Three quests for human nature : some philosophical reflections
The notion of 'human nature' has long since captured the interest and imagination of philosophers, theologians, and scientists; as such, it appears that the study of human nature is one amenable to inter-disciplinary cross-fertilization. However, it is not obvious that there is a single co...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
Mohr Siebeck
2014
|
| _version_ | 1797063382777462784 |
|---|---|
| author | Jong, J Visala, A |
| author_facet | Jong, J Visala, A |
| author_sort | Jong, J |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | The notion of 'human nature' has long since captured the interest and imagination of philosophers, theologians, and scientists; as such, it appears that the study of human nature is one amenable to inter-disciplinary cross-fertilization. However, it is not obvious that there is a single coherent project being undertaken, neither between nor within disciplines. Rather, we argue that there are three main quests for human nature – the quest for <em>universal</em> human nature, the quest for human <em>uniqueness</em>, and the quest for <em>innate</em> human nature – and that different philosophical, theological, and scientific enterprises emphasize (or, indeed, neglect) different quests. Furthermore, these different intellectual enterprises may differ more fundamentally, namely in their very object of enquiry, the definition of the theoretical term 'human being.' For scientists, the term 'human being' is often treated as being coterminous with the term <em>Homo sapiens</em>; that is, 'human being' is a biological category, a species. This definition is now, rightly or wrongly, taken for granted by philosophers and theologians, but it is not necessarily the most appropriate. It remains an open question whether, for any given philosophical and/or theological project, the biological concept <em>Homo sapiens</em> is the most appropriate way to understand the term 'human being.' This paper considers these issues by scrutinizing two cases – from evolutionary psychology and theological anthropology – in each case examining the adequacy of the biological concept <em>Homo sapiens</em> for its purpose, as well as the viability of each of the three quests for human nature. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:59:03Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:3a3fdb8b-4559-4975-b607-f14dfbe1b331 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:59:03Z |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publisher | Mohr Siebeck |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:3a3fdb8b-4559-4975-b607-f14dfbe1b3312022-03-26T14:00:27ZThree quests for human nature : some philosophical reflectionsJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:3a3fdb8b-4559-4975-b607-f14dfbe1b331Symplectic Elements at OxfordMohr Siebeck2014Jong, JVisala, AThe notion of 'human nature' has long since captured the interest and imagination of philosophers, theologians, and scientists; as such, it appears that the study of human nature is one amenable to inter-disciplinary cross-fertilization. However, it is not obvious that there is a single coherent project being undertaken, neither between nor within disciplines. Rather, we argue that there are three main quests for human nature – the quest for <em>universal</em> human nature, the quest for human <em>uniqueness</em>, and the quest for <em>innate</em> human nature – and that different philosophical, theological, and scientific enterprises emphasize (or, indeed, neglect) different quests. Furthermore, these different intellectual enterprises may differ more fundamentally, namely in their very object of enquiry, the definition of the theoretical term 'human being.' For scientists, the term 'human being' is often treated as being coterminous with the term <em>Homo sapiens</em>; that is, 'human being' is a biological category, a species. This definition is now, rightly or wrongly, taken for granted by philosophers and theologians, but it is not necessarily the most appropriate. It remains an open question whether, for any given philosophical and/or theological project, the biological concept <em>Homo sapiens</em> is the most appropriate way to understand the term 'human being.' This paper considers these issues by scrutinizing two cases – from evolutionary psychology and theological anthropology – in each case examining the adequacy of the biological concept <em>Homo sapiens</em> for its purpose, as well as the viability of each of the three quests for human nature. |
| spellingShingle | Jong, J Visala, A Three quests for human nature : some philosophical reflections |
| title | Three quests for human nature : some philosophical reflections |
| title_full | Three quests for human nature : some philosophical reflections |
| title_fullStr | Three quests for human nature : some philosophical reflections |
| title_full_unstemmed | Three quests for human nature : some philosophical reflections |
| title_short | Three quests for human nature : some philosophical reflections |
| title_sort | three quests for human nature some philosophical reflections |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jongj threequestsforhumannaturesomephilosophicalreflections AT visalaa threequestsforhumannaturesomephilosophicalreflections |