Anders writes:
> But this is not a concept of human nature you can build a philosophy on
> - it can't answer questions like: are humans rational? what is the
> essence of being human? If a machine if generous, is it human? Why does
> technology develop? This is rather a description from a economic
> materialist perspective how certain behaviors have become more common,
> than a concept of what it means to be a human.
I'm not comfortable with this philosophical approach of seeking to
understand the world at the level of humanity and its nature. It's not
clear to me that this is the right level of abstraction to advance our
understanding.
It is true, we are human. And as humans we generally share certain
characteristics. Coming to a better understanding of these shared
features is an advance in knowledge.
But that is not the only level at which we can understand ourselves.
We can look both higher and lower.
At the higher (more abstract) level, we are not just humans, we are
primates. We are mammals. We are animals. We are living beings.
We are physical entities existing in the universe. All of these facts
shed light on our nature and our existence.
At the lower level, we are members of a certain culture and/or
civilization. We are residents of a geographical region. We are
members of a family. We are individuals with our own life history.
And we are particular moments of conscious experience in time.
I don't see that singling out the primate-to-human boundary in this
hierarchy is the only place to look for sources as to our highest nature.
It is true that this is a fairly extreme boundary, one with significant
differences on one side and the other. So it does provide considerable
knowledge and insight. But it's not the only one.
Putting it bluntly, I don't see that my highest goal in life should
necessarily be the advancement of reason, simply because that trait
happens to distinguish humanity from apekind. I feel under no obligation
to exaggerate my differences from the apes and to preferentially develop
those traits that distinguish me from them. It may be that I want to
develop my reasoning abilities, but it's not because of any deficiencies
on the part of apes!
If there were other species around that were also intelligent, would
we then say that humanity's purpose was no longer the advancement of
rationality, but rather, perhaps, the advancement of singing ability
(supposing the other intelligent species didn't sing)?
This all smacks of an argument from intelligent design, that each organism
was created with a place and purpose in the world, and we have to discover
that purpose. By that argument it's logical to look at how you differ
from other organisms in order to learn what the purpose was which you
were put here to fulfill. But with a truer understanding of the nature
of life, we know that there is no such purpose. Comparing ourselves
with other species does not tell us how we should live.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT