On being fully human

[Greta]

There's been much talk on the forum about people being fully human (or not).

There general gist is that if you believe in God then you are fully human but if you don't then you are not fully human, maybe not human at all.

What do you see as "fully human"? Do you consider non humans to be lesser beings?

[Philosophy Explorer]

There's been much talk on the forum about people being fully human (or not).

There general gist is that if you believe in God then you are fully human but if you don't then you are not fully human, maybe not human at all.

What do you see as "fully human"? Do you consider non humans to be lesser beings?

How do you define human? How would you compare HS with the monkeys and Neanderthals? Would you base it on behavior or something else?

PhilX

[Greta]

There's been much talk on the forum about people being fully human (or not).

There general gist is that if you believe in God then you are fully human but if you don't then you are not fully human, maybe not human at all.

What do you see as "fully human"? Do you consider non humans to be lesser beings?

How do you define human? How would you compare HS with the monkeys and Neanderthals? Would you base it on behavior or something else?

I don't much care for such classifications, Phil, other than saying we are H. sapiens. Numerous non-human beings are worthy of respect and kindness IMO, which rather renders the point moot to me. I don't want to deem someone to be "lesser" so as to be able to mistreat them.

Having said that, I'm with Popper when it comes to being intolerant to those who are intolerant.

[Walker]

Having said that, I'm with Popper when it comes to being intolerant to those who are intolerant.

That attitude would explain intolerant Iran’s complaints of British aggression.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 84346.html

[Philosophy Explorer]

There's been much talk on the forum about people being fully human (or not).

There general gist is that if you believe in God then you are fully human but if you don't then you are not fully human, maybe not human at all.

What do you see as "fully human"? Do you consider non humans to be lesser beings?

How do you define human? How would you compare HS with the monkeys and Neanderthals? Would you base it on behavior or something else?

I don't much care for such classifications, Phil, other than saying we are H. sapiens. Numerous non-human beings are worthy of respect and kindness IMO, which rather renders the point moot to me. I don't want to deem someone to be "lesser" so as to be able to mistreat them.

Having said that, I'm with Popper when it comes to being intolerant to those who are intolerant.

I'm also in line with Popper. However my philosophy of an eye for an eye is a harsh one, but I deem necessary for dealing with those who murder in violent ways and I don't care about the mental states of murderers outside of the law. This is to respect the families and friends of the murdered and to help cut down my taxes (from supporting the murderers with things such as feeding them, clothing them, guarding them, giving them big-screen tvs, medical service, etc.) Also dealing harshly with murderers may dissuade other murders and you can bring up all the studies on this particular subject which I don't believe.

PhilX

[Skip]

Having said that, I'm with Popper when it comes to being intolerant to those who are intolerant.

That attitude would explain intolerant Iran’s complaints of British aggression.

What has religious tolerance to do with international politics? Does branding an entire nation "intolerant" and holding the entire population responsible for one man's statement, demonstrate historical perspective or political acumen?
The statement regarding British foreign policy is factual, regardless of one's opinion of who said it.

None of which has any bearing on the notion of degrees of "humanness".
That notion is predicated on some unique and special quality which exemplifies humans.
While there may indeed be such characteristics, I certainly don't believe they're worthy aspirations.
But then, I don't believe that it's possible to be partially human - you're one species or another at conception, and that's it for life ---
at least until gene-splicing and robotics are enough advanced to create Spidermen and cyborgs.
Only then will "fully human" at last have a tangible meaning.

[Nick_A]

There's been much talk on the forum about people being fully human (or not).

There general gist is that if you believe in God then you are fully human but if you don't then you are not fully human, maybe not human at all.

What do you see as "fully human"? Do you consider non humans to be lesser beings?

I probably provoked this question by posting a portion from the following quotation:

This is what I believe Thomas Merton meant after being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

Through lack of experience we don’t know what it means to speak with our own voice so remain not human.

A fully human or consciously evolved human being has several qualities partial humans have only in potential. I'll begin with one such quality and if people are interested we can discus other qualities as well. The first is inner unity. A fully human being has inner unity. Partial humans live as a plurality in opposition to itself. A fully human being could say "I Am." A partial human being must say "We Are." Here is how others described the human condition:

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...

"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man. ` Nietzsche

So according to Nietzsche we exist between the level of beast and overman. We are not one thing or the other. We are becoming used to this abnormality and soon will be unable to despise the human condition as it exists in us resulting in the glorification of "wretched contentment."

St. Paul describes the wretched man as he describes himself.

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

Where fully human Man has inner unity, Paul describes himself as a plurality lacking inner unity and in opposition with himself

To be fully human requires being master of oneself. Since we live as a plurality, what within us is the master? We can witness that sometimes we are governed by thoughts, others by emotions, others by our stomachs, and others by sex etc. We just go with the flow. Einsein elaborates:

“Only one who devotes himself to a cause with his whole strength and soul can be a true master. For this reason mastery demands all of a person.” ~ Albert Einstein

But since we live as an inner plurality, "all of a person" is rarely in agreement creating the human condition as it manifests in the world.

So the first step to becoming fully human requires admitting the plurality of the human condition and the benefits of acquiring inner unity. But how many are willing to admit it much less consciously strive towards inner unity? No, the world seeks to destroy the impulse to sustain the hypocrisy of the status quo maintained by imagination

[Skip]

There was a belief, foisted on the pagan world by men-at-arms, following the doctrine of such advocates as Paul, that 'Man' - not people, or humankind, but an exalted image of the self-entitled male - is exceptional, specially created and separate and distinct from all other living things. The peoples whom the Roman empire (and its European successors) conquered had very different and usually more realistic, more natural concepts of how living things are interrelated. Those other notions were brutally suppressed by Christianity.
Any Christians and other self-styled overlords widely quoted, particularly from the centuries between 300 and 1900 AD, support that aggressively anthropocentric cultural tradition.
They are not content to classify the world on a pyramidal hierarchy; they presume to set criteria for a hierarchy of membership in the penultimate species -- turn it into their own private club, to admit whom they will, according to rules set by themselves.

The Einstein quote refers to mastery, rather than humanity, and it not relevant to the topic.

[bahman]

There's been much talk on the forum about people being fully human (or not).

There general gist is that if you believe in God then you are fully human but if you don't then you are not fully human, maybe not human at all.

What do you see as "fully human"? Do you consider non humans to be lesser beings?

We are same in the essence, mind, and have different masks.

[HexHammer]

What do you see as "fully human"? Do you consider non humans to be lesser beings?

To be a good samaritan, not hold grudge, etc.

[Greta]

There's been much talk on the forum about people being fully human (or not).

There general gist is that if you believe in God then you are fully human but if you don't then you are not fully human, maybe not human at all.

What do you see as "fully human"? Do you consider non humans to be lesser beings?

I probably provoked this question by posting a portion from the following quotation:

This is what I believe Thomas Merton meant after being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

Through lack of experience we don’t know what it means to speak with our own voice so remain not human.

A fully human or consciously evolved human being has several qualities partial humans have only in potential. I'll begin with one such quality and if people are interested we can discus other qualities as well. The first is inner unity. A fully human being has inner unity. Partial humans live as a plurality in opposition to itself. A fully human being could say "I Am." A partial human being must say "We Are."

Sounds a bit like Gurdjieff ... aren't you part Ruski? Do you think GG's and Ouspensky's ideas were much influential in Russia (they were only slightly influential in the west).

It's too absolutist for me and incomplete. I am AND we are. Not only that but there is another "we" - our much-neglected relationship with our inner microbes, for whom we are the entire world.

This is ultimately about identity being defined by our relationships. Psychology 101 will tell you that we are parents, offspring, siblings, friends, bosses, subordinates, colleagues, neighbours, citizens and so forth. Outside of human society we are part of the local natural systems - the biology, geology, hydrology, atmosphere and so forth.

I think it better to be adaptable in these roles while remaining true to oneself rather than being relatively fixed in trying to assert I AM.

Here is how others described the human condition:

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...

"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man. ` Nietzsche

So according to Nietzsche we exist between the level of beast and overman. We are not one thing or the other. We are becoming used to this abnormality and soon will be unable to despise the human condition as it exists in us resulting in the glorification of "wretched contentment."

Nah, that's old hat. We have always been beasts and not beasts. That's what happens when you share almost all brain structures with other mammals.

You know what the whole ancient "do not be a beast" obsession was about? It was about maintaining civil order rather than stealing, raping and killing - like a beast. While we remain nine meals from anarchy but there's nothing for anyone to feel insecure about here - we remain unmistakeably human. Being human is the capacity to shape one's responses rather than accept our initial capacities. This ability is greatly accelerated through cultural transmission - accessing the experience of those who came before.

The rest of it depends on our own interests and aptitudes, so I'm seeing a continuum in humanity where you see a hard division.

St. Paul describes the wretched man as he describes himself.

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

Yes, but Paul was most likely a self hating bisexual struggling with his urges.

What he's saying is that, no matter hard he tries, he stuffs up. Stop the presses! Living things are not perfect! Who'd have thunk it??

Really Nick, isn't being miserable because one is not perfect throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Why not accept that we will never be perfect, do our best anyway, and accept this gift of life with gratitude? Paul seems ungrateful, resentful that he's not all he thought he could be.

That is just ego and pride speaking. People who believe themselves capable of great things can be in denial about the relative mediocrity they achieve. The fact is, if they could have been great, they would have been. If they failed to live up to their imagined potentials, then there must have been other aspects of their mentality or character that interfered with said ability to succeed. In other words - they only looked at their strengths and were in denial about their weaknesses.

Be grateful! The chances of you existing - this egg with that sperm - are trillions to one against. If you are not as awesome as you thought, join the line - it's a long one and I'm in there too

“Only one who devotes himself to a cause with his whole strength and soul can be a true master. For this reason mastery demands all of a person.” ~ Albert Einstein

But since we live as an inner plurality, "all of a person" is rarely in agreement creating the human condition as it manifests in the world.

So the first step to becoming fully human requires admitting the plurality of the human condition and the benefits of acquiring inner unity. But how many are willing to admit it much less consciously strive towards inner unity? No, the world seeks to destroy the impulse to sustain the hypocrisy of the status quo maintained by imagination

Yeah, I had a music tutor who had studied martial arts and believed in that kind of single-minded discipline, and he gave me a lot of shit too (especially when he got drunk and frustrated on Sundays and would go crazy with poison pen SMSs until I decided that his lessons came at too high a price).

Basically Einstein is stressing the importance of clear goals. However, not everyone can be a master. They might have the brains but not the drive, or vice versa.

The Einstein quote is actually timely because I have had writer's block of late (hence all the forum BS) but my goals have been most fuzzy ...

[Nick_A]

Greta

This is ultimately about identity being defined by our relationships. Psychology 101 will tell you that we are parents, offspring, siblings, friends, bosses, subordinates, colleagues, neighbours, citizens and so forth. Outside of human society we are part of the local natural systems - the biology, geology, hydrology, atmosphere and so forth.

I think it better to be adaptable in these roles while remaining true to oneself rather than being relatively fixed in trying to assert I AM.

Yours is a normal secularist’s view. What we are is defined by cultural standards. We are a this or a that but without I Am. Rather than having a personality, our conditioned personality has us. A fully human being has become themselves and can consciously be all things to all people. As we are we are limited to conditioned roles. We are eagles conditioned to become chickens

A man found an eagle's egg and put it in a nest of a barnyard hen. The eaglet hatched with the brood of chicks and grew up with them. All his life the eagle did what the barnyard chicks did, thinking he was a barnyard chicken. He scratched the earth for worms and insects. He clucked and cackled. And he would thrash his wings and fly a few feet into the air.

Years passed and the eagle grew very old. One day he saw a magnificent bird above him in the cloudless sky. It glided in graceful majesty among the powerful wind currents, with scarcely a beat on his strong golden wings. The old eagle looked up in awe. "Who's that?" he asked. "That's the eagle, the king of the birds," said his neighbour. "He belongs to the sky. We belong to the earth - we're chickens." So the eagle lived and died a chicken, for that's what he thought he was.

Anthony de Mello (1931 - 1987) Jesuit Priest

Most are content to remain as programmed. A minority seek the inner freedom to become themselves

Both Paul and Nietzche refer to what we ARE as opposed to being conditioned to do this or that.

Being fully human isn’t defined by what we do but rather what we are.

Basically Einstein is stressing the importance of clear goals. However, not everyone can be a master. They might have the brains but not the drive, or vice versa.

No. Einstein explains that mastery of a goal requires the whole of oneself. It is the same with oneself. A fully human being is master of themselves. That is why there are so many chickens and so few eagles. We don't know what we are so become as conditioned.

[Walker]

Having said that, I'm with Popper when it comes to being intolerant to those who are intolerant.

That attitude would explain intolerant Iran’s complaints of British aggression.

What has religious tolerance to do with international politics? Does branding an entire nation "intolerant" and holding the entire population responsible for one man's statement, demonstrate historical perspective or political acumen?
The statement regarding British foreign policy is factual, regardless of one's opinion of who said it.

None of which has any bearing on the notion of degrees of "humanness".
That notion is predicated on some unique and special quality which exemplifies humans.
While there may indeed be such characteristics, I certainly don't believe they're worthy aspirations.
But then, I don't believe that it's possible to be partially human - you're one species or another at conception, and that's it for life ---
at least until gene-splicing and robotics are enough advanced to create Spidermen and cyborgs.
Only then will "fully human" at last have a tangible meaning.

What has religious tolerance to do with international politics?

The leader of a theocracy would have something to say about that, especially if he is Supreme.

Does branding an entire nation "intolerant" and holding the entire population responsible for one man's statement, demonstrate historical perspective or political acumen?

Of course not.

The statement regarding British foreign policy is factual, regardless of one's opinion of who said it.

Who says what counts for a lot. This is why you don’t hear folks much quoting the bad guys … the taint rubs off.

None of which has any bearing on the notion of degrees of "humanness".
That notion is predicated on some unique and special quality which exemplifies humans.

Not necessarily. It can also mean the return to a pre-corrupted condition.

While there may indeed be such characteristics, I certainly don't believe they're worthy aspirations.

What aspiration could be higher? Here’s the reasoning. Everything affects everything, so if you clean your own doorstep and put your own house (inner world) in order, the world in many practical ways benefits from the resulting being that you are.

But then, I don't believe that it's possible to be partially human - you're one species or another at conception, and that's it for life ---

It is possible if humanness is corrupted.

at least until gene-splicing and robotics are enough advanced to create Spidermen and cyborgs.

This view is rooted in the belief that a human is the body, however this doesn’t stand up to reason. Why? Because you are not less of a human if you lose part of the body.

Only then will "fully human" at last have a tangible meaning.

To be fully human can be understood within various traditions that all manifest principles of purification for the purpose of neutralizing the negative effects of corruption upon the original design. Most likely there are other ways of understanding, too.

[Skip]

[ characteristics that exemplify humanness]
Not necessarily. It can also mean the return to a pre-corrupted condition.

That would be a condition before human autonomy. The state of amoral innocence is exactly what humans pride themselves on having given up in favour of knowledge and shame

[unique human characteristics I certainly don't believe they're worthy aspirations. ]
By this I meant such traits as duplicity, lust for material possessions, ingenuity in devising weapons, a desire to control others' thoughts, etc.
Yes, it was intended as casual sarcasm.

What aspiration could be higher? Here’s the reasoning. Everything affects everything, so if you clean your own doorstep and put your own house (inner world) in order, the world in many practical ways benefits from the resulting being that you are.

Sounds nice. If only it were a general human ambition!

[But then, I don't believe that it's possible to be partially human ]

It is possible if humanness is corrupted.

Corruption is yet another uniquely human quality. Every infant is morally perfect, because it has no morals at all. Whatever its taught will corrupt that state to some degree. Then, when it's grown up, it has to start its own doorstep-scrubbing and house-tidying to get rid of the notions it has learned, eventually to regain some state of innocence before it dies. And that's a uniquely human life.
Ble-ech!

[at least until gene-splicing and robotics are enough advanced to create Spidermen and cyborgs. ]

This view is rooted in the belief that a human is the body, however this doesn’t stand up to reason. Why? Because you are not less of a human if you lose part of the body.

The loss of any part reduces physical integrity, but not the humanity of what remains. The loss of part of the brain reduces the personality, but not the humanity of what remains. To become partially something else, you would have to add the something else, so that the entity becomes more than human. In order to make it less than human, you would have to replace a human function with something else; for example, part of the brain with a computer program, or the olfactory sensors with those of a dog. What remains then is still human, but the resulting entity is part human, part something else.

To be fully human can be understood within various traditions that all manifest principles of purification for the purpose of neutralizing the negative effects of corruption upon the original design. Most likely there are other ways of understanding, too.

Folklore.

[Walker]

S: That would be a condition before human autonomy. The state of amoral innocence is exactly what humans pride themselves on having given up in favour of knowledge and shame

W: No. That would be a condition of a functional adult in the world who was corrupted, and then who has been purified of corruption. It’s not the condition of an infant with no adult experience in the world.

S: By this I meant such traits as duplicity, lust for material possessions, ingenuity in devising weapons, a desire to control others' thoughts, etc.
Yes, it was intended as casual sarcasm.

W: Particulars of corruption.

S: Sounds nice. If only it were a general human ambition!

W: Sure folks want to improve themselves. Take a look at the self-help sections in the remaining brick and mortar bookstores. It's a popular subject.
Do you have an example of a general human ambition?

S: The loss of any part reduces physical integrity, but not the humanity of what remains. The loss of part of the brain reduces the personality, but not the humanity of what remains. To become partially something else, you would have to add the something else, so that the entity becomes more than human. In order to make it less than human, you would have to replace a human function with something else; for example, part of the brain with a computer program, or the olfactory sensors with those of a dog. What remains then is still human, but the resulting entity is part human, part something else.

W: I wear spectacles and I'm still all human, only human, not part something else.

S: Corruption is yet another uniquely human quality. Every infant is morally perfect, because it has no morals at all. Whatever its taught will corrupt that state to some degree. Then, when it's grown up, it has to start its own doorstep-scrubbing and house-tidying to get rid of the notions it has learned, eventually to regain some state of innocence before it dies. And that's a uniquely human life.

W: So you’re saying that adults should have no morals, be as clueless as an infant, and forget everything learned in life? Some interpretation of reality. Perhaps it’s just more sarcasm.

S: Ble-ech!

W: Being Spiderman must be so much more thrilling and adventurous.

S: Folklore.

W: Going to the library and reading folklore doesn’t commit enough skin in the game to impact a lifetime of corruption.