Upon reading Harlan B. Miller's essay, "Science, Ethics, and Moral Status" for class, something struck me as very odd. This was that towards the end of the essay, Miller noted that "'human' and 'person' do not express the same concept" (p. 7). This confused me, for I always assumed that they meant the same thing. After all, a person is a human and a human is a person. So, I went on "dictionary.com" to see how they defined the words. They did as follows...
human...(from the World English dictionary) "of, characterizing, or relating to man and mankind; consisting of people"
person..."a human being, whether man, woman, or child"
So, from reading their multiple definitions of the words I realized two things. First, they had very bad definitions for the words which would confuse someone who did not know what the words meant at all. Second, they used the words "person" and "human" interchangeably. In the essay, Miller used an example of extraterrestrials who held most of the characteristics needed to determine significant moral status to show how we would consider creatures more different from us than a mouse as more of a "person". I have to admit, I did not fully follow the train of thought in this example, but I understand one of its main points. Human is a word to describe the physical attributes of individuals in this context, and person indicates the more internal and basic abilities that individuals have. Nevertheless, I am not sure I agree with these definitions. How would you define "human" and "person"? Do you find them to mean the same thing or different things?
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Humanity, Physical or Mental?
Today in class Israel made a very interesting comment that summed up our whole discussion quite well. He stated that humanity used to be defined by physical attributes, as in we are humans because we have arms, legs, a head, a heart, skin and so on. But somehow, most individuals have transitioned into defining humanity in terms of their mental and emotional features. What I mean by this is that philosophers now attempt to classify humans by their yearning for socialization, their ability to love, and their natural instincts to survive and defend themselves. How has this transition come about? I am not quite sure, but it appears to be a very curious one. After all, most animals are classified as being different from humans because of how they look or act, not by what they feel or need emotionally. If humans are in fact animals, why are we not classified in the same way as we were in the past? It just seems that people have gotten so wrapped up in thinking about themselves and the world around them that they have forgetten what they truly are - animals that are no more special than the others that inhabit this planet. We may have the unique capacity to analyze our own thoughts, but other animals also have unique abilities that we do not have, such as being able to fly, to change color, and to grow at incredibly fast rates. In other words, in the grand scheme of things, the human race is incredibly conceited. Why do you believe the human race sees themselves as superior to all other beings?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?
In response to Lauren Lemieux's question, "Do we all have a little bit of a murderer in us but for the most part we know how to control ourselves?"...
Lauren is essentially asking a question that is closely related to one I raised in my last post; does it appear that humans are inherently good or inherently evil? Though I found my own question unanswerable, it seems that hers has a logical response. In class we have been debating whether humans have natural tendencies, and for the purpose of this question, let us assume that they do. These natural insticts would have developed when humans were first evolving from neanderthals, or rather in what many would consider "caveman times". During this period, people would have struggled to survive amongst the fierce animals that often inhabited their environments. They hunted for food, and killed their predator if they were in danger. If the theory of natural insticts withholds, this would mean that even today, if someone was in danger they would feel the impulse to kill. I believe that we all do have a "bit of a murderer in us" for the simple reason that if someone was to attack us, most of us would "naturally" defend ourselves.
Society, in addition to biology, has also conditioned us in many ways though, and as we have discussed in class, individuals have learned to often suppress some of the things they want to do for fear of it not being socially acceptable. For instance, one hundred years ago, people would hit their children, give them very difficult chores to complete, and marry them when they were barely even adolescents. Today, children have it "easy" comparatively, for their parents usually do not do any of these things. Nevertheless, murder is obviously socially unacceptable, and therefore the majority of people do not participate in it. So, it seems that because we have the simply instinct to defend ourselves, we do all have some sense of "murderer" in us, but just suppress it either consciously or unconsciously. But, I do not believe this "murdering" instinct humans are capable of having makes us "evil". It perhaps does if we actively do it, but maybe being able to control ourselves is the complex skill humans have that makes us relatively good. Do you believe that evil actually exists or is it simply a socially and culturally constructed concept?
Lauren is essentially asking a question that is closely related to one I raised in my last post; does it appear that humans are inherently good or inherently evil? Though I found my own question unanswerable, it seems that hers has a logical response. In class we have been debating whether humans have natural tendencies, and for the purpose of this question, let us assume that they do. These natural insticts would have developed when humans were first evolving from neanderthals, or rather in what many would consider "caveman times". During this period, people would have struggled to survive amongst the fierce animals that often inhabited their environments. They hunted for food, and killed their predator if they were in danger. If the theory of natural insticts withholds, this would mean that even today, if someone was in danger they would feel the impulse to kill. I believe that we all do have a "bit of a murderer in us" for the simple reason that if someone was to attack us, most of us would "naturally" defend ourselves.
Society, in addition to biology, has also conditioned us in many ways though, and as we have discussed in class, individuals have learned to often suppress some of the things they want to do for fear of it not being socially acceptable. For instance, one hundred years ago, people would hit their children, give them very difficult chores to complete, and marry them when they were barely even adolescents. Today, children have it "easy" comparatively, for their parents usually do not do any of these things. Nevertheless, murder is obviously socially unacceptable, and therefore the majority of people do not participate in it. So, it seems that because we have the simply instinct to defend ourselves, we do all have some sense of "murderer" in us, but just suppress it either consciously or unconsciously. But, I do not believe this "murdering" instinct humans are capable of having makes us "evil". It perhaps does if we actively do it, but maybe being able to control ourselves is the complex skill humans have that makes us relatively good. Do you believe that evil actually exists or is it simply a socially and culturally constructed concept?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Some Philosophical Questions...
In response to Jenny Beers's question, "What is one philosophical question that you think can be answered and what is one that can never be?"...
This is in fact, an incredibly intriguing question. Upon reading it, what really struck me the most was the implication that there are philosophical questions that can actually be answered. Prior to reading this, I had merely assumed that because of the diversity of opinions in this world and no single authority to determine what is right or wrong, such philosophical inquiries can never go beyond the point of being pondered. However, after reading Jenny's thoughts I realized a single question that is answerable; who am I? While some individuals may not agree with this statement, they should realize that many people think of their lives as a journey to define themselves. There are some who never do, or merely do not feel any need to. But, there are those who choose to figure out who they are by defining themselves by things such as their career, their features both mentally and physically, and their own sense of self. I myself am striving to figure out who I am as a person and what I am meant to do. Essentially, this question can be defined for one simple reason; each individual has the capacity to think of themselves in whatever way they choose, and therefore the opinions of others do not factor into the definition.
Now, as for an unanswerable question, of those there are many in philosophy. But, one has always puzzled me the most; does it appear that humans are inherently "good" or inherently "evil"? There has much debate over this, and through my own participation in it, I believe it is unanswerable for many reasons. First, what is "good" and "evil" and who has the authority to define them? The words themselves are so broad that there can be many different degrees of "good" and "evil", and without being able to define those words, one cannot answer the question. Regardless, it becomes even more complicated in realizing that there are people who seem evil but may truly have "good" tendencies, and there are many others I am sure we have all encountered that seem good but are truly evil. Additionally, "good" and "evil" seem so hard to understand because human nature is seemingly unmeasurable scientifically, emotionally, or psychologically. How can one measure innate characteristics, and if one discovers what they believe are innate qualities, how can they be sure they are truly innate and not a result of environmental evolution?
This is in fact, an incredibly intriguing question. Upon reading it, what really struck me the most was the implication that there are philosophical questions that can actually be answered. Prior to reading this, I had merely assumed that because of the diversity of opinions in this world and no single authority to determine what is right or wrong, such philosophical inquiries can never go beyond the point of being pondered. However, after reading Jenny's thoughts I realized a single question that is answerable; who am I? While some individuals may not agree with this statement, they should realize that many people think of their lives as a journey to define themselves. There are some who never do, or merely do not feel any need to. But, there are those who choose to figure out who they are by defining themselves by things such as their career, their features both mentally and physically, and their own sense of self. I myself am striving to figure out who I am as a person and what I am meant to do. Essentially, this question can be defined for one simple reason; each individual has the capacity to think of themselves in whatever way they choose, and therefore the opinions of others do not factor into the definition.
