Libertarian- good post, indeed. Good definition- but I have a few concerns…
First- every example requires the entity to be reactive to its environment. What about an accident victim, who’s now in a coma? How about an autistic child? Are they humans, or merely meat?
Anyway, on to each point.
*1. He should have the potential for some sense of his own existence beyond simple fight or flight. Besides merely eating, shitting, fucking, and sleeping, we might expect that he would seek out a broader fulfillment. We would not expect him to be satisfied otherwise. *
Okay. I can dig that. Boredom avoidance as an indicator, if I get you.
*2. He should have the potential to develop a comprehension of Platonic ideals. We would expect that he might parlay his thoughts into poetry and interpretation, rather than simply processing sensory input and reacting to his environment. *
All righty. No problems with this one. Seems to be reasonable.
*3. Closely related, he should have the potential to create. We would expect his interpretation of his environment to go beyond that of mere survival. We might expect him to see a banana as perhaps an idea for creating art, and not as just something to eat. We would expect him to assign meaning to things that don’t mean anything in and of themselves. *
Abstract thought, perhaps? No prob.
*4. He should exhibit the potential to reach outside himself, just as his Creator did. We might expect that he would explore for exploration’s sake, that he would not merely migrate, but hope and yearn that there is something better on the other side of the hill. *
But if God’s infinite, how can he reach outside of himself? Never mind- not the subject at hand.
Did the Mars Rover exhibit this? You know, before it broke.
*5. He should show that he has the potential to fight, not just for territory, not just for possessions, but for principle. We would expect things that aren’t even material to matter to him. We would expect him to hold on to a thing, not just because he found it, or because it helps him survive, but because he treasures it. *
Uh, gettin’ a bit abstract here. I can’t think of a single principle I’ll fight for- possessions, territory, and other people (altruism, I’ll grant you), I would fight for, though. My dog’s favorite thing is his ball (he didn’t find it, and it doesn’t add to his survival)- is that a treasure? Does he fulfill this requirement?
*6. He should have the potential to develop a morality, i.e., a comprehension, not just of a relational ethic or pecking order, but of good and evil. We might expect to see in him shame, not just over a deed, but over a thought, not just because he might be punished, but because he values goodness. Alternatively, we might expect that he would delight in evil for evil’s sake. *
Gettin’ a bit into woo-woo territory here, aren’t you? Good and Evil are complete abstracts.
A man kills- is he Evil?
The man killed to protect his friend- is he now Good?
The man had to protect his friend, because his friend poisoned the city’s water supply- is he Evil again?
The man’s friend did it because he believed that it would kill off the imaginary aliens- is he Good?
Many people throughout history have believed themselves to be Good. How many, do you suppose, thought of themselves as Evil- or were they, perhaps, doing what they felt they needed to do? Who woke up one day and said, “I LOVE being Evil!”?
Perhaps “Altruism and Selfishness” are more applicable?
Anyway.
*7. He should demonstrate the potential to recognize his own specialness, that is, he should ask himself such questions as “what makes me, as a human, different from the other animals?” We might expect that he would debate this question with others, and that the others who join him in debate share his specialness. *
Hmmm. “I’m an individual, just like everyone else”?
Apart from my observations, I like most of the definitions you’ve put forward, Lib. Good post.
