In the end, we can know who we are in light of what we are called to be, or we can know nothing because we believe that life is nothing and that it signifies nothing. It is the choice between life and death, and between the culture of life and the culture of death.

Where does one begin when one is asked to speak to a group of high school seniors on the topic of “answering the call to the fullness of life”? Does one offer practical advice, based on one’s own knowledge and experience of the best colleges or universities? Or does one counsel caution with respect to the avoidance of too much student debt, suggesting perhaps that college might not always be the best option for graduating high school seniors? Or should one speak of “answering the call” in the fullness of the vocational sense, specifically with respect to the discernment of God’s will? These all seem good and worthy ways of approaching the problem of vocational discernment but they also seem a little too vague and abstract. Such an approach might work well for each individual, were one to engage them on a one-to-one basis, but it doesn’t seem the best approach when addressing a group of people, each of whom is a unique person with unique aspirations, abilities and desires.

Faced with these difficulties, the present author decided to begin with the dignity of the human person, addressing the question of “answering the call to the fullness of life” in terms of understanding who we are as human persons. All of us need to begin by knowing ourselves within the context of the bedrock reality of which we are a part before we can discern the best path in life. We need to know who we are before we can know where we are supposed to be going. This being so, I decided to begin with the various definitions of what constitutes the human person in terms of various anthropological labels, each of which is rooted in a particular understanding or misunderstanding of who we are as human beings.

The six anthropological labels that I considered were homo sapiens, homo technologicus, homo economicus, anthropos, homo superbus and homo viator.

The first, homo sapiens, the “scientific” label that we’ve given to ourselves, is, ironically, the least scientific. Homo sapiens literally means “wise man”, which is evidently an absurd encapsulation of the chief defining characteristic of the human species. If there’s one attribute that does not apply to the collective experience of humanity throughout its history, it is wisdom. Every generation makes the same mistakes as every previous generation, failing or refusing to heed the lessons that the collective experience of history teaches. As a species, we are so wilfully bereft of wisdom that we would all rather make self-destructive mistakes than heed the counsel of our elders.

To be fair to those who affixed the label homo sapiens upon us, they didn’t really mean to say that we are “wise” but merely that we are “clever”. Not knowing their Latin or, more likely, not knowing the difference between wisdom and cleverness, what they really meant was not that we are homo sapiens but that we are homo technologicus.

The next label placed upon us is homo economicus, which reduces the human person to that of being a mere factor of production and consumption. Each of us, as homo economicus, is a mere functionary, playing our part in the marketplace of goods and services as both producers and consumers. As producers, we are considered in our function of providing labour, alongside the other factors of production, land and capital; as consumers, we are considered in our function as purchasers of the things produced by the labour of others. Our purpose is to be a cog in the market mechanism, which is the dehumanizing price we pay for the things that the mechanism provides for our comfort and enjoyment.

The fourth label, anthropos, is much older. It dates back to the ancient Greeks. According to Plato, anthropos means “one who turns upwards”, marking him as being essentially different from other animate beings. Whereas other creatures are slaves to their instincts and their appetites, man transcends his material needs by desiring transcendental things, such as goodness, truth and beauty. It can be said, therefore, that the animal grazes, whereas man gazes. Thomas Aquinas saw this anthropic aspect of humanity as being the path to the perception of the deepest reality. In essence, he taught that there is a five-fold process of perception. First, as the necessary prerequisite is the presence of humility. The virtuous fruit of this humility is a sense of gratitude, which opens the eyes in wonder. It is only when the eyes are opened in wonder that we are moved to contemplation, and it is only through contemplation that our minds and hearts experience dilatatio, the opening of our perception into the fullness of the deepest metaphysical truths. These might be considered the five metaphysical senses (humility, gratitude, wonder, contemplation, dilation) that our five physical senses are meant to serve.

The fifth label, homo superbus (proud man), belongs to those who refuse to be anthropos.

Whereas anthropos is predicated on the presence of humility, homo superbus is predicated on humility’s absence. The precise definition of the absence of humility is pride. The proud man, not having humility, has no sense of gratitude. Devoid of gratitude, his eyes are not opened in wonder but are closed in cynicism. In the absence of wonder, he is not moved to contemplation; there is, therefore, no opening of the mind and heart but, on the contrary, a closing of mind and heart narcissistically. Such narcissism, which sees only a mirror of itself, cannot see beyond itself in order to engage with metaphysical reality. This is the reason that pride is always inseparable from prejudice and from the hatred and bigotry which are the bitter fruits of prejudice.

The final label, homo viator, means man on a journey, or man on a quest, or man on a pilgrimage. This understanding of who we are sees our individual lives as a journey with a specific goal, which is the unity of the individual soul with its Creator in the latter’s eternal presence in heaven. This is why homo viator is not merely on a journey but also on a quest or a pilgrimage. He has his eyes set on heaven and will orient his life to the purpose of getting there. Homo viator is inseparable from anthropos. Only the truly humble soul, eyes wide open in wonder, will keep to the pilgrim path; the proud man will wander off in whatever direction pleases him in the present moment, heedless of the goal, which is why he finds himself, like Dante, lost in the Dark Wood of sin. At this point, he can either have a conversion experience, seeking divine help to show him the infernal consequences of sin and the purgatorial fruits of repentance, or he can remain obstinate in his pride, ending his life, like Macbeth, believing that life is nothing but “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

In the end, we can know who we are in light of what we are called to be, anthropos and homo viator, or we can know nothing because, as homo superbus, we believe that life is nothing and that it signifies nothing. It is the choice between life and death, and between the culture of life and the culture of death. It is the choice between life and suicide. Ultimately, it is the choice between heaven and hell.

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

The featured image is courtesy of Pixabay.

All comments are moderated and must be civil, concise, and constructive to the conversation. Comments that are critical of an essay may be approved, but comments containing ad hominem criticism of the author will not be published. Also, comments containing web links or block quotations are unlikely to be approved. Keep in mind that essays represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Imaginative Conservative or its editor or publisher.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email