-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Humanity
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Secret Chief
Degrow!
It's in the dictionary, but I'm guessing you have some nefarious reason for asking?
If by nefarious you mean I read it in an academic book on the Middle Ages in a discussion on nominalism, yes
It is claimed therein that 'humanity' is a nominalist concept, and we don't find any notion of it in pre-Christian societies as far as I am aware. Many societies only group as far as their own, not others. The notion of all humans belonging to something called 'humanity' is rather modern and odd.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Well it has quite distinct, but related, meanings of course:If by nefarious you mean I read it in an academic book on the Middle Ages in a discussion on nominalism, yes
It is claimed therein that 'humanity' is a nominalist concept, and we don't find any notion of it in pre-Christian societies as far as I am aware. Many societies only group as far as their own, not others. The notion of all humans belonging to something called 'humanity' is rather modern and odd.
- noun Humans considered as a group; the human race.
- noun The condition or quality of being human.
- noun The quality of being humane; benevolence.
- noun A humane characteristic, attribute, or act.
If by nefarious you mean I read it in an academic book on the Middle Ages in a discussion on nominalism, yes
It is claimed therein that 'humanity' is a nominalist concept, and we don't find any notion of it in pre-Christian societies as far as I am aware. Many societies only group as far as their own, not others. The notion of all humans belonging to something called 'humanity' is rather modern and odd.
Interesting that you see the creation of the term humanity as "odd". Aren't there many sociological, political, anthropological, and psychological concepts or ideas that did not exist in pre-Christian societies?
So .... yes, then?
Augustus
…
The term is used in different ways:
1. Humans in general/all of the people in the world
2. A collective moral agent (the progress of humanity, crime against humanity, etc.)
The former exists, the latter does not, and is mostly a legacy of monotheism that makes little sense outside of a religious context.
Just like dogs and monkeys, there are only individuals and groups with different, and often incompatible needs and wants.
Sure, words referencing stuff we experience are a thing, "humanity" or otherwise. And like any words humans make up to reference stuff they experience, precise meaning and application will vary.
Betraying my formal education in the life sciences, I tend to read "humanity" as simply referencing the species Homo sapiens in most contexts, inappropriate specific epithet notwithstanding. Betraying my job at a university, I also think about "humanities" which is a broad class of disciplines that study all human history and culture.
Betraying my formal education in the life sciences, I tend to read "humanity" as simply referencing the species Homo sapiens in most contexts, inappropriate specific epithet notwithstanding. Betraying my job at a university, I also think about "humanities" which is a broad class of disciplines that study all human history and culture.
But what does "being human" mean?
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Identifiable as homo sapiens?
Nope. That's just speciest, imo.
Humans build fire; cares for it's old, young and infirm; uses tools.
This takes us back about 2.5 million years or so.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Common definition then:
"A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech."
@Secret Chief "distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech."
So Homo Sapiens, and Homo Neanderthal. At a minimum. That's still several hundred thousand years of human evolution.
Are brains also aren't very remarkable size or function wise.
"Humans also do not rank first, or even close to first, in relative brain size (expressed as a percentage of body mass), in absolute size of the cerebral cortex, or in gyrification (Hofman, 1985). At best, we rank first in the relative size of the cerebral cortex expressed as a percentage of brain mass, but not by far. Although the human cerebral cortex is the largest among mammals in its relative size, at 75.5% (Rilling and Insel, 1999), 75.7% (Frahm et al., 1982), or even 84.0% (Hofman, 1988) of the entire brain mass or volume, other animals, primate and nonprimate, are not far behind: The cerebral cortex represents 73.0% of the entire brain mass in the chimpanzee (Stephan et al., 1981), 74.5% in the horse, and 73.4% in the short-finned whale (Hofman, 1985)."
So Homo Sapiens, and Homo Neanderthal. At a minimum. That's still several hundred thousand years of human evolution.
Are brains also aren't very remarkable size or function wise.
"Humans also do not rank first, or even close to first, in relative brain size (expressed as a percentage of body mass), in absolute size of the cerebral cortex, or in gyrification (Hofman, 1985). At best, we rank first in the relative size of the cerebral cortex expressed as a percentage of brain mass, but not by far. Although the human cerebral cortex is the largest among mammals in its relative size, at 75.5% (Rilling and Insel, 1999), 75.7% (Frahm et al., 1982), or even 84.0% (Hofman, 1988) of the entire brain mass or volume, other animals, primate and nonprimate, are not far behind: The cerebral cortex represents 73.0% of the entire brain mass in the chimpanzee (Stephan et al., 1981), 74.5% in the horse, and 73.4% in the short-finned whale (Hofman, 1985)."
Last edited:
Onasander
Member
(Pagan) Roman Fetial Priests:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetial#:~:text=A%20fetial%20(%2Fˈfiː,the%20patron%20of%20good%20faith.
From the link:
The implications of this etymology would hint to the fact that outside their own ager Romans felt the need for a religious, founding justification of their actions as a people toward other ones. A need was felt to go beyond the sphere of human law or right. While juridical justification was acknowledged as necessary Romans wanted to ensure the approval of what founds right and makes it possible, the fas. This attitude is testified by the ceremonies held by the fetials that confer religious value to political decisions and specifications in their dealing with foreign nations, aimed at placing the gods on the side of Rome and hence effectively entrusting to them the fate of Rome.
‐--------
I'd like to point out Romans didn't automatically view all people non-Roman as enemies. Barbarian tropies to battlefield victories were generally respected. In otherwords, they didn't just recognize the right of their laws and gods but the actions of others having legitimacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetial#:~:text=A%20fetial%20(%2Fˈfiː,the%20patron%20of%20good%20faith.
From the link:
The implications of this etymology would hint to the fact that outside their own ager Romans felt the need for a religious, founding justification of their actions as a people toward other ones. A need was felt to go beyond the sphere of human law or right. While juridical justification was acknowledged as necessary Romans wanted to ensure the approval of what founds right and makes it possible, the fas. This attitude is testified by the ceremonies held by the fetials that confer religious value to political decisions and specifications in their dealing with foreign nations, aimed at placing the gods on the side of Rome and hence effectively entrusting to them the fate of Rome.
‐--------
I'd like to point out Romans didn't automatically view all people non-Roman as enemies. Barbarian tropies to battlefield victories were generally respected. In otherwords, they didn't just recognize the right of their laws and gods but the actions of others having legitimacy.
Onasander
Member
Res Publica and Humanity are not synonymous. However, on the basis of statecraft, acting on the basis of a state acting against a primitive or ruined non-state, or a ordered society, it matters. Romans afforded more rights to foreign res publicas.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Res publica - Wikipedia
syo
Well-Known Member
I hope not for long.
20-Year Study Reveals: Neanderthals Were As Intelligent as Homo sapiens
Neanderthals knew how to control fire and used it to cook food. Researchers have learned about their habits and diet from the traces found near hearths. Angelucci: "More than different species, I would speak of different human forms." The fact that Neanderthals were able to make a fire and use it
scitechdaily.com
Relevant article.