Please define "human being"

[Jerusha]

Having a soul-- how do we know if a creature has a soul?

Knowledge of the supernatural?

Having free will? the choice to override instincts in favor of a higher moral principle?

Fallen or unfallen nature?

Why do people refuse to eat chimpanzee or gorilla meat? (Or at least I would.)

Lots more questions to cover.

 

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

As Neil Gaiman put it through his character in the Cluracan of Faerie: “… call it soul, for it is solely mine.”

 

[davidv]

Is this definition from the Catholic Encylopedia useful in answering your questions?

According to the common definition of the School, Man is a rational animal. This signifies no more than that, in the system of classification and definition shown in the Arbor Porphyriana, man is a substance, corporeal, living, sentient, and rational…

 

[Jerusha]

That will help.

To define rational:

2.having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: *a calm and rational negotiator. *3.being in or characterized by full possession of one’s reason; sane; lucid: *The patient appeared perfectly rational. *4.endowed with the faculty of reason: *rational beings. *5.of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: *the rational faculty. *

The great apes have the ability to reason and problem-solve. How far can we extend it?

I like black puppy’s definition-- any being that is capable of expressing the fact that they have a soul, has one. And then can be accorded the rights of a human being.

A chimp can look into a mirror and know that he/she is seeing him/herself. Therefore has self-consciousness.

 

[davidv]

That will help.

To define rational:

The great apes have the ability to reason and problem-solve. How far can we extend it?

But what if this just a highly refined instinct that mimics what we think is human reason.

I like black puppy’s definition-- any being that is capable of expressing the fact that they have a soul, has one. And then can be accorded the rights of a human being.

Given that in Catholic philosophy any living thing has a soul the “black puppy’s definition” may not provide for a suitable distinction.

A chimp can look into a mirror and know that he/she is seeing him/herself. Therefore has self-consciousness.

On what basic do you equate self-consciousness with rational thought?

Even if self-consciousness is an attribute of the rational animal, it is not the sole distinguishing feature from the non-rational animal.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The problem I’m seeing with this is that it fails to take into account those who are comatose, those who are born with severe or even moderate mental retardation, the unborn, even infants under say 1 to 2 months old, etc.

Now I firmly believe that all of the above have souls, make no mistake about that. However, I do not feel that a given individual human being can ‘only’ be a human being if he or she “is capable of expressing the fact that he/she HAS a soul”. Certainly those who do so certainly can ‘prove’ they have a soul --equally certainly there are those who may not have the ‘capability’ but do indeed have souls (see the above listed and more).

Perhaps if you modify the above definition to “capable of expressing, if not incapacitated through illness, or congenitally rendered incapable of expression in so far as we can tell, or potentially capable of expression after undergoing sufficient time in normal stages of growth and development”, we might be getting a little closer, as that would tend to ‘cover’ most if not all of the human beings I referenced who are not ‘capable of expression’ for one reason or another yet still are human.

 

[Jerusha]

That is easily covered by “conceived with the possibility of developing rational thought”.

As for the great apes, I think there is a continuum. Their cognitive development is faster than that of the human infant, up until the age of three, then the human generally infant far outstrips them. Remember that they are capable of learning language.

But my primary focus is on a kind of racism that denies the humanity of various peoples, based upon a hunting-gathering lifestyle, etc.

Agreed with any living thing has a soul, there are just different kinds. Just like the distinction between the great apes and other non-human animals.

 

[Jerusha]

Got it!!!

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070507-aborigines-dna.html

 

[RobbyS]

The problem I’m seeing with this is that it fails to take into account those who are comatose, those who are born with severe or even moderate mental retardation, the unborn, even infants under say 1 to 2 months old, etc.

Now I firmly believe that all of the above have souls, make no mistake about that. However, I do not feel that a given individual human being can ‘only’ be a human being if he or she “is capable of expressing the fact that he/she HAS a soul”. Certainly those who do so certainly can ‘prove’ they have a soul --equally certainly there are those who may not have the ‘capability’ but do indeed have souls (see the above listed and more).

Perhaps if you modify the above definition to “capable of expressing, if not incapacitated through illness, or congenitally rendered incapable of expression in so far as we can tell, or potentially capable of expression after undergoing sufficient time in normal stages of growth and development”, we might be getting a little closer, as that would tend to ‘cover’ most if not all of the human beings I referenced who are not ‘capable of expression’ for one reason or another yet still are human.

