4 ms·
I am interpreting the parent as saying before we can say something is post-human, we have to define (understand) what "human" is. If we cannot agree on what it
by zizee 4y ago
I am interpreting the parent as saying before we can say something is post-human, we have to define (understand) what "human" is. If we cannot agree on what it is to be human, how can anyone be post-human? I.e. you can't define a "noun with modifier" until you define the noun.
- the_omegist 4y agoYou can differentiate a human from a dolphin ? Then you know all that is to be known about what an human is. You don't need to understand "dolphin-ness" to know that by enabling a dolphin to talk or fly you created a post-dolphin. Post/Transhumanism is not just about physical changes. Those changes , of course, will create/lead to philosophical/metaphysical questions, but no one understands transhumanism as a "branch of philosophy that questions itself about ...."
- alexvoda 4y agoThe "know it when you see it" kind of argument is cognitively vacuous. You are simply creating word salad using such an argument. A dolphin you enabled to talk is in no meaningfull way a post-dolphin, it is still a dolphin. The post- prefix presuposes a chronological posteriori point of view, and you can not confirm the veracity of that point of view until you reach it. In other words you can not call something posthuman until reaching posthumanity and drawing a line, or transhuman until you transcend humanity and can draw the line. The post-adolescent and post-feudalism examples work because they are chronologically in the past and we are arbitrarily drawing a line. Someone in the future might draw the line elsewhere.