1.- Man, is he born or made?
It is not about creating, proposing or reasoning philosophically theories of what man means. It is only intended to raise the need to understand what the biosychicosocial man is. It is a question that has always been in humanity, of which she is not only the main protagonist, but the screenwriter and director.
To address this issue, the inspiring ideas are in Richard Dawkins' book, "The Selfish Gene", published in 1993, where the underlying approach is the evolution scientifically raised by Charles Darwin, who in Dawkins's opinion was "who formulated a coherent and valid relationship of why we exist ”. An approach that is just beginning to generate a marked interest in the humanistic sciences, whether or not one agrees with it.
Various authors suppose that the good of the species (group) is the important factor in its evolution (Lorenz, Ardrey, Eibi-Eibesfeldt), others on the contrary consider that the important factor is the good of the individual (gene), concluding that human beings, like all other animals, are machines created by their genes, but unlike them, they have certain qualities in those genes, among which the ruthless selfishness present in a prosperous gene stands out, which gives origin of selfishness in human behavior.
This leads us to think that there is little that can be expected from biological nature to carry out an altruistic society based on the common good. You are born selfish and only by teaching what generosity and altruism mean can you reverse this situation.
Man is the only being that can be dominated by culture and influences transmitted from generation to generation. A population group will endure to the extent that its members sacrifice themselves for the welfare of the group. On the other hand, if a group puts its own individual selfish interests first, it is unlikely to last; being the gene the fundamental unit of evolution, and seeing it this way, it is possible to explain the phenomena of group selection.
A gene is the smallest unit of heredity and constitutes a small segment of DNA, which is interpreted by the human body as part of a plan to structure the human body and its functions.
The human body has more or less 30,000 genes grouped in genomes, which constitutes the fundamental unit of inheritance, being Gregor Mendel at the end of the 19th century who observed that the characteristics of living beings were inherited in a discrete way from generation to generation, even when heredity is an old idea observed by many scholars when they saw that physical appearance, temperament and other characteristics are inherited.
All individuals of a species have the same gene set; what differentiates them is that genes have different shapes or alleles, with each individual having two copies of each gene. One inherited from each parent, and the way the two copies interact determine the characteristics of the organism.
With this brief review of the biological gene (genetics is very complicated) it is concluded that the gene uses the physical organism as a platform for its survival, which becomes a gene distributor by reproducing through sexual activity, transmitting the various more or less negative relationships of the individual such as aggression, altruism, conflicts and the constant struggle between the "I man" and the "you woman" or vice versa.
Contrasting With this theory of the evolution of species, for a very important part of humanity, man is nothing more than a divine creation made by God, in his image and likeness. It is a creation that has not ended.
According to Genesis, in the beginning there was only God who did everything by his decision. On the sixth day, after finishing his creation, God rested.
What is striking is that in God's creative process, he first created the various kinds of animals before man. This is, according to this theory, the origin of the earth (Genesis 2).
During the whole process of creation God said: "and God saw that it was good", thus being his own critic. But in the second story of Genesis it is observed that for God man is a responsible being, in addition to being privileged, which is worth being his own critic, in the first instance. He grants him the mandate to nominate all creed animals, thus giving him the primacy of his species over all others. But we must also stop at a related event that has marked "your woman" forever, since God seeing that the man is alone, he formed the woman from one of his ribs. From here begins the preponderance of the "I man" over the "you woman" (Genesis 2), with which by divine mandate the evolutionary process of the human being takes place.
Creation of man who shares Judaism, while in Islam the entire creation including man, is the manifestation of the power and glory of Allah, and then of his properties or attributes. Man is responsible to Allah for everything he does, receiving reward or punishment from him. For Islam, man and woman are equal. Contrary to all the philosophers of the ancient world, man and woman were created from the same substance and material, at the same time and by the same Creator.
«The creation of man: says Allah: we have created man of fine clay. Then we drop it into a firm receptacle. Then, we create from the drop a blood clot, from the clot an embryo and from the embryo bones, which we cover with flesh. Then we made him another creature. Blessed be Allah, the best of creators! Then after this you must die. " (Al-Mu'minun The Believers 23: 12-15).
In summary, the three most widespread religions on the planet have a common core and therefore a similar vision of the creation of the universe. We then have two versions of the creation of man: an evolutionary through the work of our genes, very scientifically supported. The other, creationist through the work of a creator God, based on the faith of Christianity.
According to the April 22, 2000 issue of New Scientist, the Turkish social scientist Oktar became an 'international hero' by spreading the reality of creation and the fraud that the theory of evolution holds. He carried out a detailed investigation of the materialist philosophies and ideologies that reigned in his environment, to the point that he came to know more about them than those who defended them. As a result of that knowledge, he wrote several books about the fallacy of the theory of evolution. His intellectual effort in denouncing Darwinism and materialism became a worldwide phenomenon. Demolish the lies of evolutionism.The main purpose is to pulverize the materialistic and atheistic philosophy that has been presented as an alternative and rival of religion and imposed throughout the world since the 19th century ”.
According to Buddhism, an atheistic religion but with many gods, we were born from the matrix of action (kamma-yoni). Parents simply provide us with a material foundation; as such, being precedes being. At the moment of conception, it is kamma, or past action, that conditions the initial consciousness that vitalizes the fetus. It is this invisible kammic energy, generated from past birth, that produces mental phenomena and the phenomenon of life in an already existing physical phenomenon, thus completing the trio that constitutes man. Buddha simply refers to the beginning of the life stream of living beings.
Understanding man as a complex and contradictory being has been, not only the activity of many researchers and social science theorists, but the concern of many philosophers and theologians of different religions.
A modern researcher who deals with the subject is Morín E. (2001), who considers man, as well as a complex and contradictory being, physical, biological, psychic, cultural, social, and historical. It affirms that experience, emotions and feelings, the logical and the rational, as well as the irrational are part of its essence
It is then up to scientists to speculate about the origin and evolution of the universe and especially about the human being, and what is certain is that man's imagination has been the one that has led to its evolution.
2.- Why does it exist?
A first answer to this question is given by the three greatest religions, man exists as a human being made in the image and likeness of God, to thank him and manifest his goodness and love. In this resides the happiness of the human being.
Another answer, given by many theorists, is that the existence of man is for the procreation of the species.
Marxists, on the other hand, maintain that man being a productive potentiality, his existence is an economic fact, in contrast to capitalism, which considers him from the perspective of alienation, as a factor of production. For this reason it is necessary, for Marxists, the social appropriation of the human essence, that is, of the productive capacity.
In the end, man exists because he is an agent of historical change. This is the opinion of those who see it from the historicist perspective.
All these versions lead to consider that the existence of man entails his moral justification, which over the centuries has been very agitated, especially when a theological interpretation is made, the seventeenth century being the most prolific in terms of treatment of the subject, where the Carmelites of Salamanca wrote the “Cursus Theologial Moralis (1665-1724), becoming the most notable work of moral theology of that century.
Morality, since 90 AD has been specially treated, the activity of man and his existence being correlated with the ideas of Christ and the teachings of the Old and New Testaments.
Christian morality, of such high and pure ideals, under a pagan regime and in a world of depraved customs, raised numerous questions, which in the light of modernism of the present century, could be interpreted as material cooperation, with the work of Cyprian.
The problem was solved by staying in the world without belonging to it and not by fleeing to the desert. The maxim attached to man is an existence of martyrdom and suffering in his struggle to define his existence on earth, as man made in the image and likeness of God, who sent his son Christ, to earth to suffer and be martyred to redeem the human being.
Saint Augustine was later, the great animator of all morality covered with theology, using the Sacred Scriptures. It especially described the character of development, of vital dynamism, typical of ethical existence. For him, man is in this world to have faith and love in the broadest sense of happiness.
Albert the Great (1193-1280) when commenting philosophically on Aristotle's "Ethics of Nicomachus", reinforces the ethical character of Aristotelian thought. But it is with Saint Thomas Aquinas when all the good of theological research is combined, thus giving the beginning of a true science of morality. Man is to be the image of God, contrary to what Aristotle affirmed, who considers man as the central point that obtains his happiness on earth, through the goods of this world. Saint Thomas Aquinas, on the contrary, considers that it is communion with God that generates happiness for man on earth. Furthermore, what really counts is not the self-improvement obtained by the human being's own forces and pursued under the impulse of "egocentrism",but love and docility to the will of God.
During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries "nominalism" developed, whereby the interest was focused on the "singular" over "individualism." Man exists to do good, which is a correspondence of an action with a will: what God wants is good. Perhaps here is the philosophical basis of voluntarism and legalism that man develops. The reason for the existence of man cannot be seen only considered in the unity of its essential components, since it is in the middle of a multitude of relationships, in which it realizes the values of its life and justifies its existence. (1) He cannot be seen as a being, but as an individual and as a member of a community.
The existence of man is logically associated with the constant question of what is man ?, which since the beginning of the crisis of the democratic period of ancient Athens, when Socrates concerned about the rapid growth of sophists convinced of relativism, it worried all the Greek thinkers. Which in the end will cause the loss of the system that Pericles achieved with so much effort. This question, as well as many questions related to man, are the theoretical platform that since the Middle Ages has been of interest to philosophy.
In the 20th century, all the reflections framed in the spectacular development of science and technology, and that point to man and his existence as such, cause a new crisis in philosophy by calling into question the foundations inherited from previous centuries, that with the developments of anthropology, genetics, biology and in general the sciences that address the human being in its essence and presence, so that ancient values, supported by theological conceptions and propagated by monotheistic religions, are violently questioned, leaving aside ethical conceptions about life and its condition of being natural.
Life is questioned and seeks, with the help of science, to explain that man exists as a living being and that he presents these basic characteristics: unstable balance, propensity to death and complex organization. Man exists then because he has life as a natural being, and also has life as a social being. None of these characteristics of man is the most important; both complement each other and are the clearest explanation of the human being as man. However, in some philosophers such as Ortega y Gasset, they show the preponderance of the social over the natural, but with a vision of "prima inter peers", which many have called "person".
Man exists as a person, which makes him preponderant over other beings of nature, whom he has to respect, concluding that: the fact of being the man person gives him all his value as a human being, and his existence as such, gives you rights and obligations both with yourself and with others, be they people or natural beings who share the same cosmos.
Ultimately, what is involved is to consider the existence of the people, as Richard Dawkins well expresses it: “in the desire of those people who want to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and altruistically for the common good, without waiting little help from biological nature. Only the teaching of generosity and altruism to combat and thus modify the designs of the selfish genes of the human being.
3.- The "me, man" and the "you, woman
We must start by clarifying that by calling other human beings "you", it means that that other is an "I", who deserves not only respect and love, but also sharing.
Since Greek thinkers considered women as a socially handicapped being, much water has run in the river of those who have philosophized about the concept of woman. For Plato, women require education to be equal to men, even when biologically they are two equal human beings. Aristotle, for his part, only recognizes in women the virtue of silence, which is the same as submission. Hobbes, in his numerous studies, equates woman with man and opposes the consideration hitherto maintained of the dominance of man over woman as a natural law.
Already before, this natural law had taken root in almost all thinkers, when they dealt with women. "It's not good for the man to be alone. So I will make a being like him to help him… Yahweh made the man fall into a deep sleep and he fell asleep. And he took out one of his ribs, covering the hole with meat. From the rib he formed the woman and brought her to the man ”(Genesis 2). It is the same Old Testament that initiates discrimination against women. The man and the woman are not equal in their conception. She comes from the man, which means dependence, but by leaving the man to his parents for his partner, she gives him the position of honor and preponderance as a social being. This is what the great religions have transmitted and that many societies have perpetuated over time, but that the social evolution of man has fought,and although he places her as “you, woman”, in essence she is another being equal to “me, man”.
From the biological point of view, the differentiation of the sexes in most species is a natural fact, and the difference is in who carries the reproductive cell and who carries the embryo in their body. Socially, role-playing makes a difference; some natural and others learned makes a difference.
The man knows that he is a man because he is not a woman; their differences are that the "I, man" is strong and the "you, woman" is weak, analytical, sensitive and problematic. If there is no woman, how would man be defined? The answer cannot be simply based on sex. There is something else, according to Richard Dawkins, the difference is that men and women are interested, from their respective conditions, to be interested in the welfare of the different halves of their children in a non-zero sum game, in which both they can increase their profits through cooperation, rather than the profit of one necessarily assuming the loss of the other.
When Richard Dawkins asks himself the question “what defines, in the end, a female?”, He has to accept that they are biological traits that are very different from what is considered a man in order to stay with the answer given by the consideration of animals and plants. "And it is that the sex cells or gametes of males are much smaller and more numerous than the gametes of females." And as for female exploitation, he concludes that it is due to the limited number of children (with her contribution of 50 percent) that the female can have in relation to the unlimited number of children that the male can have.
An important factor to consider is Charles Dawkins' assertion of the selfish management of the care of children by the male; it is the female who bears all the weight of such activity. "Therefore, among terrestrial animals, maternal care is more common than paternal care." The modern woman has the hard work of being a professional, mother and wife. In each of the roles she wishes to be successful, but it is the selfish genes of the dominant male that produce conflicts that in one way or another affect the behavior of both "you, woman" and "I, man."
On the other hand, the "you, woman" is a human being and as such, has the indisputable right to be treated as such with equality and respect. It is also very human to have feelings, desires, goals and thoughts of its own, and there are no genes that have to do with its behavior in the relational process. What is true is that it complements the "I, man", uniting its equal percentage of genes to make another human being, which apart from its characteristic genes, will learn a differential social behavior, where the "memes" are the agents, according to Charles Dawkins, who have full responsibility for cultural transmission in the human being, including selfishness, which so often determines the selfish personality of "you, woman."
In this perspective, it is logical to think that when fully developing as a human being, the "you, woman", as well as the "I, man", from its bioethical dimension, assumes as its objective the conscious and persevering search for its own fulfillment, in a genetic interaction with its counterpart to perpetuate the species and be a humanizing entity, fully developing as a human being regardless of the task of the selfish genes that may be struggling in their being to stand out.
In this sense, it must be remembered that in general, in every human being, in principle they operate: in the first place, the deontological ethics that drives the human being towards a task in accordance with the natural law of the species. Second, the teleological ethics that encourages good action, and good action is the end, and the end justifies the means, the end being the will of God, where genes have no participation. Thirdly, the aretaic ethics that emphasizes the moral characteristics of the human being, more than in the particular actions. Finally, the ethical relativism according to which each human being has for good, what he considers to be good for him, where perhaps the selfish genes mentioned by Charles Dawkins operate.
In summary, both for the "me, man" and for "the you woman" everything revolves around treating others as you would like them to treat you, aware that the human being is not an altruistic being for the most part, far from well-intentioned, be it "me, man" or "you, woman."
4.- The human being in society
From the point of view of Charles Dawkins, who sees in mating the predominance or difference between the "me, man" and the "you, woman", to the vision of modern sociology in which both beings are social objects, it can be affirmed that a characteristic feature of this relationship is the fact that "you, woman" is in the permanent search for long-term fidelity as a survival strategy, even though, according to the author in question, "certainly does more direct work for the benefit of the children of the father (“me, man”), but the latter often works hard… in order to provide the material resources that are invested in the children ”.
Interesting is the statement that Charles Dawkins himself gives about the way of life of the human being, which is determined, to a large extent by culture rather than by genes. In her the "I, man", in general, has a tendency to promiscuity and the "you woman" to monogamy. The prevalence of one of them depends on cultural circumstances, as the ecological circumstances would prevail in different animal species, and he concludes that a biologist will be forced to suspect that he is contemplating a society in which "you, woman" they compete for the "me, man" and not the other way around.
What is a reality is that both need society and because of their human condition, they require learning, customs and relationships, involved in a static and a social dynamic.
It has always been said that human life is social life, where the chances of survival and multiplication increase, as well as the opportunity to develop altruism. The human being seen as a species, carries weakness and if he survives it is because of his social character that has led him to configure a culture that is developing and enveloping him to such an extent that he is almost a slave to the social condition.
