Philosophy Paper. Need help getting started...

[VideCorSpoon]

Originally Posted by Kim Pasha

How do you define a human?, What makes up human?, "What do you value?

What can I possibly write about to answer those questions?

How do you define a human being? Human beings are animals. Homo Sapiens are classified within the Linnaean system as one in itself seeing as though the species cannot interbreed with any other species (seeing as though we are the only surviving homo-what-have you). However, within this particular framework, the human species also possess multiple subgroups from which we can intermix with… essentially races. Although you could go through the arguments of descent like going through Aristotle (i.e. “chain of being”), Lamarck (i.e. chain of applied characteristics), and Darwin (i.e. modification with descent). I suppose that’s not the abstract sense that your teacher is looking for. But the notions have to be addressed, if only to make clear that you understand the biological aspects and also the abstract connotations.

So I would suggest moving from the scientific theories above and extrapolating upon them in an abstract sense. Give the standard conception of human (i.e. the biological aspect) and move on with it. Aristotle would make a fine segway between the biological aspects and the abstract your teacher wants. In Metaphysics, Book Zeta, specifically sections 7-8-9, Aristotle underlines fundamental thoughts on generation, in much the same spirit as Darwin, Lamarck, etc. It was a sort of science for Aristotle the way it was for those previously mentioned. However, the interesting bit comes from the fact that the issues on generation (7-9) stem from the discussion on substantial ontology(1-6,10). A fundamental question Aristotle asks at the beginning of book zeta is “what is being?” Essentially, what is this fundamental thing that is? Aristotle attributes it to substance, the “thing that underlies,” or as he really put “being qua being.” Within Aristotle’s reasoning , substance was something without attributes, a blank substrate that had nothing.

One could argue then that to define human is not to define a specific race, genus, whatever have you since that does not essentially label what a human is (since race is an attribute that does not specifically address the thing that underlies- Aristotle). To define a human, there must be some intangible quality which is immune to additional predication, biological or what ever.

One answer could possibly be human nature. Biological studies can lend to the predication of further attributes/habits/etc. of humans, they could not (arguably) get at the essential bits of human nature. Human nature essentially attempts to find out what exactly it is to be human. So in that respect, this is a link to the second part of the question, which is “What makes up a human?” You could at this point try to isolate something intangible and something in itself. But that’s the problem though, isn’t it. Could it be the innate desire to socialize? But this could be a biological argument and susceptible to predication. What about a soul? Plato would say that (utilizing his conception of the tripartite of the soul), we are rational creatures that are able to perceive the forms. Only humans contain the essential elements that comprise the soul (at least according to Plato). However, the flaw is that one area of the soul may be over or underdeveloped compared to another. In that respect, we could have a disposition to good or bad and develop the variances inherent in human nature.

Maybe it could be those core ethical components that make up human nature. So that leads to your third question, “What do you value.” From there it’s all up to you since it seems like a subjective part of the overall response. Suffice to say that you have to this point isolated humanness to an intangible/ethical question. You could take it anywhere at this point I suppose.

[Reconstructo]

"Soul" is still a good word. Many use it and are not referring to something immaterial. "Ego" and "id" are also myths/metaphors/mental models. What isn't?

[Pyrrho]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

A human being is a biological category, and can be defined by human DNA, it seems to me. The category, person, is not biological, and maybe your teacher is confusing "human beings" with "persons". All human beings need not be persons. For example, small infants are not yet persons. "Person" is a legal and social category. And all persons need not be human beings. For example, Mr. Spock (of Star Treck) was not a human being (he was part Venusian). But he was certainly a person.

You are mistaken. Mr. Spock was half human and half Vulcan. See:

Spock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it was Star Trek, not "Star Treck". Really, I expect someone of your extensive knowledge to be more careful about such important philosophical matters!

[Theaetetus]

Spock was a character on a TV show! So what the hell are we doing trying to define classifications based on fictional characters?

[Pyrrho]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

Spock was a character on a TV show! So what the hell are we doing trying to define classifications based on fictional characters?

It is often useful in philosophy to use thought experiments, which are fictional situations and stories, to illustrate concepts. There is no reason to avoid using fictional situations and stories that are on TV to explain concepts. In this particular case, the point in mentioning Spock (who was introduced by someone else), is to convey the difference between humans and persons. If there were beings like Spock, then he would be an example of something that is not human, but is a person. My toenail clippings are human material, but they are not persons.

In societies with slavery, slaves are not regarded as persons; they are property. But that does not necessitate the belief that they are not humans.

As kennethamy aptly stated:

Originally Posted by kennethamy

A human being is a biological category, and can be defined by human DNA ... "Person" is a legal and social category. And all persons need not be human beings. ...

For more, see:

Person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Emil]

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

You are mistaken. Mr. Spock was half human and half Vulcan. See:

Spock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it was Star Trek, not "Star Treck". Really, I expect someone of your extensive knowledge to be more careful about such important philosophical matters!

Haha. I think that he is correct in saying that mr. Spock is not human. Don't we reserve the category human for people that are wholly human, not 50% human (whatever that means)?

---------- Post added 12-29-2009 at 04:17 PM ----------

Originally Posted by kennethamy

A human being is a biological category, and can be defined by human DNA, it seems to me. The category, person, is not biological, and maybe your teacher is confusing "human beings" with "persons". All human beings need not be persons. For example, small infants are not yet persons. "Person" is a legal and social category. And all persons need not be human beings. For example, Mr. Spock (of Star Treck) was not a human being (he was part Venusian). But he was certainly a person.

Quoted here. .,.,.,

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

Spock was a character on a TV show! So what the hell are we doing trying to define classifications based on fictional characters?

Sorry. If Mr. Spock had been a living being, he would not have been a human being. Better? (That is called a counter-factual conditional, and some counter-factual conditional statements are true. As is the one about Mr. Spock).

"Ever in error, but never in doubt".

[Pyrrho]

Originally Posted by Emil

Haha. I think that he is correct in saying that mr. Spock is not human. Don't we reserve the category human for people that are wholly human, not 50% human (whatever that means)?

---------- Post added 12-29-2009 at 04:17 PM ----------



Quoted here. .,.,.,

He was correct in saying that Spock was not wholly human, but he incorrectly identified Mr. Spock as being Venusian. He was Vulcan, not Venusian.

In other words, kennethamy's original main point was exactly correct, but his explanation of his example was wrong.

With that in mind, you might want to reread my original reply to kennethamy.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

He was correct in saying that Spock was not wholly human, but he incorrectly identified Mr. Spock as being Venusian. He was Vulcan, not Venusian.

In other words, kennethamy's original main point was exactly correct, but his explanation of his example was wrong.

With that in mind, you might want to reread my original reply to kennethamy.

I did read your post, but I didn't notice the correction from Venusian to Vulcan.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

He was correct in saying that Spock was not wholly human, but he incorrectly identified Mr. Spock as being Venusian. He was Vulcan, not Venusian.

In other words, kennethamy's original main point was exactly correct, but his explanation of his example was wrong.

With that in mind, you might want to reread my original reply to kennethamy.

Right. Spock was a Vulcan.

Vulcan (Star Trek) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia