Since everyone posted a possible question for section 1, I figured I might pose a possibility for the final essay: Throughout this course, we discussed how we perceive ourselves and others as human beings and how it informs the behavior/beliefs of individuals. Using at least one primary text from each section and any number of critical sources, compare and contrast how Medieval and Posthuman authors employed differing views of embodiment (through appearance and/or actions) to assert their claims on what it truly means to be human. For instance, how does Julian of Norwhich’s belief that the human soul as eternally living through God’s love compare to the relationship between Spike and Billie in The Stone Gods? How do these works with contrast Transhumanist notions regarding the possibility of immortality through technology? There are a good number of possibilities.

Susan Akbari says her essay “Becoming Human” on pg.274  that “it is helpful to keep in mind these two pre-modern modes of categorizing the human – one theological, one philosophical; one based on how man differs from what is above him (God), one based on how man differs from what is below him (the animal)” when interpreting medieval literature. Choose one critical text and one imaginative text from the second half of the semester that utilizes a comparison with either the divine or the animal to position the medieval definition of humanity into context and explain why the author chose this particular medium as a point of comparison.

I think this question would be most useful in the first half of the exam, in section II, that deals with short essay questions focused on the material we learned post midterm.

In Part I section two of the final exam, I would like to have a question explaining a the significance of material taken from Bynum’s “Shape and Story.” I think one of the best passages to offer as a prompt to the larger underpinning significance of the medieval conception of personhood and embodiment in this chapter is : “Shape matters…without it, there is no story, and hence no self. For my self is my story, known only in my shape, in the marks and visible behaviors I manifest–whether generic or personal. I am my skin and scar, my gender and pigment, my height and bearing, all forever changing–not just a performance, as some contemporary theory would have it, but a story” (181).

Were I teaching this class next semester, I’d start off with this new article in Harper’s Magazine:

Or maybe this new article in The Atlantic magazine:

I really enjoyed Taylor’s creative presentation, it was interesting to see people outside of class react to the questions we discussed over the semester. Personally, I had never even considered that my concept of what it meant to be human was socially constructed or how much it influenced my perception of things. As I watched the interviews, what struck me the most was the variety of responses. People noted the need for free will, intelligence, emotion, and the obvious physical aspects that commonly define humanity. Perhaps the most uniting feature of their responses was the strong strand of traditional liberal humanist notions. Everyone seems to possess this deeply engrained concept (in the United States at least) that being human means the ability to think independently and affect change on their environment. Few people realize the ways in which our aspects environment (especially technological ones) play a part in shaping our world independently of our design. For instance, we also discussed the way in which constant internet action has come to seriously change the way our brain functions. I don’t think the people who invented the internet expected that the very chemical processes of our brains would change! So, coming back to Taylor’s presentation, I find it surprising that the concept of the Post-human is not better known to society, that we still cling to somewhat outdated beliefs. For me, the Post-Human means the awareness of the constantly evolving nature of humanity, effectually inter-connected through all various cultural interactions past and present.