The worst philosophy paper ever!

I have a philosophy paper due at midnight. As I type these words I am less than three hours away from the deadline. I have spent the last three days mulling over the question what does it mean to be human and I confess that I am no closer to the answer than when I began.

Sure, I can churn out any number words regarding love and family, appreciation of beauty and nature, and human achievement. Although I am personally satisfied with those explanations they will not hold up to philosophical scrutiny. After all, there are people who never experience a loving family but I could not (and would not) argue that the lack of this characteristic somehow makes them less than human. The same goes for human achievement. Who can say what contribution (if any) an individual has made to human progress?

Since I couldn’t come up with anything by way of personal observation, I decided to go to the Bible. Then it occurred to me that appealing to scripture is a weak argument because it presupposes that anyone reading this paper is in agreement with me regarding the authority of the Bible. So once again I came up with an explanation of human nature with which I am personally satisfied but isn’t adequate for the purposes of this assignment.

I have yet to define my thesis, but I have defined my problem: if I think hard enough about any statement about what makes a human, well, human, the whole thing collapses. I keep regressing the question the whole way back to I think therefore I am and certain that is not the intent of this exercise. I know that it may be expecting a bit much to come up with an airtight thesis, but it should at least be able to be reasonably defended.

I am going to have to look at this as a learning experience and take my first few baby steps into “doing” philosophy. The best I can hope for is that others in the cohort can assist me by point out the flaws in my thinking. So here goes:

My thesis:

Human beings possess a unique spark that connects their kind and makes them distinct from other living things.

Physical characteristics allow us to recognize each other, but even when there are variations in physical form we still can recognize a human being. In fact, even when a physical form is not present the recognition of the spark is still there. For instance, right now you are recognizing me as a human being even though “I” am solely represented by letters on a computer screen.

Sometimes there are cases where a human refuses to recognize this spark in another human being—say because of racial prejudice—but other people can and will make recognition. Much of the tension we experience with right to life issues stems from people debating when and in whom this spark exists.

We do not confuse other species for humans. Even when we feel a companionship to animals, it is often based on characteristics that mimic the human spark to some degree.

What this means in regards to spiritual formation is something I am still figuring out. It could be the groundwork to further make a case for the spark being the imprint of God.