An individual is considered an "individual" if he seeks fun (or happiness) , and through his journey to this time, he has found ways with which he can satisfy his desire for happiness. The methods he has found for his happiness serve as a "signature", and an individual is an "individual" when he has some "signature". Individuals without signatures are looked upon as non-entities, non-individuals.
Strangely, this signature concept is so imbibed in the minds of almost all men in the world, that it is trite.
This concept must have some fundamental cause, considering its universal acceptance.
However, it is interesting to appreciate the possibility that a person might not always make moves towards his happiness. He may not have a clear definition of his own happiness, or maybe he has not learnt to move towards it. He might not have the desire to move towards it. Or, most commonly, he may have some problems (originating within self or outside) interfering in his effort.
Are these people not "men"?