In looking at the evolution of humanity, there are moments of turmoil and there are moments of celebration. We know that to be human physically speaks to science, but does being human mean more than the basic definition?
Your blog this week is to examine your choice book and Hamlet in order to answer the question: Has what it means to be human changed throughout time?
Pull in quotes from your texts, and if you want to look at your world, please do so.
Your response should be about two paragraphs and then I am asking you to reply to at least two other people’s responses.
Please have a great week!
If you had the opportunity to travel to a different time period, you would likely encounter individuals who remind you of your current friends or family. The difference between these new acquaintances and your existing friends would not be their mix of morals and motivations, but how each group of people shares who they are. What it means to be human has not changed, just the way that we are able to communicate what makes us human. A large part of this is due to shifts in societal expectations for all ages, races, and genders. Over time, society as a whole has lifted some of the pressure for people to stay within their stereotypes, allowing for greater freedom of expression. While individuals from the past were not able to convey the intimate parts of themselves, they still had many of the same experiences and emotional responses that we do today.
ReplyDeleteTake Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, for example: this novel is about a poor African American community in the late 1930s. As the plot progresses, the backstories of multiple characters are shared, revealing severe childhood trauma. In modern times, individuals who have experienced any form of abuse are encouraged to share their stories, connect with others who are like them, and to find a healthy outlet for their pain. However, in the novel, the characters’ race and socioeconomic situations do not allow them the privilege of translating their struggles into words or find meaning in what they were feeling. One instance of this is the main character’s father, Cholly, who was humiliated as a teenager. Morrison writes, “Never once did he consider directing his hatred toward the hunters. Such an emotion would have destroyed him. They were big, white, armed men. He was small, black, helpless” (Morrison 150). Unfortunately, since he suppressed this hatred, the emotion manifested itself in violent ways: he became manipulative and physically abusive to everyone in his life. While this situation is due to race and economic status, a similar occurrence happens in Hamlet due to gender expectations. Hamlet was not allowed to express his devastation at losing his father because it was considered too feminine to have deep emotions. Claudius even critiques him, saying, “But to persever/In obstinate condolement is a course/Of impious stubbornness, ‘tis unmanly grief” (I.ii.92-94). As a result, Hamlet is forced to keep his feelings to himself, leading him to mania and murderous revenge. If society had not been so disproving of his grief, he would have been able to move on in a healthy way. Thankfully, our ideals of femininity and masculinity have expanded since then, making it more acceptable for people to share what they are feeling.
Overall, we are not fundamentally different from Cholly or Hamlet, as their trauma and loss are what make them human. However, the many people today who have experienced similar pain as them now have more options for expressing themselves and taking steps toward healing. We are equally as human as people used to be, but we have shifted as a society to being more accepting and empathetic.
Beautiful response Alyssa, I agree that despite the changes that occur humanity has not changed on some levels. However, I do wonder about your interpretation that if 'trauma and loss are what make them human' then what of animals such as dogs and cats that can clearly be seen to experience trauma and loss over their owners? Could their be something more to what makes us human or could it be that the difference between us and other species are not as different as we might believe?
DeleteHello Alyssa, I do agree with the experiences each person has within their life are important to defining a person. More importantly, how people looks to help a person with traumatic experiences help establish the idea of empathy for one another. Now, one thing I would ask is would understanding someone's differences change long term, and would that be a part of the meaning of humanity? Do new ideas spark a change in our overall understanding of the meaning?
DeleteHowdy Alyssa, I agree that stereotypes and expectations for marginalized groups shifting has greatly influenced how individuals are able to express themselves. Such as women or people of color being able to share their experiences and opinions which is a wonderful way towards progress
DeleteI absolutely love your commentary on gender expectations and the shift of them as time has passed! Also, I never really connected Cholly and Hamlet's suppression of emotions to one another but now it seems painfully obvious. And, as the others above have said, you did a brilliant job writing this, Alyssa, it reads wonderfully.
DeleteI absolutely love your ideas on this subject! I think that communication and emotions are a huge part of what makes us human. Repression and stifling the ugly parts of ourselves can only lead to negative effects long-term, as you brought up with Cholly and Hamlet. I loved how you tied in being human with kind of accepting all the parts of someone, even those that are not "acceptable" to some. Nice job!
DeleteOn the surface, humanity indeed does seem to have changed to adapt to social and cultural changes. This is well observed by the way countless philosophers' discoveries of what it means to be human seem to contradict each other as you look across time and cultures. If this were to be the case then it begs the question of what it means to be human and whether there are different kinds of humans. However, despite these surface-level differences, it can also be observed that humanity has always kept the same constant principles as a whole, even if from time to time they disappear. In every culture, in every society, you can find those who find hope no matter the struggle, feel compassion and love for those around them, feel despair and agony for those they lose, and find joy in the life and journey they experience. Although what exactly it means to be human might change and differ from one time or place to the next, at its core humanity remains constant.
ReplyDeleteTake for example the striking contrast between Anthony Burgess's dystopian novel, A Clockwork Orange, and William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet. On the surface, these two could not be further from one another with one following an abomination of a kid who takes pleasure in acts such as “They were like waking up to what was being done to their malenky persons and saying that they want to go home and like I was a wild best” (Burgess 50). The second, a prince beloved by his people who seeks to avenge his father's death at the hands of his uncle. For one, humanity seems to rotten to its core, and society is what clears the corruption out. The second, humanity defines itself by honor and that “Rightly to be great / Is not to stir without great argument, / but greatly to find quarrel in a straw / When honor’s at stake” (Shakespeare 259). Already it can be seen that in different cultures have fostered different interpretations of what it means to be human. However, as has been alluded to before, despite these stark differences both still manage to have the same underlying principles of humanity shine through. Despite their origins, however high or low they may be, both characters eventually find themselves at a low point. For one, he finds himself hospitalized after attempting to destroy himself by jumping out a window. For the second, he finds himself to be betrayed by his closest friends, his mother marrying his kin-slaying uncle, his love killing herself, and finding himself asking “To be or not to be that is the question”(Shakespeare 160). Yet in spite of reaching the point where they wish their lives to end, both find resolve deep within themselves to keep marching forward and pursuing their respective wishes in life. One moving beyond his horrid past. The second finding vengeance for his father. Thus, their stories demonstrate that no matter what form humanity takes on, principles like perseverance and grit will always be what makes us human in the end. No matter what changes occur on the surface, the core of humanity will always remain.
Hello Chase, I agree with the idea of the core of humanity remaining to keep the meaning behind what it means to be human the same. Additionally, I enjoy the use of resolve when examining the two written works. Some questions came to mind, is the understanding of being human only done by the actions and understandings of the individual, or could that person have influence from others that define the understanding? Should people use rationale when analyzing a person's actions, or should people show empathy and care to understand?
DeleteChase, as always, your ideas are insightful and thought-provoking. I like how you identified the difference between what it means to be human on an individual level and humanity as a whole. Which do you think has the bigger influence for change on the other? Also, you said that both characters from the two texts find themselves at a low point. Is this the only way for our truly human qualities to be revealed, or is there the possibility for a high point to also exhibit what it means to be human?
DeleteClayton: Intriguing questions to ask, in regards to your first question I must admit that I am slightly confused in what you are referring to. From what I gather you seem to be asking whether to understand humanity do we need to look at only individuals or can society as a whole demonstrate what humanity is? Well if that the case I would have to say that it would be the individual that demonstrates the traits but society is what amplifies them. For society is nothing but a gathering of united individuals who have agreed to work together to survive thus any actions that a society takes are actions in actuality just actions that individuals are taking. Hence, I come to the conclusion that society just allows for those traits of humanity to be seen more easily. In regards to your second question, I don't see why it has to be a binary decision of rational or empathy/care in when attempting to understanding others. Furthermore, I think it is when individuals only use one in understanding others that relationship suicide occurs. If you look at someone without emotion you will be confused as to why their actions do not make sense since humanity is an emotional based creature, not a machine. However, on the flip side if you only use empathy/care then you are bound to give too much sympathy that can easily turn to manipulation against you if you try to understand the wrong individual. For example, in Hamlet the lord's head advisor tries to use only rational to understand Hamlet's sorrow which leads to the wrong conclusion and worse still, the lose of the advisors life. For sympathy, Ophelia tries to understand and empathize with hamlets emotional state which prevents her from realizing that he is playing with her. This leads to when he begins to viciously mock her, she takes it so seriously that she ends up ceasing her own life as a result. Thus as these two demonstrate, if we want to understand others we must use both rationale and empathy/care since if either had done so they may have survived till the end of the play.
DeleteAlyssa Part 1: I greatly appreciate the compliment Alyssa, it means a lot coming from someone who's writing I very much admire. Thus let me try and see if I can answers your questions as my thanks. So your first question seems to be asking about which I think is more influential, the individuals actions or societies actions. To begin, as I mentioned in my response to Clayton's question, I believe that society is just the summation of the individuals desires which might lead you to believe that of course multiple individuals must be my answer since, well, there are more of them right? However, I believe quite the contrary. I think that it is individuals that change society when society is hit by a social change. Leaders have immense influence when it comes to enacting change. As well as, even those that don't lead can cause the consequences that end up causing society to go down one path instead of the other. To best explain this let me try to give you an example. In Clockwork Orange, that protagonist that I mentioned is sent to jail after getting caught for doing the unspeakable crimes I had mentioned. While he is there, it turns out that a group was working on a method that could use classical conditioning to take away one's free will. This would then allow the convict to return to society since they will have effectively cured the convict of his evil desires. However, as you would imagine this was not a process that many wanted to even consider due to its ethical violations to human rights. Thus society finds itself on a teetering point between killing evil along with free will or allowing free will and evil to remain. Take a guess what ends up deciding it. The main character ends up persuading the prison warden and the psychologist to allow him to be a test subject, causing this process to be used. Thus, an individual not society is what ends up deciding what will happen to humanity as a whole. For this reason, I believe that it is the individual that has a greater influence on society not the other way around.
DeleteAlyssa Part 2: The second question of your seems to asking why I choose to only focus on the low points of the characters lives to talk about humanity. The reason I did so is that it is when one is at rock bottom that they either break or rise and I love a classic returning to glory story. Thus I tend to like to focus on humanities potential to redeem itself and persevere instead of the other side of the coin; what occurs when one finds themselves at the top? You see to answer your question, yes when one reaches a high point humanity's traits are bound to be revealed. However, humanity is a complex organism and thus has two contradicting desires that when they reach the top they must choose to succumb to. I believe most refer to this as the devil and the angel on ones shoulder. Those are humanities tendency to control and destroy versus humanities tendency to help and build. We all must choose between these two paths; chaos vs order, life vs death, kill vs protect. And when you gain the power of being at a high point these two choices can influence all the more people. And sadly it seems all to often that we tend to choose chaos and destruction and abuse our power. Although it may not always occur, it is the tendency. This is the reason why we separate the powers in American government since as the saying goes 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. And due to this negative outlook on life I decided to not focus on it in my essay this time although it is certainly evident. For example, in Clockwork Orange when the main character is at his lowest he ends up going to a library were he runs into elderly folk that seem to treat him with humility which he has not seen in a long time. I mean their elderly what are they gonna do right? Well you see, they end up recognizing him a few moments later and when they do they remember that before going to prison (this is now after he went through the treatment to clarify and thus he has been released) he used to mug them in the streets and destroy their priceless books. Thus, they begin to attack him and when they realize he is not fighting back, they end up using this new found power over him to hurt him so bad that he struggles to get up. For you see that treatment did in fact work causing him to be unable to harm another human, even if they are hurting him. Thus, this chaotic and destructive part of humanity is revealed by these vicious elders. So again to answer your question, yes high points can reveal what it means to be human; I just don't like what the answer is.
DeleteChase, your idea of what it means to be human is very interesting. Perseverance is so complicated. Would the attack on the Capitol be considered perseverance to you? I think that it would. Also, is getting out of bed and continuing to do simple tasks(basically surviving)considered perseverance?
DeleteIris: Agreed this perseverance thing does seem to be far more complicated then we give it credit. I would give examples of its complications but it seems as though you have already identified some and thus let me try and write about one way of interpreting them from a perseverance perspective. So when the Capitol was attack, what could have been the response from politicians? Could they have not just submitted to the protesters desires in order to protect themselves from their outrage? Would that have not been the more safe option since there is no telling if a similar thing could happen again? However, they did not choose to do this. American did not choose to do this. Rather it looked itself in the mirror and decided that although freedom to protest must be respected, so too must civility among the protesters and storming the capitol was anything but civil. Thus we proceeded to say that is not what we are and instead of allowing our darkness to overtake us, we choose to persevere and continue down the path we know is right as a country. That actually leads me to your second question about getting out of the bed. Just as society persevered in the face of its darkness, the mere act of continuing on in the face of all that life throws at us is a sort of perseverance. For a better example of all that humanity has to face, I suggest reading "The Undeniable Pressure of Existence" by Patricia Fargnoli. She does a wonderful job of describing this very issue and how much it takes for us to keep on going from day to day. So in short, I do think both work as great examples of perseverance.
DeleteShort terms. I like how your comments encourage other people :3
DeleteI mean, what better to do than to live... Being alive is awesome. I don't know what else to do rather than be alive. I'm pretty sure if everyone dies in the literary plot, there would be no plot to go. In my knowledge, I do not know of a plant who would identify cheating and killing other plants of its kind because it was cheating. Dramatic, yet kinda fun
Betty: I agree being alive is amazing. However, even more so then alive but also conscious is one of the greatest wonders I believe in the universe. I remember reading in the book 'Life 3.0' by Max Tegmark that as long as consciousness remains present the universe will have meaning for consciousness is what allows meaning to exist. Therefore, the greatest goal that humanity can strive to have is to allow consciousness to keep on existing and if not through humans then we must create something that will outlive us and remain conscious. For if it disappears how sad will it be that their will be nothing to notice how beautiful the universe truly is.
DeleteChase, I admire your thinking so much. Thank you for your response. Your thinking makes me think even harder. Thank you for the reading suggestion!! I will look into it.
