Anti-Humanism.

[Pessimist]

I'm one of those rare thinkers who is a anti-humanist in that the metaphysical belief that calls itself humanism to me is parrallel to religious dogmas, narratives and mythologies.

On the rare occasion that I do use the word "human" I do so for the sake of making clear conversation for others to understand myself but for the most part I like the terminology people instead when it comes to wording or sentencing.

Humanity is a ideal, word and abstract and nothing more.

There is no humanity but instead there only exists individual people.

Humanity is a fabrication or blanket used to lump all individuals together under some fictional goal which is called purpose but in the end there exists no cosmic purpose either which makes the word seem even more useless.


Humanity is a unreal abstraction with rights being themselves nothing but abstractions where in actuality all extreme inequalities are permitted.

Human rights or ideals do not emancipate life but rather denies it.

How is the abstract of humanity anything but a secular religion or mythology?

We are not rationally autonomous but instead we are instinctually selfish creatures driven by irrational fears and desires.

Humanity is a metaphysical device which describes humanity a universal essence as if to put the species of homo sapiens on a prized unique pedestal above all other life forms as if almost rather absurdly our species believes that it has a audience beyond itself watching our every move in living upon judgement.

There exists no mass purpose or final destination of our species.

There exists nothing to describe us as the grand stewards of this planet.

The world doesn't need saving nor does it desire to be saved.

When will we realize that humanity is a metaphysical secular religion or mythological narrative?

There is no heaven, salvation or redemption and there exists nothing that we ought to do as a species beyond our fictional insane imaginations and lucid dreaming.

[Didymos Thomas]

Humanity is a ideal, word and abstract and nothing more.

There is no humanity but instead there only exists individual people.

Humanity is a fabrication or blanket used to lump all individuals together under some fictional goal which is called purpose but in the end there exists no cosmic purpose either which makes the word seem even more useless.

How is humanity an ideal?

Humanity refers to all living human beings. So, there are individuals, and also humanity. Just there are individual blue whales, and then the species blue whale.

As for humanity and purpose, some people may attempt to place a purpose over the whole race, but this does not seem to be a necessary condition for using the term humanity.

How is the abstract of humanity anything but a secular religion or mythology?

You said it yourself - humanity is a term refering to all of the human individuals. Is the term blue whale a secular religion or mythology?

We are not rationally autonomous but instead we are instinctually selfish creatures driven by irrational fears and desires.

Why are these traits mutually exclusive?

There exists nothing to describe us as the grand stewards of this planet.

Except that our species is capable of destroying life on this planet.

The world doesn't need saving nor does it desire to be saved.

As the "world" isn't a human, the "world" cannot have desires. And the world may not need saving; however, if humans are as selfish as I think, there will probably come a time where the world does need saving - or at least a time where humans will have to make significant changes in the way they live so that the world will continue to be a habitable place for humans and many other species of life.

There is no heaven, salvation or redemption and there exists nothing that we ought to do as a species beyond our fictional insane imaginations and lucid dreaming.

It seems to me that we all suffer, and that suffering is something worth limiting or reducing when possible. Therefore, we could at least attempt to reduce the suffering of each other. Sounds like a reasonable 'ought' for the species, help one another out, be nice to one another, don't hurt people, that sort of thing.

[Pessimist]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

How is humanity an ideal?

Humanity refers to all living human beings. So, there are individuals, and also humanity. Just there are individual blue whales, and then the species blue whale.

As for humanity and purpose, some people may attempt to place a purpose over the whole race, but this does not seem to be a necessary condition for using the term humanity.



You said it yourself - humanity is a term refering to all of the human individuals. Is the term blue whale a secular religion or mythology?



Why are these traits mutually exclusive?



Except that our species is capable of destroying life on this planet.



As the "world" isn't a human, the "world" cannot have desires. And the world may not need saving; however, if humans are as selfish as I think, there will probably come a time where the world does need saving - or at least a time where humans will have to make significant changes in the way they live so that the world will continue to be a habitable place for humans and many other species of life.



It seems to me that we all suffer, and that suffering is something worth limiting or reducing when possible. Therefore, we could at least attempt to reduce the suffering of each other. Sounds like a reasonable 'ought' for the species, help one another out, be nice to one another, don't hurt people, that sort of thing.

How is humanity an ideal?

It groups all people as one but at the same time not all people are one identity are they?

Humanity refers to all living human beings.

Exactly. It groups and condenses all individuals as being one identity when in actuality clearly they are not.

So, there are individuals, and also humanity. Just there are individual blue whales,

But unlike whales in zoology or biology through labeling it just doesn't stop their with people in contrast

This super identity over people known as "humanity" then comes up with universal rights, entitlements, values, expressions of worth, regulations, restrictions, varios posturings, evaluations, categorizations and so on.

As for humanity and purpose, some people may attempt to place a purpose over the whole race, but this does not seem to be a necessary condition for using the term humanity.

You will find many dictatorial forms of purpose in markets, governments, religions and so on.

Most of them oppressive and sinister of course.

You said it yourself - humanity is a term refering to all of the human individuals. Is the term blue whale a secular religion or mythology?

As I said before with whales we just use labels and words that is all.

With people we use goals, beliefs, dictatorial categorizations and so on along with labels in contrast.

Why are these traits mutually exclusive?

Why aren't they?

Except that our species is capable of destroying life on this planet.

That only describes us as very destructive and dangerous.

That doesn't entail us a special privilege or right.

That doesn't make us unique. ( Stupid maybe.)

As the "world" isn't a human, the "world" cannot have desires. And the world may not need saving; however, if humans are as selfish as I think, there will probably come a time where the world does need saving - or at least a time where humans will have to make significant changes in the way they live so that the world will continue to be a habitable place for humans and many other species of life.

If you admit that then you would also know that the cosmos is indifferent and uncaring being totally unconcerned about our plight not to mention it is unrational having no desire in being rationalized.

The irony of this is that if the destruction of the world by our own species does come about it will come out of our "reason" which has no reason to exist in the first place other than the crazed existential fears that we have brought onto ourselves.

It seems to me that we all suffer, and that suffering is something worth limiting or reducing when possible.

Suffering, destruction and extinction is cosmic.

It is a futile or useless effort in limiting or reducing it.

Therefore, we could at least attempt to reduce the suffering of each other.

Never going to happen. Besides were too busy exploiting each other selfishly anyways.

Sounds like a reasonable 'ought' for the species,

Sounds like a absurd one to me.

be nice to one another, don't hurt people, that sort of thing.

Unrealistic.

[Didymos Thomas]

It groups all people as one but at the same time not all people are one identity are they?

All people do not necessarily have the same identity, no. And all people have an individual identity. I am Didymos Thomas. But I am also an American, and not the only American. And I am also human, and not the only human.

If you are an individual human, you are part of humanity.

Exactly. It groups and condenses all individuals as being one identity when in actuality clearly they are not.

As for the one identity issue, see above. Humanity, like American, like individual (I, self, ect), are labels. All human individuals are labeled Humanity, some human individuals are labeled American, and some portion of reality is labeled an individual.

But unlike whales in zoology or biology through labeling it just doesn't stop their with people in contrast

This super identity over people known as "humanity" then comes up with universal rights, entitlements, values, expressions of worth, regulations, restrictions, varios posturings, evaluations, categorizations and so on.

What's wrong with discussing the nature of humanity? We label things out of convenience; humanity is a label of convenience. These things you mention develop because humans interact with one another. Unless there is only one human, there is reason to investigate the way humans interact.

You will find many dictatorial forms of purpose in markets, governments, religions and so on.

Most of them oppressive and sinister of course.

So what? People tend to be selfish, and as a result, they abuse one another.

As I said before with whales we just use labels and words that is all.

With people we use goals, beliefs, dictatorial categorizations and so on along with labels in contrast.

Because we interact with one another. We do not have to be so terrible when we interact.

Why aren't they?

Are you serious? I asked a question about one of your claims.

That only describes us as very destructive and dangerous.

That doesn't entail us a special privilege or right.

That doesn't make us unique. ( Stupid maybe.)

There isn't a privilege or a right to be spoken of - instead there is an obligation to be stewards. Being stewards of the planet is not some joy ride, but something we have to do or we die.

If you admit that then you would also know that the cosmos is indifferent and uncaring being totally unconcerned about our plight not to mention it is unrational having no desire in being rationalized.

The irony of this is that if the destruction of the world by our own species does come about it will come out of our "reason" which has no reason to exist in the first place other than the crazed existential fears that we have brought onto ourselves.

How could non-sentient things have concern of care?

I really do not understand what you are trying to explain with this thread. You criticize the term "humanity", claiming the word causes various things like oppression. But the word "humanity" does not create government, humanity does.

Sure, humanity has messed up quite a bit. But there's your criticism. Instead of saying there is no humanity (because there are, in fact, individual humans), perhaps we should criticize humanity and figure out what humanity should be doing instead of whatever humanity is doing that is causing trouble.

Suffering, destruction and extinction is cosmic.

It is a futile or useless effort in limiting or reducing it.

Sure, these things exist - isn't that the point? If we are capable of reducing them, even in the slightest, shouldn't we?

Never going to happen. Besides were too busy exploiting each other selfishly anyways.

I get that pessimism is your thing, but being pessimistic isn't much of an argument.

And it seems your simply wrong. People do spend their lives trying to reduce the suffering of others. So, obviously "never" was too strong of a word.

You are right about people being selfish. But that's the point - being selfish is a mistake, so let's try not to be so selfish.

Sounds like a absurd one to me.

Sorry to hear that.

Unrealistic.

No one has ever been nice to you? You have never been nice to anyone?