Human Nature Philosophy people,

[fuzzybabybunny]

I've got to write a final term paper for my Human Nature Philosophy class.

Some sample theses that my prof gave us were:

Is the mind what makes us human?
Up to what point can we give a scientific account of human nature?
Are humans primarily "political beings?"
Is it possible to classify human beings? (race, gender, ethnicity)

I want to argue that it is impossible to scientifically classify humans. All classification is arbitrary and a result of social pressures.

Ex. blacks vs. whites: there isn't really much difference on a biological level.
Ex. neanderthal vs. current humans: where do you draw the line on which is human and which is not on a biological level? Current scientists just use the term "homonids."
Ex. size, shape: humans are all different sizes and shapes. If humans were raised on the moon they'd be taller than the average human on earth, but they'd still be human.

I want to argue that any classification will ONLY be social. Social classification is for the benefit of society and the individual, and there is no scientific basis.

What do you guys think?

 

[hjo3]

So then do you lump us in with chimpanzees? After all, they're just somewhat shorter, hairier, and incapable of speech.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: hjo3
So then do you lump us in with chimpanzees? After all, they're just somewhat shorter, hairier, and incapable of speech.

Not really. I'm just saying that if you were going to classify humans scientifically, there will need to be an arbitrary, man-made cut-off point, like there must be 99.999% similarity in our DNA for us to be considered the same species.

Scientific classification is by definition man-made anyway. It's all about where you draw the line, which is a man-made construct, and can hardly be considered a universal concrete true/false classification.

 

[thoro86]

Since I'm an empirisist... I believe that anything is POSSIBLE.

Is the mind what makes us humans?? Not necessarily. How do you know a stone doesn't have a mind? U've never been a stone have u??

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: thoro86
Since I'm an empirisist... I believe that anything is POSSIBLE.

Is the mind what makes us humans?? Not necessarily. How do you know a stone doesn't have a mind? U've never been a stone have u??

Then we agree

A result of my classification system is that everything is possible; it all depends on the society to define themselves, which is completely arbitrary.

You can't classify a being based on the presence of a mind. Animals have minds, especially higher animals. Extraterrestrials will certainly be sentient and have minds. Humans have minds. The mind is NOT what makes us human.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
You can't classify a being based on the presence of a mind. Animals have minds, especially higher animals. Extraterrestrials will certainly be sentient and have minds. Humans have minds. The mind is NOT what makes us human.

So what does make us human?

Your arguement seems to be that all categorization is arbitrary. But that's not really an answer to "Is it possible to classify human beings?".

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
You can't classify a being based on the presence of a mind. Animals have minds, especially higher animals. Extraterrestrials will certainly be sentient and have minds. Humans have minds. The mind is NOT what makes us human.

So what does make us human?

Your arguement seems to be that all categorization is arbitrary. But that's not really an answer to "Is it possible to classify human beings?".

What makes us human is social identity. If we as a people feel that we are humans, then that's good enough. There's really no law of science that'll argue contrary.

It IS possible to classify humans, but again, the classification is subjective and depends on the classifier.

Race? Are we black, white, yellow? Sure. If it performs a social function and gives people a sense of identity, that's fine. Biologically, it's exactly the same as if we were to classifify people by eye color, ear lobe shape, size of feet, etc.

Gender? There's no difference between genders. Either gender can act like the other gender. There's no set gender behavior.

Sex? Sure, we can classify by sex, just like we can classify by foot size, eye color, etc. It all depends on the social significance.

Ethnicity? It's another social classification that isn't universally concrete. The country of ancestral origin and the traditions that accompany it can just be a personal classification, but shouldn't be used to classifiy a group of humans as a whole. For one, there are mixes. For two, just because a person is a certain ethnicity doesn't mean anything really. They are individuals, after all, with the ability to be whatever they want to be, thug, president, soldier, terrorist, etc. What they become depends largely on environment.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
You can't classify a being based on the presence of a mind. Animals have minds, especially higher animals. Extraterrestrials will certainly be sentient and have minds. Humans have minds. The mind is NOT what makes us human.

So what does make us human?

What makes us human is social identity. If we as a people feel that we are humans, then that's good enough. There's really no law of science that'll argue contrary.

So a monkey that "feels" it's a human is, and a delusional person who thinks he's a martian isn't?

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I've got to write a final term paper for my Human Nature Philosophy class.

Some sample theses that my prof gave us were:

Is the mind what makes us human?
Up to what point can we give a scientific account of human nature?
Are humans primarily "political beings?"
Is it possible to classify human beings? (race, gender, ethnicity)

I want to argue that it is impossible to scientifically classify humans. All classification is arbitrary and a result of social pressures.

