Jump to content

Talk:Human condition: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive everything in new 2nd page
Tag: Replaced
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{philosophy|importance=high|class=start|ethics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Transhumanism|class=start|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|listas=Human condition|1=
{{WikiProject Psychology |importance=High |imp=high |attention=yes |needs-infobox=no}}

{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|ethics=yes|attention=yes}}
==Human nature==
{{WikiProject Transhumanism|importance=Mid}}

}}
The claim in paragraph 3 is absurd! Hannah Arendt wrote ''The Human Condition'' in 1958, which predates this so-called Film Trilogy. It was also written in English, as opposed to the film trilogy. I recommend this entire article be deleted or redone.
{{Archives}}

:I think the author of this page confused the term "human condition" with the term "the condition of humans" in the section about anthropology and sociology, and how the "human condition" has not changed in poorer countries for centuries.


what is the difference between human nature and the human condition?
:I think "human condition" is rather independent of the emotion and preference involved, it merely describes the objective and physical stages of life, overlapping or not; but "human nature" describes more on the thinking, subjective and mental, that is going on inside the human's mind amidst these "human conditions".<br>For example, if self-preservation is a human nature, one will self-preserve in all human conditions, whether one is a kid or an old person. However, human nature does change along with the changes in human conditions. For example, a kid might be more concern about self-fulfillment (more selfish) than a responsible married person who has to support a family (more selfless). In short, human learns about his/her and other's nature amidst every human conditions as life goes on. --[[User:Godrickwok|Godric]] 10:38, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
::It seems Hobbes used the term as a synonym, many other use it in that manner. http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-2204.html ->"I think it is just a fashionable way of saying "human nature"" although in that site's discussion there seems to be a wide range of opinions on what it is, not all of them coherent. In any case they seem to be very much related to each other.[[User:Dwarf Kirlston|Dwarf Kirlston]] 20:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==Soteriology==

Something conspicuosly missing from this article are the religions notions of salvation, moksha, nirvana, and philosophical concepts such as ataraxia and apathea, which propose enduring liberation from or transcendence over 'the human condition' altogether. For instance in the passage below with regards to Buddhism, there is an ancient notion of the 'never-returner', that is, one who is eternally liberated from the wheel of samsara. Christian eschatology likewise proposes that the faithful will be liberated from once and for all from the human condition. The point is, in the absence of some condition *other* than 'the human condition - something with which it is contrasted - it really means nothing more that 'the condition of being human'.

I am also curious as to why 'Jeremy Griffith' is mentioned in this article, as he is barely known and has no academic credentials or public recognition. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jeeprs|Jeeprs]] ([[User talk:Jeeprs|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jeeprs|contribs]]) 04:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Sickness and other experiences==

I think "Sickness" is missing from the human condition list, any comment?<br>In [[Buddhism]], there are only four human conditions, birth, aging, sickness, and death. I think the rationale is that childhood-adolescence is considered aging, and love-sex-reproduction is too transient and non-universal to be considered a "human condition", for example, a monk doesn't reproduce; people who die young haven't experienced sex; some people might not have tasted love in their view.<br>In the mean time, I strongly vote for adding "Sickness" into the human condition list, because sickness is universal to every human, and it happens very early in life, babies get sick all the time. Followups are welcomed. --[[User:Godrickwok|Godric]] 10:38, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

:The term "human condition" is meant to distinguish the term from "animal condition" or "physical condition". All animals are born, get sick and/or get old and die. That which distinguishes humans from animals should be the focus of this article.[[User:Parveson|Parveson]] 15:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)parveson

::Unsigned comments:

Sickness could be there, so could thirst, sleepiness and a litany of other 'biologically determined events' so it's not a comprehensive list by any means (and it doesn't claim to be).

...surely Buddhist monks are biologically predispositioned to have sex (and all the accompanying emotions etc.)?

"love-sex-reproduction is too transient and non-universal"

Love isn't necessarily associated with sex and reproduction. Everybody that is alive is here as a result of sex, everybody has(or had) sexual desires. What do you mean by transient? Sexual feelings come and go...but so does sickness.

'people who die young haven't experienced sex'

People who die at the prenatal stage haven't experienced most of the items on the list. (In a sence they've experienced birth, aging, sickness and death but why limit the scope of the human condition to these experiences? What is your experience?)

== Thought processes ==

I believe the human condition talks more about our internalised thought process as humans. What else or how else can we better explain whatever that is?
I would agree that the physical experience of Aging, Death, Birth etc fits under the idea of 'human nature' as these are physical things that take course no matter. I would also point out though that these things are not individual to us as humans. Animals are born and age and die and get sick.
What It is that I feel is expressed in the idea of 'human condition' is the the wondering, searching, questioning, thinking. remembering, imagining aspects of these events...The intangible aspect of being human. The shared piece of of us that is missing and unexplained that completes us all.
::Yes, animals do indeed age, get sick, experience thirst, etc. But, they are not aware of these conditions in the same way in which humans are. It is this awareness that is at the heart of the "human condition." And I speak as a lover of animals and nature. My dog can suffer pain, can suffer thirst or sickness, but he is not aware that he is suffering thirst; he simply is thirsty. At least, I believe that is so. He looks for water. But after he drinks, he does not remember that he was thirsty, he cannot recall his thirst and ponder it or its effects ''in the same way'' that we can. That is the difference. It is the awareness of our condition as humans that is the essence of the human condition. A dog, or even a higher primate or ape cannot reach this level of awareness, even though the higher apes are indeed capable of a certain level of abstract thought. [[User:66.108.105.21|66.108.105.21]] 07:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

<blockquote>"In some of the poorest parts of the world, the human condition has changed little over the centuries."</blockquote>
I dont like this statement, it could as easily be said "In many poor parts of the world the human condition has been traumatised by contact with wealthier parts" -such statements infering relationships between wealth and human condition should be demonstrable or left out.

:The human condition simply (well not really simply) is a concept that encompasses all uniquely human experiences in life, our reactions to them and our ability to remember with emotion, and to look to the future with hope. The concept of it is that the Human Condition is uniform for all humans. It IS what makes us human, is it not? Even the fact that we have the capacity to discuss the human condition adds to the idea that it is. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Akidni|Akidni]] ([[User talk:Akidni|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Akidni|contribs]]) 01:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

==Camus==
This quote in the self-awareness section needs to be changed: "Without hope, as Albert Camus said, the only serious philosophical question is why we should not commit suicide. Hope gets us up in the morning, and drives us forward every day."

It implies Camus argued in favor of hope, and he never argued such a thing. Hope was just as absurd as suicide to Camus. [[User:Hesperides|<font color="000077">Hesper</font><font color="666699">ides</font>]] 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

== Phenomenuiguiyuyuiyion ==

the word "events" links to the nonexistent article "Phenomenuiguiyuyuiyion," of which I have not heard. It is not in multiple dictionaries. Real word... or prank/ vandalism? -[[User:Use_the_force|'''Use''' the '''force''']] <sup>([[User talk:use_the_force|Talk]] * [[User:use_the_force/Contribs|Contribs]])</sup> 02:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

== Cleanup - Essay Repair ==

I've cleaned up many pages, but this is my first as a registered used. I have seen the "essay" flag and I have posted some edits of moderate magnitude. I'll continue to re-work this page until the essay flag can be removed. This should be one of Wikipedia's premiere offerings, and I'll try to neutralize the article and remove the strongly Christian tinge. Enjoy.
--[[User:STABiLiZED|STABiLiZED]] 06:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:Most of the original content has been deleted since July 2007. The longest remaining paragraph has to do with transhumanism, which is described as something else than the actual human condition; it should be put in an article on that topic instead of here. Evidently the human condition is such a vague and controversial subject that I doubt that this article will ever be "stabilized". [[User:Parveson|Parveson]]

:Request to Clean Up this page. I feel like I can understand it more and can help moderate future posts. Also this page is controversial in that it goes against how most people were raised and taught.[[User:Ianjoleary|Ianjoleary]] ([[User talk:Ianjoleary|talk]]) 22:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
::I saw your recent addition. Could you please provide more citations for your info? Go through all the pages that you got from "the access of the US internet" and append them to your facts. Wikipedia is not a place for [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]

:I am in the process of doing more thorough research. Hopefully I can expand on what i started soon enough. [[User:Ianjoleary|Ianjoleary]] ([[User talk:Ianjoleary|talk]]) 08:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

:For a high importance article, this is not in great shape, and even this talk page is quite a mess. Might start the tidy up here [[User:Zymurgy|Zymurgy]] ([[User talk:Zymurgy|talk]]) 07:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

==Malraux==
Suggestion: Any review of the Human Condition really should include a discussion of ''La Condition Humaine'' by Malraux (unfortunately translated into English as ''Man's Fate'')... [[User:69.177.128.230|69.177.128.230]] 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

:I quite agree. There are existential paradoxes implicit in the term as it is used in modern literature. This is the important meaning of the term. It needs to be disambiguated from biological and economic meanings. [[User:Parveson|Parveson]]

==Humour==
Revised "joy, terror and other..." to "joy, terror, humor and other....." . Humor/laughter seems to be a distinct emotion from happiness/joy and fear/terror Therefore it was added.
<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.114.130.101|128.114.130.101]] ([[User talk:128.114.130.101|talk]]) 20:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== comedy article? ==

"the human heart longs for love" ?!
please!

this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a new age truism site!