DeleteWhen looking at the world through time, conditions and environments have changed in response to a variety of aspects provided to each living organism in the world. Subsequently, this idea of change and adaptation is also present in humans as well in regards to the mental understanding of society. However, the idea that what it means to be human, overall, has not changed. Looking back into previous times of society, there are moments in which people show to have compassion and understanding of each other through times that seem most difficult. Furthermore, the complexity of understanding the meaning of being human becomes more conceptualized as the factors of the idea are utilized in people’s lives at a greater amount. So, although the understanding and practical discussion of the meaning to be human has changed, the quintessential ideas of humanity such as showing complexity in actions, free will, and acknowledgement of others’ struggles to later act to help have remained in societies and are part of the ideals of knowing what it means to be human.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of utilizing the core concepts of humanity can be shown through works at different times in the world, which help give a glimpse into the culture and interactions of people in the day. These interactions are analyzed to look into the humanity of a person, and can be seen using core ideals towards this. Take for example Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The play uses the ideas of Hamlet’s actions and response to Claudius’s murder of King Hamlet to establish a connection to understanding the dilemma established. Hamlet first is very reserved in his actions, due to his uncertainty of the issue at hand, however, this quickly changes once Hamlet does confirm the findings about his father, King Hamlet, and acts more aggressive and reckless. Hamlet’s caution before his actions can be seen when he states, “I’ll have these players / Play something like the murder of my father / before mine uncle. I’ll observe his looks; / I’ll tent him to the quick. If he do blench, / I know my course” (II.ii.623-627). This restraint held by Hamlet demonstrates the uncertainty and complexity of the actions he needs to take in order to have confirmation, with no doubt, about the murder. To further explain this, the complexity is meant to connect the audience to the scenario and show that reason needs to be taken in society when dealing with particular matters. This particular way Hamlet acts was done in order to capture the core meaning of humanity to the audience and utilizes the idea of understanding others struggles to portray the meaning of being human, both for when the play first debuted and to current times when analyzing. Additionally, the core ideas of humanity can also be seen in Dostoevsky’s “Notes from Underground”, where the idea of an individual’s free will being used to benefit the person’s interests and beliefs in a particular matter. Dostoevsky examines the ideas of rationalism being used to great proportions in society, and how they lack the acknowledgement to the complexity of people’s actions and behaviors. This opposition to generalizing a person’s free will is brought forward when the narrator states, “Eh, gentlemen, what sort of will of one’s own can there be if it comes to tables and arithmetic, and the only thing going is two times two is four? Two times two will be four even without my will. As if that were any will of one’s own!” (Dostoevsky 31). A person’s free will cannot be easily defined by others, and differs from each person. Dostoevsky looks to show that understanding a person cannot be done through absolute scientific rationale, but instead, should be done by people understanding that people have free will. This therefore shows acknowledgement for their own reasons to act, which in turn results in the core idea being expanded upon in the understanding of the meaning of being human. Overall, the core ideas of humanity are examined in detail to give more to the definition of the meaning of being human rather than changing it.
Hi Clayton, it seems that you have once again tied empathy and the importance of connecting with each other into your response. I wonder if there are there times in history where society ignored the importance of empathy? I also agree with you that the core of what makes us human has not changed. Seeing as you referenced free will as one of the core ideals, does this mean that a person deprived of their free will has become less human?
DeleteHowdy Clayton, I agree that free will is defined by each individual, and that maybe humanity hasn't changed only grown. I also agree that establishing context for Hamlet's actions is extremely important.
DeleteInteresting response Clayton, I was wondering something though about your reference to free will depends on the person. What if free-will does not exist to the extent that American culture believes that it does and it is rather your will it just the response to millions of random events that occur in your life? Do you think such a discovery could lead to humanity not being as human as we thought it was?
DeleteWhat it means to be human has greatly changed over time, Hamlet and A clockwork orange both have very differing views of the human experience. Each individual's experience being human is very different, for example my experience is very different from much of the population’s. Frankly I think the main way what it means to be human has changed is that being human is no longer purely about survival, now being human is more about thriving and having a good time. It’s one of my favorite things about existing is how different we all are. The ability to learn so much about different people is amazing, and that’s so important to being human, is being different.
ReplyDeleteA clockwork orange focuses more heavily on the darker parts of being human such as crime, assault, theft, murder and violence. In focusing on the darker parts of humanity such as when the main characters rob a store or bank, or any of the cruelties they participate in. The way that these cruelties are now seen as cruelties rather than a more normal occurrence in everyday life shows how much we have evolved and how we’ve come as people and as a society. In Hamlet the focus is more on emotions and how our experiences affect us. Hamlet has been somewhat pushed by his experiences and emotions to kill his uncle, under normal circumstances it is clear that Hamlet wouldn’t do such a thing. But Hamlet has been driven to this extreme because of a few traumatic events in his life: the death of his father and the death of ophelia. Both of these events greatly affect Hamlet to the point of those around him questioning his sanity. These stories show different sides of being human: violence for the sake of it, and violence for a purpose, which shows how motivation affects us all greatly.
Well Nate is seems as though you have taken a stance unlike the rest that have been posted so far which is always a great thing since then we have the ability to try and learn from one another why we see things the way we do as you mentioned in your first paragraph. Thus I have a few questions. First due you think that Hamlet is using his fathers death as a sort of justification for his actions instead of it being the true reason? And if that's the case would the violence be closer to purposeless then purposeful? The second is in regards to the conclusion that if our motivation changes our humanity changes as well. In both you make mention to darker parts within humanity despite the novels differences, thus could it be that humanity has always had a darkness to it? Has it not so much as been destroyed but rather just been hidden waiting to be unleashed?
DeleteI think it is very interesting how you differentiate both pieces of literature with different motivations of violence. My question for you is do you think the times that both pieces were written has an impact on the characters' motivations for violence? I have not read A Clockwork Orange and truly have no concept of what occurs in the book, but it sounds like it carries an interesting commentary on what humans are capable of.
DeleteNice job on this! I think it's interesting that you brought up human's capabilities for evil and the more negative side of things. You emphasized violence in both of your pieces, and it made me realize that there are certain acts of cruelty that only we are capable of. My question is, do all humans share this capability of evil? Do some possess a greater quality, or is it all the same?
DeleteI love how you explained this. I also brought into mine the factor of death and the feeling behind it that has evolved us. Do you think there was a specific turning point that made humans discover the act of killing and such as more than just a normal occurrence ?
DeleteClub dub killing each other, assault and violence. Doesn't happen every so often too? One that comes to my mind is Ted Bundy. He killed lots and lots of women and famous psychologists analyze his acts. Acting handsomely and polite, it seems as if he regrets it, though he clearly thinks that killing people is fun. I question whether or not that is a factor into the mind. Maybe the really smart killers have seen something that we can't see, which makes murder so fun to them.
DeleteThis was very well written. I like how you took the prompt and made such a deep concept about the human mind. I also like how you took the idea of violence and showed how in some cases, the brain justifies violence. But I have to ask, do you think that every human has some evil in them and in some people, it's more extreme?
DeleteI think what it means to be human has largely stayed the same. Almost as if you were looking at a photograph hanging on display at a gallery. However, as one looks closer, small details appear different then first perceived. Throughout history and in current times, everyone is expected to accomplish something. Be it surviving high school, maintaining a job, or even one day getting married, these kinds of expectations have prevailed. However, defiance of these expectations and the struggles along the road to completing them have become less taboo. Even anticipated, to some degree. In Hamlet, there is a strong focus of maintaining outward poise. That, no matter what may be happening behind the scenes, the populace at large should be unaware of unkind happenings. This can be seen most clearly when the plan to ship Hamlet off to England is brought to light (act IV, scene iii). They want to keep him out of Denmark so that he does not besmirch the reputation of his family with his increasingly crazed temperament. And yes, they are royal, but for this analysis let's set that bit aside. Presently, or at least moving forward in America, it is becoming more acceptable to make known to the public one's personal struggles. With the rise of social media and mental health education, personal struggles are seen in a more acceptable light. To an extent, one might say that these struggles are received well by an audience, that these audiences send their support and well-meant advice towards an individual that comes forth. I guess it can be summed up through extremes by saying that being human has grown from a place of only struggling behind closed doors to speaking openly about it to strangers. And I know that the stigma of mental illness or personal struggles isn't entirely gone, and that not everyone has the security of talking about their experiences in the open, but it seems to be progressing in a more open direction. To sum up here, being human is increasingly coming to mean that we are expected to struggle and to face great challenge without the need to pretend otherwise.
ReplyDeleteOn the matter of overarching sameness, most societies have kept a base in familial importance. The idea that family, even chosen family, comes before pretty much everything else. That to be human is also to care unconditionally and deeply about one's relatives. Obviously, there are those who disagree with this mentality but largely I think, with cross-continent societal inclusion even, it has remained a core value. It can be seen in Hamlet, despite the different interpretations of family that are taken. Hamlet himself believes that his birth parents are extremely important, to the extent that he refuses to even fully acknowledge that his uncle is now legally his father. But, his mother continues to insist that Hamlet should accept his new father whilst also asserting that no one could ever fully replace her late King Hamlet; merely that familial curtesy should be extended to her new husband (act I, scene ii). These kinds of arguments still are around today but have also expanded to include chosen family, especially in queer spaces. In cases of chosen family, it comes off (in my experience) as meaning an individual has established a family of their own making to associate with just as strongly as someone would with their birth family. Additionally, it has become more accepted that some families are estranged, but there is still a strong societal desire to repair those kinds of relationships and have strong familial bonds. In a way, almost like a faint echo of what the queen wishes for her son and her new husband.
I really loved your analysis (especially the metaphor at the beginning)! I loved that you tied in mental health and the stigma around it to the idea of humanity. Being human means there are times when people struggle, and it doesn't make them less of a person for it. I also totally agree with your ideas of family, whether blood-related or not. Tying in Hamlet's refusal to accept his uncle into his family showcases how much we truly do care for others. How do you think Hamlet's relationship with his mother ties into that idea? His opinions on her become quite negative in the play, despite their shared blood. Do you think he stopped considering her his family? Nice job on this!
DeleteMan Ilsa nice job! I loved your addressing of part of being human is to face struggles and thus I have a recommendation as well as a question for you. First I strongly recommend that you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley since it takes away all suffering in humanity and explores the consequence. Second, on a similar note, do you believe that if a society is ever created that allows one to avoid all suffering, by doing so will you be becoming less human?
DeleteBiology will tell you that the human race has changed and evolved throughout the course of time, and with that change came a new definition for humanity. Scientifically speaking, we are all the same species. Hitler, Gandhi, MLK, Donald Trump… However, we prefer not to associate with certain individuals in history. Their actions have isolated them to the point where most choose to forget the common qualities they share. Therefore, I believe that the definition of being human changes as the things society deems “socially acceptable” changes. Take, for example, Hamlet. He becomes so obsessed with his father’s revenge that he actually loses his touch with humanity. Whether or not he was acting insane or actually succumbed to the madness, his actions are out of line with what was acceptable during that time. He is outright cruel to Ophelia, the girl he once loved. He tells her, “...Or if thou wilt need marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go, and quickly too.” (Shakespeare iii.i.149-151). This behavior was uncalled for, and though Hamlet may have not committed any truly evil acts, besides accidentally killing Polonius (Shakespeare iii.iv.29-30) and feeling no remorse for it, the other characters still classify him as “mad” to separate him from the rest of their kind. It provides them with an excuse for his actions; he is insane and not truly human, so don’t associate us good people with him. We’ve done this for a multitude of people throughout time; we exclude them from humanity as a way to distance ourselves from them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even the most repulsive of people have been found to have at least a shred of kindness, of humanity, in them. The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison, is a novel about a poor black girl named Pecola Breedlove growing up in the 1930’s. The book features many people who are cruel and unfair, but Cholly, Pecola’s father, is the worst of them all. He raped his young daughter, and though he had a lot of bad experiences himself growing up, the line was crossed. But even after committing such a horrific act, there is still that sliver of him that forces him to be humane, shown when the book states, “Again the hatred mixed with tenderness. The hatred would not let him pick her up, and the tenderness forced him to cover her” (Morrison 163). The scene ends with the juxtaposition of the hatred and repulsion of what just occurred and the shock that he still had enough love to spare her that much. Humanity is complex. We like to separate and compartmentalize things, and so we label people who have done unforgivable things as “not human” to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. We change the definition of humanity to exclude the repulsive and unforgivable people and the things they do to set them apart. The truth is, we are all human, the good and the bad, whether we like it or not.
