Humanity

The word humanity has not come without any human intervention. This is a part of human language and therefore it has its own etymology. Each and every human word has its own etymology. That’s why those words need to understand from that perspective. But if anyone wants to invent some newer dimension or new concept then he must be academically recognized wot we can say, he must present a thesis wot is to be well granted. Its same like any scientific innovation wot needs to be proved. Unless otherwise it is unethical.

Anyway, the meaning of humanity is sometimes conflicting and self-contradictory. I WANT TO SAY THERE IS NO BLACK AND WHITE IMAGE OF HUMANITY.

Well if we take humanity as a virtue then we have to know wot virtue is. Is humanity platonic form of virtue or Abrahimic?

Virtue is a positive trait as per Plato, he brought two major elements in the field of virtue. Prudence and wisdom as parts of cardinal virtue. In wisdom one essential element is insightness. Without insightness wisdom is lame. Insight power largely depends on intuition and intuition is such a faculty in human mind wot comes without any interference.

We cn can call it as eureka effect. This is solely a part of esoteric domain, it can neither be empirically verified or rationally justified .Some people tried to define it as gut feelings but ironically embarked at truthiness, wot is nonsense and vicious to me. Oh yes prudence is mingled with Nicomachean Ethics… a try to synthesis between Aristotelian ethics and Christian theology, so religion is there too.

I have landed on intuition and none of the atheist so far managed to provide sufficient arguments to falsify my arguments on intuition. Wot is this? Were the homo sapiens full of intuition? They were homo machines descended from large apes and they had no intuition at all.

I tried to say previously tat human being are not part of the evolutionary process but he was a stranger in this earth and he is not homo erect.

Therefore there was divine intervention and , “SOMEONE’ implanted it. Now my challenge to everyone prove me wrong or bring your version of humanity with evidences. I am saying humanity is religiosity if not prove me wot is it. Either you hv to embark on Confucian ideology or Abrahimic or Greek. Which side are you on?

Now I can try to say few words on ideas. Each and every of us hv our own idea our ideation may vary but we have our own ideas. This is our conviction or stand point or believe or faith. Is conviction or stand point is different than the term believe? Yes or no. Is believe different than faith?

Well if I say my fundamental conviction is, “There is no god but Allah” is my faith. Then this is my fundamental, am I right? And therefore I am a fundamentalist right? Then those who belief that there is no Allah or God, is their believe and their fundamental conviction too. Right? So they are also fundamentalist too. Right? If my extreme point is ‘Allah’ then their extreme point is ‘there is no Allah’ so both of we are extremist at some points too. Right? ….. “There is no God” is the “will to faith” of FREETHINKER William Kongdon Clifford or Free thinker like Rabelias. His motto was “ Do what thou wilt”. Excellently overturned by William Janes. Thus The Ethics of Believe turned into The will to believe.

…… Relation

:...........................

Relationship has its root. The original root of relationship embedded in family. Wot is family and how a family is structured? Two person tie together and they are not deviated from each other and bring their offspring. Then they make a bond and it makes a family. If there is no family then there is no home and relationship is jeopardized. So in order to talk on relationship we have to prioritize family.

If there is no marriage how a fruitful family can bloom? Shall there be a family without marriage?

If I am not committed to my spouse how a family can spring up? So those who are talking about relationship and love are in fact talking about religious domain. I think sexuality is not the whole of a relation. If not then wot?

I proved that there is no altruism without religiosity. Be it any religion there must have a divine interception or layer. If not there is no love but lust and personal gratification for bone and flesh. Before talking on relationship in the larger spectrum one must clear his/her idea. Is he materialistic or spiritual?

In materialism there is no love or marriage. There is necessity. This is matter of law of diminishing utility.

As Karl Marx thought, “Children should be raised by the state, marriage and inheritance should be eliminated, and noncommittal sex should be the only form of relationship”. Random information must be well known and that cn lead to deductive argument and all I am trying is trying to open the field to bring information for arguments.

Well when an atheist ll say to someone that he loves him or her. How it sounds? Without a soul how this love looks like. If Human being is merely evolutionary advanced mammals then is not love to them something like hormonal instinct? When an atheist says to his wife that he loves her becomes hormonal level towards her for mating or is he saying she is her soul mate? No they do not believe in soul. When mother says her kid she loves her then is she verbalizing the instinct to preserve her species?