To Reason, or Not To Reason?
The human function is not evident. While our most basic role, like plants and animals, is to reproduce, to what end reproduction aims is unclear. Aristotle provides one outlook on our seemingly arbitrary existence in Book 1, Chapter 7 of his Nicomachean Ethics. He proposes that the human function is to reason because it is a uniquely human characteristic. A contending view from existentialism puts forward that humans are inherently purposeless, and through our existence, we find purpose or function — thus, Sartre’s “existence precedes essence”. Ultimately, the existentialist view of the human function does not stand because existence itself presupposes our fundamental, unique capacity to reason, and it is through reason that we then derive our essence. We can choose to be a carpenter or a painter, but it is our innate ability to reason that empowers us to specialize in these activities. Therefore, our capacity to reason is the underpinning of all human essence and our natural function.
Aristotle begins his inquiry into the human function not independently but as part of a broader investigation into happiness. He first posits that the goodness of any activity lies in its function, including human beings(1097b25–28). Having established this, he proceeds to prove that human beings have a function by asking a pair of rhetorical questions: “Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain functions or activities, and has man none? Is he born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these?”(1097b28–32). Aristotle’s argument may seem unconvincing at first because it falsely equates human beings to things that have a marked function. Humans, at the core, are living things whose immediate function is not obvious other than to reproduce, like cows or trees or any other living thing. Thus, comparing our arbitrary existence to occupations and body parts, which all are specialized, is a false equivalence. However, Aristotle is not strictly making a comparison here but is using it to point out the overarching human function that is common in occupations and body parts. While occupations may differ, they all involve the same actions, such as critical thinking, communication, bodily movement, etc. Of course, different occupations require us to express these actions to varying degrees, but their pervasiveness points to a common activity that underlies all human work. The fact that human beings can also switch occupations, or have different occupations simultaneously further suggests there is a fundamental activity that operates below the specialized activity. The body part example supports Aristotle’s point a bit differently. While each body part serves different purposes, their function would be pointless if they did not work toward a larger whole. Similarly, the activities of the mind like deliberation and learning are all useless if they did not contribute toward consciousness. Whatever this all-encompassing, foundational activity is must be the human function since it includes all the activities within us.
As to what this human function can be, Aristotle rules out a couple of possibilities: “Life seems to belong even to plants…Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be shared even by the horse, the ox, and every animal. There remains, then, an active life of the element that has reason”(1097b33–1098a3). Aristotle narrows down our function by making comparisons between humans and plants and animals. He focuses on a unique and not shared function of the human being because the good of any object is to be found not in that which it has in common with other classes of objects, but in that which is peculiar to its own class. And it is with this we can then judge a thing’s goodness properly, since it would be absurd to, for instance, judge a car’s goodness based on how it flies and not how it drives. Aristotle first identifies growth as a human function, but this activity is not unique since we share it with plants. Likewise, our ability to see, sense, and act upon our environment is shared with animals. Therefore, sensing also disqualifies as uniquely human. The last function Aristotle proposes is unique. No plant or creature can make rational choices, and more specifically engage in the process of reason and obey it.
In contrast, the existentialist position on human function, characterized by Sartre’s “existence precedes essence”, is that we have no function. The ideas of existentialism presume that we do not have any inherent purpose or identity at birth, thus giving us the radical freedom to define ourselves and not letting biology, race, ethnicity, etc… stand in the way. In the manner that existentialists use their consciousness to determine their meaning of life, they make their existence more significant.
The existentialist claim that human beings are born without a purpose but can determine it through their existence is unconvincing because the very act of determining one’s life purpose presupposes that one makes a rational choice. Since making a rational choice requires reason, it follows that reason must be inherent to our existence. The existentialist position is logically obvious and apparent to most people. When a baby is born, for instance, we often say that they are pure, with a clean slate to do or become anything they want. Through living, or “existing”, we discover our interests, preferences, and ultimately our purpose in life. Over this course of discovery, we develop our ability to weigh benefits and costs with every decision we make. These decisions are trivial at first, like picking between ice cream and candy, and become significant later, like choosing to be a lawyer or artist. While the choices we make are different, the underlying mechanism that allows us to decide is unchanging, namely reason and rationality. Reason helps us make choices, and rationality helps us adhere to them. Finally, since everything we choose or do requires reason, this is the activity we engage in constantly and therefore must be our function. Any secondary-level occupation or purpose that we choose for ourselves is simply a specialization of our function.
While Aristotle correctly identifies reason as a uniquely human characteristic, the existentialist may contend that just because one has an ability, they do not necessarily have to exercise it and certainly does not have to make it one’s purpose in life. This claim is invalid because while we have many abilities, our capacity to reason is the only one that is not shared with any other living thing, and thus constitutes our function. It follows that as our function, reason must be exercised or we risk distorting our identity. An important distinction must be made between ability and function first before we discuss why reason must be the human function. An ability is something one can do but others can potentially do as well. For instance, we can run, jump, and communicate using language, but so can a dog do all of these things. A function, on the other hand, is an exclusive ability. Things outside of its class cannot perform this ability. For example, swimming is an ability exclusive to fish, and two different types of fish can both swim. When something other than a fish tries to perform the fish’s function, like a bird, it is impossible because it cannot perform the fish’s function to swim. It would seem further that the existentialist would agree in this example that while birds have the “ability” to fly and fish have the “ability” to swim, they can simply choose not to and pick another purpose for their lives. It would be strange, however, to imagine a bird choosing to be a fish or a fish choosing to be a bird because fish cannot fly and birds cannot swim. Similarly, it would be unusual for a human to stop reasoning and become a cow or tree because they do not possess the function of a cow or tree. For something to perform a function outside of its own, then, is unnatural and impossible. It follows that for humans to perform any other function other than reasoning would be impossible. It may appear at this point that Aristotle’s view seems to say one has an obligation to perform their naturally assigned function, but our relationship with our function is not so much we are obligated to perform it as it is inherent to our identity and not exercising it would be denying our identity as human beings.
If reason constitutes our identity, choosing not to do so will not allow us to flourish as human beings according to Aristotle. Additionally, attempting to flourish as something other than a human being would be fruitless since we cannot exercise the function specific to that other thing, making everything we do essentially pointless. The first question that may arise is, why may we want to flourish? As Aristotle begins in Book 1, he writes that “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good”(1094a1–2). Here, Aristotle is positing that at the heart of everything we do is the promotion of our welfare. This can take the form of having lots of friends, experiencing pleasure, and being healthy and honored — all the things that we would conventionally call “good”. Even animals seek to flourish by promoting their welfare. For instance, a squirrel may want to have lots of food for the winter, healthy offspring, and fewer predators in its area — all the things that would be “good” for a squirrel. This good, argued by Aristotle, consists in a thing’s function. Having previously established that the ability to reason is what makes us human, to reason well is what we must do to achieve the greatest good. Under the existentialist claim, however, if a human being decides to have a different function, they necessarily adopt the identity of some other thing whose unique function they lack. Therefore, their pseudo-identity as something else makes it impossible for them to flourish either as human beings or that other thing. Everything action they perform and choice they make onwards would be aimless, forcing them to be in a limbo state of oblivion.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s argument that reason is our innate function triumphs over the existentialist’s, which proposes we can assign our function through existence. While it is true that we are free to choose to specialize in an occupation and call that our life purpose, this existentialist view still presupposes that we make a rational choice, which necessarily employs reason. Additionally, we cannot choose a different function other than to reason because we lack the fundamental function of that alternative thing. Due to this pseudo-identity, we also fail to flourish either as human beings or as other things. The existentialist view on human function undoubtedly provides a fresh outlook on our existence, but for topics like the human function that are debated over thousands of years, some ideas may simply be indisputable and taken to be truths.
