Does our modern age lack human dignity?

[henry quirk]

"you should subject that to scrutiny"

This is an open site visited by academics.

Each and every one of them should feel to scrutinize and dismantle my thinking as each likes and can.

[tbieter]

I feel like a man who is charged with placing a note into a bottle, which will only be received by people centuries in the future.

On this note I would scribble:

We are an animal from Africa. All values are suspect or temporary fads.
We are targets of nuclear missiles. All parts of society are militarized.


How can we re-obtain human dignity in contemporary times?
What is the foundation of human dignity today?

How do you answer the questions that you raise?

[tbieter]

thieter ,

I have already read Mirandola's defense and proposition of human dignity from the renaissance. Mirandola was a genius. Schall is a kid playing with toys in the sandbox. In quoting Schall, you have presented nothing here but christian apologetics lifted hot-off-the catholic seminary press.

The defense of human dignity as humans being "in the image of God' is simply not consistent with the facts of our existence. The planet earth is a speck going around the sun. Our species has existed on this planet for one fraction of one percent of the age of the planet. We exist only on the very outer sphere edge of the planet in what is called the "biosphere". We have to remain in this narrow band, because our lungs are in constant need of air from the atmosphere that is tuned to the right temperature and has the right amount of humidity. (Completely dry air actually burns human skin in a process called dessication.) The sun is a star and there are 200 billion more stars in the milky way galaxy. A nearby neighboring galaxy, called Andromeda, contains nearly a trillion stars. Most, nay not "most". 99.999999% of the universe is completely dark, frozen near absolute zero, and teeming with deadly radiation.

The facts laid end-to-end show a more accurate picture. Namely, the universe has little or nothing at all to do with human beings. God created it? Fine. He created it, and gave humans one fraction of one billionth of a percent of the universe so we could kill each other in battles with tanks and lob nuclear missiles at each other. Good for "Him". Is this really a situation worthy of a God? If we are the image of God, then God is a petty, weak, violent animal with nationalistic and religious motivations. Our species is too stupid to travel to nearby stars. We will probably go extinct as many other hominids have before us. The universe and its million billion billion star systems will continue without us, just as they continued in the eons prior to us wandering out of Africa.

Your summary dismissal of the sources in my response to your questions is an unphilosophical dismissal.

It is fitting to quote Schall:

"The fact that philosophy, to be philosophy, must remain open to what it does not know, to the love of wisdom, means that, intrinsically, it cannot reject positions addressed to it from whatever source. That would be, well, irrational and a denial of what philosophy is." Reasonable Pleasures, p. 40

[Kuznetzova]

The foundation of human dignity in contemporary times appears to be publications coming out of the Catholic Seminary.

...unless someone wants to posit another idea here....

[HexHammer]

In ancient times we would fight to defend the family's honor, kill our daughters if they got raped to save our honor, we would beat family and serfs, there was not a developed moral and ethics.
Though common people had more integrity in fear of being punished in the afterlife or by their gods.

Now a day we have more evolved ethics and morals but are way more narsissistic.

[Hobbes' Choice]

In ancient times we would fight to defend the family's honor, kill our daughters if they got raped to save our honor, we would beat family and serfs, there was not a developed moral and ethics.
Though common people had more integrity in fear of being punished in the afterlife or by their gods.

Now a day we have more evolved ethics and morals but are way more narsissistic.

I think you need to do a course in ancient history.
All this is just BS.

[tbieter]

The foundation of human dignity in contemporary times appears to be publications coming out of the Catholic Seminary.

...unless someone wants to posit another idea here....

Apparently you are unable to offer a foundation for human dignity. But you can denigrate an author whom you have never read.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The foundation of human dignity in contemporary times appears to be publications coming out of the Catholic Seminary.

...unless someone wants to posit another idea here....

You've not really said what you mean by 'human dignity',

[HexHammer]

In ancient times we would fight to defend the family's honor, kill our daughters if they got raped to save our honor, we would beat family and serfs, there was not a developed moral and ethics.
Though common people had more integrity in fear of being punished in the afterlife or by their gods.

Now a day we have more evolved ethics and morals but are way more narsissistic.

I think you need to do a course in ancient history.
All this is just BS.

Nope! In the middle east they actually do "honor killings" if the daughter disgrace the family. Even today we still struggle with it in Denmark with all the immigrated muslims.

So yearh, I have my facts straight.

[Hobbes' Choice]

In ancient times we would fight to defend the family's honor, kill our daughters if they got raped to save our honor, we would beat family and serfs, there was not a developed moral and ethics.
Though common people had more integrity in fear of being punished in the afterlife or by their gods.

Now a day we have more evolved ethics and morals but are way more narsissistic.

I think you need to do a course in ancient history.
All this is just BS.

Nope! On the other forum you would have a distorted understanding of history.

I wonder if even YOU know what the fuck you are talking about.

[HexHammer]

I just edited my recent post, look at it again.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I just edited my recent post, look at it again.

You are confusing a modern practice still applied with "ancient history". They are not the same.
You are also trying to pretend that "we" are more, "modern" or "evolved", an assumption for which you have no warrant.

The Bushmen of the Kalahari, whose culture has been pushed into extinction by the march of white-protestant racism, all very 'modern'. They have a sharing culture which scorns greed and acts to dispel poverty of their fellows. So common place is their generosity that they have no word for 'thank you', as thanks are unnecessary. They lived simply within the limits of their environment and this culture has persisted for millennia until destroyed by white people with their bibles.

So who is more evolved?

Let's look at the ridiculous caricature;

In ancient times we would fight to defend the family's honor, kill our daughters if they got raped to save our honor, we would beat family and serfs, there was not a developed moral and ethics.
Though common people had more integrity in fear of being punished in the afterlife or by their gods.

Who the hell is 'we' by the way?
And where did you get the idea "kill our daughters if raped" Who are you talking about?

[HexHammer]

I just edited my recent post, look at it again.

You are confusing a modern practice still applied with "ancient history". They are not the same.
You are also trying to pretend that "we" are more, "modern" or "evolved", an assumption for which you have no warrant.

The Bushmen of the Kalahari, whose culture has been pushed into extinction by the march of white-protestant racism, all very 'modern'. They have a sharing culture which scorns greed and acts to dispel poverty of their fellows. So common place is their generosity that they have no word for 'thank you', as thanks are unnecessary. They lived simply within the limits of their environment and this culture has persisted for millennia until destroyed by white people with their bibles.

So who is more evolved?

You make the usual baffeling claim that only 1 example will rule all others. 1 situation can't define the standard.

Get over youself.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I just edited my recent post, look at it again.

You are confusing a modern practice still applied with "ancient history". They are not the same.
You are also trying to pretend that "we" are more, "modern" or "evolved", an assumption for which you have no warrant.

The Bushmen of the Kalahari, whose culture has been pushed into extinction by the march of white-protestant racism, all very 'modern'. They have a sharing culture which scorns greed and acts to dispel poverty of their fellows. So common place is their generosity that they have no word for 'thank you', as thanks are unnecessary. They lived simply within the limits of their environment and this culture has persisted for millennia until destroyed by white people with their bibles.

So who is more evolved?

You make the usual baffeling claim that only 1 example will rule all others. 1 situation can't define the standard.
f.

The one example is simply an indication of the complexity of human culture and the stupidity of your ridiculous caricature. This also shows the depths of your ignorance.

[HexHammer]

Dear Hobbes

I do respect your vast amount of knowledge, but when you actually have to make an intelligent statemen, you comes to absurd conclusions.

You need to train your abstract logic, specially your beloved 1 example that will break the general concensus and make the new concensus. I'll just put you on ignore and may time give you insight.