HUMAN VS.

&

& is a glyph created from the combination of "e" and "t", the two letters present in the Latin word for "and": et. If & is anything, it is a symbol (and, one could argue, an unnecessary one at that) harking back to the Latin roots undulating within the English language.

To compare Humans and &, we're going to look at what both of them symbolize. Talking about symbolization and human beings might encompass a wide assortment of religious and philosophical views, but we'll look at Western civilization since & is a rooted from a Latin word.

It's best if we start with the beginning.
Origin stories are, often, important clues into the character of a culture, so looking at the origin of & might provide us with insight into its essence.
The origin story of the ampersand is a most relevant tale because it circles around human error. A scribe in the 1st century A.D. once wrote the e and the t too close together and thus began a chain reaction which evolved with each generation of scribes into the current incarnation of &. The chart below shows the et which began the evolution, then the development process reaching the currently accepted form as the invention of printing presses and typesetting eliminated significantly the potential for human error.




In the same sense, human beings are the result of several jumps in their development. To call evolution a series of errors may incorrect, rather it is the result of lessons learned from errors. Human beings, like the ampersand, have undergone much development over the course of a million years. Much like the ampersand, the current product resembles the original very little.









The origin of man has, according to scientists, never stopped and never will. No living thing will ever stop evolving or "correcting" past mistakes. In this sense, & and humans find common ground.

& and Man
But is there any goal in mind?
One must ask this with & as well as with human beings: Is there an ultimate goal to the development of &, an ideal form being sought?
French linguist (and father of modern linguistic thought) Ferdinand de Saussure answered a most furtive "no". For him, there was no destiny of language; it was the caprice of the current cultural tendencies. In this sense, & has no eventual shape except what the current generation (and next and next and next and so on...) does to it. The & (as well as all words, according to Saussure) had no essence. Punctuation are simply tools of the written language created for the amusement and convenience of those who speak it.

Yet, is this the same for man?

One could point to Sartre or Camus and read aloud the myth of Sisyphus to say man's life is meaningless, that humans will continue to evolve into eternity or until they destroy themselves. Or, backing up a bit, one could quote from Kierkegaard that people must construct their own truth (or truths). In this sense, the symbolic evolution of humans could parallel that of & or it could be interpreted as part of a cycle or part of a journey toward creating an ultimate being or society (as in Nietzsche's Übermensch). The jury, as one might say, is
tied. So, looking into destiny may not be a good route for discerning a sizable connection between & and man. One will have to look at what each object symbolizes. For &, that means within the context of the language. For humans, that means within the context of the world.


The Vanity of Nature?
& stands in the place of "and", but why? Why should & be used? It is an outdated ligature that is a hold-over from a time prior to the English language. The word "and" is not that long, yet a symbol is used for it. Is & a symbol for the impetuous nature of society? Is there a sense of the presumptuous in this symbol?
Perhaps both.
& is the result of a society on the run, needing shorter sentences and language forms to deal with an ever accelerating country; but, it is also a indication of a light air of arrogance. Not an overbearing arrogance, but merely a desire to retain the royalty inherent in the roots of the English language. In a sense, & adds some street cred to the language. Yet, on the whole, it is a meaningless addition; & is linguistic vanity.
Running with that idea, are human beings nature's vanity? Is it her way of showing off?
Humans are the highest developed creatures on the planet, yet they are also the highest liability. No one can appreciate more nor destroy more than human beings. If this is nature's way of showing off, then she has a lot of explaining to do in some areas.
Comparing & and humans symbolically proves difficult. & is a useless addition to the world of words, rather an interesting tool for conveying something already easily conveyable. Humans are both an triumph of nature as well as a monster. The comparison is too difficult to be made here.

Conclusion
Overall, & and humans are similar. They are both the result of long process of development that is not over yet. However, whether their journey is meaningless or purposeful remains under consideration. Unlike &, which has definite but somewhat pointless symbolization, humans' symbolization is an existential matter. Are humans the vanity or bane of nature? If they are the vanity, is it vanity in the purely aesthetic sense or vanity in a presumptuous arrogant sense?

It appears that the relationship between & and humans is still not settled. Yet, this small feature can be taken from the discussion. As & is the seamless cohesion of two letters which form one idea (and), so humans are the cohesion of two forces (the vanity and bane of nature) which form one person. There is the capacity for good and bad within human beings. Therefore, perhaps the consideration should not which characteristic should be picked, but what is the final result of the combination of these two attitudes?

It is a conversation that deserves ..., rather than &.