What defines a human being?

[Stray Cat]

O.K. here we go. 

 

There are two different categories of defining human. One we previously discussed, biology, if you are able to mate with others of the same species then you are a human.  But that's to easy an answer for most people so let's examine the other option, culture.  

 

Many people will say "what is culture?", here is the definition that I was taught: Culture: The system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviors, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning.  Typically a culture would contain these 4 components:

1. symbolic composition,
2. systematic patterning,
3. learned transmission,
4. societal grounding.

Because there are so many different cultures in the world, there is no universal standard for what is necessary to make one, however things such as knowledge of how to act as a member of a particular society, knowledge of what is expected of an individual in a particular group, and knowledge of what actions are considered right and wrong for a particular group are common and probably the closest thing we have as a standard. 

 

Addressing the issue of differences between animals and "why can't animals have culture".  The prevailing thought today is that animals look only too their own survival and fitness while humans do not.  Picture a firefighter for example.  He risks his life every day to save people that are total strangers to him.  Aiding these people do not increase his biological fitness in any way yet he still risks life and limb to save them.  There is cooperation among animal groups but there is nothing to this degree, which is why many people still hold that it is the defining factor of humanity.  

 

Addressing the person who is brain dead, I believe that since they still had a life and learned a culture they were human.  Whether they continue being human after is tough to say but I would probably go with no on the cultural view but yes on the biological view because is most cases they can reproduce fine. 

 

As for whether or not criminals and psychopaths are still humans, I would say yes, on both accounts.  They are able to sexually reproduce and are they have a specific culture, although it may go completely against what you believe. They know how to act a a member of their "own" society, and they have their own expectations and sense of right and wrong, as well so they fit into some minute, abstract not accepted cultural model, but it's still a culture.  I can honestly see this one argued either way though. 

 

Hopefully people read this far. 

[Newbie Otaku]

Socrates also had a plug up his ass and got jealous over his pupil over everything.

 

Those uptight philosophers and the clergymen of old aren't interesting to me.

 

Those abilities aren't unique to humans

 

- Dogs bury bones so they can find it and chew on it later.

 

- A gorilla was given a snicker, and she saved it as a snack for another time. 

 

- Several species in the animal kingdom have passed the mirror test besides human. How do we know they don't question their existence?

 

- Sonar communication between dolphins are highly complex. We still don't understand how they communicate with each other from such long distances. Our subs sonar is no where near their complexity. Animals have their own language too. It's just not what we're used to as language since they don't form words like we do.

 

 

We think too highly of ourselves sometimes. Back then we used to think black people didn't have souls. 

 

If an advanced alien race were to see us, they wouldn't think we were much different from apes.  

It is a great thing that Humans have recorded the past, as we can learn from it and work towards a better future. There is no such thing as a flawless being, and their never will be. Sorry, evolution does not work that way. All we can hope to do is learn from those "uptight philosophers and clergymen of old", and make a better tomorrow with that knowledge.  

 

Once again, denying that black people had souls was the way white people exercised dominance over a different people. The age of exploration, Ignited by Christopher Columbus, was purely a way for European countries to gain power and wealth wrapped in a nice ribbon called "Teaching the heretics the ways of our lord". Religion wasn't to blame, the tendency of powerful people using weak people is.

 

Humans are a race of great tragedies and triumphs. We create and we destroy. We ruthlessly slaughter 10s of millions of our own flesh and blood, and give our lives to protect one another. That is what the human race is. I think the aliens you speak of would have to be pretty naive to think we weren't different from apes. 

[Mr. Meogii]

Free will in my opinion.

Most animals on earth are driven by instinct. We on the other hand are not.

[zoom909]

Socrates also had a plug up his ass and got jealous over his pupil over everything.

 

Those uptight philosophers and the clergymen of old aren't interesting to me.

 

Those abilities aren't unique to humans

 

- Dogs bury bones so they can find it and chew on it later.

 

- A gorilla was given a snicker, and she saved it as a snack for another time. 

 

- Several species in the animal kingdom have passed the mirror test besides human. How do we know they don't question their existence?

 

- Sonar communication between dolphins are highly complex. We still don't understand how they communicate with each other from such long distances. Our subs sonar is no where near their complexity. Animals have their own language too. It's just not what we're used to as language since they don't form words like we do.

 

 

We think too highly of ourselves sometimes. Back then we used to think black people didn't have souls. 

 

If an advanced alien race were to see us, they wouldn't think we were much different from apes.  

 

I think you're misunderstanding something.  Dogs burying bones?  You are talking about behaviors that can be explained instinctively.  Saving food is a survival instinct.  The way squirrels store up nuts for the winter.  A hunger strike is not at all in the same category.

 

The mirror test is only the mere beginning of sentience.  Even if you think that the difference between human and animal intelligence is a matter of degree, what a degree that would be!  Animals do not exhibit human-level creativity or ability for abstract thought, or show any signs of having a philosophy.

 

I can't common on the belief that only people of a certain race have souls--I plead ignorance on this one.  Actually, this is the first I've heard of it.  It sounds rather absurd...

 

But, I don't see how you can claim what advanced aliens would think.  But they might judge us by our space probes.  As far as I'm aware, no gorillas or dolphins have sent probes into outer space...

[Rose]

As long as it was born from another one, it's basically enough to be called a human. That's from a biological point of view, as a matter of fact, there are some controversies regarding things like "Are anencephalic child worth considering a human life?"; "People with brain damage/People in vegetative state who are supposedly unable to live a normal (by the general standard) live, should be treated as humans?". Either way, the I think that biologically speaking, cloning is the most questionable thing when you ask yourself about what is a human being. 

