Communication and language represent the underlying premise.

How can man think without language, logic, and words? What is a concept without direct reference to reality? What is a tree without material composition? What is a unicorn after subtracting the body of a horse? How can these questions be known or relevant, outside the english language? And what is language except a cultural artform and artifice of intelligence? Who created the first human culture and language? Aren’t people today the inheritors of this lineage? People use the words without understanding their source, and without recognizing reality. Concepts are not magical. Logic, statements, words, sentences, grammar, syntax, these all represent a system. Have you ever investigated this system?

Have you ever doubted the premise?

Logic is the foundation of language. People tend to focus on the words, their subjective connotations, underlying emotions, and simple sentence structures. But as laws govern all existential forces, so do they govern language. Logic is a form of cultural law and order. People tend to piece thoughts together at random, but instead with a focused intent. Without this focused intent, what is communication? Consider an act of singing, a melody, or a loud expression of rage and anger. These emotional outbursts are more random and chaotic, less logical and lingual.

Logic uses words, concepts, and rules to create and establish memes. These can grow as simple or complex ideas. A lone, simple sentence can represent a single idea. “Marshal speaks the truth.” And that lone statement is enough to convey a large range of complexity throughout a population. Marhal speaks the truth, or does he? Will the average man apply faith or doubt to this postulation? Some minds are positively and negatively inclined, biased, and favored. Some minds have a tendency to believe everything they receive, like a young, trusting child. Some minds are more prone to skepticism, cynicism, and absolutism. A doubter may never believe anything you say.

But this doesn’t mean you didn’t say it; you did say it.

The meaning and implication of words, thoughts, and ideas can be enough to change a person’s perspective. Ideas range in influential power and force. An authoritative individual may convey ideas which a vast majority of people automatically trust, without doubt. This phenomenon represents the danger of faith, religion, and spirituality. People become too trusting. And one error of logic, or misspeaking, can destroy many zealous lives. This is the danger of accepting all ideas literally, at “face value”.

There are many interpretations of language. It is not enough to merely establish the conepts, thoughts, and ideas underlying language as its substrata. The primary form of logic is the premise and presumption. The second form of logic is the utility of presumed positions. People sometimes presume too much from each other. Instead of asking questions, and digging deeper, the average man implies common definitions of common words of common thoughts. And this “common” language and logic is the essence of the underlying culture. There exist cultural beliefs, meanings, and purposes. These purposes are not just literary, but also physical. People live their whole lives around particular purposes.

What is the purpose of a blacksmith, a doctor, or a teacher?

Pretty good rambling.

A large percentage of our communication is also non-verbal. This is why words should be in synch with actions, or rather it is actions which follow the words that may determine the overall meaning of communication. And sometimes, people learn this the hard way. :smiley:

Yet, these too will communicate and influence behavior. A same phrase ( “Marshal Speaks the Truth”) can be said with different intonations and within different contexts, and it will have a different connotation and reactions each time. In every day communication, the how is just as important as the what. Have you ever had people ask you what is wrong when you spoke an everyday greeting because your intonation was off? Same words, slightly different intonation, and immediately you get a different reaction. People, especially those who know you, are sensitive to minor changes in your behavior, even if it’s just a change in tone of voice.

There are some psychologists that say that if you can’t put something into words, the mind will discard it into subconscious. And how many different phenomena do we experience in the course of our lives for which we do not have the words to communicate (but may still communicate by other means)?

Let’s make a differentiation between audible sounds made by people for the purpose of communicating, compared to sounds made by natural objects.

A waterfall flows, crashes, and splashes with a billion trickling drops of water. It creates a cacophony of audible sensation to ring in your ears. Listen carefully, what do you hear? Within all the chaos, there is a rhythm here and there, an overall gist of the flow of the current. A flowing stream or river has a sound. Different streams have different sounds, some with more rocks in them, some with lots of sand. Some have high waterfalls and steep drops. Some are very even and flat like a flood plain. The flow of water has too many sounds to choose from. Yet the streams are not speaking to you, are they? Does the wind speak to you? Does it whisper into your ears? Does it tell you things?

