Civilized Man v Barbarous Man

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

In this thread I’m going to split the specie of man into two, as a dualism. This dualism will categorize man into the types of ‘Civilized’ versus ‘Barbarous’. I will call the civilized man as the “Roman”. I will call the barbarous man as the “Gaul” or “German”. Both of these types represent a communion within the white, european race. I’m uninterested in delving into the civilized or barbarous nature of other, colored races. Other thinkers and intellects can analyze the colored races, as they see fit. My interest is specifically upon my own kind here, the white, pagan, european male.

Speaking of paganism, this is an ideology of barbarity, and therefore must side with the Gauls. Paganism represents the northern european “Protestantism”, a rebellion against the christian, southern european, catholic papacy and military order. The term “Protestant” is simply newspeak (newspeak = old concepts renamed, under new names, to obfuscate and confuse people) for paganism. Protestants = Pagans. And for the sake of this thread, I will lump jews and christians together as one giant conglomerate type. Jews are also christians. Therefore, jews = christians. Therefore, you can simplify all of these introductory concepts into a few simple dichotomoies.

  1. Gaul v Roman
  2. Pagan v Catholic
  3. Protestant v Christian
  4. Barbarous v Civilized

As you can easily see the outlines, the “Roman Catholic Christian” is civilized and represents “Western Civilization”. Meanwhile the “German Pagan Protestant” is barbarous (uncivilized) and represents those unduly and unjustly subjugated by “Western Civilization”. Some political philosophers refer to pagans as “Society’s Discontents”. In other words the dualistic nature of men, creates an internal rebellion specific to the male gender. And this internal conflict is not shared by women/females. The female specie, is largely excluded from this dichotomy. Although of course, you hypothetically could apply these archetypes to women as well.

What are you? What is your bias? Ask yourself, truly and honestly. Are you a christian or jew? Are you a roman or german? Are you a protestant or catholic? What is your nature? What is your belief, your ideal, your morality? If you ask yourself simple questions such as these, then the answer ought to appear obviously and immediately. Because men cannot hide nor deny nature as much as people enjoy to believe. It’s rather obvious. You either fit into “Society”, or, you do not. And the ease by which you are subjugated into society, exposes you for what you are. If you find it “easy” or simple to live life happily and fruitfully within civilization, then it ought to become most obvious, that you are the civilized man. And if you struggle, cope with depression, barely manage your rage, and do not tolerate the most petty stresses of society, then you will eventually expose yourself as barbarous. You are unfit to live within society. Society has also relabeled the barbarous man as “criminal” or “not a real man”.

Notice that I use the terms “Society”, “State”, “Government”, and “Civilization” interchangeably. Because these all refer to the same, ultimate concept, of civilization.

Let this be the introductory post. In subsequent posts, I want to define each type of man more specifically, and also delineate their (unchanging, permanent) natures. The civilized man belongs in civilization. The barbarous man belongs in the wilderness. The civilized man is disadvantaged to live outside civilization. The barbarous man is disadvantaged to live outside the wilderness.

2

All a bit arbitrary ain’t it?
You forgot Christian v Muslim
Shiite/Sunni
left handed v right handed
Gay v Straight.

Black v white; rich v poor.

There aint no 'unchanging permanent natures". We were all in the wilderness and then we become civilised. We can go back too.
And all the first Protestants were Catholic to start with and people change their minds all the time.

There is just so much that is wrong with your post it is hard to know where to start.

eg

Uncivilised people have government, and society. Societies can be a-cephalic and have no government.

With such a poor understanding of basic anthropological concept I think your thread will attract only others of poor education.

PS. BTW Protestant is not an opposition of Christianity, but of Catholicism.

A poor start to a 100post yawn.

As for asking myself what I am. None of the above.

3

Stay in this thread and make yourself comfortable, troll, don’t disrupt some other threads and easier targets. I reach for trollbaits.

