As a biologist, I love the inclusion of biological anthropology (often left out by social anthropology videos dominating). Every discipline in biology can be used to explain humanity, commonly bones and genetics, but also botany, human ecology, food sciences, and microbiology (paleopathology and our understanding and cultural reaction to disease in the past). IMO Humans are very anthropocentric, and nearly all scientific endeavours deep down are to understand humans better.
I like how you described how anthropology relates with archeology, I think it relates not only for its material value that the archeological field provides (artifacts), giving artistic significance, but more specifically for what these artifacts and its contents tells us about the place of the ancient mind and how this can help us get a better picture as to the reasons why people act and behave the way they (we) do. I think that the condition of thought is just as traceable through archeology as is family history within cultural anthropology. Anthropology is amazing!! :) Love the channel!!
i really love your channel, alivia! i'm a senior in hs and i've been interested in anthropology for a while now and you've helped me be more realistic about what i'm expecting from a job in this field. and the video was really well done !!!
Any question that can be interpreted in any number of ways cannot have a succinct answer. But I'll give the thoughts that flow out of my mind. I think it is beneficial to compare what it would mean to ask, "what does it mean to be a car". As with the human question, to answer it fully, would involve explaining every subsystem of the car. How they operate. Everything the car does. Etc.. And that, in and of itself, is interesting in a certain kind of way, but too broad to be useful here. So, in order to answer, "what does it mean to be a human" I think it does make sense to narrow the question down as much as possible, to something like "what does it mean to be human, that is different from any other thing?" Humans, as you mentioned, have a degree of self-awareness. We also have the ability to quantify, categorize, and understand things in a way that nothing else does (besides, in the future perhaps, AI systems). So, to me, being a human is being and doing the things that no other animal or entity that we know of does or can do. It means understanding DNA, culture, neural networks, the universe, and all sorts of things. Understanding how humans are similar and different to other animals, similar and different to other humans, as well as how life experiences contribute to creating a unique creature, is what it means to be human.
Hey Alivia, Im Brazilian who studies culture and communication in Lisbon PT and ur channel is giving me great perspective about anthropology... thank u so much for ur work and inspiration
Glad you are back Alivia , i missed your videos a lot , i used to enjoy eating my food watching your videos which is apperantly the biggest compliment you can give to a TH-camr , you have always been imo one of the most underrated TH-camra out there , keep it up ❤
I don’t think to be human is to be negative or pessimistic. But of course it’s important to look at things from different perspectives, and as humans, we have that ability. But I think that it’s important to be, maybe, as understanding of each other as we could be. To be understanding of other species. And this, for me, not only comes from a spiritual and religious level, but also, a personal level. It’s important TO ME that I am in this, because to be human, I must understand to be understood.
I think, today, what it is to be human from an anthropological perspective is to first give up the idea that we can compare humans to other animals, particularly our genetically closest relatives, because despite our scientific advances, nobody can honestly say they know what it’s like to be anything else but a human. So, that is why we have the four different major branches of anthropology to help us better understand ourselves. The problem is, if we’re not Māori, for example, we’ll never know what it’s like to be Māori. We can live with them for years and become an expert on their culture and language, but we’ll never really be a Māori. But cultural anthropology helps us relate to them better and understand what it’s not like being a human of a different culture or from a different generation/century. Just a thought.
Maybe being human is not at all different than being any other species, but the only thing that sets us apart is our ability to exchange ideas with other human beings. Its the ability to plausibly exchange the collective information of the species that sets us apart?
@@AliviaBrown the thought crosses my mind as I think if I was left on an island with many other species with no tools, clothing, or anything that other humans help me make, I'd probably not survive against the other predators. It's the fact that I can draw from the knowledge of other humans that would give me a major advantage.
@@AliviaBrown also btw, really loved your video! The naturalistic fallacy part kept me thinking all night. Would keep an eye out for your future videos!
@@cooperreed1709 I'm not completely sure if that's a tendency only specific to humans. I've heard that crows keep grudges. If I'm not wrong, other apes also have a tendency to seek justice for their clan. But it does remind of this really well explained podcast episode by Darryl Cooper where he talks about how one of the big steps of humans moving from a tribe to a nation state is to convince people to follow the laws that avoid injustices from escalating into tribal fights. I'm probably doing a disservice to it by the way I'm trying to summarise it but it was really interesting so I thought I'd share. Nvm!
Just found your channel, thanks for doing what you do! Been thing around this question forever, and the things you said here definitely help me put some thoughts together. At the moment, I would say, to be human is to: observe and interact with our environment dynamically using the collection of physical senses and abilities that make us unique. Then, communicating those observations, actions, and feelings to others in our group through a myriad of mediums like, Body language, vocalization, and technology. Technology ranging from, language, writing, art, religion, etc.
I now have 37 minutes of time logged as an anthropologist. My take on what it is to be human: "The pursuit of an unanimously agreed upon utopian existence." lol Great video, I subscribed.
Or maybe it's human to not have survival the top priority on a regular basis and consider survival as default. But then maybe again that is also what it is to be a house cat. Idk.
33:00 - I think what it is to be human is split across a range between the 'game of bodies' and the 'game of minds'. The game of minds is all of the lofty stuff - spirituality, art, poetry, philosophy, mathematics, the game of bodies (and reproduction) OTOH is as psychopathic and random-chance statistical that it throws out the good with the bad every cycle in hopes that the environment it used to select vs. cull actually maps something important or useful for the future. What that means is we're stretched out much more than other animals as we try to hold higher ideals because we're forced to either live or die by natural processes but we're additionally encouraged to hold the spiritual, artistic, poetic, philosophic, mathematical, and that stretch is more agonizing than it would be for animals who don't need to tell themselves a story about life and death, a story about meaning and purpose, whereas we do.
Yeah, I think you're right on the money with the last sentence. Our preoccupation with and even ability to ask questions about meaning and purpose seems distinctly human. Whereas other animals are born, live hard lives, and die unceremoniously, we can't seem to accept uncertainty, brutality, death, the absurdity of existence, unless there is some reason, purpose, or meaning behind it. When a question is too big to answer, we make up stories. False certainty is preferred over the intense anxiety of not knowing if life is even worth living, for instance. I'm pretty sure this is the psychological basis of the religious impulse, but it seems to me that even the most scientific minds make assumptions based on beliefs they usually don't even recognize they carry. So, in a way, I think the answer to what it means to be human is hiding in the question: meaning itself, the question itself, that we even can think to ask it, that we have some stake in answering it, is what it means to be human.
@@johannaashira I think at least in the west most religions were made via selection pressure (ie. have social cohesion or be conquered) and it was a way to escrow social contract. What seems to add credence to that is the degree to which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have convergent esoteric sects but all three would tend to be seen as heretical from the exoteric level (as well people would have a better doctrinal context for Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross's visions than they did). For people believing things - there's familial upbringing but there's also a lot of the Jungian experiential stuff. I've been curious about that area for a while and considering it might be true that we don't have a great grasp on how deeply we construct reality or how much fitness landscapes might edit what we can or can't see (thinking particularly here of Donald Hoffman's work).
Really enjoyed this. I Remember you said you were gonna start making videos again. Hope you can keep up with it. You’ve got good communication skills💪.
Hello! I’m new to this channel and I was really just interested in primatology and after I watched that video I love watching your videos. Thanks so much!!!
Loved the video. To me, we'll only evolve our thinking when we break free from the shackles of speciesm, which I think was the point of the NYT article.
Hey sister i recently find this channel when i was searching about archaeology i just watch ur 2 years ago videos and its very helpfull for me i am from India (love from India❤)
Video suggestion: Hi Alivia, discovered your channel a little while ago and loving your content!.. I'm writing an amateur article on medium at the moment (just for fun-zies) on the establishment of the first human civilisations. I would love to see a video (or discord post) on what actually is the definition of a civilisation? is there a strict set of parameters that have to be present for the society to qualify? or is the definition a little open to interpretation?.. If this enquiry is not in line with your recent pivot and area of current interest all good. Keep up the great work mate, look forward to following your content moving forward. Cheers Sam
So I have a degree in Biochemistry and a minor in Philosophy. No one has been able to answer the question WHY. Why did I combine those two disciplines. There were a couple of friends who could answer "why", they were Anthropologists. (I was one course short of earning another minor in Anthropology).
Humans are not innately good or evil. Humans are simply HIGHLY programmable beings. What we are taught as we are raised & our environments make us who we are. And just like a simple computer, language is the source of that programming. And this is why people are put into STATE public schools, and watch TV PROGRAMMING that is BROADCAST. This is why movies, shows, commercials, magazines, news all share the same or similar underlying themes. We are only what we are taught to be.
This is such an interesting thought that I didn’t even consider. In so many ways we are the product of all the things we take in…thank you for sharing!
Ah, I see we have a student of the One Great Work with us. While adaptation is an ubiquitous feature among all organisms, man's intellectual capacity makes that feature take on a whole other aspect--one offerring great power, with an equally great burden of responsibility. And why are we so vastly unique in this regard? Surely, this must be considered in answering the question this video poses. But as you are no doubt aware, the answers may lie beyond humanity itself, and uncertainty about human origins may render an answer more elusive than expected ;)
are reflexes taught? is anatomy taught? is genetic & epigenetic inheritance taught? is the environmental niche we are born into taught? what's your evidence that language is *the* source of programming? isn't the plethora of diverse non-linguistic behavior also programming? we are clearly not "only what we are taught to be."
@@bbblackwell I'm amazed & always glad to see others that are involved with the OGW and/or understand the principles of Natural Law. And it happens more than I ever thought! My goal is to become more involved with the network and of course, take more direct action. And yes, I think those answers lie beyond what we are taught & understand as truth. IMO, there's been some kind of interference or creation along the way that got us on this planet.
@@AliviaBrown Thank you! I think if you pay attention to all the media we see around us, you'll see how powerfully this tool has been used upon people in general.
Alivia, your videos are so great and informational, I learn so much from you, thank you for this! Can you suggest a book that will provide me an overview of the field?
heyy completely off topic but i saw on a diff video that you’ve recommended books in linguistic anthro. however, i cannot find said recommendations 😢!! that’s on me, my bad… but could you tell me what those recs were? thank youuuu
Loved your video! Great quality and fantastic style! As a philosophy major, I want to offer my two cents on what it means to be human. First of all, for me, to approach this question from a purely biological or cultural point of view is narrow by perspective and dangerous by effect. Because by establishing a biological or cultural constraints of what is “human”, we build up this inflexible fence that defines what is means to be “us humans”. And once there is “us”, there is “them”, the non-humans, the “Other”, upon which we build our comfort, to which we shift our blames with no hesitation or guilt, for example, think the conquest of South America and the Inquisition respectively. To make things worse, as you touched on regarding archaeology, these inflexible fences we build cannot stand the test of time, so all throughout history we are essentially continuously building newer and fancier fences, without changing the fundamental paradigm. As an existentialist myself, I find the comment you found on reddit about “suffer and cause suffering” an interesting idea if not a bit too pessimistic. This quote is very Schopenhauer in nature as it describes two major effects of the Will to Live: an insatiable desire for more (causing suffering in ourselves), and a constant competition with other manifestations of the Will to Live to obtain more (causing suffering in others). But I would also argue that does not answer the question “What it means to be human”, it answers “What it means to be a manifestation of the Will to Live”. According to Schopenhauer, every existence is a manifestation of the Will to Live, but what makes humans “humans”? For me, the secret ingredient is “recognition”, the act of recognizing others as humans. Think of it this way, if I were to live alone in a deep forest, what does it matter if I call myself “human” or “namuh”? The term only makes sense in a social context, and by social, I don’t specifically refer to a large society, but merely inter-personal relationship. When we say someone is human, we recognize they are suffering equally as ourselves are, and in this simple act, we validate their humanity as well as the humanity of ourselves. The ability to conduct recognition is what sets us apart from the rest of the manifestations of the Will to Live, and it has nothing to do with biology or culture, even time, because down to its core, the act of recognition is a leap of faith. Like in the philosophical zombie thought experiment, how do you know without shadow of a doubt that the crying humanoid entity you see on the street is indeed suffering, not just producing hollow vocal and expressive actions? You don’t, you take a leap of faith, you choose to recognize their humanity and offer consolation, and in so doing you recognize yourself as another human who shares that suffering. Sorry about the rambling. Would love to hear your opinions on this.
This was EXCELLENT!! I love hearing the perspectives from me people with different backgrounds. And the philosophy background is 100% shining through. I love what you said about being “human” existing in purely a social context. I also agree that it’s rather limiting to only look at this question from a biological or cultural perspective. We need to take all options into account. Thank you!
"The ability to conduct recognition is what sets us apart from the rest of the manifestations of the Will to Live, and it has nothing to do with biology or culture, even time, because down to its core, the act of recognition is a leap of faith." 1. you introduced some obscure entity/process -- the 'will to live' without any evidence. 2. you identify 'us' as manifestations of this entity. 3. you say that 'conducting' recognition has nothing to do with biology or culture, as at its core (essentialism much?), it is a leap of faith. 4. you asserted the existence of an obscure, non-empirical existent, claimed that 'we' are manifestations of that entity, and that the core of what separates 'us' apart from other manifestations of your mystical entity, is a leap of faith -- and that this is *not* biological, or cultural. so, you also imply that 'a leap of faith' is neither something cultural. aS a pHiLoSoPHeR oF ScIEnCe & bIoLoGy pOStGraDUaTe rEsEArChEr, i'd suggest that such nonempirical, obscurantist vibes-based riffing is incapable of explaining real data, and throws a wrench into empirically grounded sensemaking. you also say that you'd 'argue', but you didn't -- you just provided assertions. why do you think contemporary scientific communities don't research the schopenhauerian 'will to live'? "When we say someone is human, we recognize they are suffering equally as ourselves are, and in this simple act, we validate their humanity as well as the humanity of ourselves." okay, so you made an empirical claim about what people mean with 'human'-talk. what evidence do you have that that is how people (who, when, where exactly?) construe the concept of 'human'? are people with neurological damage that interferes with recognizing/experiencing/relating with suffering, differently/less/more/non-human? if recognizing suffering is the "core" secret ingredient, what's the status of non-human organisms we recognize are suffering? "You don’t, you take a leap of faith, you choose to recognize their humanity and offer consolation, and in so doing you recognize yourself as another human who shares that suffering. " what about people who don't take your 'non-biological, non-cultural leap of faith'? what if someone does not offer consolation? in not performing the core secret ingredient, are they therefore not/differently/more/less human? "to approach this question from a purely biological or cultural point of view is narrow by perspective and dangerous by effect." i'd strongly disagree. what seems more plausibly dangerous than well-established explanations, theories and most importantly, the methodologies of our collectively negotiated empirically-grounded inquiring activities, is asserting the kind of nonempirical speculation that can't be publically investigated. i don't know what kind of dangerous effect you're thinking about that's inherent in a biological-cultural approach. "by establishing a biological or cultural constraints of what is “human”, we build up this inflexible fence that defines what is means to be “us humans”. And once there is “us”, there is “them”, the non-humans, the “Other”, upon which we build our comfort, to which we shift our blames with no hesitation or guilt," us-them dynamics are extremely well-established phenomena, yes. how are they best explained? it's several empirically grounded, experimental disciplines, all special sciences, not schopenhauerian vibes. now, not to diss schopp too hard, of course people can and do use speculative, imaginative, nonempirical stuff to cope, to make sense of reality. nothing wrong with that. but relative to our best collective empirical explanations, where do you think schoppy theories fit? what novel predictions does he make? what precisely can we do with his conjectures? what mix of theoretical & epistemic virtues does he and his conjectures feature? all in all, sorry a little for my abrasiveness, but this style of mystical philosophy slightly irritates me, however, this is nothing personal against you. also noted that you called your text rambling, so i'm not taking it too seriously, but i'm still curious about how and why you arrive at these kinds of conclusions? what kind of philosphy are you studying at uni?
@@AliviaBrown It is a pleasure for me as well, your video encouraged me to organize some of my floating thoughts that i might have left there unattended otherwise. Hope to see more of your videos!
@@real_pattern First of all i want to thank you for engaging in this socratic dialogue with me, it is genuinely pleasant for me to encounter different perspectives, as it provides a window to glean at other subjectivities. I would like to clarify that I call my text rambling because English is not my native language and some of the wording and phrasing choices I employ might lack clarity and cause misunderstanding, as I see they have. So let me offer my clarification and defense for my philosophical assertions. I see three major points in your counter argument. First, and perhaps the most fundamental one, is that my (or rather Schopenhauer’s) stand lacks empirical support. I whole-heartedly agree. But that is why metaphysics is called such. Since the age of Hume and Kant, empiricism and the modern scientific methods it hatched has greatly improved our qualities of life, to the point that we forget both Hume and Kant are agnostic. What these philosophical pioneers did was to carve out a portion of our experience for future generations to study, a portion that is quantitive and quasi-universal. But they were not at all saying it is the whole picture of human experience, let alone the entirety of existence. However, perhaps to their surprise (but not to that of Nietszche), the complete dominance of empiricism led to a drought of life’s meaning and value. It is not to say empiricism is a monster we need to get rid of, by no means our lives would be better without it, but is just a tool we employ to better understand the world, and just like any tool, it is not omnipotent. From your text I sense you have a strong contempt for the non-quantifiable part of human experience, to the point that merely entertaining the thought of these “vibes” irritates you, that if a theory does not empower us to “do” stuff, it is meaningless. But why? The goal of empirical scientific studies is not to produce more empirical scientific studies, it’s the betterment of human lives, which covers more than physical conditions, but also how we view ourselves irrelevant to those physical conditions. I mean, given the identical physical conditions, two individuals can arrive at extremely different mental states simply by shifting their philosophical perspective. We can assert the same cup as half full or half empty, we aren’t “doing” anything to the cup or water, nor are we quantitively measuring the volume of cup and water then doing a division to see if water exceeds 50.0%. This is what allows for subjectivity and individuality. Why be irritated by these non-quantified characteristics of life when they are so essential to the human experience? Schopenhauer, and indeed many philosophers, did not offer “novel predictions” we can employ to transform the world, but they did offer novel perspectives we can employ to view the world we find ourselves in, which is complementary to empirical studies, and no less valuable to the ultimate goal: to live a better life. Second is about the act of recognition and how it excludes the people with disabilities and or unwillingness to perform the actions. Let me start by clarifying that “offering consolation” is merely a metaphor I employ to paint a picture, not that you literally have to go over to them pat their head and and say “there there”. For me, to recognize others’ suffering and therefore humanity is closely linked to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, where he states humans should be considered as ends in themselves and never as mere means. Recognition of suffering leads to recognition of humanity, fulfilling the prerequisite of not considering humans as mere means. Additionally, you talked about people’s disability or unwillingness to perform recognition, and worry that my “recognizing my humanity by recognizing others’ humanity” assertion will hinder their classification as humans. But know that all recognitions are done from a subjective point of view, the best one can say is “this entity is human *to me*”. Does a mentally-ill person truly suffer? I don’t know, just like I don’t know for sure if any entity foreign to my subjectivity is indeed suffering, but I can still recognize their potential inability to suffer and from which the inability to deeply connect with other people as a form of suffering (an undesirable state for myself as human), and state that they are human to me. I would also like to expand on this and say it doesn’t stop at homo sapients. Vegetarians might recognize the suffering of animals and acknowledge their “humanity” to some extent; in a futuristic world a highly advanced chatGPT might spark debate about whether it is “humane” to verbally abuse it. By considering the recognition of suffering as the definition of humanity, we open up new pathways where we would easily hit a dead end with traditional paradigms. Third is that purely biological/cultural paradigms are not dangerous. Let me clarify that I studied philosophical genealogy and their effect on social phenomena, case study involves mainly hispanic areas. The two examples I brought up are major consequences of biological/cultural paradigms. To put it simply, the conquering and indeed enslavement of South America as well as the Inquisition are hugely fueled by the ideas of “they don’t look like us” and they don’t believe in our God”. Even though as far as the catholic religion is concerned, conversion is promoted and witch-trials are prohibited, how the fundamental paradigms translated to social behaviors outside academic and theological purview ran out of control, which is the danger I mentioned. I hope this clarifies my statement a bit, and encourage you to take a look at where the light of empiricism does not reach, and failing that, at least resolving some of the resentment you hold towards the non-empirical part of existence. After all, if you ask me, philosophy, as the love of wisdom, should be a joyful endeavor and one of the greatest temporary relief from life’s suffering.
I really like anthropology.. i am really into stuff like anthropology psychology and also history What is the future of anthropology? What are the career options??
2:58 - Out of curiosity, with an anthropology degree - what do you think of John Gray's Straw Dogs? I get that he's covering a particular element of the human condition (ie. Darwinian game theory alive and well in humans) and I'm curious to hear whether he's missing any major causal factors in his interpretation.
So weird that I just thought about human anatomy and why/what it means yesterday and I see this video today. The older I get the more I want to understand.
The reason why you need to understand other life forms (the environment) in the context of understanding humans is because humans are not separate from their environment - plants, animals, microbes, etc. For example: Why do women take on the decorative role when attracting mates in humans when in a lot of other animals it's the males who do this? Sure, you can understand this by only considering humans and their culture, but if you want a deeper understanding with the possibility of predictive power, then you need to understand how these behaviors shape and are shaped by the environment as well.
29:12 - Well, if we don't know what it means to be human we can go with the idea that Jesus is coming back to split the Mount of Olives, build a 12,000 ^3 cubit cube city on a brand new earth - so we can destroy the environment and survive just fine because Jesus is bringing a new one, or we can have the 12th mullah come up from the well, or we can all either believe in ascension to 5D or 'left behind' rapture theology, OR we can tell people that they're complete blank slates and whatever happens to them is entirely their fault. Pretty much all of these ideas at best cause people to neglect serious human problems and at worst yield either Mad Max or extinction. So yeah, I'm not in agreement with the New York Times that this is a narcissistic question.
Ma'am ,, could you please guide me how can i get a internship in museums located in England, i am very enthusiastic in the museum profession , i am from india 🙏
do you know the history or origin of this central posit / question of anthropology that you titled your video with -- that question of what does it mean to be human? i listen to the radical anthropology group's talks a lot, and chris knight iirc always opens with some variation on the 'central question' of anthropology that is this question, but i am curious, do you know who created this question, or who posited that it is *the* question of anthropology and why? of course, we can amass empirical research in anthropology and sociology and psychology and biology and literary studies, philsophy of all kinds... that purport to answer the question, and voila, we've been doing that, but careful precaution against reification and essentializing hints against the possible suggestion embedded in the question that there is a matter of fact about what it in fact means to be 'human'. i mean, as long as Homo sapiens and perhaps future species descended from us exist, there'll always be impossibly large amounts of novel phenomena and data that will be an answer to the question, but clearly, it's never some simple answer, so i'm wondering about the question's utility and implications. answering the question 'what does it mean to be non-human' can also surely support our understanding of what it is to be human, and since our perspectival empirical descriptions answering these questions are extremely voluminous, it seems that considerable compression is necessary to handle our answers. this reflection may not be very object-level, but it seems to indicate that there is no simple, nonambiguous answer to this deceptively simply phrased question, or if there is, it'll always be constructed and reconstructed until organisms exist, assuming that only organisms experience and do stuff like inquiry, understanding and research... but coming down from this shroom-consciousness, anthropology, biology, the social sciences and several other special sciences have more and better explanations than speculative nonempirical philosophy, though that certainly has its place, though if we're naturalistic, we may view it as not some separate field, but just an aspect of psychology, biology... to be studied empirically. the few fields which we currently deem the least appropriate explanatory approaches for the human question are fundamental physics, mathematics and perhaps some special physics fields, but i don't think that there is any field that is excluded in principle. as long as we remain empirical and tethered by intersubjectively agreed epistemic virtues, it's a hell of a question and we're on track.
I'm really interested in studying anthropology in the future but I'm not sure if I completely believe in the human evolution as a Christian. Would that make it harder for me to study anthropology?
I think humans are marked by having more than instinct and a Freudian ID. Even dogs, while they can be caring and compassionate, it seems like they don’t have any sense of identity/superego and ego
hey! i’m a sophomore in highschool, and i took AP human geography last year as a freshmen and it was the coolest class i’ve ever taken, i’d take it again next year if i could. it was so interesting and fun to learn about and so different from all the regular classes i’d taken up to that point. Would you reccomend anthropology as being similar to that course? do you think i’d enjoy it? i also watched your video to dissuade me from anthropology and i’m also curious about why i would need a doctor degree for this area of study..?
Btw why do you hold your mice? You are not out on an interview in the field are you? One on the table preferably out of sight removes that strange object in your pretty face. Nice job btw. You sound like a teacher. I’m assuming you teach classes. You have the gift of the gab per se. It’s great you don’t have to write and read a script. That’s good work and talent. Pls just lose the mice… also a little more light with a diffuser.
To be Human in the Christian tradition is the be like Christ. We are created to take on the mind of Christ. To unite the Divine with the carnal or animal part of our selves. Pilot said: Look here is “The Man”. (Ece-anthropos gk.) To become a true Human is the highest goal in the Christian concept of spiritual evolution. FYI The theory of evolution put forward by Darwin has been proven recently to be mathematically impossible. There are clearly changes within species but no cross over fossil record exists showing the changes between species. The mathematics makes the theory clearly impossible. It’s a nice theory. Simple and beautiful but apparently too simple. Look it up. It will take over 100 years to remove this false dogmatic belief of scientists and atheists. Look it up. You will be amazed.
@@AliviaBrown You'd think this is an ancient way of thinking, but you'd be amazed at how much it's still "common sense". I mean, I get it, but I don't. Roads and airplanes are also natural phenomena. Speaking about linguistic anthropology... ("First there was the word... " And then the rest of history.)
As a biologist, I love the inclusion of biological anthropology (often left out by social anthropology videos dominating). Every discipline in biology can be used to explain humanity, commonly bones and genetics, but also botany, human ecology, food sciences, and microbiology (paleopathology and our understanding and cultural reaction to disease in the past). IMO Humans are very anthropocentric, and nearly all scientific endeavours deep down are to understand humans better.
I like how you described how anthropology relates with archeology, I think it relates not only for its material value that the archeological field provides (artifacts), giving artistic significance, but more specifically for what these artifacts and its contents tells us about the place of the ancient mind and how this can help us get a better picture as to the reasons why people act and behave the way they (we) do. I think that the condition of thought is just as traceable through archeology as is family history within cultural anthropology. Anthropology is amazing!! :) Love the channel!!
i really love your channel, alivia! i'm a senior in hs and i've been interested in anthropology for a while now and you've helped me be more realistic about what i'm expecting from a job in this field. and the video was really well done !!!
Any question that can be interpreted in any number of ways cannot have a succinct answer. But I'll give the thoughts that flow out of my mind.
I think it is beneficial to compare what it would mean to ask, "what does it mean to be a car". As with the human question, to answer it fully, would involve explaining every subsystem of the car. How they operate. Everything the car does. Etc.. And that, in and of itself, is interesting in a certain kind of way, but too broad to be useful here. So, in order to answer, "what does it mean to be a human" I think it does make sense to narrow the question down as much as possible, to something like "what does it mean to be human, that is different from any other thing?"
Humans, as you mentioned, have a degree of self-awareness. We also have the ability to quantify, categorize, and understand things in a way that nothing else does (besides, in the future perhaps, AI systems). So, to me, being a human is being and doing the things that no other animal or entity that we know of does or can do. It means understanding DNA, culture, neural networks, the universe, and all sorts of things. Understanding how humans are similar and different to other animals, similar and different to other humans, as well as how life experiences contribute to creating a unique creature, is what it means to be human.
Hey Alivia, Im Brazilian who studies culture and communication in Lisbon PT and ur channel is giving me great perspective about anthropology... thank u so much for ur work and inspiration
Glad you are back Alivia , i missed your videos a lot , i used to enjoy eating my food watching your videos which is apperantly the biggest compliment you can give to a TH-camr , you have always been imo one of the most underrated TH-camra out there , keep it up ❤
I just realized you’re back! I’m so happy!
Day is made 😭😭😭 Thank you!!
I'm loving everything you talk about... So, so needed!
We need a book like E.O. Wilson's Consilience... For these subcategories.
I don’t think to be human is to be negative or pessimistic. But of course it’s important to look at things from different perspectives, and as humans, we have that ability. But I think that it’s important to be, maybe, as understanding of each other as we could be. To be understanding of other species. And this, for me, not only comes from a spiritual and religious level, but also, a personal level. It’s important TO ME that I am in this, because to be human, I must understand to be understood.
I think, today, what it is to be human from an anthropological perspective is to first give up the idea that we can compare humans to other animals, particularly our genetically closest relatives, because despite our scientific advances, nobody can honestly say they know what it’s like to be anything else but a human. So, that is why we have the four different major branches of anthropology to help us better understand ourselves. The problem is, if we’re not Māori, for example, we’ll never know what it’s like to be Māori. We can live with them for years and become an expert on their culture and language, but we’ll never really be a Māori. But cultural anthropology helps us relate to them better and understand what it’s not like being a human of a different culture or from a different generation/century. Just a thought.
Maybe being human is not at all different than being any other species, but the only thing that sets us apart is our ability to exchange ideas with other human beings. Its the ability to plausibly exchange the collective information of the species that sets us apart?
What about the Humans strive for justice?
I love this idea!! This was more in line with The NY Times perspective…a very interesting concept to add to the conversation
@@AliviaBrown the thought crosses my mind as I think if I was left on an island with many other species with no tools, clothing, or anything that other humans help me make, I'd probably not survive against the other predators. It's the fact that I can draw from the knowledge of other humans that would give me a major advantage.
@@AliviaBrown also btw, really loved your video! The naturalistic fallacy part kept me thinking all night. Would keep an eye out for your future videos!
@@cooperreed1709 I'm not completely sure if that's a tendency only specific to humans. I've heard that crows keep grudges. If I'm not wrong, other apes also have a tendency to seek justice for their clan. But it does remind of this really well explained podcast episode by Darryl Cooper where he talks about how one of the big steps of humans moving from a tribe to a nation state is to convince people to follow the laws that avoid injustices from escalating into tribal fights. I'm probably doing a disservice to it by the way I'm trying to summarise it but it was really interesting so I thought I'd share. Nvm!
Just found your channel, thanks for doing what you do!
Been thing around this question forever, and the things you said here definitely help me put some thoughts together. At the moment, I would say, to be human is to: observe and interact with our environment dynamically using the collection of physical senses and abilities that make us unique. Then, communicating those observations, actions, and feelings to others in our group through a myriad of mediums like, Body language, vocalization, and technology. Technology ranging from, language, writing, art, religion, etc.
I now have 37 minutes of time logged as an anthropologist. My take on what it is to be human:
"The pursuit of an unanimously agreed upon utopian existence."
lol
Great video, I subscribed.
It’s also important for us, as humans, to accept our imperfections and know (deep down) how imperfect we really are. That’s how we grow.
Or maybe it's human to not have survival the top priority on a regular basis and consider survival as default. But then maybe again that is also what it is to be a house cat. Idk.
Hahaha, the house cat! Love it
33:00 - I think what it is to be human is split across a range between the 'game of bodies' and the 'game of minds'. The game of minds is all of the lofty stuff - spirituality, art, poetry, philosophy, mathematics, the game of bodies (and reproduction) OTOH is as psychopathic and random-chance statistical that it throws out the good with the bad every cycle in hopes that the environment it used to select vs. cull actually maps something important or useful for the future. What that means is we're stretched out much more than other animals as we try to hold higher ideals because we're forced to either live or die by natural processes but we're additionally encouraged to hold the spiritual, artistic, poetic, philosophic, mathematical, and that stretch is more agonizing than it would be for animals who don't need to tell themselves a story about life and death, a story about meaning and purpose, whereas we do.
Yeah, I think you're right on the money with the last sentence. Our preoccupation with and even ability to ask questions about meaning and purpose seems distinctly human. Whereas other animals are born, live hard lives, and die unceremoniously, we can't seem to accept uncertainty, brutality, death, the absurdity of existence, unless there is some reason, purpose, or meaning behind it. When a question is too big to answer, we make up stories. False certainty is preferred over the intense anxiety of not knowing if life is even worth living, for instance. I'm pretty sure this is the psychological basis of the religious impulse, but it seems to me that even the most scientific minds make assumptions based on beliefs they usually don't even recognize they carry. So, in a way, I think the answer to what it means to be human is hiding in the question: meaning itself, the question itself, that we even can think to ask it, that we have some stake in answering it, is what it means to be human.
@@johannaashira I think at least in the west most religions were made via selection pressure (ie. have social cohesion or be conquered) and it was a way to escrow social contract. What seems to add credence to that is the degree to which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have convergent esoteric sects but all three would tend to be seen as heretical from the exoteric level (as well people would have a better doctrinal context for Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross's visions than they did).
For people believing things - there's familial upbringing but there's also a lot of the Jungian experiential stuff. I've been curious about that area for a while and considering it might be true that we don't have a great grasp on how deeply we construct reality or how much fitness landscapes might edit what we can or can't see (thinking particularly here of Donald Hoffman's work).
Really enjoyed this. I Remember you said you were gonna start making videos again.
Hope you can keep up with it.
You’ve got good communication skills💪.
Thank you so much, I hope so too!
Hello! I’m new to this channel and I was really just interested in primatology and after I watched that video I love watching your videos. Thanks so much!!!
she’s baaaaaaaack!!!!! 🎉🎉🎉
SO BACK!!
Loved the video. To me, we'll only evolve our thinking when we break free from the shackles of speciesm, which I think was the point of the NYT article.
To be human is to have crush on and to be crushed by. 😊😍 I have crush on your mature ideas and personality.❤
Hey sister i recently find this channel when i was searching about archaeology i just watch ur 2 years ago videos and its very helpfull for me i am from India (love from India❤)
Video suggestion:
Hi Alivia, discovered your channel a little while ago and loving your content!.. I'm writing an amateur article on medium at the moment (just for fun-zies) on the establishment of the first human civilisations. I would love to see a video (or discord post) on what actually is the definition of a civilisation? is there a strict set of parameters that have to be present for the society to qualify? or is the definition a little open to interpretation?..
If this enquiry is not in line with your recent pivot and area of current interest all good. Keep up the great work mate, look forward to following your content moving forward.
Cheers
Sam
So I have a degree in Biochemistry and a minor in Philosophy. No one has been able to answer the question WHY. Why did I combine those two disciplines. There were a couple of friends who could answer "why", they were Anthropologists. (I was one course short of earning another minor in Anthropology).
greatly explained, thank you for this video.
Thanks for watching!
What textbook you read for anthropology in uni?
Humans are not innately good or evil.
Humans are simply HIGHLY programmable beings. What we are taught as we are raised & our environments make us who we are.
And just like a simple computer, language is the source of that programming.
And this is why people are put into STATE public schools, and watch TV PROGRAMMING that is BROADCAST.
This is why movies, shows, commercials, magazines, news all share the same or similar underlying themes.
We are only what we are taught to be.
This is such an interesting thought that I didn’t even consider. In so many ways we are the product of all the things we take in…thank you for sharing!
Ah, I see we have a student of the One Great Work with us. While adaptation is an ubiquitous feature among all organisms, man's intellectual capacity makes that feature take on a whole other aspect--one offerring great power, with an equally great burden of responsibility.
And why are we so vastly unique in this regard? Surely, this must be considered in answering the question this video poses. But as you are no doubt aware, the answers may lie beyond humanity itself, and uncertainty about human origins may render an answer more elusive than expected ;)
are reflexes taught? is anatomy taught? is genetic & epigenetic inheritance taught? is the environmental niche we are born into taught? what's your evidence that language is *the* source of programming? isn't the plethora of diverse non-linguistic behavior also programming?
we are clearly not "only what we are taught to be."
@@bbblackwell I'm amazed & always glad to see others that are involved with the OGW and/or understand the principles of Natural Law. And it happens more than I ever thought! My goal is to become more involved with the network and of course, take more direct action.
And yes, I think those answers lie beyond what we are taught & understand as truth. IMO, there's been some kind of interference or creation along the way that got us on this planet.
@@AliviaBrown Thank you! I think if you pay attention to all the media we see around us, you'll see how powerfully this tool has been used upon people in general.
Bravo! 🎊
love this !
To have your mind blown on X-risks and human survival listen to some of the several-hour dialogs between Nate Hagans and Daniel Schmachtenberger.
Alivia, your videos are so great and informational, I learn so much from you, thank you for this!
Can you suggest a book that will provide me an overview of the field?
heyy completely off topic but i saw on a diff video that you’ve recommended books in linguistic anthro. however, i cannot find said recommendations 😢!! that’s on me, my bad… but could you tell me what those recs were? thank youuuu
Come teach in India you would definitely be a wonderful teacher
This is so sweet, thank you! I would love to go to India one day
thank you for doing this video could you do for us the summary of Anthropology of text ,persons and publics
Loved your video! Great quality and fantastic style! As a philosophy major, I want to offer my two cents on what it means to be human.
First of all, for me, to approach this question from a purely biological or cultural point of view is narrow by perspective and dangerous by effect. Because by establishing a biological or cultural constraints of what is “human”, we build up this inflexible fence that defines what is means to be “us humans”. And once there is “us”, there is “them”, the non-humans, the “Other”, upon which we build our comfort, to which we shift our blames with no hesitation or guilt, for example, think the conquest of South America and the Inquisition respectively. To make things worse, as you touched on regarding archaeology, these inflexible fences we build cannot stand the test of time, so all throughout history we are essentially continuously building newer and fancier fences, without changing the fundamental paradigm.
As an existentialist myself, I find the comment you found on reddit about “suffer and cause suffering” an interesting idea if not a bit too pessimistic. This quote is very Schopenhauer in nature as it describes two major effects of the Will to Live: an insatiable desire for more (causing suffering in ourselves), and a constant competition with other manifestations of the Will to Live to obtain more (causing suffering in others). But I would also argue that does not answer the question “What it means to be human”, it answers “What it means to be a manifestation of the Will to Live”. According to Schopenhauer, every existence is a manifestation of the Will to Live, but what makes humans “humans”?
For me, the secret ingredient is “recognition”, the act of recognizing others as humans. Think of it this way, if I were to live alone in a deep forest, what does it matter if I call myself “human” or “namuh”? The term only makes sense in a social context, and by social, I don’t specifically refer to a large society, but merely inter-personal relationship. When we say someone is human, we recognize they are suffering equally as ourselves are, and in this simple act, we validate their humanity as well as the humanity of ourselves. The ability to conduct recognition is what sets us apart from the rest of the manifestations of the Will to Live, and it has nothing to do with biology or culture, even time, because down to its core, the act of recognition is a leap of faith. Like in the philosophical zombie thought experiment, how do you know without shadow of a doubt that the crying humanoid entity you see on the street is indeed suffering, not just producing hollow vocal and expressive actions? You don’t, you take a leap of faith, you choose to recognize their humanity and offer consolation, and in so doing you recognize yourself as another human who shares that suffering.
Sorry about the rambling. Would love to hear your opinions on this.
This was EXCELLENT!! I love hearing the perspectives from me people with different backgrounds. And the philosophy background is 100% shining through. I love what you said about being “human” existing in purely a social context. I also agree that it’s rather limiting to only look at this question from a biological or cultural perspective. We need to take all options into account. Thank you!
"The ability to conduct recognition is what sets us apart from the rest of the manifestations of the Will to Live, and it has nothing to do with biology or culture, even time, because down to its core, the act of recognition is a leap of faith."
1. you introduced some obscure entity/process -- the 'will to live' without any evidence.
2. you identify 'us' as manifestations of this entity.
3. you say that 'conducting' recognition has nothing to do with biology or culture, as at its core (essentialism much?), it is a leap of faith.
4. you asserted the existence of an obscure, non-empirical existent, claimed that 'we' are manifestations of that entity, and that the core of what separates 'us' apart from other manifestations of your mystical entity, is a leap of faith -- and that this is *not* biological, or cultural. so, you also imply that 'a leap of faith' is neither something cultural.
aS a pHiLoSoPHeR oF ScIEnCe & bIoLoGy pOStGraDUaTe rEsEArChEr, i'd suggest that such nonempirical, obscurantist vibes-based riffing is incapable of explaining real data, and throws a wrench into empirically grounded sensemaking. you also say that you'd 'argue', but you didn't -- you just provided assertions. why do you think contemporary scientific communities don't research the schopenhauerian 'will to live'?
"When we say someone is human, we recognize they are suffering equally as ourselves are, and in this simple act, we validate their humanity as well as the humanity of ourselves."
okay, so you made an empirical claim about what people mean with 'human'-talk. what evidence do you have that that is how people (who, when, where exactly?) construe the concept of 'human'? are people with neurological damage that interferes with recognizing/experiencing/relating with suffering, differently/less/more/non-human? if recognizing suffering is the "core" secret ingredient, what's the status of non-human organisms we recognize are suffering?
"You don’t, you take a leap of faith, you choose to recognize their humanity and offer consolation, and in so doing you recognize yourself as another human who shares that suffering. "
what about people who don't take your 'non-biological, non-cultural leap of faith'? what if someone does not offer consolation? in not performing the core secret ingredient, are they therefore not/differently/more/less human?
"to approach this question from a purely biological or cultural point of view is narrow by perspective and dangerous by effect."
i'd strongly disagree. what seems more plausibly dangerous than well-established explanations, theories and most importantly, the methodologies of our collectively negotiated empirically-grounded inquiring activities, is asserting the kind of nonempirical speculation that can't be publically investigated. i don't know what kind of dangerous effect you're thinking about that's inherent in a biological-cultural approach.
"by establishing a biological or cultural constraints of what is “human”, we build up this inflexible fence that defines what is means to be “us humans”. And once there is “us”, there is “them”, the non-humans, the “Other”, upon which we build our comfort, to which we shift our blames with no hesitation or guilt,"
us-them dynamics are extremely well-established phenomena, yes. how are they best explained? it's several empirically grounded, experimental disciplines, all special sciences, not schopenhauerian vibes. now, not to diss schopp too hard, of course people can and do use speculative, imaginative, nonempirical stuff to cope, to make sense of reality. nothing wrong with that. but relative to our best collective empirical explanations, where do you think schoppy theories fit? what novel predictions does he make? what precisely can we do with his conjectures? what mix of theoretical & epistemic virtues does he and his conjectures feature?
all in all, sorry a little for my abrasiveness, but this style of mystical philosophy slightly irritates me, however, this is nothing personal against you. also noted that you called your text rambling, so i'm not taking it too seriously, but i'm still curious about how and why you arrive at these kinds of conclusions? what kind of philosphy are you studying at uni?
@@AliviaBrown It is a pleasure for me as well, your video encouraged me to organize some of my floating thoughts that i might have left there unattended otherwise. Hope to see more of your videos!
@@real_pattern First of all i want to thank you for engaging in this socratic dialogue with me, it is genuinely pleasant for me to encounter different perspectives, as it provides a window to glean at other subjectivities. I would like to clarify that I call my text rambling because English is not my native language and some of the wording and phrasing choices I employ might lack clarity and cause misunderstanding, as I see they have. So let me offer my clarification and defense for my philosophical assertions.
I see three major points in your counter argument. First, and perhaps the most fundamental one, is that my (or rather Schopenhauer’s) stand lacks empirical support. I whole-heartedly agree. But that is why metaphysics is called such. Since the age of Hume and Kant, empiricism and the modern scientific methods it hatched has greatly improved our qualities of life, to the point that we forget both Hume and Kant are agnostic. What these philosophical pioneers did was to carve out a portion of our experience for future generations to study, a portion that is quantitive and quasi-universal. But they were not at all saying it is the whole picture of human experience, let alone the entirety of existence. However, perhaps to their surprise (but not to that of Nietszche), the complete dominance of empiricism led to a drought of life’s meaning and value. It is not to say empiricism is a monster we need to get rid of, by no means our lives would be better without it, but is just a tool we employ to better understand the world, and just like any tool, it is not omnipotent. From your text I sense you have a strong contempt for the non-quantifiable part of human experience, to the point that merely entertaining the thought of these “vibes” irritates you, that if a theory does not empower us to “do” stuff, it is meaningless. But why? The goal of empirical scientific studies is not to produce more empirical scientific studies, it’s the betterment of human lives, which covers more than physical conditions, but also how we view ourselves irrelevant to those physical conditions. I mean, given the identical physical conditions, two individuals can arrive at extremely different mental states simply by shifting their philosophical perspective. We can assert the same cup as half full or half empty, we aren’t “doing” anything to the cup or water, nor are we quantitively measuring the volume of cup and water then doing a division to see if water exceeds 50.0%. This is what allows for subjectivity and individuality. Why be irritated by these non-quantified characteristics of life when they are so essential to the human experience? Schopenhauer, and indeed many philosophers, did not offer “novel predictions” we can employ to transform the world, but they did offer novel perspectives we can employ to view the world we find ourselves in, which is complementary to empirical studies, and no less valuable to the ultimate goal: to live a better life.
Second is about the act of recognition and how it excludes the people with disabilities and or unwillingness to perform the actions. Let me start by clarifying that “offering consolation” is merely a metaphor I employ to paint a picture, not that you literally have to go over to them pat their head and and say “there there”. For me, to recognize others’ suffering and therefore humanity is closely linked to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, where he states humans should be considered as ends in themselves and never as mere means. Recognition of suffering leads to recognition of humanity, fulfilling the prerequisite of not considering humans as mere means.
Additionally, you talked about people’s disability or unwillingness to perform recognition, and worry that my “recognizing my humanity by recognizing others’ humanity” assertion will hinder their classification as humans. But know that all recognitions are done from a subjective point of view, the best one can say is “this entity is human *to me*”. Does a mentally-ill person truly suffer? I don’t know, just like I don’t know for sure if any entity foreign to my subjectivity is indeed suffering, but I can still recognize their potential inability to suffer and from which the inability to deeply connect with other people as a form of suffering (an undesirable state for myself as human), and state that they are human to me. I would also like to expand on this and say it doesn’t stop at homo sapients. Vegetarians might recognize the suffering of animals and acknowledge their “humanity” to some extent; in a futuristic world a highly advanced chatGPT might spark debate about whether it is “humane” to verbally abuse it. By considering the recognition of suffering as the definition of humanity, we open up new pathways where we would easily hit a dead end with traditional paradigms.
Third is that purely biological/cultural paradigms are not dangerous. Let me clarify that I studied philosophical genealogy and their effect on social phenomena, case study involves mainly hispanic areas. The two examples I brought up are major consequences of biological/cultural paradigms. To put it simply, the conquering and indeed enslavement of South America as well as the Inquisition are hugely fueled by the ideas of “they don’t look like us” and they don’t believe in our God”. Even though as far as the catholic religion is concerned, conversion is promoted and witch-trials are prohibited, how the fundamental paradigms translated to social behaviors outside academic and theological purview ran out of control, which is the danger I mentioned.
I hope this clarifies my statement a bit, and encourage you to take a look at where the light of empiricism does not reach, and failing that, at least resolving some of the resentment you hold towards the non-empirical part of existence. After all, if you ask me, philosophy, as the love of wisdom, should be a joyful endeavor and one of the greatest temporary relief from life’s suffering.
I really like anthropology.. i am really into stuff like anthropology psychology and also history
What is the future of anthropology?
What are the career options??
2:58 - Out of curiosity, with an anthropology degree - what do you think of John Gray's Straw Dogs? I get that he's covering a particular element of the human condition (ie. Darwinian game theory alive and well in humans) and I'm curious to hear whether he's missing any major causal factors in his interpretation.
Do you have a vid where you connect the anthropologists' ideas with each other?
So weird that I just thought about human anatomy and why/what it means yesterday and I see this video today. The older I get the more I want to understand.
The reason why you need to understand other life forms (the environment) in the context of understanding humans is because humans are not separate from their environment - plants, animals, microbes, etc.
For example: Why do women take on the decorative role when attracting mates in humans when in a lot of other animals it's the males who do this?
Sure, you can understand this by only considering humans and their culture, but if you want a deeper understanding with the possibility of predictive power, then you need to understand how these behaviors shape and are shaped by the environment as well.
29:12 - Well, if we don't know what it means to be human we can go with the idea that Jesus is coming back to split the Mount of Olives, build a 12,000 ^3 cubit cube city on a brand new earth - so we can destroy the environment and survive just fine because Jesus is bringing a new one, or we can have the 12th mullah come up from the well, or we can all either believe in ascension to 5D or 'left behind' rapture theology, OR we can tell people that they're complete blank slates and whatever happens to them is entirely their fault. Pretty much all of these ideas at best cause people to neglect serious human problems and at worst yield either Mad Max or extinction. So yeah, I'm not in agreement with the New York Times that this is a narcissistic question.
Hi, I really enjoy your videos ❤ I'm studying social anthropology. Could you please reccommend me any similair channels/podcasts? Thank you 😊
Ma'am ,, could you please guide me how can i get a internship in museums located in England, i am very enthusiastic in the museum profession , i am from india 🙏
Culture.
The two big ones = Hunter/Gatherer vs Civilization (living in a city)
17:00 Zooarcheology and bioarchaeology: Well yes, but actually no
do you know the history or origin of this central posit / question of anthropology that you titled your video with -- that question of what does it mean to be human? i listen to the radical anthropology group's talks a lot, and chris knight iirc always opens with some variation on the 'central question' of anthropology that is this question, but i am curious, do you know who created this question, or who posited that it is *the* question of anthropology and why?
of course, we can amass empirical research in anthropology and sociology and psychology and biology and literary studies, philsophy of all kinds... that purport to answer the question, and voila, we've been doing that, but careful precaution against reification and essentializing hints against the possible suggestion embedded in the question that there is a matter of fact about what it in fact means to be 'human'. i mean, as long as Homo sapiens and perhaps future species descended from us exist, there'll always be impossibly large amounts of novel phenomena and data that will be an answer to the question, but clearly, it's never some simple answer, so i'm wondering about the question's utility and implications. answering the question 'what does it mean to be non-human' can also surely support our understanding of what it is to be human, and since our perspectival empirical descriptions answering these questions are extremely voluminous, it seems that considerable compression is necessary to handle our answers.
this reflection may not be very object-level, but it seems to indicate that there is no simple, nonambiguous answer to this deceptively simply phrased question, or if there is, it'll always be constructed and reconstructed until organisms exist, assuming that only organisms experience and do stuff like inquiry, understanding and research...
but coming down from this shroom-consciousness, anthropology, biology, the social sciences and several other special sciences have more and better explanations than speculative nonempirical philosophy, though that certainly has its place, though if we're naturalistic, we may view it as not some separate field, but just an aspect of psychology, biology... to be studied empirically. the few fields which we currently deem the least appropriate explanatory approaches for the human question are fundamental physics, mathematics and perhaps some special physics fields, but i don't think that there is any field that is excluded in principle. as long as we remain empirical and tethered by intersubjectively agreed epistemic virtues, it's a hell of a question and we're on track.
I'm really interested in studying anthropology in the future but I'm not sure if I completely believe in the human evolution as a Christian. Would that make it harder for me to study anthropology?
I think humans are marked by having more than instinct and a Freudian ID. Even dogs, while they can be caring and compassionate, it seems like they don’t have any sense of identity/superego and ego
Hello, can you make a video about anthrozoology please
Do you have any free anthropology course on TH-cam?!
For international Achievements!
Please 🙏🏼...I would appreciate it ....
Do you play the cavaquinho?
hey! i’m a sophomore in highschool, and i took AP human geography last year as a freshmen and it was the coolest class i’ve ever taken, i’d take it again next year if i could. it was so interesting and fun to learn about and so different from all the regular classes i’d taken up to that point. Would you reccomend anthropology as being similar to that course? do you think i’d enjoy it? i also watched your video to dissuade me from anthropology and i’m also curious about why i would need a doctor degree for this area of study..?
I’d love for u to do a video on Dunbars number!!
I’m not familiar with this! What is that?
Are you in any way related to Radcliffe Brown?😁
Nice TH-cam Channel.....
Btw why do you hold your mice? You are not out on an interview in the field are you? One on the table preferably out of sight removes that strange object in your pretty face.
Nice job btw. You sound like a teacher. I’m assuming you teach classes. You have the gift of the gab per se. It’s great you don’t have to write and read a script. That’s good work and talent. Pls just lose the mice… also a little more light with a diffuser.
So R vs K reproductive strategies.
To be Human in the Christian tradition is the be like Christ. We are created to take on the mind of Christ. To unite the Divine with the carnal or animal part of our selves.
Pilot said: Look here is “The Man”. (Ece-anthropos gk.)
To become a true Human is the highest
goal in the Christian concept of spiritual evolution.
FYI The theory of evolution put forward by Darwin has been proven recently to be mathematically impossible. There are clearly changes within species but no cross over fossil record exists showing the changes between species.
The mathematics makes the theory clearly impossible. It’s a nice theory. Simple and beautiful but apparently too simple.
Look it up. It will take over 100 years to remove this false dogmatic belief of scientists and atheists.
Look it up. You will be amazed.
Person: "Yay, it's natural."
Me: "Black widow venom is also natural."
(I myself am supernatural what with my humanness.)
this is iconic haha...naturalistic fallacy ftw
@@AliviaBrown You'd think this is an ancient way of thinking, but you'd be amazed at how much it's still "common sense".
I mean, I get it, but I don't. Roads and airplanes are also natural phenomena. Speaking about linguistic anthropology... ("First there was the word... " And then the rest of history.)
Man or woman. Not human.
Read the first chapters of the Genesis to know the answer to this question. Anything else is just nonsense-talk.