Philosophy 101 |
Lazy Humanism? |
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephan says this somewhere and it's stayed with me. I'm not completely sure what he means (though I'm going to guess), but I bet I'm not alone in that. Humanism is a term that's been used widely and vaguely for a number of different things. Here's three: 1. Man is the measure of all things. A doctrine that argues that we are the metaphorical center of the universe, all things only matter in relation to us. I didn't put this in quotes because I think it means multiple things to multiple people. I've heard it called arrogant, I don't see it that way, but let's use it that way here. Note to self: pretty sure Protagoras said this, but I'll have to check. 2. At the end of Foucault's The Order of Things he argues that man should be seen as footprints in the sand and should disappear just as readily as footprints do when the tide comes in. This makes Foucault out to be an anti-humanist (In the sense of being anti-human), but what I think he means is that the idea of man, the idea of a single entity that we all must conform to, must disappear. This is at least consistent with his idea of heterotopias (as opposed to one utopia). 3. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. This is, I think, what Stephan means. The idea is that because there really is only us, we can do anything we want which means being uncaring, selfish, animal-like in our actions for, in the end, it doesn't matter. As I've tried to describe these three views, the problem is that none of it really captures anything a humanist or myself actually means by humanism. 1 is silly -- what does the sombrero galaxy have to with us? 2 is the difference between footprints and walking, and 3 confuses individualism with humanism. I don't have much time but I'll end here with a quote from Robert Nozick referring to humanity after the Holocaust: quote: --The Examined Life pp.237-238. I want to suggest that, today, that there can be no such thing as a lazy humanist. Maybe a hundred years ago, it was possible, but today after the Holocaust and the subsequent realization that it was not an anomaly, a humanist can no longer rely on a complacent view of Human Nature. A humanist, by definition, must deal with these things for it to mean anything at all. More later. |
||
© Copyright 2004 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: At the core of Humanism, as I understand it, is optimism as to man and his potential. That is why, I think, so many Humanists tend to be drawn toward Socialistic and Communistic political views. That is also why I think history has repeatedly demonstrated that such a view falls short. One of Camus' essays that stuck with me through the years from "Resistance, Rebellion and Death" noted corrected that, while Christianity is pessimistic as to man (that is, man in incapable of saving himself from God's punishment for sin), it is optimistic as to man's "destiny." Camus went on to say that he was pessimistic as to man's destiny, but an optimist as to man in the "here-and-now." The "laziness" that, quite frankly, easily befalls both Humanists and Christians is like tunnel vision focused on man's glorious destiny to the neglect of those suffering now. Facing challenges now is quite a bit of work and, if memory serves me correctly, that was the gist of Camus' essay as well. What you describe at the end of your post doesn't really sound like Humanism as I understand it. But then again, I can't say I've read much of anything by the new Humanists. Jim |
||
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: --Michel Foucault, "The Dangerous Individual," Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture, p. 129. Jim, I don't think Humanism necessarily has to be optimistic. You're right, I think, that many Humanists, myself included, do gravitate to the socialistic direction, but it need not be that way. Socialists (some anyway) believe that once the problem of scarcity is solved, we can do what we want (become more truly human as many might say). Christians (some anyway) believe that we become most truly human in times of crisis. There is evidence to back up both accounts, and yet the problem with both socialism and Christian accounts is that they both apply a kind of cookie cutter approach to human nature. What we want is already known. I don't think we know what we want. Humanism isn't or shouldn't be based on a cost/benefit analysis of what it is to be human. That presupposes what we are and one can selectively find examples to back whatever decision you've already made. I think it is simply the recognition that we can ask what we want in a way that doesn't presuppose an answer. And, as far as I can tell, we are the only species that can do that. For now. |
||
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I suppose that I agree with the premise of the thread Brad... but, please clarify for me which humanists have been lazy in particular? Haven't humanist individuals and groups always been quite active in things like human rights, environmental issues, relieving suffering, and building common morality even prior to the holocaust? If you look at the who's who -- it's pretty hard to imagine the progress that's been made in Western culture without humanists. We can even go all the way back to Kung Fu Tse in the Eastern culture-- he merely developed an ethical system -- not a religion. |
||
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
This is entirely over my head... I thought being humanist had more to do with simply believing that all people deserve things like basic necessities and a fair shot in the world... that everyone is worth that much, and that human worth doesn't have to be tied tto which god you believe in or what color your skin is. Am I mistaken? How much am I missing out on here? |
||
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: I don't see how the two are in conflict. Either can be in operation depending on the circumstance, but both are descriptive of human behavior. Economics tend to be prioritized during times of relative peace - charitable contributions generally drop during recessions and increase during economic upturns. Tragedy tends to reorder our priorities, but as time passes such priorities generally revert. I think a danger associated with Humanistic economic theory is the tendency to diminish the individual in favor of the whole. An example of this might be the practice of local education agencies selecting not to provide children with disabilities with legally-entitled appropriate education because they've determined the economic benefit of non-compliance with regulation outweighs the risk of getting caught. Of course, these are gross over-simplifications - abundance didn't stop Tyco's executives from (allegedly) embezzling millions or discourage Martha Stewart from participating in questionable trading. At the same time, there are those who exploit tragedy for personal gain. Jim |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Hush, that sounds much more like "humanitarianism" than humanism. Of course humanists can be "humanitarian" ... but then those of any creed or world-view can be, or not be. Stephen. |
||
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Monohumanism -- The belief in one Human Polyhumanism -- The belief in many humans Panhumanism -- The belief that Human is everything and everything is Human. Ahumanism -- Disbelief or denial in the existance of a Human or humans. It all depends on your world view |
||
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/declaration.html quote: For many reasons, I don't buy everything this document says, but compare it to this statement: http://www.secular-humanism.com/ Secular Humanism - Excluding God from Schools & Society quote: The former reaches out in order to form a coalition, the latter speaks of a conspiracy. I don't know, isn't it at least a little disingenuous to name a site secularhumanism.com and then attack it? |
||
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Actually, I think it's pretty funny. You're right that the second is propaganda, but if you're going to be honest, you'd have to say the first is too. I'm a little rusty on this but, if I recall correctly, Humanism approaches morality in a similar way to Mill's Utilitarianism. I'm willing to give credit where credit is due when it comes to the commitment of Humanists to help secure the due process rights of the most vulnerable of people. But before the Humanists, those who believed that certain "unalienable rights [were] endowed by the Creator" worked hard to achieve very similar goals. Practically speaking, I think Humanism works better as an economic theory than a moral one. It's emphasis on the public good has been important since the industrial revolution in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of people in general. I become concerned, however, when the Spocks of Humanism start moralizing that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." The needs of the many ought never be an excuse to deprive the few of the most fundamental of rights. More later. Jim |
||
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But isn't secular humanism a minority point of view? If so, and this is just a thought mind you, shouldn't Stephan's original comment be more along the lines of a lazy Christianity? I overheard a conversation a few months back: "So, what are you doing on Sunday?" "Going to church." "Going to church? Look, I believe in God too, but you've got to get your priorities straight." Now, as far as I could tell, they (two males) asking a woman to do some kind of outdoor activity. It strikes me that that "I believe in God too," is the key point in that statement. Peer pressure and all that. |
||
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Well, I suppose Jesuit Catholicism could be a minority view too but it represents 1/9th of the highest court in the United States. I think the idea that a way of thinking must be representative of the majority in order to be influential is somewhat naive. This is why it is important to look at both the strengths and limitations of particular viewpoints and what effect they have on basic human rights if carried too far or if not considered long enough. I'm not saying that specialization is a bad thing, but we shouldn't be afraid of being eclectic. Jim |
||
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
P.S. Brad, humans tend toward laziness by nature, whether they be Humanist or Christian. "Speak much, do little" is something you may have experienced if you've served on many boards - secular or sacred. But doesn't intellectual laziness include the disregard for facts that are inconsistent with our already-decided conclusions? Jim |
||
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't have any problems with people being eclectic. |
||
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Sure makes for more interesting dinner conversation ... ever try talking with a wonk? |
||
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Um...raising my hand, yet again. What's a wonk? |
||
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wonk&r=67 |
||
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
OH. I am apparently in no danger of being categorized as such. heh heh? Sheesh again. (and thanks again, Ron, I just looked at it and thought, "izzat a woid?") and Noooooooo...I couldn't ask what you Utilitarianism is--I hadta ask about the WONK. grin. |
||
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Utilitarianism is an ethical system which argues all energy ought to be focused toward making the greatest number of people happy. I think it is more or less the polar opposite of extreme individualism. Jim |
||
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thanks Jim. I just love this place. I dunno about "lazy humanism"--but this forum is certainly helpful to the lazy human. Thanks guys. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I've been watching this thread, and noticed that it's supposed to spring from something I said. However, you never quoted me. I'd appreciate if you would, if for no other reason than I might recall the context, meaning, etc. of what I said. It also might help me understand what you're trying to communicate. Stephen. |
||
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm not completely sure where you said it, I've tried looking at those gargantuan posts on gay marriage, I did think it was near the Schaeffer quote because I thought the gist was the same as the quote. My point here is simply that there's nothing lazy about humanism. What I think you're referring to is a lazy Christianity -- in that most people identify with Christianity in America rather than with humanism. If humanism has more influence today, it's not because people identify with humanism, it's because humanists try hard to show that a world can work without supernatural entities. Jim asks us to look at Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. I ask you to look at the same people. Can any one of them legitimately be called a humanist? |
||
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
It's interesting that both sides - the (evangelical?) Christians and (secular) humanists portray themselves as beleagured minorities in the same place, it's just the mental landscape that differs. Witness the right-to-lifers and abstinence people trying to get their message across in what they believe is an educatiional and cultural environment essentially held in thrall by the godless, the hedonists, the materialists and the liberals. Yet on any number of atheistic/secular/humanist web forums I've come across the emotional climate is pretty much the same - they are the brave and persecuted vanguard etc etc. Maybe laziness is not identified with any creed or perspective as such, but rather the failure to practice empathy? |
||
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Empathy with what? A few years back, a poll was taken and 49% of the population in America stated that it would not vote for an avowedly aetheist candidate. Aristotelian 'balance' is an easy game to play. Simply declare that your stance is maligned or declare that your stance is more in extreme of what it actually is and you'll get what you want. |
||
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"the (evangelical?) Christians and (secular) humanists portray themselves as beleagured minorities in the same place, it's just the mental landscape that differs." ~ I never heard secular people complain, in numbers, like in a rally, about being a minority, yet I have heard countless of christians mistakenly claim to be "not of this world" and a minority - not in this country, [to no one in particular] "bub." "I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces. |
||
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
It is in my opinion that a true Christian would be completely rejected by this and any other society - truly, not of this world. "I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces. |
||
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Okay, now I'm just confused. |
||
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Berengar, A minority, yes. Beleagured, me? Weren't you the one who suggested that I actually enjoyed this minority thing? |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, Whether what I referred to is "lazy Christianity" or just an unthinking apathetic acceptance of the Christian system of values, I don't quite know. Things which are taken for granted and held without much conviction, usually end up slipping away ever so slowly. In this regard, "humanists" and Christians are both succeptable to the same malady. Though I'd like to think there is much more help and opportunity in the Christian community to retain this "ethic". I do recognize that many who call themselves humanists would not consider this shift toward relativism a malady at all. However, most well read Christians consider that very response a part of the disease itself. Stephen |
||
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Except that it's not relativism. Unless relativism is the opposite of totalitarianism. |
||
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Brad: Perhaps the atheist ticket has had a few notable failures in recent history. I don't think it would be correct to consider any of the three "humanists" per se, but couldn't one make the argument that they are all products - at some level - of humanist political theory? Jim |
||
⇧ top of page ⇧ | ||
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. |