We've all heard it; the evil, seductive allure of self-fulfillment or gratification. Our desires and our nagging need to have them fulfilled. Thankfully, "we" are of a higher breed than the base animal, we are humanity; the superior species, the enlightened species, the dominant species; "God's children", "the proprietors of the earth". The smartest beings, the moral beings, the wasteful beings, the depraved beings, the self-tamed beings, the self-destructive beings; the human being is the logical being, the highest echelon of rationality (which, given our invention of the concept as mentioned in the previous piece, makes perfect sense) and morality (which "we" also made up); and "we" are all of these things because "we" overcome our innately evil desires and shackle ourselves to the moral codes crafted or influenced by a religion who's followers are soaked up to their eyeballs in the blood of non-adherents.
Thankfully, due to the birth of religious freedom, the cause we must take up and the burdens we must bear have now become universal edicts! Whether you are a fervent theist, a noncommittal agnostic, or a stout atheist; we can all join our hands together, shed tears of joy, and gush incessantly about our shared humanity; our common moral values; our single, unified front against...them. Rather than separating ourselves based on our differences, we, the enlightened, have learned to tolerate what divides us by ignoring everything that does not make us the same! Of course, we have nothing in common with them. They are not like us: they are inhuman, they are insane, they are irrational, they are evil, they are filled with sin, they are self-righteous; they are idiots, WE are intelligent!
To best understand the superiority of the modern man, one must first examine the mistakes that we have made and had to overcome, one of the more glaring examples being the modern man's triumph in quashing sexism and gender inequality: the elimination of man's mistreatment towards the woman; though, this pertains solely to modern man; the savage man, the lesser man, the inhuman man are still steeped in this backwards line of thinking. Somewhere down the line, the woman was considered a human; later, we gained the insight to recognize the worth in people, the worth of a human being lies within their ability to further the aims of the human race-and the objective demonstration-the empirical measurement- of how well each individual toils towards the ends of their society; how their misery brings happiness, luxury, and comfort to the majority! With this revelation-the first step towards building glorious civilization- we relegated the woman to her tasks- women's work, as it was called- and reduced her down to that which would make her most useful to the human race- the womb: her ability to give birth; her body: that what would make her most appealing to the ends of reproduction; her body again: specifically, its ability to do so-called "woman's work": child rearing, housework, the like! And what more use could we have for her? She is irrational, hysterical, emotional! We, the human, are none of these things; or so we thought. Despite our infinite potential to do good and our intelligence, we failed to account for what we did to the woman; we did not calculate correctly, we were not thinking clearly, the errors of past Man have made themselves apparent: the woman's value to humankind does not lie solely in her reproductive ability! Indeed, with civilized society have moved beyond the age of the savage; we've brought about an age of equality thanks to the feminist movement, we've realized the folly of segregating work roles under gendered lines: women can do what was once deemed "man's work" and vice versa! The woman is now, once again, a human! What better proof of the woman's freedom than her permission to toil for financial independence as we do? What more could she possibly want to other than to strive for financial gain under the liberating embrace of labor? What could signal her freedom more than her need to submit under the just authority of the economy as we do, to set aside her selfish desires to serve society as we do, to overcome her innate irrationality to follow the path to reason as we must? Surely, with the woman having become human, she could not have anymore demands to make; if she does, then she, an errant individual, is surely as hysterical and selfish as we previously believed. Perhaps her lust for freedom from man has gone too far beyond what is reasonable and veered onto misandry.
Overwhelming proof of our magnanimity can be seen in our uplifting of the savage. When we discovered the savage, its wild nature and unconquered environment made it obvious that it was not like us; it was inhuman, animalistic; indulging in its baser urges without regard for God or reason. Despite our benevolence and propensity for reason, we reacted poorly; we simply did not see: the savage was not an animal, but an unfortunate human; plagued by their lack of civilization. Unfortunately, we did not realize this in time: by the time we did, we had already killed the savage and tamed his children. And what fine children they grew to be! They possessed skills and abilities that mirrored our own! They could reason like us, write like us, read like us, and, with time, may even learn to speak like us! Our sin was not seeing the humanity in them; in not taking a more level headed approach to raising them and teaching them the errors of their backwards ways. The savage is dead and, in his place, stands the tamed savage! A human, as evidenced by their accomplishments and ability to disregard their savage nature and embrace their humanity! What was once the victim of unjustified expropriation and enslavement is now a respectable equal! Surely, with the same legal rights and newfound ability to roam the world with us as equals, they are rational enough to understand their good fortune? With their bondage behind them and their permissions to submit under just authority and mandatory paid labor, the savage is happy? If they are not, then they are an errant individual: ungrateful and unreasonable, no better than the dead savage. Perhaps their lust for freedom from the civilized man has gone too far beyond what is reasonable and has veered onto bigoted intolerance.
Our benevolence is not restricted to our fellow man, but to beasts as well! It is true that in building modern civilization, our sprawling cities and the vast fields of crops needed to feed them; we have caused some damage to our environment. Fortunately, thanks to the advent of science and human problem solving, we've managed to form a reasonable compromise with our fellow inhabitants: we've ingratiated them into our vast, interconnected network and, in doing so, have gained much from them! In a mutually beneficial relationship, we ensure that they don't die out and we gain meat, pets, and test subjects in turn! Surely a better situation for everyone involved rather than sacrificing all of them for the sake of advancing human interests!
Unfortunately, for all of our power; there are some things that we simply cannot cure. Some people are simply beyond hope and the only solutions are imprisonment or execution; this, of course, refers to the insane: those incapable of reason. We are not inhumane; we would not call for the systemic execution of these people; they cannot help what they are! It is more humane to simply exile them into the madhouses from which they cannot escape, though it is not entirely hopeless, some of them can even be saved! Yes, thanks to our knowledge of the human mind, we can monitor and treat these people and they can even have some semblance of a normal life and, more importantly, contribute to society! Surely with these concessions, the madman cannot complain; we acknowledge his humanity and understand that they did not choose to be born this way! We can fix the madman, and if he refuses, he is simply too far gone into his madness and must imprisoned before he becomes "The Criminal"!
Here, we reach our breaking point; once someone has gone into this path, they forsake their humanity for their own selfish desires! The criminal is the omnipresent threat to humanity; they are the opposite of what we strive to be: they are unreasonable, selfish, destructive, and illogical! They disregard reasonable authority and thumb their noses at the laws created to keep us safe and orderly! The criminal can only become human again if they pay their debt to society and renounce their criminal ways, though the sin of being a criminal cannot every be fully washed away and their humanity is always in question: regard the ex-convict with distrust, for he has broken the law once and would surely do so again! While unrepentant criminals cannot ever be human, and thus deserving of our rights and freedom, we human beings still have use for them: it would be inhuman to kill them, but to simply imprison them is not punishment enough: we must extract all possible use from them: their minds may not be human, but their bodies are; as such, it would be an unforgivable waste to squander such a plentiful potential labor force. The single best, most humane option is to have them labor towards society's ends; it would not be a punishment to simply employ them, but to enslave them would be inhuman, instead we must offer them a reduced wage to perform this labor. The unreasonable would call this slavery, but surely working for a wage, even a reduced one, is better than slavery? And making this labor the second option to rotting in a cell means that there is a choice in doing so and, thus, not slavery? Furthermore, should the freedoms of those who would break the law even matter? If they could not abide the punishment, perhaps they should simply not break the law? The criminal is simply a lesser being that deserves punishment, there is no reasonable argument that exists that proves otherwise. The criminal forfeits their rights and freedoms and any who would argue for the criminal's liberation is surely a madman!
In conclusion, because of our benevolence, our intelligence, and our devotion to reason; we have shut out the allure of madness, we've measured our freedom and sit satisfied with what we have, we've spread our reason guided morality throughout the world and have solidified its place in the world; we have become powerful and have given that power to reason, making it material! We have given the law the means to defend and assert itself as needed! We have used reason to determine that society's current form must endure and that the only acceptable form of progress is towards that which is most logical!
We are the human!
We are rational!
The above is the mockery of the conglomeration of philosophies and values that are especially prevalent within Western thought, ideologies, and culture. In juxtaposing the stated core values with the actual core values of Western "thought" (humanism in particular), my aim was to highlight its contradictory and absurd nature by pointing out the difference between what humanists say they believe in and what they actually have done historically. Pointing out hypocrisy is, as we all know, a useless tactic in political debate, often relied upon by liberals; it does, however, make for a decent polemic against liberalism.
The point of the prose is to mock the obsessive infatuation that adherants to this form of "thought" have with rationality/logic/facts/the "objective". The excessive use of italics and exclamation points was to invoke a more...theatrical, emotional voice (traits that those obsessed with stoic analysis would find distasteful despite how well an angst-filled rant against emotion suits such people). The use of "we" and "they" to emphasize the collectivist, dehumanising nature of humanism; with the "othering" of assimilated "non-humans" that have "become human" also serving this purpose (i.e, "the woman" not being included within the "us", rather, she is still referred to as "the woman"). The overt narcissism and excessive self-congratulatory nature of "we, the human" is to accentuate the anthropocentric nature of a species that considers the apex of it's imagined virtue (morality) to be synonymous with its own name ("humane" or human whenever used a synonym for "good"); the utilitarian nature that human morality applies to "non-humans" can be seen whenever "we" refers to how "non-humans" can be used to advance human aims (heavily emphasized in "the beast" and "the Savage"). And finally, the fawning nature of "we, the human" exhibits towards the higher powers of "rationality" and "logic" is the classic comparison between the logic obsessed and the fervant religious zealout.
Of course, the main point of this piece that separates it from it's predecessor is to point out the assimilationist and authoritarian nature of the rational. Throughout the first part, it is apparent that "we, the human" cannot tolerate be devoured or used: the differences that exist on an individual level as well as the out-groups crafted by humanity; what is assimilated is not entirely the same to the human (hence, it's predilection for referring to "former non-humans" to their "non-human" label; i.e, "the savage" is still defined as "the savage" rather than "we, the human" to mirror racial stratification. "We, the human" speaks about "the savage" in a particular way: like that of a pet owner still struggling to tame a few unruly individuals of his pets; he refers to "tamed savage" like one would a well trained dog and laments the "wild" nature of "the savage"; an allegory for respectability politics and the liberal's paternalism. "The savage" is used as a stand in for those of the "non-white" racial category, it was originally going to be called "the Black", but was swapped out for the sake of expanding upon the racism exhibited by humanists beyond just those of african descent. This is a play on the "separate, but equal" implication of a Western world where overt racism is taboo, but racial categories still exist and paint perceptions in how people are grouped). In the end, "we, the human" refers to "former non-humans" as "equals", not because of any acceptance of differences, but through relating to what is the same. In the end, liberals can only see "other human beings" as their equals and can only treat those equal to them with any sort of empathy or acceptance; so long as the outsider is "human enough", they are deserving of respect; if the differences can be ignored/tolerated/endured, the outsider "can be human". It is likely not an accident that those enamored with rationality submit under "necessary" authority (their values are, after all, derived from Christianity); it is "unreasonable", "impossible", and "insane" to desire the destruction of the state, it provides "us" with stability (under the broken backs of those that are forced to toil)! You see, it is not enough for us "non-humans", "lesser-humans", and "lunatics" to be forced under the boot of authority; we must learn to meekly accept it, to love it, to depend on it, to embrace it, to happily defend it! Even a tepid, disgruntled complaint must be hosed down with ice water, "What will you do then, when you have your anarchy and the degenerate non-humans come to kill, and rape, and pillage?" "Who will defend us from the criminals, if you have your way and the police are gone?" The archist's "stone cold logic" is born of an irrational emotion: fear; which has long been used as the lawmongerer's rhetorical bludgeon! I say, "You are no more "rational" than I am, and I am motivated by anger!" Thus, the liberal, the communist, and the fascist expose themselves: they are irrational!
I, too, am irrational!
But I don't surrender myself to self-delusion.
And I don't need to be ruled, restrained, or rational.