The human being and society is an inseparable binomial, which, thanks to the continuous remaking of the human being, have become essential and the social conformation of the human being has so much force, that it has influenced the evolution of the "I, man" and the " you woman ”in a perfect biosocial union that perpetuates the species by making the social part of human nature.
5.- Is it ethical to take care of the “me”?
Much has been written about personal ethics. It is a cobweb in the entire structure of the personality, and as Víctor Guédez affirms, "ethics is inherent to the human being and it governs her behavior in all dimensions and contexts where she performs".
The excess of many means and the small number of ends are gravitating in social life and in particular in the human being. Technological advances, constant globalization and ideological setbacks that cloud development action, entail essential ethical requirements that society in general has to abide by, where the human being is unable in some cases and forced in others to accept certain ethical behaviors under the rejection or acceptance of their hereditary genes.
According to Víctor Guédez, ethics has four premises that require its interpretation and that in one way or another concern the biological being in the essence of its genes:
1. "A matter of principles and convictions, it is also a matter of intelligence." Who does not assume a clarity of rules and a transparency of conduct is doomed to social failure.
2. "Ethics, more than a matter of prohibitions and restrictions, is a requirement of relationships." Who does not assume a proactive behavior, does not take care of others, much less for himself.
3. "Ethics, in addition to revealing an individual conscience and a personal commitment, now also responds to a group, organizational and cultural scope". Anyone who does not assume personal ethical conduct cannot be integrated into the ethical conduct of the organizations to which he belongs.
4. "Ethics, above aspects related to knowledge and technology, is the wave that guides the prospects of the 21st century." Whoever does not participate in the ethical wave is not contributing with the commitment to survive, coexist and live.
All this under the conviction that ethics is the result of the convictions that come from within the conscience of the human being and that tells him that he should not deceive himself, entails acceptance of his personal freedom in a proactive way.
Being the human being an entity of relationships and interactions, ethics becomes the mediator between those relationships that includes the human being himself, his fellow men, nature and his ecosystem and God, where self-esteem and solidarity constitute the two bases in which will sustain the personality of the "I". Gandi already said it: "If I want to see things change out there, first I need to change them in here." On the other hand, we must think that in the very near future the "I" will be replaced by the "singularity", which will change the vision of life in general and individual life in particular, but as long as that reaches society current, we have to keep considering the "me".
For Charles Dawkins, a surprising activity within the context of interaction is the propensity of animals to live in groups, where the selfish individual obtains a series of benefits that he would not have if he acted alone. With this he avoids risks or what is the same, generates a strategy of maintaining the "I", which does not mean that he loses his individuality. It is only about protecting oneself, and such a procedure is not unethical, since it is ethical to have an individual conscience and a personal commitment to its survival, as other beings do, especially animals that even when they conserve their space, seek the group to protect yourself from predatory contingencies.
It is the instinct of each individual that will guide their behavior, as it happens in the human being. The concept of altruism lags behind that of survival, which justifies such a procedure that is not in contrast to ethical principles, it is then that the concept of ego-altruism of Roland Matthies comes into force, who describes it as: “man will be able to overtake the maximum his own interests, when he puts his life to work in harmony with the world around him, considering the needs of that world as well as his own ”.
6.- Bibliography
DAWKINS, R., 1993. The Selfish Gene: The biological bases of our behavior. Salvat Editores, Spain.
MORIN, E., 2001. The seven necessary knowledge for the education of the future. Edit. Teaching, Colombia
GUEDEZ, V., 2001. Managerial Ethics. Edit. Planet, Venezuela.
CORTINA, A., 1996. The ethical task. Edit. Santillana, Spain.
MATTHIES, R., 1978. Ego-Altruism. Edit. Art, Venezuela
DE VINCENTIS, R., 2006. Self-esteem the basis of your power. Edit. Uniriqueza, Venezuela.
CRUZ, C. 2005. The Law of Attraction. Edit. Success Workshop. Venezuela.
VILLANUEVA, J., 2007. Ethics and Knowledge Management Seminar. USM, Caracas, Venezuela.
