What is meant by “essence” is “the fundamental nature of a thing.” The essence of human beings refers to the fundamental reason by which a human being becomes human, qualifies as human, and is distinguished from other things.
What is meant by “human nature” is, in the most general dictionary sense: “the normal feelings and reason possessed by human beings.” Clearly, for example, the criterion of biological classification—for instance, saying that a human being is an animal “with two legs and no feathers”—is not a matter of philosophical concern. What, then, can the “essence of human beings” discussed in a philosophical sense include, besides feelings and reason?
It is clear that when we speak of the “essence of human beings,” we are in fact speaking of “human nature”; to inquire into the “essence of human beings” is to inquire into the essence of human nature.
The crux of the matter is: what exactly does the “normal feelings and reason” that human beings ought to possess as human beings refer to?
In fact, this question is very simple. We only need to look at what people actually mean when they say that someone is “inhuman” or has “lost all humanity.” Clearly, in everyday language, the main meaning of “inhuman” is “conscience extinguished” and “cruel.” It is equivalent in sense to “unmoral.” That is to say, what is called “human nature” roughly means being “moral.”
No excessive philosophical analysis is needed; one can understand it from the habits of everyday language: the essence of human nature lies in morality, and “morality and ethics” are respectively the most crucial and most basic “feelings and reason” that human beings possess.
At this point, the conclusion is already sufficiently clear. But this overly simple line of reasoning will inevitably face many objections, so below I shall briefly analyze some possible differing views.
First, why not say that “desire” is human nature? All human actions seem to be driven by certain desires—this is also a rather intuitive way of understanding things. This understanding is not wrong. If one understands “desire” as “a conscious wish for things or experiences that can provide pleasure or satisfaction,” then “desire” can almost be used to explain the motives of virtually all human actions—one can lump together the desire to survive, sexual desire, the desire to reproduce, the desire to know, the desire to be recognized by others, the desire to pursue the good or the beautiful, and so on, all under “desire.” But this is obviously a very lazy way of thinking. The question is: which “desire” is the most fundamental? Some people say that the desire for “evolution” is the key one, but that does not explain anything; the question then becomes: what is progress for human beings? If reproduction of offspring is taken as the standard, then mice and cockroaches seem more qualified; if, as some believers in social Darwinism attempt, one carries out so-called “survival of the fittest” through ethnic cleansing and mass slaughter, that too would be in pursuit of “evolution,” yet people still unanimously regard it as “inhumanity.” It is thus clear that even if one says “desire” is the most fundamental thing, the most important matter is still “the pursuit of the noble.”
Second, why not say that “human warmth” is the most fundamental? In fact, when one says someone is “inhuman,” there is indeed an implication of “coldness” and “lack of feeling.” However, what does the so-called “human warmth” actually refer to?—Human emotions are roughly of two kinds: those between people, and those between people and nature. Emotions between people are nothing but filial piety and fraternal duty, admiration and affection, compassion, shame and dislike, deference and yielding, right and wrong, and so on; in the final analysis, these emotions are precisely the “sprouts” of morality! Saying that human nature is “moral” has already encompassed these meanings. As for human beings’ emotions of wonder, reverence, gratitude, and affection toward nature, these are indeed among the most important features of being human. However, if we take “morality” in its broadest sense—for example, according to the views of non-anthropocentric environmental ethics—the relationship between human beings and nature is in fact also an ethical relationship in a certain sense! Precisely because human beings are first and foremost “moral” does it become possible for them to feel love and reverence toward nature; one should not say that our feelings toward nature arise from something else, but rather that they originate precisely in human moral feeling.
Third, why not say that the capacity for rational thinking is the essence of human beings? This view seems quite persuasive, but the question is: what kind of rational capacity is most important for being human? Clearly, human rational power is much stronger than that of animals. But if rational power means only the logical capacity for reasoning and deduction, then computers can probably do that very well too; and if the so-called rational power is simply “the capacity to acquire empirical knowledge from the natural world,” then why is it that when some people try to do research through cruel vivisection, sacrificing the lives of innocent experimental subjects in order to explore knowledge, people still unanimously regard them as “inhuman” “beasts”? It is clear that the so-called “reason” that makes human beings human is not merely the capacity to acquire knowledge; more importantly, it is the capacity to think rationally about ethics and morality! We say that the most important feature of human intellect is “self-consciousness,” but what does “self-consciousness” mean?—Perceiving one’s hunger, pain, and desires does not count as self-consciousness. Self-consciousness can be understood as the capacity to “look in the mirror”—human beings can understand that what is reflected in the mirror is themselves, can use the mirror as a reference to examine themselves, and can constantly adjust their appearance—this in essence means a capacity for “self-reflection”! Just as in the metaphor in Genesis—“sin, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the fruit of wisdom, the shame of realizing one’s own nakedness, punished and thereby becoming human…” —why are sin, the discernment of good and evil, wisdom, shame, and humanity so closely linked? In fact, the lesson the Bible tells people is precisely this: the meaning of the so-called fundamental reason that makes human beings human—“wisdom”—lies in distinguishing good from evil and understanding shame!
Finally, my previous discussion was mainly aimed at the individual person; in addition, thinking about the “species essence” of human beings is another perspective. For example, saying that humans are “social animals” is not wrong, but the question is: what is the so-called “sociality” that makes humanity human? If society is “an orderly group bound together by common interests,” then the “sociality” of animals such as baboons and ants is also very notable! Compared with the “society” of animals, one of the important features of human society is still this: it is not held together merely by common interests. What maintains the order of human society, besides interests and power, is more importantly culture and ethics! So-called “culture” is a whole system of worldviews and values, that is, an understanding of ethical relations. It can be said that “ethics” is likewise the foundation of human society.
In summary, morality and ethics are precisely the crux of all the features that make human beings human; to understand morality and to speak of ethics is the fundamental basis of being human.
April 3, 2006
Latest Comments
- Li Weijie
2006-12-18 01:27:58
Your level is really poor
- unic
2006-12-18 02:17:42
Uh… a rare netizen who speaks so rudely
Could it be that you’re an expert?
Still, I think that in philosophical discussion, being a bit more tolerant, open, and concrete is better.
After all, “one can only do philosophy well after learning to mock philosophy,” right?
We may not be any closer to truth than other people who do not care about philosophy.
Besides, this piece was written quite early… the author may already have improved…
—Another netizen’s opinion. - Gu
2006-12-18 10:19:27
Hehe, this was casually written when I was taking a course called “Introduction to the Study of Human Nature” at the time, but after writing this I dropped the course midway, because I felt that with my abilities I couldn’t produce anything on this topic without investing a great deal of effort. So if you say this article is poorly written, your judgment is actually quite sharp.
I still have many rather poor articles on my blog; for example, the more recent article on the Book of Romans was something I rushed to finish, and I only got 79 points! (Of course, the teaching assistant was really not very decent either…); of course, I also have some articles of which I am fairly confident. The reason I post even the less-than-great pieces is simply because I hope someone will throw some brickbats. Because even when my articles are weak, they are mostly sincere expressions of my own views, and all of them can be further elaborated. If you criticize me hard enough, maybe that will also spur me to go back and read carefully, think things through, and produce some more respectable writing. - unic
2007-01-01 00:49:21
I read it once; indeed, it’s not your usual level. It seems my own usual level is just a tiny bit worse than this~~
A sketch, not bad. - UNIC
2007-01-01 00:49:58
But from the perspective of everyday language, it’s not bad.
————————————————————————————————
Note: Really not my usual level? Is it really that poor? Looking back now (during the blog migration in December 2010), this article is basically still okay. At that time I had not yet seriously read the second critique of Kant; in fact, many of the things I said are quite close to Kant’s understanding of human nature. Of course, now I have more reflections on human nature from the perspective of philosophy of technology, yet the question of morality cannot be discarded either. The key is, when we discuss “human nature” or “essence,” are we adopting a “baseline,” “shared” conception of essence, or a “paradigmatic,” “model” conception of essence?
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply