Do you have a better definition?
Thank you for any and all answers.
Blessings :)Plato defined humans as featherless, bipedal animals with broad nails--what do you think of that definition?
As usual, Dr. Y does a thoroughly and completely well examined off-topic answer. The definition of anything is comprised of its essence, that which makes it unique from other similar species within its genus.
Aristotle gave us the definition has withstood the test of time, and it surprises me after bringing in Aristotle that Y didn't say it: the rational animal.
When Aristotle called us ';animal'; he automatically included all that stuff that Y methodically listed. But in all of that the only thing that sets ';homo sapiens sapiens'; apart from his nearest cousin the chimp is ';rationality.'; Homo sapiens has been extinct for almost 200,000 years, but he too, was ';the rational animal.'; The first rational animal was ';homo habilis';. He was human, but he was certainly not ';homo sapiens sapiens.';
A ';featherless, bipedal animal with broad nails'; makes an attempt at a physical description, yet leaves much to the imagination. Aristotle isn't interested in a physical description because it is not our essence. We are the only creature with reason, and that singularity causes it to be our essence.
But we are upright, bipedal and naked. Homo habilis was upright, bipedal, and almost naked. And that is where the modern question, of whether a species from another planet that looks even remotely similar to us, is genetically different, yet is a ';rational animal';, ought to be called ';human.'; We don't argue about whether that creature, when we find him, ought to be called ';homo sapiens sapiens';. That is out of the question, because it designates a species of a genus; the alien would not belong in it. The alien would belong in its own species and genus.
But it would still be animal, and rational. So would we want to include it in the broad definition of ';human';? If we found a featherless, bipedal animal with broad nails on another planet and it was not rational, that would blow away Plato's definition. But if we found another ';rational animal'; that looked like a racoon, we would have to change the description of man to distinquish it from the ';rational racoon.';Plato defined humans as featherless, bipedal animals with broad nails--what do you think of that definition?
Tsk. Back to the books for you. Since when is the 'essence' of something what makes it DIFFERENT from other things? Aristotle would be mortified.
Report Abuse
Most people are surprised how utterly thorough the biological designation of humans is. The full and complete taxonomic name (last I checked... it changes as our understanding of how things are related) is:
Kingdom animalia, subkingdom eumetazoa, superphylum deuterostomia, phylum chordata, subphylum vertebrata, superclass tetrapoda, class mammalia, subclass theria, infraclass eutheria, superorder euarchontoglires, order primates, suborder haplorrhini, infraorder simiiformes, parvorder catarrhini, superfamily hominoidea, family hominidae, subfamily homininae, tribe hominini, subtribe hominina, genus homo, species sapiens, subspecies sapiens.
Each of those headings designates a group of creatures with features that are distinguished from others. If we were to go down the list from general to specific (and eliminating some of the redundancy), we'd get something like this:
- multicellular
- eukaryotic (cell functions enclosed in membranes)
- body plan which is fixed (barring metamorphosis)
- motile
- mostly heterotropic (eat other living things)
- no cell walls
- embryoes possess a blastula stage
- possess tissues
- tissues have germ layers
- embryo has a gatrula stage
- bilaterally symmetric
- embryonic blastopore becomes an anus
- notochord
- neural tube
- pharyngeal slits (becomes vocal cords)
- tail (during development)
- possesses an endostyle (becomes thyroid)
- spinal column (from notocord)
- central nervous system (from neural tube)
- paired sets of muscles
- pronounced cephalization
- brain case
- forward-placed sensory organs
- endoskeleton
- four limbs
- muscular lung action
- hair
- three ear bones / two jaw bones
- two occipital condyles (bumps where skull connects to spine)
- neocortex in brain
- sweat glands
- specialized sweat glands that produce milk (mammaries)
- diaphragm for breathing
- live young
- endothermic
- external ears
- can suckle
- specialized ankle
- specialized teeth
- placental
- no epipubic bones
- enlarged malleolus on tibia
- presence of melleolus on fibula
- wide pelvic opening (for larger offspring)
- flexible shoulder joints
- five digits on hands and feet
- opposable thumbs
- nails on digits
- flat nail on big toe
- sensitive digital pads
- bone orbits (protects the eyes)
- facial structure favours vision over olfaction
- stereoscopic vision with high acuity
- colour vision
- posterior lobe in brain
- calcarine fissure in brain
- large encephalization quotient (brain to body-mass ratio)
- domed cranium
- comparatively few teeth of three kinds
- two pectoral mammaries
- long gestation period, mostly one child per pregnancy
- pendulous penis and testes
- bipedal locomotion
- sexual dimorphism
- cannot make vitamin C
- unconnected upper lip
- post-orbital plate
- mostly diurnal
- trichromatic color vision
- dry, narrow nose
- downward-pointing nostrils
- no prehensile tails
- flat fingernails
- specific dentition pattern
- capacity for language
- culture beyond familial group
- erect stance w/ skull on top
- feet poorly adapted to grasping, hands more adept at it
- development and regular use of tools
- very highly developed brain with abstract reasoning and problem solving
- highly complex language and culture
- short fine clear hair (fun fact - humans have more follicles than chimpanzees... it's just that their hair is thinner and less obvious)
- comparatively small teeth
- flush canine teeth
- comparatively long and dangerous childbirth
- menopause
These characters are for species, by the way. Having a finger cut off doesn't make you inhuman!
Aristotle (Plato's student) is often remembered for being pretty thorough about observing and distinguishing creatures, but it wasn't really until much later (the late 1700's) the biologists became so precise. And even Aristotle got a number of things pretty embarassingly wrong. Plato tended to me more of a rationalist, usually... there are parts of his work where he seems to think of the body as just an inconsequential and very temporary burden.
And I can't help but think that even this biological definition will shortly become out of date. What happens when people start engineering their own genes? Or maybe the results of that are better thought of as no longer really human... we'll have to see.
Rational animals. The trouble with that, though, is that it also applies to a lot of other animals. It's a good extensional definition, but doesn't capture the sense. It's pretty good actually. It wouldn't be true if Yetis or Sasquatches existed, or the Orang Pendek.
Spineless, confused animals with an inferiority complex.
No comments:
Post a Comment