The Avocado/Essentialist View
This approach says humans have central characteristics at our core that make us human (i.e. compassion, language), which is passed to our offspring from generation to generation (1). This view likens humans to avocados in the extent that we have a fleshy exterior, with what makes us essentially human is at our center, and is passed to our children.
The Artichoke/Protean View
This approach states humans do not have core characteristics that make us human, but a compilation of characteristics that can change per the need at hand. These characteristics are layered and come together to make us who we are (1). Just as the artichoke’s layers can be peeled back to revel another layer, the human can adjust their beliefs
…show more content…
Existentialists feel that who we are results from our cultural influences, family influences, and life experience along with predetermined physical characteristics (2). Basically, what we look like is determined by genetics passed down through our genes, and who we become is determined by what we experience, and our surroundings. The feminist view is that women are equal to men not being controlled by emotion but by reasoning (1). Hinduism believe atman (soul) that is reborn repeatedly, with the rebirth being determined by the persons good and bad works in life (1). The Chinese believe self to be a homeostasis between the inner elements of earth, air, water, fire, and wood with the outer elements of the world. Once homeostasis is achieved life energy is gained known as chi (1). The Naguas believe homeostasis between tonalli (life fire) that fuels growth, teyolia (causes life to happen) granting recollection and intelligence, and ihiyotl (breathing) spurring pleasure, scorn, and heroism (1). While African Synthesis believe, humans are a result of the joining of opposing forces that still retain their singularity. The male force is Lisa while the female force is Mawu
2. Affection for the variety and mystery of human existence; we must not force sameness upon humanity, and avoid “narrowing uniformity and equalitarianism.” (8)
The widely used motto “United we stand, divided we fall” exemplifies the importance of a strong, stable human structure needed to succeed. It may be the structure of an empire, or the biological makeup of the human body, these systems in our world are not only desired by human nature, but are essential for progress. Though it’s true that humans naturally desire patterns, structures and standards in their lives, the underlying intention for these patterns isn’t to provide shelter or refuge, but to rather provide a pathway to function and achieve various goals, moral or immoral.
Humans are complex beings. We have different motivations, goals, and aspirations, but what influences us to have these goals? What motivates us to strive for them? Daniel Gilbert, in his essay “Immune to Reality” states we have unconscious processes that influence our behaviors, and also that we heavily rely on acceptance from others. The social pressures we experience on a day-to-day basis are what influence us to change and adapt.
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.
Will, George F. "The Nature Of Human Nature." Newsweek (Pacific Edition) 140.8 (2002): 9. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.
Today, we live on earth holding approximately seven million people. Taking a closer look at the number of people we begin to take notice that not one person is identical to the other. What is it that makes us, as individuals, different from the rest of society? “We come into this little world with our own little nature, our own pattern of behavior, and our own natural reaction to people” (Littauer and Sweet 18). Not only do our features on the outside tell us apart from one another but our personalities also set us aside from others. Personality defends us as our own person. Personality is an individual’s process of thinking, feeling, and taking action toward something. Research helps to define the discovering, structuring, and the understanding
...must bear in mind, however, that in order for these theories to be fully validated, they must be applicable not only to generalized groups of people or representative individuals, but to every member of society, each following the same patterns as every other. Since it is historically impossible to accurately predict the behavior of human beings on any scale, variations between individuals must be explained by something unique about each person. Whether called a soul or some other name, this element of spontaneity exists in every person and can allow him to break free of his expectations.
We often believe that others are more like ourselves than they really are. Thus, our
From society to family to media, external influences never seem to disappear from everyday life. These outward forces tend to leave a lasting impression on us for as long as we live. Because they are so prevalent in our daily lives, exterior factors will have a significant influence on us, specifically our sense of self and happiness. When defining our sense of self, it eventually comes down to how we interpret our individual self-image. In most cases, we do not truly know who we are from our own mindset. Therefore, we take into account the reactions that those around us have an influence on our actions and decisions. From these external effects, we create the persona of who we are. In his article, Immune to Reality, Daniel Gilbert explains
Humans are extremely complex and unique beings. We are animals however we often forget our origins and our place in the natural world and consider ourselves superior to nature. Humans are animals but what does it mean to be human? What are the defining characteristics that separate us from other animals? How are we different? Human origins begin with primates, however through evolution we developed unique characteristics such as larger brain sizes, the capacity for language, emotional complexity and habitual bipedalism which separated us from other animals and allowed us to further advance ourselves and survive in the natural world. Additionally, humans have been able to develop a culture, self-awareness, symbolic behavior, and emotional complexity. Human biological adaptations separated humans from our ancestors and facilitated learned behavior and cultural adaptations which widened that gap and truly made humans unlike any other animal.
Post humanism emphasizes how humans have changed in the way we understand ourselves, and how we perceive our relationship to society and to the natural world. Transhumanism has gone a step further, believing that we must realize our potential to change what we are, that through the use of technology, we can actually transmute into something more than our present selves (Bognar, 2012). With the passing of each century, the connection between the human relationship to the natural world continues to change. In addition, our perception of the natural world changes too. Repeatedly, we emphasize what makes each human special, as well as what sets each of us apart, not only from each other, but from the natural
The understanding of human nature is the concept that there is a set of inherent distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that all humans tend to possess (Winkler, 1996). My basic view of human nature correlates with Charles Darwin’s nature vs. nurture theory. Human nature is influenced by both nature and nurture. Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world, and nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth. An individual’s morals, values, and beliefs are developed from the nurturing aspect of their life. The environment that an individual is raised in creates their human nature. Then they go through life developing more upon their own morals, values, and beliefs. The nature vs. nurture theory is an every changing concept, and I believe that human nature changes for each individual based on their life experiences.
This theory demonstrates that people can change over the course of their life-time from the data that backs it up. In this theory, changing one’s behavior is a process that someone wants to do due to relationships encountered with people over their lifetimes. It is a rational theory that shows when new bonds are formed, people can adapt to change and lead a conforming lifestyle in society.
What makes us humans what we truly are; from our appearance to our habits; and our preferences. A list of questions that will never end. Do we born this way; nor did the environment shapes us; do we born to this world with an existing knowledge of everything is taught and learn? Those questions are one of the biggest debate in the field of developmental psychology: Nature vs, Nurture.
... 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).