philosophy, ethics philosophy, epistemology, critical thinking, political philosophy

Introduction to On the Human Species

Excerpts from the paper

I shall ever curse the gods for bestowing upon me the gift of reason

From Chapter One: The Sense Experiencing, Thinking Entity

In beginning, we shall probe deep into the seemingly simplistic and obvious, but core elements of our species. This paper shall be a gateway to dialogue; however, a complete understanding of the points covered in this chapter is an absolute necessity before one can competently approach a philosophical quandary on the Human Species. Many ostentatious intellectuals fervently swallow the philosophical rhetoric and theories of philosophers past. Thus miseducated, in their pretentious ignorance, they partake in meaningless philosophical discussions in attempts to display their newfound ignorance, while proving that their blinded beliefs are most true. However, they fail to perceive that regardless what philosophy or governance one is studying, they all spawn from the same core elements of our species. Thus, not only with a knowledge of these elements, but with a true understanding and respect, only then may we move upon our most guided path of objective inquiry. With this understanding, let us begin.

1. We are animals; moreover, at one time our ancestors merely possessed crude reason, which left them highly instinctive with thought existing primarily as the present moment dictated.

As I peer within the animal kingdom, in an investigative nature, an inquiry that will exclude our species, I fail to perceive manifestations of good and evil. In viewing the preservation, propagation, and extinction within the daily interactions of living entities, one would not state that they observed an immoral animal taking the life of one that was most ethical. We would not consider a mother animal that ate her offspring as deranged or evil, and the taking of a life within one's own species would hardly be murder or a crime. However, we now must travel back in time, a time long before Homo Sapiens. Yes, one peering within the workings of Mother Nature at a time millions of years before the present would partake in the same observations and conclusions as just mentioned, but with the genesis of a new line of species, with causes that would inevitably move effects that would lead to our species, this would inevitably change. This genesis, this directional move of causes and effects, would bring forth a branch of species with a discernable advantage over existing species, which moved them away from their predecessors. Let us briefly ponder the period before our ancestors evolved into the sense experiencing, thinking entity, a period before Australopithecus.

2. Our Hominid ancestors were instinctual creatures with crude reason and an existence based solely on experience. Their offspring were born predominantly singular with a rather long gestation and maturation period, which obviously mandates extreme attention and care, which would be quite difficult, as the species was/were entering and struggling within a new ecological niche. At that point, our ancestors instinctively pursued pleasurable states of consciousness that were caused by stimuli interacting with their senses, i.e., caused by events or experiences. The pursued stimuli affected their physiology with a feeling of pleasure thus intrinsically propagating survival. They needed to avert stimuli that brought about non-pleasurable states of consciousness that could precipitate the inevitable ceasing of their existence. This would delay their inevitable desistence long enough to reproduce, hopefully their offspring would be able to do the same, and theoretically, barring extinction, this would continue through posterity.

On the surface, this is another simplistic statement. This is the force behind the propagation of living entities within the universe, a more complex version of cause and effect.

3. We are sense experiencing, thinking entities, that sensually interact with the external world through stimuli induced experience, and we react to these experiences with instinctual reflexive and reasoned volitional actions. By these means we subsist.

Again, this is the force that propagates life, but now we must delve within the differences, if only by degrees, between instinctual reflexive and reasoned volitional actions. It is these reasoned volitional actions, moved to a consummate degree, that differentiates the Human Species from the remainder of the animal kingdom. The high degree of reasoned volitional actions are created from reason, of course, but we must discern what creates this, perceived as, ethereal reason, and more importantly, we must inquire if the volitional aspect is anything more than illusion. Thus, if the volitional aspect of our reasoned actions is to be more than illusion, we must find a change in the force or cause from that which moves our instinctual actions, and this must not be merely by degrees, but in the kind of force itself. I beseech one to be circumspect as we travel further into the human mind; hence, maybe an answer will step forth and reveal itself...

4. Instinctive actions are genetically programmed reflexive reactions to physical processes received through experience, regardless if these experiences are internal or external. These programs continually evolve in all creatures to meet their specific needs for survival within a constantly changing external environment.

We find these instinctual reactions to events or experiences, i.e., forces or causes, throughout the animal kingdom. We, as Home Sapiens, refer to these reactions as instinctual so that we may differentiate them from our reactions that we perceive as volitional. Still, they both are reactions to events or experiences; for without events and experiences life ceases to exist. Moreover, there are two types of events and experiences; those of a genetic nature, as those that interact with our nervous system, more aptly referred to as events; and those perceived by the senses, which one can refer to as either events or an experiences.

From Chapter 2: The Worrying Species

Let us begin with the apparent realization that all things have a beginning and an end (now realized as a change in form). The tree grows, flowers, and subsequently it bears fruit; then the fruit is consumed or it falls to the ground. However, following the time of life, and subsequently the time of death, life giving water returns to the springs, followed by the time of warmth. Yes, it was these observations, that the cessation of something is followed by regeneration, that were the mother of cyclical time. Next, and of superceding importance, is the realization that all events, or experiences, should naturally have an antecedent cause (cause and effect). There is a two-fold importance lying within the realization. First, the understanding of cause and effect was of the utmost significance in accumulating and conveying a collection of lore that could continually expand and compound through posterity. Secondly, and of more subtlety, is that if the cause of any observation or event were unknown, this would obviously set the Four Causes of insecurity in motion. Let us if we may, step back to a time thousands upon thousands of years before the Common Era. It is a cold, late winter evening and once again, this invisible force, with no apparent cause, ravages through the camp bringing upon an ailing chill and utter destruction to anything in its path. What of a flaming circle that arrives every morning bringing heat, but disappears, as it arrives, without reason. What of the big mound of earth that spits fire out its top, or the never ending body of water that for no reason violently crashes upon the land destroying everything it encounters? Would not these events, pondered by advanced reason, surely set the Four Causes of insecurity into a panic? One of the consequences of advanced reason, is that the remembering, and thus opining individual, or group when dealing with collective lore, will begin to understand how labeling aids the memory recall. Thus, they would begin to label or name all reoccurring entities and events. A hailstorm would be an entity, and when the hailstorm arrives it is an event. Thus, let us imagine that an early tribe labeled an event, let us say a windstorm or a tornado. First, let us assume that they drew a tentative correlation between the wind and their own breath, which would make perfect sense since they appeared to be synonymous events; the moving of air. Let us step further and imagine there was a storm from the west that constantly ravaged their tribe or camp. Now, if we may be extremely anachronous, and not exactly etymologically correct (a zephyr is usually denotes as a gentle west wind), let us imagine the word that denoted a wind from the west was zephyr. We must realize that a storm arriving and slashing up the camp would be extremely distressing to the tribe. When our prehistoric ancestors perceived movement or change, i.e., events, they either knew of or perceived an immediate cause, or they had to attempt to discern the cause. If a reasoning entity does not know the cause of an effect or experience, the unknown obviously creates variables in the reasoning entity's life, which precludes a secure plan in the attaining of desire. After numerous associated and communicated experiences, many perceived events would inevitably be explained, i.e., even if the individual did not perceive a cause, they understood what kind of forces caused certain movements or instances of change. However, certain events, as a raging windstorm, were not only of greater magnitude in the life of the individual, they were temporally mystical and more difficult to explain. Thus, they would move this unknown entity zephyr into a different category. Individuals and animals appeared to create change, or events, on their own, a crude understanding of volition. Hence, if they could not perceive or understand the cause of an effect, it would be understandable for our ancestors to believe the effect or event moved on its own accord, especially if they drew an analogy between the wind with the human breath. Thus, as the passing of lore continued through posterity, explaining and recording events, possibly with poetic license, Yes, Zephyr returned last night and ravaged our camp. Moreover, we as reasoning creatures, especially with events that could prove to be extremely detrimental to our existence, have a propensity to limit variables and thus attempt to interact with our environment to render it more suitable to our needs. Then why did Zephyr ravage their camp? Well, animals and individuals appeared to bring destruction when they were angry, or hungry, or threatened, thus, they drew a correlation from known events with volitional characteristics, that is, events caused by a creature with volition. Therefor, how could they placate the invisible movers? They would placate the invisible movers by the same means that they would either wished to be placated, or that they placated others. They would give to the unknown forces those possessions that they perceived to be most valuable, at later times going as far as sacrificing a first born male child. The storm was no longer a mere entity, this unknown entity began to be a life or spirit with volitional will, which would subsequently begin to take on anthropomorphic qualities. Our earliest ancestors had fear of the unknown forces of nature, of life, and began to not only label and categorize them, they gave them volition and anthropomorphic qualities that would continually grow with the growth of humanity. Thus newly constituted, our ancestors could then placate the spirits and thus believe that they had some hope of changing the will of the spirits, i.e., limit their variables in their innate pursuance of desire and thus survival. Eventually, deities were created in the image of animals and humankind, with reason, desire, volition, beneficence, pride, empathy, jealousy, anger, omniscience, omnipotence; with all the qualities we had, could imagine, or incredible degrees of what we possess and/or often hope to find in ourselves and others. With modern day science, we have answered many of these unknown variables with facts instead of spirits, but there are still unanswered questions with unknown causes. Yes, there are variables science has not yet, nor ever may be able to answer. This is the life support of popular divinity.

From Chapter 3: A Social Creature

With this realization, we come unto our emotional responses to the world around us. As stated in the first chapter, Emotions are the arousal states of consciousness reacting to and created by sense experiencing and the remembering and pondering of these experiences in reference to desire. Even before our advanced reason evolved, our ancestors interacted with their environment and pursued various states of being that they instinctively perceived as pleasurable. They perceived these states of being as pleasurable due to the constantly expanding genetically evolved instinctive blueprint for survival. Again, when we combine this pursuance with Homo Sapiens' advanced reason, we find complex, reasoned reactions to arousal states that are themselves created of the body and the mind. To recapitulate, arousal is the force or energy generated by sense experiencing and the pondering there-of, which precipitates instinctual reflexive and reasoned volitional action. Sense experiencing and thought creates degrees of pleasurable and painful states of being, which we either further pursue or avert with a certain arousal force in reference to the degree of feeling or urgency, and our beliefs and desire. The greater degree of the arousal and/or the more urgent the situation, the more the following action becomes instinctual reflexive and less reasoned volitional.

Interactions with the individuals in our environment produce degrees of pleasurable and non-pleasurable effects. Again, these feelings permeate together, a flowing quantitative stream of arousal states. Human intercourse produces feelings that range from extreme antipathy, to a state of apathy, then returning to an extreme state, but this time it is of consummate appreciation, or love. Moreover, moving beyond mere human interactions and the judgements of the states they move, with Homo Sapiens' expanded window of experience, we attempt to predict future interactions, the pondering itself being an arousal state caused by the recollection of past interactions. This can obviously yield distrust, which is the realization that humans can never be counted on to act in a certain manner unless they believe the action will bring them some degree of pleasure or satisfaction at some time. Unless you know what an individual believes and desires, what created the beliefs and desire, or what the individual believes is the best means to attain the desire, one can never predict their future actions. Faith is trusting or believing the unknown for the benefits the trust may yield. It is hope in denial or existing as fact by specious directed reasoning to a desired end. Trust is hope, a well-chosen probability by experience and observation, or naive belief.

From Chapter 4: HIERARCHY AND DESTRUCTION

Homo Sapiens are sense experiencing, thinking entities that socially interact with their peers to aid in the daily trials of existence. Moreover, not only do we find harmonious and discordant interactions, the social groups tend to progress into judicial and hierarchical structures. In addition, these social groups inevitably interact with other social groups of the same species. As we have the possibility of utility or enmity, and any degree in between, in personal human relations, the same also applies in relations between distinct groups or societies. The views of a populace or a governing body toward another entity or its governing body are based on the beliefs and opinions of the abilities, beliefs, opinions and desires of the foreign entity. Moreover, the manner by which one collects the information about a foreign culture or government affects their views immensely. Pertaining to views of a natural nature, we have those views created by observations, assumptions, research, and the opining of the yield of these three modes in reference to our own beliefs, needs and desires. Beyond the natural view just referenced, there are those of political nature, that is, views placed forth by either governance that tend to place a group in a certain light that is self-serving for the governing objectives, regardless if the views or objectives are specious or sincere.

Hence, we find co-existing groups with formed opinions (regardless of veracity) of the attributes and objectives of each other. Moreover, in antiquity tribes would have encounters with other tribes of which they had no empirical knowledge. In such a case, they would have to act on knowledge attained by analogy. In our distant past, peoples often labeled foreign tribes and cultures as barbarians, inferior, and even as non-human. This prejudice grew out of fear of the unknown, not to mention excessive pride and an excuse for extermination. Thus, in prehistoric antiquity there were confrontations of a non-political nature, due to sudden encounters, fear, and needs for sustenance, including the protecting of territory and the moving into a territory to find shelter and/or nourishment. We obviously lived in small groups from our earliest beginnings, and we were sure to have understood the possible dangers in confronting strangers. However, was this from a propensity of human violence? I would be more inclined to think that it was from an instinctive realization of the competitive struggle for survival. Nevertheless, we came to understand our lot and we had our reason to deliberate means of either communicating desires, cooperating or respecting the space of others, or if need be using our intellect to avert being one of the less fortunate. In our undeveloped past, there were many reasons for war, as well as cultures that could not understand the concept of peace. In many tribes, war was such an important aspect of their existence that there were elaborate rights of passage to prepare young men for the institution. In these cases, war became the norm; but our species has evolved from cultures dictated by magic and the unknown, to those of knowledge and reason. Hence, let us move beyond our ancestors and return to the present enmity, jingoism, and the disrespect that exists between many nations.

Progressing into the realm of political warfare, and hence the reasons why groups go to war, we have to realize that allies are formed of utility. Nevertheless, we must also realize this utility could be based on necessity, as opposed to congruent beliefs, or the alliance could be based on fear, to rather be with someone than against them. Moreover, we must draw the line between sincere and species objectives when waging war. Thus, besides the early confrontations mentioned in the last paragraph, are there any non-political reasons for waging war? First, let us examine waging war in the name of self-defense. The key word in our inquiry is defense, the act of defending your a state or dynasty from an aggressor. Moreover, within the term there is an implication of the possibility that the aggressor has the potential to afflict casualties and/or bring destruction. However, it should be rather apparent that almost any entity could afflict casualties and bring destruction if the attack was surreptitious. In addition, it is impossible to believe that every social entity will be your ally. Thus, would war in the name of self-defense give an institution a legitimacy to attack any institution that is believed to harbor ill will toward your institution, regardless whether this belief is real or pretend. Instead, should it then imply that self-defense is just that, defense by preparing for, and reacting to an immanent attack; for, to attack a weaker state in the name of self-defense is merely a specious means to one's own objectives. Yes, it is also obvious that one of specious means can easily feel threatened. Then what would designate an immanent attack? An immanent attack would have to be just that, immanent, and imply a motion in the direction of aggression. Hence, this would not merely entail harboring aversion or planning aggression, but the beginning of the deployment of aggressive acts; not simply owning a weapon. Does this then imply that a government must wait until it is bleeding before it takes decisive action? First, let us step within the case of a government claiming self-defense from an entity that is obviously not as powerful. We are still dealing with specious rhetoric in this case, for if a government believes that another entity may be planning aggression, it shall immediately convey that any action against its land or people would lead to immediate and utter destruction! Secondly, only the sleeping are caught by surprise! If a government believes an entity is planning aggression against them, they should have their weapons drawn and their attention focused in their direction at all times; for the first object of a Government should be that of protecting the people from foreign hostility. Moreover, intelligence shall win over aggression, hence to know the actions of your enemy, their whereabouts, and most importantly to conduct the governance in a manner that does not breed contempt and invite aggression! Thus, looking at the mentioned case, no one is resting idle waiting to bleed, which renders the rhetoric mere politics. Then what about countries of somewhat comparable military power, when the element of surprise could determine the outcome? Again, only the sleeping are caught by surprise, but still, equality is a great deterrent of war. Knowledge and vigil preparation eliminates the surprise element from the arsenal of a supposed aggressor. Thus, if the governing body is vigilant, their preparedness for an attack by an equal, through strategic military design and/or alliances, will preclude them from needing to wage an attack in the name of self-defense. Lastly, let us review the case in which an entity is obviously weaker than their alleged aggressor. It is obvious that an outright attack would be the same as self-destruction, but if they were stealth-like, surreptitious attacks, they still would not accomplish a change in governance, merely a death toll, but still an inevitable self-destruction. Moreover, with no hopes to overtake the alleged aggressor, and with the alleged, more powerful aggressor not provoking the attack, we must again perceive the attacks as political. A government will never kill all their enemies, nor those who propose a danger (especially a government that conducts itself in a manner that breeds hostility), unless the government plans on overtaking the entire world, and then their enemies shall sprout from within. Hence, a government must pursue another avenue if they truly wish to obtain world peace and/or stability.

From The SUMMATION

Our journey has served us well, for we now see clearly to where we began, having distinguished the attributes, needs, and constitution of Homo Sapiens. Moreover, we have delved within the desires of the individual entities of our species, and we have discerned the mechanisms that created them. In addition, we have looked backed to whence has our species arrived, and then after a long and arduous journey, we pondered our perceived destination of enlightenment and propagation, or utter destruction. Thus, we can again ask the questions: Can society form the government, and, can government form the society? Considering we have examined the individual entities of our species, we now understand what moves their beliefs, desires, and thus actions. Moreover, we also understand that culture and our upbringing severely affects and restricts our beliefs, desires, and actions. As stated, From the time of our birth, we are molded as survival, social entities, and from early a period, we begin to attempt to mold and influence those around us. Thus, we understand that society can immensely mold the beliefs and actions of the individual, and that a governing body can easily do the same to society. Moreover, one should also understand that the government has the ability to manipulate the beliefs and desires of the populace for whatever reason they deem necessary, of noble or specious objectives! Hence, we can now return and again address the proposed measures of governmental success, and then discern if they are in fact adequate measures that will yield the best probability of an inspiring society.

The first proposed measure of governmental success was that of power. However, we have two gradations of power that we may address. First, is that of power over the people, and secondly is that of power over foreign nations. Speaking of success in reference to the governmental constituents, they obviously want to have power over the populace and over foreign entities to be successful. In beginning this paper on the best possible society, I asked if society determined the individual, or if the individual determined the society. Continuing from this question, we moved directly into the aspects of governance. There was a tacit statement within the introduction when we moved from speaking of individuals and society, to speaking of governance; this was that governance is a necessary element for a stable society. Many of the entities that we have been speaking of during our journey, as ethics, morality, justice, virtue; these are creations of governance. These entities are such an important aspect of our lives and the structure of our societies that they have evolved into universal entities that people do not even perceive as human creations, but of some ethereal divine providence. This in itself displays that governance is indispensable. Moreover, it is also inevitable that as there is a government, even if the whole of the populace is involved in the decisions of the governing body, there will be those administrating the government, and hence there exists a beacon of power. Thus as we assuredly perceive the necessity of government in a society, we can rest assured that governmental power over the populace is necessary. Government, in its true essence is control and power; for governance without power is like a torch without illumination! Power is a true measure of governmental success, for without power, governance is a mere faint impression.

l/p- goodby