Humanism

[Elgibbor]

What are your views on Humanism?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What are your views on Humanism?

Which sort of humanism? Do you mean secular humanism? Religious humanism? Or what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elgibbor]

Which sort of humanism? Do you mean secular humanism? Religious humanism? Or what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I mean in a non-religious sense. Secular, yes.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well although I have my icon as Humanist I haven't actually read much about it, so I'm not sure what it is in detail. To me, at least, it means being good without God. Taking a positive position, rather than just the negative one of atheism.

Here's a video I found

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RArIKKk7JEI&feature=plcp

 

[juvenissun]

Which sort of humanism? Do you mean secular humanism? Religious humanism? Or what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Revamp this issue again. There is no such thing as religious humanism. Humanism is atheistic.

 

[Rothen]

Humanists are atheists.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Revamp this issue again. There is no such thing as religious humanism. Humanism is atheistic.

This is what I am referring to:

Religious humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree that religious humanism tends to be atheistic, and that is the sort that I meant, but see the last section of that Wikipedia article.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Humanists are atheists.

That depends on what you mean by Humanism. Please read this:

Renaissance humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Musicc]

Nihilism would be better than humanism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nihilism would be better than humanism.

Oh? Please explain. I can't imagine how nihilism would be an improvement on anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I mean in a non-religious sense. Secular, yes.

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My reaction is mixed, though leaning more towards the positive than the negative.

I do like that secular humanists value reason and science, but sometimes they seem overly scientistic to me. I'm not sure if that is a flaw in secular humanism itself (Comte's positivism, perhaps?), or just in certain individuals.

Likewise, there are other philosophical trends that I don't really like, such as Pragmatism. But secular humanists seem to be a diverse people philosophically. The term often serves as more of an umbrella that unites different groups rather than a precise definition.

I like that Humanists focus on this life and on human flourishing, but I get the impression that there is often too much other-orientedness in their views, such that one should "live for humanity". I don't object to other-orientation in one's life... in wise moderation and with an eye towards one's own flourishing. I get mixed messages from secular humanists on this count.

I think that my biggest disagreements with secular humanists come in the field of politics. They seem pretty solidly leftist in their orientation, while I'm philosophically in favor of natural rights, free markets, and small government.

And so, when I read the various published "manifestoes", I usually find myself alternately nodding my head in strong approval, followed by cringing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

Nihilism would be better than humanism.

Why?

I do like that secular humanists value reason and science, but sometimes they seem overly scientistic to me. I'm not sure if that is a flaw in secular humanism itself (Comte's positivism, perhaps?), or just in certain individuals.

What do you mean by this? Overly scientistic?

Likewise, there are other philosophical trends that I don't really like, such as Pragmatism. But secular humanists seem to be a diverse people philosophically. The term often serves as more of an umbrella that unites different groups rather than a precise definition.

Don't really know what this is.

I like that Humanists focus on this life and on human flourishing, but I get the impression that there is often too much other-orientedness in their views, such that one should "live for humanity". I don't object to other-orientation in one's life... in wise moderation and with an eye towards one's own flourishing. I get mixed messages from secular humanists on this count.

What if 'living for humanity' does help one flourish? I have heard it said before that people tend to be happy when they aren't thinking about themselves, but rather others or something more important than themselves. In my opinion self flourishing is good, but is soon going to rot in the ground. But again I'm not exactly sure what flourishing means.

I think that my biggest disagreements with secular humanists come in the field of politics. They seem pretty solidly leftist in their orientation, while I'm philosophically in favor of natural rights, free markets, and small government.

Natural rights... Human Rights?

In my opinion a totally free market doesn't have any big picture to it. Each little unit not feeling the obligation to do anything about things like climate change. If everyone else is doing something then why shouldn't they.

Anyway, I an open to being convinced otherwise, but as long right=conservative I will be biased against it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do you mean by this? Overly scientistic?

Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean that at times it seems that they think they can replace philosophy with science, or make philosophy more like science. Some empiricism is good, but I think it goes too far at times.

Don't really know what this is.

Don't know what Pragmatism is? I suppose this will give you a rough idea.

Pragmatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What if 'living for humanity' does help one flourish?

I don't think it does.

Please don't misunderstand me, I do respect humanitarians. I value humanity, myself.

However, living for humanity, if this is taken literally, means disregarding one's own life as having any real importance for oneself, and treating oneself as a slave or servant of humanity. This is going to distort one's priorities and lead to a life that is outside of prudent moderation.

I have heard it said before that people tend to be happy when they aren't thinking about themselves, but rather others or something more important than themselves.

I've heard that too, but it is not true in my personal experience.

Even if it is true for others, I'm not talking about mere contemplation. I do enjoy comtemplating grand goals, and don't see anything wrong with that. The problem is when one starts to view those goals as something external to oneself and "bigger" than oneself that one serves like a god, instead of as an opportunity to grow in stature oneself.

Natural rights... Human Rights?

Yes, the rights of individual human beings, but not necessarily the same list as what humanists would select, although humanists are usually liberal enough that there is going to be some overlap.

In my opinion a totally free market doesn't have any big picture to it. Each little unit not feeling the obligation to do anything about things like climate change. If everyone else is doing something then why shouldn't they.

It is individuals who have big pictures, not systems. All systems such as the government can do is use force to bully people into conforming to some powerful political interest's big picture.

Anyway, there is absolutely nothing preventing a free people from creating organizations that advance big picture thinking. This does happen outside of government, and it tends to happen peacefully, and involves rational persuasion rather than forcing people to conform.

Part of the problem with climate change issues is that it has become politicized, when it should be a purely scientific matter. Because of the politicization, people become polarized because they fear opposing political factions, and reject science or fail to question establishment views for entirely political reasons. This happens on both sides of that particular issue, and is one of the saddest things I've seen.

Anyway, I an open to being convinced otherwise, but as long right=conservative I will be biased against it.

I'm not a conservative. Seriously. Conservatives tend to turn me off.

I would be better described as a classical liberal (or free-market liberal) although with a virtue ethics foundation instead of the usual Enlightenment Era foundation (such as found in J. S. Mill). I prefer the term Aristotelian Liberal, although libertarian will do.

Anyway, thank you for the questions. I lived near a secular humanist organization when I lived in Buffalo, New York, and I subscribed to their magazine Free Inquiry for a few years. I've put plenty of thought into whether or not I was a secular humanist, and it was only with regret that I had to decide that I wasn't. If I am a humanist, I'm of a different flavor.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean that at times it seems that they think they can replace philosophy with science, or make philosophy more like science. Some empiricism is good, but I think it goes too far at times.

I agree.

Don't know what Pragmatism is? I suppose this will give you a rough idea.

Pragmatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well I had a little look before I made my first reply, but I don't know enough about it to say much.

I don't think it does.

Please don't misunderstand me, I do respect humanitarians. I value humanity, myself.

However, living for humanity, if this is taken literally, means disregarding one's own life as having any real importance for oneself, and treating oneself as a slave or servant of humanity. This is going to distort one's priorities and lead to a life that is outside of prudent moderation.

Caring about humanity doesn't have to be like that though.

I've heard that too, but it is not true in my personal experience.

Even if it is true for others, I'm not talking about mere contemplation. I do enjoy comtemplating grand goals, and don't see anything wrong with that. The problem is when one starts to view those goals as something external to oneself and "bigger" than oneself that one serves like a god, instead of as an opportunity to grow in stature oneself.

I see no problem in making goodness like a god. Obviously humanity matters more than any one human.

Yes, the rights of individual human beings, but not necessarily the same list as what humanists would select, although humanists are usually liberal enough that there is going to be some overlap.