This represents the objective quality of communication. All sounds are objective in this fashion. Some may not intend to communicate to you. But sound itself, alone, isolated as a sensation and experience, is the basis for communication. Things speak to things, without “speaking” at all. So what’s the difference between a waterfall speaking to you opposed to a person? Do people always have “intent” about their expressions? Is everything a person does, and communicates, purposeful?

The difference between subjective communication and objective communication is that sense of purpose of speaking. It is not just the complex sound of a waterfall, instead a person speaking to another has intentions, meanings, presumptions, and purpose. Subjective communication is about minds communicating with other minds. And that is very deep and powerful if you think about it for a minute. Most would claim that a waterfall does not “intend” to speak to people. Yet, people make that mistake of identifying a purpose behind the sound of waterfall. It has a rhythm and a signature which stands out from all the other phenomena. It is unique. It has a unique material existence. And this uniqueness is demonstrated by its sound, as well as the other sensations it outputs.

It’s easier to think about communication beginning with the objective, instead of the subjective. Because people sometimes don’t have an intent within their communication. Many forms of communication are even accidental. I intended to say this, but people misinterpreted by meaning as something else. Nobody is at fault. Nobody is to blame. This merely reflects the fact that interpretations are as unique as the signature of the waterfall. There is uniqueness from one mind to the next. And that is the subjective factor of communication.

Bump, I believe there should be another post of mine in the thread? Should be two.

Now there is. 8-[

:-k #-o :confused:

Very clever, James…

Now that I’ve rambled about language and the nature of communication a bit, I’m going to move into the topic of philosophy next. What is philosophy? To me, philosophy is primarily about exploring and knowing the universe. This need or desire to know more comes from fear. When confronted with unknowns, what do conscious organisms do? How do evolved, cognitive organisms react to fear? Maybe this is universal. Organisms become curious, want to watch, study, inspect, poke and prod, and investigate the unknown. Organisms have a natural instinct to know more. Because it is through knowledge and understanding of the environment and other organisms, that fear subsides and becomes exposed in its irrationality. After you know what a snake is, how and why they react, which ones are poisonous and which ones are not, how to cure poison, then you become less afraid of snakes. Same with a dangerous vehicle or heavy industrial equipment item. The more you know about its mechanisms, controls, abilities, functions, purposes, then you become less afraid of the thing.

To know thing involves mostly learning. And people take learning for granted. People falsely presume that we “know how to learn”. Humans do not. In a sense, what humanity really needs, it to learn how to learn. Humanity needs to recognize a difference between what is already known, and what is currently unknown. Once this differentiation is made, then learning turns to focus on the unknown. Why do we need to learn about the already known? Humanity already knows a long list of things, calculus, mechanics, electronics, socialization, biology, etc. Maybe this knowledge is incomplete, and there is more to learn, but compare electronics with…space travel. Humanity knows a lot about electronics, and almost nothing about space travel and astrophysics.

But think about individuals too. Humanity, as a collective, knows a lot. But how much do single individuals know? Not very much from one person to the next. Instead, humans are specialized in knowledge in memory. Some groups know about calculus, the mathematicians. Other groups know about motorcycles, the mechanics. Other groups know about finance, the bankers. So humans split into groups by areas of knowledge.

Now here are the curious observations. Why is a child attracted to chemistry, opposed to anatomy? Given the option, the child prefers to learn and know more about chemistry. What is this about? Why do individuals prefer one type of knowledge over other? What is the nature of this specialization? If the need and desire to know about the world is rooted in fear, then isn’t interest also rooted in fear? Ignorance represents a deficiency of knowledge. Children particularly are ignorant and innocent about the world. They lack the formal education and memorization of facts. But the interest in chemistry, as an example, is peculiar, focused, fixed, specific. The interest has a determined direction. And this interest reflects the inner core, the soul, of the individual child. The child lacks formal knowledge about chemistry.

Knowledge is power.

