Natalie Horras believes that the humanities base question that asks 'What does it mean to be human'? is 'beyond our level of comprehension.' She believes that as human beings, we will never fully understand what it means to be human. Our ranges of experiences are too wide, our thoughts and opinions are too limited, and there are too many discrepancies in the way we interpret different situations. Horras has obviously fallen into a pit and is trying to claw her way out unscathed. At UD, we call this pit 'critical thinking.'

Unfortunately, Natalie Horras will not be able to escape. Simply by enrolling in college she has thrown herself into the path of expectations that until now, we did not think were that difficult to live up to. 'What does it mean to be human'? too deep a question? Natalie ... That's the easy way out.

In her defense, Horras does support the stimulation of classroom discussion and encourages more opportunities for it to arise; but her notion that the question UD uses to stimulate this discussion is 'overwhelming' is just downright pitiable. Horras suggests finding a different question for students to ponder, but never gives us an example of one such alternative question. So what are we supposed to do? Do away with what it means to be human and sit barefoot playing lutes all day? Maybe that would inspire some intellectual thinking.

In addition, Horras provides examples to illustrate her point: she states that beauty pageant contestants are not fit to judge each other because they are 'in the same boat' (much like humans are all in the same boat; therefore, they cannot truly find out what it means to be human). Horras also describes the unsuitable peer-edits many English students are required to engage in. Again, peer editing is useless because the students cannot truly comprehend what the other is writing; they are all students, after all. Thus, an English teacher is needed to choose which paper is most correct. In both of these examples, 'higher powers' are necessary in order to determine what being a good contestant or student actually entails.

My problem with these examples is this: in both of them, the higher power is still of the same entity as those being judged (a.k.a. they are all still human). Furthermore, each of these judges still has his or her own set of standards, beliefs, and ways of interpretation, just as the people being judged do. I'm sorry, Ms. Horras, but I just don't see the logic here.

Therefore, my conclusion is this: the humanities base question 'What does it mean to be human'? is so important for our development as writers, and especially as learned people. It doesn't matter what answer we come up with; the important thing is that we are coming up with an answer! The Humanities Department has even made our search for this answer easier by breaking down the question into four themes: Autonomy and Responsibility, The Individual and Society, The Person and Nature, and Faith and Reason. These themes will help us determine our own idea of what we believe being human involves, and most importantly, determine our own ideas of how to live life and treat others. If we can understand even one speck of what it means to be human, we are that much further in advancing our completion as a human being. In short, the humanities base question was not meant to overwhelm us. It was meant to provide us with a means of finding ourselves, finding our values, and then living them to the best of our ability. So don't let yourself keep desiring the 'obvious' answers. You will never find fulfillment if you do.

Steph Frey
Senior
English