Comments on: What does it mean to be human?

By: Matthew Warner

Matthew Warner — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:46:42 +0000

Hey Jack – thanks for the great comments and insights! I was using hedonism as an “extreme”…as I mentioned in the previous sentence. So not calling all relativistic viewpoints hedonistic at all. Hedonism, as it puts the highest good as the pleasure of the body, to me epitomizes the extreme of the “we are only a body” viewpoint. But I certainly understand the sensitivity with not wanting to demonize opposing viewpoints, but rather to open up dialogue that yields fruit and understanding. Very wise! And something I try to do a better job of than I have in the past.

By: Jack du Toit

Jack du Toit — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:52:32 +0000

Sorry, “are NOT dominantly pleasure-based…”

By: Jack du Toit

Jack du Toit — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:50:58 +0000

I really liked this post, and found myself agreeing with most of it. Even in “secular” philosophy today, most people agree there is a serious dilemma in our society concerning what defines the human person. Most of that stems from the pure relativistic notions handed down from the twentieth century. Catholicism is one of the few religions of this day that gives a clear response to what it means to be human physically, mentally, and spiritually. There is a lot secular culture could learn from such definitions even apart from the religion, and even more so from within it. I would be careful about how you label some of the opposing schools of thought, however. Calling all relativistic viewpoints “hedonistic,” is a little demonizing and not necessarily complete. Existentialism and even logical positivism are dominant ideologies that pervade the public’s rationale as well as scientific dispensations at times, but are dominantly pleasure-based as hedonism entails. Creating an “us vs. them” dichotomy too quickly by using the wrong labels is what can quickly turn an otherwise concrete argument into mud-slinging. Just thought, though. I really did enjoy this post and hope to formulate something very similar to it of my own for some of my philosophy classes this year.

By: This is Who I Am - Fallible Blogma

This is Who I Am - Fallible Blogma — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:08:32 +0000

[...] the hard part is how do we know what we’re supposed to look like? How do we discern between what makes us uniquely beautiful and what are fatal flaws? [...]

By: vvvvx

vvvvx — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:00:14 +0000

their is no go

By: Blaise Alleyne

Blaise Alleyne — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:20:39 +0000

Great post.

I think the problem is, though, that a non-Catholic can easily reject the answer to “what does it mean to be human?” by rejecting the premise, that God exists or that God exists as a trinitarian God, etc etc.

I’m very interested in trying to explain some of the basic ideas of the Theology of the Body to people without presupposing a belief in a Christian (well, Catholic) God. Not that you can separate God from theology, that’s a little insane, but rather… I think the Theology of the Body helps to explain how our innermost desires (desires that most non-Catholics will agree to having) really point us toward the Catholic understanding of God.

That’s still not an easy argument to make in a political arena though (to convert everyone to Catholicism, lol…).

By: Fionn mac Cumhaill

Fionn mac Cumhaill — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:31:06 +0000

I have often thought about this concept and came with my own answer. I think what it means to be human is most simply stated thus; every day I wake up and try to do two things, love my God with all my heart and love my neighbors, and every day I fail.

All of us do this every day.