Dept. of Philosophy, William Patterson University

Eric Steinhart works primarily on metaphysics using contemporary analytical and logical methods and tools. He is also interested in historical metaphysical systems (particularly Plotinus, Neoplatonism, and Leibniz). Steinhart was originally trained as a computer scientist and mathematician: he received his BS in Computer Science from Penn State University in 1983, after which he worked as a software designer for several years. Some of his algorithms have been patented. He earned an MA in Philosophy from Boston College, focusing on the history of philosophy. He was awarded the Ph.D. in Philosophy from SUNY at Stony Brook in 1996, winning the first “Distinguished Dissertation” award given to any Humanities student in the history of the University. His past work has concerned Nietzsche as well as metaphor (analyzed using possible worlds semantics). He has written extensively on the metaphysics and computation. He is featured in the film Chronotrip, a documentary about time travel. He is increasingly interested in the philosophy of religion, focusing on the intersection of mathematics and theology, non-theistic conceptions of God, and naturalized versions of classical resurrection theories. A relentless pythagorean, his metaphysical projects aim to use mathematical insights to reconcile science and theology: set theory as formal theology! He believes that all that ultimately exists are classes and their properties. He believes in the existence of more things than you do. He also likes New York City, New England, mountain hiking, all sorts of biking, chess,  microscopy, and photography.

It can be argued that every human has a natural right to the actualization of all his or her positive human potentials.  And, by extension, that the human species has a natural right to the actualization of all the positive potentials of human nature itself.  There are two difficulties with these ideas.  The first difficulty is to define the positive potentials as opposed to the negative potentials.  The positive potentials can be separated from the negative potentials by clear ethical reasoning focused on the individual and collective goods.  The second difficulty with the notion of actualizing human potentials is to define those potentials that are human as opposed to non-human.  We’ll focus on this second difficulty: what are the distinctively human potentials encoded in our individual and species natures?  One may argue that we have the right to develop our essentially human potentials (in ethically positive ways) but we do not have any natural right to make ourselves into non-humans.  We have a natural right to become more intensely human – to improve and amplify our humanity.  But we do not have a natural right to become hybrids or non-humans.  We will present a case for a system of features that are essentially human.  There is a logic of humanness encoded in our bodies – in our genetic self-descriptions.  Humans have an essential body plan or phenotypic architecture.  We have bilateral symmetry; we are self-assembling; we have an essential hierarchy of organ functions.  We have mouths rather than beaks; skin rather than scales; arms rather than wings.  But the essential human self-description admits of logical corrections and logical extensions.  Our genotypes are broken in many ways (e.g. we have a broken gene for vitamin C synthesis).  A repaired human is still a human. You have a natural right to a corrected and fully optimized human genotype; you do not have a natural right to a hybrid or non-human genotype.  Organs that perform their functions faster, more efficiently, more reliably, more precisely, and more powerfully, remain the same organs.  The human species has a natural right for its progeny to have the best human organs they can have.  Strikingly, these organs may be very different from human organs while still retaining their essential humanness.