4

I suspect that one should place those who insist on polemics and/or false dichotomies into the category of “uncivilized”. Civility requires attention to truth. Truth is not formed of “black/white”, “insider/outsider” poles. Truth is about degrees of characteristics. Or as the Roman Catholics say, “Evil does not exist, only degrees of good.”

“You are either one of us or one of them” isn’t something truly civilized people say or think.

Truly civilized people know that better than the lesser or “uncivilized”, behave, and speak accordingly.

5

It looks like many here are against this dichotomy already, which is a bad sign. It seems as though we will have a lot of ‘Civilized’ men touting their own definitions around here.

6

Before divulging the immense amount of difference between the Roman (civilized man) and Gaul (barbarous man), we must first understand the natural difference between civilization and wilderness. What is “civilization”? And what is wilderness? The very first concept related to civilization is artifice. Civilization is artificial. Artifice is opposed to nature. Therefore, civilization is anti-natural or un-natural. Civilization seeks to change an environment in such a way as to secure the lives of its inhabitants. Like a house or shelter, an organism creates a protective, safe area for itself. And in so doing, the organism has exponentially increased odds of survival. Do organisms other than humans create “civilizations” for themselves? They do, in terms of housing and shelters. Many non human species manipulate the environment to suit themselves, like ants building an ant colony. Therefore, civilization is not unique to humanity.

Civilization is the expression of humanity.

7

There are two types of organic biology that produce a (cognitive) pathological dualism.

The first type seeks Order and Security. The second type seeks Chaos and Freedom. The first type obviously represents Civilization, and second type obviously represents Barbarity (wilderness). Now these two values are objective; they will apply differently to different species. And so these values will also apply differently to the two different genders. Gender is specie. Because gender is type. Gender is also a category. And all categories are subject to the categorical imperative. Humans understand the world and life through these such categories.

On average, the human male tends to seek, favor, and value chaos & freedom (barbarity) over order & security (civilization). On average, the human female seeks the opposite. Human males seek barbarity. Human females seek civilization. Males value barbarity over civilization. Females value civilization over barbarity. In other words, males seek chaos instead of order. Females seek order instead of chaos. Now these are vast generalizations, specific to the modern and postmodern, global human climate and environment. So I’m speaking about the world today, not yesterday, and not in the future. Although the reality of globalization, a world civilization, is imminent and forthcoming. Postmodernity is the human era through which all areas of earth will become civilized. And no barbarous human groups will become able to resist, even through a vast alliance, the overriding, all encompassing, civilizing effects of the (democratic) majority against the disunited minority.

A global democracy is on the horizon, for better or worse, representing “all humanity”.

Here is my personal, subjective interpretation. Here is a sample of my perspective. Nobody can confine the generalized types of “male and female” to “order and chaos”. Because it’s not that simple. Humans cannot take the environment and era today (postmodernity) as the example and standard. Because existence represents all timespace. You need to look at the big picture. What was the state of the world, earth, 5000 years ago, past and future? What was it like then, before human civilization? And what will it be 5000 years in the future? Did earth and humanity “start” from civilization? Or didn’t humanity start from barbarity? The human past is fixed in tribal groups, around the world. Civilization developed and spread over long periods of time. We exist today in the end times. We were born at the end of one paradigm, the spread of human civilization, which will soon be completed.

Once the whole earth is civilized, then what will the human generations of the future think? What will they know of “wilderness and barbarity”? Except that these ideas will become a myth, a fiction. They may as well never existed at all. Because all a human will know, will be civilization.

It is only in the past, that a “barbarous” society will make sense to anyone. And the “wilderness” will also represent a past, a memory worth withholding, and valuing, in the minds of males predominantly.

8
  1. Civilisation is the expression of humanity.
  2. Civilisation is not unique to humanity.
  3. Other animals create civilisation for themselves.
  4. Other animals express humanity.

Is that what you are saying? That other animals are basically humans?

Therefore, many animals are unnatural. That is, they manipulate the environment.

I am unsure as to what you mean by natural then, if this is how you define civilisation. It would appear that ‘natural’ for you implies some kind of fatalistic non-intervention, a resilience to evolution even.
Is a desert the most natural place on earth?

9

Creation is the result of need.

Why do organisms create civilizations (housing, shelter, changing the environment)? The answer is rather simple and obvious. Organisms change the environment, to cater to themselves, and increase their own survival chances as a specie. Ants create an ant colony in order to survive, live, and thrive within an environment. This also represents the civilizing effect of the human specie. Humanity has expanded across the whole earth and civilized every square inch of terrain. Humans now can even touch the bottom of the oceans, and fly upward out of the atmosphere. Because the human desire to civilize, and change the earthly environment, is never complete. It is always lacking.

Because the threat of death never subsides, no matter how close to immortality a single specie may grow toward. To understand this, people must think sociologically. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not about the perpetuation of individuals. Evolution is about the perpetuation (survival) of species, which are types (categories). Humanity is an abstraction out of individuals. Individuals die, come and go, but the specie remains. And so the specie is immortal compared to the individual. A human may die. But humanity never dies.

Today “Humanity” and its derivative ideology of Humanism, represents the human civilizing and globalizing effect. Humanity seeks to capture all individuals and integrate everyone of seven billion human animals, into the category of humanity. Therefore, humanity is an enslaving force. It is a binding force, representing order and security. Civilization, while offering security, also offers a prison. Because what is a house, after you become imprisoned and dependent upon its safety? Autism is the postmodern social disease, which represents an overwhelming dependency upon the effects and results of socialization. Humans become so dependent upon civilization, housing, shelter, and security, that without these modern contrivances, most humans will die. This is the “post-domestication” effect. And it causes a “specie within a specie”. There are humans, yes. But there are also a large population of humans so dependent on civilization, that they are no longer “animals” at all, in the traditional sense.

There exist a larger and larger portion of ants, who cannot, could not even if they wanted to, leave the ant colony. They are hopelessly enslaved within, with no desire to leave, nor to even look out their windows. Humans are scared of anything “non human”. Humans are scared of “outside civilization”.

Let’s refer to this phenomenon as “post-domestication” effect, a collapse or implosion of the overall specie. This is a result of overwhelming socializing success, or, “Hedonism”.

10

This is incorrect. Evolution is only about the individual. Evolution occurs at the level of the individual, not at the level of species. A species doesn’t outlive the individuals that make it up. When the last individual of a species dies, so does the species. It is not evolution that gives species their traits, but the individuals that survive that give a species its traits. And ‘humanity’ will die out if all the individuals die.

I don’t have anything to add to your other comments, as I believe they are most likely premised on a fundamentally flawed understanding of evolution. Also, I get the impression that you are speaking beyond me, rather than actively engaging in discussion. That’s fine, I’ve had that happen in one of the other threads I tried to engage the OPer in. Carry on.

11

I agree with your basic premise or intention but not with the detail.

There is some difference between a male and maleness and the same is true for the other gender.

A male is not made of complete maleness, otherwise he cannot survive. It needs to some feminity to blend with its maleness in order to form a suitable mix. Pure maleness is very hard but extremaly fragile too.

The fact of the matter is that every human, irrespective of gender, use to have both characters. Males will always have some feminity but the ratio of their feminity would be less than what the women would have.

That is why males would have not remained pure barbaric. Their little feminity forced then to find and establish some sort of order over the time.

Maleness means change and feminity means stability/persistence. Too much change is bad and so the too much stability. The balance should be maintained. Secondly, both males and females should be aware of their respective strenght, applicaions and priorities.

with love,
sanjay

12

Just to note, biologically and genetically, what is male.

Male or “Maleness” is ascribed to the ‘Y’ portion of the XY male human chromosome pair. Therefore a layman can assert that the human male is “50% male and 50% female”, because he withholds one Y and one X chromosome. However the human female has a double X chromosome pair, “XX”. Therefore she does not have any “male” biology within her, no ‘Y’ chromosome. A layman would also need to assert that a female is absolute absent of male characteristics, which I agree with. Only men are “males”, by degree. However I disagree with this idea of “50% maleness”. Rather I’d say any individual man, a human male, is rather on a scale of maleness between 1-100%. And all females are “0%” males. No single woman has the ‘Y’ chromosome, except for some rare genetic anomalies, such as an “XXY” chromosome triplet composition.

Technically, biologically, genetically, not a single human female has anything “male” about her. Therefore, this is the most obvious reason, why men and women are never “equal”. Because we have completely different biology and genetics. Instead, people should think of “maleness and femaleness”, as completely different species within themselves, which they are. A male is a different specie from a female, by nature of the genetic division. Most people think of a specie as “humanity”, and not a division of gender. But it makes much more sense from my point of view and perspective. And it should be common sense.

Other than biology and genetics, what is the most obvious difference between male and female humans? The sexual genitalia, females with enlarged breasts, on average the human female is smaller than the human male, and only human females can be inseminated, carry children, and birth children. Therefore, again, men and women are not equal, at all, by function, purpose, and reason.

It’s best for commoners and peasants to think of this as three separate identities.

#1 There exist “men”.
#2 There exist “women”.
#3 There exist “humans”.

And none of these are the same. They’re all different. A “human” is inasmuch an abstraction as “man or woman”, or even more so. The nature of the ideological abstraction is to understand “human” behaviors, but not so much the human body, anatomy, or genetics. Because if the “human” distinction were true and real, then there ought to be more in common between males and females than there actually is. In fact, it is through the shared ‘X’ chromosome that humanity shares a specie.

Therefore a “human” is technically, genetically, female, and not male. A human has no “maleness” at all.

13

Wizard,

You misunderstood me. I was not talking about genetics/biology.

with love,
sanjay

14

I would return that same complaint against you and Uglyharris.

This thread is about disseminating the difference between civil and barbarous societies, and understanding how males generally live within either.

What can you say about civilization, barbarity, or maleness?

15

This seems to be a non-systematic generalization based on “those and those said they and they are barbarians”. But if you define culture, you will have to make a new selection and division.

If you say “people of culture are those who in their quest for food are dependent on other people” then even Christians are barbarous, because they expect from god to bring them food.

16

Let’s divide this into “Civilian versus Non civilian (Barbarian)”.

Barbarians can be cultured (pagan religions). But civilians claim to be more cultured than barbarians. Civilization claims cultural dominance and preeminence over barbarian societies. Civilizations tend to be imperial and majestic, opposed to small tribal factions. Also civilizations afford much more free time for culture creating (cults) than barbarous societies. Civilizations also have more sophisticated education and indoctrination methods: churches, schools, libraries, universities, lots of books and literacy. The barbarian tends to be illiterate with no intention on becoming literate.

17

Literacy

Literacy, symbols, words, codes, thoughts, ideas, these represent the primary division between the Civilian and Barbarian. Civilization is large and unified; Barbarous tribes are small and fractured. Civilization is imperial; Tribes are anarchist. But the unifying and encompassing force of a civilization is its literacy. Let’s just call this “Code”. One of the goals of a large civilization, and the sign of its success, is to indoctrinate all babies with one code, one language. Today, at the beginning of the world culture (globalization), english will become the world language. All humans will eventually become indoctrinated with various forms of english, which all people anywhere will eventually understand, no matter from which part of the world you arise or originate. All will become bound by one code, one form of literacy.

Code is the first form of control over people. And the people who master these codes, can become the masters of civilization.

18

Civility has never existed. It’s a deceptive word much like a lot of language is.

Instead there are only different kinds of barbarism.

19

It has existed on paper, though, and if it wasn’t for that, we would act accordingly.

20

First thing, civilization and culture are not the same, but follow each other and thus the mistaking of each other. Civilization is a collection of rules and laws. Culture is something else, a unity of the artistic style. With literacy it has not much to do, actually all cultures begin with the oral tradition. Literacy is important when cultures decay. You can see many libraries there where the memory is bad, like in Alexandria. There where libraries flourish, men use makeup!