Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘primitive tribes

Shocking: Who is mankind?

Trying to define mankind by his distinctive functions such as ability to talk, write, reason, creating objects, walking on two, or instituting political systems is not satisfactory.

First , we can always discover other species that can do one or more of these functions; and

Second, barely 10% of our current population of mankind satisfy these functional capabilities or potentials:  Most of us are either physically or mentally handicapped, imbeciles, degenerates, immature, and unable to read, write, speak, do the rudiment of math, communicate with next door communities, or think rationally.

All these civil wars and preemptive wars, crimes against humanity, and despoiling the environment for one reason or another disprove basing mankind on sane mental or physical abilities for survival.

Is mankind defined as a parental lineage of procreation by man and woman as other species?  Why not?

Does the fetus belong to mankind?  Can we claim a kid less than ten years old is part of mankind?

How about a woman giving birth by artificial insemination from a total stranger she never met?

How about an ovary fecundated by a sperm and the fetus engendered out of a woman’s womb?  It is feasible.

Does this new-born creature has the same human rights as one born from a natural process?

How about mankind specie bred “clandestinely” in “farms” in order to extract valuable detachable spare parts and organs?  It is feasible and maybe available and currently under production.  If this business has received the legal stamp of a recognized government by the UN, would the “farmed” man stop being considered as a legal entity with mankind rights and dignity?

A kid is genetically born brute, egoist, violent, cruel, and quick-tempered.

If a kid doesn’t do major harms very frequently it is simply because he feels weaker, less armed, less smart, and downright far shorter:  He is simply intimidated and has a sense for survival.

A kid is a carnivorous creature, a savage as good as any ferocious beast.  This savage beast, if not nurtured and trained by the humanist adults and left to grow in imbecility and in force then, this kid will eventually wring his father’s neck and fuck his mother.

Kids are trained for the basic rudiment of civility; he is a rough member of the community of mankind and needs constant nurturing and constant vigilance that what he was taught is seeping into his awareness.

Compassion is not a genetically inherited trait in mankind:  It is nurtured.  Having a sense of fairness in our dealings and relationship is not inherited but nurtured:  Left to our own volition and impulses, mankind is the worst egoist and greedy specie.  Multinational financial corporations are the striking proof in capitalist systems.

Constant vigilance of parents and communities over kids behaviors is not primarily guided to preserving a kid from harming himself, but to not do harms to other kids and adults if feasible:  A kid learn what can hurt him and avoid it but he needs adults to teach him that harming others is BAD.

A community of chimpanzees already does an excellent job in vigilance and for good reason.  A kid naturally grows with unbridled and unscrupulous egoism:  Everything must be the object and subject to his instantaneous pleasures and desires.   A kid is a natural sham to civilized mankind.

Unless the kid is not trained and nurtured by the community to abide by a set of ethical standards and moral values, he is surely following his natural trend and ending up a wicked and nasty adult doing harms out of self-sufficiency in his ignorant good conscience and bad faith;  he will eventually experiment with the notion of doing harm for harm sake.

A kid may kill another kid and doesn’t feel remorse of conscience, just a surprised another experience, until adults teach him that his deed was outrageous and not the behavior of mankind.

Why should we feel sorrier when a kid is killed than an adult mankind?

A killed adult is part of culture and civilization of mankind that has been assassinated.  A killed kid is another naturally born savage who was a potential in mankind civilization and who just looked lovely in his weaknesses and unformed civility.

Who is mankind?  

Is it the long lineage in civilized life of teaching, educating, nurturing for many years as a new-born has grown to be a cruel kid and then transformed into a humanist adult?  An adult bound to resume his ethical and moral development so that he may leave his culture to the next generations?

The first line of defense or preventive actions is in the closest community.  Once this community give up on generating a civilized generation then, civil war is imminent.

The second line of defense is the schooling systems where kids spend their formative years to be included in mankind community.  If the schooling system fails to train a reflecting kid and instead cram him with illusions that satisfy his desires then, imminent civil war is lurking.

The third and weakest defense line is State providing internal security from violence, famine, miseries, affordable health care, legitimate power based on fair representation…  When the State fails in its responsibilities then, civil war is a viable potential.

Who is mankind?

Isn’t it this lineage in culture to bringing a naturally born beast into an adult humanist man?

Primitive tribes must have done a better job than modern institutions in preserving mankind. 

Our current State and international institutions designed to maintain and develop our cultural and civilized heritage lack the will, the means, the teeth, and credibility to extending proofs that mankind is potentially a different specie.

Dawn of Philo-Ethics; (Jan. 28, 2010)

In the previous post “Twilight for love of knowledge or philosophy”, I explored the theme that philosophy is reaching an end.

