NationStates Jolt Archive

Before you stands a single human being. This single person represents every man and woman that ever lived, everyone from Jesus Christ to Adolf Hitler, from yourself and everyone you ever knew to your worse enemy. This single person is directly responsible for every action ever performed by every human being to ever live. The question? What do you think of the person standing in front of you?

In short, how do you perceive humanity as a whole, yourself included?

Think on it a bit before answering.

In short, how do you perceive humanity as a whole, yourself included?


Absolutely average in every respect when measured on the human scale.

I'd think he's pretty crazy, and recommend certain strong psychiatric drugs.

Well he/she/it is standing in front of me, so it obviously does not include me. Therefore the whole premise you created is wrong, or I am not a human.
If I am not a human I probably don't give a damn about it, and if the premise is wrong I probably don't give a damn about it.

I probably don't give a damn.

Well he/she/it is standing in front of me, so it obviously does not include me. Therefore the whole premise you created is wrong, or I am not a human.
If I am not a human I probably don't give a damn about it, and if the premise is wrong I probably don't give a damn about it.

I probably don't give a damn.

Which bit of the word 'represents' did you have difficulty understanding?

Before you stands a single human being. This single person represents every man and woman that ever lived, everyone from Jesus Christ to Adolf Hitler, from yourself and everyone you ever knew to your worse enemy. This single person is directly responsible for every action ever performed by every human being to ever live. The question? What do you think of the person standing in front of you?

In short, how do you perceive humanity as a whole, yourself included?

Think on it a bit before answering.

I think he is a selfish, inconsiderate person. But that's not nessicarially a bad thing.

Before you stands a single human being. This single person represents every man and woman that ever lived, everyone from Jesus Christ to Adolf Hitler, from yourself and everyone you ever knew to your worse enemy. This single person is directly responsible for every action ever performed by every human being to ever live. The question? What do you think of the person standing in front of you?

In short, how do you perceive humanity as a whole, yourself included?

Think on it a bit before answering.

Created in the image of God, and hence worthy of repect and dignity. That answer your question?

In short, how do you perceive humanity as a whole, yourself included?
.
A strange species of ape with less hair than most.

The first thing I thought of was what the hell am I standing in front of. I decided it was a soul. There is no human being who can represent humanity, but we all have souls and people represent souls. Thus, this "human being" is a soul. Our souls are similiar. They represent the same ability to have feelings, actions, and thought. How could one be such a bad or good person if our souls are similar, I wonder. It is because of how one soul influences another. So I guess there would be a sort of state of connection and equilibrium among all these souls.

(I tried!)

Which bit of the word 'represents' did you have difficulty understanding?

The bit that implies that something that is not me can represent me to me. That bit I do not understand. I represent me to me, something else represents something else, not me. I am human, so something else can not represent all of humanity including me, unless this representation includes me. Now if I am in front of it, it is not representing me. I represent me.

Clear?

I think he is a selfish, inconsiderate person. But that's not nessicarially a bad thing.

I think that picking a single facet of humanity to describe humanity as a whole isn't exactly "fair."

Created in the image of God, and hence worthy of repect and dignity. That answer your question?

In a brief fashion, yes it does.

A strange species of ape with less hair than most.

You will find that we are more then that

The bit that implies that something that is not me can represent me to me. That bit I do not understand. I represent me to me, something else represents something else, not me. I am human, so something else can not represent all of humanity including me, unless this representation includes me. Now if I am in front of it, it is not representing me. I represent me.

Clear?

On my planet they have these things called mirrors and statues...

I'm wondering if it's naked and if I can have sex with it.

I would wish him good luck. He sure as hell needs it. And I'd probably tell him to avoid doing anything too stupid.

I'm wondering if it's naked and if I can have sex with it.

If it represents us all, then I'd think yes.

He's clearly evil.

I'd blow him to pieces with my shotgun. That should purify earth a bit more...

If it represents us all, then I'd think yes.

Sweet ... then I can officially say I've fucked everybody!

Sweet ... then I can officially say I've fucked everybody!
Apparently.

Well, this representation has done a lot of bad, a lot of good, but it's too early to judge. Especially difficult as good and bad are human constructions used to define human events and their impact on humans.

On my planet they have these things called mirrors and statues...

You claim that an inanimate object can represent you and all your actions. You haven't done a lot then I presume. Nor have all the rest of the humans on your planet.
I, being an awareness, not necessarily a physical object, I, me, my mind, do not consider that a statue or mirror could represent all of humanity, including me.

(A nice little side discussion this one.)

Sweet ... then I can officially say I've fucked everybody!

Eww! That would mean you commited incest and adultery! :eek:

Through the ages we have seen that humanity is capable of great good...as well as great evil. But in order for there to be one there must be the other; a positive and a negetive.

I doubt we could get both to coalesce into one single entity. As we have seen in nature, when positives and negetives clash, they often cancel eachother out.

So...I reserve the right to say that there is no one standing before me. But for your question on what I think of humanity thus far:

SPOILERS!








................meh..

Eww! That would mean you commited incest and adultery! :eek:

Whilst masturbating, apparently. ;)

I'd say that it would be perfectly evil (Because that would include Adolf Hitler, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, all the devil people), but perfectly good (Like Jesus, Bush, you know). But I can't judge. None of us can. But I say the good might just outweigh the bad

Honestly, I'd shoot him.

Is the person smiling, or smirking, or frowning, or just blank?

Is the person smiling, or smirking, or frowning, or just blank?

He is looking straight at you with a sly smirk denoting he knows FAR more then you.

You claim that an inanimate object can represent you and all your actions. You haven't done a lot then I presume. Nor have all the rest of the humans on your planet.
I, being an awareness, not necessarily a physical object, I, me, my mind, do not consider that a statue or mirror could represent all of humanity, including me.

(A nice little side discussion this one.)

I would certainly claim that my name as something which references me throughout my life (excepting a period of about a month or so at the very start) is something which represents me and all my actions... as to whether it counts as an object or not is a further question.

You concede that the term 'your mind' - ie. a signifier - can be used to represent the totality of your awareness, yes? If you allow this then why in the case of a physical signifier, be it a traditional 'representational' sculpture of your body or a more abstract piece, do you disallow it?

He is looking straight at you with a sly smirk denoting he knows FAR more then you.
Smarmy bastard.

He is looking straight at you with a sly smirk denoting he knows FAR more then you.

Yeah, most humans are ignorant fools who would think they are experts in everything and entitled to blurt out their retarded opinions in the media just because they've been on a "reality" TV show, so that makes sense.

Yeah, most humans are ignorant fools who would think they are experts in everything and entitled to blurt out their retarded opinions in the media just because they've been on a "reality" TV show, so that makes sense.

Are you claiming that most human beings have been on a "reality" TV show?

A little more guilty than innocent. Naive and impulsive. Clever and manipulative.

As Sagan put it "Capable of such beautiful dreams, and teriifying nightmares".

A little more guilty than innocent. Naive and impulsive. Clever and manipulative.

What standard are you measuring them against?

You know, I am genuinely surprised no one has said the "correct" answer...

Then,what is the "correct" answer?

I would certainly claim that my name as something which references me throughout my life (excepting a period of about a month or so at the very start) is something which represents me and all my actions... as to whether it counts as an object or not is a further question.

You concede that the term 'your mind' - ie. a signifier - can be used to represent the totality of your awareness, yes? If you allow this then why in the case of a physical signifier, be it a traditional 'representational' sculpture of your body or a more abstract piece, do you disallow it?

Something, like my name, can reference me, but not represent me in the way implied in the first post. There was no implication that it was just a "standing for" representation. It was an implied "being" representation.

That I can denote my mind, by using the definite description "my mind", does not mean that this denotation represents, in an existential sense, my mind, it only represents it referentially. As I am denying the antecedent in your argument, the consequence is irrelevant.

Has the correct answer got anything to do with asking why you want us to do your homework for you?

Cos that was the first thing that crossed my mind.

PS. Philosophical questions aren't supposed to have correct answers. The whole aim of philosophy is to get you to think.

Then,what is the "correct" answer?


Simple really. Man is.

Simple really. Man is.

Q: In short, how do you perceive humanity as a whole, yourself included?

A: Man.

huh?

Aside from the fact that it doesn't make a great deal of sense, you are implying here for all separate individuals there is one 'correct' answer and thus one true perception of humanity. Intentional?

Capricious. Capable of acts of great kindness and unimaginable cruelty. Has the potential to be far better than what he is. In many instances, too ignorant or repressed to realize that potential.

Points have probably been made, but;
If I shot it, then I'd be the biggest mass-murderer and commiting suicide, right?
I would kick it in the nuts (assuming it has nuts) seeing as how there are some complete assholes in there (including me).
I would also try to shag it, as there are some pretty hot people in there (excluding me)

i would consider that person a friend. we are all different... all unique. to roll all of humanity into one person would be to get the average human... and that average human would be perfectly normal.

wow. one person representing 26 billion. i wonder what color hair it would have. i bet it would like like a Q, for any trekkies out there.

wow. one person representing 26 billion. i wonder what color hair it would have. i bet it would like like a Q, for any trekkies out there.
I assume the 26 is a typo?

Are you claiming that most human beings have been on a "reality" TV show?

Uh, no. I don't think it's possible within our realm of physics to make 6 billion people famous even for just 15 minutes each (if someone wants to prove me wrong, go ahead, I'm just too lazy to do the math). But most will if they think it'll make them rich or famous.

huh?

Aside from the fact that it doesn't make a great deal of sense, you are implying here for all separate individuals there is one 'correct' answer and thus one true perception of humanity. Intentional?

Think about the statement, man is, for a moment. Man is what? Does anything in particular come to mind? Earlier in the thread someone said that man is selfish and inconsiderate, but of course this is not all that man is. In fact, a whole hell of a lot of things should come to mind. One could say that man is evil, man is good, man is selfish, man is hateful, man is loving, man is crazy, etc, etc, etc... However none of these things fully express what man is. Thus the only reasonable conclusion is that man simple is collectively what it is.

So what is humanity? In truth, humanity is a contradiction of choice. Every single man (or for the purpose of my original post that one particular man) has the capacity to rape, murder, plunder and destroy and in the past has done so over and over and over again. However, that ultimate man has the capacity to nurture, cherish, love, and create and he and every single generation of man has done all these things. Man has built societies for as long as he has existed and each and every time he has torn them down only to rebuild them. This is yin and yang, black and white, good and evil, and it exists within EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING that ever lived. Likely some of you think that we should do everything in our power to "correct" our nature, attempt to discard the unpleasant parts of humanity. However, to do so would be to discard humanity itself, a feat that only suicide will rectify. The goal in understanding this? A balance of our nature, not self hatred. The first step towards a balance is the acknowledgment that every facet of humanity has a purpose, the second step is to come to terms with what you have acknowledged.

So, what is humanity? The ultimate answer to that very simple question is thus: Man is...

Think about the statement, man is, for a moment. Man is what? Does anything in particular come to mind? Earlier in the thread someone said that man is selfish and inconsiderate, but of course this is not all that man is. In fact, a whole hell of a lot of things should come to mind. One could say that man is evil, man is good, man is selfish, man is hateful, man is loving, man is crazy, etc, etc, etc... However none of these things fully express what man is. Thus the only reasonable conclusion is that man simple is collectively what it is.

So what is humanity? In truth, humanity is a contradiction of choice. Every single man (or for the purpose of my original post that one particular man) has the capacity to rape, murder, plunder and destroy and in the past has done so over and over and over again. However, that ultimate man has the capacity to nurture, cherish, love, and create and he and every single generation of man has done all these things. Man has built societies for as long as he has existed and each and every time he has torn them down only to rebuild them. This is yin and yang, black and white, good and evil, and it exists within EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING that ever lived. Likely some of you think that we should do everything in our power to "correct" our nature, attempt to discard the unpleasant parts of humanity. However, to do so would be to discard humanity itself, a feat that only suicide will rectify. The goal in understanding this? A balance of our nature, not self hatred. The first step towards a balance is the acknowledgment that every facet of humanity has a purpose, the second step is to come to terms with what you have acknowledged.

So, what is humanity? The ultimate answer to that very simple question is thus: Man is...

By that same argument, you could say that everything is indescribable. Which pretty much kills any sort of meaningful communication. I don't think that I want to take that step. Better to say that we can say true things, even though we know that we can't say everything.

Think about the statement, man is, for a moment. Man is what? Does anything in particular come to mind? Earlier in the thread someone said that man is selfish and inconsiderate, but of course this is not all that man is. In fact, a whole hell of a lot of things should come to mind. One could say that man is evil, man is good, man is selfish, man is hateful, man is loving, man is crazy, etc, etc, etc... However none of these things fully express what man is. Thus the only reasonable conclusion is that man simple is collectively what it is.


I draw the conclusion from this that man is not... rather than man is.
Man is not coherent, man is not consistent, man is not logical, man is not homogenous etc.
Categories, which are what you asked us to provide for this impossible figure, are essentially homogeneous. They divide the universe by similarities, not by differences. Now species, of which man is an example, divide the word by differences not by similarities. You then ask us to attribute one to the other

You asked a loaded question, one that has no possible answer, and then you expect us to draw a positive conclusion. The only real conclusion that can be drawn is that the question was badly formed.

Think about the statement, man is, for a moment. Man is what?

...

So, what is humanity? The ultimate answer to that very simple question is thus: Man is...

Absolutely average in every respect when measured on the human scale.

Explain to me how the very first response you got in this thread fails, would you?

Explain to me how the very first response you got in this thread fails, would you?
Except that, if this conception of humanity is 'average in every respect', it must be singular, otherwise it would be characterised by aggregate measures. (Furthermore the OP asks, "What do you think of the person standing in front of you?", so I think I'm within the parameters of the question at hand.) So, if this conception was average in every respect, it would fail in this regard: that no one specimen of humanity is average in every respect.* And so is at least remarkable in that respect. It may also exhibit some gender confusion.



*Admittedly, this statement is speculative, being based purely on anecdotal evidence - my personal experience to date.