Philosophy of 'the Human'?

[Moody]

1.
The question of Race is rightly discussed in the various forums dedicated to that subject.

In that sense, Race as such is not really a philosophical topic.

2.
Philosophy approaches Race differently, by asking what Race IS, and quickly learns that Race is a category [by whatever criteria] of 'the Human'.

Only here do we arrive at a Philosophical problem: what is this assumption upon which the categorisation of Race is based?

I mean, in short, 'what is Human?'

And are all the Races varieties of 'the Human'?

3.
Some will say that the 'lower Races' are LESS than Human, and are therefore closer to the Animal.

Here we have the nub of our question: what separates the Human from the Animal?

Only when we have dwelt on this can we begin to look at the concept Race, let alone the idea of the Super-Human.

[Siegfried]

One first needs a definition of 'animal', before we can distinguish it from the human. If we use the purely biological definitions, a human being is an animal - but so are certain creatures that are but one cell (as the distinction between plantlife and animallife is in modern biology rooted in the characteristics of their respective cells).
One can only claim a human being is different from the animal, if we accept the thought that humanity is somehow more than merely biological.

[Hellenic Eagle]

The human is an animal.

What is it then that distinguishes us from the animal?

We are animals too. We are supposed to be the top of the food chain.

Our difference with animals is that we have the ability to think and reason.

Our greatest difference is that we are the only animals that we know of our coming death. This is what makes us unique in nature.

[Jack]

Nothing more than an idea: the human is that which can comprehend the meaninglessness of life. This has potential to be a very interesting discussion - let's start.

I think the difference between 'human' and animal is simply a matter of degree. Aristotle believed the essence of man is his ability to reason - basically to draw logical connections between objects. One problem: I think the ability to reason is rooted in (one could say it's the same thing as) man's intelligence (the best definition I've found is one I've thought of myself: intelligence as ability to analyse) and obviously this varies by degree, not kind, between men (and races, as groups of men). Chimps can use sticks as tools to provoke ants. One could (and I will) say this is 'intelligence' in action. So where do we draw the line? At what IQ number do we say 'human' on one side and 'non-human' on the other? Intellectually retarded humans (even whites) could fall on the other side of the line.

At the fact that homo sapiens can only interbreed amongst its own species? But then (I'm an evolutionist) this varies by degree also amongst the races - it's possible (John Baker suggested the difference between a north European and a Bushman borders on two different species - interbreeding between the two can result in offspring of one sex only (I've forgotten whether it's male or female)) that some races (e.g. Bushmen) could concievably interbreed with apes. I don't know. I don't think anyone's done studies into it either. I've seen blacks (African ones) personally who I'd consider not human simply by their skull structure.

Well - man's simply a highly evolved, superbly skilled killing animal. Think about it - chimps throw rocks at each other and we can erase entire cities at the push of a button. I don't think we need to say man is more than biological - there's no reason why the 'non-biological' (religion etc.) can't come from the biological. The fact that man is at core an animal is what keeps us going, everything else is an extension of this (in my outlook). The smarter man gets the easier it is for him to say 'there's no reason to do anything' (which there isn't, honestly). I think the idea of God is man going back to his core - his blood, his instincts, via his mind. Not all instincts are destructive either. The 'higher' (in the 'spiritual sense') man gets the more animal he becomes. The highest - that's staring at oblivion itself. Only blood, instincts. emotions, can equal man's mind and balance him on the tightrope between oblivion and animality (survive-eat-breed-die) and together that combination can push him into infinity. Our civilization, via postmodernism, is effectively staring oblivion in the face, and its leftist head is what's looking.

Well - there's the solution. Ram nihilism down their throats and watch them struggle to breathe, and take over by reviving animality to the extent it can equal the leading minds of the West. Feminism, multiculturalism - destruction of the animal that's what the white world is (is that a big problem, being honest about such things? The leftists will winge about altruism etc. but they're promoting the nihilism - shove it down their throats and tell them there's no reason to be altruistic - that's the disease. Kill the disease by making it swallow its own poison ('the way out is through') and watch it writhe in pain and fall off - we'll hit chaos for a while (dark ages anyone?) but I don't see why we can't pull out of it quickly... first we need to kill the disease.

I don't see why we can't accept nihilism anyway "Yes, that's exactly right. There are no reasons for anything" - "but then..." - "Why do you need a reason?"

[Moody]

1.
All have agreed so far that the Human is differentiated from the Animal by the former's ability to use reason [a distinction at least as old as Aristotle, as has been mentioned].

This is probably why some Humans have entitled themselves 'homo sapiens' [i.e., thinking].

2.
However, it seems that the ancients [like Aristotle] therefore regarded only the civilised races as Human; slaves and barbarians were non-Human, sub-Human etc.,
So we must go beyond the simple 'rational' distinction.

Modern man has decided that homo sapiens, the species as a whole, are 'Human'.
This is clearly a step too far.

3.
But there is another aspect that separates Humans from non-Human animals, and that is our ability to take on Duties and to make Moral judgements.

The Human is a Moral animal.

This means that the Human has a Conscience.

So those homo sapiens who show a lack of Morality and a lack of Conscience are Sub-Human.

Using this criterion, we can exclude whole Races from the category of the Human, and we can treat them in the same way as we treat all other Animals.

[Ominous Lord Spoonblade]

Well - there's the solution. Ram nihilism down their throats and watch them struggle to breathe, and take over by reviving animality to the extent it can equal the leading minds of the West. Feminism, multiculturalism - destruction of the animal that's what the white world is (is that a big problem, being honest about such things? The leftists will winge about altruism etc. but they're promoting the nihilism - shove it down their throats and tell them there's no reason to be altruistic - that's the disease. Kill the disease by making it swallow its own poison ('the way out is through') and watch it writhe in pain and fall off - we'll hit chaos for a while (dark ages anyone?) but I don't see why we can't pull out of it quickly... first we need to kill the disease.

I don't see why we can't accept nihilism anyway "Yes, that's exactly right. There are no reasons for anything" - "but then..." - "Why do you need a reason?"

I love the way you think

And promoting nihilism is not hard. You can start right from your very own home.

@Moody -How do you know that all animals don't have a conscience? Dogs can learn right from wrong just like people do, and react negatively when they know they have done something wrong. You could argue that it's because they are trained that way, but then again, aren't we?

IMO, our ability to have morals is not something seperating us from being animals on its own, it is something that comes with the ability to use reason. It is secondary.

I don't see any Race that ultimately lack morals -only Races that lack morals when living in a society built by another.

[Jack]

1.
All have agreed so far that the Human is differentiated from the Animal by the former's ability to use reason [a distinction at least as old as Aristotle, as has been mentioned].

This is probably why some Humans have entitled themselves 'homo sapiens' [i.e., thinking].

I agree. I think it might be worth pointing out that the skull which the basis for labelling 'Homo Sapiens' was from the Caucasus region - in the original sense, only Caucasians (i.e. Europeans, Turks, Semites, some Indians) are Homo Sapiens.

2.
However, it seems that the ancients [like Aristotle] therefore regarded only the civilised races as Human; slaves and barbarians were non-Human, sub-Human etc.,
So we must go beyond the simple 'rational' distinction.

Modern man has decided that homo sapiens, the species as a whole, are 'Human'.
This is clearly a step too far.

Given that the modern idea of 'human' (aside from the rubbish moralising of the leftists) is a biological generalisation (whoever can interbreed with a 'human' is a human - a bit tautological, but it functions... slightly), I don't see this as a problem. The question remains why people recognise the fact they are capable of interbreeding with a pigmy and then place this as the core of their identity. Humanism is... rubbish.

3.
But there is another aspect that separates Humans from non-Human animals, and that is our ability to take on Duties and to make Moral judgements.

The Human is a Moral animal.

This means that the Human has a Conscience.

So those homo sapiens who show a lack of Morality and a lack of Conscience are Sub-Human.

Using this criterion, we can exclude whole Races from the category of the Human, and we can treat them in the same way as we treat all other Animals.

Leave morality out of it. There is no reason whatsoever other than our own sentimentality and collective egoism to say that our ways are better than those of others. Conscience is an evolutionary mechanism Like the Ominous Lord Spoonblade said, each race has its own (biologically) built-in morality.

[Moody]

1.
I deliberately raised the question of morality, as there appears to be some confusion and even fear of it here.

While accepting the basic distinction of man as a rational animal, I think that advances in psychology have shown that man is also very irrational.

So the distinction of 'reason' is not enough to describe 'the Human' as opposed to the animal.

This is why I take the next step to the Moral.

2.
Now the Ominous Lord Spoonblade claims that morality is derivative of reason, and she opines that animals possess this [i.e., morality and a conscience] also.

A conscience [in Old English the word for this was 'in-wit', i.e., inner-knowledge] is a sure combination of the rational and the moral, in that our conscience tells us when we have 'done wrong', for example.

So the claim that animals have both reason and morals begs the question;
Why aren't animals afforded basic 'human rights'? [I am only thinking of the fundamental rights of life, limb and property accepted by most systems, not the liberal idea of 'human rights']
The 'animal rights' lobby claim that they should.
To be consistent, Ominous and Jack should be advocating that [I'd like to hear their response to that one!].

3.
Of course, there is another claim made by the animal rights lobby here, and that is that all hominids are rational and moral.
Are such REALLY claiming that the unconscionable and irrational African Negro is a Homo Sapien ['wise man'] and a Homo Moralis ['moral man']!

I find such claims as ridiculous as those made for animal rights!

Only the higher races can distinguish themselves from the lower [and therefore from animals] by their reason and morality.

I find either the rejection of morality [Jack] or the universalisation of morality [Ominous] to be indicative of the lower races, not the higher.

So I say that Moral Man and Rational Man are peculiarities of the Human and are exemplified by the Aryan.

p.s.;
See also man as a 'political being', man as a 'producer', man as a 'tool-maker'; notice that all these descriptions of the Human correlate with the Aryan division of the three Functions.

[Jack]

1.
I deliberately raised the question of morality, as there appears to be some confusion and even fear of it here.

While accepting the basic distinction of man as a rational animal, I think that advances in psychology have shown that man is also very irrational.

So the distinction of 'reason' is not enough to describe 'the Human' as opposed to the animal.

I agree.

This is why I take the next step to the Moral.

I disagree.

2.
Now Ominous claims that morality is derivative of reason, and she opines that animals possess this [i.e., morality and a conscience] also.

A conscience [in Old English the word for this was 'in-wit', i.e., inner-knowledge] is a sure combination of the rational and the moral, in that our conscience tells us when we have 'done wrong', for example.

Here I disagree. The rational is simply the ability to analyse - the conscience is irrational - it's simply fear (both Nietzsche and Freud covered this). There is no reason to value anything whatsoever. The Objectivists claim that man must choose to value, or not to value, his life - this is apparently his first choice. However there is no reason to value one or the other. This choice is irrational. However, if one values something, then one is capable of fear (I'll define fear as the pain of potential loss of something if that something is in danger of being presently lost.) Animals have a conscience, they just can't think ahead

So the claim that animals have both reason and morals begs the question;
Why aren't animals afforded basic 'human rights'? [I am only thinking of the fundamental rights of life, limb and property accepted by most systems, not the liberal idea of 'human rights']

Actually, a 'philosopher' named Peter Singer is a campaigner for animal rights. He's even gone so far to say sex with animals is ok so long as it doesn't cause the animal pain... Besides that, animals (generally) don't work, so property rights are rather absurd. I said generally, because once again chimps provoke ant nests with sticks and birds construct nests.

The 'animal rights' lobby claim that they should.
To be consistent, Ominous and Lucifer should be advocating that [I'd like to hear their response to that one!].

As you've noticed, I haven't advocated a lot recently

3.
Of course, there is another claim made by the animal rights lobby here, and that is that all hominids are rational and moral.
Are such REALLY claiming that the unconscionable and irrational African Negro is a Homo Sapien ['wise man'] and a Homo Moralis ['moral man']!

'Rationalism' as a guide to life itself, without at least a single irrational decision (the decision whether to hold one's own life as highest value or not is the only thing required to life an Objectivist life, apart from living 'according to reason'), is nihilism Africans do indeed have consciences Their consciences are thinner than whites' are (takes less to remove them) and now they're figuring out they can get away with just about anything, they live according to their nature.

I find such claims as ridiculous as those made for animal rights!

Not quite As you should recall, the idea that blacks should be given life, liberty and property rights is a side effect of Ethical Socialism (Spengler wrote about it in Decline of the West). Nihilism is the only way to counter it. The 'life-liberty-property rights' idea is universally applicable. The only reason it's held to is because it is universally applicable - the West-European world has an obsession with anything universally applicable. Notice you even tried to justify Race-Nationalism because you wanted it for everyone, not just Europe.

Only the higher races can distinguish themselves from the lower [and therefore from animals] by their reason and morality.

Aye? What about the Magian Arabs, then? Are they not 'rational' and 'moral'? Whose morality? By what standard of value is it measured?

I find either the rejection of morality [Lucifer] or the universalisation of morality [Ominous] to be indicative of the lower races, not the higher.

Morality is the residue of theology. Move beyond

So I say that Moral Man and Rational Man are peculiarities of the Human and are exemplified by the Aryan.

Define your terms. You, most certainly, are not rational.

p.s.;
See also man as a 'political being', man as a 'producer', man as a 'tool-maker'; notice that all these descriptions of the Human correlate with the Aryan division of the three Functions.

Right

[Moody]

"The rational is simply the ability to analyse "

That is a narrow view of the rational.
The ability to analyse is one thing, but the ability to synthesise is another.
The word 'Man' seems to derive from the sense of 'measure' [cf., Moon, mens etc.,]; so man recognises in himself the ability to calculate, to measure and importantly, to remember.
Not only is he an anlyser, but a synthesiser; the latter is very important, as this is the root of MAN AS A SYMBOLIC BEING.
It is the ability to utilise symbology at all levels that differentiates him from the Animal.
Art and Religion are both aspects of this definition of The Human.
Therefore the trash culturalist and the atheist are Sub-Human [below-the-human].
All of this stems from the 'ratio', which includes the irrational ['law' of pro-contradiction].
Man's reason allows him to be irrational and so make those perverse discoveries that only the illogical can find. It is also the reason why man LAUGHS a lot.

"- the conscience is irrational - it's simply fear (both Nietzsche and Freud covered this)".

Reductionist; while sub-man can be tamed by fear, and a semblance of a conscience can be burned into the mind of a savage by blows and kicks, that is only a dim immitation of the real conscience that is inherited by the Aryan. That which is the child of fear is an aping of the noble conscience or in-witt which is indeed rational in the sense that I have described in the first answer.

"There is no reason to value anything whatsoever. The Objectivists claim that man must choose to value, or not to value, his life - this is apparently his first choice. However there is no reason to value one or the other. This choice is irrational. However, if one values something, then one is capable of fear (I'll define fear as the pain of potential loss of something if that something is in danger of being presently lost.) Animals have a conscience, they just can't think ahead "

Again, animals operate on flight or fight and are tutored by fear according to that strict governness Mother Nature.
However, this is NOT equivalent to the rational conscience seen developed in the Aryan, and exemplified by his moral philosophy and political systems.
Animals have nothing of this; to say that they 'only' lack a 'thinking-ahead' [literally 'Prometheus', fore-thought] is an absurdity. Thinking ahead is what DEFINES the Aryan conscience. It is the imitation conscience of the Negro animal that only thinks behind.
Beware also of attributing human qualities to animals [anthropomorphism] - we only 'think' that the Hyena is laughing..

"Actually, a 'philosopher' named Peter Singer is a campaigner for animal rights. He's even gone so far to say sex with animals is ok so long as it doesn't cause the animal pain... Besides that, animals (generally) don't work, so property rights are rather absurd. I said generally, because once again chimps provoke ant nests with sticks and birds construct nests".

Well, as you and Ominous are suggesting that humans are animals, I am still awaiting your arguments on the accession of equal rights between animals and humans.

"The 'life-liberty-property rights' idea is universally applicable. The only reason it's held to is because it is universally applicable - the West-European world has an obsession with anything universally applicable. Notice you even tried to justify Race-Nationalism because you wanted it for everyone, not just Europe".

Confusion; you are claiming a universality by saying human=animals; I am saying the opposite.
As to race-nationalism [and you have brought in a red-herring as usual], I am not saying that Negroes aren't a Race! Clearly they are a Race, and if they have nations, then they can have a kind of racial nationalism [albeit peculiar to their race].
I am saying that they are not Human in the way that the Aryan Race is.
Because they lack Reason [in the broadest sense] and they lack Morality.

"What about the Magian Arabs, then? Are they not 'rational' and 'moral'? Whose morality? By what standard of value is it measured?"

Morality is not in itself a standard; it is adherence to a particuliar/peculiar code of behaviour which is inherited.
I have also described reason above.
So other Races can be attributed with these gifts, although I would say that the Aryan is the examplar, and I even suspect that the existence of such qualities in other races is due to ancient dispersal of Aryan genes among some members of other races.
Aryan man IS the measurer; he is the Aristotle or the Newton of the Human.

"Morality is the residue of theology. Move beyond".

Narrow again; you yourself have talked of objectivist morality [although you used the word 'ethics' instead!].
I have defined morality in a non-theological way already - it is not dependent on the theological.
It is you who RUN AWAY from the moral issues every time!
Finally, I'd posit a hierarchy;

Gods
Demigods
Superhumans
Aryans
Persons
Humans
Subhumans
Animals.