In his work, Who is Man, Abraham J. Heschel embarks on a philosophical and theological inquiry into the nature and role of man. Through analysis of the meaning of being human, Heschel determines eight essential traits of man. Heschel believes that the eight qualities of preciousness, uniqueness, nonfinality, process and events, solitude and solidarity, reciprocity, and sanctity constitute the image of man that defines a human being. Yet Heschel’s eight qualities do not reflect the essential human quality of the realization of mortality. The modes of uniqueness and opportunity, with the additional singular human quality of the realization of mortality, are the most constitutive of human life as uniqueness reflects the fundamental nature of humanity, …show more content…
The quality of uniqueness and the singularity of each human being is a fundamental characteristic of humanity. In describing uniqueness, Heschel explains how man occupies a unique position of being both a natural and a human being. Though as a natural being, man is “determined by natural laws”, he, as a human, has the freedom of choice and the ability to make decisions (37). Ultimately influenced by decision-making, the course of a man’s life is subject to change and cannot be predicted. Human existence is comprised of an unlimited number of events that cannot be replicated, making it inherently unique (37). While people may come from similar circumstances, each man is an original. Every man has a distinct face and name, beliefs and experienced events that are completely singular. Uniqueness is the most constitutive trait of human existence as it reflects the fundamental nature of humanity -- that no two people are the same and that no two people will be shaped by experiences in the same way. All other attributes of humanity flow …show more content…
Heschel approaches his discussion of the mode of opportunity through the comparison of man and animal. The life of an animal is fixed, and what it can be is determined at birth. With the human person, there is no fixedness or determinedness; instead, there is prospect and opportunity. In living, man navigates a unique “inner life” which is infinitely complex influenced by the experiences of life (39). Man possesses an endless capability to develop his inner self, an unbounding potentiality which is not present in any other being or animal. Heschel concludes with how it is difficult to conceptualize limitless possibilities to what a human is able to be (40). Opportunity is Herschel’s second most important constitutive trait of human being as it is crucial to realizing human potential. Every occurrence in a human lifetime provides the opportunity for growth, development and the ultimate fulfillment of destiny. Without opportunity, it is not possible for a human to set or even achieve any goals, an endeavor that is essential to a meaningful human life. Opportunity allows individuals to define themselves, broaden who they are, and shape who they become. Opportunity also allows a person to discover and embellish personal uniqueness to benefit all of humanity. Although essential to meaningful human existence, the quality of
Jesuit philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1948) believed that humankind follows a certain evolution of mind and body. This process involves a beginning (komogenese), a development (biogenese), and then a peak (noogenese) in which humans reach an Omega Point of higher being. Though his ideas were actually applied on a much broader scale of humanity over a large timespan, the theory can be applied to the individual’s process of human development. Single humans begin as common clones of one another. From this commonality many examine their lives and develop the things within them that make them uniquely them. This development of the self only can be ended at death when the individual converges upon an Omega Point in which he has an elevated understanding of and meaning for life. The characters Edna from The Awakening and Mrs. May from ”Greenleaf” encounter a similar human development in which an individual is formed with an understanding of life. The means by which they achieve this differ greatly.
In’’ The Man Was Almost a man ’’Richard wright develops a theme of maturation. The narrator tells the story in the third-person point of view, with presenting the action of the other characters, while only presenting the thoughts and action of Dave Saunders. “The Man Who Was Almost a Man” is coming of age story where the protagonist Dave, a seventeen-year old African American boy makes an immature decision that he though was the adult thing to do, and with the hopes of proving that he was a man. Unfortunately , Dave ‘s lack of maturity and experience , purchasing a gun lead to irreversible, Unfortunately , Dave’s lack of maturity and experience , purchasing a gun lead to irreversible, unwelcoming events that brought about
Jean-Paul Sartre claims that there can be no human nature, or essence, without a God to conceive of it. This claim leads Sartre to formulate the idea of radical freedom, which is the idea that man exists before he can be defined by any concept and is afterwards solely defined by his choices. Sartre presupposes this radical freedom as a fact but fails to address what is necessary to possess the type of freedom which would allow man to define himself. If it can be established that this freedom and the ability to make choices is contingent upon something else, then freedom cannot be the starting point from which man defines himself. This leaves open the possibility of an essence that is not necessarily dependent upon a God to conceive it. Several inconsistencies in Sartre’s philosophy undermine the plausibility of his concept of human nature. The type of freedom essential for the ability to define oneself is in fact contingent upon something else. It is contingent upon community, and the capacity for empathy, autonomy, rationality, and responsibility.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he thoroughly indicated a well-defined direction in order to achieve our true nature to which we seek happiness. For Aristotle, to be human means to be a rational animal who flourishes through reason to achieve the highest human good. To achieve happiness, one must li...
When we tackle the question of 'What makes us the individual persons that we are?', one approach that we can take is to seek an answer to the question of what it is that is required for a person to continue to exist over time. If we could agree on what is required for it to be true that you continued to exist, then we would have good grounds to believe that we had discovered what makes someone the particular person they are, and by extension, what makes any person the person they are. In essence, what we are searching for are the necessary and sufficient conditions for personal identity over time.
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others.”-MLK Jr. In the book A Lesson Before Dying, Ernest J. Gaines explores the relationship between a student and a teacher in Bayonne, Louisiana, in the 1940s, and how their actions affect the society they are living in. Jefferson, a young black man, is accused of a murder, and is sentenced to death because of his race. Miss Emma, Jefferson’s godmother, wants Grant Wiggins, an educated black teacher to “make him a man” before Jefferson dies. Even though Grant was reluctant that it would amount to anything, but he gave his word that he would try, and soon after a couple of visits to the jail, Grant starts to develop a bond with Jefferson. As the book progresses, Jefferson learns that you need to take responsibility for your own actions, you should always be humble, one should never submit their dignity no matter the circumstances, and always remember that even heroes are not perfect.
Husserl's Phenomenology can be seen as a response to the intrusion of psychology into the essential studies of man; he felt that the study of man should, instead be conducted on a purely philosoph...
In order to define personhood, one must first define a human. A Human can be thought about in two different senses, a moral human sense and a genetic human sense. In a moral sense, humans can be thought of as a person who is a member of the moral community. In a genetic sense, humans are merely any physical being categorized as a being in the human species. From this one can conclude that a person is a human in the moral sense. Furthermore, characteristics of a person must be defined in order to differentiate moral beings from genetic humans.
ABSTRACT: Levinas depicts a pluralism of subjectivity older than consciousness and self-consciousness. He repudiates Heidegger's notion of solitude in order to explore the implications of the Husserlian pure I outside the subject. A hidden Good constitutes the Other in the self: a diremption not at the expense of the unity of the self. Levinas stands with Nietzsche on the side of life which requires and is capable of no justification whatsoever. But for Levinas the totality is ruptured by the thought that there is a unity of self undiminished by its immemorial responsibility for the Other, a unity of self beyond totality. This self containing the Other is the transcendence of the Ego otherwise immanent in Husserl's pure intentionality. Just here Levinas' thought is most perfectly distinguished from Sartre's notion of the transcendence of the Ego as complete exclusion from the immanence of intentionality. The pure I is otherwise than the Hegelian absolute Elastizität: incarnate and inspirited, the "self tight in its own skin." The transubstantiation of Ego to Other has not yet occurred to thought in Levinas, but what does occur here is the altersubstantiation of the I. The Other in the Same is an alteration of essence. It is precisely through thinking the contraction of [the modern] essence [of consciousness] that Levinas thinks otherwise than being, beyond essence, thinks "a thought profounder and 'older' than the cogito." Humanity signifies a "new image" of the Infinite in the preoriginary freedom by which the Self shows the Other mercy.
In his 1971 paper “Personal Identity”, Derek Parfit posits that it is possible and indeed desirable to free important questions from presuppositions about personal identity without losing all that matter. In working out how to do so, Parfit comes to the conclusion that “the question of identity has no importance” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:3). In this essay, I will attempt to show that Parfit’s thesis is a valid one, with positive implications for human behaviour. The first section of the essay will examine the thesis in further detail, and the second will assess how Parfit’s claims fare in the face of criticism. Problems of personal identity generally involve questions about what makes one the person one is and what it takes for the same person to exist at separate times (Olson, 2010).
It is only natural for humans to question why we have been put on this wonderful earth of ours. What does it mean to be these lucky ones called humans? Do we really have a human nature that is all our own? Are there really living beings that kind find something within this world to call our life purpose? And if there are, how do may we achieve it? It is happiness or simple the drive to survive that propel us forward? These are just some of the types of questions that philosophers have been wrestling with for centuries. Some argue that human nature is very much a real thing and that it is essential to living a happy fulfilled life, while others reject that idea completely. However, despite the completely opposite stances that philosophers can take when it comes to human nature, it’s not uncommon to see some surprising similarities between those who support it, and those who do not. One of the biggest examples of this, would be in regards to the Aristotle and his books on Nicomachean Ethics and Sartre with his writing of Existentialism Is a Humanism. When it comes to these two philosophers in particular it would appear on the surface that they are nothing alike. Aristotle being quite the supporter of human nature and it’s ability to give humans fulfilling lives, and Sartre who rejects the human nature completely for the idea that we as humans are essentially just going through life and making choices. Having said this, I would now like to discuss the individual views and arguments that both men have in regards to their views on human nature, it’s relationship to purpose, free will, and politics, and show that within these both Aristotle and Sartre give us the ability to see, that maybe to a certain that we are in fact responsible fo...
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
For the past five weeks we have studied three different but influential people in our perspective on human nature class. They are Freud, Plato and Tzu. The main discussion between all of them is nature versus nurture. I will discuss the difference between nature and nurture and then I’ll apply to each of these philosophers and how they react to it.
What is the meaning of life? What is the point of living if we all eventually die? Philosophers have come up with many different theories regarding this subject. However, there remains a lack of any agreed upon theory for the meaning of life. Thomas Nagel and Harry Frankfurt are two philosophers who have offered their opinions on this issue. In his book called What Does it All Mean?, Nagel distinguishes between meaning within a life and the meaning of life as a whole. The differences between the two create a discrepancy that does not provide a clear conclusion which attributes meaning to our lives. On the other hand, in his book called The Reasons of Love, Frankfurt argues that love is the key to a meaningful life. He describes the idea of self-love, the purest form of love that commits us to finding meaning in our lives. This paper discusses Nagel’s distinction between the two types of meaningfulness, Frankfurt’s analysis of the love-meaning connection, and my argument that Frankfurt’s point of view addresses Nagel’s meaning within a life but not meaning of life as a whole. Then, the paper concludes with my belief that the search for the meaning of life is the meaning of life itself.
... Since we are all unique, we all have a precise and specific “imprinting protocol” that makes us human. Finding our exact “imprint” is “the mystery of the human person” (Cortez, 93). But, “the emergence of higher-level properties and complex systems with novel properties. cannot be comprehensively understood in lower-level terms alone,” affirming that what defines a physical being as being “human,” or what delineates David as a “real boy” is ultimately abstract and unknown (Cortez, 94).