I think your viewpoint stems from your interpretation of 'condition.' Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you're understanding 'condition' to mean a layer of exterior factors that are applied on top of the essential human experience. However, the word 'condition' is not at odds with how you'd like this area of study to be seen. If we take Dictionary.com's primary definition of the word we see it's: And now if we take a look at the definition of 'the human condition from the opening of the Wikipedia article: I'd say those line up pretty well and are far from 'meaning nothing'. Furthermore, the actual definition of the words 'humanity' and 'humane' don't really touch upon the ideas mentioned above. You are right that language is vast and powerful. It is also abstract and indefinite. Words are only pointers to what they hope to describe and do not have any concrete basis in 'true' reality. As such, they can be twisted and re-appropriated to mean whatever a group of people choose. Yes, the words one uses are important, but using them 'accurately' comes secondary to communicating the essence of what you mean. Isn't that the whole point of a metaphor? In this sense, 'the human condition' is more than a fine phrase for its intended purpose.Condition: a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances.
the characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality.
My viewpoints stems from the fact that the phrase "human condition" describes nothing to me; it sparks no image in my head. I believe that if I can't imagine something the word describes with clarity, I shouldn't use the word. "Human condition" is a far too abstract an idea to grasp, which is why I defer to more tangible "humane" and "humanity", which obviously describe what belongs to a human being. The fact that people came to agree upon a single word or phrase meaning this or that is not indicative of its meaning, or whether it has any outside of social norms. "Pathetic" didn't mean "worthy of pity", for it comes from the Greek word "pathos" which, if I recall correctly, still retains its original meaning in English. That it came to a twisted inverse of itself is a pity, indeed: it's a wonderful word to which an inappropriate meaning is assigned. If you have doubts about "humanity" being appropriate, consider "clarity", "brevity" or "impunity", with each word describing a state or a trait. "Humanity", formed under the same blueprint, means exactly "being human". It sounding strange must not be a barrier: everything sounds funny until we're using it. Even then, it's simply an example of what language is capable of more than it is a candidate for replacing the "human condition" phrase: I'll vote for "humane", for it is shorter and simpler, while retaining the same meaning once you give it a thought (what can be assigned under "human condition" that can't be under "humane"?). Another part of "human condition" that bothers me is the word "condition". It sounds sterile and empty when assigned to a human being. It has no place around what is a wonderful and rich world of humanity: all the emotions, all the words and actions cannot be swept under such a tasteless word. "Being human" sounds a lot better than what we have currently, for it now deals with being, existing, which implies movement, action, reaction - a living state rather than... a "condition". And why can't we use that right to change the language we use for the better? Re-appropriation mustn't be only a whim of the public: language bows to those who use it meaningfully, and we certainly can do that. It will be a purposeful restructure, for, I believe, it bears meaning and will result in a small positive change in our heads.As such, they can be twisted and re-appropriated to mean whatever a group of people choose.