Humanising

Philosophy makes us more of a human being than neurosciences do

How can it be that neuroscience, of all sciences,  who has the human being as the subject of their studies, dehumanises this same human being by describing all the deficits they can possibly find and so place a lot of human beings outside the larger group ?

Why is it that they are so explicitly and exclusively looking for everything that is dissimilar instead of looking for what makes us all ‘human being’ and therefor an essential part of the larger group ?

Will neuroscience keep on individualising her own subject of study in a way that the subject as ‘the human being’ in fact seizes to exist ? Or is it because ‘the human being’ does not exist that they keep on discovering all those exceptions to the rule ? 

What makes us a human being is perhaps and foremost the potentiality to ask the question what makes us a human being and by being able to do so ties us to what it essentially means being a human being.

 

 

HumanBeings

 De filosofie maakt meer mens-zijn dan de neurowetenschap

Hoe kan het, dat net zíj, de neurowetenschap, die de mens als centraal studieobject hebben, diezelfde mens dehumaniseert door zoveel afwijkingen te definiëren en op die manier mensen buiten de groep te plaatsen ? Hoe komt het dat ze zo exclusief zoekt naar wat anders is dan zoekt naar wat ons allen tot mens maakt en deel van de groep?

Gaat ze op die manier haar eigen studieobject dan niet in zoverre individualiseren dat ‘ de mens’ ophoudt te bestaan? Of is het net omdat ‘de mens’ niet bestaat dat ze steeds meer uitzonderingen op de regel ontdekt ?

Wat ons tot mens maakt,  is mogelijk wel net de potentie om de vraag ‘wat ons tot mens maakt’ te kunnen stellen en ons daardoor verbindt aan wat essentieel menszijn is. 

 

 

Original picture by: Fran Simó 

Tagged , , , , , ,

5 thoughts on “Humanising

  1. aspergerplus says:

    Phylosophy (and religion) developed to define what we have in common. How we together can make sense of the world. Psychology/psychiatry is funded to resolve “sicknesses of the brain” Its part of the medical profession, rather then the social sciences. 🙂

  2. aspergerplus says:

    And thislecksiah is even harder to spell🙂 At least in english. Uta Frith complained that its hard to find dyslexics in Italy, because the problems don’t manifest, given the natural spelling used.

    Association may make no sense, its not nonsensical, just not obvious and therefore the only way to progress. Philosophers can and will explore these. And hopefully help us to sometimes to find the path of least resistance.

  3. Zak says:

    So what makes us human being? this piece made me more confused……………

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: