identified with the land and their tribe, not as individuals as your question suggests. Also since Roman, is the notion of things rather than the notion of all things being animated. The river being a spirit that is to be respected and our own spirits being the same as the river spirit. That is, we are spirits having a human experience. Your question seems to deny that spiritualism. Good grief did I totally fail to say what I am trying to say?
I believe that is correct and they have good cause for that. It is not possible to have liberty without education for good moral judgment. In the US we had education for good moral judgment without relying on religion. That education, for good moral judgment, was ended with the 1958 National Defense Education Act and moral training was left to the church. Big mistake! Now we have anarchy and are on the path to a police state.
Now Christians are the strongest force for preventing education for good moral judgment because that means education of independent thinking. Although Christians like to believe we have democracy because of them, they are actually authoritarian because human nature can be pretty bad. The philosophers thought that was so because of ignorance and that education could resolve that problem. Christian mythology is tied to superstition and notions of good and evil spirits. and a need to be "saved" by a divinity. Their understanding of education is indoctrination and public schools are materialist institutions that are harmful or perhaps essential to materialistic success, There seems to be zero understanding of what education has to do with democracy.
I want to weigh in on the notion of rights. As I reason this, we are equal under the law, but that does not mean we are the same. Individual differences may justify a difference in our rights. I did to favor the Greek perspective. We have rights based on age. Should someone with the mentality of a 4-year-old have voting rights? How about someone who has been to prison? Should immigrants who are not familiar with our institutions have voting rights? We reserve the right to drive to those who are 15 or 16 years of age and have a driver's license proving knowledge of the laws, and car insurance. We can not work in a kitchen unsupervised without a food handler's card. Many jobs require passing tests and degrees. We do not have one big free for all.
However, equal under that law is like equal under the sun. Everyone who is qualified to drive can drive. Everyone who can pay the price of a meal can eat, except for the few places that have a dress code, then a person must dress appropriately.
Something that is characteristic of human ways of life is our capacity to construct social institutions.
This depends on language, in that social institutions are instantiated by language, and indeed language is itself a social institution. But it goes further than language in that we construct a vastly complex, "imagined" world on top of the real world.
We construct these institutions by having things count as... So this piece of paper counts as money, this line counts as a territorial border, this group of people counts as a sports club or a political party.
The vast majority of our interactions take place within the context of these institutions.
This account differs from others given int his thread because it is not about what makes some individual human - their DNA or their body or their consciousness. It is collective. It is about what makes us human.
I am afraid you are not familiar with the pre-war educational system and curriculum in Germany. I am not familiar with it either, so it's a battle of opinions. I base my opinion on my own experience.
In my country, Hungary, all students had to take all subjects. All the way to the top of high school. Then they had to matriculate seniorly in four subjects (recently), and six subjects (before WWII). One of the matriculate subjects were technical (math) and three were in the humanities (history, Russian as a foreign language, and literature). A student could elect to matriculate in an extra subject. Biology, a second second language, chemistry, geography, physics, masturbation, and philosophy (of sorts). Music, i.e. singing, gym and art were all compulsory throughout the entire span of education, but were not matriculand subjects.
Was the German model different? I don't know. I'll research it.
True. However, evidence may be compelling in cases of dispute about opinions. (All Christians and other worshippers are completely exempt from this rule.)
I really really like that explanation. Our tribe can be great warriors, maybe even head hunters, or it can be very congenial with strangers and peaceful. Preparing a child for this tribe or that one begins at birth. If parents want warriors they treat the baby roughly and if they want children who are cooperative and non-aggressive, they are very gentle with the child. I feel so frustrated with typical explanations of our human nature that just assume all humans go to war and it is because of sin that we behave badly. I am sure you know the common beliefs about our bad behavior being our nature. At least most of us agree, beating the devil out of a child does not get good results and severe neglect gets very bad results.
Now, what is important for the child to learn and how does this learning happen? I am trying to get at two things. One is what kind of people do we want and how do we nurture that? Second, what kind of civilization do we want and is education for technology the best way to manifest it?
Please, provide examples of compelling evidence. I am having a hard time understanding your meaning.
I believe Christians do seek and find evidence that Christianity is God's truth. Buddist find evidence that Buddism is the truth. Hindus obviously experience their religion as sacred knowledge and it works for them. Let me explain why I believe this.
On the way to a job interview at a remote resort, I went up the wrong mountain. When I turned around and came back down the mountain my brakes overheated and failed. When I got the car stopped, I got out of it and began walking back to civilization. Need I say this was a very frightening situation for me?
I called on the goddess of the hunt, Artemis, to help me and she did. Absolutely, no doubt, she did help me. Do I literally believe in the gods? No. Was my situation as threatening as I feared? No. My sister intentionally goes into the mountains and camps by herself. As @Banno explained, we have two realities, one is what is and the other is what we think it to be. My imagination was creating a very frightening experience and when I shifted my focus to Artemis my imagination of Artemis gave me courage and strength. All religious people experience the same thing and it is evident to them that what they believe is true. It is a self-evident truth because we do experience what our brains tell us to experience.
My dear, I would have no notion of Germany's history of education if I had not read about it. When I speak of education it is not my imagination telling a story but the result of reading and owning the books that I use for reference. That reading put me on a path that I did not intend. I was only going to buy one old American textbook that explained the "set of American values" every child was taught. :lol: I have a bookcase full of books about education, the history of education, textbooks, and books about Germany because I knew we had adopted the German model of education. I am obsessed! An obsession is an extreme and a little mentally unstable. I don't trust what I think because I am so emotionally evolved with it. Anyway, there are some facts in the books that we can share.
But your education I am stunned! Those subjects you listed were high school subjects? I am in tears :cry: I would have done anything to have an education like that.
Here are our present core subjects
Math: Four years – often includes algebra, geometry and trigonometry
English: Four years – covers classic and period literature, drama, research, and writing
Science: Three classes – often involves biology, chemistry and physics
History: Three classes – U.S. history, world history and civics are common requirements
Foreign Language: Two years (sometimes optional) – Spanish, French and German are long-standing offerings, but Japanese, Chinese and Russian are increasingly popular
Physical Education: Two years – can often be replaced by approved after-school activities
Computers: Two classes – typing, office programs and web standards are just a start
Health: One class – nutrition, disease, sexuality and first aid are often covered
Only in some school districts will children get any more than this and of course, there were no computer classes. But I did have home economics. :grin: I was in school when the 1958 National Defense Education Act was implemented and boy, did our education change! I think because I experienced the before and act 1958 education, I am more emotionally involved than most.
