Re: Humanism in 2006


Roger Johansson wrote:
> Joseph H wrote:
>
> > > So it is not two kinds of humanism, it is the same humanism in
> > > different historical times. The most basic idea in humanism is to use
> > > the human as the base for our thinking, not the God.
>
> > Yes, but using the human as the base for our thinking is also limiting.
> > It ignores the wider context - the planet, the cosmos, even existence
>
> We _are_ humans. We represent human interests in our thinking, we try
> to make life better for humans.
>
> > itself. Just to ask how we may / should live is not enough - though it
> > is certainly an improvement on past models. We are not all there is. Do
> > we have a role in relation to the planet? Do we have a role, or can we
>
> We can have ideas about higher than human goals, we may think we
> represent life, and consider what we do from such a standpoint too, but
> we can never forget that the most important task for us is the human
> point of view.

Yes, of course - but my point is that the "human point of view" musr
relate to more than humans. We impact upon so much. We impact upon the
planet; we impact greatly on the other creatures on the planet. We
explore the mechanisms of life itself. We explore and utilise the
chemistry of matter - fossil fuels, nuclear power etc. Also, we must
make provision for the future of human life. Is our future as a species
not essential to any inquiry focused on the "human point of view"? I
have said earlier that humanism has no "past". I might also say that it
has no future - no future in mind, I mean. What kind of life should
human beings expect, or hope, to achieve on this planet? I think it is
a germane inquiry. What is stopping us achieve such a society? Is it
just religion? Or is it other people? Or is it something fundamental to
the human being itself? If the last, how are we to overcome our
difficulties? Can we visualise how some future ideal human society
might shape up? Is such a society no more than a wish on our part or
can we see a trend in history towards such a society?

Oh, questions, questions....
>
> Remember that non-human, or superhuman ideas has caused a lot of
> trouble for us in the past, especially if we start seeing non-human
> interests as more important than human interests.
>
> There are green environmentalists today who think it would be better
> for the nature, the environment, if all humans died and mankind was
> removed from this universe.
> Some of them may even start to kill humans to achieve that goal.
>
> That shows how weird and dangerous ideas we can come to when we forget
> the basic human perspective.
>
> > adopt a role, in relation to life? We are the only known creatures who
> > can ask these questions. Does the fact that this is the case impose an
> > obligation on us to investigate whether we might adopt a role in
> > relation to life in general?
>
> We _are_ the only kind of life we know about. The biosphere of earth is
> the only place so far where we have found life.
> Life is a chemical process, there is nothing sacred in "life" in
> itself, unless you think in misunderstood religious ways.
>
> Religious people worship "life", but they are not really talking about
> biological life, they talk about spiritual life, created mind, the holy
> spirit.
> Some religious people do not understand that double talk, so they start
> worshipping the chemical reactions, biological life. A view based on a
> literal interpretation of symbolism, a very common side effect in a
> religion based society.
>
> > Clearly, humanists are wary of such
> > questions. They have cast off a panoply of superstition and do not now
> > want to don another mantle.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > But they should be equally wary of
> > isolating themselves from the rest of life.
>
> "the rest of life"? You mean the people who are still dominated by
> religious views, original religious views or misunderstandings?
>
> Well, you are of course right in one way, we cannot go so fast that a
> lot of people get angry at us, for trying to solve their problems too
> quickly :-)
>
> That's why you will not find too advanced and clearly expressed
> humanist ideas in the organised humanist movement.
>
> > They might also wonder
> > whether moral or ideological codes focusing on human beings alone
> > aren't inherently depleted, offfering us no vision other than our own
> > (self-)satisfaction. Finally, they might wonder whether any such
> > self-focusing ideologies will ever have the emotional - and
> > intellectual - range to supplant the powerful ideologies of the past.
> > Certainly, there is a move away from religion - but as someone else in
> > this thread said it is towards secularism alone and not towards any
> > form of humanism.
>
> Humanism _is_ secularism. Do you want us to explain it slower, and in
> less explicit ways? Okay, you can easily find such humanists too. But I
> don't beat around the bush, I represent radical humanism. We cannot
> afford to sacrifice a couple of generations of people just because the
> people who rule the social world in many places on earth get a headache
> from understanding things too quickly.
>
> > Is secularism better than religion? Yes, I say - but
> > it can lead to an emptiness and,
>
> We should be very nice towards each other, instead of "helping" each
> other become tough and manly. "Emptyness" in the emotional meaning
> comes from a tough social climate, created by creationists. We
> humanists should invite people to come and feel good together. Help the
> victims of mobbing.
>
> > through its indiference, it allows the zealots to beaver away.
>
> They are split up into millions of sects, and fight each other more
> than they fight science, critical thinking, democracy and a modern
> society.
>
> Their own leaders are often secretly progressive like humanists.
> Don't worry, it is all under control.
>
> The question now is: How can we make the progress faster?
> Is there a way to explain this to more people?
> Can explanations replace violence and human suffering?
>
> We, who discuss in the philosophical newsgroups and web forums, are
> developing better ways to explain and spread more modern views.
>
> And we have a lot of hardheaded fools here to test our explanation
> models on :-)
>
>
> --
> Roger J.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... Roger Johansson wrote: ... > I described earlier how humanism _IS_ our past. ... What is stopping us achieve such a society? ... > It is mainly religion, religious people, that stops us from developing ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... I described earlier how humanism _IS_ our past. ... What is stopping us achieve such a society? ... It is mainly religion, religious people, that stops us from developing ... related to capitalism, so we can also say that capitalism is the big ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... Naturalism and Humanism to connect the dots. ... You have no *real* right to life. ... inalienable human rights. ... Humanism is a stripped down religion that has ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Whos Really Behind Promotion of The Da Vinci Code?
    ... are the dominant macro life form on earth. ... could control the genetics of roaches, ... That is a strange form of humanism. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >> So it is not two kinds of humanism, it is the same humanism in ... to make life better for humans. ... religion based society. ... Humanism _is_ secularism. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)