Well, there you go. I really hadn't thought about them distinctively. But a very good distinction was brought up. If I ask, "What is man?", that question could be looked at more scientifically. Man is a carbon based being... If I ask, "Who is man?", that could be more metaphysical or spiritual. "What is the essence of man?"
I really proposed the question as just one thing. But after thinking culturally, we want to dissect and compartmentalize; everything must have its place. Really in the modern or (post-modern if you prefer) world we live there is little harmony. You can have either Science or Religion. The two cannot touch. They are oil and water. So, "What" and "Who" are valid questions.
We can thank the Greeks for these concepts, they sliced and diced all ideas down to their respective elements so that you sometimes forgot what you were talking about in the first place. But you knew all the elements.
Originally I think philosophical thought was more unified. The essence of man was described by the heart. The heart being the most centralized and internalized organ of the body; it was thought of as the core of man. The essence of man and all that he was could be summed up in the word heart. Later as thoughts progressed, Man was dissected into Mind and Body. Then it became Mind, Body, Spirit. With each of these entities starting to take on worth and value in and of itself. As if they were independent of one another. Man became fractured in his thinking. His mind could think thoughts; while his body did something else. You could detach from your body and soar through your spirit.
For me I think Man is whole cloth; not quilted together like Frankenstien. But these are valid questions. So, is there a difference between
A. Who is man?
B. What is man?
Start your engines. And share the distinction.
No comments:
Post a Comment