Coming from my college research is an understanding that our sense of values is in every cell of our bodies, not just our brains. Our feelings are very much a part of our thinking. Once we learn to fear things like going to hell, it is very hard to be rational about the belief. Our learning that a woman's roll in society is being the caregiver, can make being dedicated to a career and not the family "feel" like a terrible wrong. Whereas a man socialized as men were socialized, may not feel manly if he is not succeeding in the business world. These ideas being tied to our feelings and our identity.
Gosh! thank you everyone for stimulating all this thinking.
Quoting Athena
Basic intelligence is not a criterion, since animals have intelligence too, yet to a much lower degree. Same goes with language and other mental faculties.
On the other hand, what humans have that animals don't is, for example, reasoning (logic). This certainly characterizes humans, together with other mental activities. Also, of course, humans are different from animals on a physical level, since they belong to different species.
Quoting Athena
These are special cases that cannot be taken as criteria for the difference between humans and animals. Of course, madmen, suicide cases and other mentally heavily sick people, have a much reduced ability to survive. Alzheimer, dementia, etc. alone reduce the ability to survive. Yet they are still humans, but on a physical level only, i.e. they belong to the human species.
This is DEFINITELY not the Nazi German model.
Nazi Germany made Biology compulsory, as it purported to point out differences between races.
In Nazi Germany, students were brainwashed to idolize Hitler, and to hate Jews. The slogans permeated all textbooks.
In Nazi Germany education focussed on the greatness of the German nation, on the diminutive worth of the individual and on the importance of maintaining a German nation by exerting special efforts by each individual.
Heroism and patriotism was high in the curriculum.
However, the curriculum's core subjects did not change much from the curriculum of the Weimar Republic.
---------------
In comprarison, and I am winging it, because I don't have any direct experience with education in the USA, I don't think the schools in the USA promote racial hatred, but strive to do exactly the opposite; they don't have personal worship of one particular politician; the students are not told that it is a good way of life to sacrifice one's own freedom, free speech, free choice of religion in order to sustain the nation; and pupils in the USA are taught that individuality is okay, libertarianism is okay, (which is in direct opposition to the Nazi German totalitarianism), and that democracy is where it's at (opposed to Nazi Germany's state ideology).
Now, when you said the USA has adopted the German education system: I have no data or understanding the USA system, but the statement is sweeping and can be misinterpreted:
It may mean USA has adopted:
- the curriculum
- the methodology
- the rigor
- the spiritual brainwashing and brainwashing of values
- the teaching of idealized lifestyle
etc.
You did not say which of the above aspects of the education system of Nazi Germany has the USA adopted, but I assure you, not all aspects, that's for sure. The curriculum and the rigor is missing, but the brainwashing is a similar feature. However, the topics and directions in the brainwashing is completely opposite to each other, so different: In Nazi Germany, the brainwashing involved a worship of the leader, the nation and the cause, whereas in America the brainwashing involves a worship of freedom, God, and Christian values.
Christianity has no evidence of the validity of their faith. This website is replete with arguments between Christian thinkers and atheists, and atheists show evidence why Christianity is a false belief, and yet the overwhelming amount of evidence still don't daunt the Christians to admit where their faith shows logical impossibilities. That's what I meant by saying "All Christians and other worshippers are completely exempt from this rule." Because to them evidence is not compelling in cases of dispute.
That's exactly what I typed, and I am sorry you had a hard time with comprehending, or found it impossible to understand the meaning. I hope you get it now.
1. Well-developed intelligence
2. Complex language
3. Suicide
4. Ethics
5. Opposable thumbs + bipedalism
I do not lack understanding of what you said but think you lack understanding of what I said. The validity of faith is not the written word but the effect it has on our thoughts and feelings. It is experienced and nothing gets more real than that. As I see the problem, it is not recognizing the experience is real, not because of supernatural powers, but because of the power of our brains. If we recognized that, perhaps we would have fewer futile arguments and they would acknowledge it doesn't matter what faith a person has because it works for all the religious people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Toaist, and even atheists who understand they are dealing with the power of our brain and achieved whatever they wanted to achieve with their thoughts. If we do not acknowledge that, all arguments against faith are futile because their experience validates their faith.
Trump supporters were not brainwashed but both Trump and Hitler were appealing to people. That is good showmanship, not exactly government control brainwashing. I could be wrong but I think education for technology rather than education for culture and democracy is behind finding men like Trump and Hitler attractive. The slogans being appealing because the education set the stage for that.
It is believed that human beings with technology can do anything and nothing is more important than achieving those goals. This is not George Washington (first US president) being honest about cutting down the cherry tree, or Abe Lincoln (President who ended slavery) walking a mile to return a penny. It is not independent thinking but "group think" and dependency on a leader.
I see a Jewish/ Christian motif here, of a God sending leaders (kings). It appeals like loving the Pharoah is appealing in good times and hating pharaoh or king or president, when times are bad. It is not democracy. Our education prepared everyone for leadership and it is not doing that. We stopped doing that in 1958 and began preparing everyone to depend on the "experts" and we dropped moral training and left moral training to the church. We are now amoral and heading towards a police state.
This is very true. We do not treat lack of intelligence well. In fact, the opposite. People are often punished, invalidated, demeaned, frowned upon etc. by others for being in this condition. If instead they were supported in various ways, they wouldn't end up in prisons or asylums or led to suicide as you say. Not that this is easy, and psychologists do not help much. But there exist quite effecive methods that treat such a condition.
Human beings are born with different degrees of intellectual and other mental abilities, as well with different potential. Their immediate environment --family, scholl, society-- can enhance or worsen them. Note however that intelligence can be enhanced at any moment in the life of an individual, using different methods and techniques. (I have worked in this field in that past, and have seen people changing a lot if not radically and their IQs rising.) Individuals are not bound to lack intelligence for their whole life. Unfortunately though, they do because they are not given the opportunity to change that state.
In the case of Germany, it was. Textbooks were permeated by slogans and snippets of "truth".
So this goes to show that America has not adopted the German education system of Nazi Germany. In this aspect at least. I think that's what you said at one point and that's what I found exception with.
As to not reading your posts properly, guilty as charged. I find your style hard to comprehend. You make no points, but write a flux of ideas and you are enthusiastic about some of them, but it's hard, at least for me, to grasp your points. To me it seems that your points that you actually state are not related to what you write in the surrounding text.
I find it a bit disturbing, because if I raise an objection against a point you make, then you will refer to other parts of your text where you deny that point, or mix them up and confuse your debating opponent totally.
Just my experience with reading your posts, please don't pay any heed to it if you don't want to.
I like very much what you are saying. To a large degree, my concern about education is my understanding of an essential change that has led to increasing social problems. Education has been focused on those who will go on to college. What really got me researching education was a commentator who said teachers should not have to waste their time on children not headed for college.
In my grandmother's day, education was for everyone because it was about good citizenship. Teachers thought it was their job to help every student, even retarded ones, discover their talents and interest. It was taught, there is a place for everyone in society, that every job is important, and everyone is deserving of dignity. I helped such a young man become a janitor and he was a super janitor because it was something he could do well and he had the tenacity to do it day after day. His parents thought he would never earn his own way, but as a janitor, he could and he worked for an employee-owned company where employees can invest in the company so he retired with a huge sum of money. Not bad for someone everyone had given up on.
If people can earn self-esteem they do not buy guns and become mass murderers. Back to the commentator's remark, I called him and said what he said about teachers not having to spend time with struggling students was a terrible thing to say and he was so proud of himself because teachers told him they really loved what he said. Within months, one of the students where my daughter was in school, killed his school teacher parents, and then went to the school and killed or wounded many more. That school was extremely blue-nosed and impersonal. Many teachers and schools are marginalizing young people, leaving them to find their way in a society they do not understand, and believing they have no value and there is no place for them. Yes, they are alienated and angry, and we can prevent this with education.
It is pointless to continue a discussion with who has an opinion and ignores what I am saying. When it comes to the following....
Quoting Resource Library
the US led the way, with segration of blacks and Asians, and Native Americans on reservations. This is not a past problem but one that very much threatens our democracy and is tied to religion and war.
When it comes to education for technology and advancing democracy, the Prussians led the way.
Quoting Wikipedia
Your opinion "So this goes to show that America has not adopted the German education system of Nazi Germany" Is an uninformed opinion and isn't it pointless to argue with someone who ignores the fact and says I am not making points? Show me where I have been confusing so there is a possibility of me correcting that problem. Or we could jump to what is the purpose of education and maybe make some progress?
I have an old grade school text that bluntly prepares the US for war against Germany, and we have a population that believes they are God's favored people who fight evil because this is the will of God. They oppose the godless communist, and the terrorist wherever they may be found. Billy Graham and the Evangicalist are the right hand of the neocons who wanted military control of the mid-east. Religion, war, and education go together. If that is a pointless or confusing statement, I am sorry.
You countered this with America's history of marginalizing visible minorities and at times, killing them.
Which came first in your opinion? The war on Indians, the Slavery of Africans, or Nazi Germany?
Then you continued to say that America has adopted the German education system of teaching technological subjects, when America has adopted the enemy's system.
Which came first? The German education system, or Naziism?
You are all over the place, and your timeline needs straightening.
I mean, you make general statements without observing the facts first. Yes, I don't read your posts end-to-end because it hurts to see so many absolutely jumbled reasons and to see and ending with an unsubstantiated point.
Please apply more discipline in your thinking, then in your writing.
This is true. Not only for education but for the whole society, starting from its smallest economic entity that is the family.
Quoting Athena
This is inhuman!
Quoting Athena
That's the sane attitude. (I have no data myself about the situation regarding education in my granparents day ...)
Quoting Athena
This is true in most cases. Every person, since their a child, wants to be esteemed and acknowledged. If they don't get that in family or at school, they look for eaning it by joining group of friends, which sometimes happen to be gangs.
Quoting Athena
Oh, god. This a pandemic.
Quoting Athena
What a tragedy! But the real tragedy starts from parents and authorities (including educational), who keep ignoring --at least as I can undestand-- youth violence. I believe that all these things are interrelated, "infect" one another. It's indeed a pandemic. And I don't see any medicine or vaccine against it, at least not in the near future ...
You are very right to be concerned about education. Few do. Myself included! (Well, except when I talk about this subject, like now.)
Which came first, is human nature, which is not very different from animal nature. We do not criticize other animals as we do humans. Why? Why do we expect anything different from humans? Or why do we not recognize all humans as equal humans and justify killing and slavery?
Civilization changed human behavior and we began basing our lives on what we think as opposed to the simple laws of nature that all social animals follow. I am not sure that this change is an improvement. I think we have gone a bit nuts with our judgment of others and self-righteousness but maybe we are moving towards a higher human potential? I am not sure? However, I do know we don't naturally have all the thoughts we live with today. All these thoughts must be learned and we are living too much in thoughts, and disconnected from reality. There are many different tribes and socialities inside societies and civilizations. They are different because of their different environments and different stories that convene different cultures and different subcultures. Some groups are aggressive and may be gregarious or may retreat into the jungle. Some are timid and maybe curious or may flee. There are many different mixes of human character, societies, and cultures.
Which came first? Germanic people, Christianity, German education, or Nazis? What is a simple way of saying there were waves of change, and the Prussians had a different environment and a different culture than the Germans to the west. The Prussians took control of the whole of what is Germany today. Before the Prussian bureaucratic model and education, Germans to the west did not have the same culture nor the same organization. The Prussian control of Germany and education for technology for military and industrial purposes came before the Nazi rising. I do not understand the need to ask your question about what came first? I thought the order of change was clear, but oh, you are not reading through my post, so I guess a lot may not be clear. Thank you for helping me be a better writer.
As I said before, if you have a problem with what I say, call my attention to it. It is simple to copy and paste, and then say why you do not agree with what I said or say ask a question to clarify something.
