φιλοσοφικές αναζητήσεις περι ανθρωπιάς.

                             ONCE UPON A TIME THERE WAS HUMANITY


  Have we ever thought, as we theoretically be called 'humans', what does the above title mean? Some of us might not even wonder of that, pondering that it is meaningless and a waste of time to be preoccupied with such foolish queries of philosophical interest. However, my personal view to this is that, exactly because of the fact we are human beings, we should be aware of what humanity means, in order to be at a position to acknowledge our personal boundaries of behavior and, therefore, act responsibly according to these.
  At some point, I came across a picture on the internet with the above title written on it and i tried to decipher its meaning. So, there are two options according to my own view. Firstly, does it mean that humanity did not ever exist in reality, but only in fairytales?  Or, maybe, may it possibly mean that humanity indeed existed in the past, where people did not live in luxuries, in some societies at certain parts of the world, where people cared for the others and lived harmonically? This ambiguity obviously cannot be solved from the one time to another. A lot of research should be conducted , much effort should be done, and of course thought is the major feature in order to define the origins of that complex word 'humanity'.

  As far as the first option is concerned, some people may support that humanity did not exist in the past, does not exist today and therefore will not exist in the future. This may be considered as a very pessimistic and farfetched opinion. But there are reasons which support this, and they should be mentioned. Specifically, people are by their nature wild and tough beings, that they only care for their own personal benefits and happiness. The latter, is in most occasions defined by these people as the satisfaction of material needs, rather than of spiritual ones. These people's primary aim is to become rich and famous, as well as to be acknowledged of that by others. They do not usually wish to accomplish anything in their life, as they possess already everything they want. In reality, though, they lack of sentiments. They may have a huge amount of money, they may be lavish, and however, they are poor in their heart. They do not have a sense of empathy for other people; they just express their sympathy, they pretend to feel sorry for them, also regarding them as they are in lower position than themselves. Values such as morality, dignity and love leave them indifferent as they cannot understand them, because they consider them unreal. Dalai Lama has said “Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive”. Thus, it is predictable that these creatures, not even people, do not know what humanity means, and yet, they feel happy. How does it this happen? Maybe they feel happily stupid. People who do not consist of sentiments are plain animals. Maybe, it is unbearable and we have to accept that there are amoral beings among us whose main goal is to destroy the other, regarding them as their enemy and not as a person who coexists with them. How can humanity be developed and enhanced in such situations of hatred and mere competition between people? As Plato has claimed in his Republic, “Troubles of the states and of humanity itself, as far people’s relationships are concerned, will continue to exist until philosophers become kings or kings become philosophers of the world. Only if political power and philosophy are into the hands of the same person will the problems between societies be solved once and forever”. I do passionately agree with Plato’s views, but I doubt if they can be implemented today, in 21 first century, where politicians are corrupted by the wealth, they make foolish promises that will never accomplish to people who elect them.

  Consequently, it is not at all illogical to be claimed by pessimistic people but at the same time realists that humanity only exists in fairytales, because life as it is has indicated that people, as needs grow up, they tend to ask for more and, in order to acquire them, they forget their moral restraints and they do not hesitate to deceive the other and behave arrogantly. On the contrary, at the fairytales, which are stories addressed to children, although there is always a villain, the person who helps eagerly other people and symbolizes the goodness is the one that wins and everybody is happy at the end.

  However, is our criticism over this subtle theme very strong? Or again we look at it through a highly realistic view? If we want to find out the truth we have to face it whatsoever.

   It should be clear, today, that humanity is not a trend as many of us think, a fashion, which at a certain period of time is on, while at another time is considered passé. I feel the need to mention that, because it is observed that there are some among us who adjust their behaviors according to the people they every time face. To make it more specific, a large number of people tend to protect only the members of their family or their relevants , friends ,or people they are familiar with and they like to protect. This is not humanity. Although the intentions of those deeds are love and affection, which are prerequisites of humanity, this behavior cannot be called humanity. Thus, why this behavior is not theoretically humane? Because, people who exactly have the opportunity to reject other groups of people without having specific reasons of doing so, automatically they do not respect neither them nor the principles of human rights. Humanity is when all people care for other people ( not only for their closely related persons) and they show their care both with deeds and words. The aforementioned view is closely linked with the theory of racism too, on the grounds that these people can also express their antipathy in a more direct way in order to show both their disapproval of those minorities and their will to be excluded from the society.     

  As far as the second option is concerned, it is not difficult to admit that humanity indeed exists today, in the 21 first century, in certain regions. The striking finding is that people of mainly developing countries are those who support mostly the definition of the word “human”.  People who live in the third- world countries are human beings that care for each other. Although the situations they face there are adverse and hostile due to the poverty and the lack of basic resources, such as water, food, medication and clothing, these people have developed true sentiments of love and care.  The developing third- world countries paradoxically are  developed –full of values and true people and sentiments- countries, because it is not the state of wealth which determines the life of those people but what really counts is the state of people’s personalities themselves. I know many people would contradict   this opinion, claiming that people who lack of basic supplies (they live in dirty houses, they do not have clothes to wear, they do not have access to education, and so many more things) they do not know what feelings to develop. But they have learnt something very important: to appreciate the little things they have and be grateful for that, be grateful and happy for the fact they have each other, their children and that they live.