Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Human Perception of Self, Art, and Nature

What makes us human is our perception of self--our ability to reflect, contemplate and aspire. No other species has the ability to analyze it's existence. Humans are uniquely aware of their own consciousness; they can ask questions about the meaning of life and "God". This notion of a higher being is uniquely Human. What if God didn't create Humans, but rather Humans created the idea of God? That's all God is in essence--an idea. Humans can represent their surroundings or their internal self through art. Whether it be through music, visual art, dance, writing, or the many other forms of art, Humans insist on communicating their feelings in a representational or abstract way. Humans act out of primal survival instinct as well as a developed ethical instinct. Some adult animals practice filial cannibalism, and eat weak or underdeveloped offspring as a way of rooting out inferiority (Hope Klug). In most cases, and of course there are exceptions, adult Humans will not eat their weak children. Why? Because it's completely insane from an ethical point of view. Our culture would find that person a nice cozy prison cell. But from an evolutionary point of view, eating weak offspring could save parents time and energy--energy that could potentially be devoted to raising strong, healthy offspring.

In nature, you will most likely see males taking the role of provider and females acting as the caretakers. This is the most common situation for Humans as well. As Human culture progresses, however, we see these roles warped. Gay, lesbian, transgender, and pansexual Humans (to name a few) have changed what is means to be a man or a woman. Their are chemical reasons men are attracted to women and vice-versa. So why does Homosexuality exist? Is there a chemical reason, or is it a uniquely Human trait sprung from our overactive, overstimulated, oversize brains? We might never have a definitive answer.  

Artists are those among us who are most in touch with their Humanity. Their ability to look at the world around them or the world inside them and create art is uniquely Human and should be highly valued. Most of us are artists in some sense, and it is possible for people create art without even realizing it. In some cases, people in themselves are art. These people are rare, and they are the most Human of us all. "I am a walking piece of art every day," claims Stephanie Germanotta (Lady GaGa). This is both true and false. There is a separation between the image she creates for the public and her "internal image" due to manipulation from other people. Usually an artist wont need fame to validate their work, but from an early age Stephanie was obsessed with fame (Wikipedia, Lady GaGa). So what if fame is in fact a representation of her inner self? Does she meet the criteria of being a true artist? I'm still undecided on this one, and frankly, any information the public has on her is heavily filtered by the media; unless you know her personally, you'll never know the true nature of her artistry. 

Other than being in touch with our artistic selves, another crucial aspect of being Human is accepting the fact that deep down, we are creatures of nature. We have primal instincts that can be ignored, but never eradicated. "Our insistence on cognitive knowing may already have robbed us of our capacity for being human" because by searching for and analyzing this knowledge we only distance ourselves from our roots in nature. Sure, we'll understand what we evolved from--but the beautiful thing about nature is that it doesn't need explaining. It just works. We don't need to look into our DNA or study our chemical make up. If we just let things be for a while, maybe we'll understand what it really means to be human.        

 



 

         

1 comment:

  1. Pcat- You say that our pursuit for cognitive knowledge is a driving force away from nature, as if nature is an immovable force that we simply push ourselves off of. You say that we should let our own nature take over, without forcing ourselves into any direction. However, what if it is in human's purest nature to pursue new knowledge? Are cognitive knowledge and nature opposite forces? In your viewpoint it seems that humans are on a linear track while nature moves in cycles. Human social evolution, however, is not linear. There have been many examples of thriving civilization that turn to rubble and back again. Perhaps we are more in-tune with nature than we can see.

    ReplyDelete