Any other Humanists out there?

Post Reply New Topic

I notice that a lot of Aspies are atheists, so I wondered if anyone identified as a Humanist as well. Some of you might fit all of the traits, but not be familiar with the term, so here's a quick quote from Wikipedia (taken from a Humanist website I think) which gives brief explanation:

Yeah that is close to my moral view point

i belong to sect of Secular Humanism called TransHumanism and we strive to Accelerate Human Progress through the Ethical application of Science, many people consider us to be a radical sect of it but in truth we want whats for the best interest of advancing the human race

i am hoping to one day join the scientists that helped make TransHumanism to help progress humanity anyway i can help

so i can relate to this post

Dissent is the highest democratic accord.

I'm not a humanist. And I'll tell you why.

Under humanism, of whom Scrooge and Bob Cratchit, or however you spell it, are the same ideologically, we hate Scrooge until he sacrifices himself arbitrarily and love Bob more when he arbitrarily accepts something that for the rest of the book we know, through his actions such as toasting Mr Scrooge, he would never accept.

The problem with humanism, as it arose in the mid-nineteenth century, literarily espoused by both Dickens and Thackeray, is its inherent contradiction.

The only difference between humanism and socialism is who benefits. In socialism, no one benefits. In humanism, someone benefits. Why? Under socialism, no one, no individual, exists, therefore privation is the norm. Under humanism, an individual might exist, but he only benefits under the beneficence, and then directly, of an external agency set up for his, and his only, benefit. There is no philanthropic underpinning. Therefore, for all of Scrooge's wasting his wealth, there was no value-adding, resulting in no furthering of society for wealth, once spent, is gone, whereas when invested, under, I don't know, Objectivism, creates more wealth for the endowment it represents.

Tiny Tim is the problem with the world. We love him, not for himself, but for his ability to emotionally manipulate us.

The funny thing about Tiny Tim is, he would never accept Scrooge's 'gift' of improved wealth for his father. He's too content to live his own life as dealt by fate.

Remember, the thing about philosophy is it's abstract. However, once you employ a philosophy, such as humanism, it becomes an epistemology, and therefore, represents your code of conduct when interacting with the world. Think carefully, and then ask yourself, why do I hate Scrooge, when without Scrooge, there would be no wealth to arbitrarily redistribute?

PJW why do you view Humanism as an economic system? This is a moral issue, not an economic one.

Sigh.

Apologies for the incitation to Rand Rage.

Anyway, the point I make, is that Tiny Tim and his father are humanists. They accept their lives and the limitations of their lives, and live as enabling a life as possible. For this, we applaud them. They don't need Scrooge's money, from both the tenor of the prose and their actions, inasmuch as both credit Scrooge as the founder of the feast.

Which leaves us where? Applauding them for abandoning their ethics in return for money, not given as indenture to future prosperity, but through guilt and subversion.

Now, you might not read it that way, but what cannot deny is that Tiny Tim and Bob accept money they otherwise would not for no better reason than they see it as an entitlement, only once it's offered.

If you don't see that as contradictory, remembering that morals and ethics are the implementation of your epistemic code, then there's no talking to you. Not rationally. Not while you don't understand that holding to a moral is more moral than abandoning it for selfish gain.

as a humanist i strive to better humanity, well thats my ultimate goal, NOT just accept life for how it is with all this self destruction and death that humans are infamous for

First, to TheKing: I've never really thought too much about TransHumanism. I don't think I'd identify myself among them, but I'm not opposed to it either. Mostly I wouldn't identify myself there because the genetic engineering and/or cybernetics required are not an area of interest for me. By the way, have you ever read Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy? Parts of the books are quite disturbing, so if you read them, be warned. But they discuss this culture called the Edenists, who used genetic engineering to produce very well balanced personalities and very healthy individuals. That coupled with used of advanced biotechnology, a monopoly on fusion fuels, and a very enlightened ethical code allow them to construct a nearly Utopian civilization.

PJW: Are we talking about the same thing here? I really don't see how what you're saying relates to the Humanism I'm talking about. I'm talking about focusing on the human aspects of our lives, rather than the supposed divine aspects. That involves a respect for science and always trying to fight to better the world, among many other things. You seem to be talking about economic theory. Humanists would be deeply divided there--they range from socialists to Lassez Faire capitalists.

@AstroGeek

Read Dickens and then tell me that humanism is applicable as a philosophy.

As to Hamilton, I guess those Adamites and Edenites will never see eye-to-eye. For me, being human is everything. A computer in my mind offends me. Funny how the subversion and contravention of what makes humans human doesn't offend humanists...