 

If you want to know psychologically, it's probably impossible. I think that things like morals and values are not an accurate way to judge whether or not someone is "worth" being called a human. Those are things created by us and for some reason, accepted as a reality. If someone has a higher tendency than average to murder or rape, is he really an inhuman monster because of that? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say those actions are fine, but that they are not something that should earn someone the title of monster. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to define a human being, but I can think of many overused ways that don't.

 

Also, congrats on making these threads, Shiro-chan. It's really interesting to have some good discussions now and then.

[Clephas]

I like Shigure Sora's definition, from Devils Devel Concept.

 

「ニンゲン」とは、「存在」そのものではなく、ある「状態」を指す言葉だ…………

生物種としての「ヒト」ではなく。

そうならんと望み、願い、足掻き、苦しむ、その「状態」が「ニンゲン」なのだ。

それは、善なるモノではなく、聖なるモノでもない。

綺麗なモノがそうなのではなく、必ずしも気高いモノがそうだとは限らない。

それでも、それは価値ある「状態」だ。

狗でも豚でも化け物でもなく、「ニンゲン」である事は、とても難しい…………

それは、ただ何もしなくても、確定されるようなモノではない。

そこに到達し、それを維持し続けなければ、その名を許されないモノだ。

人は誰もが、人のカタチで生まれてくる。

けれど、それはまだ「人」ではない「何か」でしかない。

成長し、老いてゆくその過程の中で、維持し続ける「状態」こそが、「ニンゲン」という称号なのだ。

それは目に見えるカタチ――――「存在」ではなく、目に見えないカタチ――――「状態」なのだ。

――例えば、犬の形をしたものが犬。

猫の形をしたものが猫。

鳥の形をしたものが鳥。

魚の形をしたものが魚。

それで良いなら、話は簡単だ。

だが、実際はそうじゃない。

目に見えるものが全てだなどというのは、ただの無知と幻想でしかない。

この世には、形に依らない、奇異な存在が無数に存在する。

犬の形をしていながら、人を襲い、人を喰らい、しゃがれた人語を喋る、廃都の黒狗は、果たして「犬」なのだろうか？

それとも、別の何かか？

猫の形をしていながら、自在に気まぐれに人の形にもなれる、美しい白猫は？

鳥の形をしていながら、全く飛ぶ事の出来ない、風のように疾駆する猛禽は？

魚の形をしていながら、陸上でも死なない、人と交配したがる醜悪な怪魚は？

「カタチ」とは、あくまで指標にすぎないものだ。

それに「なれる」指標。

それに「なれるかも知れない」指標。

全ての犬猫や鳥や魚が、努力してそれらになるワケじゃない。

その多くは、生まれついてからその形のモノである。

それでも、「例外」は存在する。

ヒトという生き物は、生まれてくる個体全てが、その「例外」なのだ。[wvl]だから、ヒトは生まれた瞬間に「ヒト」にならない。

努力なしに、「ヒト」になる事が出来ない…………

人の形は、証ではない。

ひどく曖昧な、標に過ぎない。

人の形をしていながら、人を殺すモノがいる。

人の形をしていながら、「ニンゲン」と呼べない者は、いくらでもいる。

全ての形に意味がないのではなく、それはあくまでただの「一面」に過ぎないという事だ。

多くの獣や鳥や魚や虫――――むしろ、その大多数――――は、その形通りの存在である。

あくまで、奇異なるモノは例外中の例外でしかない。

けれど、人間の大多数は、本当に「ニンゲン」なのかどうかも分からないモノばかりだ。

彼等に限り、その形になれる条件は、あくまで存在そのものではなく、「状態」だから。

朝起きて、ニンゲンじゃない者が、昼にはニンゲンであるかも知れない。

昼にはニンゲンだったものが、夜にはケモノかも知れない。

だがそれでも――――

少なくとも、その「状態」でいたいと望むなら。

ほんの一瞬でも、「ニンゲン」の状態になれるなら。

その者は、まだ人になれる可能性を持った、「人」なのだ。

「ニンゲン」とは、罪無き者の呼称ではない。

それでも「そうありたい」と望む者の、呼称なのだ…………

だから、「ニンゲン」は、救われない…………

 

Basically, it argues that while we are born in the shape of the species known as homo sapiens, humanity is actually a title achieved through striving on the part of the individual to rise above his nature.

[Tenkuru]

In my opinion, what sets humans an animals apart is the ability to ask questions. This had been discussed on a Vsauce video I watched awhile back. Animals can do all sorts of clever things we humans do.They can use tools, problem solve, communicate, cooperate, exhibit curiosity, plan for the future, and, although we can't know for sure, many animals certainly act as if they feel emotions. Apes have even been taught to use sign language to talk to humans. They used it to answer questions, express emotion or even produce novel thoughts. However, there's something that they've never done. No ape has ever asked a question. They have never ever wondered, out loud, about anything we might know that they don't. This doesn't mean that they aren't curious, they obviously are. They just lack a "Theory of Mind", an understanding that other people have separate minds. Even us humans aren't born with that. Look up the "Salley-Anne" test if you're interested. Animals fail to understand that other individuals have similar cognitive abilities, and can be used as sources of information.

[Guest]

therapynovel.org

 

If I remember my philosophy courses, what makes a Human different from an animal is his consciousness and his ability to make choices.

A Human being isn't a machine nor an animal, he know's he exists and he needs a purpose.

 

If my philosphy teacher read this he'd scream but meh. That's all I can remember from his class.

[Yukiru]

Never being pleased.

[Mephisto]

I remember you showing this a long time ago, as translation practice of harder things. I was way too green to do this back then, let's see if I can do it now! 

