Page 95 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

F R E E D O M : O N T O L O G I C A L A N D M O R A L
in its symbolic dimension, as highlighted by thinkers such as
Lacan. Biology has pointed to anatomical differences—brain
size, vocal structure, neural complexity. Others have suggested
tool-making, social organization, or even ethical behavior.
Yet all of these criteria remain inconclusive. Increasing
evidence shows that animals, too, display rudimentary forms
of language, tool use, social structures, and even behavioral
norms. The difference, therefore, cannot be located securely
in any one of these functions.
Western Christian theology has traditionally emphasized
rationality and intelligence as the defining mark of humanity.
But modern science has demonstrated that these capacities
also exist, in varying degrees, within the animal world. Like-
wise, the notion—often emphasized in Eastern theology—
that humanity is distinguished by the possession of an im-
mortal soul, while true within the framework of faith, does
not provide a point of dialogue with scientific thought, since
it cannot be empirically verified.
Moreover, as we have already seen, the Greek Fathers do
not define the human being by the soul in isolation, but always
in its unity with the body.
If, therefore, we seek a point of convergence between theol-
ogy and science regarding what is uniquely human, we must
look elsewhere.
It is in the human being’s tendency to transcend nature that
this specificity becomes evident.
Unlike animals, which adapt themselves to nature, the hu-
man being seeks to surpass its limits. This transcendence ap-
pears most clearly in two fundamental expressions: the hu-
man attitude toward death, and the human capacity for art.
All living beings resist death. The instinct for survival is
universal. But only the human being refuses to accept the fi-
95