Humanists

Philosophy Now meetup groups.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Humanists

Post by thedoc » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:43 am

Dalek Prime wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote: Perhaps dolphins. They are arseholes anyways lol.
Perhaps dolphins, but aren't Daleks narcissistic by nature. And what about other animals? can we be sure that they are not aware of their own beauty?
Let's ask them. Do they understand the concept of narcissism? Or beauty? I prefer not to assign human traits to lesser consciousness, unless they begin communicating their understanding. If I'm wrong, they can always bring it up at the next meeting.
I agree, but until humans have a better understanding of non-human communication, we really can't say for sure. The only thing humans can say for sure is that humans don't know what animal communication really consists of. Humans can't always understand each other, how can they possibly expect to understand what animals are communicating to each other?

Just curious, have you ever officiated at a meeting?

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Humanists

Post by Dalek Prime » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:58 am

thedoc wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Perhaps dolphins, but aren't Daleks narcissistic by nature. And what about other animals? can we be sure that they are not aware of their own beauty?
Let's ask them. Do they understand the concept of narcissism? Or beauty? I prefer not to assign human traits to lesser consciousness, unless they begin communicating their understanding. If I'm wrong, they can always bring it up at the next meeting.
I agree, but until humans have a better understanding of non-human communication, we really can't say for sure. The only thing humans can say for sure is that humans don't know what animal communication really consists of. Humans can't always understand each other, how can they possibly expect to understand what animals are communicating to each other?

Just curious, have you ever officiated at a meeting?
No, I'm a loner, and hate meetings lol. (In reality, I do coordinate software projects.)

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Humanists

Post by thedoc » Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:10 am

Dalek Prime wrote:
thedoc wrote: Humans can't always understand each other, how can they possibly expect to understand what animals are communicating to each other?

Just curious, have you ever officiated at a meeting?
No, I'm a loner, and hate meetings lol. (In reality, I do coordinate software projects.)
I have, I was elected the president of a club once, and the "Roberts Rules of Order" work, they keep the meeting running and allow for all sorts of subjects to be addressed in an orderly fashion. I seem to be a natural leader and have dominated many meetings that I have attended, though I don't really like to be at the front, if I can avoid it. I think teaching school for 7 years got me accustomed to being in front of a group of people, especially when they didn't want to be there.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7913
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Humanists

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:37 pm

Wootah wrote:
addymark wrote:Hello.
I know that This is very old post but I want to say that Humanists are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values.
Right .... what is an atheist and agnostic that doesn't use reason, experience and shared human values?
Common.

An Atheist is someone who relies on his prejudice, not evidence. An agnostic is someone who is at least honest enough to admit his personal confusion on the same subject, but can offer no insight. Wherein is "reason" evident there?

And as for "shared human values," nothing about them being "values" (which just mean "something that someone happens to value" whether charity or axe-murder), "human" (which only identifies the species to which the values happen at the moment to be important) and "shared" (which only means that a bunch of them have the same idea, whether it's charity or axe-murder) implies that anyone, or any other entity, has any sort of moral duty to honour those "shared human values."

Humanism depends on not parsing those details. They pretend that we know what "humans" really ought to be (what their true nature is) what "values" they ought to have (or capitulate to whatever they happen at present to have) and we suppose that their reproduction in any significant number of Western-hemisphere ideologues is some sort of evidence for their universality.

It's bunk from stem to stern.

Belinda
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Humanists

Post by Belinda » Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Humanism depends on not parsing those details. They pretend that we know what "humans" really ought to be (what their true nature is) what "values" they ought to have (or capitulate to whatever they happen at present to have) and we suppose that their reproduction in any significant number of Western-hemisphere ideologues is some sort of evidence for their universality.

Have you attended Humanist meetings and forums? I have done so regularly for about fifteen years when I Iived in Edinburgh where there is a lively tradition of intellectual exploration.
Historically, humanism grew from the Renaissance and subsequently from the scientific enlightenment.

Humanist Society core values are largely the same as the core values of the mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition, the difference being that Protestants together with other religionists believe in revealed values, and Humanists believe in values arrived at solely through human reasoning and ordinary human sympathy (please see David Hume). Schools in the UK now teach Humanism as a respected and respectable alternative to revealed religion as quest for the good life.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Humanists

Post by Dalek Prime » Sat Oct 15, 2016 5:00 am

Belinda wrote:Immanuel Can wrote:
Humanism depends on not parsing those details. They pretend that we know what "humans" really ought to be (what their true nature is) what "values" they ought to have (or capitulate to whatever they happen at present to have) and we suppose that their reproduction in any significant number of Western-hemisphere ideologues is some sort of evidence for their universality.

