It is by no means a simple question, and the answer(s) we accept then correspondingly influence even the most mundane aspects our lives. For instance, pork is avoided by Jews and Muslims because of the narrative that is given as the answer to how we got here also tells them to void pork. The Crusades were fought as a response to the clash of two narratives. Even the atrocious caste system in India was/is be justified with yet another answer to the question of how we humans got here.
The rapid developments in our scientific understanding and technological capabilities might even make us look like gods to people who lived during the times when those old religious narratives were drafted. The old movie cliche of a Westerner flicking a lighter and creating fire that impressed the cannibals who were preparing to cook him alive can now be replaced with any of us walking around with a smartphone that can do wonders that are beyond the wildest imaginations of the generations that preceded us.
The tremendous advancements in technology prompts us to further banish to the dark background any systematic inquiry into what it means to be human. Formal schooling in the humanities and the social sciences are often considered to be wasteful spending. In doing so, we don't seem to feel the importance, more than ever, of helping students and the general population inquire into and understand what it means to be human.
As much as religious narratives of how we got here provided people with rules on how to behave towards fellow-humans within the religious tribe and fellow-humans of other tribes, our modern day constructs of what it means to be human will then have its implications for our collective public policy responses. Here in the US, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, spending on wars, education, illegal immigrants, ... all could potentially be viewed differently depending on how we define what it means to be human. When we routinely rain bombs from drones and kill children and yet pay no attention to it, that action is itself a statement of how some humans are more important than other humans. When we think it is important to prevent abortions but not important to provide support for children growing up in disadvantaged contexts, those public policies reveal a different interpretation of what it means to be human. It is the same case with practically every single public policy.
Yet, not only are we neglecting the need to provide students with the ability to conduct such inquiries, we are also seemingly on the drive to further marginalize the humanities and the social sciences.
I was not keen on my undergraduate studies in electrical engineering, and did not care about pursuing that field as a career, because it didn't directly address the question of what it meant to be human and, therefore, how to respond to the human condition. On top of that, science and technology has contributed--in a big way--to dehumanize humans.
I have always wondered whether the scientists and technologists who work on developing yet another fancy way to kill people, for instance, ever ask themselves whether they are doing good for humanity. Perhaps they are no different from the lobbyist Nick Naylor in Thank you for smoking. The libertarian in me does not want to tell others what they can or cannot do, yes. But, the humanist in me wonders whether all the people, especially the educated ones, whose work generates nothing but harm for fellow-humans, ever clearly articulated for themselves answers to how we got here and what it means to be human.
Like most atheists, I, too, find the question of how we got here and what it means to be human not only highly fascinating but also extremely challenging. More so when I don't need any reminders on how mortal I am. As Susan Jacoby says:
We have our time on this earth, we have to use it in the best possible way, because it is limited.Within that limited time, wouldn't it be worth it to educate ourselves so that we can think about what it means to be human?
3 comments:
Profoundly important issue. There are all sorts of ramifications of whatever stream of thought anybody chooses to go with in his own definition of "what it is it to be human" . The definition exists implicitly or explicitly for every person.
As an aside, I believe the study of humanities, and especially philosophy, is fundamental to every human being. But in our education system, it is being imparted at the wrong age. Testosterone saturated 20 year olds cannot appreciate philosophy. You need to be at least 40 before you start there :)
While there are few, if any, positives of war, it does force us to consider this question of "what is it to be human?". I recently read a book by Viktor Frankl called "Man's Search for Meaning" which discusses the psychological concept of logotherapy.
The book begins with the author's personal account as a prisoner in a concentration camp during World War II. The concentration camps presented unique situations where human beings, both guards and prisoners, had to address this question of "what it is to be human?". Is it the context and surrounding environment that gives us a false sense of what it is to be human? Are there essential aspects of humanity that are identifiable? Does the definition vary from person to person?
My wife and I visit this question regarding humanity from time to time. The discussions are not merely philosophical debates, but are our attempt to address practical matters such as when to take every other off life-support. By establishing these medical criteria for ourselves, we are essentially beginning to define what it means to be human. However, we are still a long way from answering this question and I suspect the answer is less important than the process by which we try to get there.
However I phrase my arguments, Ramesh always concludes with such philosophy talk won't work for the typical undergrad student. I suppose so. But then rarely do people systematically think on their own about these issues, and forget schooling them when they are 40. So, that would require us to abandon this valuable enterprise of understanding what being human is ... in a way, that is what we are currently doing :(
Oh yeah, Chris, pulling the plug on life support is yet another example of the question of what it is to be human. I am with you that the answer is not the target because there is no single answer (unless one believes in the literal words of religious texts) but it is important that we develop our respective process through inquiry. BTW, my first op-ed after moving to Oregon was about the state's "Death with Dignity Act" that the Bush administration wanted to overthrow in their interpretation of what it is to be human and when life can end. A bitter and tragic irony that those same Bushies are the people who gave us two large wars that killed and injured hundreds of thousands of civilians who had nothing to do with violence! Obviously their version of "humanity" is different from mine, to say the least ...
Post a Comment