A Man is not just an individual - a big chunk of him is actually the herd itself

  • Thread starter Thread starter HumbleIOughtToBe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HumbleIOughtToBe

Guest
How it relates to Catholicism: How ought we to understand the human person?

Defend, Refute, or Ponder the question as you wish.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we can strive for individualism all we want but we still depend on each other, for love and friendship, and answer to each other and know when we should feel guilty for wrongs committed to others, etc, even if, again, we’d prefer to be above it all on one level.

And this relates to man falling corporately in Adam as I see it. We’re really not so unique. 😀
 
How it relates to Catholicism: How ought we to understand the human person?

Defend, Refute, or Ponder the question as you wish.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin , but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state .294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

293 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1.
294 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512
 
A Man is not just an individual - a big chunk of him is actually the herd itself.

How it relates to Catholicism: How ought we to understand the human person?
Such a big question. I’ve recently been sharing my thoughts on this in another thread.

Even if we start considering humans from the very beginning, everything a zygote is at conception, it derives from others - the mother and father. Everything the zygote receives in order to cell-split and grow and mature, it gathers from the mother. So, even in a human’s most primordial state, she begins an intermingled, interconnected existence. You could say that this is just biology. But, even the newborn baby can do little besides drink, pass waste and express discomfort and/or the need for physical connection with the mother. Fetuses and newborns have their identities wrapped-up entirely with “the mother” who intentionally forms the child and ushers it into personhood.

So mother-fetus or mother-newborn is a community of persons. It’s a bonding and not accidentally. Without such bondings, research is fairly clear that newborns suffer. Without taking care of all the basic needs of the newborn it will die quickly. But even if you merely meet its food/cleaning needs, it will suffer from lack of being nurtured. It will be deprived of natural human connections and bonding. So it cannot be said to be “individuated.” Its identity is only understood (initially) with reference to “the mother,” and later to a wider community of persons (eg, the family, friends, schoolmates etc). From conception, through birth and into early childhood, humans are interconnected, entangled, co-identified with each other: humans are, most fundamentally, persons-in-relation , as the Scottish philosopher John MacMurray said.

And the attachments of humans are real, they’re not fictions. What explains them? At some level, it must be co-identification and intermingling of personhood. As John Donne said, “No man is an island.” So, parents see themselves in their children and their children in themselves. On some level, they contribute to the development of each other. These are real relations, not imaginary. Humans exist as persons-in-relation. It’s what we are at our core—designed for and fully actualized only in community.

As for Catholicism, all of the above sits very well. At least, humanity understood in its beginnings is consistent with the above. It’s only when Catholics start talking about “salvation” that they suddenly become hyper-individualistic and would deny everything they’ve previously admitted about the unity of the human race and the communal entanglement of persons.
 
A Man is not just an individual - a big chunk of him is actually the herd itself
Kind of reminds me of the saying “a man is not an island

I wonder how much of a person a human would be if there were no others, no herd.

Our personalities are shaped by our interaction with the herd.
Our self-esteem is often informed by our interaction with the herd.
Our greatest achievements are usually impossible or unlikely without the herd.
There would be no culture if a man was just an individual and not a member of a herd.
The greatest good that man has ever done would never be without the herd.

It’s not unfair to say that much of what we are is shaped by the society we are in. That’s why it takes a self-reflective person, a strong person, to not end up as just another follower. There is such a thing as a sheep mentality after-all.
 
Last edited:
A Man is not just an individual - a big chunk of him is actually the herd itself

It sounds like a sensational way of saying that man is a social being.
How it relates to Catholicism: How ought we to understand the human person?
Jesus didn’'t say “Be the best you can be.” He said “Love one another.” We fully live in relationship to God and one another.
 
Last edited:
Defend, Refute, or Ponder the question as you wish.
A Man is not just an individual - a big chunk of him is actually the herd itself?

Without any supportive argument, that statement is vacuous… Purely speculative…

In Truth, individuals are not to be realized as being even a part of a herd,
but rather, as part of a Body with Jesus as It’s Head.

REF: Scriptures.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like a sensational way of saying that man is a social being.
It’s almost strange to think that it doesn’t seem to be very helpful to describe people as social beings. The term is used so much though, but it’s just a baseline reading at best. It’s like saying, people are comfortable to snuggle with because they’re warm blooded. 😜

Man goes much deeper into reliance on each other than the ‘social being’ label would indicate. I’m sure we all know that many animals are social beings as well. It would be better to describe ourselves in a way that’s more fitting of our interrelation.
“Love one another.” We fully live in relationship to God and one another.
That works. 👍
 
It’s like saying, people are comfortable to snuggle with because they’re warm blooded. 😜

Man goes much deeper into reliance on each other than the ‘social being’ label would indicate.
If the term means so little in common usage, then I have misused it. I had meant much more, of course.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
There’s some merit to this idea.
A lot of our individual psychology is influenced by the things that happened to us from other people.

How many times do we have the experience of making a mistake and find ourselves replaying all the negative messages we ever got from other people in life?
 
It’s not unfair to say that much of what we are is shaped by the society, chains, prison, church we are in.

That’s why it takes a self-reflective person, a strong person, to not end up as just another follower, sheep, Catholic.
Some people prefer to be sheep. They don’t have to think so much. Just blindly follow.
 
Last edited:
As others have mentioned, man was created by God as both an individual and a social being. In accordance with that nature, He made salvation not only a personal matter, but also a communal. It is in a community–the Church–where salvation can only be found.
 
The Samaritan woman at the well, her life history was an image of the entire history of Samaria. Five ex-husband’s , Samaria had at the time five ex kings etc. It could be said she and the nation were one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top