Have you attended Humanist meetings and forums? I have done so regularly for about fifteen years when I Iived in Edinburgh where there is a lively tradition of intellectual exploration.
Historically, humanism grew from the Renaissance and subsequently from the scientific enlightenment.

Humanist Society core values are largely the same as the core values of the mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition, the difference being that Protestants together with other religionists believe in revealed values, and Humanists believe in values arrived at solely through human reasoning and ordinary human sympathy (please see David Hume). Schools in the UK now teach Humanism as a respected and respectable alternative to revealed religion as quest for the good life.
Don't her animals have 'good lives', or is it only humans? Humans are right shit custodians of this planet.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Humanists

Post by Greta » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:58 am

@ Dalek I agree: re: humanism and human self love. It's weird how insular species are. Dog packs, lion prides, fish schools, dolphin pods, insect colonies - all hugely self interested. Us vs the world. Meanwhile each of those species fights and competes within those groups.

Nature is a tough gig, hence humanism - the hope of transcending "nature, red in tooth and claw". It seems to me that, if anyone is going to transcend all that then it's probably "someone" who is not human, not even biological.

Alas, Daleks don't qualify being 1) partly biological and 2) unlike the Cybermen, they are highly emotional beings that fuel themselves with anger. Meanwhile Cybermen aren't realistic because, while AI also will not have emotions (or suffering) it will have more important things to do than buggerising around hassling or wasting mortals.

Many fear that AI will become like a school bully, but I think that underestimates how more advanced beings operate. AI is more likely to be akin to the kid who doesn't have a clue that you exist because s/he is so busy getting top grades, excelling in music, drama, debate, science and sport (and looking like a model with a pleasantly timbred voice). Wunderkinds don't need to bully to make others feel like a zero :lol:

Robotism anyone?

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Humanists

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:37 pm

Greta wrote:@ Dalek I agree: re: humanism and human self love. It's weird how insular species are. Dog packs, lion prides, fish schools, dolphin pods, insect colonies - all hugely self interested. Us vs the world. Meanwhile each of those species fights and competes within those groups.

Nature is a tough gig, hence humanism - the hope of transcending "nature, red in tooth and claw". It seems to me that, if anyone is going to transcend all that then it's probably "someone" who is not human, not even biological.

Alas, Daleks don't qualify being 1) partly biological and 2) unlike the Cybermen, they are highly emotional beings that fuel themselves with anger. Meanwhile Cybermen aren't realistic because, while AI also will not have emotions (or suffering) it will have more important things to do than buggerising around hassling or wasting mortals.

Many fear that AI will become like a school bully, but I think that underestimates how more advanced beings operate. AI is more likely to be akin to the kid who doesn't have a clue that you exist because s/he is so busy getting top grades, excelling in music, drama, debate, science and sport (and looking like a model with a pleasantly timbred voice). Wunderkinds don't need to bully to make others feel like a zero :lol:

Robotism anyone?
To be fair, and irrational for a change lol, Daleks are a lot cuter than Cybermen. I mean, c'mon. Who can resist a bunch of salt cellars claiming to be the master race of the universe? :lol:

Belinda
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Humanists

Post by Belinda » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:11 pm

Greta wrote:
Nature is a tough gig, hence humanism - the hope of transcending "nature, red in tooth and claw". It seems to me that, if anyone is going to transcend all that then it's probably "someone" who is not human, not even biological.
I agree. I think that the permanent loss of a sense of oneself as an individual is to transcend nature. I agree too that to transcend "all that" would entail lack of humanity even lack of mammalian awareness.

I think that if computers are ever going to attain human intelligence they will engage in the everlasting battling of individual versus collective, same as us.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Humanists

Post by Greta » Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:07 am

Dalek Prime wrote:To be fair, and irrational for a change lol, Daleks are a lot cuter than Cybermen. I mean, c'mon. Who can resist a bunch of salt cellars claiming to be the master race of the universe? :lol:
:) Which is the master race? I'm thinking dogs, with their takeover plan apparently moving along well.

Image
Belinda wrote:
Nature is a tough gig, hence humanism - the hope of transcending "nature, red in tooth and claw". It seems to me that, if anyone is going to transcend all that then it's probably "someone" who is not human, not even biological.
I agree. I think that the permanent loss of a sense of oneself as an individual is to transcend nature. I agree too that to transcend "all that" would entail lack of humanity even lack of mammalian awareness.

I think that if computers are ever going to attain human intelligence they will engage in the everlasting battling of individual versus collective, same as us.
Belinda, I agree. The lack of self awareness would seem to be a property of both inanimate objects and those in immersive flow states. It seems paradoxical that the least and most flexibly functional states of matter would "meet in the middle" in terms of self awareness.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Humanists

Post by Dalek Prime » Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:13 am

Greta wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:To be fair, and irrational for a change lol, Daleks are a lot cuter than Cybermen. I mean, c'mon. Who can resist a bunch of salt cellars claiming to be the master race of the universe? :lol:
:) Which is the master race? I'm thinking dogs, with their takeover plan apparently moving along well.

Image
Hey, I have a Dalek almost like that one, but with a slightly differing colour scheme.

Belinda
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Humanists

Post by Belinda » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:09 am

Belinda had written:
I think that if computers are ever going to attain human intelligence they will engage in the everlasting battling of individual versus collective, same as us.
Greta replied:
Belinda, I agree. The lack of self awareness would seem to be a property of both inanimate objects and those in immersive flow states. It seems paradoxical that the least and most flexibly functional states of matter would "meet in the middle" in terms of self awareness.
I had to look up "immersive flow states". I think that those must be Heaven couched in a different metaphor. Your pointing out the paradox certainly made me think again. I now suggest to you that the immersive flow state, Heaven, is what we aim for, for instance when we get the chance to choose which form of livelihood we will take up, or for instance we choose which person we will have a lifelong commitment to.I seem to remember that Buddha recommended ethical employment.

I also suggest that the means we use to attain the immersive flow state is crucial to whether or not we attain it. Do you think that the immersive flow state must be and can only be attained by individuals who are initially free from compulsion by another, by others, by the collective whatever that may be?

If so we have arrived at the free will conundrum. What precisely frees an individual from compulsion by another, by others, by the collective whatever that may be?

My stance on this is that in the fields of art and religion what frees the individual from compulsion by another or by others is a cocktail of advantages such as self esteem, social status, educational level as opposed to indoctrination, locus on the liberal/authoritarian continuum regarding religion and arts, and native intelligence to name a few ingredients.

The title of this thread is 'Humanism' . Humanists are people who are organised with regard to ethics as human constructs and not as revealed and created by any god or by God.This being so, Humanists ' place on the liberal/authoritarian continuum is at the opposite extreme from Muslim or Roman Catholic doctrinaires, or Biblical literalists. I regularly and frequently attended Humanist meetings for about fifteen years.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Humanists

Post by Greta » Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:43 pm

Belinda wrote:I had to look up "immersive flow states". I think that those must be Heaven couched in a different metaphor. Your pointing out the paradox certainly made me think again. I now suggest to you that the immersive flow state, Heaven, is what we aim for, for instance when we get the chance to choose which form of livelihood we will take up, or for instance we choose which person we will have a lifelong commitment to.I seem to remember that Buddha recommended ethical employment.
The relative "blankness" of immersion and deep sleep have always been a source of much human happiness and contentment. "Heaven" is perhaps too large a word for what are readily available mental/emotional states, enjoyed at some point daily by almost everyone.

You could say that self awareness is the ego's fire, always changing and flickering, sometimes reducing to a smoulder, at other times ablaze. Most of us spend considerable amounts of time in the "smouldering" state, while either lost in activities or asleep. Zen masters and the very lucky/talented, I expect, would spend a higher proportion of waking hours in deep immersion, with the self at these times in a minimal state. That temporarily egoless state can range from "heavenly" to a "comfortable blankness" to relief from an anxious, carping ego.
Belinda wrote:I also suggest that the means we use to attain the immersive flow state is crucial to whether or not we attain it. Do you think that the immersive flow state must be and can only be attained by individuals who are initially free from compulsion by another, by others, by the collective whatever that may be?
It's hard to speak about the deepest immersive waking states because I've only enjoyed that extreme twice (and haven't stopped babbling about them ever since lol). The means of achieving very deep immersion varies - by accident, with practice or with drugs.

