The human as a constructible hypothesis
Inhumanism is the extended practical elaboration of humanism; it is born of a diligent commitment to the project of enlightened humanism. A universal wave that erases the self-portrait of man drawn in sand, inhumanism is a vector of revision. It relentlessly revises what it means to be human by removing its supposedly self-evident characteristics while preserving certain invariances. At the same time, inhumanism registers itself as a demand for construction: it demands that we define what it means to be human by treating the human as a constructible hypothesis, a space of navigation and intervention.
Inhumanism stands in concrete opposition to any paradigm that seeks to degrade humanity either by confronting it with its finitude, or by abasing it before the backdrop of the great outdoors. Its labor consists partly in decanting the significance of the human from any predetermined meaning or particular import established by theology—thereby extricating the acknowledgement of human significance from any veneration of the human that comes about when this significance is attributed to some variety of theological jurisdiction (God, ineffable genericity, foundationalist axiom, etc.).