Okay, let us begin with the first humans to walk the earth. How did they think and live?
I keep thinking of tribal differences and humans before civilizations and the development of thought over the last 6000 years. We are what we taught ourselves to be, and I am glad you see the value in thinking about what we are teaching our children and why! Democracy requires education for being a civil human being, and that is not education for technology for military and industrial purposes. We must not leave moral education up to the church. :cry: Please, if you can help clarify this point I would appreciate that.
That part of human history is lost - language was in its infancy, reason too I suppose and technology, we had none!
Nevertheless, we could make reasonable conjectures I suppose.
Richard Dawkins says, in an interview, that evolution is a gradual process and that there's no clearcut boundary between human and nonhuman primates. Bummer!
Thank you for your acknowledgment of my response to your thread.
And yes, it is quite frustrating indeed to see that some members do not get the point of a topic, ?nd even more, when they criticize w/o offering a single argument!
Re "We must not leave moral education up to the church": Unfortunatly, this is true for most churches, esp. those belonging to dogmatic religions, e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. Yet, morality is a spiritual subject, and as such it belongs to the field of religion. Yet most religions are based on "ready-made" or "given" moral codes --e.g. The Ten Commandments-- so they don't have to analyze or discuss the subject of morality; they just "enforce" these principles. In other words, they don't have a sound system of ethics --I prefer to "morality"-- on which to base moral behaviour. And this, for me is a huge mistake and it actually invalidates Man because he is able --with the appropriate education-- to exert his own judgment on what is right or wrong, good or bad.
There are of course some branches of philosopy that treat the subject of ethics/morality, but they are either materialistic or not clear about the nature of the mind, and certainly they don't want to have anything with the human spirit or soul. (I am not talking about the ancient Greek philosophers or the philosophers of the East.)
Then, there is phycology and psychiatry, which, although they have included the term "soul" (pchyce) in their names, they don't believe that such e thing exists! Both materialist in nature, they are far from being able to talk about morality and education in an effective way.
Only schools and colleges --and mabe some Universities-- as institutions, could teach about morality and education, but as far as I know, they are also far from doing that in an effective way.
I believe that there must be something, somewhere, sometime, like an Education about Education, which would take up the subject and develop it --in theory and practice-- to a level and state that education --this extremely important subject -- deserves.
***
I don't know if I have clarified for you this point as you asked and expected ... I have really a lot of things to say about both subjects --morality and education-- but I don't want to burden more this thread, which, BTW, is about what is essential in a human being, which it seems we --at least, I-- have totally forgotten! :smile:
However, morality is one more attribute that characterizes human beings, since it is inexistent in animals.
But, since we came back on our main road, I will add the most important maybe faculty that humans have and animals don't: "Awareness of awareness". Animals are aware of their environmnent, but they cannot be aware of that. Humans can: they can be aware of being aware. As they are also aware of their thoughts and that it is themselves who are creating them. This is the essence of the human being.
Oh yes, I want everyone to think about our most distant past, same as I want everyone to think of humans with all levels of intelligence and living in different levels of human progress. I have heard slavery was justified by Aristotle on the grounds it was a kindness to make slaves of people with less intellectual development and this thinking later justifies holding people of color as slaves treating them differently than White servants.
This morning I read of Brazil's efforts to integrate everyone into mainstream society and this is very different from either institutionalizing people or leaving them on the streets to die as is done in the US.
Brazil has programs that take into consideration that being integrated into mainstream society, means learning social skills. In the US the original reason for making it law that communities were to provide l free education was to Americanize immigrants who did not understand our institutions and culture. This comes from the 1917 National Education Association Conference book that records all the speeches given. The priority purpose of our education was to make good citizens and other than learning math, reading and writing, the US did not have education for technology. However, because of WWI education for technology was added to education and this was a wonderful improvement and it came from Germany. I will gladly provide quotes if anyone cares. The primary focus of education remained citizenship until 1958 when it was dropped because until the military technology of WWII our defense depended on patriotic citizens willing to make huge sacrifices for war.
Everyone understands children need to be taught social skills and virtues and morals but thisis no longer the focus of education and I really want to say ending racism and other wrongs came about because of education in some states. This gets complicated because the US has local control of schools and we are still having a lot of conflict about what is a good education. Today in the US industries are providing education in our schools, and this means global warming denying in some states and this is not what I call a moral education. Same problem with some states educating the young for segregation and racism. I have one education book published in the last 10 years that claims science has proven people of color are intellectually inferior! Really we need to pay attention to education!!!
I have to run to work but want to get into what you said. Democracy demands moral education that begins with science and philosophy.
I believe it's Paul who ties the legitimacy of authority to God. However, if we read Samuel, God (and Samuel) are actually against kingship but the Israelite community overrules them and Saul is established as king. They choose him for this role because he is tall. This is mentioned several times. He is a head taller than his peers. He is mediocre.
I think we have a lot of agreement but understand the meaning of words differently. For me a moral is a matter of cause and effect, tieing morality to knowing universal law/science. The stories we once read to little children, teaching them virtues and the principle of cause are called folk tales, Native Americans have such stories along with people all over the world. If you google "moral stories" the choices begin with Christian stories, but all people sat around the fire and told stories that convey proper beheavior.
When we add an 'e' to "moral" we get "morale" that good feeling we have when we believe we are doing the right thing. We once thought virtues were synonymous with strength. Indeed when we believe we are standing for what is good and right, we will risk our lives of going to jail and we do not back down. Christianity hijacked the mean characteristic of human nature that is in all of us all around the world, regardless of which god we pray to, or if we do not live with a story of a god and creation. The Spirit of America is the mural of the gods at the US Capitol Building. She holds the Sword of Justice, which comes from Celtic folklore and she is the spirit of morality. The Spirit of America, Lady Justice, and Statue of liberty are the three aspects of Athena, Justice and Liberty and defender of those who stand for Justice and Liberty. This is to say morals are universal and our spirit can be good or bad, and it all goes with democracy.
