
There’s a joke I like to tell myself when I’m staring at the blank wall and feeling the creeping dread of meaninglessness.
It goes like this: “If Aristotle had been born in a different time, he’d have been a psychiatrist.”
Here’s the thing, in a way, Aristotle was a psychiatrist—except instead of prescribing meds, he handed out wisdom in the form of logic and ethics.
His idea was simple: reason is what makes us human. And in his time, it made sense—because reason, unlike emotions or base desires, could be controlled.
It could be measured. It could be exercised. But then modern neuroscience came along and blew the whole thing wide open.
So here we are, wondering, does reason really define us? Or is humanity a game of chemicals, timing, and circumstance?
The Great Aristotle
Aristotle, the guy who got everything right except how to predict how awful people would turn out.
He was all about virtues. Virtue—it sounded so grand when he said it, like something people would aim for. The crown of human achievement. For him, humanity wasn’t about pleasure or wealth (those were too fleeting, he said). No, it was about rationality, about the ability to reason.
Reason was the gold standard of human existence. You didn’t just feel your way through the world—no, you thought. And this wasn’t some half-baked “feel-good” nonsense. Aristotle was serious. Reason was the bedrock of everything that makes a person truly human.
But as much as I respect the guy, I can’t help but wonder: What if Aristotle was wrong about the whole “reasoning” thing? What if we’re not as rational as he thought? What if there’s more to this thing we call humanity than a couple of neurons firing in the prefrontal cortex?
The Prefrontal Cortex Messes with the Plan
Aristotle’s idea makes sense when you live in an ancient world, where people die young, there’s no TV, and everyone’s just trying to stay alive.
But when you throw in modern neuroscience, things get murky. The prefrontal cortex—the part of your brain responsible for those high-level functions like reasoning and decision-making—doesn’t even fully develop until your mid-20s. Yeah, around 23.
That’s like telling a kid, “Sure, you’re human, but you’re not fully human until you can think straight.” Not a great look for humanity, right?
Explaining The Idea To A Kid
To explain this in a way you’ll get, imagine you’re building a car. You’ve got a body, a frame, wheels, and all the parts. But there’s something missing, right? There’s no engine.
The car doesn’t move yet. Now, imagine you’re a person. Your body is there, but your ability to reason—the engine—doesn’t come online until you’re 23 or so. Sure, you can walk, you can talk, and you can probably even screw up a few decisions, but it’s not the same as firing on all cylinders.
If we go by Aristotle’s theory, then the 23-year-old with a fully developed brain is the human. The rest of us? Well, we’re still learning how to drive. So, does that mean a teenager or a child isn’t really human in the way Aristotle would have thought?
It’s a nice thought, right? You wait until your brain’s ready to reason, and then bam, you’re officially human.
But let’s not kid ourselves. If this were true, you could argue we’re all just getting by until that magic moment. A chilling thought when you realize how much suffering happens before that age.
Does This Change Aristotle’s Ideas?
Aristotle would have probably been a bit disappointed with how his theory stacks up today. Imagine his face when he hears that the brain doesn’t fully “arrive” until the mid-20s. I like to think he’d have had a very stiff drink after hearing that.
But here’s the real question – would Aristotle, had he known about neuroscience, have stuck to his guns about reason being the essence of humanity?
Would he have said that if you couldn’t reason yet, you weren’t fully human?
Hell, maybe. Aristotle wasn’t the kind of guy to back down.
So, Who’s Right?
Let’s talk about who disagrees with Aristotle. Plenty of people would have something to say.
Take Nietzsche, for instance. The man hated reason in a way. He thought it was a straightjacket for the human spirit. He said, “Man is something to be overcome.” For him, humanity was something more primal. More instinctual.
Nietzsche would have probably laughed at Aristotle, telling him that reason was just another trick to keep people from feeling the rawness of life.
In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche criticizes everything that tries to make us tame. Reason was just another tool to tame the beast.
Then, there’s modern thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre, who would argue that existence precedes essence. This means that you aren’t born a human being with a fixed nature; you’re a human only when you act, when you make choices.
For Sartre, the fact that you can choose makes you human, not whether you reason like a 4-core CPU.
In a way, this idea hits Aristotle’s idea of rationality. You’re human because you act on your choices. Not because you’re doing high IQ thinking.
Table 1: Philosophical Views on What Makes Us Human
Philosopher | Key Idea | What Makes Us Human? |
---|---|---|
Aristotle | Reason and virtue | Rationality defines humanity. |
Nietzsche | Overcoming reason | Instinct and strength over reason. |
Sartre | Existence precedes essence | The freedom to choose. |
Modern Neuroscientists | Brain development and reasoning | Cognitive development, not just reason. |
Buddhist Philosophy | Transcendence through enlightenment | Awareness and liberation from ego. |
Data that Opposes Aristotle’s View
If you want to play devil’s advocate, just take a look at some of these points:
- Books:
- The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker argues that human nature is shaped by both genetics and environment, not just reason.
- The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker suggests that humans are driven by unconscious fears, not pure reason.
- Movies:
- A Clockwork Orange presents the idea that free will, not rationality, is at the core of humanity.
- Her explores emotional intelligence and human connection over sheer reason.
- People:
- Richard Dawkins, with his focus on evolutionary biology, would likely say reason is a byproduct of survival instincts, not the core of humanity.
- Daniel Dennett, a philosopher of mind, emphasizes that consciousness and free will are results of complex evolutionary processes, not just the ability to reason.
A Personal Story to End It All
I remember the first time I got the taste of what “reasoning” really meant.
I was 22, just a kid in a man’s body, pretending like I had things figured out. I was in a run-down bar in the middle of nowhere, the kind of place where people forget their names after three drinks, but their regrets are tattooed in every wrinkle of their skin.
A woman, maybe 10 years older than me, sat beside me, eyes lost in a haze of smoke and gin. She asked me what I thought about life.
She had that way of speaking, all slow and deliberate, like she had been around long enough to know it didn’t matter what I said. But I had to answer. I had to prove something.
I said, “I think we just need to use our heads, make rational choices, find some meaning in all this.”
She laughed. A dry, bitter laugh that felt like it had been rehearsed. “You think it’s all about reason? It’s about what you feel, kid. What you do with your feelings, your gut. That’s what makes you human. Not this crap about thinking through every damn thing.”
I didn’t know what to say. My brain wanted to argue, to prove that reason was the key. But my gut, hell, it didn’t care about being right. It just wanted to feel something real for once. So I shut up and drank my beer.
That night, I realized something. Maybe Aristotle had a point. But maybe Nietzsche and Sartre were onto something too. We’re more than just what we can reason.
You can try to reason your way out of the chaos, but in the end, you’ll still be stuck in your skin, trying to make sense of the noise.
And I guess that’s where the real humanity is—somewhere between thinking and feeling.
Between reason and chaos.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.