Man defines himself as human by contrast with animal irrationality

Evidence

The analysis of noetic plasticity and of the role that habit plays in it will allow us to shed new light on the question of the ‘the proper of man (le propre de l’homme)’ and of the limits, animal and divine, that reserve for him his place. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 317 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Between animal habit and human habit, the real distinction lies in the way human habit has an innate tendency to conceal its identity as habit. Such a tendency springs from human habitus itself. In the case of the animal, influences from the outside world are immediately ‘intro-reflected’. With the human organism, on the other hand, such a reflection back onto the self is not an immediate action, body and soul not forming so instantaneously that ‘simple ideal unity’ which is required by self-feeling. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 551 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Plasticity and habit define man’s place between animal and divine limits — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 317; Habit itself precedes humanity and belongs already to animal existence; Human habit conceals its own habitual character, whereas animal habit does not — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 551 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Plasticity and habit define man’s place between animal and divine limits #complicates (0.80) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 317
• Habit itself precedes humanity and belongs already to animal existence #complicates (0.78)
• Human habit conceals its own habitual character, whereas animal habit does not #expands (0.72) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 551