11 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
    1. or language, in its full extent, means, any way or method whatsoever, by which all that passes in the mind of one man

      A somewhat indirect construction of human? Language is located in the mind? Therefore, humans have minds that they use for language? Or language that they use for minds?

    2. articulate

      Articulate:

      Definition: (noun) Having or showing the ability to speak fluently and coherently; having joints or jointed segments; (verb) pronounce (something) clearly and distinctly; express (an idea or feeling) fluently and coherently; form a joint.

      Origin: Mid-16th century: from Latin articulatus, past participle of articulare ‘divide into joints, utter distinctly’, from articulus ‘small connecting part.

    3. he same in all nations, and consequently can e

      So while words vary widely and have no direct relation to the ideas they represent, tone is universal. Here we have another claim about the human: it is one who uses tone in a certain way.

    4. ing from what

      This seems like a break from Locke, and possibly even from Hume.

      A hu(man) has things other than ideas running through its mind.

    1. And if the same qualities, in a continued composition and in a smaller degree, affect not the organs with a sensible delight or uneasiness, we exclude the person from all pretensions to this delicacy.

      Limitations are being set. If organs cannot be affected or if the affect isn't "sensible", what of the one experiencing it?

    1. \·e11.m.\· c·o1111111111i

      Oxford reference: "Not common sense in its ordinary meaning, but in Aristotle (De Anima, II, 1–2) and following him Aquinas and others, a central cognitive function that integrates and monitors the delivery of the other distinct senses, as when a shape is both seen and felt."

      Kant discusses this concept extensively, but his definition is closer to "common sense" than Aristotle's.

    1. Who ever that had a mind to under· stand them mistook the ordinary meaning

      Locke assumes that such a person does not exist, defining human as "one who understands all simple modes/ideas."

    2. which another has not organs of faculties to attain; as the names of colours to a blind man, or sounds to a deaf man, need not here be mentioned.

      Restrictions on intelligibility and comprehension, which by extension imply a restriction on what's human or universal

  2. Jan 2019
    1. It is the story that hid my humanity from me

      i.e. one story's version of being human compared to another.Similar to what I was saying in the prior paragraph.

    2. f to do thatis human, if that's what it tak§, tnen I am a human being after all. 'Fully, freely, gladly, for tneficst time.

      This brings us back to the point that the definition of human is similar to the definition of rhetoric. The more you try to define either, the more confusing and exclusionary each can get. Just like rhetoric, there is no one way to define human, but instead you stack all definitions on top of each other, without one superseding the others. The definitions are also situational, like Le Guin being human by this definition, but not by the previous one about killing.

    3. The society, the civilization they were talking about, these theoreti-cians, was evidently theirs; they owned it, they liked it; they were human, fully human, bashing, sticking, thrusting, killing. Wanting to be human too, I sought for evidence that I was; but if that's what it took, to make a weapon and kill with it, then evidently I was either extremely defective as a human being, or not human at all. That's right, they said. What you are is a woman. Possibly not human at all, certainly defective. Now be quiet while we go on telling the Story of the Ascent of Man the Hero

      Le Guin gives a definition of what it means to be human; the idea of theorists that humans must kill. Then, she makes it clear that this isn't the only definition of human, considering she's human and wouldn't/couldn't act in such a way. Then there's this awesome and gross little paragraph about women possibly not being human, but rather, defective and unworthy of having a say. Ouch.