NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been reading a bit about the philosophy, and I find it intriguing. What is NSG's opinion of Humanism? How many Humanists are there here?

In psych classes, I was always a big fan of Carl Rogers. I'd probably call myself a humanist.

Is this like that secular humanism thing? Because there is one of their little club houses within walking distance of my house.

I have no knowledge of the actual philosophy, but I could offer a few observations about the people who go there.

Is this like that secular humanism thing? Because there is one of their little club houses within walking distance of my house.

I have no knowledge of the actual philosophy, but I could offer a few observations about the people who go there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Yep. Thems the boys. Society for Ethical Culture.

Its actual philosophical base is a load of wishy washy nice sounding bullshit. But it's still a nice approach to ethics.

Its actual philosophical base is a load of wishy washy nice sounding bullshit. But it's still a nice approach to ethics.

They have a lot of money.

Bit weird tho'.

They have a lot of money.

Bit weird tho'.

I like both money and weirdness. ;)

I like both money and weirdness. ;)

Yah. Chatham House rules stuff, but they have a lot of old limousine liberal money and influence.

That said, I went and met someone for a lunchtime martini today and walked past their little club house. A disturbingly large minority of them were leaving wearing satin sky blue yarmulkes. I have no idea what that could possibly be about.

They also do this weird commitment circle stuff. Not sure what that really is, but I don't like the sound of it.

All in all, I suppose it would be fairly easy to infiltrate and profit, if that is your thing.

I object to it. I'm not sure why, since I don't know all too much about it; it's sort of an instinctive thing.

They have a lot of money.

Bit weird tho'.

The have pretty powerful lobbies I believe.

I object to it. I'm not sure why, since I don't know all too much about it; it's sort of an instinctive thing.

Your instincts are good, most people who identify themselves as humanists are pretentious twats. This isn't true for all of them, but I wouldn't want to be associated with those circles.

Also, I am posting a little drunk right now, so forgive me if I'm talking nonsense.

Something to do with Hume? *reads Wiki*

Something to do with Hume? *reads Wiki*

:tongue:

It's such a vague term, encompassing such a large range of, at times, flabby beliefs.

Some aspects/practitioners of humanism do irk me though; the odd religiousness-without-religion stuff. I attended a humanist funeral a couple of years back, and was struck by the supernatural language surrounding talk of life, being a human, etc. And that there could be something like a humanist chaplain.

(However, I'm sure not all humanists are like this.)

It's the same sort of religiousness-without-religion you find in transhumanism.

The have pretty powerful lobbies I believe.
Your instincts are good, most people who identify themselves as humanists are pretentious twats. This isn't true for all of them, but I wouldn't want to be associated with those circles.

Also, I am posting a little drunk right now, so forgive me if I'm talking nonsense.

LOL! Allow me to suggest you sober up, learn about what Secular Humanism is, and then post again.

Try here:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php

Basically SH is simply a naturalistic world view (read that atheist if you want) that tries to establish ethical foundations without a religious base. You can find the Humanist Manifesto III here:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

I consider myself a "humanist," because I favour humans. But, I also consider myself a "leftist," because I favour the left-handed. I seem to have a lot of issues with popular linguistic violations of (what should be) standard naming conventions, don't I? :tongue:

I don't know a whole lot about humanism, although my grandfather's one.

learn about what Secular Humanism is

Already have.

is simply a naturalistic

And I immediately equate naturalistic with bullshit.

Its actual philosophical base is a load of wishy washy nice sounding bullshit. But it's still a nice approach to ethics.

They could establish a solid mathematical basis for their ethics via game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma. I have :)

And I immediately equate naturalistic with bullshit.

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/image/Rousseau.gif

http://faculty.evansville.edu/rl29/art105/img/delacroix_liberty.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C9RPUQ1vwQ

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/image/Rousseau.gif


Though a great philosopher, I by no means agree with everything he says.


http://faculty.evansville.edu/rl29/art105/img/delacroix_liberty.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMGKPajKs08

Not sure what this has to do with what I was specifically attacking, that being ethical naturalism.

And I immediately equate naturalistic with bullshit.

So you equate science with bullshit? Because science is based upon a naturalistic world view as well. How do you suppose that computer you're banging on got here?

So you equate science with bullshit? Because science is based upon a naturalistic world view as well. How do you suppose that computer you're banging on got here?

Can you really not work out, given the context, that I was referring to specifically ethical naturalism? As in, the whole idea of being able to derive an objective set of ethics from nature, or anything tangible, is bullshit. You know, naturalistic fallacy and all that.

Though a great philosopher, I by no means agree with everything he says.



Not sure what this has to do with what I was specifically attacking, that being ethical naturalism.

Optimistic "humans are inherently good" period.

So you equate science with bullshit? Because science is based upon a naturalistic world view as well. How do you suppose that computer you're banging on got here?

He is talking about the philosophy that man is inherently good, and that we should look to nature, rather than society, for our ethics.

He is talking about the philosophy that man is inherently good

Loads of philosophies say that, that is not a specific philosophy.


, and that we should look to nature, rather than society, for our ethics.

Which, again, as I said, is flawed.

Also, calling an ethical approach naturalistic has a specific meaning. Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

Loads of philosophies say that, that is not a specific philosophy.

Yes, the optimistic ones.

Which, again, as I said, is flawed.

If there is a universal morality in nature, it is "survival of the fittest".

Yes, the optimistic ones.


I don't think you can look back and retroactively apply terms like 'optimistic' and 'cynical' to different philosophies. That wasn't really much of a factor in philosophical discourse, although it was a factor as to how society reacted to it.


If there is a universal morality in nature, it is "survival of the fittest".

Well, that's not particularly humanist.

If there is a universal morality in nature, it is "survival of the fittest".

No. Arguably the 'fittest' don't always survive. There is an element of random chance there too.

I'd say shit happens is the morality of the universe.

Of course that shouldn't be taken as an excuse to be a cosmic douchebag.

I don't think you can look back and retroactively apply terms like 'optimistic' and 'cynical' to different philosophies. That wasn't really much of a factor in philosophical discourse, although it was a factor as to how society reacted to it.

I suppose. Machiavellianism could be called a pessimistic philosophy, because it not only assumes all men are bad, but believes that they have always been that way, will always be that way, and that anyone who tries to live morally will suffer.

Well, that's not particularly humanist.

Not particularly like the syrupy organization, no. I am not talking about joining a club, rather I am just exploring a basic philosophy. There is classical liberalism, there is new liberalism. There is old-fashioned conservatism, there is neo-conservatism. I am talking more about original humanism than its modern development.

Not particularly like the syrupy organization, no. I am not talking about joining a club, rather I am just exploring a basic philosophy. There is classical liberalism, there is new liberalism. There is old-fashioned conservatism, there is neo-conservatism. I am talking more about original humanism than its modern development.

Right. Well, do you wish to make an argument for that position that I can pedantically and annoyingly scrutinise? Otherwise, it's just there, I don't know what to do with it.

Can you really not work out, given the context, that I was referring to specifically ethical naturalism? As in, the whole idea of being able to derive an objective set of ethics from nature, or anything tangible, is bullshit. You know, naturalistic fallacy and all that.

That would have been a pretty good trick considering the original phrase from which you extracted "naturalistic" from was "naturalistic world view." A phrase which basically means no gods or supernatural influences and has nothing to do with "ethical naturalism." :eek:

You'll get no argument from me about saying ethical naturalism is bullshit.

That would have been a pretty good trick considering the original phrase from which you extracted "naturalistic" from was "naturalistic world view." A phrase which basically means no gods or supernatural influences and has nothing to do with "ethical naturalism." :eek:


Ok ok. Go easy, I'm still not completely sober.


You'll get no argument from me about saying ethical naturalism is bullshit.

But I think humanism suffers from the same flaws.

And I immediately equate naturalistic with bullshit.

You'll get no argument from me about saying ethical naturalism is bullshit.
Where's the love, peeps?

What's your guys' beef with ethical naturalism?

Where's the love, peeps?

What's your guys' beef with ethical naturalism?

It has grass and cotton candy in place of a brain.

Where's the love, peeps?

What's your guys' beef with ethical naturalism?

Well, I'm being a little strong, I just like using words like bullshit. Regardless, perhaps the best reason is that I've never seen a compelling rebuttal to the ought/is problem.