Definition Essay: What Makes Us Human?

I feel that each response has hit on key factors of what society, religion, and science classify as "human". For example, DNA ties us all together, and is something that we all have in common (whether we like it or not). As a species, humans all look relatively similar, yet none of us look or act exactly the same. Our brains are incredible! We can process abstract thoughts, solve

To get a sense of what it is to be human, at least in the evolutionary world, we need only to compare our modern selves to our ancestors such as the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were our closest hominin relative and died out thousands of years ago. Like us, they walked on two legs, hunted , made fire and tools, and lived in shelters (caves). They were more advanced than many of us imagine they were thanks to the way they are portrayed in the media. They had brains similar in size to ours, they stood fully upright (not hunched over), and had a surprisingly complex culture. When asked what it means to be human, you can compare many different aspects of our lives, such as biology, culture, and even religious beliefs. We obviously have

What makes us human? This question has been asked over and over by many scholars and people alike to try to identify us as one. Many people have sat, stood, even laid down trying to understand what the answer to this question is. I may not know the exact answer but I do have a theory. I think the thing that makes us human is our differences and the understanding that no matter our differences we are all still the same animal.

Hello, my name is Maria Doe and I will be talking about a frequently asked question, as there isn’t a specific answer to it. What does it mean to be human? It seems like a really easy question, but its not. The definition I found for human is “A man, woman, or child of the species Homo-sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance” but our meanings don’t have to sound so confusing, since

Aristotle is not a sort of Plato’s sort, but the philosophical ideas cannot be ignored. There is a belief in God in Aristotle. He consider god as creator of everything and this show a spiritual outlook of him. According to him every phenomenon has two aspects- form and matter. Aristotle gives significances to what constitutes matter whereas Plato believes in everything that what is visible is the shadow of the form. Aristotle also believes that man’s soul has two parts- logical and illogical and through ethical virtues, man attains rationality, the logical part of the soul. If in his Ethics, Aristotle discusses he nature if individual happiness in the Politics he treats of the state as one of the chief aims through which individual attains

The scales on which both philosophers regard the human soul on are consequently determinate to the whole political structure and system more so in Plato’s utopia. To be able to recognize the difference of perspectives, looking at what qualifies one to become a ruler is essential. Plato claims that the pre-determined level of a soul is the definite feature of the ruler. The king must be of a golden soul who also happens to be a philosopher. Aristotle takes the latter part of this interpretation and applies it to the rational part of the human soul and defines it as being the determinate factor unique characteristic that qualifies to be the leader. The soul classification of Plato creates an obvious hierarchical system that it’s seen as a huge

Even though Plato and Aristotle differed on this, they both did believe in a psyche, which was a mind and soul combined.

As stated, Aristotle differed from his teacher Plato in many areas of philosophy. Aristotle was an observer of nature and the world around us. He derived his logic through the senses and sought to bring a universal understanding of all things into his philosophy. His teacher Plato was more of an idealist and had his own thoughts on how the state should be, rather than how it should naturally occur. Some of the major areas where the two clash can be seen in Book II of Aristotle’s Politics where he openly criticises his teacher, Plato, on various elements of his work Republic. Some of these criticisms include property ownership, individual interests, the organization of government, and the nature of the family. Furthermore Aristotle includes areas of thought that Plato did not include in his writings, such as the concept of a constitution. Many of the elements that Aristotle includes in his work are still important values that many people hold in the political spectrum in the present day.

What does it mean to be human? In an ontological sense, perhaps this question can never truly be answered. As technology progresses and the fundamental building blocks of our species are torn apart and reexamined, we continue to gain a more concise understanding of the genetic heritage all life on earth shares. Yet, as progress blazes forward, not all aspects of the human experience become clearer. How do we define consciousness, and what is its relationship to culture? At the heart of anthropologic theory since its inception, has been the search for the truth of human nature. Beneath all the jargon, the overtly flowery language, and at times (not so) passive-aggressive academic battles, lies a pervasive question: is there a point of origin, from which all human culture stems?

Being human is something people wonder about all the time. It’s quite a philosophical question, if you think about it. When we refer to different points in history, we think of John Locke, Malcolm X, and how humans can create something advanced. These are just some of the things that make humans human. But the meaning of being human goes even deeper than that.

When we look forward and anticipate the future through the means of science fiction, it seems that contributing largely to our contemporary definition of “human” is our imperfections. The very fact that we posses these imperfections is the reason that writers imagine a future where those imperfections may be eliminated; knowing that there is room for improvement drives human curiosity and ingenuity forward. So now we imagine a future where humans are perfect, ageless, precise. Would these things really still be human or closer to real life cyborgs? Maybe this question is too ethical, lacking in empirical evidence to give a non-angled answer. But for myself, what makes a human different from a machine is that we are not built off of automatic judgments, we are not ageless, and we all carry collective, as well as our own individual imperfections. For it is these imperfections that remind us that we were not constructed in factories, but are rather shaped by our biology and given environments.

“What makes us human?”, is an unanswered question asked by many. Is it because of our ability to have empathy for others? Or is it because of our cognitive ability which allows us to look into the future? One of the main arguments made that separates humans from animals is our communication style; our language. Is language inherently unique to human? To answer such a question, we first operationally define language as; “a system of communication based upon words and the combination of words into sentences” (University of Oslo). The purpose of language is for us to be able to convey an infinite amount of ideas to one another. Sign language in general also falls under this definition as it has a complex system of rules and syntax that allow the signed figures to function as words. Animal communication on the other hand, is operationally defined as, “the transmission of a signal from one animal to another such that the sender benefits, on average, from the response of the recipient” (Pearce 1987). With this in mind, current research has shown that the answer is that language is inherently unique to humans.

Plato and Aristotle both heavily contributed to the study of philosophy. Plato and Aristotle were both known for being brilliant but saw the world in two different lights. According to Plato the soul is immortal and way more valuable than the body. He believed that once the ties from the body and soul are cut the soul will move on. Plato created an argument for how there is no real relationship between reality and the soul because the soul picks up things like senses and the body feelings like pleasure. Plato would agree with Melinda because they both share the same spiritual view on the world and ideas about souls. Aristotle believes the soul is that it is just another part of our body. He explains the soul helps us process the things we go through our everyday life, but once we have died our soul does not continue on. Aristotle relies on scientific facts for his view on the world. Both Mellissa and Aristotle make decisions based on the scientific facts before them. Plato and Melinda directly relate to each other and Mellissa and Aristotle relate to each other, but each pair has totally opposite views about the idea of souls.

Both Aristotle and Plato believed in these shared principles: harmony, organic approach (society functions as an organism), natural approach, politics and morals, they believed that humans are social creatures, and they believed in the functioning of the state and its citizens.

Everything created has specie specific qualities. Human beings are closely linked to animals because of the similarities of these specie specific qualities, but these alone do not make humans animals or animals humans. While there are quite a few characteristics that are similar there are enormous differences. One is