Ex. blacks vs. whites: there isn't really much difference on a biological level.
Ex. neanderthal vs. current humans: where do you draw the line on which is human and which is not on a biological level? Current scientists just use the term "homonids."
Ex. size, shape: humans are all different sizes and shapes. If humans were raised on the moon they'd be taller than the average human on earth, but they'd still be human.

I want to argue that any classification will ONLY be social. Social classification is for the benefit of society and the individual, and there is no scientific basis.

What do you guys think?

Put together a list of what you think makes us human.

For example. Language is what essentially makes humans different. The way we can "play" with words. We can give them different meanings and invent new ones. If animals had such a language as we do or simply to use it as we do animals would become more like us in many ways maybe even to the extent that they will overtake what humanity really is...

etc...

Well why don't you just say your nihilist... it condenses your whole argument. and there's nothing wrong with being nihilist. I am

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
You can't classify a being based on the presence of a mind. Animals have minds, especially higher animals. Extraterrestrials will certainly be sentient and have minds. Humans have minds. The mind is NOT what makes us human.

So what does make us human?

What makes us human is social identity. If we as a people feel that we are humans, then that's good enough. There's really no law of science that'll argue contrary.

So a monkey that "feels" it's a human is, and a delusional person who thinks he's a martian isn't?

To the monkey, sure, it's a human. To the delusional person, sure, he's a martian. To society, no, the monkey is not human and no, the delsuional person is not a martian.

You're implying that there is a scientific, objective, universal classification for human. What is it?

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
For example. Language is what essentially makes humans different. The way we can "play" with words. We can give them different meanings and invent new ones. If animals had such a language as we do or simply to use it as we do animals would become more like us in many ways maybe even to the extent that they will overtake what humanity really is...

Nah, language isn't uniquely human. There was a study mentioned on MetaFilter a few months ago that discussed a particular species of bird that has a very complex system of songs. Research showed the "language" involved recursion (which up till then was thought to be a uniquely human ability) and the birds even used it play a game with each other which would be roughly analgous to punning.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I've got to write a final term paper for my Human Nature Philosophy class.

Some sample theses that my prof gave us were:

Is the mind what makes us human?
Up to what point can we give a scientific account of human nature?
Are humans primarily "political beings?"
Is it possible to classify human beings? (race, gender, ethnicity)

I want to argue that it is impossible to scientifically classify humans. All classification is arbitrary and a result of social pressures.

Ex. blacks vs. whites: there isn't really much difference on a biological level.
Ex. neanderthal vs. current humans: where do you draw the line on which is human and which is not on a biological level? Current scientists just use the term "homonids."
Ex. size, shape: humans are all different sizes and shapes. If humans were raised on the moon they'd be taller than the average human on earth, but they'd still be human.

I want to argue that any classification will ONLY be social. Social classification is for the benefit of society and the individual, and there is no scientific basis.

What do you guys think?

Put together a list of what you think makes us human.

For example. Language is what essentially makes humans different. The way we can "play" with words. We can give them different meanings and invent new ones. If animals had such a language as we do or simply to use it as we do animals would become more like us in many ways maybe even to the extent that they will overtake what humanity really is...

etc...

Well why don't you just say your nihilist... it condenses your whole argument. and there's nothing wrong with being nihilist. I am

Language is not what makes humans different. Dolphins have language. Primates can, and have, been taught to use language, even our own, although only to a limited degree. Aliens will undoubtably have language also. I don't believe language is really what makes humans different. It's more of an indication of intellectual sophistication, but then again sophistication is a man-made idea.

If a person's in a coma and can no longer communicate, is he a human anymore?
An embryo from a woman can't communicate. Is it still human?
If something has six arms, scales, gills, and can use language in the exact same way as we do, is it human then?

Is it a combination of traits? There's always going to be an exception.

I can't just say that I'm nihilist because the purpose of the paper is to argue a topic

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny


Language is not what makes humans different. Dolphins have language. Primates can, and have, been taught to use language, even our own, although only to a limited degree. Aliens will undoubtably have language also. I don't believe language is really what makes humans different. It's more of an indication of intellectual sophistication, but then again sophistication is a man-made idea.

If a person's in a coma and can no longer communicate, is he a human anymore?
An embryo from a woman can't communicate. Is it still human?
If something has six arms, scales, gills, and can use language in the exact same way as we do, is it human then?

Is it a combination of traits? There's always going to be an exception.

I can't just say that I'm nihilist because the purpose of the paper is to argue a topic

Argue for nihilism. I like to do that. I mean you don't really have to write that much either. :laugh:

Our variety and the complexity of our language can make us different. We have a bigger brain etc... Look I don't believe it. I took this argument from something I read today. Give me a break. I will argue it for arguments sake nonetheless.

