Reply
Thu 3 Jun, 2004 02:02 am
I assume that we consider oursleves humans. What I've wondered is, following the acceptance of the theory of evolution, where does one stop considering the animal human, and begin to call it otherwise?
How do we define the point where, along the evolutionary trail, a creature became a human being?
Re: Humanity
Taynt wrote:How do we define the point where, along the evolutionary trail, a creature became a human being?
When he learns that pro wrestling is fake.
then i fear that alot of us have yet reached that status.
Wasn't that the point where someone received the Words from whom he or she called Lord God? At that point, being a human being could have been realized in comparison to the existence of divine being, whether or not that belief (in its existence) itself is acceptable these days.
You cannot arbitrarily pick a point in a gradual evolutionary process and say that one generation was animal, the next human. IMO the development of self-awareness, language, and use of fire distinguish us from animals, but no one knows exactly when these steps occurred.
I'm wondering because we as humans seem to belief that we are somehow special from other animals. In some instances this probably is true (self-conciousness, abstract thinking etc). But at some point we must have evolved from earlier versions of ourselves who did not have these characteristics. So why then would we apply certain morals etc to ourselves but not to other animals?
The definition of a human being is relative like everything else in this world. There are people alive today who remember times when not all who are granted the title human today had that right...
Taynt wrote:I'm wondering because we as humans seem to belief that we are somehow special from other animals. In some instances this probably is true (self-conciousness, abstract thinking etc). But at some point we must have evolved from earlier versions of ourselves who did not have these characteristics. So why then would we apply certain morals etc to ourselves but not to other animals?
Just human chauvinism, I think.
Cyracuz:
Ahhhhh! Relativism, especially in the form you have invoked it is internally incoherent. EVERYTHING implies a universal. You cannot have a universal relative.
Also, I don't think the question was attempting to guage some sort of mental attribute that certain humans are not capable of because of thier education level. This is something inherent in human beings that sets us apart from every other animal.
TF
I think dlowan has hit something here. I don't see us as somhow evolved past animal hood. I think we can caterogize ourselves a special entity in our classification - which we have done - but I think Aristotle had it right when he just saw us as a rational and social animal.
And for those that think evolution is some sort of progression toward a goal - I am not sure if our 'evolution' is better. We seem to be so good at adapting that we are killing our host.
TF
Re: Humanity
Taynt wrote:IHow do we define the point where, along the evolutionary trail, a creature became a human being?
This is what paleoanthropology and archaeology concerns it's self with, at least in part. The key is the appearance of symbolic behavior and at the moment the earliest evidence of that is about 90,000 years before present in South Africa. Anatomically modern humans are at best only 150,000 years old, we are a relatively young species.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace