What Is Human Being Exploring Fundamental Nature

Philosophical Foundations of Human Nature

Existentialist Perspectives on Human Nature

A foundational text for this perspective is Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, where he defines human consciousness as a perpetual project:

"Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism. And it implies that man is responsible for what he is."
—Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness (1943)

Comparative Analysis of Existentialism, Stoicism, and Nihilism

Flowchart: Consciousness, Self-Awareness, and Humanity

1. Descartes’ Cogito (17th Century)
Descartes’ argument establishes self-awareness as the defining feature of humanity, positing that consciousness (res cogitans) is distinct from the material world (res extensa). The Cogito serves as the indubitable foundation of human existence, implying that self-awareness is both a prerequisite and a product of rationality.

2. Existentialist Expansion (19th–20th Century)
Existentialists like Sartre and Heidegger extend Descartes’ insight by framing self-awareness as an ongoing project. Consciousness is not static but a dynamic process of being-for-itself (Sartre), where humans continually define themselves through choices. Self-awareness thus becomes synonymous with freedom and responsibility.

3. Cognitive Science Refinement (20th–21st Century)
Modern neuroscience and psychology decompose self-awareness into measurable components, such as:

4. Humanity as Emergent Property
The flowchart converges on the idea that humanity is not a binary state (conscious/unconscious) but an emergent property of complex interactions between:

Visual Structure (Textual Representation):

Descartes’ Cogito │
├── Self-Awareness as Indubitable Foundation
│ ├── Rationality (Descartes)
│ └── Consciousness ≠ Material World
│
└── Existentialist Project
├── Freedom as Self-Creation (Sartre)
├── Being-for-Itself (Heidegger)
└── Responsibility in Choice
│
└── Cognitive Science Perspectives
├── Mirror Neurons → Social Cognition
├── Global Workspace → Integrated Processing
└── Predictive Models → Self as Prediction
│
└── Humanity as Emergent
├── Biological + Cultural Layers
└── Existential Agency

This flowchart demonstrates how philosophical inquiries into human nature have evolved from metaphysical assertions to empirical and interdisciplinary frameworks, retaining the core tension between autonomy and determinism.

Key Implications for Human Nature

The comparative analysis further reveals that while existentialism and stoicism both affirm human agency, their

Biological and Evolutionary Foundations of Human Nature

Evolutionary Traits Distinguishing Humans from Other Primates

Evolutionary Timeline of the Homo Genus and Key Adaptations

The progression from Homo habilis to Homo sapiens demonstrates a cumulative evolutionary process, where each species built upon the capabilities of its predecessors. The transition was not linear but involved convergent and divergent branches, some of which (e.g., Homo neanderthalensis) later became extinct while others (e.g., Homo sapiens) persisted due to adaptive advantages.

• Homo habilis (2.4–1.4 million years ago)
  • Key Adaptations:
    • Increased cranial capacity (~550–700 cm³), associated with tool-making (Oldowan industry).
    • Reduced facial prognathism and smaller teeth, suggesting a shift toward softer foods.
    • First evidence of stone tool modification, indicating problem-solving skills.
  • Evolutionary Significance:

    Represented the first hominin to decouple brain size from body mass, laying the foundation for later cognitive advancements.

• Homo erectus (1.9 million–110,000 years ago)
  • Key Adaptations:
    • Larger brain (~900–1100 cm³) and taller stature, enabling long-distance migration out of Africa.
    • Control of fire (~1 million years ago), allowing cooked food consumption and social gathering.
    • Advanced toolkits (Acheulean hand axes) and possible symbolic behavior (e.g., ochre use).
    • Evidence of hunting strategies, including coordinated group activities.
  • Evolutionary Significance:

    Demonstrated the first global hominin, with adaptations for endurance running and energy-efficient foraging, which supported brain expansion.

• Homo heidelbergensis (700,000–200,000 years ago)
  • Key Adaptations:
    • Intermediate brain size (~1100–1400 cm³) and robust skeletal structure, suggesting a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
    • Complex tool use (e.g., wooden spears with stone tips) and possible ritualistic burials.
    • First evidence of long-distance trade networks (e.g., obsidian tools).
  • Evolutionary Significance:

    Served as a bridge species between Homo erectus and later archaic humans, with behaviors resembling both groups.

• Homo neanderthalensis (400,000–40,000 years ago)
  • Key Adaptations:
    • Large brain (~1500 cm³) with regional specialization, including an expanded prefrontal cortex.
    • Advanced tool culture (Mousterian industry) and symbolic artifacts (e.g., engraved bones, cave paintings).

      

      Cultural and Anthropological Definitions of Human Nature

      Human nature is not a static or universal concept but is deeply embedded in cultural narratives, spiritual frameworks, and symbolic systems that vary across civilizations. Indigenous cosmologies, for instance, redefine humanity’s relationship with nature, ancestors, and the sacred, often contrasting with Western individualistic or materialist perspectives. Meanwhile, language, art, and ritual serve as foundational tools for transmitting and reinforcing cultural identities, shaping how individuals perceive their place in the world. These definitions are not merely historical artifacts but continue to influence contemporary understandings of personhood, ethics, and societal structures.

      The following sections explore how Indigenous worldviews conceptualize humanity in relation to the natural and spiritual realms, the role of symbolic expression in defining human identity, and the enduring significance of rites of passage in preserving cultural definitions of personhood.
      

      Indigenous Cosmologies and Human-Nature Relationships

      Indigenous philosophies often depict humanity as an integral part of an interconnected web of life, where spiritual, ancestral, and ecological dimensions are inseparable. Unlike anthropocentric models that prioritize human dominance over nature, these cosmologies emphasize reciprocity, balance, and the sacredness of all existence. Below is a comparative analysis of select Indigenous frameworks, structured to highlight their unique definitions of humanity.
      

      Culture	Human-Nature Relationship	Rituals/Beliefs	Modern Relevance
      Māori (Aotearoa/New Zealand)	Humans (tangata) are part of Papatūānuku (Earth Mother) and Rankāhau (Sky Father), governed by the duality of tapu (sacred restrictions) and noa (ordinary, free). Harm to nature disrupts cosmic order, requiring restoration through rituals.	Karakia (prayers/chants): Used to invoke spiritual protection for land (whenua) and resources. Whakapapa (genealogy): Traces human lineage to natural elements (e.g., mountains, rivers), affirming kinship with the environment. Rāhui: Temporary prohibitions on resource use to allow regeneration, enforced by ancestral spirits.	Influences modern environmental ethics, e.g., Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) clauses protecting Māori cultural landscapes. Concepts of tapu inform conservation practices, such as restricted access to sacred sites (wāhi tapu). Global Indigenous movements (e.g., Māori environmental activism) cite tapu/noa to challenge colonial extraction policies.
      Aboriginal Australians (Various Nations)	The Dreamtime (Tjukurrpa) describes a primordial era when ancestral beings shaped the land, laws, and human roles. Humans are custodians (Luritja: "wardaman") responsible for maintaining the balance between Country (Birrarung in Kulin nations) and culture.	Songlines: Oral narratives mapping ancestral journeys, encoding ecological knowledge and spiritual connections to landscapes. Corroboree: Ceremonial dances and didgeridoo performances that retell Dreamtime stories, reinforcing kinship with totemic animals and land. Sorry Business: Rituals for mourning and healing, emphasizing communal responsibility for the dead and the land.	Legal cases (e.g., Mabo v Queensland, 1992) use Dreamtime principles to assert Native Title over land. Climate change adaptation strategies incorporate traditional fire management practices tied to Dreamtime laws. Art (e.g., dot painting) serves as a living archive of Country, used in land rights activism.
      Mapuche (Chile/Argentina)	Humans (che) are part of Ñuke Mapu (Mother Earth), with Pachamama (Earth) and Ngenechen (Creator) governing existence. The Leyenda (mythic narratives) describe humans as co-creators with nature, bound by reciprocity (ngillatun).	Machitún: Communal ceremonies to honor the Earth, involving offerings (chuncho) of food and tobacco. We Tripantu: New Year festival marking the winter solstice, celebrating agricultural cycles and ancestral renewal. Nguillatún: Rituals for hunting or harvest, where humans ask permission from spirits (pillanes) and reciprocate with gifts.	Resistance to industrial agriculture is framed as a defense of Ñuke Mapu, with courts recognizing ngillatun as customary law. Educational programs teach Mapuche cosmology in Chilean schools to counter colonial erasure. Global Indigenous networks (e.g., World Indigenous Network) cite Mapuche principles in climate justice arguments.

