Goin' Back to the 'Hood

The idea and understanding of the word "personhood" has changed immensely through our class activity and discussion, particularly due to the "Coco" activity. While reading the description of Coco, before knowing she was a monkey, I was convinced she was not only a person, but a human. I was shocked to discover shortly thereafter that she in fact was a monkey. After learning this, and listening to my classmates speak on the subject, I defined the word human to myself as a strictly biological term; something that I am, and Coco is not. Therefore, I realized that there must be some kind of shared traits that humans and non humans can exhibit that do not inherently imply humanity. This is where the idea of personhood came up. Before this class discussion, I considered the words person and human to be synonyms. However, after the discussion I was beginning realize an important distinction. I came to believe that personhood is is trait that is human-like, but does not guarantee humanity. Some examples that came up in class were caring and sympathic elephants, language-comprehending monkeys, and particularly prideful ant colonies. These animals are not humans biologically, but express traits of humanity, therefore possessing personhood.In general, all humans have personhood, but not things with personhood are human. Additionally, I think personhood is measurable. For example, a younger child is less cognitively devloped, so it expresses less personhood than a fully grown adult might. Nonetheless, they are still both biologically human. I think the idea of personhood is a very important philosophical issue in our present time. Personhood is often comparably with a sense of self consiousness and identity, and therefore is how humans differentiate and express themselves as individuals. With our science knowledge rapidly advancing, I think it is important to consider how some animals might display personhood, and whether that makes them an individual. With that idea, it might make certain practices or treatmeant of animals considered morally wrong. I think it would be worth our time to look into personhood displayed in animals, and how that effects our perseption of them.

Describing Thoughts on the World We Can Describe

"We do not describe the world we see, we see the world we can describe." Descartes When I intially read this quote, what first came to mind was prejudice. The second half of the quote, "we see the world we can describe", summarizes how we see the world based off of how we can describe it. Therefore, if you can describe only from your own perspect, you're bound to see the world from a bias viewpont. This can cause prejudice if you do not listen to other people's experiences and perspectives as well. In the context of the "Does school exist?" activity, it can be known that we can only be sure of a school to the extent that we can describe it ourselves. If you can describe certain aspects of the schools existence, than therefore it must exist to you. Following through with this activity might make an existentialist more confident in the school's existence.

HAL - More than Just a Creepy Robot?

One aspect from class that I found especially interesting was the video clip of HAL the robot. Having watched 2001 a Space Odessey, I realized just how existential the movie is. It asked big questions about the universe, and questions the way we do things. I remember being terrified of HAL when I was younger, watching the movie. What I found so compelling was the argument of whether or not HAL was a human, if he expressed traits of human nature. The essentialism view might argue that human nautre is defined by a specifc set of characteristics, and because he does not portray all of them, he is not human. However, a more existentialist point of view would question if human nature even exists, and therefore could HAL be human? In my opinion, I do not think that HAL is human, but I think he has humanistic traits that reflect the intentions of those who made him. For example, they specifically programed him to be 100% confident in his abilities, whether or not he actually is 100% accurate. In their case, it ends up backfiring on them, demonstrating the negative intentions of the humans and of HAL.

Nothing To See Here!

Completing this trust walk was a very revealing and somewhat humbling experience for me. While guiding my partner who was completely blindfolded, I realized that so much of how we interact with others relied on sight. I often found myself pointing at things in her line of sight to lead the way, only to remember that she couldn’t see. Overall, I found it difficult to instruct someone’s movement because it felt like such a huge responsibility to be completely responsible for where she went. I felt almost like I was granted too much power, and nothing was stopping me from leading her completely off trail. It was also difficult to lead her because she was understandable nervous about walking forward, and took very short and slow steps, perhaps due to my lackluster instruction.

 I think that the purpose of this activity was to not only realize how much of social connect is tied to eye contact and visual stimulus, but also how to be an effective leader. While leading someone who is literally blind, you have to make a lot of executive decisions for the person who cannot see, and make choice for them that are in their best interest. If you do not do this, than the blind person will not successfully completely the trust walk. Therefore, it shows that having a good leading strategy can impact those who lack power.

B. Without your senses, you can know that where you’re going is where you’re meant to be. I think that frontal lobe is in charge of this general decision. For example, while walking forward completely blind, although having no idea where you are and where you’re going, I was still aware that my partner was leading me where I was supposed to go, and that compelled me to step forward. My trust in her helped me to be confident in my actions despite my visual impairment.