Posted on 09/21/2003 6:25:48 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
I looked, but saw no philosophy here. Or didn't see the philosophy. Or didn't see something indicating an underlying philosophy. If we change our physical bodies, will we still be 'us'?
Possibly. There should be more discussion of the situation.
Hi Hank! You say that other than reproduction capabilities, there is "almost no single aspect of a human being necessary to human nature." One gathers that there is no other aspect of man that makes him man, other than "the rational/volitional" aspect and reproduction.
But does the content and quality of the rational/volitional aspect have any bearing on a man's ability to reveal his nature as a human being? That is, are there any standards by which a man can be said to reason and act in a truly human way? And is there any legitimate limit to "volition" -- that is, appetite? Does man make up his own standards with respect to such criteria -- as the word "autonomist" suggests he does?
If there are no standards that define what it is to be human that are not of man's own arbitrary, personal choice, then by what means can we judge him to be "human" at all?
As for reproduction as key criterion of humanness: All animals reproduce. This is not a uniquely human calling. If there is no standard that defines what a man is, then why bother to reproduce? I mean, what's the point of begetting offspring at all if we can't even be sure they're human? You can't "impose" their humanity on them. By your logic, it's up to them to write the rules that they will live by -- at least sometimes. As long as the rules stay convenient, that is, and don't constrain appetite too much....
A thing is what it is, that is, whatever nature a thing has, it has that nature and no other.
If you can say this, doesn't that really constrain the "autonomist?" At least as long as he wishes to be a man, and not a beast? If we wishes to be a man, he must think and act humanely; otherwise, he can become beast and not be a man at all.
To say there are criteria for humane action and human nature is to say that the autonomist does not make up his own rules without running the risk of descent into the animal.
If you change the nature of anything, it is not the same thing with a new nature, it is a different thing altogether, even if it is very similar to the original.
Similar? Or simulacrum? Is man "devolving?"
Actually, the rational/volitional aspect of man's nature is the only essential aspect of his nature without which he would not be human, assuming he is alive. I mentioned the reproductive aspect only because it is an aspect of all life, that each comes only form its own kind. It is not necessary for an individual to have this capacity. A eunuch is certainly human.
But does the content and quality of the rational/volitional aspect have any bearing on a man's ability to reveal his nature as a human being? That is, are there any standards by which a man can be said to reason and act in a truly human way?
Absolutely.
And is there any legitimate limit to "volition" -- that is, appetite? Volition is the ability to make conscious choice. In those beings who are volitional, (humans) all behavior must be chosen. A human being cannot act or think without consciously choosing to act or think.
The "appetite," as well as all other passions, desires, feeling, emotions, are perceptions, which a human being must understand the nature of, evaluate, then choose according to that evaluation the appropriate action. Appetites cause no action, only choices do.
Does man make up his own standards with respect to such criteria -- as the word "autonomist" suggests he does?
No, truth is never "made up" by anyone, especially not "standards," by which I assume you mean moral standards. Moral or ethical values, like all truth, are not decided or dictated, it is discovered, and determined by the nature of those things the truth pertains to. In the case of moral value, they are determined by the nature of man and the nature of the world he lives in.
The world "autonomist" means, "self-rule," and is the recognition of the fact that every individual must learn and understand the truth themselves (even if they learn it from someone else), must choose every thing they think and do themselves, (even if they choose to follow an authority, they must choose to do it, and choose which authority to follow) and, therefore, every individual is totally responsible for all their thoughts, choices, and actions.
Responsibility and authority always go together. The person who has the authority to make the decisions and choices is the one responsible for those decisions and choices. An autonomist is just one who explicitly chooses to be responsible for his own life.
As for reproduction as key criterion of humanness ...
It isn't a "key." It was probably a mistake to mention it, but I had in mind your next point, that a thing is its nature, which we, like all animals, inherit. But it would have been better if I had not mentioned it. I really only meant we have to get here before we can be anything, and so far, the only way anyone get's here is by being reproduced.
If there is no standard that defines what a man is ...
But there is. Where in the world did you get that? I mean, what's the point of begetting offspring at all if we can't even be sure they're human?
I don't know what this means. Offspring universally means "like kind." Offspring of cattle are cattle, offspring chickens are chickens, and offspring of humans are human.
By your logic, it's up to them to write the rules ...
Where did you get that. You did not get that from anything I or any autonomist, or even any Objectivist ever wrote. Moral and ethical principles are as absolute and inviolable as the laws of physics or mathematics. They are not decided by anybody, they are discovered, like all other truth.
If you can say this, doesn't that really constrain the "autonomist?" At least as long as he wishes to be a man, and not a beast? If we wishes to be a man, he must think and act humanely; otherwise, he can become beast and not be a man at all.
Absolutely. Man is the only creature that to be fully what he is, he must choose to be what he is. Most men compromise some aspect of their nature by not discovering what the requirements of their nature are and choosing to conform to those requirements. A man can choose to live other than as a man, that is the nature of volition; but a man cannot live contrary to his nature and be successful, and will fail to achieve the purpose of his life, which is his enjoyment of it.
You seem to have some misconceptions about what an autonomist is. I hope some of my response have clearified some of these issues.
I hope you don't think anything I posted was in support of what the transhumanists are promoting. I don't think they know what human beings are now, much less do they have any idea how to improve them.
Hank
This statement precisely describes the tact utilized by the Court in the years following its 1947 announcement. The Court began regularly to speak of a "separation of church and state," broadly explaining that, "This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent." The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.
The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of church and state," people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958!
Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engle v. Vitale, the Court delivered the first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education.
Secular Humanism
With that case, a whole new trend was established and secular humanism became the religion of America. In 1992 the Supreme Court stated the unthinkable. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. In 1997, 40 prominent Catholic and Protestant scholars wrote a position paper entitled, "We Hold These Truths," in which they stated, "This is the very ... antithesis --- of the ordered liberty affirmed by the Founders. Liberty in this debased sense is utterly disengaged from the concept of responsibility and community and is pitted against the ‘laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God. Such liberty degenerates into license and throws into question the very possibility of the rule of law itself.
I have no idea what you think I believe, but, for the record, I believe every cell in the human body is alive, a human zygote is alive from conception, as is every other zygote. Why in the world would you think I would not say they are alive? Aren't you sure they are alive?
...since you do not consider the alive embryo age as an alive human being...
Within the context of biology, a human embryo is a stage in a human life. Within the context of political definitions, neither a human embryo or even a young child ought to be considered a fully developed human, and laws that apply to adult human beings ought not apply, at least in the same way, to the unborn or recently born.
Hank
I hope you don't think anything I posted was in support of what the transhumanists are promoting. I don't think they know what human beings are now, much less do they have any idea how to improve them.
Nevertheless, some of what you posted I think needs examination.
People with any brains at all would have noticed a scary trend...
I know you meant the part about, "people with any brains at all," metphorically, because people without brains do not survive, so even transhuminists have brains, or they would not be alive. But that is, nevertheless significant, because transhumists do have brains, and they do not consider genetic manipulation the least bit scary.
This, at least, is to their credit. They are very mistaken about what is possible and what human nature is, but at least they do not entertain irrational fears of knowledge and its application to human endeavors.
I am very sympathetic to your views about the pathetic nature of many pets and other animals. I personally would not want a dog that my kitty could eat for lunch. Where I strongly disagree with you is, just because we do not like some of the products of that technology that enables humans to produce plants and animals they find useful and enjoyable, we ought to prevent others from producing or enjoying them.
There is one point you have made that you may not, yourself, understand the significance of. You described some of the results of breeding as, "worthless pathetic little mutants ... inbred, retarded, and basically genetically diseased and should all be ground up and fed to something that is a little more fit for survival.
If the efforts of those dreamers that believe humans can be improved by genetic manipualtion produce the kinds of undesireable creatures you imagine, they will be just like the animals you detest, essentially innocuous and of no threat to anyone. The one thing the genetic engineers cannot do is change you, or anyone that is normally produced.
If the human race is so terrible it can produce things that will result in its own annhilation, and then use them, it ought to be annhilated. If the human race is so noble that it ought not to be annhilated, it will not do so.
The problem with being a luddite is, being one inflicts, through emotional stress, the very kinds of personal unahppiness and misery the luddites fear will be inflicted on them by technology.
Hank
Not really ... the smart ones will be exploring the intellect and aging curves. The true visionaries will be exploring the pantropy options for humans.
What would I be trying to obfuscate? Nothing can be truly understood without understanding the context of whatever is being examined. Nothing exists in a vacuum. There is always a context. To ignore contexts is obfuscation.
Philosophy defines a human as "rational animal" to differentiate humans from all other animals. In that context, any creature that is not capable of being rational, potentially or actually, is not human.
Biology defines humans in terms of the genetic nature of the species. Anything that bears the genetic nature of a human is human.
I did not invent any of this. Those are the definitions. How is that obfuscation?
What is it you believe is true that you believe I disagree with? Please describe this within a specific context and indicate what that context is. You may be right, for all I know. I really do not know what it is you are getting at. I have certainly made mistakes, especially in the way I have expressed my views in the past, and would not be surprised to discover I have done it again. So far, you have not shown me where that mistake is, but I'm willing to be shown, if you choose to show me.
Hank
A very true statement. As the problems with cloning have shown us - it's not as easy as they think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.