「ニンゲン」とは、「存在」そのものではなく、ある「状態」を指す言葉だ…………
The word "human" is not an "existence" in itself, but rather a word that indicates a "condition"....... 
生物種としての「ヒト」ではなく。
A biological "person" is not necessarily a "human". (I'm so sorry for completely killing the prose here) 
そうならんと望み、願い、足掻き、苦しむ、その「状態」が「ニンゲン」なのだ。
Desire, wish, struggle, to suffer, that condition is what defines the word "human". 
それは、善なるモノではなく、聖なるモノでもない。
It is not a being made inherently good, or sacred. 
綺麗なモノがそうなのではなく、必ずしも気高いモノがそうだとは限らない。
It is not something that can be claimed to be pretty, nor is it a being that is inherently noble. 
それでも、それは価値ある「状態」だ。
Despite that, it is still a "condition" that has value. 
狗でも豚でも化け物でもなく、「ニンゲン」である事は、とても難しい…………
It is not a dog, a pig, or a monster, it's exceedingly difficult to define what is a "human". 
それは、ただ何もしなくても、確定されるようなモノではない。
It is not something that can be confirmed without doing anything. 
そこに到達し、それを維持し続けなければ、その名を許されないモノだ。
It is a being that even if it arrives at the point of being called human, cannot continue calling itself a human if it does not continue maintaining it's existence at that point. 
人は誰もが、人のカタチで生まれてくる。
As for a "person", everyone is born in to the visage of a "person". 
けれど、それはまだ「人」ではない「何か」でしかない。
However, that is still not a "human", it's no more than "something". 
成長し、老いてゆくその過程の中で、維持し続ける「状態」こそが、「ニンゲン」という称号なのだ。
Maturing, amidst the process of growing old, continuing to maintain that "condition", is the meaning of the title "Human". 
それは目に見えるカタチ――――「存在」ではなく、目に見えないカタチ――――「状態」なのだ。
It is not the shape one can see, the "existance", it is the shape one cannot see, the "condition". 
――例えば、犬の形をしたものが犬。
For example, a thing in the form of a dog is a dog. 
猫の形をしたものが猫。
A thing in the form of a cat is a cat. 
鳥の形をしたものが鳥。
A thing in the form of a bird is a bird. 
魚の形をしたものが魚。
A thing in the form of a fish is a fish. 
それで良いなら、話は簡単だ。
If that was the case, then the discussion would be simple. 
だが、実際はそうじゃない。
However, that's not the reality. 
目に見えるものが全てだなどというのは、ただの無知と幻想でしかない。
The thought that "the things one can see is everything" is no more than ignorance and delusions. 
この世には、形に依らない、奇異な存在が無数に存在する。
In this world, countless numbers of strange existences exist without a tangible form. 
犬の形をしていながら、人を襲い、人を喰らい、しゃがれた人語を喋る、廃都の黒狗は、果たして「犬」なのだろうか？

Does the black dog of the ruined city, while in the form of a dog, attacking people, eating people, chatting in human speech until it grew hoarse, still fulfill the requirements of being a dog?    (sorry i don't know what 廃都の黒狗 is referencing)

それとも、別の何かか？
Or is it perhaps something else? 
猫の形をしていながら、自在に気まぐれに人の形にもなれる、美しい白猫は？
What about the beautiful white cat, while in the form of a cat, being able to freely turn in to the form of a human? 
鳥の形をしていながら、全く飛ぶ事の出来ない、風のように疾駆する猛禽は？
What about the bird of prey, while in the form of a bird, unable to fly at all yet able to ride the wind? 
魚の形をしていながら、陸上でも死なない、人と交配したがる醜悪な怪魚は？
What about the a mysterious repulsive fish, that while in the form of a fish, doesn't die on land, and desires to mate with people? 
「カタチ」とは、あくまで指標にすぎないものだ。
A "form", in the end, serves no more use than that of a pointer. 
それに「なれる」指標。
A pointer of what it "can be".
それに「なれるかも知れない」指標。
A point of what it "may be". 
全ての犬猫や鳥や魚が、努力してそれらになるワケじゃない。
The entirety of cats, dogs, birds, and fish, are not able to become "that" if they put in effort. 
その多くは、生まれついてからその形のモノである。
The majority of them are born in to the form of the thing they are. 
それでも、「例外」は存在する。
Despite this, "exceptions" exist. 
ヒトという生き物は、生まれてくる個体全てが、その「例外」なのだ。[wvl]だから、ヒトは生まれた瞬間に「ヒト」にならない。
The living thing called a "person", every individual specimen born in to being one, is within these "exceptions". That is why a "person" is not a "human" from the moment they are born. 
努力なしに、「ヒト」になる事が出来ない…………
If one does not put in forth effort, they are unable to become a "person". 
人の形は、証ではない。
The form of a "human" is not proof. 
ひどく曖昧な、標に過ぎない。
The terrible vagueness serves no more than as a guide. 
人の形をしていながら、人を殺すモノがいる。
There are things that kill humans while in the shape of a human. 
人の形をしていながら、「ニンゲン」と呼べない者は、いくらでもいる。
There are many things in the form of a human which can not be called a "human". 
全ての形に意味がないのではなく、それはあくまでただの「一面」に過ぎないという事だ。
It's not that there is no meaning to the "form" of something, it simply means that a form is no more than "one side". 
多くの獣や鳥や魚や虫――――むしろ、その大多数――――は、その形通りの存在である。
Most beasts, birds, fish, and insects, you could perhaps say the large majority of them, are existences just as the form they take. 
あくまで、奇異なるモノは例外中の例外でしかない。
In the end, only the exceptions within the exceptions turn in to anything more. 
けれど、人間の大多数は、本当に「ニンゲン」なのかどうかも分からないモノばかりだ。
However, the large majority of "people", is filled with things that one can not with certainty call "human". 
彼等に限り、その形になれる条件は、あくまで存在そのものではなく、「状態」だから。
Based on that, the conditions for becoming that form, in the end is not that of "being that form" but being in the "condition" of that form. 
朝起きて、ニンゲンじゃない者が、昼にはニンゲンであるかも知れない。
Someone who is not a "human" when the wake up in the morning, may be a "human" at noon. 
昼にはニンゲンだったものが、夜にはケモノかも知れない。
Someone who was a "human" at moon, may be a monster once night.  
だがそれでも――――
That's why despite that-----
少なくとも、その「状態」でいたいと望むなら。
Even for a little bit, if one desires that "condition"
ほんの一瞬でも、「ニンゲン」の状態になれるなら。
Even if it's only a for moment, that they are able to turn in to the condition of being a "human".
その者は、まだ人になれる可能性を持った、「人」なのだ。
Then that person is a being that still has the ability to become a "human", a "person". 
「ニンゲン」とは、罪無き者の呼称ではない。
"Human" is not a title describing people who lack sin. 
それでも「そうありたい」と望む者の、呼称なのだ…………
It is a title describing someone who "desires to be a Human". 
だから、「ニンゲン」は、救われない…………

