>>508070686 (OP)it doesn't make sense to me:
>humanity doesn't exist sociologicallyisn't that because sociology studies specific societies and social groups, rather than humanity as a whole?
>it didn't exist before civilisationand what? neither did the concept of the nation you fucking idiot
>to consider humanity as a whole is to, virtually speaking, consider it as a nationonly within his framework wherein the nation is the largest organisational structure, which he apparently can't see beyond
>but a nation that ceases to be a nation becomes its own surroundingsbut he just said humanity as whole BECOMES a nation, not that it ceases to be a nation
it's self-contradictory
>thus a body that becomes absolutely the environment in which it livesbut if the nation is the body in the metaphor, what's the environment he speaks of? oh, it's wider humanity, here to undermine his conclusion
he can't have both 'environment' and '"humanity" does not exist' when they're the same thing
he's using humanity to prove humanity doesn't exist? what?
they're different organisational strata—to be able to view something at a higher level doesn't mean the lower ceases to exist
both can exist simultaneously—and do
what this man has written just doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny
it's utter nonsense