IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Kathrina · March 3, 2021, 4:34pm

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]

gib · March 4, 2021, 1:52am

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.

^ But at least I got something started.

Kathrina · March 4, 2021, 6:25pm

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.

Yes, you did. Thank you.

Kathrina · March 4, 2021, 11:06pm

encode_decode:

Thank you for the clarification.

Kathrina:

@ Encode Decode.
@ Jakob.

With “humanity” I meant both: “humanity” and “human kindness”. The English language, unfortunately, does not distinguish so much in this matter. And I intentionally avoided the word “humanism”.

You can call me encode or Aaron.

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.

It basically doesn’t matter who you start with, Encode, one human or all humans. This was also known in ancient times. But go ahead, please.

Alf · March 5, 2021, 1:07am

Kathrina:

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.

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.

encode_decode · March 5, 2021, 10:26am

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.

Alf · March 13, 2021, 3:10am

We must take into account that humans are always to be described in two ways: (1) natural and (2) cultural.

Peter Sloterdijk:

On the one hand, we can speak of a natural history of serenity, by virtue of which man was able to become the cosmopolitan, worldly animal; on the other hand, we can speak of a social (I say: cultural) history of taming, by virtue of which man originally experienced himself as the beings who gather together in order to correspond to the whole. The real history of the clearing - from which a deepened reflection on man beyond humanism must take its starting point - is thus composed of two larger narratives that converge in a common perspective, namely in the exposition of how the sapiens-animal became the sapiens-man. The first of these two narratives gives an account of the adventure of hominization. It reports how in the long periods of pre-human prehistory the viviparous mammal man became a species of early-born beings, which - if one may speak so paradoxically - emerged into their environments with a growing surplus of animal immaturity. This is where the anthropogenetic revolution takes place - the blasting open of biological birth to the act of coming into the world. … For the fact that man could become the being that is in the world has genre-historical roots that can be indicated by the abysmal concepts of prematurity, neoteny and the chronic animal immaturity of man. One could go so far as to describe man as the being who has failed in his being and remaining an animal. Through his failure as an animal, the indeterminate being falls out of the environment and thus acquires the world in the ontological sense. This extatic coming into the world and this “appropriation” to being are laid into the cradle of man from genus-historical inheritance. If man is in-the-world, then because he belongs to a movement which brings him to the world and exposes him to the world. He is the product of a hyper-birth that turns the infant into a worldling.

Kathrina · March 13, 2021, 10:31pm

Sleyor_Wellhuxwell · March 25, 2021, 12:36am

Sleyor Wellhuxwell:

Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, said that “the great reset clears the way for transhumanism.”

Horror!

Actually, the “fourth industrial revolution” is just a logical continuation of the Industrial Revolution. So there are actually not four, but only one of them with subtypes. What Klaus Schwab supports, whether intentionally or not, is a communism which by far surpasses even Orwell’s descriptions, e.g. also those of the “thought police”. Why Schwab himself does not shudder at such statements is no wonder in view of the fact that he, who first studied mechanical engineering and later business administration, but never worked with responsibility, is a bureaucrat. There have always been people with the interest to control all other people 100%. It has always been about power. Also there have always been people with an interest in e.g. technical, economic, political etc. feasibilities and realizations. The ideology that is best suited for the political implementation of transhumanism is egalitarianism (communism), because it wants to achieve the total control of all people through its ideology of equality, the principle of equality, the eternal egalitarianism with permanent terror. And when it is said that Schwab’s „ideas … are not only very popular in the USA“, but „also in China, Japan and South Korea … with the transhumanist ideas his book contains“, then this also means that in these countries communism is obviously very welcome.

Klaus Schwab has named many aspects that should be fulfilled by 2030, and one of them concerns all Western values, which should then be very strongly restricted or even disappear. Schwab and his people know exactly which values (the Western ones) and thus which people (the Western ones) can become expensive and threatening for them. These people stand in their way in the realization of their goals. The Westerners are too intelligent, too inventive, too achievement-oriented, too entrepreneurial, too success-oriented, too industrious, too rich, too middle-class, too individualistic, too freedom-loving. The globalists, although or because they are also of Western origin, prefer non-Western countries, because with them the globalist goals are much easier, uncomplicated, smoother, more effective, less resistant (less dangerous and at the same time more violent, more warlike, because with violence and war there are always huge profits to be made) and cheaper to achieve.

1.) “You will possess nothing” - and “you will be happy about it”.
2.) “The U.S. will not be the world’s leading superpower.”
3.) “You will not die while waiting for an organ donor - the organs will be made by 3D printers.”
4.) “You will eat a lot less meat” - meat will be “an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health.”
5.) “A billion people will be displaced by climate change.”
6.) “Polluters will have to pay for emitting carbon dioxide. There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels a thing of the past.”
7.) “You could be preparing to go to Mars - scientists will have figured out how to stay healthy in space by then.”
8.) “Western values will have been strained to their breaking point.” - “Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten.”

Communism for 99.99-99.9999% of all humans.

The “overcoming of man”. Everything clear? “I teach you the overman. Man is something that is to be overcome.” (Friedrich Nietzsche, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, 1883, p. 8 ).

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 3#p2810213 .

Alf · April 3, 2021, 7:32am

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.

WendyDarling · April 4, 2021, 1:46am

Sleyor Wellhuxwell:

Sleyor Wellhuxwell:

Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, said that “the great reset clears the way for transhumanism.”

Horror!

Actually, the “fourth industrial revolution” is just a logical continuation of the Industrial Revolution. So there are actually not four, but only one of them with subtypes. What Klaus Schwab supports, whether intentionally or not, is a communism which by far surpasses even Orwell’s descriptions, e.g. also those of the “thought police”. Why Schwab himself does not shudder at such statements is no wonder in view of the fact that he, who first studied mechanical engineering and later business administration, but never worked with responsibility, is a bureaucrat. There have always been people with the interest to control all other people 100%. It has always been about power. Also there have always been people with an interest in e.g. technical, economic, political etc. feasibilities and realizations. The ideology that is best suited for the political implementation of transhumanism is egalitarianism (communism), because it wants to achieve the total control of all people through its ideology of equality, the principle of equality, the eternal egalitarianism with permanent terror. And when it is said that Schwab’s „ideas … are not only very popular in the USA“, but „also in China, Japan and South Korea … with the transhumanist ideas his book contains“, then this also means that in these countries communism is obviously very welcome.

Klaus Schwab has named many aspects that should be fulfilled by 2030, and one of them concerns all Western values, which should then be very strongly restricted or even disappear. Schwab and his people know exactly which values (the Western ones) and thus which people (the Western ones) can become expensive and threatening for them. These people stand in their way in the realization of their goals. The Westerners are too intelligent, too inventive, too achievement-oriented, too entrepreneurial, too success-oriented, too industrious, too rich, too middle-class, too individualistic, too freedom-loving. The globalists, although or because they are also of Western origin, prefer non-Western countries, because with them the globalist goals are much easier, uncomplicated, smoother, more effective, less resistant (less dangerous and at the same time more violent, more warlike, because with violence and war there are always huge profits to be made) and cheaper to achieve.

1.) “You will possess nothing” - and “you will be happy about it”.
2.) “The U.S. will not be the world’s leading superpower.”
3.) “You will not die while waiting for an organ donor - the organs will be made by 3D printers.”
4.) “You will eat a lot less meat” - meat will be “an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health.”
5.) “A billion people will be displaced by climate change.”
6.) “Polluters will have to pay for emitting carbon dioxide. There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels a thing of the past.”
7.) “You could be preparing to go to Mars - scientists will have figured out how to stay healthy in space by then.”
8.) “Western values will have been strained to their breaking point.” - “Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten.”

Communism for 99.99-99.9999% of all humans.

The “overcoming of man”. Everything clear? “I teach you the overman. Man is something that is to be overcome.” (Friedrich Nietzsche, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, 1883, p. 8 ).

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 3#p2810213 .

Nietzsche foresaw transhumanism or made a case for it?

encode_decode · April 7, 2021, 8:48am

Do people sometimes ask the wrong question? or do they sometimes ask the wrong person? Or both? The answer is ‘yes’ to both. There is a small chance that you will receive a useful answer in this case.

Sleyor_Wellhuxwell · April 7, 2021, 11:52am

WendyDarling:

Sleyor Wellhuxwell:

Sleyor Wellhuxwell:

Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, said that “the great reset clears the way for transhumanism.”

Horror!

Actually, the “fourth industrial revolution” is just a logical continuation of the Industrial Revolution. So there are actually not four, but only one of them with subtypes. What Klaus Schwab supports, whether intentionally or not, is a communism which by far surpasses even Orwell’s descriptions, e.g. also those of the “thought police”. Why Schwab himself does not shudder at such statements is no wonder in view of the fact that he, who first studied mechanical engineering and later business administration, but never worked with responsibility, is a bureaucrat. There have always been people with the interest to control all other people 100%. It has always been about power. Also there have always been people with an interest in e.g. technical, economic, political etc. feasibilities and realizations. The ideology that is best suited for the political implementation of transhumanism is egalitarianism (communism), because it wants to achieve the total control of all people through its ideology of equality, the principle of equality, the eternal egalitarianism with permanent terror. And when it is said that Schwab’s „ideas … are not only very popular in the USA“, but „also in China, Japan and South Korea … with the transhumanist ideas his book contains“, then this also means that in these countries communism is obviously very welcome.

Klaus Schwab has named many aspects that should be fulfilled by 2030, and one of them concerns all Western values, which should then be very strongly restricted or even disappear. Schwab and his people know exactly which values (the Western ones) and thus which people (the Western ones) can become expensive and threatening for them. These people stand in their way in the realization of their goals. The Westerners are too intelligent, too inventive, too achievement-oriented, too entrepreneurial, too success-oriented, too industrious, too rich, too middle-class, too individualistic, too freedom-loving. The globalists, although or because they are also of Western origin, prefer non-Western countries, because with them the globalist goals are much easier, uncomplicated, smoother, more effective, less resistant (less dangerous and at the same time more violent, more warlike, because with violence and war there are always huge profits to be made) and cheaper to achieve.

1.) “You will possess nothing” - and “you will be happy about it”.
2.) “The U.S. will not be the world’s leading superpower.”
3.) “You will not die while waiting for an organ donor - the organs will be made by 3D printers.”
4.) “You will eat a lot less meat” - meat will be “an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health.”
5.) “A billion people will be displaced by climate change.”
6.) “Polluters will have to pay for emitting carbon dioxide. There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels a thing of the past.”
7.) “You could be preparing to go to Mars - scientists will have figured out how to stay healthy in space by then.”
8.) “Western values will have been strained to their breaking point.” - “Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten.”

Communism for 99.99-99.9999% of all humans.

The “overcoming of man”. Everything clear? “I teach you the overman. Man is something that is to be overcome.” (Friedrich Nietzsche, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, 1883, p. 8 ).

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 3#p2810213 .

Nietzsche foresaw transhumanism or made a case for it?

Sorry for replying so late. I just don’t post that often.

Nietzsche called for and taught transhumanism, and did so very clearly.

Examples:

“I teach you the overman! Man is something that is to be overcome.” (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 8 ).

“Look, I teach you the overman! The overman is the sense of the earth. Your will say: the overman be the sense of the earth!” (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 8 ).

“Man is something that must be overcome …” (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 40).

Sleyor_Wellhuxwell · April 7, 2021, 12:11pm

And you are the only one who knows who asks whom and what in the right way, right?

She did not ask you. And if she did, she would indeed not “receive a useful answer in this case”, as you have said.

encode_decode · April 7, 2021, 12:49pm

=D>

No, I am not.

Correct, she did not ask me. You don’t actually know if she would have received a useful answer from me.

I indicated a chance for a useful answer, not a zero chance.

Sleyor_Wellhuxwell · April 7, 2021, 1:14pm

I know it from your previous answers and especially from the fact that you yourself said that she will not “receive a useful answer” from you. Look:

encode_decode · April 7, 2021, 7:14pm

You claim that “Nietzsche called for and taught transhumanism, and did so very clearly”. This is what you said.

Sleyor_Wellhuxwell · April 14, 2021, 1:54am

Yes, and that is an useful answer.

encode_decode · April 14, 2021, 7:58am

Kathrina, you make some good points that resonate with me.

Are you using now as a reference point because things seem a lot crazier now than they did five years ago? Going back five years - things seemed a lot crazier then, as opposed to five years earlier than that…thus evaluating each era compared to its last up until a point back in time. It is true to say that among people there are those that romanticize over an earlier time/era because they perceive that this time or one earlier, even, is a worse time than the era they so wish was still operating within the current time frame(whatever that may be). A lot of neo-speak has not yet been officially recognized and a lot of it is temporary in nature. Only a few new words will make it through to become part of everyone’s everyday lives.

Artifacts of getting older I am afraid - and possibly a feeling of less relevance.

One facet among many is this: Humanity becomes dangerous through the twisting of meaning(relating to the past events and words), and of course, the continuing cycle of greed and wanting of power without the responsibility that entails and combining these two concepts to exploit other facets of society. Society is too large for one man’s answers(“vision”)…

History has shown in a couple of cases that the words of another can be enriched with misinterpretation that satisfies the interpreter and thus motivates the interpreter to create a dangerous regime that opposes remaining society’s sensibilities. A good example of this is with Hitler’s misinterpretations - I believe he spent some time reading and misinterpreting.

Add to this that a good proportion of people are too lazy to bother with such concepts as the logical and instead their process becomes a process of emotion and/or misunderstanding. There is a lot more to the world’s current state than we maybe able to discuss and discern here.

Kathrina · April 15, 2021, 6:17pm

encode_decode:

Kathrina, you make some good points that resonate with me.

Kathrina:

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.

Are you using now as a reference point because things seem a lot crazier now than they did five years ago? Going back five years - things seemed a lot crazier then, as opposed to five years earlier than that…thus evaluating each era compared to its last up until a point back in time. It is true to say that among people there are those that romanticize over an earlier time/era because they perceive that this time or one earlier, even, is a worse time than the era they so wish was still operating within the current time frame(whatever that may be). A lot of neo-speak has not yet been officially recognized and a lot of it is temporary in nature. Only a few new words will make it through to become part of everyone’s everyday lives.

Artifacts of getting older I am afraid - and possibly a feeling of less relevance.

Kathrina:

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.

It is about the one-sidedness of the evaluation. Only the one, eternal, infinite evaluation may always be taken: “it will go forward eternally”. This eternal “progressivism” is not only wrong - future history will show it - but also treacherous.

The masses do not necessarily need a lie, but the rulers need a lie, so that they can rule the masses, and that is why there are mass media in particular, because the mass media make it look afterwards as if the masses need a lie. The masses are addicted to the “Man” (Heidegger), they are “inauthentic” (Heidegger), and the media make sure on behalf of the rulers that it stays that way.

But how are the masses supposed to become what we call “mankind” or - even more problematic - “humanity”? They (a) are not allowed to do so, (b) are not capable of doing so, because they are addicted to the “Man”, are “inauthentic”.

We humans can live by nature in a small group (comparable with apes or wolves, lions and other pack animals), can live by culture even in a city (a big, global, world city is already a problem) and so just in a nation; but it is not possible in, especially not in the long run, to live as a “global community”, as “mankind”, and certainly not in a “humane” way, as a “humanity”.