Skip to content

The Changing Definitions of Humanity

July 31, 2020

It is interesting to track over the generations, how we have come to refer to and define humanity in different ways. Back in the 1300’s the word “man”, that we now use to refer to men only was applied to all human beings. And when referring to a man one added “Wer”, and when referring to a woman one added “Wif”. Wifman, is the origin of the word woman, and it could be suggested it is also the origin of the word “wife”. “Wer”-man is the origin of what we think as just man, and is connected to the word werewolf. One could perhaps think of it as wifeman for woman and wildman for man. The interest of this is that there is a common misconception that masculinity and patriarchy are the reason that the word woman seems to be an offshoot of the word for a man. As if in our ancient history women did not even get a word for them. When, you look into it, though, you see that the history suggests a less patriarchal time, where gender was a secondary differentiation between men and women,

The reason this whole topic comes to my attention at this moment, is looking through the latest twitter ramblings today, I see some people complaining about a CNN post referring to women as individuals with a cervix, arguing that this objectifies real women. I have seen myself some websites referring to people in this way. Referring to men as individuals with a penis and women as individuals with an ovum. I think it does objectify people, both men and women, trying to make their animality, rather than their humanity the primary factor about them. For a long time Christianity ensured that humanity was the primary distinguishing factor. This based largely on its connection in the Western world with the Greek philosophical tradition of thought. Greek thought saw human beings as having the distinguishing faculty of Reason, that made us distinct from all the other animals.

But, in recent times, thanks to the growing influence of evolutionary thought, and the successes and growing power of science in general in Western culture, the notion of Reason or of anything else as distinct about human beings, has been waning. In favour of a focus on emphasising our commonality with other animals. The end result is that these kinds of objectifying definitions of human beings based primarily on their animality are going to become more prevalent. I have always worried that western society is becoming less and less a civilisation and more and more a case of domestication. The more we deny our distinct humanity and personhood, in favor of our animality, the more we will be treated as such, so that the goal will not be a free civilisation of beings, but a domesticated warren of animals.

Looking back to our earlier times and the “wer”- man one could guess that this is a tactic being used by the few remaining “wer” – man or wild men, or “wolves”, to have easily available prey for them. It is not for nothing, I expect, that Jesus talked of being a shepherd to his sheep, he was aware of the threat of the wolf. We have removed the guiding shepherd from our society, yet we have not eradicated the predatory wolves. Somehow I feel that those wolves are salivating over the use of the terms: “individuals with a cervix”, and “individuals with a penis”, instead of dignifying them with the title as people and human beings first and foremost.

What we can learn from the history is that definitions are changing all the time, and these changes effect how we view the reality. We need a rejuvenated notion of what it is to be a human being and a person. It is the only way to stop the current descent into domesticated herds defined purely by outward physical features. The BLM obsession of the left of late is another symptom of this malaise. They have lost anyway to define their personhood, so they try to define it via some perceived oppressed group. When there is no oppressed group, they make one up, based on whichever group of people happen to be most dissatisfied and making the most noise at this current time.

What the left will never learn is that the wild in man can never be totally tamed while still keeping the man. It is a part of our human nature that the ancients realised a whole lot better than we do. The bad consequences of this basic denial of our natural reality, are ironically tied to a weak and failed attempt to define human nature based on some objectified feature, such as a cervix or a penis. It is a classic case of confused cause and effect. The effect of all that natural energetic being, is taken as being the cause of it, when it is merely an end product of it. The result of all this convoluting is a denial of ones natural energetic being, a stultification of ones energy, and a society of domesticated beings too weak and ashamed to even show their faces among their fellow men.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: