To whoever reads......please leave constructive comments................
*********************
"I am only human".
What does that phrase really mean?/ I see it getting thrown about a lot when someone commits error(i lost count of ppl saying jack neo is "only human" just to de-emphasise the mistakes he made) but i would like to clarify my views and this discussion is not about jack neo, but what the phrase "only human" means to us. (hence why its a seperate topic)
Other views and discussions are welcome
1) I personally feel that this phrase of being "only human" is often misused and many times used as a way to shirk responsibility from the mistakes we people commit. Not just that, the phrase itself de-values humanity as a whole.. Mistakes are anomalies, usually going against logic. Isnt it logical then to ensure that the mistake is not recommited?
2) a single mistake is not "only human" cos animals make mistakes too. Machines make mistakes too when they have programming errors. Are we now putting the level of a "human" down to the level of a mere animal or machine? Same goes for giving into temptations of the flesh like pre-marital sex and stuff. Animals screw around. Hence it does not make such things "only human". Why devalue humanity in this way?
Giving in to basal instincts is not "only human"
3) The differnce comes with multiple mistakes.
Multiple mistakes, especially if it is the same mistake done over and over again, is also NOT "only human". Computers that make multiple mistakes usually come from either structural or programming error. Meaning, they were just going according to their pre-set program and to them it is not a mistake.
But as humans(at least healthy humans those that are free from biological impediments that lead to psychological issues), the very fact that we are self aware, allows us to trancend our pre-set program(our instincts). What sets a human apart from a machine(at least until true A.I is invented) is our ability to LEARN.
So failing to learn from past errors and failing to stop commiting the same mistakes over and over again is NOT ONLY HUMAN.
see, machines and programs are not faultless, admit it. How many times computer crash? at least got once. Every single system has at least one bug. Its only a matter of time till that bug or code anomaly is discovered.
Crash why? Its either hardware or the code corruption.
>>Machines make mistakes. We use machines not to do away with mistakes, but increase effeciency.
Calculator for example. A man can calculate ANY mathematical problem himself, given enough time and if he is not careless. The calculator only calculates faster, not better.
.
The calculator does not do math on its own, it merely augments a human's abilities to do math.
But if a calculator had a bug caused by a small electrical glitch which made it think "2+2 is 3, then it willl keep making 2+ 2= 3 becos it does not know that it is wrong. As such we see that a machine cannot go beyond its pre-programmed parameters.
The problem is that machines cannot change themselves if they make an error. They dont know it is an error as it is still part of their code. This is called a lack of SELF AWARENESS.
hence my statement that making mistakes is not ONLY human. It extends to animals(some hatch the wrong duck's ducklings etc) and machines as well since they are not as self-aware as humans in a sense.
This is where the human rises above the machine. The human KNOWS right and wrong unlike the machine. And the human is able to go beyond his core programming and correct what is wrong.
Unconscious slip ups here and there, fine. But not when one has full knowledge of his erronous actions and yet only pass it of as "I'm only human and it is human nature to make mistakes"
Why do we(people who use that phrase) not acknowledge what comes after the mistake and the forgiveness?
A better phrase would be
"To err is beneath a human(i hope i was clear as to why i think that it is not just humans who make mistakes, but machines and animals too. Unless someone thinks that machines and animals are better than humans),
to forgive is divine(definitely. And why? Because of hope. We acknowledge that in every human there is the capacity for good and the ability to learn and change, hence we give second chances)
to learn is natural,(yes learning is natural. It is inbuilt into all creatures. BUT......)
to correct is truly human".(machines cant correct themselves unless someone commands them to. Animals have no concept of right and wrong)
.A human corrects himself for that is the logical thing to do since he has the capabilities to do so unlike animals(lacking mental capacity) and machines(lacking self awareness).
So why is this phrase continually misused as an excuse to brush away or downplay mistakes and i also wonder who was the first idiot to coin it.
If you want to read deeper, this phrase implies that humanity is a mistake since it says that it is our intended nature to only make mistakes. Just clarify that our nature is not to make mistakes since non-humans make mistakes too,
Our intended nature is to learn from mistakes, grow, ensure those mistakes are not made again, and ultimately trancend beyond our pre-set parameters to become fully self-actualised individuals.
In conclusion
1) making mistakes is not only a human trait. Therefore attributing mistakes to human nature by saying "I am only human" is wrong. It is also similar to a machine saying "I make errors because i was programed that way". That indicates that using the phrase "I am only human" is merely a ploy to shirk responsibility for a mistake.
2) What makes one "only human"(a trait exclusive only to humans) is the drive and desire to improve oneself and move beyond one's core program.
Sonic The Hedgehog (2020) movie review
6 years ago
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteWell- i could go yeah yeah and yeah all the way, but I don’t think that’s going to help propel the discussion or thinking. On the other hand I what u have said has a definite point, and going no no is a no-go for the sake of truth either. So I think I’ll give my own ideas on this- from a slightly different perspective. It’s a little controversial, but oh well, this is not academic to start with...
On the whole, the demonstrated arguments (above) are evidently from a person who has a rough idea on what the higher limits of human nature is. This is true in an objectivistic sense I guess, while this world grapples with subjective imperfection such truths cannot manifest. In other words, much of human nature being improvement towards perfect qualitative goodness (or holiness, for the record) remains no more as another opinion... of you, me, or of the church.
Indeed, the phrase “only human” has been overrated as an excuse to cover up the weaker side of humanity, in contrast as a phrase to justify our need to strive for the upper limits (to go beyond one’s core program). To be fair, to state ‘what is human’ is not an absolute standard on either side, but rather a spectrum from our primal instincts to our godly-divine selves; so in a way, it is not exactly wrong to (objectively) state that such weaknesses are a part of humanity too.
Probably why Jesus said “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” instead of “the godliness is willing but the monkey is weak” Indeed, both the spirit and the flesh (body) are human, but they go both sides of the spectrum too.
What can we deduce then?
As far as many (normal) humans are concerned then, we may be living in a world that is barely sapient. From babies we learn about consciousness and individuality, and we progress subsequently. As of now, we’re definitely more conscious than a cow, and slightly more intellectually and emotionally defined than a chimpanzee, but our developments in logic and emotions bring us to a sort of ‘base-level’ of development. This base-level would be like a bare minimum level to pass off as a ‘sane’, ‘functional’ and ‘normal’ person living a decently comfortable life in society.
As for any further development towards perfection (or holiness), society does not require us to go well beyond this level, and all acts of altruism i.e. morality, higher-inquisition and man-nature harmony are seen as an incentive to be enacted by the ‘enlightened few’ rather than a fundamental purpose we should strive ourselves unto.
part 2:
ReplyDeleteHence the blatant exclusion of our higher capabilities of being human; and the perceived domain (range) of what is a human becomes a truncated spectrum from our lower sides to the ‘base-level’ of emotional, intellectual, and ethical-moral (social) development. This leads to a stereotype that our weakness is the only thing that makes us human, and why we say “I err because I am human” instead of “I forgive because I am human” (mercy is divine, but humans are technically also divine too, so yah....).
So if the domains of humanity are diverse and inconclusive, then what QUALIFIES as truly humane? To answer this, we have to understand that the purpose of humanity is not to be Gods, via the strife for denouncement of one’s lower desires. Rather it is progress, as much as we are aware, up the spectrum. We can call this evolution inevitability, or we could call this the reinstation of originality, or we could coin it as a progress for greater meaning. Either way, we are on this journey- UP.
Then what’s truly human is indeed what u speak of- of self improvement.
One of the basic human weaknesses is also the unwillingness to take full responsibility of one’s own mistake. So perhaps this phrase is an utterance from our weaker side. Very much like making another lie to cover a lie. What is important then, it so ensure that this phrase is not an excuse for us to not improve, or worse, consequent us to be content in a life even smaller than where we initially start from (i.e. progressing the wrong way).
Same conclusion I guess, from a psycho-socio point of view; but it’s no surprise. I’ll leave the machine part to next time I guess- the errors made by machines are really diverse, and we need another essay to talk about the possibility of free will.
On a side note, we know that different people may be at different stages, it would be good sense to be patient with ‘lower-developed’ people, or those at the other end of the spectrum, as long as they strive to be better. After-all, the Goodness is not measured by how developed we are in the spectrum, but rather how much we are progressing in expanding our domains of meaning i.e. up.