Button line is all this is our nature and Christianity is bad for our democracy because of its claim to being the authority on all this, perverting our democracy which must be tied to science! The mythology of being born in sin, seriously perverts democracy. How do we know truth? We use the scientific method and debate until we have a consensus on the best reasoning. I hope you get what I am saying? It is beyond the intellectual capacity of animals but it is not separate from philosophy, nor should it be separate from education. And I think we are losing people because I am afraid they are not seeing what all this has to do with the essence of being human. We are as we make ourselves, not as supernatural deities make us. We used to read moral stories to children and ask what is the moral of the story and the answer is a matter of cause and effect. Science and morality go together. And technology is not equal to science. Education for technology is not a good as education for science is a good.
Hi. I have to "study" all that and at this moment I can't. I'll be back soon! :smile:
Quoting Athena
Hi. I'm back.
I assume that by "a moral"? you mean "a moral act" or simply "morality". I will also assume that by "cause and effect" in this context you mean that morality is consequential, i.e. the morality of an act is judged based on its consequences. Which makes sense, but it's not a criterion for me. I believe that a moral act is mainly based on the intentions of the individual who did it and also his [for brevity] knowledge or reality. Because if I do something that has bad consequences but I did not do it intentionally and knowingly, it cannot be considered an immoral act my part.
Then you say that morality --being moral-- is connected with one's knowledge of the laws of the universe. If this is right, "Why's that?". And is this too materialistic? That is, based on purely physical things?
Quoting Athena
This is true. But I don't think that we can define and build a moral system based on popular and religious stories. Neither on things like "The moral of the story is ..."
Quoting Athena
Correct. "Ethikos" can be literally translated in English to "moral". In Greek, it is generally used with the same meaning, applying to same things.
Quoting Athena
Same with Greek "ethikos": it comes from "ethos", which also exists in the English language and means "the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations." ( Oxford LEXICO.
Quoting Athena
Certainly. Christianity is a dogmatic religion and consequently it cannot be democratic in nature. But I don't know any religion that is "democratic", a term which refers to the political world . That's why religions coexist for eons with democracy.
The problem Christianity however, as I see it, is not that it is not democratic but it is created on totally non-scientific elements. Even the "philosophical" elements that it contains are quite loose, i.e. not based on critical reasoning but rather on unfounded and loose data, like god-sent stories and "wisdom" and a lot of "mythology". How can one trust all that?
Buddhism, on the other hand, has much more solid foundations, based on logic and applications in life (experience). That's why it is the only religion --I can call it religious philosophy or even just philosophy-- that makes sense to me.
Quoting Athena
I am not sure how do you use the term Science. Certainly not in the standard, conventional way, which is "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained." (Oxford LEXICO) Which refers to a totally materialistic/physical world, irrelevant to morality.
Let me begin with you have an excellent vocabulary. I think I am going to intentionally work on my vocabulary. But at my age, I forget even simple words, so I gave up on completing the book I started.
Yes, I mean morality is consequential! Yes, our decisions and actions are based on knowledge. That is why Socrates was focused on expanding people's consciousness. "Conscience" means coming out of science/what we know. Aristotle pointed out that knowing the right thing to do is not enough because we can know our doctor said we should stop eating donuts and other sugary things and we eat the wrong foods anyway. For this reason, we must work on our motivation as well and Chinese thinkers explain this very well. So does Aristotle and we call his works ethics.
The word morality is Latin and means the same thing as ethos, but now we can talk about morals as though they come from God's word and not have any awareness that this line of thinking comes from the Greeks. This is destructive to our understanding of reality and democracy. It is perhaps the biggest reason we are at each other's throats instead of advancing the human potential.
"This is true. But I don't think that we can define and build a moral system based on popular and religious stories. Neither on things like "The moral of the story is ..." -Alkis"
Okay, let us go back in time to when we covered ourselves in grasses and furs. We are walking the earth with our extended family highly attuned to nature because we have almost nothing to keep us safe except our wits. I think in this thread there was resistance to doing that, but that is a good place to start when considering what is essential to our humanness. Knowledge and agreements are essential to our ability to work together and survive and we start telling stories that unite us.
Because it is easier to remember info about humans, we humanized our landscape and know we can find water where the 3 sisters (a rock formation) sit. We have not divided our thinking between what is living and what is not. We don't have all the verbal categories essential to science and more modern man can see the superstition but not the event that began the story and its survival purpose. We call those stories folklore or myths and dismiss them as useless, but they are the tribes, and later civilizations way of establishing social agreements and the organization of power. Much later, they were the foundation of education in the US. We did not add vocational training until 1917 when we mobilized for war. That was a dramatic change in education and another dramatic change was made in 1958.
At least 5 biblical stories came from the Sumerian city Ur and this mythology justified kings and what the US does today. Billy Graham a powerful evangelist told us in a special TV show that God wants us to send our young men and women into the war against Iraq, and Bush we reelected by the Christian right. Not recognizing the power of myth would be a mistake. We are in the throes of culture wars and our democracy may not survive.
This link is excellent for understanding the importance of storytelling and the civilizations that are manifested https://www.jstor.org/stable/1178184 . I especially like this line "Greek myths tend to generalize events, Roman myths make them concrete; Greek myths transcend time and space, Roman legends insist upon historicity;" And remember Ceolpatra built her power on the myth of the goddess Isis.
"Christianity is a dogmatic religion and consequently it cannot be democratic in nature. Oh yeah! And we have Rome to thank for that. Our democracy begins in Athens and with universals truths that we can discover. Literacy in the Greek and Roman classics is essential to democracy and we had that until 1958. Liberal education is learning the Greek and Roman classics and learning how to be our own heroes. It is education for freemen. Education for technology has always been for slaves and it, along with Christianity, is killing our democracy.
"The problem Christianity however, as I see it, is not that it is not democratic but it is created on totally non-scientific elements" please keep responding. I have to run. Check back to the Roman problem. Should we start a new thread for that? It looks like everyone dropped out of this thread except you. It is all about what we believe about humans. Thinking we are born in sin and need to be saved, is the main root of Christianity destroying democracy and why we now have amoral education for technology. You are the only one bringing up the important points!
Thank you for appreciating my English. I have worked it out a lot during the last 3-4 years, based on philosophical and other discussions in this and other communities, starting with Quora. Yet, I'm aware that it still needs a lot of work since it is not my mother language. (A small secret: I am a professional translator, so that helped a lot too.)
After I started to read your reply, I kept reading and reading my own words for quite long! Of course, since you have quoted my whole reply, which was not short at all! :smile:
(Try instead maybe what I'm doing myself here. I do this when there are a lot of points to respond to.)
Re "Socrates was focused on expanding people's consciousness": Right. And in the best way. Because this was also the purpose of almost all the philosophers of the past. He was connecting morality/etchics with knowledge (meaning consciousness, a term and subject that came into existence after wuite a long time after that period.)
Re "For this reason, we must work on our motivation": Yes, this is what I meant by "intentionally" with regards to moral actions.
Re "Now we can talk about morals as though they come from God's word and not have any awareness that this line of thinking comes from the Greeks": Christianity does not care much about people's consciousness as something that is built by people themselves via knowledge and ethics rather than by indoctrination. In fact, I believe it is even against it. A thinking person is a free person. A person abiding to religious morals and tenets is not free. The Church does not want that. The Church wants to control people. Increasing people's consciousness using critical thinking was what Socrates was trying to do with his teachings. And he was put on trial for that. Because ancient Greecs had there gods, morals and tenets as we have today. This is how Martin Luther --like hundreds of other independent 'thinkers"-- was led to Inqusition. The story continues in modern Christianity via its Church and its long list of heresies (sects) which it ise persecuting.
Ethics/morality must be built with one's own consciousness and acquisition of knowledge. It cannot be forced, or indoctrinated: tt would not be genuine.
Re "Knowledge and agreements are essential to our ability to work together and survive and we start telling stories that unite us": True.
Re "Greek vs Roman mythis, etc.": Sounds interesting. I will have a look at the link.
Re "universals truths that we can discover": I like that. Indeed we have to discover truths ourselves and for ourselves. And I undestand now why are you repeatedly refering to story-telling. It is indeed one way towards that purpose, because it makes us, in an indirect way, think about and discover values ourselves!
Re "It looks like everyone dropped out of this thread except you": Is it maybe because we have deviated a lot from the subject of the topic? :grin: For me is just fine. I always enjoy a nice and interesting "conversation", independently of the subject! :smile:
As for a new topic, and as far as I am concerned, I have a list of topics for posting, waiting in a long queue ... But you may well start one. :smile:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
[="Athena;d13103"]Last night I was listening to explanations of the philosophy of education and one began with a question about the qualities of being human.[/quote]
For me, there is no deviation from the OP. For you are right on topic when you speak of Christianity wanting to control our thoughts and Christians opposing education for independent thinking. The 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher-order thinking skills. That is specifically about not having education for independent thinking, logic, and reasoning; and Christianity is the strongest force behind ending education for good moral judgment which is education for the higher-order thinking skills. The reason for this is THE QUESTION ABOUT OUR ESSENCE OF BEING HUMAN!
Are we made from mud and born into sin and therefore need to be held under authority or are we evolved and share much in common with animals with only the potential for being highly intelligent. Like the potential of a thoroughbred horse is wasted without training, so our potential for intelligence wasted without training? :worry: I failed because nothing of any significance was said of what makes us human. This is tragic because we are not bringing out the very best of who we can be and democracy depends on bring out the best in each of us, and preparing us to be the responsible citizens a democracy must have. We are preparing our children to be products for industry not reasoning people who are a free to be all they can be.
Quoting Alkis Piskas Can we ponder for a moment the difference between what you said and being indoctrinated in a religion? What do we think is the essence of being human? How does that relate to how they are educated and their political reality? Are we greedy animals voting for our personal befit or intelligent beings voting for all? Are we by nature political animals or slaves fit only for meeting the economic needs of industry.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
The story tells us what to believe about ourselves and others. Am I alone with understanding? I asked about our human essence because I think we really need to think about that. The New World Order is what the US defended its democracy against, and the Bush presidents along with Billy Graham loved the New World Order and we are educating for it. Do we educate for free humans or products for industry?
Allow me to suggest to just forget about the myths of Christianity. I have already expalined why.
Quoting Athena
Do you mean that you failed to get useful responses to your topic and that the things I brought up that make us different from animals (i.e. what makes us human) were insignifcant or useless?
In fact, tt's quite disappointing that you seem to have ignored esp. what I said about awareness. You won't hear about it from many people ...
Quoting Athena
In that respect, I'm afraid yes! The vast majority of people vote based on their own interests and benefit, but also fears and beliefs. E.g. If one does not like immigrants, in general, he will vote for the candidate who doesn't like them either and is willing to take measures to reduce their number, privileges, etc.
Yet, this doesn't make us animals or even less humans. There are much worse things that characterize as humans and which are inexistent in animals.
Well, this didn't end up as well as I expected. Well, it happens! :smile:
The word "human" means moist soil. We can not just forget about Christianity because it is embedded in our culture. It determines who is our president, what laws we have, what wars we fight, and how our children are educated. It is not the only influence on those things but a very powerful influence.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
We are suppose to have "government of the people, by the people, for the people" Lincoln plagiarized Pericles, (born c. 495 bce, Athens—died 429, Athens) when he said that. It means we think of the highest morality to have a nation that lifts the whole of humanity. Trump keeps yelling "make America great again", but that can only be done through education. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. Without that education yes, the majority whose knowledge of life is limited to their own personal experience, vote to feather their own nest and to hell with anyone else. You are good with words. what is a good word for having knowledge and morality that manifest a great nation?
Our past president, Trump, just wanted to push all immigrants out. Biden is questioning what we can do to improve living conditions in other countries so all those people will stop flooding into the US. I don't exactly like Biden but he is thinking of the welfare of everyone, not just himself. Whereas Trump clearly puts himself first. Trump even put self-interest above our national interest. This is about what we learn and or our moral decisions. Just thinking of ourselves, leads to great harm. Today, that thinking can mean the end of civilizations.
