Homo Motus or Homo Sapiens?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Since 1758 we have referred to ourselves as Homo Sapiens, literally "Wise Man." But I wonder if a better description might have been Homo Motus, "Emotional Man." It seems to me that we are far more emotional than we are wise. If we were as wise as our species identifier suggests, we would certainly be behaving differently. Constant war, nuclear weapons, racism, environmental destruction, extinction of species, etc., we are simply not living up to the label "Wise Man."

Or maybe there are actually two distinct species of humans inhabiting the planet at this time, Homo Sapiens and Homo Motus, much like Neanderthals and our ancestors coexisted for millenia in prehistoric Eurasia.

What do you think?

 

[James Brown]

I thought about something like this watching Amy Adams in Arrival.

We as a species certainly are easily frightened.

 

[bilby]

I'm with Pterry:

“The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.”

― Terry Pratchett, The Science of Discworld II: The Globe

 

[Jokodo]

I'm with Pterry:

“The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.”

― Terry Pratchett, The Science of Discworld II: The Globe

Thanks for the hint. I somehow managed so far to leave out the Science of Discworld series despite being a great Pratchett fan. Unknowingly of his use of pan narrans, I've occasionally used the similar pan loquens myself, though, rusty as my Latin is, I'd guess narrans is even slightly more accurate.

Although I feel that even pan loquens and (maybe to a slightly lesser extent as it brings forth the social function of language) pan narrans share one of the problems with homo sapiens, it's idealistic philosophy: They put the focus on our cognitive abilities as that which distinguishes us from other primates, when a materialistic conception would shift the attention to our environment and they way we interact with it and shape it (including conspecifics, that is our social environment).

If I were to vote for a name to replace homo sapiens in serious, it'd thus probably be pan faber.

 

[bilby]

I'm with Pterry:

“The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.”

― Terry Pratchett, The Science of Discworld II: The Globe

Thanks for the hint. I somehow managed so far to leave out the Science of Discworld series despite being a great Pratchett fan. Unknowingly of his use of pan narrans, I've occasionally used the similar pan loquens myself, though, rusty as my Latin is, I'd guess narrans is even slightly more accurate.

Although I feel that even pan loquens and (maybe to a slightly lesser extent as it brings forth the social function of language) pan narrans share one of the problems with homo sapiens, it's idealistic philosophy: They put the focus on our cognitive abilities as that which distinguishes us from other primates, when a materialistic conception would shift the attention to our environment and they way we interact with it and shape it (including conspecifics, that is our social environment).

If I were to vote for a name to replace homo sapiens in serious, it'd thus probably be pan faber.

Pan faba:

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think the idea was that humans are the most sapiens of species and the least emotional among those that are at least substantially sapiens, say all mammals for example.

So, while I agree with the idea that emotion is more important in deciding our behaviour, Homo Sapiens Sapiens still is the only exemplar of how much wisdom evolution can result in. That has to be significant. It's value is relative and somewhat emotional, but it's also truly significant. We are the most sapiens thing we know of in the whole universe. Not too bad, that.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm with Pterry:

“The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.”

― Terry Pratchett, The Science of Discworld II: The Globe

Thanks for the hint. I somehow managed so far to leave out the Science of Discworld series despite being a great Pratchett fan. Unknowingly of his use of pan narrans, I've occasionally used the similar pan loquens myself, though, rusty as my Latin is, I'd guess narrans is even slightly more accurate.

Although I feel that even pan loquens and (maybe to a slightly lesser extent as it brings forth the social function of language) pan narrans share one of the problems with homo sapiens, it's idealistic philosophy: They put the focus on our cognitive abilities as that which distinguishes us from other primates, when a materialistic conception would shift the attention to our environment and they way we interact with it and shape it (including conspecifics, that is our social environment).

If I were to vote for a name to replace homo sapiens in serious, it'd thus probably be pan faber.

That's not how it works. If we merge humans and chimps into one genus, then we're Homo narrans or Homo loquens, and they're renamed Homo troglodytes. Taxonomic names are assigned based on seniority.

 

[4321lynx]

Seems there is a confusion between knowledge, experience and wisdom in our minds and even more so in our actions. Humans have much knowledge, some have extensive experience, few have wisdom, even fewer have all three, and almost none have all three uncoloured adversely by emotions. A Sapiens by any other name is just a human.

 

[Jokodo]

I'm with Pterry:

“The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.”

― Terry Pratchett, The Science of Discworld II: The Globe

Thanks for the hint. I somehow managed so far to leave out the Science of Discworld series despite being a great Pratchett fan. Unknowingly of his use of pan narrans, I've occasionally used the similar pan loquens myself, though, rusty as my Latin is, I'd guess narrans is even slightly more accurate.

Although I feel that even pan loquens and (maybe to a slightly lesser extent as it brings forth the social function of language) pan narrans share one of the problems with homo sapiens, it's idealistic philosophy: They put the focus on our cognitive abilities as that which distinguishes us from other primates, when a materialistic conception would shift the attention to our environment and they way we interact with it and shape it (including conspecifics, that is our social environment).

If I were to vote for a name to replace homo sapiens in serious, it'd thus probably be pan faber.

That's not how it works. If we merge humans and chimps into one genus, then we're Homo narrans or Homo loquens, and they're renamed Homo troglodytes. Taxonomic names are assigned based on seniority.

I know. It's would be more effectful the other way round, more of a push towards recognising how close we really are.

 

[Angry Floof]

"Sapient" also means self aware, and that's certainly true of us. We may not (yet) be wise by our definition of the word, but in general terms, we are "the knowing species" as Daniel Dennett put it. Describing us simply as emotional sort of erases what is maybe the most important aspect of our intelligence - the fact that we can exercise our executive functions over animal brain. Otherwise, you might as well just call us gorillas and forget about our real (not imagined or wished for) potential.

 

[Thomas II]