Why I didn't appreciate the narrative

I noticed the pattern dialogue between the narrator and Ishmael pretty soon after starting the book, but had not idea it was part of the Socratic dialogue. At first I really liked this style of writing; it answered questions I had as a reader, without really diverging from the plot. But I quickly started to realize that there wasn't actually that much of a plot. Instead, the whole book seemed to be a question and answer session between the dense narrator and the "all-knowing" Ishmael.
 Perhaps I liked the book less and less because the narrator never became any smarter or more intuitive. I expected him to at least figure out some answers for himself, but he seemed incompetent without the guidance of Ishmael. At this point, the questioning read more like an essay and I felt Ishmael was just throwing a bunch of information at the reader. I also feel like this Socratic dialogue was a way for Quinn to throw his "great" knowledge at the reader, while still somehow writing a fiction novel. I found myself most intrigued when the narrator was describing interactions away from Ishmael, as that created some character development.
This leads me to my next concern. Because the narrator only seemed to ask "who, what, where, when, why" questions, his personality was not shown at all through the text. This, along with the fact that he never revealed his name, left me unable to connect with the narrator and think of him as just another one of Ishmael's subjects. Without knowing what is going on in the narrator's mind, I have very little faith that he could continue Ishmael's teachings. He also doesn't seem to truly understand what Ishmael tells him, because he needs to ask about everything. At one point in the story, Ishmael tells him to think for himself, but that is quickly forgotten when he starts to question again.
Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston College, writes using the Socratic dialogue to fictitiously question famous figures. This is a fun way for him to share his ideas in a more intellectual and enjoyable fashion than just writing them in an essay. I think this is just what Quinn does in Ishmael, with the only difference being that Socrates is probably much smarter than our questioner.
I seem pretty critical of Quinn's method, but I was able to get through the book without losing too much focus. The Socratic Dialogue method was effective at explicitly defining Quinn's ideas, and I was able to keep up with the complex ideas. Really, I didn't like the style because the questioner lacks any independence whatsoever, and without guidance he could not make a difference in the world, just like the human race.

What Does it Mean to be Human?

I have been thinking a lot lately about what actually makes humans unique. Some people say the distinction comes with language, but other animals have ways to communicate. Our bodies obviously differentiate us from these animals, but how much of our humanity comes from physical appearance? Maybe it is our emotion, rationale, or morals that create "humanity." Interested in the answer to this question, I searched for some concrete set of distinguishing traits. This article  outlines some physical characteristics.

While I was reading through the traits, I thought about robots like these. They have almost human features, and certainly look the part. Yes, robots don't have human brains, or the capability to think for themselves, but that is a short time coming. Animal DNA is already being replicated to produce meats, and with 3D printing and other technologies, fake humans are not impossible. Which brings up another aspect of the question of what is "human"- clones.

I recently watched "Never Let Me Go," a sci-fi film about clones who were only created as organ donors. Their whole "life" is centered around expending parts of themselves as they are not considered humans by the other people in the movie. However, they experience human emotion and awareness just as any other humans. Their most human aspect, in my opinion, is their ability and readiness to love, proving they are more than just clones. The audience can see that although they were created artificially, they are pretty individual in their thoughts and actions- a very human characteristic. This reminds me of "Robbie."Although he doesn't look human like the clones, he seems to experience human emotion, and even thinks for himself. Does something have to be made organically in order to be considered human?

There is a new movie coming out which comes at this question from a different angle. As far as I can tell, "Transcendence" involves a man who downloads his brain onto a computer as his body starts to die. Although he loses his body, his brain seems to remain human. However, he models the ever-blurring line between technology and humanity as his computer/brain becomes increasingly powerful. Yes, his body is not human, but his brain, and therefore his consciousness, is. At what point does humanity stop?

As technology becomes more advanced, and clones/ genetically modified humans become more plausible for medical reasons, I become more and more confused by what makes humans distinct. Though my exploration, I developed even more questions, not finding an answer I agreed with. However, I personally have yet to come in contact with any of these closely human examples. For the time being, I guess I will continue to define humanity as the traits I see in myself and everyone I know.