      The recurring theme across these cosmologies is the relational ontology of humanity—identity is not self-contained but defined through connections to land, ancestors, and the spiritual. These frameworks challenge Western dualisms (e.g., human/nature, sacred/profane) by presenting humanity as a dynamic participant in an ongoing creation narrative.
      

      Language and Symbolism as Foundations of Human Identity

      Symbolic systems—language, art, mythology, and writing—serve as the primary vehicles through which cultures construct and transmit definitions of human nature. These systems encode values, worldviews, and social structures, shaping how individuals perceive themselves and their place in the cosmos. Below is a timeline of key symbolic milestones, followed by an analysis of how symbolic expression reinforces cultural identity.

      ### Timeline of Symbolic Milestones in Human History
      The evolution of symbolic communication reflects shifting conceptions of humanity, from pre-linguistic expression to digital mediation.
      

      Era	Symbolic Innovation	Cultural Context	Implications for Human Identity
      ~70,000–30,000 BCE	Cave Paintings (e.g., Chauvet, Lascaux)	Prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe and Australia depicted animals (e.g., aurochs, kangaroos) and hand stencils, suggesting ritual or storytelling functions.	Evidence of shared symbolic thought, implying collective identity beyond immediate kin groups. Animals as totemic symbols linked humans to spiritual or ecological roles (e.g., Aboriginal "Dreamtime" ancestors). Suggests early mythopoetic definitions of humanity as part of a sacred natural order.
      ~3,200 BCE Psychological and Cognitive Frameworks of Human Nature Human cognition and psychological frameworks provide critical insights into the mechanisms that define human uniqueness. These frameworks elucidate how cognitive processes—ranging from automatic intuition to deliberate reasoning—shape behavior, decision-making, and self-perception. By examining dual-process theory, hierarchical models of motivation, and cognitive biases, this section explores the interplay between instinctive and rational faculties, as well as the psychological forces that influence human fulfillment and error. Modern reinterpretations of classical theories, such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, further highlight how evolving psychological understanding reframes the foundations of human nature. Dual-Process Theory: System 1 vs. System 2 Thinking Dual-process theory posits that human cognition operates through two distinct systems: System 1 (fast, intuitive, automatic) and System 2 (slow, effortful, deliberate). These systems interact dynamically, with System 1 dominating routine tasks and System 2 intervening when precision or control is required. The distinction underscores human cognitive adaptability, where intuitive judgments (e.g., recognizing faces or detecting threats) coexist with deliberate analysis (e.g., solving mathematical problems or evaluating long-term risks). Below is a comparative table illustrating their characteristics and real-world applications: Feature System 1 (Intuitive) System 2 (Deliberate) Real-World Application Speed Instantaneous (milliseconds) Slower (seconds to minutes) Driving: System 1 handles lane changes; System 2 assesses complex traffic scenarios. Effort Low (automatic) High (requires focus) Shopping: System 1 drives impulse purchases; System 2 evaluates budget constraints. Error-Prone Yes (heuristics, biases) Less prone (but can fatigue) Medical Diagnosis: System 1 may misdiagnose rare diseases; System 2 cross-references symptoms. Energy Use Minimal (subconscious) High (conscious effort) Multitasking: System 1 manages basic tasks (e.g., walking); System 2 struggles with complex multitasking (e.g., texting while driving). Key Insight: System 1’s efficiency enables rapid survival responses, while System 2’s analytical depth allows for innovation and ethical decision-making. The interplay between these systems explains why humans excel in both creativity and logical reasoning but are also susceptible to cognitive shortcuts. Reinterpreting Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Through Modern Psychology Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, originally framed as a pyramid of physiological to self-actualization needs, has been refined by modern psychology to incorporate attachment theory, flow states, and neuroscience-based motivation. While the foundational structure remains—physiological needs (e.g., food, safety) as prerequisites for higher-order growth—contemporary models emphasize contextual fulfillment and dynamic adaptation. Below is a structured breakdown of the updated hierarchy, integrating modern insights: "Self-actualization is not a static endpoint but a lifelong process of aligning actions with intrinsic values, mediated by secure attachments and optimal challenge (flow)." —Updated Psychological Synthesis of Maslow’s Theory Modern Hierarchy of Needs: 1. Physiological & Safety Needs Modern Context: Neuroscientific evidence confirms these as biological imperatives, but stress responses (e.g., cortisol dysregulation) now highlight how chronic insecurity (e.g., economic instability) distorts higher-order motivation. Example: Studies on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) show how early deprivation impairs cognitive flexibility, reinforcing the need for stable foundations. 