HUMAN FLOURISHING

The hallmarks of human flourishing are convergence and dynamism. Photo taken and edited
by Julai L. Santos

CHAPTER OUTLINE
Human Being

Understanding Human Flourishing

Science and Technology and Human Flourishing

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:

1. understand the concept of human flourishing;
2. analyze human flourishing in relation to the progress of science and
technology; and
3. conceptualize own views on human flourishing.
 Science and technology has changed human landscape. As discussed in
the previous unit, man tends to show unlimited contentment— eager to seek
better replacement for anything that -performs the functions of man. The
introduction of bioengineering, robotics, and related streams slowly limits the
function and purpose of man's existence in the society. Robots, machines and
other technologies are intended to enhance human condition, or in the future,
replace the human functions in the society. Will the contemporary situations
(positive or negative) threaten human nature? Are all the benefits from the fruits
of progress in this discipline fulfill the main aim of every human being in the
society?

HUMAN BEING

There are many ways of describing a human being. But most of it do not
precisely define or describe a human, or "what does it mean to be a human".
Answers to this question may have its scientific basis and or philosophical
context. Biologists describe human as having the attributes of living organisms
—including plants and animals. This designates that human being is a complex
matter capable of performing life-sustaining processes. Human, being the highest
form of these living organisms, is said to have characteristics which cannot be
substantiated through mere science.

Smith (2012) shared that, we can't turn to science for an answer because
in the first place, science identified human with varied opinion and limited
evidence. He further stressed that "Biologists aren't equipped to tell us whether
an organism, is a human organism because "human" is a folk-category rather a
scientific one" (para.2.).

Blakemore and Greenfield (1987; as cited in Bernaldez, 2001), recognized

that the possession of intellect distinguishes a human being from another
creature. This intellect supports self-consciousness and awareness sufficient for
the achievement of human's function, discovery of truth, and development of
mankind. It may sound universally acceptable but to Heidegger, the question
"What is human being?", is just the tip of the original and more valid question
"What is the meaning of being? He thought that such move was to divert the
"inquirer" from the "object of inquiry".
...according to Heidegger, it was originally the fundamental question of
philosophy, which was pursued by the ancient Greek philosophers but later on
neglected, if not forgotten, in Western philosophy. Heidegger is not convinced
with the reasons used to justify such neglect- the self-evidence, universality, and
indefinability of the concept of being. (Mabaquiao, n.d.) p.111.

Furthermore, he argued that asking for the meaning of the term "being"
doesn't suggest that the "inquirer" has no idea about it because in the first place,
the meaning of "being" is associated with the concept of existence, which means
that the "inquirer" already has the idea on the term "however vague or
incomplete". The "inquirer" obviously refers to "man" as "being", focuses to the
"what" of human existence. This somehow justifies human Uing's adaptability to
environmental changes and ability to manipulate environment in the interest of
survival.

Conversely, Heidegger used the term "dasein" which literally means "being
there" focuses on the "modes of existence" or the "who" of "Dasein". The "modes
of existence" is fundamentally established by two things: (1) Dasein exist in a
world and (2) Dasein has a self that it defines as it exist in such world.
(Mabaquiao, n.d p. 111). Hence, this supports human being's capacity to decide
on what is good or bad for them.

UNDERSTANDING HUMAN FLOURISHING

It has been discussed that human being is endowed with innate abilities
and characteristics that let him sustain his function and to survive in the given
environment. In the very center of being is unexplainable thirst which long for
happiness, serenity and fulfillment. The unquenching thirst towards indefinite
bounds of life can only be sufficed once fulfilled. Why does human being feel this
way? What is man's ultimate desire for living?

It would be beneficial if different views will be taken into accounts to

understand it well. The following are the selected philosophers' point of views:
On Aristotle's Viewpoint

Aristotle's teachings suggest that each man's life has a purpose and that
the function of one's life is to attain that purpose. For Aristotle, happiness
(earthly) is the highest desire and ambition of all human beings. And to achieve
it, one must cultivate the highest virtues within oneself. Aristotle believed that
human beings have a natural desire and capacity to know and understand the
truth, to pursue moral excellence, and to instantiate their ideals in the world
through action. Furthermore, these actions are geared towards one's proper and
desired end—flourishing, happiness, or eudemonia.

What is Eudaimonia?

Etymologically speaking, eudaimonia is consists of Greek words "eu"

which means "good" and "daemon "which means "spirit". This literally defines it
as "the state of having good indwelling spirit; a good genius". (Encyclopedia
Britannica, n.d.)

Eudaimonia (also known as Eudaemonism) is a Greek word, which refers

to a state of having a good indwelling spirit or being in a contented state of being
healthy, happy and prosperous. In moral philosophy, eudaimonia is used to refer
to the right actions as those that result in the well-being of an individual. In this
case, well-being becomes an essential value. In general sense, eudaimonia can
be perceived as any theory that places the personal happiness of an individual
and his or her complete life at the core of ethical concern (Pennock, 2014,
para.1-2)

On Epicurus's Viewpoint

Epicurus (born 341 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher who contradicted the
metaphysical philosophers. He believed that balance and temperance were
created space for happiness. His view is not more of how happiness can be
defined but more on theory about the real source to experience it. Furthermore, it
agrees with the ethical doctrine which claims pleasure is the norm of morality-
hedonism but reiterates the intelligent choice and practical wisdom to measure
pleasure against pain to attain well-being.
On Nietzsche's Viewpoint.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher and cultural

critic who published intensively in the 1870s and 1880s. He is known for his
criticisms on psychological analyses that resulted to opposing ideas on the
people's received ideas. As expected, Nietzsche viewed happiness in a different
way. For many philosophers, happiness could be a "constant state of well-being",
but kw him, happiness is an "ideal state of laziness". Consequently, laziness for
him is described as to not have any worries or distress in life.

Philosophers' views are the evidence of objective sense of how it means to

flourish. It accepts that man's ultimate desire of living is to flourish and to
experience a life of well-being (life that goes well for him). Flourishing can either
be based on the state of mind (e.g., mental habit) or a kind of value (e.g.,
insights, outlook). One's mental habit and value towards life may deny access to
experience fulfillment of life. On the other hand, it may lead to understanding
one's function though self-actualization. Thus, it justifies why it is difficult for a
person to give exact answer if asked, "What is happiness?" which is almost the
same condition in answering the question, "What is your life's purpose".

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN FLOURISHING

We live in the world where

science and technology are the
forefront of ever changing
society. Advances and
continuous technological growth
are the results of intensified
application of scientific
knowledge to deliver progress in
the society. The rise of
information technologies has
made global communications
possible. The introduction of
gene therapy, stem cells and
cloning has improved the
medical and health sectors.
Nanotechnology and robotics
made industries flourished.
Economic growth and global standing were achieved through innovations.
Scientific applications continuously provide convenience to human lives. All these
and more completes the story of changes, innovations, and progress which
impacts the ethical and moral preference of human in the modern society. Yet,
these progress become problematic because of the ethical or even legal
concerns. Examples are debates on whether human embryo (right to live) is
being sacrifice or not in the process of cloning; will the creation of artificial
intelligence (AI)-smarter-than-human intelligence conserves the functionality of
human nature does not; does mining support the nation's economic development
and labor employment or degradation of environment and human rights
infringement ?

Indeed, progress is inevitable so as the desire of human to flourish. As scientific

and technological developments increasingly plays significantly to human lives,
eudemonistic orientation of happiness or end. What kind of virtues were offered
by these scientific progress? For the common good or self-directed? Do they
promote well-being? Should the ethical and moral aspects of human being be
changed to be at par with progress and attain human flourishing?