Because individuals and humanity seek knowledge in response to fear, the acquisition of knowledge represents the overpowering of that corresponding, underlying, primal fear. Once enough knowledge and facts are acquired, compiled, and a “science” is created out of human contributions and learning, then this represents how humanity “overpowers” the aspects of nature which were once ignored and unknown. People call this “discovery”. Humanity discovers insights about the universe out of the unknown. Discoveries are never made through what is already known. All previous, a priori knowledge, merely represent the overall accumulation of previous human discoveries. Humans already invented the wheel. You don’t need to keep reinventing the wheel. Humans already discovered gravity. You don’t need to rediscover gravity.

To know is to learn. And by learning, people individually or collectively, accrue power. This power is knowledge. And this power is used to overcome the fear of what was previously unknown. On an individual level, this is easy to understand. A person has a fear of heights, or spiders. But by learning about heights, by climbing, by experiencing heights, by understanding safety, by understanding parachutes, by understanding balance, through knowledge, the fears can be overcome.

There seems to be a direct line between power, knowledge, fear, and the unknown. An individual encounters new experiences. You meet a new person, a stranger. You don’t know this stranger. And this is why you fear him or her. You fear what you don’t know. But the more you learn about this stranger, the more confidence you gain, and the more power you attempt to assert over the stranger. People attempt to know each other.

That’s when the mysteries truly being. Because knowing the objective world is one thing. But knowing the subjective worlds? That’s another. Is it easier to learn about a game of soccer and how to play it? Or is it easier to learn about people? Is there more mystery in a chemistry lab, or in the human soul?

It seems obvious that what humans don’t know about each other, is the deepest unknown, and therefore also the deepest fear. And what a human doesn’t know about another, is what the individual either does not know about himself, or refuses to acknowledge about himself. Something denied and repressed. Something that people do not want to know about. And that must be the origin of fears. Because fear exists within and without.

There is more mystery in subjects than objects.

A human being, a person, is much more complex than a rock. Organisms generally, perhaps universally, have much more complexity than objects. Because life is animated and autonomous. A human body can move itself with locomotion. A rock cannot. It does not have that animating quality of life, the spark of life, within it. But life does not require consciousness, and this is an observation that most people miss. Because humans are primarily and popularly solipsistic. Humans have a common belief that their own experiences, feelings, and thoughts, are shared by others, or can be produced by others. This is incorrect. Just because you, personally and subjectively, are conscious, doesn’t mean this trait applies to all other organisms and lifeforms. It does not. Just because you have this opinion, doesn’t mean others have it. Just because you feel this way, or think this, doesn’t mean others do as well.

In fact, common experiences, feelings, and thoughts maybe extremely rare. Maybe difference and uniqueness is the standard of life. Maybe nobody can be repeated, maybe no thoughts are copied, and maybe originality is the standard of existence. You cannot reproduce existence, no matter how hard you try. A copy of an original is once removed from its source. A copy of a copy is twice removed. Between every copy, there is a difference, at least in regard to physics. A copy is removed by space and time. For example, you copy text in a book. At the very least, the text is removed by a page. It does not share the same location. And if it did, then it would not share the same time stamp.

So difference could be posited as the norm, the original state of existence. Existence is unique and absolutely differentiated. Nothing is ever the same. Because time divides all things apart. If anything seems the same, or deemed and judged as similar, then this only can represent how humans attempt to memorize the objective world. But not even memories are the same, or similar.

This leads me into the topic of memories. Memories are unique because they represent two immediate facts. First, memories represent consciousness. An organism must be conscious, have a cognitive and neural network, to form memories. Memories are the result, the conclusion of cognition. Memories are the reward of cognitive evolution, the end, the consequence. Memories represent the cream off the top. Memories are the “good stuff” of life. Memories are the most precious things of life. Second, memories represent unique perspectives. Because the brains and minds which produce and create memories, are unique. Consider a large crowd of twenty thousand people in a football stadium, rooting for their opposing teams. It’s the superbowl. It’s fourth down and score is tied. One team runs in a final touchdown. Immediately, different emotions are produced. The fans of the winning team produce one memory, one of victory. The fans of the losing team, produce another memory, one of loss and failure. And as fans stand side by side, each has a different vantage point of the game. The game is experienced differently in the very back row, can hardly see the players, opposed to on the sideline with a great view, opposed to the vantage points of the players themselves, and the coach. And then there is the vantage point of the television and all the fans and watcher around the world.

Millions of different perspectives, focused on the same game. But every perspective, every brain, has a different impression.

So how can people claim that humans are the same? That humans have the same emotions, or can possibly think the same thoughts? What if humanity could not, and does not, and would not want to, even if humanity could? What if uniqueness and individuality is the standard, instead of the exception? What if everybody and everything is infinitely different? What if no objects could be judged the same? What if different rules and laws apply to every different thing? What if nothing is the same and all is different?

Why do people believe they own things?

To own something is an attempt to control that thing, whether it is an object or subject, whether it is another person or just a piece of gravel. Whatever a thing is, people want to manipulate the world. To manipulate the world is how humans attempt to impose order and control over the world. Organisms desire to change their environments to better suit themselves. Humanity has accomplished this manipulation of environments by creating societies, states, cultures, and civilizations. These are all manipulations of environments, to best suit groups of humans. After a change occurs, and deemed successful, people feel they “own” that change. “This is my culture.” Usually ownership corresponds with change, coercion, and manipulation. People feel they own objects, and other people, subjects, after a successful manipulation. People attempt to change other people, as well as the environment.

Consider ownership as beginning within your “own” body, and extending outward. Don’t you, at least, control your own life? Do you have direction? Do you have choice? Are you responsible for yourself? Do you have a morality, ethics, or culture? Do you have values? At the very least, you have some values. And these values begin with your natural instincts to survive. Your instincts keep you alive. Without them, or overturning them, you may die. Some people overturn instinct, and the fear of death, by committing suicide. Suicide is an example of no longer valuing yourself. If people do value themselves, then they will never commit suicide. Instead death will come from other directions. A person who values his or her life very much, more than most, may not commit suicide or “give up” and die, even in the face of great pain or impossible odds. A very self valued person will fight to the death, to the bitter end. These people are remarkable and highly esteemed by their communities and societies. Because they are seen as brave, courageous, and very valuable.

To own something, even yourself, is a moral endeavor. Because ownership is responsibility. After you manipulate something, change anything, even yourself, you are responsible for the consequences. You caused those consequences. And causality cannot be denied. You caused something to happen. In fact, just by being born, humans cause the world to change directly or indirectly. To exist is to cause. And to cause is to change. And changes have consequences, a potentially infinite number of derivative causes and changes extending outward.

To change anything, eventually changes everything. Because change is universal, not local. Throw a pebble into a pond, and you see its ripples fade away across the surface of the water. You do not realize, and you do not see, that those ripples extend into infinity. The ripples spread to the very end of the universe. You just weren’t paying attention. Your eyes are just not accustomed to see that, as mine are. I see them ripple to infinity. You weren’t watching close enough.

Because most people are not fascinated and curious enough. The ripples of the water “end” here. And they “begin” there. People want beginnings and ends. If events didn’t begin and end, if there were not starts and stops, then people would go mad. Humans need beginnings and endings, to make sense and understand the world. The average person needs finality and absolution. Causes are black and white. This causes that. That causes this. And it comes “full circle”. But that’s not existence. That’s just how a subjective mindset rationalizes and makes sense of the world. Most people, a majority, settle into a solipsistic and teleological mindset. Average joe believes the world revolves around him and his life. So he’s surprised when people don’t cater to his every wish, want, and fantasy. Average jane needs finality, a string starts and stops when you cut it with scissors. And that’s the end of it. By cutting the string, it is divorce from its past. Its form has changed. But just because you don’t remember its past, doesn’t mean it vanishes. Average jane doesn’t look too far forward, or backward, in time. The string used to be whole. And now its section is the new “whole”.

