Odd... you seemed to have missed the entire point of the paper.
I can set you straight here in a bit, but must catch the bus for now.
Max
[abe]
Kuresu writes:
Being human”or more specifically: being anything that makes us
not non-human”is a concept which requires distinction, and we must
have a way to judge something as human or not”including everything
that clearly is human, whilst keeping out everything that clearly is not.
half of this is filler. end the sentence at "judge something as human or not".
No, the part behind the em dash is extremely important because it specifies the conditions that a definition must meet. If not for that, I could say: humans are humans. That's a definition, but horrible. The offset bit of text lets the reader know what type of a definition to expect. Whether or not I deliver is a whole different story
you defined special by being human and human by being special. what circular logic you have. and didn't you earlier say that being human is defined as "communicating"?
Here's the point you REALLY missed. The last sentence of the second to last paragraph reads:
quote:
It's the human-centred definition of special that leads to the human-centred idea of human special-ness.
This effectually says that I think it's crap that people walk around all day pretending they're special when most use the circular logic cited above to prove that it's so.
You disagree with every "point" I make, right up to the end. That's the point, that's the idea. All that crap that's written up until the end is just meandering through my head. It's there so that you can see the argument people use to claim human special-ness. And the very final part where I show that it's circular half-ass logic (as you have pointed out

), is the kicker of the whole paper meant to get people to perhaps think of themselves in a slightly different way.
Do you think humans are special?
Edited by Jonicus Maximus, : Set Kuresu straight... ;-)