PAPER 1 - PHILOSOPHY

This stimulus shows a human figure holding on to both a brain and a heart, which seem to
be leading him in opposite directions, almost splitting him in half. It seems clear that the man
is trying to keep both the heart and the brain under control, without tearing himself apart in
the process. If we take the heart as an allegory for emotions, and the brain as one for
cognitive thinking, then it’s clear that this image brings up the philosophical issue of what
being human is, specifically related to the concept of reason, being able to decide whether to
listen to your emotional and logical thoughts depending on the occasion

This concept has been explored by many philosophers, many of which argue that this
capability to reason is exactly what makes us human, as allegedly no other animal is
capable of this at least to our level of complexity. Others argue, however, that animals are
capable of said reasoning, and that being human is not related at all with this reasoning
capability. This essay will analyze these two different ways to view the issue and defend why,
indeed, it is the act of reasoning that differentiates us from other animals and, in turn, what
inherently makes us human.

It seems to me impossible to imagine a human being that doesn’t have at least the potential
to be able to reason and to control their impulses. As an example, think of one specific very
popular toy for babies: a box with three different-shaped holes and three pieces, one for
each specific hole. Even the smallest of newborn babies– ones that are still unable to speak,
will be able to use logical reasoning to decide which piece fits in which hole. This is a clear
example of how, even from a very young age, humans already exhibit the capability for
analyzing and then taking decisions. This concept of human reasoning as something
inherently human is similar to Plato’s theory of the soul, in which he defends that humans
have both an impulsive and a spiritual part to their mind, controlled by reason which decides
which one of the two to listen to. While not exactly the same as the concept presented in this
essay, it’s clear that the idea of reasoning being the main characteristics of humans
(commonly named “rationalism” by philosophers themselves) has been thoroughly defended
throughout the history of philosophy.

Against this view are modern behaviouristic thinkers such as the psychologist and
philosopher Donald O. Hebb, who said there was no difference between the mental
processes that allowed us and other animals to make decisions, deeming both merely
instinctual methods of controlling our behavior. Philosophers that defend this viewpoint
would argue that reason is nothing else but an animal's reaction to cognitive inputs and that
they work no different in humans than in any other animal, merely changing the way itself in
which we respond to said inputs but not the actual process that we go through in and of
itself.

This, however, has various clear issues that need to be addressed. First of all, there is a
clear distinction between the way in which we react to said inputs and the way every other
animal does. Think, as a clear example, of any bipedal primate with opposable thumbs.
While physically they are very similar to us, having the characteristics we associate with the
human species, it is obvious that they don’t have the same capability for reason that we do;
a capuchin monkey isn’t capable of writing an essay like this one or of putting differently
shaped figures into their corresponding holes at no more than a year of age. There is,
therefore, clearly a distinction between the capabilities of other animals to think in relation to
ours.

The main point against non-rationalistic philosophy, though, is clearly the control of impulses.
Dogs eat whenever they need food (unless there isn’t any, of course), without any more
complex thoughts on the matter. They work purely based on their instinct and their natural
necessities, as that is all they need to survive. It is clear, though, that humans have a
capability to control these impulses. When we’re hungry, we don’t instantly rampage our way
to the nearest tree and eat the fruits from it, no, we’re capable of waiting until we may have a
proper plate of food. This distinction, which is clear between humans and every other animal,
provides a clear example that reason, at least in the way we use it, is inherent to humans
and to nothing else.

Humans not only must be intrinsically able to reason and control their instincts, but they must
also be the only ones capable of doing so, as I have explained and defended throughout this
essay. Therefore, as a response to the stimulus, this is clearly the most concise way to
answer the question of “What does it mean to be human?”. In the image, there’s a clear
representation of the human mind, deciding what decisions to take like we all do in every
moment of the day, applying the clearly human capability to reason.