As a human, do you “own” yourself? Are you responsible for yourself? If you believe you are, then you admit a moral stance. You have a moral position. You cannot avoid this. If you wish to renounce all personal responsibility, accountability, then there are still consequences for your actions even though you may deny these. You are still a moral object. You still cause things and events to happen, even though you refuse to take ownership of the consequences.

Imagine that you are a parent, and you refuse to take responsibility for yourself. Can you at least “take responsibility” of your children? Are you responsible for your sexuality? Are you responsible for your sexual attractions? Most people I meet, personally in my own life, are not responsible by degree. Because there are degrees of responsibility as there are degrees of morality. Some people are much more moral than others. People are not moral, may simply not think about such ideas. Surely they go through life, cause things to happen, change the world in some small way, and produce consequences whether they take responsibility for them or not. But morality requires consciousness. You need to become aware of “your” self, “your” actions, and “your” consequences. This ought to give the words “your” “own” body, new meaning.

Do you own “your” “own” body? Are you responsible for “your” “own” mind?

The need to own things, be they objects or subjects, comes from fear.

People fear lack of control. This is a fundamental organic force, and therefore must constitute an objective moral, biological law. This is a universal law.

Organisms attempt to change their environment, to better suit themselves. This is a survival instinct. An organism wants to increase its odds and probability of survival. All organisms, every single one, from bacteria and virus, to fish in the sea, to humans on earth, to extraterrestrials in the heavens, want to increase their survival odds to 100%. Organisms want immortality. And some are closer to 100%. Others are closer to 0%. Some bacteria and viruses are very short lived. They live and die rapidly, as do insects. An individual ant, fly, or spider, may have a very short life. And its probability for surviving is low. But as a specie, they have large numbers to compensate for this short life. The closer an organism is to 0% survivability, the “lower” it is on the food chain, and the more rapidly it reproduces. Most organisms near 0% survivability are single cell, simple organisms, which reproduce asexually. More evolved organisms are sexual, representing male and female genders. Humans call animals “more evolved” those with longer life spans, and with higher survivability, as well as those organisms which make severe changes throughout environments. A “powerful” organism can change the environment very severely.

Consider an ant colony, surely that is complex, to a degree. But an individual human can destroy a whole colony of ants. A single ant could never touch a human civilization. So the power difference is obvious and too great. This is how humans justify human civilization and human power. It gives humanity a sense of pride and dignity, revolving around these self esteem and sense of power. “I can control this, therefore have power over this. I am arbiter of life and death.”

Despite having 99% survivability, it’s never enough. Organisms want 100%, immortality, god status. But organisms never reach 100%. Life is never guaranteed, no matter how much manipulation occurs. Even after humans manipulate all corners and small nooks of existence, it still won’t be enough. Humans want to change everything, explore every shadow until the light of human knowledge knows all. Humans want omniscience along with immortality. Maybe humans could reach…what, 75% survivability? And that would seem like a lot. But it’s nowhere close to 100%. But evolution points ever upward, toward 100%, representing the ideal.

I realize that I’m spewing out thoughts faster than many can read and absorb them.

I hope that you’ll realize, my mind is like this 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Over the years, I’ve finally managed to slow my thoughts down to this, down to “production” speed. I have to slow my thoughts down, and my mind down to a reasonable level, to where I can relate with humanity. Different brains have different speeds, and different functions as well. All brains, representing individuality, independence, and uniqueness, also have unique functions. No two brains are alike, as no two humans are alike. Nothing and nobody is similar or the same, only infinite difference.

If your mind is like mine, very fast with powerful processing, then it’s nice to force yourself to slow down. This helps other people to appreciate thinking, thoughts, and ideas much more. Instead of thoughts flowing too quickly, a more moderate and tolerant speed allows other people to enjoy the rate of speed, like a flowing river. If a river is flowing too fast, there’s not much you can do with it. And it’s too dangerous to raft down. But at a slower, more manageable speed, it becomes enjoyable, although too turbulent for most.

It takes effort to slow a fast mind down, or speed a slow mind up. Because all changes require energy consumption. Force is proof of the existence of energy.

What’s on the agenda today? What’s worthy of devoting time, energy, and thought into? What’s worthy of investigation?

Humanity has civilized and colonized the planet, 7 billion humans walking around, claiming a common association that “transcends” race and gender. There are not 3.5 billion males and females. There are not 1 billion of several different races. No, instead, there are only humans. No division exists throughout humanity. All is one. And one is whole. You are human, just like the rest. Perhaps you seek difference, independence, individuality, and uniqueness. But are you truly unique? Consider my previous rambling. I posited that all is unique, yet this stands opposed to humanity. Humanity is a monist ideology and religion. Humanism is your religion. While you seek to pull all the animals of the world together, deem them human, and claim similarity, what about those who cannot deny their desires for “more than” humanity. And what is more than humanity? What is the relationship between humanity and desire?

Are all human desires similar? Are they the same? Do humans have a desire to stagnant in a perpetual privilege and security? Humanity creates a human civilization that resists change. Humanity does not want to change. Isn’t humanity opposed to evolution? Because evolution poses a threat, that species evolve, and so too must he human specie evolve. And that would separate some groups of humanity out of the whole. The humanist desire to bind all humans together, cannot allow some stragglers to renounce their human status.

You’re not allowed to be other than human. Isn’t humanity a prison?

What next, what next? So much to think about…

Pandora and James, you are welcome to ramble in this thread too. This doesn’t have to be all me, alone. Go ahead, say something that’s on your mind. Be open, honest, and candid. There’s no need to hold back here. Although, if you do not, then I will stay center stage and keep on spewing thoughts.

Where did you come from? Where are your roots? Imagine the lives of all of your ancestors, all of their personal struggles, challenges they faced in their time and circumstances, their individual wants and dreams, mistakes and sacrifices each one may had to make in their life. Every one of them was a participant in their own life drama, which ultimately led to you and where you are right now. How do you know that you’re not just continuing in the play of life, like they did, picking up up where they left off. Can we completely separate ourselves from humanity?

I am separated from my past.

But my instincts tell me that my ancestors have always lived on the periphery of human civilization, attempting to separate ourselves from humanity to the greatest extent. And what is humanity? The humanists obviously want to bind, enslave, all these humans into one label. But this person has black hair, another blonde hair. Are they both equally human? This person has black eyes, another blue eyes. Are they both equally human? This person has black sin, another white skin. Are they both equally human? This person is short, another tall. Are they both equally human? This person has a penis, another a vagina. Are they both equally human? This person is a murderer, another saintly. Are they both equally human? This person has one arm and leg, another two arms and two legs. Are they both equally human? The differences are obvious and even small children can point them out effortlessly.

The humanists cannot erase difference, and so, must cover it up and hide it. Clothing is one of the greatest inventions of the humanists. By clothing the human specie, the humanists then began to pretend, and convince people, that males and females are equal. Because the genitals are hidden, out of sight, out of mind. Feminism and anti racism are extensions of humanist ideology. Feminists feel the need to convince the world that women are equal to men, but notice how there is no “masculinism” movement? There is no movement that attempts to prove that men are equal to women, why not? The answer should be obvious. Furthermore, there are many groups that want to force the races of humanity together, and claim that all races are equal.

Equality through the human label. Slavery. Binding. Sameness. Blandness. And you ask why I resist humanity? It should be obvious. Why don’t you resist?

The humanists eventually retreat from these arguments. “Ok, we are not equal, but, we all come from the same great father and mother. We are all born from black africans, one hundred million years ago.” This argument is an easy one to refute. Humanists claim that we all came from Adam and Eve. Is this true, though? Do we all have the same parents, the farther back in time we go? The answer is no. There is no reason to believe “we all came from the same source”. So this is another lie. But humanists have an easy time defending this lie, because they extend the time period 100 million years ago. Imagine if the claim were simplified. “We all came from the same ancestors, 100 years ago.” Is this true? Obviously not, it’s easy to see that too much separation occurs between 100 years. Although humans share many common ancestors, like second-cousins. This does not necessarily imply a same ancestral mother and father.

What is the final humanist argument?

“Ok, I am a humanist, and I admit that humans are different. And I admit defeat that we may not have common ancestors. But despite all my concession, we humans, everybody, has equal value. And this is my best and final argument.”

This is the most respectable humanist position. However, what if some do not want “equality”? What if some people want greatness, excellence, and to distinguish themselves with pride, apart from everybody else? Then what? How can you value humanity, after these questions?

Don’t count on that one.

I am not separated biologically and genetically, of course, but memetically and culturally. I do not remember 100 or 200 years ago. My consciousness is focused on the present, and I prefer to look into the future instead of the past, reflecting my subjective values. To look forward, into the future, is to prefer change over unchange. To look backward, into the past, is to prefer unchange over change.

Which direction do you look? What is your value? Do you look into what is fixed, permanent, and already known? Or do you look at what is debatable, open to manipulation, and not yet known?

This is a core individual value of people. It reflects an existential preference, desire, and bias. This is how you can know other people better than they know themselves.

Like christian, humanity, is a label. People use it as a title, an association, a passport, a registration, an identification, a document.

You can have your humanity revoked, specifically, through dehumanization. Humanists decry dehumanization. You cannot deprive somebody of their “human right”, no matter how inhumane they are. Was Hitler a human then? Can you slaughter six million jews, and you’re still okay? You’re still part of the club, club humanity? If you murder thousands of people, then no death penalty for you, correct? Because the death penalty is barbaric, inhumane. Aren’t all humans forgivable? Is any crime too heinous? You ought to see the obvious parallel here between humanity and christianity. How are these two ideologies any different? Wasn’t christ the “first human”? Or wasn’t he at least “the most human”, the human who all humans must idolize and follow, morally and ethically? If you reject this “human” morality, then are you still human? Or, don’t you become inhumane? You see, there is a limit to human tolerance, despite the liberal proclamations of unending tolerance.

You aren’t allowed to cross certain lines. Some of these lines represent the very figure of humanity. What is human? Just a body? Without behavior? If you build a robot, as the japanese already have, that looks, moves, and talks human, then how is it any different than a “living” human? Aren’t robots human? Or aren’t humans robots?

Once humanists admit that their “humane” and “inhumane” behaviors, actions, then it’s all over. The ruse is exposed, and the lies become too obvious to hide. In fact you’re not human because you superficially appear human, have four limbs, ten toes and fingers, and whatnot. You’re human only because you’re “humane”. And once you cross the humane ethic, the human morality, then your ass is as good as gone. You will be removed from the “human” sphere. The club. The protection. The security.

And so humans can wonder why anybody would renounce their human status. You lose your security, your immortality for all intents and purposes, to gain what? What is on the other side of humanity? What is outside human knowledge?

Ah ha, you see, what is outside human knowledge. Isn’t it your duty to look for yourself? Aren’t you curious?

:laughing: … obviously you don’t know me. :sunglasses:

A simple challenge for you then:

Imagine that the world of other people is highly technologically endowed and doesn’t want anything to exist that isn’t under its strict control. Being “separate” is simply not allowed. And perchance, it wants you to be neither sane nor comfortable in any way and prefers that you die as soon as possible, as long as it isn’t being blamed for your demise.

Delusional as it might be, it isn’t an impossibility, so what is wisdom in such a case?

Wisdom is understanding such society, how it came to be, where it’s going, and how an individual could live within this environment and retain the seeds of philosophy, which are doubts. How can doubt survive in a society where all doubts are crushed, immediately replaced with certainty. And any doubt deemed dangerous at all, will either be solved or decimated. Doubt can be dangerous. Consider a rebellious catholic priest who learns of a biblical discrepancy, amid his council of arch bishops. Dare he speak the contradictions which form his doubts? Or does he keep silent? Saying the wrong thing, can and has before, gotten very intelligent and powerful men killed.

Truth can be dangerous if you do not know how to wield it.

Wisdom is survival within this technological environment. Humanity wants to cement its immortality. People claim that “humanity is a virus and nature is going to get rid of the infection”. People claim that humanity is slated for a mass extinction. These are all bullshit claims. When humanity is attacked, it only becomes more powerful, more resistant, and more enduring. Perhaps one group of humans, here or there, are genocided. But the whole mass of 7 billion humans? A threat to humanity? There are no threats. Science even uses ridiculous imagination to pose threats to humanity, like a giant asteroid crashing into earth, splitting earth in half, and into the burning sun.

Even then, I bet “humanity” would survive. Humanity is becoming immortal, if it already is not. Because you cannot think of individuals, one man or one woman. You must think of 7 billion, as if this whole mass was one giant organism. This giant organism has no internal, or external, threats. At least, none that are known. And perhaps its best not to know, in this sense. Because how would 7 billion humans react to a realistic threat of survival?

People really value their privacy.

Sorry, but when it comes to philosophy, you really have no privacy. Because what thoughts, ideas, and emotions could you possibly hide that are unknown? As if your hatred or murderous intentions were the first in humanity? As if nobody had committed a common crime, before you? As if you the greatest evil you could think of, hadn’t already happened at one point in history? The more you know, the more useless you will learn are your greatest desires. Aren’t they already on display in humanity? What is the worst part of humanity? People want to pretend like it’s not a part of humanity, or that it shouldn’t be. But it is. Because by being human, the worst is represented just as equally as the greatest. You must take the good with the bad with the evil. You must accept it all.

Truly, what evil could a human possibly harbor that is not already known? It’s not evil that is hidden the deepest. It’s something else. There is a secret worth having that goes far beyond good and evil. Because good and evil are merely judgments made against humanity. Good and evil are already known.

Philosophy is a mindset that cannot allow privacy. All must be explored, the universe and all the people within. Life must be explored, psychology, and the mind. All your guilt and shame are deceptions, representing an underlying truth. Humans have selves and identities. These can be dismantled and torn apart. The human body and mind can be taken apart, piece by piece. There is nothing sacred within. Christians attempted to posit the existence of a soul, the human soul. But there is none, correct? In order for there to be any type of soul, there must first be an identification. There must be something that comprises the fundamental definition of a human. If only the human body were required, then robots would be human, but they’re not. If only behaviors were required, then any animal could be educated and attain the role of humanity. So is humanity a behavior or a body, nurture or nature?

Choose both. Humanity is a behavior and a body. Humanism, true to form, is christianity minus god. That’s all “humanism” really is. And to humanists, a christ like figure represents “the human”. So you must have the human body, along with the human behavior, which is christ like ethics. This is what humanists truly are. Therefore, if your body is too deformed, then you may get ousted from the human club. And if your ethics and morality is too far removed from christianity, then again, you can have your humanity card, your label, revoked. Humanity is christianity, subtract god. So when you call yourself a human, in my ears, you’re really admitting that you’re a christian with christian morality and ethics. You are essentially no different, except perhaps more devoted to your faith than even the christian adherents which humanists tend to demean. Because humanity wants to reap all the benefits of the christian faith, but without the humility, shame, and guilt. This christian morality, without humility, is liberalism. A liberal is a hedonist. He or she enjoys the fruit of christian civilization, without paying a price for it. No sacrifice. This is mostly due to the protestant reformation and the universalization of christ ethics. Christ died on the cross for your sins, your badness and evil, and all you need to do is just listen to the christian story. Just absorb it into your mind. If you can acknowledge the simple fact, then that’s good enough to constitute the essence of your humanity.

So admit it, what do you have worth hiding? Do you truly have any secrets worth keeping, or that you could keep, away from philosophy? No, you have none. You have no secrets before the council of philosophers. Because philosophers see through everything. You can try to tell the truth. You can try to lie. But you’ll fail either way. Because wisdom sees through both truth and lies. You can only expose what you are, who you hope to become, and the nature of your common fears, as if they were anything but.

Your uniqueness resides elsewhere. Your difference, other than humanity, is almost certainly unknown to you. Aren’t you human? Yes, yes, you are.