The more we learn about very young children, the more we realize that they have a capacity to know at a very early age. As a generalization, children in the womb begin to perceive and to react to sights and sounds as soon as their senses develop.
Infants are called infants because they lack the capacity to speak, but have the capacity to know. If memory is, as St. Augustine, is at the core of our personality, then our mind is the product of forming concepts, our “processing” of memory. of relating remembered perceptions.

 

[Jerusha]

then our mind is the product of forming concepts, our “processing” of memory. of relating remembered perceptions.

And our cultures transmit these ethnically remembered perceptions to our young. Just as the first peoples of Australia place such emphasis on the concept of “dreamtime”, more specifically, oral tradition.

Animals don’t have that.

 

[Katholish]

Rational Animal.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Having a soul-- how do we know if a creature has a soul?

The only creatures with souls are God, angelic persons, and human persons. All other creations are our “environment” with which are to use during salvation history to learn about the consequences of sin.

Knowledge of the supernatural?

The supernatural is perceived directly by the mind, without reliance on sensory data, where sensory data merely “hints at” that which we later perceive via direct mind-to-mind revelation.

Having free will? the choice to override instincts in favor of a higher moral principle?

Free will is the ability to will (to do one’s will which is) against natural law and divine revelation. Only persons possess this faculty.

Fallen or unfallen nature?

Fallen nature’s nature is what we see as “the universe”, which “winds down” (entropy).

Fallen human nature is our need to deal with our concupiscence. (another link: concupiscence)

Why do people refuse to eat chimpanzee or gorilla meat? (Or at least I would.)

Some people don’t refuse to eat it.

It’s not popular because the physical form of the monkey/ape is a bit too close to the human form.

Lots more questions to cover.

Keep ‘em comin’!

 

[Jerusha]

Here is what I have written so far.

Further, when we look at the first peoples of other parts of the world, particularly those of Australia, we see them in a new light. According to DNA and carbon dating, they were isolated for between forty thousand to sixty thousand years, both racially and technologically, before Europeans invaded their land. Suddenly we see them as having been in a hunting and gathering culture, always trusting in the Creator to provide for them. The ability to use free will to override instincts is important, but difficult to pin down until one has interacted with a people for quite a while. For me, the most important and easily found characteristic of humans is the presence of oral tradition, through which cultural values and perceptions are remembered through the generations, and through which the human finds the strength to override instinct. “Dreamtime”, the cultural context of the first peoples of Australia, is clearly that. What have the European cultures done to them, destroying this cultural context and exposing them to European sins? Is the destruction of this cultural context an act of dehumanizing the individual? I think so, given my own personal experience.

I agree, eating meat from the higher primates is too close a reminder of cannibalism. I did have something about knowing that there is something beyond what one can sense through the five senses, but I took it out.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

The only creatures with souls are God, angelic persons, and human persons. All other creations are our “environment” with which are to use during salvation history to learn about the consequences of sin.

Hmmmm… I’m actually not sure if God has (3) souls, come to think about it!

Can anyone fill me in on this issue?

 

[Jerusha]

Hmmmm… I’m actually not sure if God has (3) souls, come to think about it!

Can anyone fill me in on this issue?

LOL since I am not a Mormon, I can’t and wouldn’t.

I put the beyond five senses thing back in.

 

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

Given that in Catholic philosophy any living thing has a soul the “black puppy’s definition” may not provide for a suitable distinction.

Just to clear up what I think is an absolutely hilarious misunderstanding, it is I who am ‘the Black Puppy’. That’s the literal translation of my forum monicker ‘Le Chiot Noir’. The irony here is that I specifically avoided the english phrase ‘black puppy’ precisely because of its somewhat leery connotations and perhaps occult-flavored associations. C’est la vie!

I really only quoted Neil Gaiman’s character because it is one of my favorite lines in The Sandman Chronicles. Just to be clear, I completely hold to all the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on the matter of human beings, but otherwise have nothing of real substance to contribute to this specific discussion.

Please carry on!

 

[Jerusha]

LOL no problem some people just don’t know any French. I would be more concerned about “le chat noir”