Humanism

Post Reply New Topic

That was interesting to read, but I will have to read up on a lot of that as a lot is a bit over my head, seems like you've really looked into this though moreso than I have. Either way seems like an intresting philosophy that I do not really disagree with, however being very technical minded I cannot agree with all humans being the same since everyone is different from each other in some ways...but its probably more referring to treating people as equals rather than trying to act superior, when humans all have flaws.

Yeah, like I said originally:


There are a lot of similarities at a practical level, like valuing moderation, equality, etc. as you've noted... Their methods for achieving a good life are quite similar. However, how they define that 'good life' is quite different (as I noted above) and it greatly affects how the two schools interact with the world.

Your comparison to Epicureans as libertarians and Stoics as liberals (although I'd say progressives) is quite apt and represents a HUGE and very important difference between the philosophies.

PS

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I think your understanding of both philosophies is pretty good. However, I guess I am questioning your appreciation of the differences between the two, just a bit...

Well, I think that we could learn from both Epicureanism and Stoicism. The Stoics very aptly addressed the issue of how moral atrocities, in the world around you, can make you feel very uncomfortable. The Epicureans tried to avoid this, but their view would work very well in a society of philosophers...not so well in a society where there are individuals who have slaves and treat them worse than animals.

The Stoics were disturbed by this kind of behavior. For them, addressing the injustices in their society had hedonic, intrinsic value. It made them more comfortable living in their world. They had a similar motive to that of the Epicureans, but they had different needs as far as making themselves feel tranquil. They could never live the reclusive Epicurean way and not spend their nights tossing and turning. It could never have made them happy.

However, the Epicureans were correct in noting that, in most cases, other people are better off if you don't get involved with their politics and their petty squabbles. Most political dramas will blow over, and if you just conduct yourself justly, wisely and honorably, then hopefully your fellow man, as he licks his wounds, will realize the irrationality of his conduct. There was merit to their "hands-off" policy.

It is always a difficult question whether or not you ought to get involved in other people's affairs. They were really just addressing different faces of the same question.

It took me all of three minutes to read your eloquent and well researched ideas on humanism.

But I read 10 to 15 times faster than the average human being, and it's a pleasure reading someone who can keep up with my reading speed, so I do not get too bored of simpler ways of life. :)

I wish there were more people like you here, seriously, as it makes life much more interesting to me, to be here when 'they' are here too. ;)

But no I have nothing against folks who read slowER, as during my WORK AND SCHOOL career OF 4 decades, I read so fast, that I got the WTF reaction from people all the time.

Speaking was often an issue though, as I've always been more of an input than an output person, OVERALL, believe it or not, ha-ha..;)

Last edited by aghogday on 01 Dec 2014, 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Amen. It's a cognitive empathy thingy, sadly as it may be, Mr Cohen is correct, at least overall, it appears so here.

Was a nice and well spoken read. I agree with the majority of you ideas about what humanism is. However, I still disagree with humanism as a whole as I believe that humanism value humanity more then the individual. I don't believe in nonsense such as human rights as the individual has the power to project their will onto this earth no matter what gets his way. In the end, humanism is just the pity of the weak and shackles of the strong.