I loved the your introduction sentence of your second paragraph!! And even the word 'shred' has a negative connotation and I admire the use of that word. Also, your addition of saying that us humans like to compartmentalize things is very interesting and I have not associated us with that before.
Delete"The truth is, we are all human, the good the bad, whether we like it or not". Dang, what a great quote Ava! It seems as though many like to avoid allowing the darkness to be an aspect of humanity. You mention though that we try to change the definition of what it means to be human and (along similar lines to my question with Iris) I was wondering whether you think that humanity has that power to change what it means to be human? Can we choose to expel all things we deem to be evil as not human if we so desired?
DeleteI liked how you phrased the interlude between meaning that ties us together. As a human, I am prone to falling in the traps of malice, conducted by myself as well as by the system. Horrific acts has always been a part of society. The news spreads it, as if the overly saturated content makes us insensitive. The question of what is good and bad simply cannot be answered.
DeleteThank you Ava! These are some new points that I really didn't think of when thinking over this. So if I am understanding this correctly, you are saying that we as humans naturally like to label people? We label certain dictators from our past as evil and certain civil rights activists as good. We label certain groups based on if their beliefs match up with ours. Putting all of these labels together, we can define ourselves and others. Therefore, does this ever-changing state of humanity favor a certain side? Are there more of us that believe we are good even though we turn a blind eye to the hate and injustice that is happening around us? Do we naturally want bad things to happen just so we can use out labels and constantly point out who is wrong?
DeleteAs of right now, I am not ready to question my entire existence. But, I will attempt to analyze what it means to be human. To be human is to be fluid. We are constantly evolving in all aspects. For example, sometimes, we hold ourselves to the highest of standards but accept the bare minimum efforts from those around us. We are fluid in both aspects because our opinions differ in these two situations. Sometimes, people hold the same opinions, but the extremity of those opinions exponentially grow over time. Subjectivity is one of the most intricate aspects of humanity. Enlightenment thinkers such as Hobbes perceived the human race as inherently evil and selfish and could be nothing more than that. Various philosophers, similar to Hobbes, have shared their thoughts with the public. A characteristic that can be perceived by corrupt by most is that of continuing to support a system that benefits a specific party, even though it is detrimental to another. For example, people have indulged themselves in the slave market in order to make an income off of the exploitation of other humans. Furthermore, someone who supports the patriarchy is likely to be one who benefits from such oppression. Exploiting concepts or other beings for one's own gain is inhumane and grotesque because it invokes further selfishness and greed for more power.
ReplyDeleteHumanity is conveyed throughout Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, and in The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison. In The Bluest Eye, Morrison dictates, "The lower he sank, the wilder and more irresponsible he became, the more splendid she and her task became. In the name of Jesus"(42). Mrs. Breedlove, the 'she' in this sentence takes advantage of Jesus Christ in order to fulfill her idea of her purpose in life, which was to punish her husband, Cholly. This act is not what the Lord's scripture meant and she grossly incorrectly interprets Christ's words. Until Mrs. Breedlove corrects her actions and understands why her actions were disturbing, she will inhabit a more humanly presence about her. To me, in order to believe what we think is human, we must identify what we believe is inhumane. We must acknowledge what is inhumane in us and change our ways to be fluid and evolve. In Hamlet, Shakespeare writes, "To draw apart the body he hath killed,/O'er whom his very madness, like some ore/Among a mineral of metals base,/Shows itself pure: he weeps for what is done"(25-29). On the other hand, Hamlet feels extreme sorrow for what he has done and this is apparent from his sobbing and Shakespeare makes the comment that Hamlet shows himself to be 'pure' by recognizing his mistake. In a similar aspect, previous convicts who have been rehabilitated have been able to gain their previous lives back by portraying extreme personal growth while being in prison. Although Hamlet realizing his mistake is not as extreme as convicts coming out of jail and turning their lives around, the ideas are definitely similar. In conclusion, to be human is to be aware of one's inhumane characteristics and want to personally abandon those traits.
Great response Iris! My question for you is why you believe that exploiting and manipulation are inhumane instead of just a negative aspect of humanity? Are we able to choose how humanity is defined or is it our nature that decides?
DeleteI think you explained everything really well leaving me no questions. Good work!
DeleteThank you for the commentary, Chase. Going back to our class discussion about existentialism, we define ourselves and we choose our actions. So, we choose how humanity is defined and we are doing that currently in this blog. I believe that exploitation and manipulation are inhumane because you are stuck in a constant mindset of solely caring for the self and not for others. There should be a balance between the two, as selfishness is looked down upon because we are meant to interact with each other. That is a great conversation starter and I think that I will think more about it.