A handful of men, literate in the classics, risked everything for democracy and led us into a war to separate our nation from England. Democracy as they understood it, lifts the human potential through education and scientific discovery, and good moral judgment based on learning, not our animalistic grab for the biggest piece of pie. How we define the human essence matters because that determines everything else. Education for technology and leaving moral training to the church is leading us to the end of times. But we could have education "for the people" who realize the importance of self-government is the welfare of everyone. "We the people" standing for "liberty and justice for all". Christianity says this dream is impossible because we are born in sin. Only when we stopped educating for good citizenship did this great hope for democracy start to look impossible.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes, it does make us as animals. Only education can make us better than animals and that is not education for technology. Liberal education for good moral judgment makes an important difference. Humans must learn the higher-order thinking skills. They are not natural. We inherit only the potential for learning, not the knowledge that is the human potential. I failed to reason with those who posted here the importance of education to not be like greedy animals. Education for technology so we can beat all the competition and get the biggest piece of the pie does leave us as animals, who need a strong authority over them because they can not be trusted to make morally correct decisions. What I am saying is the same as what Christians say, only, as the people of Athens became, I am secular and believe our humanness depends on education, not a supernatural being. Our heaven on earth is about our thoughts and action, not a deity.
Reverse definition! Well, I don't know exactly what you have in mind saying that. I can think of "social consciousness/awareness" and "ethics". Ethics for me are based on major good for the greatest number. Which, in this case means acting in a way that benefits one's society/country rather than oneself, at least for matters concerning the society/country.
Quoting Athena
You see, Biden is more ethical than Trump because he thinks beyond even his country, i.e. in a larger sphere, than Trump, who was caring only about his country. Which, BTW is already good, comparing e.g. to Greek Prime Ministers who think mainly about themselves and their parties. Which is translated into "major good for the smallest number" (= bad ethics).
You see how well my "ethics" work? :smile:
Quoting Athena
I am secular too! :grin:
Please, how did you get the idea that ethics means thinking about what benefits the whole of society? I think it is obvious your understanding is vital to a democracy. Democracy is rule by reason, not by authority over the people. The people can have liberty and raise the human potential when they understand self-government means manifesting that, as opposed to making a profit in unethical ways and basing decisions on feelings instead of reason. Human, is speaking and acting based on principles rather than lower-level self-interest.
The US has gone through a long period of reasoning for selfishness, and education for technology is not education for good moral judgment. I think it could be said we are now amoral. This is creating very serious problems. People are basing their decisions on their feelings, not on the complex process of thinking, and this makes them like animals, rather than higher-level humans. Our President Trump who encouraged his followers to fight for his continued rule of America, is a master at manipulating people's emotions to get what he wants, just like Hitler, and his followers acted violently just like animals lead by an alpha male attack intruding outsiders.
As I say those words I am thinking of bonobos and chimpanzees. Physically they look the same, but bonobos are matriarchal and chimpanzees are patriarchal. Those are very different social organizations. One is more cooperative than the other is more competitive. How different are they from being human?
A few different physical characteristics separate us from other social animals. But our real difference is our brains. Humans are more inventive and have greater self-awareness, but how about awareness of others? That consciousness is essential to ethics, right? However, biologically we are limited to having a little knowledge of about 500 to 600 people and beyond that, everyone is a stranger. This radically changes our morals. We are no longer living informally in small groups.
Religion, authority over the people, made it possible for larger groups of people to live together. The laws of gods made civilizations possible. This led to authority over the people. Athenians remained independent city-states and understood the need to limit the number of people in a democracy. That is, when we shift to populations larger than 600 people we must live by agreement and preferably consensus on the best reasoning, or have a strong authority over the masses. In a democracy that is learning virtues, principles, and ethics. Intentionally becoming virtuous and intentionally basing decisions on principles, but that does not happen without education. Many years ago I was conversing with a journalist who could not understand why everyone was not as good a human being as he was. Well, not everyone had the life benefits that he grew up with. So back to you. How did you come to have that understanding of ethics?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes! your ethics work but only with education for that will human beings be ethical and not like animals.
This is why I keep saying only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. We replaced our education for citizenship with education for a technological society with unknown values and left moral training to the Church as Germany did. We have been dehumanized and more and more are acting like rats in a corner or a troop of chimpanzees driving off the invading troop and taking what we want from others, pitting ourselves against each other and destroying our faith in our democracy and human decency. And literally, our churches are promoting this! We have been specialized and know little outside of our specialty and our limited group of acquaintances and live with a lot of fear and anger. This is not the democracy of our forefather's dreams.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
So were many of our forefathers who preferred the Greek and Roman classics and turned away from religion. We have a much higher morality than people who live by faith and avoid thinking as much as possible. Billy Graham (Christian evangelist) working with Presidents and Presidents taking advantage of the Christian right to wage wars and win elections, has brought us to a very bad position in the world.
Our Statue of Liberty holds the Sword of Justice and the Scales of Justice and a book for literacy. She, along with the Lady of Justice and the Spirit of America in the mural at the Capitol are the three aspects of Athena, Liberty, Justice, and the defense of those who stand for liberty and justice. Now Christians believe they gave us democracy and have no understanding of what the Greeks have to do with it. The story we tell does matter.
Thank you so much for your post. If what we are saying here is not said, no one will think about the importance of education for being humans versus being the most powerful troop of animals. That once was the German and American difference, before our most powerful people traded what we had for a military industrial complex. The beast fed by human slaves.
All well said and interesting! :up:
All this has been a very nice and useful exchange! :smile:
I will start a new thread and see if members of the forum can provide more information about these differences and maybe try a history forum. Out reality would be very different If the Greeks had had the power of imperialism that Rome had. Some people are aware that Roman Christianity is a perversion with a more worldly focus and literal interpretation of the mythology. This changes the expression of our human nature and I am sorry people dropped out of the discussion but glad you hung in there bringing me to the greater awareness I have now.
I'm glad that our exchange produced some fruits.
Just a tiny note: Macedonians, with Alexander as leader, had created a larger empire than Romans and before them. Only it lasted for a very short time.
Again, this has been a very pleasant exchange. :smile:
I tried to start a discussion about episteme and techne in another forum and someone posted something he thought was funny. I get his good intentions, but it was disgusting to me and had nothing to do with what I want to understand. Two people cussing with the worst possible words is not funny to me, but that is what is popular and the discussions I want to have are not. There seems to be a motive to reduce us to the lowest common denominator, and a strong distaste for raising the bar. That is curious to me. Why would humans want to do that?
I think this exchange is got quite "personal" and I don't want to burden this thread more. I will reply you with a message to your Profile page.
Look at your INBOX
One "what is essential to being a human being" is our manifest rationality or potential for it, whether actualized or not.
The point of asking the question is not to have one definitive statement. The point of asking is to have a discussion, so can we play with your last statement?
Is it possible to learn the wrong thing? What happens when we learn the wrong thing? What happens when we learn the right thing? How do we learn? How do we know we have learned the right thing?
I can appreciate protecting our privacy but in private you mentioned what needs to be stated here. Culturally we are different because our cultures tell us how to be and what to think or not think. In the US even if we are not Christians, our culture is permeated with Christian beliefs that influence our lives daily. The reality of this is very different from how India presents itself. As Agent Smith mentions, cultures manifest different completeness and my concern is that around the world, people have taken their culture for granted and then are willing to fight for their culture. I want us to think about what we are doing and how we might do things differently.
This is true for individuals and entire cultures. This thread is a kind of a psychoanalysis and hopefully an awareness of how we can do better.
It takes a lot of energy to actually think things through so most of the day we are on automatic, just responding without much thought. That most certainly is not what should be happening in a philosophy forum.
It is foolish to expect anyone to be rational without training for rational thinking. My grandmother who was a teacher would say, we teach children math to teach them how to think. That is no longer true. We now teach them math for high-tech jobs, not life skills. We used to use the Conceptual Method of education. That means teaching children increasingly complex concepts. That is no longer true. We replaced the Conceptual method with the Behaviorist Method. The Behaviorist Method is also used for training dogs. Dogs do not vote. Dogs will take that sandwich out of your hand and fight for bones. Welcome to American today.
@Alkis Piskas is aware of cultural differences between the West and East and perhaps he will say something about these cultural differences having different human potential.
I have to add, how you think is mostly about the culture that shapes your life. It is mostly outside of your consciousness but you are in this forum and that means you are doing more thinking than the average American.
I don't know how people in US think of and treat their culture, and how they "fight" for it. In Greece there's no culture to fight for. The Greek culture today is plenty of foreign elements that have been deeply rooted during the 400 years of Ottoman yoke.
As for Freud, since you have mentioned him, I find his work quite obsolete to be talked about, since a long time ago. He has indeed opened a road, but since then there's has been much more, better and more useful information on unconscious and conscious behavior, feelings/emotions and the mind in general.
The US has always been many different cultures within a larger one. Jefferson understood education is essential to having a strong and united republic, and until 1958, education in the US attempted to transmit a culture based on democratic principles. I say there was an attempt to transmit an American culture for democracy because all schools were locally controlled and they could make independent decisions.
Most glaring for the US is the North attempted to use education to end slavery and the South realized what was happening. The South wanted to protect its way of life that was dependent on slavery and a few rich landowners. An economic system that was terrible for the Southern poor, no matter what color their skin was. Those in power had the power and they used it to create a Southern textbook supplier that would promote maintaining the status quo. Eventual the slavery issue was somewhat resolved with the Civil War, but as wars are very destructive, I would not say it ended the problem. We are still living with the problem of past prejudice and economic inequality. And darn, but Christianity has been part of the problem even more than it has been part of the solution. Good Christian Southern women did a lot to promote their way of life that was unjust to others.
Ah justice! Now there is a good philosophical topic. Solid solutions depend on philosophy, not religion.
Yeah, I have my problems with Freud and we sure have come a long way since his time. He was under the influence of the German mindset and patriarchy in general.
Okay, you got me- I know absolutely nothing of the effect of the Ottoman empire. I asked google what are the values of the Ottoman empire and they look good to me. But I gather there is a downside to being under the Ottoman. Please tell me what you know.
Quoting Grace Leckey
Please look at your INBOX.
The idea, as Athena said, is to stimulate discussion. :snicker:
Exactly. Our genes do not guarantee we will express our full human potential. Whatever human characteristics we have beyond those that determine our physical appearance, are learned.
The British show "Humans" is about robots that look like humans and how they interact with humans. Five of them are sentient. They can perceive and feel things. There is a real fear of sentient AI and this is a delicious subject for a philosophy forum.
Interesting is these human robots are nothing like Australian aborigines or jungle head hunters. These isolated human beings have very different values from ours. In the wild they have a better perception of nature they we do. We live mostly in our heads and our minds block our awareness of the moment.
What is essential to our humanness?
When we compare chimpanzees with bonobos, we can see our sexuality plays an important role in our social structure. Our abundance of food or lack of it plays an essential role in our experience of life and relationships.
Oh, and we can consider the novel and movie "Brave New World" where humans are grown in Petri dishes and from the moment of conception are programmed for their predetermined place in society. This is a human effort to have a utopia but is it what we want?
Perhaps this thread requires some imagination? We are as we make ourselves and exactly what is our potential? Why does it seem we can not be happy slaves as many indignant Southerns expected people of color to be happy and even appreciative of the good lives given to them. Why do humans rebel, because they are born in sin?
Before science/philosophy: A human was simply someone who had easily recognizable, relatable physical features, spoke a language, and could think reasonably well.
After science/philosophy: No such clarity or perhaps, more accurately, an exposé of our muddled, wooly thinking.
Quoting Agent Smith
Long ago I read there was no superstition in the beginning of human consciousness. Like animals do not imagine things, as far as we know. The earliest people were too busy surviving to start imagining things like gods and demons or how to build a temple. Stone circles were calenders that marked sun and moon cycles. No one imagined a calendar such as we use but there were moon cycles that were easy to keep track of.
I can appreciate what you said about philosophy and science making our thinking very complex. What is justice? I don't know but if someone makes me mad I hit him. Problem resolved. :rofl: I hope you get I am trying to get us to that original very simple thinking and perhaps we can move slowly to more complex thinking as we contemplate the essence of being human. Like math, wow, what imagination math is! And then writing! What is up with that? Did these human inventions change our experience of being and our expectation of others?
I volunteered in schools and most children are obedient with no thought of resistance, but occasionally there was a child who wanted the freedom of being on the farm with Dad and had no appreciation of the school prisons. Is it good that we institutionalize our children or is there a negative to it?
:ok: