- #1
ifyco10
- 4
- 0
Does man have a certain ability or characteristic that defines him? Perhaps a characteristic that, if taken away, would also take away our humanity?
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion explores the characteristics or abilities that define humanity, questioning whether certain traits are essential to our nature. It encompasses philosophical perspectives, analogies, and interpretations of human nature, touching on concepts such as natural law, creation, and the pursuit of perfection.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Conceptual clarification
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- Some participants propose that natural law governs human nature, suggesting that humans are defined by their ability to follow good and avoid evil.
- Others reference the idea that humanity is characterized by the ability to create, implying that this trait is fundamental to being human.
- A participant cites Mark Twain's observation about blushing as a unique human trait, indicating a complexity of emotions that may define humanity.
- One viewpoint emphasizes the distinction of humans from other animals through advanced abilities such as language and reasoning, while also noting the emotional depth of humans.
- A more complex argument is presented regarding needs and reasons, suggesting that understanding human nature involves distinguishing between essential and trivial reasons for existence and action.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express multiple competing views on what defines humanity, with no consensus reached on a singular characteristic or ability. The discussion remains unresolved, with various interpretations and analogies presented.
Contextual Notes
Some arguments depend on interpretations of natural law and the definitions of needs and reasons, which may not be universally agreed upon. The complexity of human emotions and abilities is also acknowledged but not fully resolved.
- #2
dekoi
Yes. Natural law governs us. It is our specific nature. Argument from analogy: a pen's nature is to be written with, to make pen marks; it will always be a pen, it wil never be a pencil --- similarly, a human's nature is to follow the good, and to avoid the evil, it will never be a mindless, souless animal.
- #3
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 4,663
- 36
I think Mark Twain once said something like, "Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to." 
- #4
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
dekoi said:
Man's nature is never to be satisfied with any specific statement of his nature.
- #5
dekoi
selfAdjoint said:
Perhaps, although it matters how one interprets your statement. If one is never satisfied with nature, one would never be satisfied with good nor evil. And of course, that is true -- humans naturally strive for perfection.
- #6
Twistedseer
- 22
- 0
The ability to create
Without that are we Human.
- #7
wuliheron
- 2,154
- 0
In countless respects, our abilities such as language, reason, and whatnot are magnatudes beyond those of other animals. However the only unique distinction I am aware of is that man is the only animal that can run after another running animal and accurately hit it with a stick or a rock. I wouldn't say that's what makes us human though. Our humanity in my opinion comes from the wide range of emotions we are capable of and from the shere capacity of our minds.
Last edited:
- #8
Philocrat
- 612
- 0
ifyco10 said:
NATURAL LAW (Need is the basis of all relations)
NATURAL LAW (Need is the basis of all creation)
NATURAL LAW (Need is a reason to act)
All this is rigorously grounded as:
---------------------------------------
FOR ANYTHING TO BE PERFECT AND SELF-SUFFICIENT, IT MUST POSSESS NEITHER NEEDS THAT ARE EXTERNALLY FULFILLABLE NOR NEEDS THAT ARE EXTERNAL DESIRABLE, FOR TO DO SO WOULD INEVITABLY INVITE BACK CAUSAL RELATIONS (that is the need to relate to something outside oneself).
---------------------------------------
From this foundational thesis, everything else is deucible within the scope of the human reality.
The formula is this:
Needs = reasons
(reason to be) or (reason to change) etc.
Reasons are classified into two types:
1) The Unnecessarily necessary Reasons (ephemeral in scope and in substance)
2) The Necessarily necessary Reasons (permanent in scope and in substance)
In this sense you could postulate that:
----------------
SOME REASONS ARE MORE NECESSARY THAN OTHERS!
----------------
This means that although a thing can have many reasons attributed to it, yet only some may be construed as essential...and the remainder could very well pass as trivial. In philosophy (and perhaps in other disciplines too), we look out for the essentials and discount the trivials!
Last edited: