It is important to begin thinking about this at a more basic level - the level of people or indeed the individual. I will give my thoughts starting with people and proceed from there.
I think human kindness is important, even in this day and age. On the other hand, kindness that people take for granted is a bad thing. I can see how human kindness is for the best but also dangerous. I don’t think we can make up our mind about this given that people, in general, are incongruous with respect to each other. Humanity, as it stands, is not harmonious(in both senses that google lists: forming a pleasing or consistent whole; free from disagreement or dissent). I do however have to mention that this could be argued from one side or the other. Is human kindness for the best or is it dangerous? This would make for an interesting debate. In recent times, however(as is evident even on this forum) it is apparent that a debate needs an audience with a healthy mind.
Jakob takes the inquiry to the next level. Does prescribed kindness contain no wisdom? You mention this so perhaps there is some wisdom to it. Surely identified kindness came from the heart, to begin with. I say identified because you are labeling forms of kindness: morally prescribed kindness and prescribed kindness.
I too agree with: It is an interesting question whether or not human kindness has destroyed more than it has nurtured…
Jakob I think that your post warrants more thought and I hope that it encourages more conversation.
To work out the typical is to simply work out the commonalities among the majority of the human race. The majority of mothers will nurture the newborns well into the child’s later years - it can be said that kindness is somehow an extension of this behavior. This may be not the best way to explain what I am thinking but there is a gist in there somewhere.
. . . Kathrina, somehow English is expressive enough especially in conversation to open a treasure trove of information from different people’s minds. Personally, I like where this thread is headed. It shows each of us living in a metaphorical bubble with our own understandings of the world and all it’s contents, hahaha
Yes, “it can be said”, but that does not mean it is correct. At the same time, I am not making the point that it is necessarily wrong.
Even if ‘typical’ is used to work out “the commonalities of the majority of the human race”, that is not what per se takes this ‘working out’ any further, and my problem here is that moving from the assumption of hardwired moral predispositions, as well as the assumption of absolute “reason and mind”, is not moving in any direction I may find convincing.
“Nurturing the newborns” is what mammals do. Using your example, that may lead to the the inference that humans are kind because mammals are, and hence human kindness would be a void or nugatory concept. It would not even be “human, all too human”, but instead “mammal, all too mammal”.
It could be more ‘human’ if we consider that the children of man are incredibly weak and totally unable to self-sustain for a considerably long period, years in fact (if ever in this age…). The species would have almost certainly gone extinct, if humans had not developed social patterns to nurture and protect their helpless offspring. In Africa (not sure) they say it takes a village to raise a child. So “human kindness” could have developed exactly because also non-parents care about infants. Yet, I do not believe that this “kindness” is an evolution by-product peculiar to humans, at least with respect to newborns (because “kindness” to babies, even when those do not belong to the same species, has been often observed in wildlife).
Nevertheless, I am still inclined to think that what you label “human kindness” has its root in the social interplay and not in any phylogenetic trait.
The paradox here is that whenever we consider a more developed, complex, anthropically modified environment, where references to wildlife and other animals progressively lose relevance and heuristic value, then the defining trait may well turn out to be no longer kindness. Or proper “human kindness” would be only what you name “prescribed kindness”, which one could also call ‘hypocrisy’. Instead, the peculiar human character that could be observed in such uniquely human environments would be something most people consider to be the opposite of kindness: cruelty.
Use of cruelty as a policy tool, a systematic, bureaucratic cruelty, like when Herod ordered the massacre of the innocents, or the systematic killing of enemies, maybe after sorting out them in groups, so that some would be executed immediately and others enslaved, or the use of capital punishment to set examples and inspire fear of the rulers and of the laws, etc., all that is indeed very human. (Actually, that is not so true. Cruelty-based policies appear not to be uniquely human. I would only say that it is legitimate to entertain the idea that this usage of cruelty is as the core of large human organisations).
And coming to mind and reason… the refinement of spirit in general, that too can - and should - be seen as cruelty.
I have a couple more thoughts to release into the abyss.
