Do you believe in humanity?

[Holt]

I'm not asking if you are a humanist- that's become an ideology of it's own these days. I'd simply like to know whether you believe in humanity. Whether there are inherent virtues and faults in all of us, so-called H. Sapiens, and that we have as a whole an underlying thread of commonality that binds us. That we as humans share a common fate, that we are inextricably linked by our own nature. That we all share certain traits, whether obvious, latent, or expressed in varying ways and degrees. That no matter how how disparate our backgrounds, we have in us a certain potential, a creative spark that can only be called human. There is some merit to the observation that human civilization is markedly convergent; we have developed along similar lines regardless of the barriers presented by culture, language, and geography.

I won't give my answer just yet, I will eventually though. Perhaps someone that comments may change my perspective.

[Dombra]

Not really. Europeans are not closer to Africans, a chaotic race, than we are to Neanderthals

[Tooting Carmen]

Up to a point, but a lot of the OP sounds like utopian, hippy nonsense.

[Kalimtari]

let me answer you with the good ol' Gaussian distribution:

[Petros Houhoulis]

I'm not asking if you are a humanist- that's become an ideology of it's own these days. I'd simply like to know whether you believe in humanity. Whether there are inherent virtues and faults in all of us, so-called H. Sapiens, and that we have as a whole an underlying thread of commonality that binds us. That we as humans share a common fate, that we are inextricably linked by our own nature. That we all share certain traits, whether obvious, latent, or expressed in varying ways and degrees. That no matter how how disparate our backgrounds, we have in us a certain potential, a creative spark that can only be called human. There is some merit to the observation that human civilization is markedly convergent; we have developed along similar lines regardless of the barriers presented by culture, language, and geography.

I won't give my answer just yet, I will eventually though. Perhaps someone that comments may change my perspective.

[Holt]

Up to a point, but a lot of the OP sounds like utopian, hippy nonsense.

No. Far from utopian or hippy, that's a pretty careless and stupid comment. What I wrote is simply what the concept of humanity is. There is no "up to a point". You believe in it or you don't.

[Kalimtari]

[Anthropos]

I'm not asking if you are a humanist- that's become an ideology of it's own these days. I'd simply like to know whether you believe in humanity. Whether there are inherent virtues and faults in all of us, so-called H. Sapiens, and that we have as a whole an underlying thread of commonality that binds us. That we as humans share a common fate, that we are inextricably linked by our own nature. That we all share certain traits, whether obvious, latent, or expressed in varying ways and degrees. That no matter how how disparate our backgrounds, we have in us a certain potential, a creative spark that can only be called human. There is some merit to the observation that human civilization is markedly convergent; we have developed along similar lines regardless of the barriers presented by culture, language, and geography.

That's a lot more than just one question. By weakest link logic, people could say no for so many different reasons. Very different. Which non-humanist point of view is it that you are trying to debunk, anyway?

I won't give my answer just yet, I will eventually though. Perhaps someone that comments may change my perspective.

I much doubt it!

What I wrote is simply what the concept of humanity is. There is no "up to a point". You believe in it or you don't.

What? I do think you put some extra ingredients in the cake. Convergent civilization is clearly an extra. One can believe in all the other things without subscribing to that, and one can also believe in any of the statements you made to an extent. And one can believe in them in different ways. When you said "regardless of the barriers presented by culture, language, and geography" you yourself must to some extent have excluded convergence. Because culture, language and geography are among the most vital and essential things that civilizations must have, and I don't think that you meant to exclude common origin.

[Cristiano viejo]

Only about my own people.

[Holt]

That's a lot more than just one question. By weakest link logic, people could say no for so many different reasons. Very different. Which non-humanist point of view is it that you are trying to debunk, anyway?

I'd garner more responses this way. Maybe I am left-wing troll though. ;D

But the concept of humanity, as people understand it today, more or less amounts to what I wrote. If you have a different definition or one that conflicts with what I wrote, go ahead and share it. To shorten it up a bit, I think it would mean believing that we have a specifically 'human' quality that can't be diminished based on circumstance. Is that better now? Nice and broad, can be interpreted a hundred different ways.

What? I do think you put some extra ingredients in the cake. Convergent civilization is clearly an extra. One can believe in all the other things without subscribing to that, and one can also believe in any of the statements you made to an extent. And one can believe in them in different ways. When you said "regardless of the barriers presented by culture, language, and geography" you yourself must to some extent have excluded convergence. Because culture, language and geography are among the most vital and essential things that civilizations must have, and I don't think that you meant to exclude common origin.

Believing in a common 'humanity' would obviously lead one to think that convergent civilization is a direct result of our similarity. Are you saying you don't believe that humans civilizations are convergent to some degree? How do you explain the fact that the Mesoamerican civilizations developed agriculture, organized religion, architecture, and a caste-like societal organization, all while being almost totally isolated from the rest of the world? Why can comparisons so easily be drawn between their civilizations and those found in the 'Old World'? What do you mean when you say that I "excluded common origin"? Most normal and/or sane people would accept that we have a common origin, that fact can't be disputed. But I'd guess that those who argue against the humanist interpretation would say that since the time of our common ancestor, human populations have diverged to a greater extent than is accepted by the mainstream. They would probably believe that though humans have much in common, like the simple fact that we all speak and practice a culture, different "paths" that human populations have taken could have fostered more dissimilarity than is normally thought.

Maybe you believe that the differences between individuals are so great that there can't possibly be a human collective?