The Definition of Humanity: Part 2

It is in this realization that “I can only fully realize myself only if I can realize what I, and the ‘I’ of him, and of her, are meant to be in the first place as humans” that we may then fully answer the question of ‘what makes us human’ and what makes you, you’. 

It is interesting for us to note how we had ended on these lines in part one of the definition of humanity. Indeed, this statement itself serves as a very fundamental pre-notion to the concepts of altruism, love, enlightenment and meaning. These concepts have in turn been used by philosophers and theologians to define characteristic traits of man. In this post, we will be moving on towards society in general, as well as the concept of transcendental idealism- a key concept for self enlightenment, the realization of objectivity, as well as God. We have touched lightly on these concepts earlier in part four; however, we will now review their implications in light of progress and meaning. Hopefully, we may draw appropriate conclusion from therein, and from them move on love proper.

The realization that one is not alone is something that is exceedingly fundamental. Strictly speaking, we have already begun our identification process (of others) from the moments of birth. The natural psychological instinct for us to form the bond with mother has been proven key to the first successful identification of our species, and paves way to other prerequisite ingredients for successful ‘socialization’ with others. From that innate preference to respond to feminine voices- as if a certain knowledge that the chances of being taken care therein may be higher have been imposed upon ourselves; we can begin to infer that the human cognition (as with higher animals) is tuned for socialization and communal development way before we may even understand these concepts. It has been postulated that it is in this ‘bond at birth’ where the child learns about the phenomenon of trust; this is in line with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as addresses in ‘the qualitative consciousnesses.

Notably, trust itself requires a certain type of interpersonal empathy for itself to manifest. While theists may use the notion of the ‘brotherhood of man’ to explain how one individual may ‘put himself into the shoes of his neighbor’, it is empirical fact that the development of trust is developed out, and proportional to the amount to self-worth one realizes within himself. Trust is a hypothetical self-imposition of one’s cognitive-emotive faculties into the personality of another; or simply peaking, the belief that the other would have incorporated traits of the self with no compromise to his/her individual will.

Now, as we attempt to bring about certain reconciliation between interpersonal love and goodness, we observed that since this relation between man and neighbor via unifying trust and love is exceedingly fundamental, it runs the risk of being taken for granted for what it is.

What does this mean? Firstly, we must understand that all declarations of knowledge are all in part a form of circular reasoning. By the term ‘circular reasoning’ we do not mean that our chain of logic naturally comes full cycle from us via quantum physics to cows and back to us; Rather, we must understand that whatever information that we encounter has to be logically anchored to what is already deemed as truth for it to make sense. In this respect- if we may trace this logical chain of events backwards, we realize that our entire faculty of knowledge actually is anchored right back to basic principles acquired from birth. This domain principles is finite and bounded, so naturally as that of a building founded on principles and linked via logic, our knowledge is always perspective, coherent, and ‘circular’ in nature.

Now, that we have understood the constructs of knowledge, it becomes evident that our initial associations with nature and with each other, founded in association, love and trust, have and will eventually bring us to ‘a meta-stable level of sapience’ where we juggle between authority and love, between personal achievement and metaphysical qualitative goodness. As society plays heavily on the workings of these underlying forces, we run the risk of believing that reality itself, be it the reality we have experienced all along, as of the need of love we have construed previously, is limited to the tangible, the sensational, as well as to our precepts.

As in part 4- we have technically redefined the domain of truthful being with respect to the two fundamental moderations (within the self, and between individuals). This domain of reality may be exceedingly complex- and complete theories to describe the intricate relationships with people will have to draw due reference from the multitude of deterministic outcomes, subjectively harmonized into the aggregate of characteristics that will later be employed during the course of the relationship for each and every individual involved. And while the epistemological nightmare does not end, the implicated ‘moderation’ of personalities (of each individual) will bring about further change to the perceptions of the individual- of themselves, of each other, and to reality. We cannot incorporate every possible scenario (in this meta-stable level of sapience), and hence we abstracted the above into two underlying themes: they are politics and ethics respectively.

Is politics and ethics naturally the highest boundary of the human’s domain of truth? Our current discussion on moderation of the self as well as with the other would have definitely (and eventually, if we trace this multitude of details as listed above) led us to the premises of politics and ethics as before- except perhaps we may live life slightly in greater harmony then, being able to balance between the ‘forces of life’.  Yet, we knew that this is not the end of the story of meaning, lest the end of reality itself. As we attempt to seek greater meaning in life, we realize that another factor has to be realized- one that we have constantly employed throughout the course of this project, before the full meaning of moderation may be realized.

We have stated before that there is a corresponding idealistic domain for every logical and intuitive expression. As we transcend these theories to this ‘greater’ reality, it is imperative for us to understand that there is a higher idealistic correspondence to this reality that we live in- one that is also epistemic and ontological in nature, and most importantly, ideal. By conventional philosophy, it is this higher realization that marks the beginning of self-enlightenment, and from there we may finally ‘break free of the matrix of politics and ethics and enter the real world of truth’.

What does the essence of ‘breaking-free’ imply? More directly, what does that mean? On hindsight, the realization of the metaphysically ideal definitely brings about a second dimension to life (or existence).
It is possible to visualize this move as a sort of personal liberation, where one may rid himself of the shackles of what is denoted meaningful by society and convention, to the higher connotations of meaning (that is truthfully by part subjected to the self). Also, higher reasoning would allow one to see an implied logical flow of events, and hence meaning via logical coherence, should propositions may seem illogical at face-value. The metaphysical world, as one may call this idealistic parallelization, would naturally be one that makes complete sense on its own.

It is on the idealistic parallelization of politics and ethics that we may derive the concepts of epistemology and metaphysics-

Even at this point, it is extremely dire to note that personal liberalization alone is insufficient to bring across this fundamental living best to life. The meaning of humanity, as with the meaning of the self, is not solely a strife to personal enlightenment and attainment of perfection. The idealistic realization of goodness and love is essentially good, however it runs the risk of singularizing meaning itself into one objective purpose- one that is analogous to a search for the ‘highest truth of reality’. We have cautioned that objective meaning, unlike that of truth, is instead one of infinite qualia.

How is it possible to compatibalize then, the notions of the objective truth of goodness and meaning? Indeed, after this multitude of propositions on moderation, union and love, how is it possible to reconstruct these truthful ideals into actions of meaning and goodness, without running the risk of turning meaning itself into another ideal? It is at this point in time that we make one final postulate, one that is transcendent in nature, to fully moderate this paradox of seeking the living best to life.

From our identification of ourselves via our interactions with the real world, as well as that from our interactions with each other in trust and love, we have realized the reality of life- the political and ethical natures to living, and the moral compellations we ought to fulfill. On the other hand, as we unknowingly realize reality, our metaphysical construes of the world develop, perhaps to a point where we realize that reality itself must have a corresponding truth and meaning. We may then be tempted to forsake reality proper and head on to with the development of the ideal; indeed, many philosophers and religiously devout have forsaken reality in search of ‘harmony with the cosmos’. Now it is at this point we would have to review our theory of life-

In T1, we have once made an allusion of a necessarily balance between the real and the ideal. Although at that point in time, the contextual meanings of the ‘real’ and the ‘ideal’ was limited to the tangible and the ideally construed; yet in part 4 we see that this transition can be transposed into politics and ethics, in contrast to epistemology and ontology. Essentially, there is no distinction between these two, except for the fact that these two moderations are employed on different level of transcendentation. Bearing this in mind, we must now realize that the concept of self-enlightenment is not an objective ideal, although it is itself an ideal. This realization will be crux to the manifestation of the living best.

What does this realization imply? Idealism and realism is necessarily equally transcendent in nature, with none objectively truer than the other. While our previous construes of love and life itself are a truthful representation for the meaning of humanity, it is equally truth for the love and life to be the ultimate meanings of humanity. Our theories of moderation and love are indeed truthful representations for the full qualitative account of the reality of moderation and love, but as we return back to the fundamental objectives of this series of discussions- truth itself cannot convict meaning to the individual. In other words, beyond the realization of transcendental idealism, it is imperative for us to ‘return back to the matrix’ to fully manifest the ideal truth to ideal goodness.

We now return back to our fundamental two moderations touched on in our ‘the definition of humanity- part 1’. If the need to realize the ideal holds truth, and all discussions somehow point to the fact that true meaning lies in conviction and determinism (from part 5), we well as from moderation and union (from parts 2 and 3).The expansion of the meaning of man, as with the expansion of soulful conviction, can only be fully realized in a real life live in progression towards the love ideal: be it a direct union with nature, or with each other. Should we now shift our focus on the objective validity of this statement into the objective meaning this statement implies, we see that the love ideal is in fact the (highest) objective fundamental method to seek an ever expansion of personal qualitative domains.

From the mechanisms of trust in the form of personal empathy and identity integration (moderation), we may now see how this is possible:

On one hand, the ideals of love is an ideal of mutual imposition of aspects of the ‘self-concept’ of the individual- to lead a form of mutual empathy between individuals, where one may see (and be seen) two personalities simultaneously- with each it’s concerns and beliefs. On the other hand, bearing in mind the concept of trust as we have recently discussed in light of the concepts of the individual and the community, it is indeed in this mutual trust we get to re-affirm our personalities. From the conscious accommodation of the other’s personality with our own, a higher personality of mutual balance is created- a move into greater truth (meaning) and harmony. On the basis of meaning, we begin to see how the subjectivity of man may become reconciled towards the objectivity of humanity, and yet at no compromise to his own individuality.

It is almost possible to state that the meaning of man, via his direct associations with nature (as covered in the moderation doctrine), expands now with the successful realization of his neighbor, re-affirming him inadvertently even as he offers the act of service in re-affirming his neighbors. This simple conclusion forms the fundamental basis of Christianity, that in self-emptying (self-exhausting) love, one may actually affirm the soul of the neighbor, and yet paradoxically feeling no exhaustion as this ‘spotlight’ is in turn focused on himself. In service one’s individuality may manifest in gessellschaft, and in affirmation one’s individuality may manifest in germeinschaft.

Moreover, it is easily verified that the love ideal is the only ideal that satisfies both the objectivities of truth and goodness. In light to the paradox of the singular objectivity or truth as contrasted with the objective infinity of goodness, the love ideal can be seen as the ultimate ‘direction’ that truth progresses; yet from the above mechanism of union we see immediately that in integration, meaning can never be reduced, or differentiated to finite measures. In other words in love, all meaning, qualia, and individual worth must be expanded to an infinity.

Rephrasing, should we consider love as the ‘singular objective truthful purpose’ that humans were indeed created upon, we would naturally be tempted to state that this would be the ‘uni-polar’ meaning of humanity. Yet we must realize that the concept of love is an antithesis to the concept of selfishness. So in this way we can re-induce that the meaning of man for love cannot be a uni-polar meaning. In this respect we will also see validity that the love ideal itself cannot be a finite ideal of meaning, this meaning that love itself has to be ultimate meaning to life.

Thirdly, it is almost congruent fact that love is a very powerful tool to convict the self- through the layman’s definition of love we have already witnessed the potential for love to delude (convict falsely) the individual, as well as love ‘as a source of strength to carry on’. In part 5 we did see that meaning itself is also objective and subjective to the individual, and what is good to the person must be what is meaningful to the person. It is in this convicting aspect of love where meaning can be formed- and subsequently goodness to the individual. It is no wonder why love has always been perceived as the ultimate good, or source of meaning itself. And it is no wonder then that the crux of Christianity is in fact an elaborate (and elegant) proponent of the love ideal.

From here, much of our further elaboration of the love ideal should be a re-compilation of the love ideal as advocated by Christianity. But as we trace through, and conclude this post for now, we would have almost realized the fundamental concepts key to the meaning of life. We may never get a finite answer that fully satisfies the question of the definition of humanity, but naturally through the realization of the natures of truth and goodness, and the harmony through the love ideal- we may at least have an intuitive insight of this ever persistent question of, on, and about life.