Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Zaptruder t1_iqrgvbf wrote

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

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