[TPF Essay] What Does It Mean to Be Human?

perhaps no existence has a meaning beyond its simple, stark reality.

I like this one a lot, very readable and compelling. Not a dry survey, we take a brief and personal trip with the author on a search for meaning.

What Does It Mean to Be Human?

What these philosophers are discussing is the nature of man. Because they use the word ‘human’, we may take a leap of faith and assume they include female humans. The meaning of the words ‘human’ ‘mankind’ and ‘man’ are being defined and their subject described in very narrow terms. Then each philosopher, with one exception, goes on to burden his subject with a blanket function, purpose, task and ultimate goal. All men are this; all men should do thusly; all men must aspire to that.

Perhaps no existence has a meaning beyond its simple, stark reality. Perhaps meaning is a human idea that cannot be made universal.

Whether created by some intelligence for a purpose or evolved naturally to fill a niche in its ecosystem, an entity exists. It has certain specific characteristics, properties and capabilities; that is every example of a species is similar to all the other examples – but not identical to any. Every individual has a lifespan containing a series of events, experiences and encounters that are not an exact duplicate of any other life. Sentient species perform purposeful acts; social species interact, are influenced by and form relationships with other members of their species, and intelligent ones set short- and/or long-term goals.

Joanna Bourke's understanding of mankind is more subtle and malleable. She puts the human species in the context of nature and evolution, as well as its own history and cultures. She sees mankind as connected to an ecosystem that necessarily contains all other life forms. She argues that previous definitions have been too rigid, limited and self-serving. No instructions in virtue or assignment of goals; no higher purpose.

Bourke also admonishes against seeing the historical trend in paradigms about humanness as linear, as shifting “from the theological towards the rationalist and scientific” or “from humanist to post-humanist.” How, then, are we to examine the “porous boundary between the human and the animal”?

In complex and sometimes contradictory ways, the ideas, values and practices used to justify the sovereignty of a particular understanding of ‘the human’ over the rest of sentient life are what create society and social life. Perhaps the very concept of ‘culture’ is an attempt to differentiate ourselves from our ‘creatureliness,’ our fleshly vulnerability.

Curiously, Bourke uses the Möbius strip as the perfect metaphor for deconstructing the human vs. animal dilemma. Just as the one-sided surface of the strip has “no inside or outside; no beginning or end; no single point of entry or exit; no hierarchical ladder to clamber up or slide down,” so “the boundaries of the human and the animal turn out to be as entwined and indistinguishable as the inner and outer sides of a Möbius strip.” Bourke points to Derrida’s definition as the most rewarding, calling him “the philosopher of the Möbius strip.”

Ultimately, What It Means to Be Human is less an answer than it is an invitation to a series of questions, questions about who and what we are as a species, as souls, and as nodes in a larger complex ecosystem of sentient beings. As Bourke poetically puts it,

'Erasing the awe-inspiring variety of sentient life impoverishes all our lives.'

The question of what makes us human becomes not one of philosophy alone but also of politics, justice, identity, and every fiber of existence that lies between.

So far, this quest for a meaning seems to have produced nothing more profound than descriptions, injunctions and aspirations.
Perhaps no existence has a meaning beyond its simple, stark reality. Perhaps meaning is a human idea that cannot be made universal.

I remember picturing the evolution of man. That strong image, seen here:
The Seven Stages of Human Evolution: Discoveries and Special Traits
https://krmangalamvaishali.com/blogs/7-stages-of-human-evolution/

Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
But the heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own

Does anyone out there still think we are the crown of creation?

It’s a different description from Aristotle’s; it takes society into the consideration of individual character and posits an innate potential

c 5000 BCE – 1600 CE
In Anishinaabe philosophy, being human means living in harmony with the natural world and other beings, guided by the Seven Grandfather Teachings of wisdom, love, respect, bravery, honesty, humility, and truth. This involves a lifelong commitment to being good, understanding one's place in the universe, and respecting the interconnectedness of all things.

This is a description of North American indigenous life and ideals. Social influence is introduced via the grandfathers, and the virtues men are urged to strive for are social virtues. We see a perspective very close to that of Confucius, but no closer to a meaning.

The Anishinaabe follow an oral storytelling tradition.[32] Storytelling serves as an integral part of Anishinaabe culture as "stories teach the stock of wisdom and knowledge found in the culture" and "promotes 'respectful individualism," wherein individuals do not force their thinking upon others.[33] Instead of directly teaching right and wrong, the Anishinaabe often use storytelling to share their history and cultural truths, including but not limited to the Teachings of the Seven Grandfathers.[33] Stories often "provide important lessons for living and give life purpose, value, and meaning."[34]:?184? They can further "include religious teachings, metaphysical links, cultural insights, history, linguistic structures, literary and aesthetic form, and Indigenous 'truths'."[32] By understanding traditional stories, individuals can better understand themselves, their world, where they came from, and where they are going.[34]:?184–185?

Storytelling is situational, meaning that storytellers must be mindful of audience, of listener, and [should] keep the oration accessible and real."[32] When a story is shared, "[t]he teller and the listener are equally activie; the listener is not passive."[32] Furthermore, stories told are not static: "Once they become public, people will play will them, embellish them, and add to them ... There is no need for any particular story to have any particular form. Nor is it the case that any one story can ever be said to have achieved its final form. Instead, all stories are works in progress."[33]