Now, as for an unanswerable question, of those there are many in philosophy. But, one has always puzzled me the most; does it appear that humans are inherently "good" or inherently "evil"? There has much debate over this, and through my own participation in it, I believe it is unanswerable for many reasons. First, what is "good" and "evil" and who has the authority to define them? The words themselves are so broad that there can be many different degrees of "good" and "evil", and without being able to define those words, one cannot answer the question. Regardless, it becomes even more complicated in realizing that there are people who seem evil but may truly have "good" tendencies, and there are many others I am sure we have all encountered that seem good but are truly evil. Additionally, "good" and "evil" seem so hard to understand because human nature is seemingly unmeasurable scientifically, emotionally, or psychologically. How can one measure innate characteristics, and if one discovers what they believe are innate qualities, how can they be sure they are truly innate and not a result of environmental evolution?
Monday, January 24, 2011
What is Philosophy?
When asked to define philosophy, I realized I would be facing the same challenge as last semester when I was asked to define "art" in my Art and Philosophy course. In the time I spent struggling to create a concrete explanation of art, I discovered that seemingly simple words often prove the most challenging to define; Ludwig Wittengenstein's example about an extended family shows this to be true. Often, many members of a family may look similar to each other, but there is not one single feature that every member holds. In other words, while it may seem simple to define "art" or "philosophy", people usually leave out some important elements quite often. This problem of majorities or entireties arises in many philosophical discussions as well. For instance, in regards to the human nature we will be studying in this course, it should be identified whether it is every single human who has the same natural instincts and tendencies, or whether it is only the majority of such people who do. Nevertheless, it is evident that while individuals' concepts of such ideas might be slightly different, most people can understand what philosophy truly entails - thinking. While attempting to figure out my own definition for such a word, I decided it would be best to consult outside sources to view their thoughts in regards to the matter. Here is what I compiled...
"Isn't philosophy thinking? Like 'I think, therefore I am'?" - my friend Devon
"A wisdom that results from a pursuit of knowledge of the most important parts of reality...analysis and thought about conflicts and paradoxes experienced in human society" - a friend's First Course in Philosophy textbook, "Philosophy: Quest for Truth" by Pojman
"Philosophy is the study of general...problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language" - the Wikipedia article on "Philosophy"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
"Philosophy is the process of attaining wisdom" -my friend Katherine
"'Philosophy' derives from the Greek for 'love of wisdom'" -Dartmouth College Philosophy Department website... http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phil/whatis/wsa.html
"[Philosophy] is a reasoned pursuit of fundamental truths, a quest for understanding, a study of principles of conduct" - the American Philosophical Association website... http://www.apaonline.org/publications/texts/briefgd.aspx#INTRODUCTION
"Pursuit of wisdom" - Marriam Webster dictionary online... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy
So, my own definition is as follows; philosophy is the process of acquiring wisdom through examining the conflicts, paradoxes, and problems that occur naturally in regards to such things as existence, knowledge, values, and morals in human society. However, do we as a society even need to think up an exact definition for our nature or philosophy?
"Isn't philosophy thinking? Like 'I think, therefore I am'?" - my friend Devon
"A wisdom that results from a pursuit of knowledge of the most important parts of reality...analysis and thought about conflicts and paradoxes experienced in human society" - a friend's First Course in Philosophy textbook, "Philosophy: Quest for Truth" by Pojman
"Philosophy is the study of general...problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language" - the Wikipedia article on "Philosophy"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
"Philosophy is the process of attaining wisdom" -my friend Katherine
"'Philosophy' derives from the Greek for 'love of wisdom'" -Dartmouth College Philosophy Department website... http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phil/whatis/wsa.html
"[Philosophy] is a reasoned pursuit of fundamental truths, a quest for understanding, a study of principles of conduct" - the American Philosophical Association website... http://www.apaonline.org/publications/texts/briefgd.aspx#INTRODUCTION
"Pursuit of wisdom" - Marriam Webster dictionary online... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy
So, my own definition is as follows; philosophy is the process of acquiring wisdom through examining the conflicts, paradoxes, and problems that occur naturally in regards to such things as existence, knowledge, values, and morals in human society. However, do we as a society even need to think up an exact definition for our nature or philosophy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)