It's true that you need to be able to throw off, not only the opinions of others, but one's own internal "critic" in order to control your degree of immersion. We are so often distracted by concerns about criticism, from others or from within, because disconnection is threatening to one's survival. The ego, whose function is to protect, kicks in at this apparent existential threat. To this end, courage helps, the ability to choose "why not?" over "I dare not" (not to be confused with denial, where the "why not?" is reflexive rather than sincere, in which case problems are not solves by deferred).
Belinda wrote:If so we have arrived at the free will conundrum. What precisely frees an individual from compulsion by another, by others, by the collective whatever that may be?

My stance on this is that in the fields of art and religion what frees the individual from compulsion by another or by others is a cocktail of advantages such as self esteem, social status, educational level as opposed to indoctrination, locus on the liberal/authoritarian continuum regarding religion and arts, and native intelligence to name a few ingredients.
What frees us? Certainly the arts, sports, games, activities, pastimes, all manner of distractions that can immerse us, providing a temporary sense of freedom. They do all offer character building opportunities.

Money is hugely freeing. If you are poor, the goodwill of others may be all that stands between you and complete destitution. The wealthy can disregard the ill opinions of most without risk. Revolutions always end with the victors transforming into the thing they overthrew.
Belinda wrote:The title of this thread is 'Humanism' . Humanists are people who are organised with regard to ethics as human constructs and not as revealed and created by any god or by God.This being so, Humanists ' place on the liberal/authoritarian continuum is at the opposite extreme from Muslim or Roman Catholic doctrinaires, or Biblical literalists. I regularly and frequently attended Humanist meetings for about fifteen years.
I would expect humanists to generally embrace environmentalism, since a healthy environment is good for humans. But what would the usual humanist stance be on the treatment of other species? In your experience, to what extent do the humanists you've known extend their compassion to other species? Is ethical eating an important topic or just a sideline issue?

Belinda
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Humanists

Post by Belinda » Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:09 am

Greta wrote:
I would expect humanists to generally embrace environmentalism, since a healthy environment is good for humans. But what would the usual humanist stance be on the treatment of other species? In your experience, to what extent do the humanists you've known extend their compassion to other species? Is ethical eating an important topic or just a sideline issue?
My experience of attending Humanist meeting is now a memory from about twenty years ago. I recall that animal welfare and animal welfare philosophy was shared by everyone I met. We Humanists were also practical people who by and large were interested in the welfare, economic, and hygienic ramifications of eating the tissues and body products of other animals. I doubt if any topics that interested us were sideline issues, as we were all earnest sort of people who disliked drawing room chit chat when there were important ethics to discuss, and aimed to be happy within the Golden Rule, and human reason and ordinary human sympathy ; certainly speciesism was not acceptable to thoughtful Humanists.

Please note Greta that I've been calling us Humanists and not humanists. Humanists are a specific collective of people whose creed if it may be called a creed is that there is no intervention into time from any god and that we can be happy despite that fact. I understand that (small case) humanists's stance is much the same but humanists existed centuries before the Humanist societies and groups, which have organised meetings, membership, and agendas.One of the most prominent agendas then and I believe still is, is to stop religious indoctrination in schools.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Humanists

Post by Greta » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:49 am

Belinda wrote:Greta wrote:
I would expect humanists to generally embrace environmentalism, since a healthy environment is good for humans. But what would the usual humanist stance be on the treatment of other species? In your experience, to what extent do the humanists you've known extend their compassion to other species? Is ethical eating an important topic or just a sideline issue?
My experience of attending Humanist meeting is now a memory from about twenty years ago. I recall that animal welfare and animal welfare philosophy was shared by everyone I met. We Humanists were also practical people who by and large were interested in the welfare, economic, and hygienic ramifications of eating the tissues and body products of other animals. I doubt if any topics that interested us were sideline issues, as we were all earnest sort of people who disliked drawing room chit chat when there were important ethics to discuss, and aimed to be happy within the Golden Rule, and human reason and ordinary human sympathy ; certainly speciesism was not acceptable to thoughtful Humanists.

Please note Greta that I've been calling us Humanists and not humanists. Humanists are a specific collective of people whose creed if it may be called a creed is that there is no intervention into time from any god and that we can be happy despite that fact. I understand that (small case) humanists's stance is much the same but humanists existed centuries before the Humanist societies and groups, which have organised meetings, membership, and agendas. One of the most prominent agendas then and I believe still is, is to stop religious indoctrination in schools.
Thanks Belinda. I can see my misunderstanding now. The British Humanists Association quiz "How Humanist Are You?" calculated me to be 90% humanist, although there were a few questions where I would have liked a "none of the above" option.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests