Evaluation of Traditional Concepts of an Individual - Coursework Example

An Evaluation of Traditional Concepts of an Individual A person or an individual is an integral part of the society and is considered to be the most basic unit of a population. It is said that an individual has the power to either ruin or benefit his or her surroundings and with this fact, what more can a group of individuals do History has recorded the exploits and achievements of some individuals who have changed the way the world works and also the way we think, act, feel and see ourselves. Scientists, politician's even artists of all sorts have been known to stand out and influence the masses. There were individuals that have laid out their lives for the benefit of mankind such as Tomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton etc. scientists who have changed the face of the world through their brilliant discoveries. There were also those who have sought personal glory and conquests, individuals like Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler and Julius Cesar all of which had their own vision and version of the "ideal society" in which they sought to dominate. And finally there were those who have been known for their infamy and notoriety, otherwise known as deviants or villains. Is there anything that separates them and the other individuals The answer may be lie on the fact that these individuals may have discovered what it takes to be an individual that can stand above others. Or perhaps they have not been aware of the fact that they were exceptional or maybe they made their purpose clear to themselves that they want to achieve something that will grant them dominion above others. In any case, the individual is truly unique and each has the potential of unimaginable glory and achievement. This paper discusses some traditional and conventional concepts of the individual like how and what it take to be an individual, how does the individual perceive his or herself, how are they able to cause either damage or benefit the environment and other individuals that they have been involved with. Any normal person would refer to a person as "himself" or"herself". This may be quite a selfish disposition towards defining a person, but in essence an individual thinks of his or her well-being first before others. This may seem bias, but psychologists have verified this behavior, referring to it as a "normal" reaction. Individual's posses a high sense of self that they have may have acquired during the early stages of development. The term "human being" has been the subject of debate for years, but in the traditional sense is synonymous to a person or an individual. Some sociologists and anthropologists adhere to this classical definition of the person while some say that this definition should be expanded. Others have proposed a total redefinition of what a person is. The classical definition is quite tricky, a person may also be defined as someone who is entitled to basic rights but then there are also other beings that are entitled to such rights such as the right to live for example ("Persons"; "Cultural Identity"). Some psychologists have been in fact went to as far as defining a person as a gestalt of thoughts and never defining it in the material sense, although this is too extreme. The individual can be defined when one is aware of his or herself. This "Conscious Theory of the Mind" suggests that the individual creates a mental image of his or herself a sort of "mental construct" which is distinct from anybody else. In an experiment by George Gallup in 1970, he demonstrates that some higher primates like chimpanzees. This experiment was a variation of the "Mark of Rouge" experiment where children a year old or more were written with a "mark of rouge", actually an erasable mark made with a crayon, in their foreheads. The child was placed in front of a mirror and was let to observe his or herself. Most of the children in the age of exactly one year reacted to their mirror image as if they saw another child. Older children simply wiped away their "rouge markings" once they observed it on the mirror. Dr, Gallup did this on the chimpanzees and the results were similar. Most critics claim that these experiments just demonstrate recognition rather than the concept of self in children. However, similar results from primate experiments suggest otherwise (Palmer). Whether these results reflect self-awareness or not, it still shows that a person can be aware of themselves at a certain period of their life and that this consciousness is not just limited to human beings but also in other higher animals (Palmer and Palmer). One view of the person or individual comes from the 6th century Christian philosopher Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius. He state that the person has his own "substance" that is rational in nature. A person is also of the material realm, whereas his soul is said to be in the material realm. He or she exists as the highest form of material being that is given his or her own dignity and rights. This definition falls rather into the spiritual sense but also has sociological overtones. What Boethius probably wants to say is that a person has a physical (the body) and spiritual (the soul or spirit) manifestation and these are joined together but are treated rather differently from each other ("Persons"; "Cultural Identity"). Another classical view is that a person constantly asks questions to assert his or her identity. The most common question a person asks himself is "What does it takes to for me persist from time to time" In simple terms, a person asks how can he survive or how can he be able to carry on throughout his lifetime. This question implies that person is concerned with his or her survival and in the broader sense, his or her existence. It also implies that the question is concerned with self-preservation, a sort of selfish inclination. Other commonly asked questions are "What am I" and "Where did I begin", "where will I go when I die" These questions lean more on the metaphysical and philosophical realms. Questions like these are not likely to be answered by a normal person, still he or she asks them consciously or unconsciously one time or another. This may bethought of as another form of "self-talking" where the individual asks himself or herself mentally ("Personal Identity"). One of the more established concepts in the study of the individual is the concept of cultural identity. People from different cultures view the individuals differently, often conforming to their cultural preferences. In cultural identity, the individual is defined by his or her ethnicity. The differences between cultural preferences now become synonymous to individual differences. Often these preferences are only noticed by the individuals when they are in a foreign place or when they are surrounded by people of different cultures. This analogy simply means that when one is in the presence of people that are of the same culture then the individuals will not be aware that they exist as a culture. As an example, the Japanese are often mistaken for the Chinese. Though they have similar features, Japanese and Chinese people have very distinct cultural practices, language, traditions etc. Each and every Japanese is therefore different from each individual Chinese in these terms ("Cultural Identity"; "Persons"). Also cultures are almost always in conflict with each other. Some may perceive theirs as the "superior" culture, therefore each individual in that culture may perceive themselves as superior individuals. Sociologists noted however clearly state that no culture is superior to the other, but this way of thinking is instituted by the individuals themselves. This feeling of superiority could have been brought upon by the fat that some cultures do excel at some areas like music, art or science. But this dominance should not be taken as a ticket to so-called superiority. Also, these thoughts of "superiority" may also be brought upon by socio-political, economic or racial factors ("Cultural Identity"; "Persons"). But does a person treated as a person when he does not behave like one If what defines a person is his or her sense of self then how about mentally ill or deranged persons Some argue that the measure of being a person is having a firm grasp of self, and mentally weak or mentally-ill people cannot be treated as "persons" as they do not have a clear awareness of themselves. However, if a mentally-weak/ill individual is cured or recovers from his condition, the process of self-awareness would initiate. This supports the fact the realization of one's self is linked to one's intelligence. So, it may be said that being a person is not just limited to material but also intellectual and spiritual self-awareness. A recent project dubbed as "Bioliberty" started in January 25, 2005 was established to define what and who a "person" is. It was initiated in Budapest University of Technology and Economics in Hungary by the Long Future Research Group headed by Dr. Zoltan Galantai. This study was done by the group because they believe that the term "person" is becoming obsolete in our modern times. They claim that due to the advances in science and technology, the term "individual" must be redefined and human rights must also be revised. They have called their proposal as "bioliberty" short for "biological liberty". The grouped proposed this because of the emergence of none material intelligences such as Artificial intelligence exhibited in computer systems. They also proposed that the term "men and women" be replaced by the term "intelligent beings" to be more politically correct. This proposal may have been due to the fact that in the future, humans may not be the only intelligence in this planet. This may be true, especially when next generation technologies such as stem cell technologies and cloning are in the horizon. As a note, the"bioliberty" proposal holds that individual must be allowed to "modify" or alter their physical forms at will and without the consent of any other influence. It also includes the inclusion of Artificial Intelligences (A.I.) as "intelligent beings"' thereby extending the definition of an individual. Furthermore, the proposal includes the notion of revising the tenets and name of Human Rights into the "Rights of Intelligent Beings". This proposal is mainly anchored on the basis of the presence of intelligence ("Biological Liberty"). All individuals have a very clear grasp of whom and what they are. This self realization may be brought about by many factors, mainly exposure to the environment, the type of culture one is raised in, the other people around him or her and many more. Social scientists, philosophers and other men of science have long wanted to have a concrete definition of the self but they don't seem to have come into an agreement. What is clear is that whether we look at the classical or modern stand, the individual is still defined in terms of the person. Other stands, whether theological, psychological or etymological seems rather too much or too radical for normal people to understand. In truth, defining individuality is like describing an abstract painting. Each person looking at the abstract painting will have a different definition or criticism about that painting. Today, it seems that the classical views of the individual are the most accepted than the modern ones. One thing is that classic socio-scientific concepts of the person/individual are easier to understand. Another is that these classic concepts are the most accepted and patronized by the majority. Modern proposals on the definition of the person, such as that proposed by the Long Future Research group may be initially unacceptable but the future holds many mysteries that are yet to be discovered. Works Cited "Cultural Identity" 21 March 2006.. Wikipedia The free encyclopedia. 15 April, 2006 "Personal identity" 2002. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Eric T. Olson. 15 April 2006 Palmer, Jack A. and Linda K. Palmer. Evolutionary Psychology: The Ultimate Origins of Human Behavior. Allyn & Bacon. 2001 "Persons." 7 April 2006. Wikipedia The free encyclopedia. 15 April, 2006 "Biological Liberty." 2005. Budapest: Budapest University of Technology and Economics. 15 April, 2006 Read More