That is why, "human" can not be saved....... 

 

Dear god that was not worth it. I'm tired and going to bed, and definitely regretting this in the morning. Trying to TL philosophy short on time = bad idea. 

[GentleBlade]

Humans to me can be rotten than trash and lower than animals & insects or pure and beautiful, although i haven't seen anyone like that - Beautiful and pure. Anyways back to the question. To me, what defines a human is how they live their life and their purpose of life. From what i've seen, majority or almost all my life that humans are very selfish. (Yes, i know everyone is selfish, but i meant it as a negative selfish. For your own gain or to satisfy your own goal and desire while not caring about what happens to other people/friends/family. Not the positive selfish where you do it for another person gain while not caring about their feeling and just doing what's best for them.)

 

Anyways... Back to your question, what defines a human being? My answer is a human being cannot be define.. They are literally all split up in different category by nature. You can only decide what's a human being by yourself. I'm a neutral person, so it doesn't really bother me if humans are selfish disgusting people or kind beautiful noble people.

[Yeah Way]

Human behaviour is far too inconsistent to use as a way of defining humanity. For instance, just to give some extreme examples, one could argue that Hitler really believed that what he was doing was in the best interest of his people, or that he genuinely thought that the "Final Solution" was the answer to a lot of the world's problems, and that he used this to justify his actions. One could also argue that figures such as Mother Teresa only ever did good works for fear of going to hell, and not out of compassion. 

 

Basically, humans' actions are only half the story: one must also ask about all the possible motivations. And since even the actors themselves sometimes can't give a straight answer to such a question, it's incredibly hard to measure such things.

 

However, we can measure biological traits and DNA. Therefore, in the real world, it's best to use that to determine what is "Human" and what isn't.

[Ayana]

My take on this, while being approached differently, is a restating of exactly what Tenkuru said. However, my words aren't really meant to be taken at complete face value so beware.

We are distinguishable from, not just animals, but all other existence in that we can learn of our own ignorance. What defines us as "human beings" is to do with the unique way we use language in accordance to all other forms of existence. Animals/plants/etc. will establish a connection via some form of "communication" in order to progress, and this is simply known as language. The difference is that it's something they need to do as a part of their "code for survival" as it could be put, enacting upon language only when and if it's completely necessary... whereas human beings are free to use language as if it's a toy, whenever and wherever they want (this was due to happen over periods of such successful progress). Becoming so accustomed to expressing thoughts, speeches, and patterns in this effortless fashion (no sacrifices have to be made) is how we develop skepticism and start applying it to ourselves and everything else, as well as language itself. We are continuously drawing finer and finer outlines that separate on the abstract "painting of meshed-together colors" that is the entire world. The other way to put it is that we'll just take a blind leap, make a baseless assumption, ask a foolish question and it then makes us more aware of the limits to our expression of language in accordance to ourselves as an established rule (a certain philosopher by the name of Ludwig Wittgenstein talks about this, check him out if interested).

The language we have applies what are "filters" to our perceptions of the world around us, which then effects us. Everything not perceived is then a part of the great unknown encompassing infinite possibilities. Here's a pretty cool example which I frequently use a lot to bring across the point that's really important. When the Pilgrims first arrived on America after their long journey, they then met with the tribes of Indians inhabiting the land there. What do you think the Indians saw when they met the Pilgrims? They saw "white men" err "walking on water". Because the Indians had no way to express or define in their language what was a "boat" or "ship" being that they've never seen one before, it was then like the thing didn't even exist! They also realized that treading on water was inexplicable so those beings that looked like them were somewhat if not completely alien. A constant and continuous exposure to those mystical-like occurrences is what gets us asking questions, especially baseless ones which then involve skepticism. Otherwise, there would've been no need as base instincts are something like a code to only be followed.

Conclusion is that what really defines human beings is the almost miraculous (it wasn't a miracle though, which is what I realized) amount of success during progress as a species we've had in comparison to pretty much, everything else. Because of this, we built a multilayered structure of language to be easily used and it's what makes us so unique.
 

[crunchytaco]

It is a great thing that Humans have recorded the past, as we can learn from it and work towards a better future. There is no such thing as a flawless being, and their never will be. Sorry, evolution does not work that way. All we can hope to do is learn from those "uptight philosophers and clergymen of old", and make a better tomorrow with that knowledge.  

 

Once again, denying that black people had souls was the way white people exercised dominance over a different people. The age of exploration, Ignited by Christopher Columbus, was purely a way for European countries to gain power and wealth wrapped in a nice ribbon called "Teaching the heretics the ways of our lord". Religion wasn't to blame, the tendency of powerful people using weak people is.

 

Humans are a race of great tragedies and triumphs. We create and we destroy. We ruthlessly slaughter 10s of millions of our own flesh and blood, and give our lives to protect one another. That is what the human race is. I think the aliens you speak of would have to be pretty naive to think we weren't different from apes. 

 

My point was, Socrates wasn't the greatest person to be quoting about enjoyment in life. It has nothing to do with being a flawless human being.

 

You sure exercise a lot of excuses to religion. Religion isn't to be blamed (there are some peaceful ones), except when it teaches right from its book that dark skinned people are an evil race. Boy we sure learn from the past and evolve, because that religion is becoming one of the biggest religions in the world, infiltrating countries in Asia and vying for complete control against national religions over there because of the belief that they are the one true religion, just like almost every other religion.

 

Another mistake is to believe that humans are the only ones capable of great cruelty or great kindness. Territory disputes is common among many animals down to what we believe are the "lowest" of life forms. Like us, psychopathy and sociopathy have also been documented in animals. Our ability to manipulate the environment with fingers, coincidentally came along with the evolution for bigger brains during the time are unique traits to humans, just as bigger claws and living in extreme conditions are unique to other species. That has nothing to do with either religion or philosophy.

 

 

I think you're misunderstanding something.  Dogs burying bones?  You are talking about behaviors that can be explained instinctively.  Saving food is a survival instinct.  The way squirrels store up nuts for the winter.  A hunger strike is not at all in the same category.

 

The mirror test is only the mere beginning of sentience.  Even if you think that the difference between human and animal intelligence is a matter of degree, what a degree that would be!  Animals do not exhibit human-level creativity or ability for abstract thought, or show any signs of having a philosophy.

 

I can't common on the belief that only people of a certain race have souls--I plead ignorance on this one.  Actually, this is the first I've heard of it.  It sounds rather absurd...

 

But, I don't see how you can claim what advanced aliens would think.  But they might judge us by our space probes.  As far as I'm aware, no gorillas or dolphins have sent probes into outer space...

 

Ignorance on a subject doesn't equal absurdity . It just means you're ignorant on the matter and it only takes two seconds to Google these days out of respect for the person you're discussing with. 

 

Anyhow

 

I never said humans were only a degree smarter than other animals. Having bigger brains is one of the traits of a human and can be easily observable by us without the need for explanation by either philosophy or religion. I was just pointing out to you those traits you listed aren't unique. It's all a matter of scale. Some traits are bigger in scale in certain species and lower in others, but the traits you listed aren't unique. Just because it isn't exhibited the way we understand it, doesn't mean we're the only ones who possess it. Pain is a concept we're only starting to understand for example. We used to believe and a lot still do think only vertebrates are capable of processing pain. But we're discovering that this isn't true at all. 

 

Feeding our hunger is instinctual. How does rejecting that and saving up a snicker benefit their survival (Gorillas)? These Gorillas in captivity know they don't have to worry about going hungry over the next meal.

 

Also You know that saving up food is a measure of intelligence (planning ahead and all that) used when studying children right? How does a child saving up a snicker show rejection of instincts while in an animal it does not? 

 

 

 

No, a dolphin has never sent a probe into space, but we don't know if they wouldn't if they had evolved fingers. That's not the point. We don't identify with what we're not familiar with as humans, including other races of people. Why? Because religion said so despite their being practically superficial differences in our genetic make up. That makes our definition of humans murky. This whole concept of "what makes us human?" stemming from unscientific dogma is what led us to start looking down on others we don't deem as humans. We go to such great lengths to distinguish ourselves from one another, despite having less than a 5% difference in genetic variation with our closest common ancestor hence an alien looking at us would laugh at our arrogance. 

[madvanced]

For me it's somewhere around the capability of functioning as a "Human2. Like when someone abandons reason and gives in completely to their desires and instincts, something like the stripping of the Super-ego and complete surrender to Id in Freudian terms. Of course this argument gets complicated as soon as you bring handicapped people and whatnot. You could also then, that it also gathers the ability to have emotions, meaning that in this case mentally handicapped people are also "humans". On a final note you can classify anyone as "Human" as long as they are able to live in a society.

 

This is a very subjective and diverse matter because there is no correct answer in philosophical terms.

[Stray Cat]

My take on this, while being approached differently, is a restating of exactly what Tenkuru said. However, my words aren't really meant to be taken at complete face value so beware.

We are distinguishable from, not just animals, but all other existence in that we can learn of our own ignorance. What defines us as "human beings" is to do with the unique way we use language in accordance to all other forms of existence. Animals/plants/etc. will establish a connection via some form of "communication" in order to progress, and this is simply known as language. The difference is that it's something they need to do as a part of their "code for survival" as it could be put, enacting upon language only when and if it's completely necessary... whereas human beings are free to use language as if it's a toy, whenever and wherever they want (this was due to happen over periods of such successful progress). Becoming so accustomed to expressing thoughts, speeches, and patterns in this effortless fashion (no sacrifices have to be made) is how we develop skepticism and start applying it to ourselves and everything else, as well as language itself. We are continuously drawing finer and finer outlines that separate on the abstract "painting of meshed-together colors" that is the entire world. The other way to put it is that we'll just take a blind leap, make a baseless assumption, ask a foolish question and it then makes us more aware of the limits to our expression of language in accordance to ourselves as an established rule (a certain philosopher by the name of Ludwig Wittgenstein talks about this, check him out if interested).