The following question does not require you to answer and the material following the question is not an attempt to debate. I merely present this for all reader’s consumption: Would you say that animals aside from human beings experience happiness? I would say not all animals experience happiness - from a neurological standpoint with regard to hunger being satisfied, it would seem that hunger is a condition that is present prior to satisfaction becoming the new condition of hunger being satisfied - from this you can see that consciousness is not needed to achieve satisfaction. But I think that happiness originates somewhere between a neurological condition and a full-blown consciousness that can comprehend happiness - essentially turning satisfaction into happiness.
Regarding “A wholesome being won’t go out of his way to prescribe how life should be for others.”…this is not always true as there are people out there who actually want to be told what to do. Therefore in an arbitrarily ideal world what you are saying, fits. I do however like the general concept of: “It can only assist others by, for example, creating tools and medicines.”, however in my ideal world I would say “It should only offer assistance to others by, for example, creating tools and medicines.”
A sound world, I believe is easier to achieve than what most people think.
Then it also depends on what 18th-century social contracts depended upon. Man did not evolve man by any means. Mankind just reached the stage where they are able to write about their observations. It could be said that discoveries are merely stumbled upon observations that someone happened to stumble across first and therefore receive credit for a “discovery”. Ideas like the “Social Contract”’ evolve from what came before and are essentially discovered or “invented” at some point thereafter. I am not saying that social-contract theorists undertook/undertake useless endeavors just as I am not saying that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or treating the brain as perfectly synonymous with the modern-day concept of a computer is pointless. We are all attempting to make points in our writings or speech by using imperfect language. I mean if you look hard enough some conspiracies appear to hold some truth.
…we attempt to interpret what authors of the past have written and hence a reason for debate arises…
“that sees it and interprets in a sort of primitive early imposition of early dialectical relationship”
Unless one is very familiar with the said social contracts as a good portion of people are with a more general concept of humanity then the jump to make the connection can be difficult and therefore it is important to establish first what level or portions of philosophical knowledge the OP is familiar with. This is not to say that there can not be some sidetalk happening in the meantime.
I enjoyed your post gib - it lists some important questions for one to ask themselves when contemplating an answer to what possibly amounts to an unformed question based upon an idea that nevertheless exists.
Perhaps the question will arise after further thought about the related ideas and questions presented in this thread.
I think this education is at least important for the person who seeks it first. Further, this education could be valuable to more than just the person who seeks it first if written into a paper or included in a book of well-formed philosophy(where all the ideas presented are complementary to each other). As with all things such as these philosophies to work well, they require an audience with a healthy mind.
I have an idea of what the “harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings” may mean. The problem to understanding it fully I believe is in the choice of words. I do think the word sequence is quite beautiful - simply said. It could be used as a title of a paper or book that seeks to expand the intended meaning. The problem words for me are harmonious, predispositions and after further thought, typical. This all leaves some work for the imagination of each reader to decipher without more information in the Original Post.
From my perspective, I read it as follows, possibly a title: The Harmonious Education of the Predispositions typical of Human Beings.
…An example to expand upon the title to present my intended meaning…
The title suggests to a limited audience the possibility of a learning opportunity to those who see the benefit of a community with a consistent set of beliefs based upon things that the same community finds pleasing. These things would be the preferences that are common to the aforementioned community…we call ourselves human beings and we believe that we represent the penultimate state of humanity leaving room for our humility and further progress…
I combined the question of whether music is best with the question of whether Trump is dangerous and the question of whether Biden is dangerous.
You can discuss anything, you just have to want to.
I am Kathrina. Hello.
This all is what some of the ILP members (me inclusive) should discuss. Others are seemingly not capable of doing it.
Who is “we”?
This all is what some of the ILP members (me inclusive) should discuss. Others are seemingly not capable of doing it.
See above and below.
No.
Look. If you want a discussion, you should think about the topic anyway. The more room you give for such a discussion, the better the quantity and quality of the thought contributions.
You see it differently, because you would rather have an established basis that has already been checked off beforehand, to which you then only want to say “yes”, so that you can finally embrace everyone again.
I will not change a single word in the opening post. Besides, you can see that the opening post is very well received.
The question whether or not human kindness has destroyed more than it has nurtured is indeed interesting, and I would add the question whether or not nurturing causes destroyment and destroyment causes nurturing.
Yes, it struck me as an unformed question as well (not to be confused with an uninformed question). I got the general gist of it but I find it hard to answer unless it’s narrowed down to something more specific, or a set of more specific items.
I have no doubt of that. That is, it seems, what this forum is meant for, wouldn’t you say?
An audience to filter these ideas and concepts and thoughts, to make sense out of them? To create a common language with which an entire community could discuss them and manage to make sense to each other? Sure! In fact, that’s what I think is the philosopher’s function in society, to be the guardians of ideas, those who, with a healthy mind as you say, filter the ideas passing around society and “cleans” them–that is, keep them healthy, useful, and robust–such that we minimize the amount and kinds of bad ideas, or unhealthy ideas, that could grow from this network of ideas and information.
But that doesn’t quite explain what “education” is in this context. What did you mean that “I think this education is at least important for the person who seeks it first”?
I’ll tell you what I think. I think Kathrina is trying to say that we can all have a common education that we all share (harmonious) about our differences (predispositions). ← At this point, I think “typical of human beings” speaks for itself.
^ But really, that’s just a guess.
You mean, leaving no room… ?
Could be, and from a secular point of view (i.e. sans God), there is nothing higher that humanity. To less self-aware minds, this could go straight to one’s head.
Well, I would like if Kathrina rejoined this conversation. I would like to know the answers to my questions (and now yours). And I’d like to know if our interpretation of her “title” is anywhere close.
EDIT: Oh, and look, now I do know!
Hi Kathrina! I’ll reply to you tomorrow. Gotta get some sleep.
I did. I saw a connection of themes between your post and it. Nothing that makes it any more clear though. And you didn’t mention anything about music in your post.
Oh, believe me, I do. Don’t confuse my rudeness for disinterest.
Well, screw them. Maybe you’re right. Maybe we should be discussing this. But first, what is “this” that we’re discussing?
I don’t know. You tell me. Aren’t your questions directed at all of us?
Well, screw them. Maybe you’re right. Maybe we should be discussing this. But first, what is “this” that we’re discussing?
Ooooh! Well, then all I have to do is ask: what is all the above? And you’re answer will resolve everything.
We did manage to make the question more specific: what is “harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings with regard to reason and mind”?
Encode and I pulled that apart a bit and did a semi-deep dive analysis bringing out a few interpretations. Did you read them? Were we even close?
For humanists and so-called “humanists”, humanity has a very high value. However, most humanists do not answer the question of what humanity actually is. There are many others who, for that reason or not, have arrived at an interpretation of humanity that not only calls humanity into question, but even turns the very meaning of the word upside down. But the original meaning itself is also not quite clear, because already at the time when this word appeared - in antiquity - mischief was done with it.
Not I, dear Gib, but Cicero presented the harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings with regard to reason and mind as the main goal of humanity. This should be accompanied by the highest development of human culture and morality and accordingly behavior towards fellow men, indeed towards all creatures. The idea of humanity experienced its actual foundation and development in the 18th century in the era of New Humanism. For Kant, humanity is “the sense of the good in community with others in general; on the one hand, the general feeling of participation, on the other hand, the ability to be able to communicate intimately and generally, which qualities, combined together, constitute the sociability appropriate to humanity, by which it differs from animal confinement”.
Humanity as a value can really be understood as “the best” (well, with values one rather says “the highest”), as for example music can be evaluated as the best. Due to the fact that humanity has been misinterpreted and misunderstood because of the misuse, humanity can also be understood as something that is dangerous, because in its name wars, killings of people and many other creatures, environmental destruction, pollution of the planet Earth and also already its environment have been carried out. The “human rights” have been used more and more only by a few people in the sense of destruction, murder and pollution for reasons of greed for power. This will become worse and worse in the future if this crime will not be stopped. But what can you expect when it is the criminals themselves who (are supposed to) “stop” and “punish” their own crimes?
As if the contamination of the Earth would not be enough, the few - the rulers - have also littered the cosmic environment of the Earth, expose all creatures to the sprayed and vaccinated poisons, high-energy radiation (5G, 6G) and the control of AI. These few, but rulers, make the middle class - the Western middle class -, pay for all this. And 99.9999% of all humans are supposed to subordinate themselves to all this voluntarily.
I already said all that in a shorter form in my opening post, and the others got it right the first time, which is why I’m still wondering what you have your problems with, Gib.
[tab]It is not always necessary to explain what one means with a lot of sentences or even a lot of books or websites, even more so when one wants to have a discussion. Most of the time, a few sentences are much more useful for driving a discussion. [/tab]
Proly 'cause they went with the general gist of what you said, which I stated above that I got. But I like to get a bit more specific because otherwise I feel like it’s guesswork and that I’m just expressing my own thoughts rather than addressing your question. That plus the question addresses topics that are too broad and complex to have a simple yes/no answer.
Encode and I came up with this rendition of what the harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings means:
But since you said the idea was originally Cicero’s, I’ll have to look it up.
You can have abstract and exotic definitions of “humanity” but I don’t get what’s so wrong with “the community of human beings on the planet Earth”. ← I think that’s the definition. Simple. Common sense. Creative and profound definitions like Kant’s are fine, but I wouldn’t say that most people misunderstand what humanity really means just because there are these esoteric definitions out there. ← Those are the fringe ones.
Anyway, on the question of whether humanity is overall good or overall evil, I’m inclined to say evil–I don’t have any facts to back that up, I’m just cynical–but I must also repeat this is a very heavy question with no clear yes/no answer. How does one even measure the overall good or evil that comes out of human beings? And shouldn’t one have to define “good” and “evil” first? Get some consensus from a reasonable number of people? And should we be judging the overall good/evil of humanity as a whole, or would such a judgment be meaningless in light of the fact that individuals are good/evil? Questions, questions, questions. ← You see Kathrine? That’s where my mind goes with questions that are this broad and general… I try to give my answer but end up posing more questions.
That’s right. It is also one of the main reasons why I do not want to define the meaning of the word “humanity” or its definition very precisely myself. This would anyway irritate more than enlighten.
Since technology and subsequently economy, media and politics have become frantic, it is hardly possible to keep track of exactly who changes what, when, where and why. Also, many word meanings change in the process. This can go so far that a “neo-speak” (Orwell said “newspeak”, which he referred however to the communism) results alone due to the technical development.
If one assumes in any case that “humanity” is rather dangerous than e.g. best, then one should (be allowed to) expect that the word for it will either be changed in such a way that people understand its meaning, how dangerous “humanity” is, or else the word meaning will remain the old one (e.g. in the sense of Kant or Humboldt), but then people will have to learn to turn this meaning of the word around, because if people will not do this, they will not notice how much they are lied to and deceived (we have enough examples of this from history, especially the communist examples since 1917).
Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.
Wilhelm von Humboldt, the brother of Alexander von Humboldt, defined the task of the state as providing external protection and internal legal security, but otherwise holding back as much as possible and leaving as much freedom as possible for individual and national development.
Many will perhaps prefer to see the word “national” replaced by the word “global”, but we have never had a “global society” and we would first have to experience a “global society” in order to be able to judge whether it can also function in the same way as a national one (I don’t think so, because a “global society” can only lead to oppression, surveillance and violence, many deaths).
Yes.
There are not or at least not only esoteric definitions. There are simply too many misunderstandings, because there are too many misinterpretations, and “controlled misinterpretations” can also be called " intentionally misused interpretations".
The masses as the huge majority in any society are not interested in “definitions” anyway, but use words, and words have meanings. But even in meanings the masses are not very interested, although they should actually know that words always have meanings.
The masses prefer to let think instead of thinking themselves.
So again: Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.
Yes, but if you really like to go into the details, you should have noticed that I beat you to it, too, because I intentionally did not speak of “good versus evil”, but of “best versus dangerous”, because I juxtaposed something morally evaluated with a rather natural experience in life.
And my further intention was to leave it up to the discussion how to relate the two.
I think that a code of anthropotechnics must be formulated. This would retroactively also change the meaning of classical or idealistic humanism / new humanism - because with it it would be revealed and written down that humanitas does not only imply the friendship of human being with human being; it also always implies - and with increasing explicitness - that human being represents the higher power for human being.
This thread is giving me a few things to think about - I am taking my time with it.
Thank you gib. It is great to see you again too I hope that everything is well in your corner of the world.
I had no idea of your level of knowledge and understanding when I started posting in this thread. As I read through your posts I get a better idea of where you are situated in relation to your original post and the rest of this thread.
Today the globalists are making the revolution, the permanent one, and the people are being fought as if they were the globalists, the rulers of the world.
is anywhere close.
