The Nonhuman Turn by Richard Grusin (University of Minnesota Press, 2015)
This book contains the range of current cultural and philosophical thought. And, the encounter between object-oriented ontology and the other methods in terms of the nonhuman. The most impressive thing in the book is being a host in a dinner party and the nonhuman turn appears to be a demanding attempt which is particular. Firstly, Richard Grusin mentioned ‘almost every problem of note that we face in the twenty-first century entails engagement with non-humans’ that means everyone has their own trouble in this contemporary 21 century about a human and the nonhuman. And the party, all guests are on the potential guest list so this party is opened to everyone. Also, he cites that a deep genealogy of scholarship attests to the rich history of interest in the nonhuman. To divide human and nonhuman there are various of incommensurable intellectual and ethical obligation. So, how can we declare the definition human and nonhuman? Which factors make this guideline? Literally, a dictionary definition of human is relating to or characteristic of humankind, of or characteristic of people as opposed to God or animals or machines, especially in being susceptible to weaknesses, showing the better qualities of humankind, such as kindness. To sum up, the meaning of human is not only related to physical, but also refers to personality, characteristic or morality. It is quite difficult to make exact definition “human”. Having said that, in my perspective, the human should think in a rational way that means the human should have at least few their own disciplines to keep and through this rational thoughts, the society would be controlled and make a connection to each human. Secondly, the human should care other humans in emotional and morality methods. These are related to the first view but more emotional asset. For example, the feeling of sympathy could be one of the emotions only human feel.