DeleteThank you, Grace!!
DeleteHas what it means to be human changed? Yes. I believe that's the whole reason to being a human is to discover and learn. If you take a look years and years back and take a scientific approach at it you can say we have developed from apes into functioning human beings. Now you define a specific term for the word human but if you ask 1 million people what it meant to be human each definition would be different. Neither one being right or wrong ,I believe that is the beauty of being a human is having your own emotions and own respectable thoughts. So asking the question "Have humans changed?" I believe most can agree absolutely.
ReplyDeleteNow relating this to our world now along with hamlet you can see even bigger changes. One being if you look back on the scene of him making the heedless, some may describe it as, act of killing you can see the change from then and now. If you look at the act of murder not only from this play but beyond where we are now you can see the almost normalization of killing. Where now , yes still very relevant , but looked at in a different perspective where it is very looked down upon and not normal. This is showing the way humans have evolved and become more in touch with emotions and such. Also more specifically within our generation we are often called sensitive due to not tolerating what older generations had not even thought they had created "normal". This showing the change from just a couple of decades compared to centuries.
The last question being does being human mean more than just the basic definition? Yes. I believe this 100% , that although we may fit the scientific anatomical structure we all make up different opinions , feelings , thoughts , physical structures , and overall definitions and ways we have been bent into different human beings making us all different and all the same at one time.
You bring up some great points Grace! I just have a few questions. You mention the idea of humans changing and you bring up comparisons to our development through generations. Although our society has changed so much, do you think humanity and the defining ideas of being a human being have changed? Have the ideas of having emotions, opinions, and our physical structures been altered in ways that have changed our identity as humans? Or are there other characteristics that make us human that have evolved with these?
DeleteGrace, I very much enjoyed your perspective on this it definitely opened up my thinking. I can see as we evolve to become more and more advanced that as a species we might change. I think that then opens up the question of is there a limit in which our advancements can change us or is there a limit?
DeleteWell written Grace and fascinating take on has humanity changed through a more scientific and broad point of view. I do wonder though to what extent can one define themselves as different then another? Can that ability to differ in definition of what it means to be human cause conflicts between individuals?
ReplyDeleteThrough the course of time, the definition to be human has merged from being distinct to being blurred, though one concept remained: wealth. Ever since the prehistoric ages, humans have separated themselves into class systems, with India forming caste systems and the slavery system of the Byzantine. Class systems constantly changed, through the emergence of the church as the main belief system to an organized scientific community. Eventually, though wealth is a part of a person’s identity, the emergence of groups advocating for equal rights and credits to each person denounced wealth as a part of a person’s human worth. Hamlet, as a playwright written in around the 17th century by Shakespeare, reveals in English society how the definition of being human changed since then to modern society. In the play, only the nobility gets to interact with the nobility, and princes can order the common person around as they wish. The Dead King Hamlet was honored and still respected as Hamlet himself heeded his orders. Hamlet rejects to answer Rosencrantz’s question by saying, “Besides, to be demanded of a sponge, what replication should be made by the song of a king?”(4.2,12-13). An answer of Polonius’ death is asked for by the King, though is rejected by Hamlet. Normally, orders by the King would need to be answered, but since the royal family can converse with each other without fear of distinct punishment, Hamlet needs to say no words to servants of Claudius. The class system is exemplified when Hamlet, a Prince, can denounce his servants; he shows more respect to Claudius, though it becomes veiled with hate.
ReplyDeleteEducation also emerged as a part of being human. Politicians advocate for the right for equal education as a human right because it signifies the access to a ladder for upwards social mobility. In modern society, politicians debate about student debt to colleges, because now that colleges have become the new standard. The bachelor is seen as the base value of young adults versus the nobility holding the power of education in the past. Hamlet, in the past, goes to the University of Wittenberg to fulfill his breadth of being a future heir to the throne. Again, the equivalence of human worth is more blurred as time passes, because education, once seen as a privilege of the nobility, becomes accessible and granted to normal members of society. While philanthropy has been valued, as the noble give to the poor, the act of giving still resides in the idea that one group is superior. Rights then, become challenged, and the societal hierarchy that humans organize themselves strictly in collapse. From a paternal society, the direction that humans now flow to is the spirit of the individual. A group is collective, yet diminishes the characteristic of the individual. An individual lives within a group, though sets himself apart, because of his distinct traits. As colleges flourish, the idea of free speech and the soul of the individual’s pursuit also flourish. Society’s difference between the rich and the poor has always been tied with the definition of humanity, though, as time went on, the value of one human began to blur with one another as the individual spirit emerged over the collective.
Hi Betty, you made some very interesting and thought-provoking points here. I love how you mentioned the class-system. I would have never really thought about that looking at Hamlet in which everyone is of the same class of royalty. I do agree with your points about wealth defining humanity but I wonder how those apply to today's society where there is less monarchy and more equality. Do you think that wealth translates to being more human? Or does a significant amount of wealth or lack of wealth make us less human since the majority of us are in the middle?
DeleteFascinating, truly fascinating points you choose to focus on Betty. However, you mention that classes have been around across all of time but before their were cities there were hunters and gathers. Those who would roam with their party and although one may stand out as the leader all were primarily equal. Do you believe that we were more human back then before we settled down for civil life? Also you mention that wealth is tied to humanity? Do you think that those who are more wealthy or those who are less wealthy are indeed more human then the other? Could the elite's inability to see the humanity in those beneath them reflect their own inner gaps within their humanity?
ReplyDeleteIf you look at how humanity has evolved over the years, it is pretty obvious that changes have happened to humanity. Advances were made in technology, culture was formed, and history was made. But, have all of these things that have shaped the society we live in today changed the definition of being human? To explore this, we can look through two very different pieces: A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess and Hamlet by Shakespeare. The plot and context of each of these works could not be more contrasting but they still manage to point to the definition of humanity. This lies in its defining principles.
ReplyDeleteThe first principle explored by these two works is violence. In A Clockwork Orange, the main character Alex, a rebellious teenager, assembles a gang and proceeds to commit countless acts of violence. Their first act being triggered after he said "You deserve to taught a lesson, brother" to an innocent kid (Burgess 9). Like Alex, Hamlet, the main character of Shakespeare's tragedy expressed similar violent tendencies. As he was interrogating his mother about her decision to marry his uncle, Claudius, who murdered his father, Polonius a correspondent for Claudius attempted to hide during their conversation and gather information. But, he alerts Hamlet of his presence and Hamlet instinctively stabs him with his rapier and kills him because he thought he was Claudius. Hamlet defends his action saying, "A bloody deed---almost as bad, good mother,/ As kill a king and marry his brother" (3.4.34-35). After hearing of his father's death, he spent the remainder of the story attempting to get revenge and violence was the only way to make that happen. As human beings, we have the animalistic instinct to be violent just as our cavemen ancestors were at one point. But, there is a reason why 7 billion of us exist on this planet together and war is not constantly upon us.
This is because the majority of us live in the comfort of comradery and care of those close to us which overpowers our natural violent tendencies. Alex, in a Clockwork Orange, is a prime example of this. After being detained, rehabilitated, experimented on, and released, Alex still returned to his natural violent tendencies.It was only after an old member of his gang, Paul, who was seen living a peaceful, fruitful life with a nice family, convinced Alex to leave his violent past and live a peaceful future. Alex dreams "My son, my son" which represents his transformation from a selfish, violent individual to a member of society (Burgess 211). Up until this point, he was never affected by positive influences. But because of our natural human tendency to be together, our individual instinct to be violent can be cured. Hamlet never had non-violent influences. Both Horatio and the ghost of his father encouraged him to be violent. Moreover, his violent habits forced him to his end and he died for his quest for revenge. Before he passed, he made peace with Laertes: "Exchange forgiveness with me, noble Hamlet" (5.2.361). Although he was able to express his forgiveness for Laertes, his individual violence took him too far, and he was unable to live his life out. As humans we have to balance our individual inclination to be violent and our societal instinct to be peaceful. If our violent tendencies take over, we could suffer a gruesome date just as Hamlet did.
Great response Ryan! Do you feel that violent is sometimes required though? Also is it society or society's beliefs that hinder violence since back in the pre-civil war era, America was known to be quite violent to those that were different despite being in a social life.
DeleteSociety today defines being human in a weird way. Of course, being human is something everyone in the entire world shares with one another, but it takes on an entirely different meaning. In today's world, my definition of being human is someone who's not afraid of who they are nor afraid of making mistakes. Over time, humans have become more equal with each other. Everyone shares the same rights as each other regardless of gender, skin color but the same can't be said about our past. Society now is more accepting of people just being 'human' than we were in the past.
ReplyDeleteHamlet takes place during the 14th and 15th centuries, a time where being human had a different definition. During this time, the gap between social classes meant so much more and this applied to the definition of being human. The more wealthy people viewed the poorer people as less than nothing and they weren't anywhere near the same level as them. However, Hamlet focuses on a royal family, which in a country back then were the highest part of the social class. Being a part of the royal family then, was more focused on themselves instead of the people. If you look at our world now, leaders focus more on the people instead of themselves. In Hamlet, the characters who were also rulers were more egotistical than they are now.
Jared, I thought your response provided a good lens to look at this topic. When talking about being human I think talking about the similarities we all shared even when divided is a good thing that shows how we are all the same in a way. The past in how we treated everyone is definitely different and I think it provided different views on people than we have today. I think the perspective of the time in which people were in definitely overall effected how we view other humans versus how we view them now.
DeleteI believe that being human has not changed over time. However, the perspectives in which people view what it means to be human have.Morality is something that comes up often when talking about being human. Morality can be seen as knowing what is right and what is wrong.However, I think that people have always had morality it is something that is inherit in humans. However, how a person has used morality shifts over time with some of the historical events that have played out. These events change society as a whole and shifts one's perspective on morality either strengthening it or weakening based on one's experiences.
ReplyDeleteIn A Clockwork Orange it is seen that the state tries to force morality upon its citizens. However, engineering this artificial morality does not work and leads to a weaker morality of the people as a whole. In Hamlet it's seen that again through extreme events morality shifts but is still present as actions that Hamlet would find immoral before now become moral. To recap I feel that being human has not changed but has shifted in different ways as response to events. This can be seen through the lens of morality and how it shifts but is still present in different ways.