DELETE THIS TRIPE!

:I agree. The article is vague and does not refer to anything specific.

[[User:IshtarDeity|IshtarDeity]] ([[User talk:IshtarDeity|talk]]) 02:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

:The above is of historical interest only and refers to an earlier version of this page which has since been improved/wikified--[[User:Zymurgy|Zymurgy]] ([[User talk:Zymurgy|talk]]) 13:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

=="thanatophobia"==
Reference to phobias is not appropriate here (even though thanatophobia apparently refers to a clinically significant extreme fear of death and the page redirects to necrophobia which is a fear of dead things as opposed to death itself). The human condition relates to ordinary ongoing anxiety about the inevitability of death for everyone so it is fairly distinct from "phobias" of one kind or another which relate to minority cases --[[User:Zymurgy|Zymurgy]] ([[User talk:Zymurgy|talk]]) 09:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

== "Use of the term" section ==

Everything in this section is from the 20th century, yet Blaise Pascal used it the the 1600s. Is the modern usage really different? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.189.190.79|128.189.190.79]] ([[User talk:128.189.190.79|talk]]) 19:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== explanation needed ==

In the second paragraph, five criteria are mentioned that encompasses the definition of "The Human Condition".
Of these five, all but one are relatively descriptive in their respective definitions.
The one that is quite vague is "the inevitability of isolation". What exactly does this mean ? Is it to mean that humanity lives its live inevitably isolated as the sole sentient species on our planet? Whatever the case, this one of the five criteria needs to be clarified and/or expanded.[[User:Gizziiusa|Gizziiusa]] ([[User talk:Gizziiusa|talk]]) 07:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)gizziiusa

== In popular Culture ==
I know we can start listing things, in fact I'll start
*'''Cultural Piece''': '''Human Condition'''
* The Matrix: Fallibility (of Our Senses)
* ...
Actually, maybe just everywhere, see "The subject of Life, the Universe, and Everything?"

== The subject of Life, the Universe, and Everything? ==
With the exception of science this seems to be the subject of everything. Really though, why do we mention this as though everyone doesn't deal with it? That's kinda why it's the human condition.

== "and the awareness of the inescapability of death." ==

Well, I tried compromise, so let's do a discussion on the talk pages, as that seems to be listed under the ways of resolving a dispute. Here's an introduction to the dispute:

:???????: " or awareness regarding the inescapability of death."

:110.148.132.157: "or the perception of death." (Stating that there is "Ultimate" is plain wrong.)

:Zymurgy: "or awareness regarding the inescapability of death." (Reverted good faith edits by 110.148.132.157: Rv edits that remove key elements of the *concerns* at stake. This is different from claiming that there *is* ultimate meaning etc. (TW))

:Trystyn: "or the perception of inescapable death." (Perception is definitely the right word. How about we compromise! Keep both the concern emphasis (as if death without inescapability wasn't concerning enough) and the perception that prevents asserts some sort of ultimate truth (like saying you WILL die).)

:Zymurgy: "or awareness regarding the inescapability of death."(Reverted good faith edits by TrystynAlxander: If you think the inevitability of death is a matter purely of perception rather than awareness then alas you have exited the world of objective fact! awareness (the term which has stood on this p...)

:Omnipaedista: "or awareness regarding the inescapability of death."

:27.252.88.108: "and the awareness of the inescapability of death."

:Omnipaedista: "and the awareness of the inescapability of death."

:Trystyn: "and the perception of inescapable death." (Perception. There is no absolute truth in science, only in society. Transhumanist (talk page) would be happy to comment. Hopeful or geniuses (Ray Kurzweil), abnormal isn't crazy. Also some religions and afterlife might take issue with the previous version)

Now clearly, the major conflict between Trystyn(me) and Zymurgy is in the level of certitude expressed here. <!-- We'll leave out the obvious acting like the entire page is owned for a minuet-->Now, I won't suggest we hunt down citations because that seems rather ridiculous. But, I'd hope we're capable of working out the conflict in a civil and logical manor.

:All that said, I'm going to recommend "or the perception of inescapable death." again. Alternatively, "or seemingly inescapable death." I think both of these are quite reasonable. Grammatically (Not the conflict here) "or" is appropriate as any one of the topics is what the human condition is concerned with (one doesn't have to be talking about all of them to be working with a part of the human condition). Regarding certainty, I will assert to you while most sane people have noted that (historically) everyone dies that does not not make death the only or inevitable option. An option to be concerned with, certainly and that's why it is mentioned here, but it's not the only option. It's kinda like how science never says something is True, might be true but isn't proven. And in this case, there's sufficient reason to doubt it (the consistent exponential progress of technology). <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TrystynAlxander|TrystynAlxander]] ([[User talk:TrystynAlxander|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TrystynAlxander|contribs]]) 18:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Rewrote it to be encyclopedic ==

I rewrote the article to be objective and have a neutral POV because it was more of an essay than an encyclopedia entry. Since this is such a vast topic I believe it's best to concisely emphasize that there have been (and will continue to be) many perspecitves and list several notable examples (all of which were already in the article). -[[User:Testpored|Testpored]] ([[User talk:Testpored|talk]]) 22:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

:Disagree with this edit. I've reverted it back. Much valuable information is lost. Vastness of a concept should explain and give examples of the vastness, not deleting them. The current edit lacks (removed) the explanation and description of the term "human condition" and has become only a list of pointers and references. [[Special:Contributions/89.251.253.8|89.251.253.8]] ([[User talk:89.251.253.8|talk]]) 22:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

::Agreed. The new edit failed to actually explain what the human condition is, something which the older version at least shed some light on.--[[User:Harkain|Harkain]] ([[User talk:Harkain|talk]]) 10:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll elaborate on why I rewrote it:
#This is a tough topic for a proper encyclopedia article since as a general concept the human condition is so broad it has not and likely will never have a single "official" <strike>definition</strike> perspective everyone can agree on. Thus this article can (and did) become skewed in terms of certain pet opinions of its authors. Nowhere was there mention of popular religious views such as Original sin, but there were a couple from a fringe group called "World Transformation Movement". Wikipedia must not read like an opinion piece; there are so many perspectives on this topic it's best not to give any one of them too much mention. How else to do this beyond briefly noting a few examples and links to specific topics (which the rewrite did)?
#There are two aspects of "the human condition" - as a general concept and as a literary term used in certain contexts. Both needed to be mentioned, which the rewrite does.

--[[User:Testpored|Testpored]] ([[User talk:Testpored|talk]]) 14:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Brief update: I refined and expanded it today. I quoted wiktionary's definition as the lead sentence because that's the best single definition I could find on this topic. There is also now a "some perspectives" section listing at least a dozen notable examples. -[[User:Testpored|Testpored]] ([[User talk:Testpored|talk]]) 17:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

:I think it is still worse than before. If you think it was biased before then you should add the other perspectives, but not by crippling the article. Also, I think, a wikipedia entry should strive to be complete and authoritative, not deferring explanations with links. Links are meant for citing the sources/references but the article should strive to be complete by itself. This (i.e. the human condition) is an important topic, maybe we should ask help of expert scholars in this field to contribute to this page.[[Special:Contributions/195.176.40.80|195.176.40.80]] ([[User talk:195.176.40.80|talk]]) 14:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
::You have a valid point about offering descriptions of examples, so I've now rewritten the "some perspectives" section to explain notable ones from several domains. -[[User:Testpored|Testpored]] ([[User talk:Testpored|talk]]) 04:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


== Humanity Is Suffering ==
I would like to add this quote:
Humanity is suffering. Humanity is desperate and not knowing of itself. This is all because there is a lack of love in our accepted forms of thinking. Serge Benhayon Esoteric Teachings and Revelations. Is this okay? [[User:Coco Star3|Coco Star3]] ([[User talk:Coco Star3|talk]]) 23:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

:No, it's a vague sentiment from an obscure source. -[[User:Testpored|Testpored]] ([[User talk:Testpored|talk]]) 15:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

== "Ages of Man and Woman" section ==

An anon just added this section. Is it really appropriate? Is the gallery helpful? I can't make up my mind. -- [[User:WikiPedant|WikiPedant]] ([[User talk:WikiPedant|talk]]) 17:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
:Didn't see this until after I cleaned it up a minute ago. I'm ambivalent too; at best it's a decent addition to the perspective section, but it may be more of a distraction than anything. -[[User:Testpored|Testpored]] ([[User talk:Testpored|talk]]) 21:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking at this afresh, I removed them because they're sensationalized perspectives that don't really belong. -[[User:Testpored|Testpored]] ([[User talk:Testpored|talk]]) 20:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
: OK by me. I won't miss them. -- [[User:WikiPedant|WikiPedant]] ([[User talk:WikiPedant|talk]]) 23:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

== [[Ethics]] ==
--[[Special:Contributions/2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D|2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D]] ([[User talk:2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D|talk]]) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[[Ethics]] needs greater emphasis in this "Human Condition" article.

Latest revision as of 02:19, 13 March 2024

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_condition&oldid=1213440847"