Would you have a list much different from the UN or European Human Rights?

It is individuals who have big pictures, not systems. All systems such as the government can do is use force to bully people into conforming to some powerful political interest's big picture.

Of not destroying the world.

Anyway, there is absolutely nothing preventing a free people from creating organizations that advance big picture thinking. This does happen outside of government, and it tends to happen peacefully, and involves rational persuasion rather than forcing people to conform.

Well if that works then the government wont have to act. Does it seem to be working to you though? Rational persuasion with ignorant people is all well and good when you don't have a time limit.

Part of the problem with climate change issues is that it has become politicized, when it should be a purely scientific matter. Because of the politicization, people become polarized because they fear opposing political factions, and reject science or fail to question establishment views for entirely political reasons. This happens on both sides of that particular issue, and is one of the saddest things I've seen.

Well I agree. The scientists should present their finds and suggestions. and the government act on it, no political arguments necessary. They would need to discuss the best way of doing it, but rejection of the science shouldn't be an option.

I'm not a conservative. Seriously. Conservatives tend to turn me off.

I meant that parties which are right wing tend to be conservative.

I would be better described as a classical liberal (or free-market liberal) although with a virtue ethics foundation instead of the usual Enlightenment Era foundation (such as found in J. S. Mill). I prefer the term Aristotelian Liberal, although libertarian will do.

Anyway, thank you for the questions. I lived near a secular humanist organization when I lived in Buffalo, New York, and I subscribed to their magazine Free Inquiry for a few years. I've put plenty of thought into whether or not I was a secular humanist, and it was only with regret that I had to decide that I wasn't. If I am a humanist, I'm of a different flavor.

I don't think it matters too much. I can't actually remember your opinion of various topics, but I'm sure we can't be all that different.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Caring about humanity doesn't have to be like that though.

I'm not saying that it does, which is why one should be extra careful about the philosophical ideas one transmits to others.

I see no problem in making goodness like a god. Obviously humanity matters more than any one human.

This is not obvious to me.

Would you have a list much different from the UN or European Human Rights?

If you link to a document, I'll give you a checklist of where I agree or disagree.

Of not destroying the world.

The situation is not that dire. I'm not saying that there aren't any environmental problems, but the Chicken Littles' fearmongering is overblown.

But would totalitarianism would be okay with you as long as someone claims that it is necessary to avoid destroying the world?

Well if that works then the government wont have to act. Does it seem to be working to you though?

Actually, yes. It's amazing how much people's habits have changed because of environmental awareness and voluntary participation.

Rational persuasion with ignorant people is all well and good when you don't have a time limit.

Then you are a totalitarian in principle?

Well I agree. The scientists should present their finds and suggestions. and the government act on it, no political arguments necessary. They would need to discuss the best way of doing it, but rejection of the science shouldn't be an option.

That might work... if we didn't have democratic systems of government. And if we didn't live in the real world.

In the real world, politics does not work through pure objectivity, and it depends on support from voters. Politics tends to corrupt objectivity of both politicians and voters, and perhaps even scientists. And this is what we see today.

I meant that parties which are right wing tend to be conservative.

Tend? I suppose that's true. Big ones, anyway.

I don't think it matters too much. I can't actually remember your opinion of various topics, but I'm sure we can't be all that different.

That is most likely true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

I have a question for Paradoxum and Mark.

The question is:

Why are the two of you not nihilists?

 

[Davian]

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why are the two of you not nihilists?

Speaking for myself, because human existence by nature is value-laden, and there is a natural standard of goodness for human beings. Human beings have a natural function, and that is to flourish -- to mature and self-actualize -- as human beings. For this reason, I can't be a nihilist, and I can't even be an existentialist who believes that existence precedes essence.

That's the short answer. Perhaps I'll get back to the painfully detailed answer if I resurrect my meta-ethics thread.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not saying that it does, which is why one should be extra careful about the philosophical ideas one transmits to others.

Yup.

This is not obvious to me.

Fair enough.

If you link to a document, I'll give you a checklist of where I agree or disagree.

European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The situation is not that dire. I'm not saying that there aren't any environmental problems, but the Chicken Littles' fearmongering is overblown.

Well we aren't going to be sucked into a black hole, but tens of millions of humans and animals will probably die. But perhaps if it isn't as many people from out countries that makes it ok.

But would totalitarianism would be okay with you as long as someone claims that it is necessary to avoid destroying the world?

Well if it meant the actual complete destruction of the human race then yes.

Actually, yes. It's amazing how much people's habits have changed because of environmental awareness and voluntary participation.

So if the government does nothing it'll all be fine? Well... except for those who die because we didn't try quick enough.

Energy creation has to be sustainable, even if people turn their lights off a bit more.

Then you are a totalitarian in principle?

I pretty much want to personally kill Jews.

Anyway, regulation is allowed. Just because someone thinks pumping crap into rivers or the air will make them money doesn't mean they should be allowed to.

That might work... if we didn't have democratic systems of government. And if we didn't live in the real world.

In the real world, politics does not work through pure objectivity, and it depends on support from voters. Politics tends to corrupt objectivity of both politicians and voters, and perhaps even scientists. And this is what we see today.

Damn people....

I have a question for Paradoxum and Mark.

The question is:

Why are the two of you not nihilists?

I think morality is real and that the world is meaningful to us. Nihilism is a horrible dark word in my eyes... not that that makes it false.

 

[Eudaimonist]

European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hadn't seen this document before you had brought it to my attention, so my reply will be a surprise even to myself.

I see a list of articles and a list of protocols. I'll stick to the initial articles for now.

1) requires the enforcement of rights. Sounds good.

2) is obsolete. Protocol 13 prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances. I happen to agree.

3) prohibits torture. I agree.

4) prohibits servitude, but misses out on prohibiting tax slavery. I'll give them points for at least going part way.

5) affirms the right of individuals to liberty and security, and generally seems to be about openness and fairness in judicial procedings. Sounds good.

6) is about a right to a fair trial. Sounds good.

7) requires that no one is tried for a crime that wasn't a crime at the time that the act was performed. I'm amazed that this would even have to be mentioned, but good show on mentioning it.

8) affirms a right to privacy, and mentioned several exceptions that seem wide enough to drive a truck through. This could be better worded, but at least it is mentioned. Points for that.

9) affirms a freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, although strikingly does not mention a right not to have a religion. I expected a little better from a document affirmed in the 20th Century. Still, it's at least as well written as the America's First Amendment. So, points.

10) affirms freedom of speech, but names a long list of exceptions. Some exceptions seem reasonable, but some seem dubious. Protection of morals??? This seems wishy-washy to me, but is mostly good, I suppose.

11) affirms freedom of association, and that's good, but I'm a little annoyed by exceptions that sound as vague as "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". I can only hope that judges can make clear sense of such things.

12) declares a right for men and women of marriagable age to get married, but doesn't cover same-sex marriage. That's disappointing. This is another "half-way" protection.

13) defends effective remedy. Sounds good.

14) talks about a prohibition of discrimination. I'm not sure that I agree that there should be such a thing, since I'd prefer two parties to voluntarily agree, or not, to some interaction, not to have such a thing forced on them. I'm ambivalent towards this one.

15) talks about suspending rights under conditions of emergency, which worries me since governments are all too likely to declare emergencies. This one makes me nervous. I would have liked to have seen some examples of legitimate derogations.

16) restricts the political activities of foreigners. Well, I guess so.

17) provides that no one may use rights to seek the abolition or limitation of other rights. I'm not quite certain I understand this one.

18) is about permitted restrictions on rights being used for only for their stated purposes. Okay, I guess.


Okay, so mostly agreement, with some quibbles for these.


eudaimonia,

Mark