Humanity as a social being

Philosophy has sought for thousands of years to define the human being by its locality in the nature of reality. Are we animals or something greater? Aristotle defined the human as an inherently political animal. Hegel catagorised human reality in levels of social and political relationships, State, Civil society and family, and by the time critical theorists had come about in the early 20th century Freud had removed the individual from his surroundings and catagorised his being by his on psychological being, Superego, Ego and Id. In all of these categorisations the individual is isolated. This isolation is without a doubt the source of our confusion.

In what sense are we solitary creatures? Our lives are built around close relationships, marriage and family. These 'groups' may have been progressively institutionalised and in many respects considered bourgeoise and conservative, but the core reasoning is there, support. Whether it is heterosexual or homosexual marriage [even in the respect of a long term relationship] partnership is the very thing every character spends their lives seeking; love is the obsession of the human race. In a similar tone, traditional, extended or in the modern sense a group of friends, family is a central tenant to the life of an individual. We cannot live and function on our own. Even our intellectual development, our growth from the day we are born to the day we die is controlled, constructed and stimulated by interactions.

Simmel, in his 1908 essay The Catagories of Human Experience, states "The human species could just as well have been unsocial; there are unsocial animal species as well as social ones. Because of the fact of human sociality, however, we are easily misled into thinking that categories which directly or indirectly are sociological ones are the only, and universally applicable, categories in terms of which we may contemplate the contents of human experience." [Georg Simmel On Individuality and Social Forms, Selected writings, edited and with an introduction by Donald N. Levine pp36] Here, however, i have to state my critique of Simmel's analysis of the human species. I believe we are inherently social beings, that our interactions with others is above any critical growth or institutional construct of the capitalist world, the source of happiness and thereby the truth in existence. For the highest purpose of anyones life is to find and offer happiness. Critical theorists, the philosophers of the 20th century, were confronted by the sense of humanities isolation. The decay of theological dogma had, rather than liberating the human being, clouded over the knowledge that had defined its purpose. Consequently, the human species was left to its own devices in a reality without a sense of limitation and our narcissism grew.

Here is the point we find ourselves in, dominated by a sense of personal self-worth our relationships can be considered of secondary importance. Not only those of close friends and family, but with everyday acquaintances. If you have ever had a stranger be unnecessarily rude to you this will make perfect sense, we no longer take care of our demeanor towards the world because they are less important than we are. Ever considered this is the source of numerous social problems? That in-built hostility towards others can't do any good for anyone. Imagine how nice it would be to be able to walk though life without a sense of tension towards others. Obviously this is a Utopian concept, but a little stretch of consideration for others, a smile or even just walking with an air of openness will go a long way. Try it, walk with your head held high and a smile on your face, I would bet you make someone's day.