Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqrfe9r wrote

Reply to comment by Zaptruder in Utopia”: meaning ‘no place’; from Greek: οὐ (not’) and τόπος (‘place’) by Sphaerocypraea

What if an imaginary person lived in a state of nature, in isolation from other humans? Would they simply cease to be human, if they had no experience of tension or conflict with other humans? I recall a comment to this effect by Hannah Arendt.

18

Zaptruder t1_iqrfu8g wrote

Only if you define humans by whether or not they exist, and whether or not they have social contact.

Which in both cases isn't typically how people define 'human'.

So, not sure why such an imaginary human would stop being human in that imaginary scenario.

12

ccaccus t1_iqrzaaq wrote

>whether or not they have social contact

Part of what makes humans human is their mental capacity. I'd argue that a person without sustained social contact would be rather inhuman.

3

Zaptruder t1_iqs34mh wrote

There are all forms of outliers among humans, along all sorts of dimensions.

I think we might casually toss around the term inhuman as hyperbole while still recognizing that they're literally still humans.

8

iiioiia t1_ir1qtb2 wrote

There are a wide variety of methodologies (and cognitive implementations of those methodologies) for IsHuman().

1

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqrg8g4 wrote

How do people typically define human?

2

Zaptruder t1_iqrgvbf wrote

Typically defined biologically, as a creature of the human species, with relevant genetics that beget various physical and mental traits, with acceptable variance to accommodate for genetic variance (i.e. a human missing arms or legs at birth is still human).

Anyway; back to I guess the point you're making? Objecting to the phrase: "Human nature will always want"?

It's a pretty accurate generalization of human behaviour and motivation systems. Exceptions allowed. But on a population scale would be so improbable as to not be worth considering (i.e. in a large complex society, we will not eliminate the human capacity to want more and to create tension and conflict. In an ideal society, the tensions and conflicts are mild and don't result in much harm).

6

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqrhijv wrote

I agree that’s how biologists define human. Can human also be defined by criteria of other disciplines? Or is it an exclusively biological concept?

2

noonemustknowmysecre t1_iqsefpg wrote

>. Can human also be defined by criteria of other disciplines? Or is it an exclusively biological concept?

Obviously biological, unless you're being poetic.

....are you trying to talk about "personhood"?

2

Zaptruder t1_iqri4rs wrote

Sure. It's a term that's used broadly in many ways depending on context, but it generally relates to the perceived unique conditions of been the biological human.

Anyway, what's the point of this line of questioning?

1

twistedtowel t1_iqs21d6 wrote

His odd line of questioning did make me think… is there an issue with people only focusing on the biological definition of human? Or even the incomplete definition of being human as i do believe many people leave out the emotional and mental aspects of being human because they are still not well defined scientifically (i would hypothesize).

6

MinervaNow t1_iqs3kie wrote

Counterfactuals like this are immaterial. Humans are by nature social. The hypothetical is in fundamental conflict with reality, so any takeaway from it is meaningless.

3

CoderDispose t1_iqs98ja wrote

We have discovered humans who never saw another human until they'd completely finished development, and they literally cannot learn to communicate with other humans. I don't know that I'd say it's necessarily meaningless, just very unlikely to apply to any of us.

Edit: I stand corrected - see below. Apparently some have learned communication to varying degrees

8

One_Hand_Smith t1_iqti5yt wrote

Contrary to popular belief theirs quite a few cases just like this, not all of them end up being unable to learn language, some can, others only partially, and some can't.

Almost always though they are stunted, but one girl managed to normalize enough to get married so it's not an absolute.

2

redditexcel t1_iqtf651 wrote

>literally cannot learn to communicate with other humans

"literally cannot learn to communicate with other humans"
Examples?

1

iiioiia t1_ir1r3q4 wrote

> The hypothetical is in fundamental conflict with reality, so any takeaway from it is meaningless.

Can you explain what you mean here? Just because a hypothesis doesn't perfectly align with "reality" (whatever that is, opinions vary widely), how would this make it impossible for meaning to co-exist?

1

ChaiWithCinnamon t1_iqzmsxg wrote

No, if they had proper previous human experience, and developed among other humans. Possibly if you consider cases such as Oxana Malaya. Though genetically, definitely still a human.

1