What is Human? (Kathleen)
Much like last week’s MicroResponse question pertaining to rhetoric, I feel as though I can only scratch the surface when it comes to unveiling what the human is. Although discouraging, each effort provides that much more understanding (or confusion). In order to define human, I immediately direct the conversation toward the topic of evolution. Alluding to the Gorgias in our last discussion, we agreed human evolution to take the form of a “craft” rather than a “knack,” meaning that it involves knowledge and has proven to be a worthy endeavor, as opposed to a routine that merely imitates crafts. Julietdesnoyer commented on the Mucklebauer reading, “the very definition of a cyborg assumes that we have a stable definition of what a human is, and that humans are not constantly transforming based on outside factors. Following this logic, humans are strictly (and statically) human until they are violated by the Other.” When thinking about what is human, I have a difficult time associating any sort of stagnation with the human condition, as this seems contrary to the essence of the human, perpetual evolution. However, the very nature of evolution occurs as a result of our relation to one another.
Drawing on the “Dawn of Humanity” video we watched last week, human evolution can be grasped as “bushy” rather than using the linear analogy of a tree. We evolve not as one, not as an individual entity, but together as a species. This interwoven web of direct and indirect connections supports “the idea of ‘human’ [as] social/communal, and does not exist on the individual level” (connor.emmerich). Burke contended that as humans, we are all divided from each other. However, what connects us is our collective evolution. Therefore, the question “what is human” is less a question of “what” and more a question of “which one?”
