Humans are defined as rational animals. — TheMadFool

But how much of the time are they irrationally driven by emotions both conscious and repressed? I think the rational capacity of our species is over-rated. In fact, I'd define rational more along the lines of ability to survive and guarantee the survival of one's species, and we're not doing well at all in that capacity.

Suicide hasn't been observed in non-human animals as far as I know. — TheMadFool

What of the insects?

We are rational and so are other animals. But, there is something special about human rationality which make us distinct from all other living creatures. Our consciousness is structured in such a way that we are in a position where we are "present to ourselves": this "presence to ourselves" enables us to be conscious of ourselves as selves, creating in this process an "Id / ego / I. The very fact of this discussion taking place, is proof of this: without being conscious of my consciousness "I" will not be present to write this comment resulting in no comment from me or from anybody else. To reflect, is to be on a specific cognitive level, but to reflect on reflection is to be on a completely different level, much more advanced than the previous one.Only humans are capable of doing this! (My dog will not be able to participate in this discussion despite his "high intelligence".) My Latin is weak, but an attempt to name us in our distinctiveness will be something like: "homo sapiens ego".

So, I would like to know if the definition can be improved or even perfected. — TheMadFool

How about homo intellect (or whatever the latin for intellect is). There is an idea that intellect is the capacity to 'know that you know'. It's not just about awareness or thinking, but also recognising the awareness or thoughts. For example, an animal can apply rationale to some degree (I have cats and I have seen it happen), but they can't know what rationale is. So, probably, they can think (make certain considerations) but they can't think about or reflect on those thoughts. And I think it also applies to animals which can mimic human expressions.

Animal suicide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide

What of the insects? — Shamshir

Suicide in insects or rationality in insects? Tou probably mean the latter. I think insects are capable of simple logic bu which I mean we might find it relatively easy to program a robot to mimic an insect. Insects are simple logic machines.

Animal suicide — Hanover

Thanks for the link. It appears that the cases of non-human suicide are caused by parasitic brain infections. The believable stories are anecdotal so dubious.

Your definition based on self-awareness is a good one but I think some apes pass the mirror test

Animals are perfectly capable of rational thought. They wouldn't survive if they were NOT rational. — TheMadFool

What do you understand rational to mean? The understanding I have of the word makes me surprised that you would say this. Clams survive, and they are certainly not rational in any sense that I understand the word. They don't even have a central nervous system! Could their behavior be said to be rational? In other words, would a rational agent in their circumstances act as they do? Perhaps! But evolutionary forces may simply have selected for behavior that serves their survival interests. It likely has nothing to do with rationality on the part of the clam itself.

TheMadFool. If so, why is it that I don't find any contribution on this forum written by an animal? If you are right, there must be at least one or even a few, written say by chimpanzees. Or, is it perhaps a matter that these animals are simply not interested in these human discussions and have decided not to participate? Can't help to wonder, or is there something else that I am missing?

Anthropomorphism......science being pretentious because a human told it to.

Both.

How should we recategorize humans to more accurately reflect our nature? Is suicide relevant to this recategorization? What seems to set us apart is an increased capacity for reasoning, homo intellēctus would fit the bill. Suicide? Really? Oh, wait...the nuclear bombs....

Your definition based on self-awareness is a good one but I think some apes pass the mirror test — TheMadFool

Ok. Then, the only real difference left that I can note would be that humans can reflect without the impetus of an external influence, kind of like meditation. Our defining factor would be that we can interact through abstract forms, e.g. ideas, ideals, etc. So, that would make us something like homo philosophicus :grin: - I know, it's like there's a joke in there somewhere.

I was thinking over this and I came to the conclusion that the two defining characteristics of Humanity is our absolute Dissatisfaction and the passive fear and understanding of death

"Homo suicidus"?

I think our species' uniquely distinctive characteristic - functional defect - is Stupidity, that is, the path-of-least-cognitive-effort reflex of

(a) answering the wrong questions or
(b) solving pseudo-problems or
(c) pretending to know what isn't - can't now/ever be - known or
(d) pretending not to know what is demonstrably - even ineluctably - known or
(e) playing lose-lose games "to win" (e.g. scapegoat violence) or
(f) (other yet-to-be-defined varieties of oblivious self-sabotage ...)
(g) some combination of (a thru f)

- perhaps as a spandrel of language-instinct/use (i.e. discursive rationality). "Suicide", as has been pointed out, is clearly a more common - natural - occurrence across many species than the 'human, all too human' meta-cognitive vice of Stupidity (i.e. folly); so it seems to me more proper, or precise, - and honest - to define our species as homo insapiens instead.

And if so, what use to ourselves (or, charitably, as exemplars) are 'we philosophers' if, fundamentally, we're not ironic fools committed (via reflective study & creative critiques) to life-long withdrawal & recovery from folly ... i.e. to be a gadfly or a Gump? - that's the (right?) question, or so it seems. Or maybe this quixotic 'fixation' expresses - exposes - nothing more than my own peculiar folly ...

What do you understand rational to mean? The understanding I have of the word makes me surprised that you would say this. Clams survive, and they are certainly not rational in any sense that I understand the word. They don't even have a central nervous system! Could their behavior be said to be rational? In other words, would a rational agent in their circumstances act as they do? Perhaps! But evolutionary forces may simply have selected for behavior that serves their survival interests. It likely has nothing to do with rationality on the part of the clam itself. — petrichor

The rationality of clams may not be so obvious as that of an ape but that doesn't matter. Apes are rational and if we define humans as "homo sapiens" then apes are included in that definition. That's a bad definition.

TheMadFool. If so, why is it that I don't find any contribution on this forum written by an animal? If you are right, there must be at least one or even a few, written say by chimpanzees. Or, is it perhaps a matter that these animals are simply not interested in these human discussions and have decided not to participate? Can't help to wonder, or is there something else that I am missing — Daniel C

Again the word "rational" includes animals like apes and dolphins, etc. It may be that language ability has peaked in humans but notice I say "peaked" because whales and birds vocalize too. Isn't that language too? Basically, using an ability that has developed maximally in humans can't be used as part of the definition because the definition is not as exclusive as required.

Ok. Then, the only real difference left that I can note would be that humans can reflect without the impetus of an external influence, kind of like meditation. Our defining factor would be that we can interact through abstract forms, e.g. ideas, ideals, etc. So, that would make us something like homo philosophicus :grin: - I know, it's like there's a joke in there somewhere. — BrianW

I think we shouldn't use any characteristic that is supposedly highly developed in humans but still present, to some degree, in others. Cheetahs are the fastest land mammals but we don't define cheetahs as Acinonys "fasticus"

I remember someone on here a while ago said that suicide is what sets us apart from the beasts in that it's the ultimate freedom of our existence - that we can end it if we so choose. They also said not to do it and worded all this better than me

ultimate freedom of our existence - that we can end it if we so choose. — Evil

I'd like to say "that's beautiful" but that would downplaying the suffering of the many who've ended their lives, unable to face pain.

Both — Shamshir

Where have insects committed suicide?

unable to face pain. — TheMadFool

Do you know what the pain is? A friend killed herself 2 nights ago and I don't know what to make of it..

"Homo suicidus"?

I think our species' uniquely distinctive characteristic - functional defect - is Stupidity, that is, the path-of-least-effort reflex of

(a) answering the wrong questions or
(b) solving pseudo-problems or
(c) pretending to know what isn't - can't now/ever be - known or
(d) pretending not to know what is demonstrably - even ineluctably - known or
(e) playing lose-lose games "to win" (e.g. scapegoat violence) or
(f) (other yet-to-be-defined varieties of oblivious self-sabotage ...) or
(g) in a given instance some combination of (a thru f)

- perhaps as a spandrel of language-instinct/use (i.e. discursive rationality). "Suicide", as has been pointed out, is clearly a more common - natural - occurence across many species than the 'human, all too human' meta-cognitive vice of Stupidity (i.e. folly); so it seems to me more proper, or precise, - and honest - to define our species as homo insapiens instead.

And if so, what use to ourselves (or, charitably, as exemplars) are 'we philosophers' if, fundamentally, we're not ironic fools committed (via reflective study & creative critiques) to life-long withdrawal & recovery from folly ... i.e. to be a gadfly or a Gump? - that's the (right?) question, or so it seems. Or maybe this quixotic 'fixation' expresses - exposes - nothing more than my own peculiar folly ... — 180 Proof

Yes, I think that's a better name for humans. Humans, being rational and yet, "exclusively" capable of stupidity, must stand out from the rest. How ironic that is since we've used our brains to discover that we actually don't have brains.