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