The language we have applies what are "filters" to our perceptions of the world around us, which then effects us. Everything not perceived is then a part of the great unknown encompassing infinite possibilities. Here's a pretty cool example which I frequently use a lot to bring across the point that's really important. When the Pilgrims first arrived on America after their long journey, they then met with the tribes of Indians inhabiting the land there. What do you think the Indians saw when they met the Pilgrims? They saw "white men" err "walking on water". Because the Indians had no way to express or define in their language what was a "boat" or "ship" being that they've never seen one before, it was then like the thing didn't even exist! They also realized that treading on water was inexplicable so those beings that looked like them were somewhat if not completely alien. A constant and continuous exposure to those mystical-like occurrences is what gets us asking questions, especially baseless ones which then involve skepticism. Otherwise, there would've been no need as base instincts are something like a code to only be followed.

Conclusion is that what really defines human beings is the almost miraculous (it wasn't a miracle though, which is what I realized) amount of success during progress as a species we've had in comparison to pretty much, everything else. Because of this, we built a multilayered structure of language to be easily used and it's what makes us so unique.

 

This came out a month ago and while I agree many of them are rough you could easily argue things such as flirting and other factors are not "necessary".  I do agree with what you're saying I'm just playing devils advocate for the sake of it. 

 

In my coursework I've learned more about primate behavior than anyone would ever want to know but there were definitely some interesting points and I'm going to use for the sake of livening up the conversation. 

 

1. Chimpanzee's use tools. This is common knowledge for most, from simple things like rocks to break open nuts and sticks to collect termites to more advanced things like using specific leaves as shoes to walk over a dangerous patch of land and as plates and cups.  While this can definitely be considered simplistic tool use, it's tool use nonetheless and as they develop new methods, their language to accommodate for these new processes could increases accordingly.  One could even say that inventions-> developing language -> humanity. 
2. One chimp even learned 350 words of American sign language.  She was raised to mimic the conditions of a mute human child.  She was even able to create words for things she didn't understand.  For example, when presented with a thermos, she simply described it as a Metal Cup Drink, proving she understood the properties of the object. When attempting to give birth twice, both of her children died (one in birth and one right after).  After this, the caretaker signed to the chimp My Baby Dead to which she replied Cry while touching her cheek and following the path of a tear (Chimps are physiologically incapable of crying).  This proves that she obviously experienced emotion at least equal to that of a human child, maybe greater.  Additionally, when standing in front of a mirror and asked what she saw she replied Me Washoe, proving a sense of self and an identity.  I could give examples for each of the components of culture I listed above so can we consider her to be human?
3. Finally, and the most scary in my opinion.  Chimpanzee's hunt.  But they don't hunt like tiger or lion or other large predator would, they stratagize.  Chimpanzees hunt in groups of about 5.  The come up with plans before hand, often things such as a pincer formation when 2 chase the prey forward, 1 on each side to prevent escape and 1 coming in for the kill.  It is the oldest that makes the kill and meat is divided in one of two ways.  Either the oldest gets all and shares out of mercy or it is divided based on rank (yes they do have ranks).  In the first case, the poorest often resort to attempting to steal meat from the eldest because they realize that with their current social standing they will never get any.  Oh, and did I mention they can use spears, because they're building and using spears, which was long considered the hallmark of early human hunting development and advancement.    If that wasn't enough, what if I told you that aside from theft there are also cases of murder.  Not just murder between different tribes, which could be compared to mobs and gangs but also to policemen and soldiers. but murder within their own as well because of personality traits that may have been threatening down the line.  Additionally there is cannibalism, even cases of mothers eating their own but that can be found in many mammalian species. So with all of this I ask, if a sociopath could be considered human, why not a chimp?  If a murder is human why not a chimp?  And if a soldier or policeman who commits murder only in defending his home, why not a chimp?

So I guess what I'm asking is given this, can we consider the chimpanzee human?

[Okami]

Human is just a race, just like a cat, dog, tiger, etc. The only difference between them is that human race has an intelligence while other races have only instincts, whoever that intelligence doesn't define human, what defines human is biology therefore cave man that didn't have intelligence ware just as human as today human and just as people who fallow their instincts true life rather then using intelligence are also humans, they are no better then animals because they don't really use one thing that makes them above animals but they are human just as those who do use intelligence, we can say that those people who don't use intelligence are below those who do but that doesn't change that we are the same race. Just as you can't say that one cat is more or less of a cat then other, one human can't be more or less human then any other human. There are some who say that there are human thing to do and inhuman things one human can do but that is just a delusion, no mater what you do you can't change a race you are, that is just a term people who don't want to see themself as a member of a same race as some individuals who do things they don't like use in order to express that, but  just as wanting to become a cat doesn't make you one wanting someone to not be a race that you are doesn't make them not be that race any more. Humanity is a biology not a psychology.

[Katatsumuri]

A human is presently a Homo Sapien, no more, and no less. At least from a biological perspective.

 

From a philosophical perspective, the lines get more blurred. But let's think a little about the concept itself. We keep using the word "human", as if it was a synonym to a sentient and intelligent being. Were the neanderthals human, despite not being homo Sapiens? yes. They were our cousins, and therefore were just as advanced as our ancestors were at the time. But let me ask you a different question: What about a species with the same intelligence and sentience as us, but was, say, evolved from reptiles or fish? Is that species "human"? No, it is a sentient species with the same amount of intelligence as us. Therefore it is not "human"; and yet they are the same. Is a bipedal humanoid robot a human? no. But, my point is: Despite not being human, it still has characteristics that are typically attributed to humans.

And as someone pointed out, we have never actually had the chance to apply this discussion elsewhere than fiction. At this point, it is merely theories.

 

But if I had to try to answer this question, it would be: If you are classified beneath the "Hominidae" family, and you have sentience, and the intelligence to question yourself and the things around you, then you are a human.

[Yukiru]

I don't understand what is so complicated about it, humans are the same at their core, they care about themselves not out of instinct, even when they are helping others they are doing it for themselves.  

[Newbie Otaku]

My point was, Socrates wasn't the greatest person to be quoting about enjoyment in life. It has nothing to do with being a flawless human being.

 

You sure exercise a lot of excuses to religion. Religion isn't to be blamed (there are some peaceful ones), except when it teaches right from its book that dark skinned people are an evil race. Boy we sure learn from the past and evolve, because that religion is becoming one of the biggest religions in the world, infiltrating countries in Asia and vying for complete control against national religions over there because of the belief that they are the one true religion, just like almost every other religion.

 

Another mistake is to believe that humans are the only ones capable of great cruelty or great kindness. Territory disputes is common among many animals down to what we believe are the "lowest" of life forms. Like us, psychopathy and sociopathy have also been documented in animals. Our ability to manipulate the environment with fingers, coincidentally came along with the evolution for bigger brains during the time are unique traits to humans, just as bigger claws and living in extreme conditions are unique to other species. That has nothing to do with either religion or philosophy.

 

 

 

Ignorance on a subject doesn't equal absurdity . It just means you're ignorant on the matter and it only takes two seconds to Google these days out of respect for the person you're discussing with. 

 

Anyhow

 

I never said humans were only a degree smarter than other animals. Having bigger brains is one of the traits of a human and can be easily observable by us without the need for explanation by either philosophy or religion. I was just pointing out to you those traits you listed aren't unique. It's all a matter of scale. Some traits are bigger in scale in certain species and lower in others, but the traits you listed aren't unique. Just because it isn't exhibited the way we understand it, doesn't mean we're the only ones who possess it. Pain is a concept we're only starting to understand for example. We used to believe and a lot still do think only vertebrates are capable of processing pain. But we're discovering that this isn't true at all. 

 

Feeding our hunger is instinctual. How does rejecting that and saving up a snicker benefit their survival (Gorillas)? These Gorillas in captivity know they don't have to worry about going hungry over the next meal.

 

Also You know that saving up food is a measure of intelligence (planning ahead and all that) used when studying children right? How does a child saving up a snicker show rejection of instincts while in an animal it does not? 

 

 

 

No, a dolphin has never sent a probe into space, but we don't know if they wouldn't if they had evolved fingers. That's not the point. We don't identify with what we're not familiar with as humans, including other races of people. Why? Because religion said so despite their being practically superficial differences in our genetic make up. That makes our definition of humans murky. This whole concept of "what makes us human?" stemming from unscientific dogma is what led us to start looking down on others we don't deem as humans. We go to such great lengths to distinguish ourselves from one another, despite having less than a 5% difference in genetic variation with our closest common ancestor hence an alien looking at us would laugh at our arrogance. 

Goodness, this comment chain is going to get long... Also, I've taken care of and owned numerous dogs, but not a single one has ever even tried to dig for anything. I'm not sure if they've just grown lazy as a result of domestication or the dogs I've seen are weird. 

 

Back to the point at hand, I believe a definition going beyond physical traits is going to be more important than ever in the future. As we get closer and closer to developing A.I. and possibly extraterrestrial contact, your strictly physical definition will be requiring drastic revising. 

 

Also, I never said that humans need to have souls. I only said they need to be capable of loving something or someone. Yes, it is sad that small cultures* are being wiped out by the militant spread of Christianity, but such is the way of globalization and assimilation. In return for the low, low price of giving up your personal beliefs, you and your family can purchase genetically modified rice from Germany that will allow your children to grow up big and strong. I'm not sure why you have such reservations against religion, and it's not my place to ask, but you have to realize that nothing is inherently bad or good. 

 

Another thing, where in the bible (I assume that's the religion you have the most reservations against) does it teach dark skinned people have no souls? I really want a quote. Considering that Christianity is supposed to be based on loving everyone as if they were yourself, I find it hard to believe that there is such a quote. 

 

*Those Asian countries you are talking about are either Secular, Muslim, or Buddhist, by the way. The amount of Christians in these countries are minuscule compared to those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

[Cyrillej1]

I think it's pretty difficult to pinpoint exactly what defines a human(in a philosophical sense), simply because we've never really encountered anything which we'd have a hard time classifying as either human or non-human, so we've never had to come up with a strict definition. For example, would an intelligent alien be human and deserve human rights? What about an artificial intelligence?

 

Oh this made me think of the anime

"From the New World"

.. so I'll answer that in relation to the anime

 

Intelligent aliens would not be considered human if they had not evolved from us, or have the same ancestor at some point.

 

Artificial Intelligence would not be considered human for the same reasons.. they were created by us, they are 'things' that aren't living.

 

So in that sense, what's considered 'human' can be from a biological viewpoint related to DNA and evolution.

 

And just to add ;p Clones of humans would be human.

 

And if you think of it in a philosophical way, anything that could or can imitate/looks human could be 'human' I guess.

 

so yeah.. it's more simple to just go with biology.

[crunchytaco]

1. Goodness, this comment chain is going to get long... Also, I've taken care of and owned numerous dogs, but not a single one has ever even tried to dig for anything. I'm not sure if they've just grown lazy as a result of domestication or the dogs I've seen are weird. 

 

2. Back to the point at hand, I believe a definition going beyond physical traits is going to be more important than ever in the future. As we get closer and closer to developing A.I. and possibly extraterrestrial contact, your strictly physical definition will be requiring drastic revising. 

 

3. Also, I never said that humans need to have souls. I only said they need to be capable of loving something or someone. Yes, it is sad that small cultures* are being wiped out by the militant spread of Christianity, but such is the way of globalization and assimilation. In return for the low, low price of giving up your personal beliefs, you and your family can purchase genetically modified rice from Germany that will allow your children to grow up big and strong. I'm not sure why you have such reservations against religion, and it's not my place to ask, but you have to realize that nothing is inherently bad or good. 

 

4. Another thing, where in the bible (I assume that's the religion you have the most reservations against) does it teach dark skinned people have no souls? I really want a quote. Considering that Christianity is supposed to be based on loving everyone as if they were yourself, I find it hard to believe that there is such a quote. 

 

5. *Those Asian countries you are talking about are either Secular, Muslim, or Buddhist, by the way. The amount of Christians in these countries are minuscule compared to those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

 

 

1. Not all breeds dig. Your domesticated dogs could have those traits bred out of them through selective breeding. My dog is wild and not classified under "breed' like most western dogs. It still retains all the natural traits of its ancestors that we find useless (i.e. digging and howling *facepalm*).

 

2. You have to go into further detail why you think it needs revising. Sounds like you've been watching Sci-Fi. 

 

Here's my take on it

 

I like a good sci fi like any Anime fan here. Blade runner and Bicentennial were indeed entertaining movies and I won't dismiss your point simply because we're now imagining scenarios from a science fiction POV. In those situations I would have less of a problem including human rights and titles to discriminated beings. Sounds more like the problem of inclusive groups who won't allow people into heaven because they don't worship the same god. It's not like my argument carries some connotation about humans. If you've been paying attention, I've been saying the opposite. Other than my literal understanding of the word, I don't have any other imagined ideas about it. 

 

I have to add that the plot of most sci fis are written with blatantly human perspectives. They don't even try to look at it through the lens of another being which is unfortunate if you're looking for that sort of thing.

 

In the end, I still yet have a better proposition. We COULD keep calling ourselves human to avoid confusion. We could just strip that self-entitled meaning of the word now, so our discriminatory doesn't continue bleeding into the next generation, long before we either come in contact with E.T. or load up our first setient A.I. on our desktop (or both). 

 

 

3. It wasn't specifically directed at you and I do apologize if you thought I meant so. The rest of your point  is going to get too long and OT. I'll have to opt of this part of the discussion. I'm not trying to make this a knock against religion for the sake of knocking down religion, but it's starting to sound that way. 

 

 

4. The idea was taken from the Bible describing [edit note*]Ham's descendants in the old testament. Since the early days of exploration, when Westerners came in contact with the Moors, they have been familiar with dark skin people and believed that these people were the cursed descendants of Cain. Reports came back of beast like men and women with animal sized phallus and breasts . It wasn't a just a moral justification for slavery during the colonial period. 

 

 By why stop with the goodies there? The old Testament is full of goodies, like Lot giving up his daughters for gang raped in order to protect two angels who didn't need protection. In return those daughters raped him after one of them got him drunk. Incest and rape is cool but homosexuality is a sin, got it. Make fun of your elders back in the days, and God sent bears after you, makes sense. Eat from a fruit tree... well you get the idea.  Most people who think the bible is a book of love conveniently leave out the OT, where God describes himself as a jealous prick.

 

After God stopped raining fire on everyone in the old testament, he made some improvements in the New Testament. But he still created a pit of fire for anyone who didn't see eye-to-eye with Jesus. And the punishment lasted for eternity, which is much worse than any death in the Old Testament. Cross out improvement.

 

Unfortunately I've spent a lot of time quoting the Bible in the past for Bible believers, so you'll have to excuse me on this one if I ask you to do the reading yourself on this one. I feel like I'm doing the reading for them every time . They aren't difficult to find. I grew up learning from pastors but everything can be googled these days. 

 

In the end I'm sure you'll find ways to rationalize any verses I throw at you anyhow. 

 

5. You're in for a shock if that's all you see.

 

 

 

Fastest growing religions in the world 

 

1. Christianity 25,210,195

2. Islam 22,588,676

3. Hinduism 12,533,734

4. Chinese folk-religions 3,715,548

5. Buddhism 3,687,527

 

*Note discrepancy between the bottom 2 Asian religion and the top two Abraham religions. Fear of eternal hellfire too strong. 

 

 

These aren't my original sources but they come handy enough for this situation

 

6 facts about South Korea’s growing Christian population

 

 

"In 1900, only 1% of the country’s population was Christian, but largely through the efforts of missionaries and churches, Christianity has grown rapidly in South Korea over the past century. In 2010, roughly three-in-ten South Koreans were Christian, including members of the world’s largest Pentecostal church,Yoido Full Gospel Church, in Seoul."

 

 

 

 

 

China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years

 

"If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime," she added.

           

 

"China's Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China compared to 40 million in Brazil and 36 million in South Africa, according to the Pew Research Centre's Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline."

 

 

 

There isn't a large coverage on religion in Vietnam because the government is trying its best to suppress it, but it has a huge underground following of Christianity as well.

 

---------

 

*edit - Descendants of Ham who were believed to carry the curse from Cain. 

[Guest sakanaとkoeda]

A mutant ape, probably. Being a human being is defined by biology.

 

Being 'human' is a way of behaving attributed by humans. Intelligence, consciousness, morality, culture, etc. are characteristics of humanity, but having these does not make anything or anyone 'human' the way I see it.

 

Since you've turned to philosophy, you'll almost never establish any concrete answers. Outside of the physical world what makes a dog, a dog; a cat, a cat; a fish, fish; a bird, a bird? What makes you or me or it human?

 

Perspective does, philosophically speaking. (I may be wrong, but so be it, I am human.)

[Chewy]

I come from human. I am human.

[Stray Cat]

I come from human. I am human.

But what about the first human who evolved?   Also, does that mean anyone with a genetic disorder "mutated" from human will not be human anymore?