what is humanity?

my previous post dealt with defining what human nature is. i will now address how this differs from the idea of humanity. the chomsky-foucault debate about human nature defines human nature as the following:

"I intend, therefore, not to lose any time and to start off with a central, perennial question: the question of human nature.
All studies of man, from history to linguistics and psychology, are faced with the question of whether, in the last instance, we are the product of all kinds of external factors, or if, in spite of our differences, we have something we could call a common human nature, by which we can recognise each other as human beings."

my previous entry concluded the external factors, or the environment, is intrinsically connected to the development of a person via genes-environment interaction, thus making it impossible for a true human nature to exist in reality. "human nature" exists as a range of possible gene-environment states, but within this range i don't think there is something definitive enough to define all human beings; rather, it demonstrates that we have certain tendencies under certain circumstances that cause the majority of us to behave in a certain manner. furthermore, even within this range, assuming that there was something definitive enough to define all human beings, i made it clear that human nature was really an extension of animal nature, with the only difference being the attachment of consciousness to our being. it is only here, within consciousness and its manifestations, that i believe there is something definitive enough to define all human beings and allow us to recognize each other as human beings, and i term this idea as *humanity*.

at the outset of the debate, chomsky introduces why he believes our capacity for language is a defining trait of what they call "human nature" (different from my version). foucault, on the other hand, believes that "human nature" seems "to have played the role of an epistemological indicator to designate certain types of discourse in relation to or in opposition to theology or biology or history." thus, while chomsky views language as something in common among all humans that can be studied as a metaphysical concept through its own epistemological lens and thus exist as a self-contained, all-explanatory system for "human nature", foucault views "human nature" as some sort of notion we hope to find in objects of study, but that due to the lack of success in finding something concrete over the course of human history, "human nature" simply exists as a lens for obtaining knowledge supposedly pertinent to its notion, but that because that knowledge varies tremendously and has changed in its organization over time, this in turn casts doubt on the existence of "human nature" as a scientific concept or even an ideal construct. in short, chomsky views "human nature", through language, as something that is self-evident and self-perpetuating (in being a scientific idea of sorts, language serves as both an object of study and a system that is part of epistemology), whereas foucault views "human nature", through its role as an epistemological indicator in discourse, as self-refuting and self-defeating, or at best, as a reflection of the lack of congruity in what it is supposed to be as an object of its own study. so, until "human nature" can become evident as a scientific idea or a concrete concept, in which case the discovery would have far reaching effects that we cannot currently conceive and thus might overturn the existing paradigm, the current paradigm remains that "human nature" constitutes failed attempts at trying to define it, so it exists as nothing more than a lens through which the object of study -- the attempted area of defining "human nature" -- actually reflects the role of the investigator -- his/her viewpoint and epistemological intentions and methods being the actual area in which "human nature" is defined. however, the lens differs from person to person, from discipline to discipline, and from era to era, so there is no "human nature" as a concrete process; rather, it exists as a broad wastebasket term of sorts for people's inclinations to want to better understand themselves and their surroundings. my conclusion from this is that ultimately foucault is more correct in his position that "human nature" is not a scientific idea, although for totally different reasons than i outlined in my previous blog post (which explained why *human nature* is actually a flawed concept in theory and is an unattainable ideal). however, chomsky's idea of language being a defining trait of "human nature" is much more useful; his idea of "human nature" would ultimately be compatible with my previous blog entry's definition of "human nature" but not *human nature*. however, instead of trying to make his idea of language simply compatible with my notion of "human nature", which is reducible to animal nature, i would like to make his idea of language one of the hallmarks of what i consider to be humanity, which is constituted mainly by our consciousness and its manifestations.

to me, humanity exists as an ontology of what makes us different from any other species and the struggle between this ontology co-existing with our animal nature, both in our ontology attempting to remain pure from animal nature and, when it is unable to do this, how its conflict with animal nature and subsequent ability to analyze the results and express them as a form of synthesis through any number of manifestations. consciousness constitutes most, if not all of the humanity ontology, and our consciousness could not be fully developed without language acquisition in our early years (as was proven by a case-study of someone who was locked up in a basement without any linguistic human contact for her entire childhood and was unable to really grasp the concept of language once she was exposed to it). so language is required for the development of our consciousness, and once our consciousness is fully developed, language is the primary method (although not the exclusive one) responsible for keeping the domain of our humanity pure -- i.e., doing tasks that are deemed "rational" and abstract -- and providing the ability to analyze the results of conflicts between our humanity and animal nature -- e.g., realizing the mistakes of our actions and attempting to make amends by apologizing and learning from the experience so as to prevent it from happening the future -- and express them as a form of synthesis through manifestations, with art being a notable example. ultimately, language (as well as pure abstraction and art, but let's focus on language here) boils down to two things regarding humanity: 1) conceivability, and 2) communication. conceivability means the ability to conceive ideas in consciousness, ideas of the way things exist in any number of states -- the past, present, and future. conceivability establishes the existence of a person with respect to himself/herself, as interacting with one's own thoughts is a reflexive process. communication is self-explanatory and is necessary to establish the existence of a person with respect to his/her environment through the validation of his/her thoughts being reflective of his/her environment in addition to being reflective of himself/herself, the latter of which happens with conceivability. evidence of our humanity is everywhere: math (pure humanity), psychology (analyzing conflicts between humanity and animal nature), art (expressing conflicts between humanity and animal nature), etc. furthermore, in addition to language, humanity can be expressed through other processes, including music, body movement (dance), visual expression (painting, drawing, sculpture, etc.) and so on. and in realms like math, pure abstraction replaces language per se, although one could make the argument that math is a type of language, etc. but in the area of analysis, language is the primary method, although it can be assisted by math (logic, statistics, etc.) and art (metaphor, narrative, etc.). additionally, math and art are only used by some people for the areas of pure humanity and expressing conflicts between humanity and animal nature, whereas language is used to at least some extent by everyone for all three areas. in any case, math and art are still dependent upon consciousness to be employed. now, before we move on, i want to point out that in virtually all cases (i haven't heard of any exceptions), exposure to language during early years of language acquisition occurs with cultural exposure -- one does not acquire language in a linguistic environment that is simultaneously a cultural vacuum. so, it is not as if we learn language exclusively in our early years, only to employ it as a method -- for pure humanity, analysis of conflicts between humanity and animal nature, and expression of conflicts between humanity and animal nature -- and learn about all of the outlets our culture has to offer -- math, psychology, art, religion, etc. -- later in life. in actuality, language acquisition is accompanied by its use as methods for purposes of humanity and established outlets for these methods to be displayed and engaged. as such, one could argue that via language and culture, our world is socially constructed and social constructions are what constitute humanity. i think that my definition of what constitutes humanity and the role of social constructions in constituting our humanity, while not being interchangeable necessarily, ultimately arrive at the same endpoint, it is just that the path they take in getting there and their perspective in going down that particular path are somewhat different.

so, now that i've outlined what constitutes humanity, we can ask ourselves: what is necessary to take away our humanity and what happens in that case? very easy. all one has to do is take away communication in all forms -- pure abstraction, analysis, and expression -- by banning their methods from being used -- math, language, art, religion, etc. upon the complete abolishment of communication, a person is unable to establish his/her existence with respect to his/her environment because his/her thoughts are not validated. thus, a person no longer views himself/herself as interacting with anything, but instead views himself/herself as existing alone and powerless, with the world being nothing more than what he/she is experiencing. thus, a person in essence experiences life as a waking dream. now, initially, a person is still able to communicate with himself/herself internally by conceiving ideas, which establishes the existence of the person with respect to himself/herself. however, after awhile, the linguistic ability of this person degenerates as it in essence is a muscle that is no longer being flexed. as such, a person still has some latent linguistic ability leftover, but not enough for a person to internally process successfully; a person's memory and cognitive processes thus devolve into a state wherein they remain prominent enough for a person to be reminded that he/she was "a person", but not enough for him/her to continue to be "a person", as memories flash in a sporadic manner, as if fighting to "stay alive" within a person's head, but the person is unable to save them and bring them into consciousness in a productive manner, thus leaving the person internally incoherent and unintelligible to himself/herself. at this point, a person is a shell of a person and functionally reduced to an animal, but with enough traces of humanity remaining so as to inhumanely torture the person and drive him/her to insanity as if living in a cage, fracture his/her being into a fragmented state of self-conscious despair and oblivion, or buckle his/her internal structure so as to leave him/her at the complete mercy of external forces, begging to be in any state, dead or alive, different from his/her current one as he/she can only muster a whimper as an indication of existence or resistance. so while one's humanity can be defined by various methods through various means, perhaps it is best defined by what happens when one has his/her humanity stripped from them and he/she is left in any number of possible zombified states. by seeing what is not there -- what is vacant -- we can denote the opposite -- what should be there -- and that that constitutes one's humanity.