Translated material
Will the human
The struggle of a “sovereign person” against a “universal person” leads only to decay. And to big blood
Is there humanity? It can be argued that as a single biological species - yes, it exists. But this statement does not carry any semantic load. This is the superficial fixation of the obvious, which does not affect its content. However, is it possible to talk about a certain single content of mankind? Is it worth assuming that people have a consistent identification that allows you to consider them all representatives of the universal human meaning? Is such a meaning possible in principle?
The humanist, like Nietzsche, Tolstoy or Kafka, - he passes by people and looks at them not as on equal terms. Rather, as strange "strangers", as representatives of another world or another species. Is it because human equality is a global fake that people will never be equal in their qualities of the soul and mind, in their values and aspirations. We must already have honesty to admit it. And is it not obvious?
Is it not obvious that the humanists can be called only a little, almost an endangered minority among people?
That's just Nietzschean contempt for the majority here is superfluous. After all, they despise those who could, but did not. But someone in principle cannot be a humanist. Cannot feel empathy and compassion. Cannot understand the delight of free thought and transcendental insight. They are too busy for this with their urgent business. Well. Do not despise the cat for not saying humanly?
* * *
Yes, you can repeat for the thousandth time that each individual is a person and belongs to humanity. But in fact - how many those who think and feel like that? The maximum for which an ordinary individual is ready is to determine himself part of the family, place of work, religious denomination, or a separate nation. And if people do not define and do not feel themselves representatives of mankind - is it worth it to be considered such? Isn't it better to recall the "razor of Occam" and not multiply the entities? After all, this is not even a paradox, but simply the obvious fact that humanity is much, much less than people as such. People are not equal to humanity. Like that Nikolai Berdyaev said about Russian Christianity at one time: "People ... can be very" Orthodox ", but they are very few Christians."
* * *
This is about what is. About the present, common and dominant. However, a person is not only what is. Not only the present and common, no matter how it stands in front of my eyes and does not obscure almost the entire horizon. Man is also possible. Like Heidegger: “Genesis-in front is a sulfur”, i.e. Projection of yourself into the future. Or, very directly, according to Sartre: "Man is a project." This is the presence of possible, projection - it determines the human actually in a person, separates it from all other types of living creatures. And humanity is, of course, not what is. This is possible.
* * *
What is more correlated with humanity is the concept of civilization. Not a people and not a culture, but - civilization. What is the main advantage of civilization: it gives a chance to take place universal as possible. This is fundamentally different from any national, closed culture. Civilization is focused on humanity and man. And in this sense, we know only one civilization - the one that arises in the bowels of the ancient world, among the philosophizing Ionians, in Socrates, continuing in the structure of the Greek policy, and then in Roman Republicanism and Stoicism, independently and parallel in the Buddhist concept of universal consciousness. Later, civilization finds itself in the discussion scholasticism of Latin Christianity and the Arabic education of the VIII - XIV centuries, gradually unfolding in the evolution of sciences, rights and freedoms of new and modern times.
What civilization does: it creates, figuratively speaking, “elevators”, according to which everyone, in principle, can rise to human, to the universal. These “elevators” are free science, law, citizenship, philosophy, art. But it is one thing when there is an opportunity to rise, and it is completely different to use it.
* * *
It is quite obvious that most people are not at all to rise to the possible. As a rule, they are pathologically absorbed in their present. They still determine themselves through the things of extremely local, closed: my family, my religion, my people, my state. This is what happens before our eyes: until recently open and very wide ways to human or not noticed, or consciously overlap in the name of “sovereign interests”. Before the "elevators" of civilization, control and inspection points under national flags are set. An indicative example is the gaining power to the “sovereign Internet”. Before our eyes there is an uprising against the essence of civilization. “Sovereign” people against “universal” people and ideas.
What it leads to, it was clear for a long time. The rejection of the possible, human - in favor of the sovereign, national - this leads to the collapse of the present that already exists. As Nikolai Berdyaev wrote:
“What does it mean to be“ national thinking ”? In practice, this means to be inhuman. The world will choke in the blood from the "nationally thinking."