"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" -- As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter...
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers...
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."
I take off from one of the most misunderstood statements of Nietzsche from The Parable of the Madman and, for the purpose of the 3rd week's discussion, replaced "God" with "Human".
The human is dead. We have killed him/her, you and I.
Before one can argue on the meaning of this statement above, first, the following terms must be defined.
Human.
Steve Fuller discusses that it is not an easy feat to define what "it is to be human" because of:
1. ambiguity in drawing a line between human and non-human
"homo sapien" is modern [hu]man- neanderthals weren't [hu]man?
2. diversity in physical and mental qualities attributed to the human
sample from Badmington: Descartes- "reason is the only thing that makes us man and distinguishes us from the beast"- those with mental illnesses aren't human?
3. all or nothing "not everything about us...is necessary for us to be humans"
lose or add a physical trait (say, prosthetic)- would the person be more or less human?
4. valuable yet elusive - one can "move in an out of it"
mental competence now is ok, so person is more human; moral action at a given point was questionable, so person is less human- projects are needed to "promote and maintain" this humanity
I want to pause a bit here for, with the 4th item above, another Nietzsche driven thought comes in. From Thus Spake Zarathustra:
"“Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself—he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself ’man’, that is, the valuator."
The very idea of "humanity" is a creation, and as Fuller puts it, "humanity is artificial".
Throughout time, there have been "projects" that made sure that the "homo sapien", indeed, became more "human".
Fuller uses Paideia as a starting point, where people are "educated" on how to become "ideal member[s] of the polis". Then came the "universitas" in the middle ages which had "higher learning" as its purpose. Finally, Fuller says "engineering" is the contemporary humanizing project where human enhancement is an option so as to "overcome limitations", physical or otherwise.
Let's backtrack:
* The human is artificial. It is created.
* The human project has been going on for some time now in the hopes of "creating" humans/humanity.
Since the idea of the human is just a creation and its definition has been changing depending on the times and the environments in which it has been promoted and maintained, how do we now define "dead"?
Dead.
This human is fluid and flowing, formed and fashioned to fit the times.
So, how do we define the death of this (yesterday) human Consequently, how could we define the life of this (today) human?
Some initial questions I thought of were:
1. How did we kill it?
2. What aspects of the(yesterday) human died completely?
3. Is there anything that replaced these aspects?
4. Are there other facets of the (yesterday) human that may still be alive in the (today) human?
One way we killed the human of yesterday is by making it possible for the center (the self) to be at many different places all at the same time. While omnipresence is an attribute of a supposed higher being, it is not one of humans... until now (well, not so "now now").
"I" can be on Facebook and Google+ simultaneously, nay- I can also be on Twitter, Tumbler, gTalk, YM, Skype, my mobile phone, Voxer, Viber, and What'sApp and what not.
So, to answer the next question, following the answer to the first, one aspect of the yesterday human that is completely dead is that it can be only at one place at a given time.
The replacement to this aspect, to answer the third question, are enveloped inside those that I have mentioned above. With the help of social networking sites, mobile phones, applications, our indestructible self has become our many digital selves.
Finally, there are a multitude of answers for the fourth question. But I will focus on the human touch (as I have mentioned this in my first post under the topic of technological determinism).
For me, the human touch doesn't have to be literal. For my mom, an educator herself for 35 years, it has to be.
I teach English to French kids and teenagers. I am in Manila, they are in France. We communicate through Skype or phones. We laugh about their weekends and talk about their favorite music and sports. The human touch is alive and kicking despite the oceans that separate us.
For my mom who taught in the traditional classroom, she has to be able to hug her students, do high fives with them, and so on. The human touch to her is very, very literal.
At any rate, we both agree that the human touch us still alive in the (today) human. It hasn't been completely obliterated.
To define what it is to be human today is not something I will attempt, rather, let me illustrate what a typical HUMAN Sunday is like at home.
We.
Today's people.
Who says it is less (or more?) human than other people's Sundays?
And with that, I end with these vids that also attempt to define what it is to be human.
No comments:
Post a Comment