I didn't say it was the only thing. I said it was a factor. However if a patient is comatose I would still consider him as human. Why? simply because he was born by a human... However the characteristics that makes us human are different because if you just wanna talk about that just talk about our physical features.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
You're implying that there is a scientific, objective, universal classification for human. What is it?

I suppose I simply don't see the point in discounting classifications because they're arbitrary.

But for the sake of argument, why not define "human" as a biological species? That's how we define higher creatures, after all. To wit: If they can successfully reproduce together and their offspring can successfully reproduce, they must be the same species.

 

[Praxis1452]

Ok since this'll be my last post in the thread I g2g but I found it interesting thanks!.

I personally love talking about the psychological aspects that make us human. Simply the fact that animals cannot do what humanity has done proves the fact that we are different. Classification among humans is overall very useless... What is the point? Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Overall look at goverment. We have been able to overide our animal instincts {that} makes us human. Goverment or hierarchy is very dominant in the world. Termites Queen>etc... However in our society freedom has come to be a defining value. The fact that instead of the majority we value freedom.

You into political discussion? PM me =P

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
You're implying that there is a scientific, objective, universal classification for human. What is it?

I suppose I simply don't see the point in discounting classifications because they're arbitrary.

But for the sake of argument, why not define "human" as a biological species? That's how we define higher creatures, after all. To wit: If they can successfully reproduce together and their offspring can successfully reproduce, they must be the same species.

I'm not discounting classification because it's arbitrary. In fact, I'm saying that classifications are extremely important (gives people a sense of identity, eases communication, etc), but they just shouldn't be used to make universal blanket statements, because they are arbitrary.

Donkey + Horse = Mule

Species 1 + Species 2 reproduce to form Species 3.

How would we define humans as a biological species? Where do we draw the line between DNA similarities? Draw it too soon and we can say a chimp is a human. Draw it too late and we can say a black man is not the same species as a white man. The line we draw is going to be arbitrary, no matter how you think of it.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I personally love talking about the psychological aspects that make us human. Simply the fact that animals cannot do what humanity has done proves the fact that we are different. Classification among humans is overall very useless... What is the point? Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

The point is to get an A on the paper

Also classification can ease communication.

"Who's Joe?"
"The black/asian/white dude."
"Oh, ok."

Overall look at goverment. We have been able to overide our animal instincts {that} makes us human. Goverment or hierarchy is very dominant in the world. Termites Queen>etc... However in our society freedom has come to be a defining value. The fact that instead of the majority we value freedom.

You into political discussion? PM me =P

I'm sure there are animals that value freedom also. And then there's the freedom/safety tradeoff thing. We must trade some freedoms for safety provided by a government ie. we don't have the "freedom" to kill anyone we want. In order to be classified as human, to what extent must we value freedom?

The problem with any kind of classification is magnitude of a specific characteristic. There's hardly ever 0% or 100%. It's almost always something in the middle, which we then have to derive arbitrary meanings from, depending on our own standards.

Sorry, I don't do political debate, probably because I know zero about politics

 

[Dubb]

you should read Authority and American Usage by david foster wallace. it's in the collection consider the lobster

it's about making judgments about what classifies as proper english and what doesn't, and has alot of application to the stuff you're talking about. He concisely covers some of the sorts of loopholes/sticky points you haven't tripped over yet.

It's also a fun read.

 

[DainBramaged]

I did a paper about how there is no soul, we are just chemicals. I didn't believe a word of it.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I'm not discounting classification because it's arbitrary. In fact, I'm saying that classifications are extremely important (gives people a sense of identity, eases communication, etc), but they just shouldn't be used to make universal blanket statements, because they are arbitrary.

But that much is obvious -- and it has little to do with the arbitrariness of classification. I would simply say that people shouldn't make universal blanket statements. In fact, people should avoid speaking in absolutes all together unless it's about something with intrinsically perfect definition (e.g. integers in math).

 

[fitzov]

You might have an easier time proving the thesis that some specific classification is non-scientific. Philosophy is the stuff of arguments, and good ones have a valid form. For example, the core of your thesis could be something like:

classification scheme x relies on inherited stereotypes with no empirical basis (a)
if (a), then x is not a scientific means of categorization
therefore, x is not a scientific means of categorization

Of course, the bulk of the paper would be in justifying (a), but you'll also have to include a basic, acceptable, understanding of what it means to be scientific.

Also, trying to prove that all human properties are unscientific would be a huge project, probably spanning several volumes of text.