2. Love & Belonging (Attachment Theory Integration) Modern Context: Secure attachment styles (Bowlby/Ainsworth) replace Maslow’s broad "social needs," emphasizing how relational bonds (e.g., parental, romantic) shape emotional regulation and resilience. Example: Adults with secure attachment exhibit better decision-making under stress, while anxious-avoidant individuals may prioritize independence over collaboration. 3. Esteem & Autonomy (Self-Determination Theory) Modern Context: Deci & Ryan’s SDT reframes esteem as autonomy, competence, and relatedness, aligning with intrinsic motivation research (e.g., flow theory by Csikszentmihalyi). Example: Employees in autonomy-supportive workplaces report higher job satisfaction and creativity, as their intrinsic needs are met through meaningful challenges. 4. Self-Actualization (Flow & Post-Actualization States) Modern Context: Self-actualization is now viewed as dynamic and multifaceted, incorporating: Flow States: Optimal engagement in activities (e.g., artists in "the zone") that merge action and awareness. Post-Actualization: Self-transcendence (e.g., altruism, spiritual growth) emerges as a higher-order phase beyond individual fulfillment. Example: Research on nuns’ autobiographies (Danner et al.) found that those reporting frequent positive emotions and social integration lived longer, linking self-actualization to longevity. Critical Refinement: Modern psychology rejects the hierarchy’s rigid progression, instead proposing a fluid model where needs interact cyclically. For instance, a flow state (e.g., playing music) may temporarily satisfy self-actualization but requires secure attachments to sustain long-term. Three Cognitive Biases and Their Impact on Self-Perception Cognitive biases distort human judgment, often reinforcing self-enhancing or self-protective narratives. Below are three biases with structured thought experiments to illustrate their effects on self-perception. 1. Dunning-Kruger Effect The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their abilities while experts underestimate theirs due to metacognitive limitations. Thought Experiment: A novice chess player, after watching three YouTube tutorials, confidently challenges a grandmaster to a match. When the grandmaster wins decisively, the novice attributes the loss to "bad luck" or "arbitrary rules," while the grandmaster acknowledges the skill gap. This illustrates how lack of self-awareness (a hallmark of the Dunning-Kruger effect) leads to overconfidence in incompetence. Real-World Impact: Education: Students with low prior knowledge often resist feedback, believing they grasp material better than peers or instructors. Workplace: Junior employees may overcommit to projects, underestimating time or resource constraints. 2. Confirmation Bias The preference for information that confirms preexisting beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence. Thought Experiment: A political commentator, convinced that "economic policies always fail," selectively shares studies showing past recessions while dismissing data on successful interventions (e.g., stimulus packages post-2008). When presented with evidence of policy efficacy, they argue, "Those studies are flawed" or "Correlation doesn’t imply causation." This bias reinforces ideological echo chambers, where self-perception aligns only with confirming narratives. Real-World Impact: Health: Individuals may reject medical advice (e.g., vaccines) if it contradicts their worldview, despite overwhelming evidence. Relationships: Partners in conflict may interpret neutral actions as hostile if they align with preconceived notions of the other’s intent. 3. Self-Serving Bias The tendency to attribute success to internal factors (e.g., "I’m talented") and failure to external factors (e.g., "The test was unfair"). Thought Experiment: A salesperson credits their $100,000 commission to "hard work and charm," but blames a missed target on "economic downturns" or "uncooperative clients." When asked to reflect, they insist their efforts were "above average," despite objective performance reviews. This bias preserves self-esteem by dissociating failures from personal responsibility. Real-World Impact: Leadership: Managers may take credit for team successes while deflecting blame for failures, undermining trust. Legal Systems: Defendants often argue mitigating circumstances for crimes, while prosecutors highlight character flaws—both reflecting self-serving attributions. Unifying Insight: These biases reveal how humans construct coherent self-narratives, even when evidence contradicts them. Understanding their mechanisms—particularly in high-stakes decisions (e.g., investing, healthcare Ethical and Moral Dimensions of Human Nature The ethical and moral dimensions of human nature explore how philosophical frameworks, legal systems, and technological advancements redefine the boundaries of morality, agency, and personhood. These dimensions intersect with questions of justice, rights, and the unique capacities that distinguish humans—whether biological, cognitive, or cultural. Ethical theories such as utilitarianism and deontology offer competing visions of moral decision-making, while human rights frameworks dynamically expand or restrict the scope of "human" through legal and social evolution. Meanwhile, the rise of artificial intelligence introduces new challenges: Can machines exhibit moral agency, or do they merely simulate human-like behavior? This section examines these tensions through comparative analysis, historical legal milestones, and the philosophical implications of AI. Utilitarianism vs. Deontology in Defining Moral Agency Utilitarianism and deontology represent two foundational ethical frameworks that fundamentally differ in their approaches to moral agency, consequences, and duty. Utilitarianism, rooted in the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, prioritizes the maximization of overall well-being, often measured by pleasure or happiness. In contrast, deontology, particularly Immanuel Kant’s theory, emphasizes adherence to moral rules and duties, irrespective of outcomes. Below is a comparative analysis of their core principles, strengths, and ethical dilemmas, illustrated through the trolley problem. Core Principles and Philosophical Foundations Utilitarianism operates on the principle of the greatest happiness principle, where actions are judged by their consequences. Bentham’s formulation focuses on quantifying pleasure and pain through the hedonic calculus, while Mill’s approach emphasizes higher pleasures (e.g., intellectual or moral satisfaction) over mere sensory gratification. In contrast, Kantian deontology is grounded in the categorical imperative, which asserts that moral laws must be universalizable and treat individuals as ends in themselves, never merely as means. The distinction lies in whether morality is consequence-based (utilitarianism) or rule-based (deontology). Criteria Utilitarianism (Bentham/Mill) Deontology (Kant) Moral Foundation Consequentialism: Maximize overall well-being (pleasure/happiness). Duty-based ethics: Act according to universal moral laws (e.g., "Do not lie"). Key Principle Actions are right if they promote happiness; wrong if they produce suffering. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. Approach to Moral Agency Individuals are moral agents insofar as their actions contribute to collective utility. Moral agency is tied to rational autonomy and adherence to moral duty, regardless of outcomes. Strengths Flexible and adaptable to complex societal needs (e.g., public policy, healthcare triage). Focuses on outcomes, which can align with democratic values of majority well-being. Provides clear, absolute moral rules that protect individual rights (e.g., prohibitions on lying or killing). Respects intrinsic human dignity, avoiding utilitarian trade-offs that sacrifice individuals for the "greater good." Weaknesses Risk of "tyranny of the majority," where minority rights are sacrificed for collective utility. Difficulty in quantifying happiness or predicting long-term consequences. Rigid rules may lead to morally counterintuitive outcomes (e.g., refusing to lie to a murderer asking for a victim’s location). Challenges in applying universal laws to culturally or contextually specific dilemmas. Application to the Trolley Problem Pulling the lever to divert the trolley (sacrificing one to save five) is morally justified if it maximizes overall lives saved. Pulling the lever violates the duty not to actively kill; pushing a large person onto the tracks (a more "personal" act) may also be seen as morally impermissible. The trolley problem exemplifies how utilitarianism and deontology clash in practice. While utilitarianism may advocate for the "greater good," deontology insists on the sanctity of individual rights, even at the cost of collective outcomes. These tensions persist in modern ethical debates, such as in medical ethics (e.g., resource allocation during pandemics) or AI ethics (e.g., autonomous vehicles prioritizing passenger vs. pedestrian safety). Expansion and Contraction of "Human" in Human Rights Frameworks Human rights frameworks have historically served as both a mirror and a catalyst for redefining what it means to be "human." Legal and social movements have expanded the scope of personhood to include marginalized groups—from enslaved individuals to non-human entities—while also contracting it through exclusionary practices. Below is a timeline of key legal milestones that illustrate this dynamic, followed by an analysis of how these frameworks have evolved to address equity and inclusion. Historical Context and Evolution of Personhood The concept of "human" in legal terms has been fluid, often reflecting power structures rather than inherent moral worth. For instance, enslaved Africans were legally classified as property in colonial laws, while Indigenous peoples were denied citizenship in many nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) marked a turning point by asserting that all "members of the human family" are entitled to rights, yet it initially excluded women, colonial subjects, and non-human entities. Subsequent treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and regional conventions (e.g., European Convention on Human Rights) gradually dismantled these exclusions, though gaps persist for groups like stateless persons, refugees, and non-human animals. Year Legal Milestone Group Affected Impact on Definition of "Human" 1215 Magna Carta (England) Free men (excluded serfs, women, and non-nobles) Limited rights to a narrow class; reinforced feudal hierarchies. 1807 British Slave Trade Act Enslaved Africans First legal recognition of enslaved persons as deserving protection, though not full personhood. 1865 13th Amendment (USA) Enslaved persons Legally abolished slavery, extending personhood to formerly enslaved individuals. 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) All "members of the human family" (theoretically universal) Established a global standard but initially excluded women, Indigenous peoples, and non-human entities. 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Women, racial minorities, colonial subjects Expanded rights to marginalized groups but retained state sovereignty loopholes. 1979 Convention on the Ultimately, the definition of a human being is not a fixed truth but a living tension between freedom and constraint, biology and culture, and individuality and collectivity. Existentialism’s emphasis on responsibility collides with neuroscience’s mapping of mirror neurons, while Indigenous rituals and digital memes alike demonstrate humanity’s relentless drive to symbolize and transcend. As artificial intelligence blurs the boundaries of cognition and ethics redefine moral agency, the question persists: Is humanity a biological given, a philosophical construct, or an endless horizon of potential? The answer lies not in a single answer but in the continuous negotiation of what it means to think, feel, and choose—collectively and alone. FAQ What is the song "What Is a Human Being Gotta Be Like" about? The song "What Is a Human Being Gotta Be Like" is a 1967 track by the British rock band the Beatles (credited to John Lennon and Paul McCartney). It’s a psychedelic rock song with surreal, philosophical lyrics questioning humanity’s purpose and existence. The lyrics playfully explore absurdity and self-reflection, like "What is a human being gotta be like?" and "What is a human being gotta do?" What is the philosophical definition of a human being? Philosophically, a human being is often defined as a rational, self-aware, and moral agent capable of abstract thought, language, and culture. Key perspectives include Aristotle’s view of humans as "political animals" (rational beings in society), Descartes’ "thinking thing" (mind-body dualism), and existentialist ideas like Sartre’s emphasis on freedom and self-creation. Many theories also highlight consciousness, emotions, and the ability to shape meaning. What qualities does a human being need to have? A human being is typically characterized by biological traits (e.g., bipedalism, complex brain structure) and cognitive/emotional capacities like consciousness, language, empathy, and moral reasoning. Philosophically, qualities often include rationality, creativity, sociality, and the ability to reflect on existence. Biologically, humans share traits like adaptability and tool use, but culture and individual experiences define much of what makes a person uniquely human. What are the lyrics to "What Is a Human Being Gotta Be Like"? The full lyrics include lines like: What does the Bible say a human being is? The Bible describes humans as created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), emphasizing spiritual, moral, and relational qualities like dominion over creation, free will, and the capacity for love and sin. Ecclesiastes highlights humanity’s search for meaning, while Psalms and Proverbs stress wisdom, purpose, and dependence on God. Theological views often frame humans as unique among creatures due to this divine connection. Are there songs titled "What Is a Human Being"? Yes, besides the Beatles’ song, other tracks include "What Is a Human Being?" by the band The Zombies (from their 1968 album Odessey and Oracle), a psychedelic folk-rock piece with existential themes. The Beatles’ version is more widely known, but both explore similar questions about identity and existence. Searching by artist or album can reveal lesser-known covers or interpretations. cognitive-science cultural-identity ethical-theory evolutionary-anthropology philosophy-of-human-nature Leave a Comment Name Comment Post Comment Comments are moderated before appearing. The data you submit is processed according to the Privacy Policy of Voltefac.