Before the 16th century, sciences in Europe were towed by philosophy until Galileo enforced the notion of empirical experimentation and measuring what was not measured. By the time of Descartes, philosophy started to limp and relied on religion as crutch to survive.

Sciences have taken over: they can extend answers to what can be answered.

Sciences are far more efficient than philosophy: faulty answers go unnoticed very effectively.  There are very few practiced scientists, and every man is a philosopher: man can feel what’s wrong with a philosophical system but he refrains to claim knowledge in sciences.

Knowledge is acquired by reasoning on the alternative options formed by perception of man and universe.  When we investigate our opinions and feelings we ultimately want to open up alternatives for the mind to discovering the immutable elements in the relationships. The brain is the field where perceived senses and reasoning procedures or processes interacts: without these interactions there are no perceptions, no actions, and no survival of any species.

It is not necessary to be a practicing scientist to have a scientific critical mind; otherwise, not many people would feel comfortable believing that they are endowed with sensible rational and empirical thinking. When I claim that we need to think philosophically, I mean that we need to combine the ethical component to whatever scientific thinking we undertake. The ethical mind should be the guiding rod to solutions or resolutions of any question.

For example, (it might sound a simple interrogation, but it might carry complex implicit ramifications), suppose that I stirred my Nescafe cup with a spoon.  My Nescafe includes no sugar or milk; just plain hot filtered water and Nescafe.  I got into wondering: should I rinse the spoon in tank supplied water (many germs) or just let the spoon dry when removed from the cup?  The idiosyncratic reaction is to rinse the spoon no matter what, isn’t it?

If I discover that the accumulated potent germs on a dried spoon are far less than the rinsed one then what would be your behavior?  The whole exercise is that we generally extend ready behaviors to our answers; we do not take a deep breath to wonder whether there are implicit reasons in the questions.

Philo-ethics (a new term that I invented) is to work on a set of stringent ethical reasoning that you feel are right.

The purpose is that you feel you have the right to state your ethics because you applied them.  The other advantage is that you won’t feel obligated to impose your ethics on people you like their company: you are in a position to be lenient and to compromise because relationships are more important than strict rules and regulations.

What can be the immutable norms that distinguish right from wrong?

What kinds of realities are eternal?

Cannibalism is not an immutable norm since many tribes still eat man in this century. Anyway, mankind is a carnivore and has been eating his own kind with various aspects of ceremonies such as eating the flesh, heart, liver, and brain boiled, raw, or roasted.  Thus, we need to be more attuned to ethnological studies and observations of the remaining tribes living separate from urban centers. We need to comprehend the behavior, customs, and traditions of primitive tribes since they resembled ours before we opted for urban life style, within mostly a fast developing virtual civilization.

Arne Naess disseminated the eco-philosophy which stated that western paradigm line of thinking is taking the wrong direction for a sustainable earth: Man is not in the upper chain of evolution and he has no right to destroy the other living creatures for his perceived universe. We are in a period of technological development that feed on itself and proliferates pretty much independently of any other sciences; technology feels confident that it does not need validation or control by third parties.

Fact is we need to have better understanding of the effects of our behaviors: mankind is on the same boat and everyone is asked to think that he is the captain of the boat.

Things have changed.  The world can be felt as reduced to a Town Square: instant audio-visual communications around the world is discouraging people to move out and investigate “his universe”.  Mind you that the Renaissance man had to travel on horses for long distances to educate his curiosity and talents.

The new wave of occultism, New Age, alternative lifestyle, mysticism, spiritualism, healing, astrology, clairvoyance, and telepathy are consequences of collecting mass “coincidental” happenings among the billions of people and which are relayed instantly on the Internet.  These coincidences can be explained rationally, especially if we believe in the power of the subconscious for erratic behaviors.

The worst part is that millions are still brandishing old Books or Bibles claiming every word for “truth”; as if we are in the Dark Ages.  Sciences and technologies have done serious empirical attempts to answering most of the dialectical problems in philosophy such as how the universe was started, how knowledge developed and progressed.

What is outside the realm of sciences is in the domain of faith, which should not be confounded with religious philosophical belief systems.

A few facts can now be settled that set the stage for the dawn of philo-ethics or for questions related to the dignity of man for freedom, liberty, opinion, shelter, clean water, health, safety, food, clean air, voting rights, anti-discrimination attitudes relative to color, religion, gender, and country of origin.

The hardship that you subjected yourself to is to keep sensible relationship working: a climate of genuine compassion to human frailty gives incentives to overcome shortcomings that may be surmounted.




February 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,516,200 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 822 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: