My Community

Dudeist Religion => Under the Influences => Humanism => Topic started by: Masked Dude on September 26, 2012, 08:31:20 PM

Title: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Masked Dude on September 26, 2012, 08:31:20 PM
A lot of people don't really get what Humanism (note the capital H) is. Also called secular humanism, it's a way of thinking that puts forward the idea that we as humans are not good or evil or superior. Humanism says we can have morals and ethics without a belief in a supernatural or divine dude.

It further says that all thinking - religion, life, politics, that weird uncle - should not solely be based on faith or upbringing. All ideas and beliefs should be taken apart and studied. Do you really believe in something because you were raised that way, or do you really think it's true?

One of the main goals of some Humanist groups is that we should work together as humans. They say since we're inherently linked to the world (being part of it), we need to shed our past problems and Us vs. Them ideas and finally work as a group to make a better world. If we're just worried about someone being evil because they don't believe in the same things, how the hell do we expect to make the world and the future better?

That's what Humanism is in a nutshell. I don't know if I'm a Humanist, but I play one on TV.

(Let's keep the discussions civil and friendly, dudes. At least that part's right. And I'm writing this as my brain is only halfway working. So don't expect this post to be deep and philosophical shit.)

Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: DigitalBuddha on September 27, 2012, 02:08:38 AM
A lot of people don't really get what Humanism (note the capital H) is. Also called secular humanism, it's a way of thinking that puts forward the idea that we as humans are not good or evil or superior. Humanism says we can have morals and ethics without a belief in a supernatural or divine dude.

It further says that all thinking - religion, life, politics, that weird uncle - should not solely be based on faith or upbringing. All ideas and beliefs should be taken apart and studied. Do you really believe in something because you were raised that way, or do you really think it's true?

One of the main goals of some Humanist groups is that we should work together as humans. They say since we're inherently linked to the world (being part of it), we need to shed our past problems and Us vs. Them ideas and finally work as a group to make a better world. If we're just worried about someone being evil because they don't believe in the same things, how the hell do we expect to make the world and the future better?

That's what Humanism is in a nutshell. I don't know if I'm a Humanist, but I play one on TV.

(Let's keep the discussions civil and friendly, dudes. At least that part's right. And I'm writing this as my brain is only halfway working. So don't expect this post to be deep and philosophical shit.)



A worthy comment on Humanism, dude. Far out.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Boston Rockbury on September 27, 2012, 08:42:27 AM
All ideas and beliefs should be taken apart and studied.

I think we should take that idea apart and study it.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Caesar dude on September 27, 2012, 04:28:12 PM
Quote
I think we should take that idea apart and study it.

Stop being a dick!

Or if you're making a joke.... use a smiley! :)

peace.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Masked Dude on September 27, 2012, 07:16:34 PM
All ideas and beliefs should be taken apart and studied.

I think we should take that idea apart and study it.

Only if you promise to put it back together when you're done.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: forumdude on September 27, 2012, 08:08:08 PM
ha ha. boston is so mild mannered and the sweetest guy in the world in person, but on the dudeism forum he has taken on sort of a snarky devil's advocate persona.

i wonder how many of us are very different in real life than we appear on this forum? or in general online?

i think when confronted by worldviews that i consider alien to my own (new agers with alternative everything and conspiracy theories on one hand, hard right wingers and their hard idealism and smug pseudo-rationality on the other) i can be a total fucking asshole behind the veil of the internet. it's just too hard not to take out the knives and cut up their arguments.

luckily i agree with almost everyone here. even this so called "conflict" between boston and whomever else seems to me very mild. it's more of a difference of rhetorical style than an actual disagreement.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Masked Dude on September 27, 2012, 10:24:49 PM
That's why I made a little joke reply to him. He's never wronged me, so I have no grind against him.

Live and let dude, I figure!

 8)
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: cckeiser on September 27, 2012, 11:22:55 PM
ha ha. boston is so mild mannered and the sweetest guy in the world in person, but on the dudeism forum he has taken on sort of a snarky devil's advocate persona.

i wonder how many of us are very different in real life than we appear on this forum? or in general online?

i think when confronted by worldviews that i consider alien to my own (new agers with alternative everything and conspiracy theories on one hand, hard right wingers and their hard idealism and smug pseudo-rationality on the other) i can be a total fucking asshole behind the veil of the internet. it's just too hard not to take out the knives and cut up their arguments.

luckily i agree with almost everyone here. even this so called "conflict" between boston and whomever else seems to me very mild. it's more of a difference of rhetorical style than an actual disagreement.

One of the reason I use my real name on the Internet....it's so easy to be a Dick when you are hiding behind an alias. 8)
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Boston Rockbury on September 28, 2012, 01:28:17 AM


Same reason I use my real name.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: DigitalBuddha on September 28, 2012, 02:04:47 AM
ha ha. boston is so mild mannered and the sweetest guy in the world in person, but on the dudeism forum he has taken on sort of a snarky devil's advocate persona.

i wonder how many of us are very different in real life than we appear on this forum? or in general online?

In real life I am an unashamed strumpet. ;D(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/classic/images/post/thumbup.gif)
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Rev. Gary (revgms) on March 05, 2013, 08:54:14 AM
We need dicks, they are there to protect the pussies, even if they occasionally get the pussies all pissed off, they are still needed to fuck the assholes. Dicks may be a bit aggressive and sometimes break things they don't mean to, but assholes just shit on everything, and it takes a dick to fuck an asshole, to keep the assholes from shitting on our beloved pussies. see Team America

So feel free to dick out occasionally, it adds to the dynamism of life and progress, just try and not be an asshole.

I dunno, I feel Dudeism is very much the same as Humanism, dressed in a comfy robe. I wrote about it here http://godswillchurch.com/2012/09/humanism-in-a-bathrobe/ (http://godswillchurch.com/2012/09/humanism-in-a-bathrobe/)

Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: A Stoned Buddha on March 05, 2013, 09:38:21 AM
A lot of people don't really get what Humanism (note the capital H) is. Also called secular humanism, it's a way of thinking that puts forward the idea that we as humans are not good or evil or superior. Humanism says we can have morals and ethics without a belief in a supernatural or divine dude.

It further says that all thinking - religion, life, politics, that weird uncle - should not solely be based on faith or upbringing. All ideas and beliefs should be taken apart and studied. Do you really believe in something because you were raised that way, or do you really think it's true?

One of the main goals of some Humanist groups is that we should work together as humans. They say since we're inherently linked to the world (being part of it), we need to shed our past problems and Us vs. Them ideas and finally work as a group to make a better world. If we're just worried about someone being evil because they don't believe in the same things, how the hell do we expect to make the world and the future better?

That's what Humanism is in a nutshell. I don't know if I'm a Humanist, but I play one on TV.

(Let's keep the discussions civil and friendly, dudes. At least that part's right. And I'm writing this as my brain is only halfway working. So don't expect this post to be deep and philosophical shit.)


Yeah, that's cool man. That's cool. But, I get a little hung up on the whole people "should" work together to "make a better world" idea there. I mean, I get it. Shit sucks sometimes, and yeah, it'd sure be nice if it didn't, but I think a lot of harm is caused by people trying to "make a better world." It just sounds too unrealistic and Utopian on the one hand, and an excuse to fuck people over on the other, for their own good of course. I just don't think the true change people are really after is something that can ever be put in a big message and be outwardly broadcast as "this is what people should do," as much as I think it'd be slow internal, subtle change each person makes for themselves in their own way and pace. Which may just mean it'll never happen. And that's cool to. What is, is. I'd rather deal with what is now, right here in this moment, than daydream about a day when life is a Coca-cola commercial. Not to say that's wrong or anything, just giving my two cents. When toddlers learn to walk, they fall down many times. We've been learning this here game a long time, and it looks as if we still got a ways to go yet, be patient and abide.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 05, 2013, 12:46:58 PM
We need dicks, they are there to protect the pussies, even if they occasionally get the pussies all pissed off, they are still needed to fuck the assholes. Dicks may be a bit aggressive and sometimes break things they don't mean to, but assholes just shit on everything, and it takes a dick to fuck an asshole, to keep the assholes from shitting on our beloved pussies. see Team America

So feel free to dick out occasionally, it adds to the dynamism of life and progress, just try and not be an asshole.

I dunno, I feel Dudeism is very much the same as Humanism, dressed in a comfy robe. I wrote about it here http://godswillchurch.com/2012/09/humanism-in-a-bathrobe/ (http://godswillchurch.com/2012/09/humanism-in-a-bathrobe/)



What do you need that for Dude?
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 05, 2013, 12:51:42 PM
I always took it as a philosophy whereby the best course is measured as that which brings the most value to the most humans rather than a religious view where morality is judged by a set of "rules" (Leads ha ha, we got some leads) which may or may not be primarily directed toward people's well being.
Anticipating criticism this does not mean at the expense of non humans (critters that is).\
Specific definition....
Quote
sec-u-lar hu-man-ism 
Noun
Humanism, with regard in particular to the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God.


I'd recommend this....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww)



Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 05, 2013, 12:53:05 PM
A lot of people don't really get what Humanism (note the capital H) is. Also called secular humanism, it's a way of thinking that puts forward the idea that we as humans are not good or evil or superior. Humanism says we can have morals and ethics without a belief in a supernatural or divine dude.

It further says that all thinking - religion, life, politics, that weird uncle - should not solely be based on faith or upbringing. All ideas and beliefs should be taken apart and studied. Do you really believe in something because you were raised that way, or do you really think it's true?

One of the main goals of some Humanist groups is that we should work together as humans. They say since we're inherently linked to the world (being part of it), we need to shed our past problems and Us vs. Them ideas and finally work as a group to make a better world. If we're just worried about someone being evil because they don't believe in the same things, how the hell do we expect to make the world and the future better?

That's what Humanism is in a nutshell. I don't know if I'm a Humanist, but I play one on TV.

(Let's keep the discussions civil and friendly, dudes. At least that part's right. And I'm writing this as my brain is only halfway working. So don't expect this post to be deep and philosophical shit.)


Yeah, that's cool man. That's cool. But, I get a little hung up on the whole people "should" work together to "make a better world" idea there. I mean, I get it. Shit sucks sometimes, and yeah, it'd sure be nice if it didn't, but I think a lot of harm is caused by people trying to "make a better world." It just sounds too unrealistic and Utopian on the one hand, and an excuse to fuck people over on the other, for their own good of course. I just don't think the true change people are really after is something that can ever be put in a big message and be outwardly broadcast as "this is what people should do," as much as I think it'd be slow internal, subtle change each person makes for themselves in their own way and pace. Which may just mean it'll never happen. And that's cool to. What is, is. I'd rather deal with what is now, right here in this moment, than daydream about a day when life is a Coca-cola commercial. Not to say that's wrong or anything, just giving my two cents. When toddlers learn to walk, they fall down many times. We've been learning this here game a long time, and it looks as if we still got a ways to go yet, be patient and abide.

I take it be be less about what kind of world etc..
It's just a metric by which to measure values.
As they relate to human well being.
The assumption being, that such a path will lead to a better beach community all around.
I think BTW that it is the normal state of human morals. This would develop normally if not co-opted by something else.
It is generally supplanted by religious nonsense, nationalism, racism or general parquatism (to our detriment IMO).

At any rate even this gets a bit complicated.
Seems to me that when we lived closest to our natures we were inherently tribal.
I'm not entirely sure that we have developed a notion (yet) of the "family of man".
(competition having been integral to our upward ascent and a fact of life)
Yeah I know a higher calling is very real. But it's very "front brain". We are basically cave men with Nukes.
Our natural instincts are still probably driven by tribalism.
Could be that's the higher calling that we should collectively work toward.
Then we may be like Captain James T Kirk or the founding fathers. Driven by Ideals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGO-SldLrNA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGO-SldLrNA)




 

 
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Masked Dude on March 05, 2013, 03:40:13 PM
I like some of the ideas of Humanism but also wonder about the motives of most people. Until we have that family of man notion, no philosophy or religion will do us much good. Just my opinion.

I turned my back on religions because none of them made much sense to me and many (if not most) of the diehard followers ignore what religions teach. Humanism may have lofty goals, too, and like many have said, if only a relative few give a shit then the world in general won't benefit.

So all we can do is be good people and hope others do the same one day regardless of religion and philosophy.

I'm not religious, humanist, or really anything. I'm just me.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: A Stoned Buddha on March 05, 2013, 04:34:37 PM
I like some of the ideas of Humanism but also wonder about the motives of most people. Until we have that family of man notion, no philosophy or religion will do us much good. Just my opinion.

I turned my back on religions because none of them made much sense to me and many (if not most) of the diehard followers ignore what religions teach. Humanism may have lofty goals, too, and like many have said, if only a relative few give a shit then the world in general won't benefit.

So all we can do is be good people and hope others do the same one day regardless of religion and philosophy.

I'm not religious, humanist, or really anything. I'm just me.
Fucking- A right, man!
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BrotherShamus on March 05, 2013, 09:03:58 PM
Well they've all got good ideas, but people will always either corrupt them on purpose or take everything as truth instead of searching for the meaning. Can't have faith without doubt.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: RighteousDude on March 05, 2013, 10:20:09 PM
All of the Humanists I've known have been righteous. I like 'em a lot. Their feet are on the ground and they stand squarely over them just like they belong there.

Kurt Vonnegut was a Humanist. Fucking Albert Einstein was a Humanist, though the pantheists (of which I am one) lay claim to the dude, too. The really fucking great scientists of the last 150 years or so are/were all or mostly all Humanists, and the great thinkers in other realms are well represented on the rolls, too. Noam Chomsky is among them.

... or the founding fathers. Driven by Ideals.

The founding fathers? Like of the United States? Those fucking guys, living in a world informed by the Age of Enlightenment which was in full swing at the time, wrote a constitution that included not one human right, only property rights. It was a rich man's constitution, and the Bill of Rights got tacked on later only because their constitution would not have been ratified without it.  Their only ideal was wealth.

I wrote before about John Adams and his defense of the British troops who murdered colonists in the Boston Massacre. A founding father. As the second president of the US, he signed the Sedition Act into law in 1798. The Sedition Act made it a crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment, to criticize the government. Ideals? Not that fucking guy. Well, unless you count commitment to personal wealth and power as an ideal. He had that in spades.

Can't have faith without doubt.

Humanism is not faith.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: DigitalBuddha on March 06, 2013, 01:32:46 AM
All this brings up the question; is Dudeism a form of Humanism?
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Rev. Gary (revgms) on March 06, 2013, 06:39:20 AM
The Humanists I have talked to say yes, Dudeism is like Humanism.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: DigitalBuddha on March 06, 2013, 07:03:18 AM
The Humanists I have talked to say yes, Dudeism is like Humanism.

I would say I agree.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: RighteousDude on March 06, 2013, 07:11:25 AM
Is Dudeism a form of Humanism? Hmmm. Does Dudeism require that its adherents flatly reject the notion of invisible space monsters? Does Dudeism have as one of its purposes making the world a better place for others, and other species? I gotta ask because I ain't real sure. But if those two things are true, then it could be said that Dudeism and Humanism are in unstated agreement.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Rev. Gary (revgms) on March 06, 2013, 08:08:23 AM
Well, Dudeism doesn't really require adherents to believe or not believe in meta-physical things, but it also does not promote any meta-physics. Humanism states it is atheistic, not anti-theistic, but they demand evidence so they are de-facto anti-theists. We Dudeists just don't know dude, but we follow the threads and investigate. I see no reason these two should be mutually exclusive in this regard.

I also think Dudeism does have a component of being for the betterment of others (other species included), otherwise why would we take it easy for all those sinners out there?
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 06, 2013, 08:53:51 AM
Well they've all got good ideas, but people will always either corrupt them on purpose or take everything as truth instead of searching for the meaning. Can't have faith without doubt.

I'm always puzzled by the concept of faith as being a "good" thing.
It's like saying self delusion is a good thing.

Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 06, 2013, 09:06:11 AM
I think that Humanism is more general than actually constituting an ethos.
It is more like theist.
Few people classify themselves as theist. They call themselves Catholic, Jewish, Protestant etc..
I'm not sure I've met anyone who would self apply the term Humanist as a general self description.
Most would probably use the term atheist or agnostic but in the general climate of "feel good" middle class religion in the developed world I think that many if not most people who classify themselves as Catholic (for instance) would, without a hint of irony, call themselves humanists. And if not calling themselves humanists they would agree with the central propositions.  It's because of the "sloppy" religion that we tend to practice. We call ourselves something but just ignore all the difficult parts.
The reality is that if you call yourself a Catholic or Protestant or Jew or whatever your morality lies with your God.
God told Abraham kill me a son.
If God commands it then it is so. PERIOD. And that is unsurprising. If you believe that he exists is all powerful and the creator of absolutely everything, If you really do believe that (most don't just like the idea of a happy loving old man) then where would anyone get off ignoring any of his commands? Once you go down the theist path you agree that God's will is utmost and unquestionable. (for anything short of the wishy washy deist nonsense)
So by not murdering your neighbor for not obeying the sabbath you are a sinner. And like it our not there is NO official renunciation of any of these commands that we see in Deuteronomy for instance. ALL of these things are still officially the doctrine of the church.
In a deist religion you put your faith in that God. And you simply don't get to pick and choose.
There are rules. This isn't Nam.
But we like to think of the God played by George Burns in Oh God. It's kozy and happy.

(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM2ODcwNTYxMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTc4MzUxMQ@@._V1_SY317_CR2,0,214,317_.jpg)

A few at random...

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)  Have you ever done that?
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). 
If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death.  (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death.  (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake.  (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.  (Leviticus 24:14-16)
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Hominid on March 06, 2013, 10:43:04 AM
Well, there are some people that do indeed consider it a religion; some of those that penned the original Humanist Manifesto. Interesting shit dude:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto)
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: RighteousDude on March 06, 2013, 01:38:58 PM
Well, there are some people that do indeed consider it a religion; some of those that penned the original Humanist Manifesto. Interesting shit dude:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto)

Humanist Manifesto III (http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III) states in its opening sentence: "Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.", emphasis mine. That's what I'm going with, not because it fits my argument, but because things do change over time. Even xtianity has changed over time as various rulers have rewritten the New Testament to suit their aims. And these days there are dozens of version of the damned thing.

Ennyhoo, I'm really not trying to be contrary. Maybe it's just a natural talent?  ;D
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 06, 2013, 01:48:09 PM
Well, there are some people that do indeed consider it a religion; some of those that penned the original Humanist Manifesto. Interesting shit dude:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto)



From the council for secular humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what_is (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what_is)

Quote
Secular humanism is a comprehensive, nonreligious lifestance incorporating:

    ?  A naturalistic philosophy
    ?  A cosmic outlook rooted in science
    ?  A consequentialist ethical system

Let's examine these items one by one:
A comprehensive, nonreligious lifestance.

Secular humanism is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity. Thus it is broader than atheism, which concerns only the nonexistence of god or the supernatural. Important as that may be, there?s a lot more to life ? and secular humanism addresses it.

Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience.

Secular humanism is a lifestance, or what Council for Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz has termed a eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life.

A naturalistic philosophy.

Secular humanism is philosophically naturalistic. It holds that nature (the world of everyday physical experience) is all there is, and that reliable knowledge is best obtained when we query nature using the scientific method. Naturalism asserts that supernatural entities like God do not exist, and warns us that knowledge gained without appeal to the natural world and without impartial review by multiple observers is unreliable.

A cosmic outlook rooted in science.

Secular humanism provides a cosmic outlook?a world-view in the broadest sense, grounding our lives in the context of our universe and relying on methods demonstrated by science. Secular humanists see themselves as undesigned, unintended beings who arose through evolution, possessing unique attributes of self-awareness and moral agency.

A consequentialist ethical system.

Secular humanists hold that ethics is consequential, to be judged by results. This is in contrast to so-called command ethics, in which right and wrong are defined in advance and attributed to divine authority. ?No god will save us,? declared Humanist Manifesto II (1973), ?we must save ourselves.? Secular humanists seek to develop and improve their ethical principles by examining the results they yield in the lives of real men and women.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 06, 2013, 02:13:32 PM

The founding fathers? Like of the United States? Those fucking guys, living in a world informed by the Age of Enlightenment which was in full swing at the time, wrote a constitution that included not one human right, only property rights. It was a rich man's constitution, and the Bill of Rights got tacked on later only because their constitution would not have been ratified without it.  Their only ideal was wealth.


Kirk was reading the Declaration of Independence. Written by Jefferson.
I'd point to the "Jeffeson Humanist Society"
http://jefferson-society.com/ (http://jefferson-society.com/)
I'd say that the founding fathers were motivated by the principles that became Humanism even if imperfectly.
Simply the fact that most of them identified as Deists. Not believing in a personal or involved deity.
That changes everything...
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=values (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=values)
Quote
...the moral consequences of believing the universe not to be guided by a personal god to whom petitionary prayer can be addressed are huge. That is why it is so inadequate to call oneself solely an atheist; one needs some sort of description for what motivates one's behavior afterwards."
- Bill Cooke
Secular humanist author and activist

I'd have to say that Humanism is a philosophy.
Few people would for instance call themselves an existentialist (unless they were writers or philosophers. )
It's more a description than an identity. It informs our other identities.
Most people I know who identify as atheist are humanists.
Of course we do have the Nihilists in the movie so that theory goes all to shit with them.

The Humanist Magazine.
http://thehumanist.org/ (http://thehumanist.org/)

Good article on "Prohibition & Humanism".
http://thehumanist.org/march-april-2013/prohibition-humanism/ (http://thehumanist.org/march-april-2013/prohibition-humanism/)
I love this
Quote
The United States saw its fair share of religiously motivated moral legislation in the early twentieth century, when Evangelical Protestant churches and religious fundamentalists pushed for the prohibition of alcohol, intent on removing this "evil" from society. The Rev. Mark Matthews, a leading figure in the temperance movement, famously noted, "The saloon is the most fiendish, corrupt, hell-soaked institution that ever crawled out of the slime of the eternal pit. It takes your sweet innocent daughter, robs her of her virtue, and transforms her into a brazen, wanton harlot. It is the open sore of this land." With the ensuing ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919, religious conservatives believed that God's will had been done, and that the United States had succeeded in taking a bold step towards achieving heaven on earth.

Hell yeah! Sounds like my kind of watering hole!
Point the way!
Stamp my hand bitch!
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Hominid on March 06, 2013, 02:58:51 PM
Well, there are some people that do indeed consider it a religion; some of those that penned the original Humanist Manifesto. Interesting shit dude:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto)

Humanist Manifesto III (http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III) states in its opening sentence: "Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.", emphasis mine. That's what I'm going with, not because it fits my argument, but because things do change over time. Even xtianity has changed over time as various rulers have rewritten the New Testament to suit their aims. And these days there are dozens of version of the damned thing.

Ennyhoo, I'm really not trying to be contrary. Maybe it's just a natural talent?  ;D

Oh shit no; I was just quoting Wikipedia...  contrari-nesses taken!
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: RighteousDude on March 07, 2013, 10:48:20 AM
Kirk was reading the Declaration of Independence. Written by Jefferson.
I'd point to the "Jeffeson Humanist Society"
http://jefferson-society.com/ (http://jefferson-society.com/)
I'd say that the founding fathers were motivated by the principles that became Humanism even if imperfectly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the founders were all dirty rotten greedy bastards, but in the main they were. Jefferson was a fairly enlightened dude and gets the lion's share of the attention because he was one of the few relatively honorable dudes in the bunch. Any positive qualities we ascribe to him, or any of the few others who were fairly enlightened and relatively honorable, though, don't automatically convey to the rest. And it can't be overlooked by anyone being honest with himself that the freedom and equality that Jefferson spoke of was intended for wealthy white men only. Even when his peers sought to cut the slaves a little slack, Jefferson stood strongly opposed. And when it came time to incorporate some human rights into the Constitution it wasn't Jefferson who did it. Madison did. And was a slave owner, too.

Ain't no humanists owning slaves, man. It's just inconsistent as hell with the whole philosophy.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 07, 2013, 12:08:08 PM
Kirk was reading the Declaration of Independence. Written by Jefferson.
I'd point to the "Jeffeson Humanist Society"
http://jefferson-society.com/ (http://jefferson-society.com/)
I'd say that the founding fathers were motivated by the principles that became Humanism even if imperfectly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the founders were all dirty rotten greedy bastards, but in the main they were. Jefferson was a fairly enlightened dude and gets the lion's share of the attention because he was one of the few relatively honorable dudes in the bunch. Any positive qualities we ascribe to him, or any of the few others who were fairly enlightened and relatively honorable, though, don't automatically convey to the rest. And it can't be overlooked by anyone being honest with himself that the freedom and equality that Jefferson spoke of was intended for wealthy white men only. Even when his peers sought to cut the slaves a little slack, Jefferson stood strongly opposed. And when it came time to incorporate some human rights into the Constitution it wasn't Jefferson who did it. Madison did. And was a slave owner, too.

Ain't no humanists owning slaves, man. It's just inconsistent as hell with the whole philosophy.

I think I'll take him at his word.
It's the principles that I'm speaking of. He enunciated them pretty well in the Declaration for instance.
I don't believe anything that the founding fathers spoke of are to blame for making us a democracy of the wealthy.
It's our abandonment of those principles.
We no longer have anything resembling a government by the people.
It's been bought and the people have been convinced not to demand it.

Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Rev. Gary (revgms) on March 07, 2013, 01:32:19 PM
I dunno, the Founding Fathers and the constitution and bill of rights are of their time and place. As good as it is and as enlightened as they were, it is still not a permanent solution, and I along with many others would say the constitution and BoR are really just rough drafts for the UDHR.

There are really two problems with our democracy, one, too much money in there, really should have public funded only elections, with a three month lead up, not 4 years campaigning. And second, the populace is full of idiots. The uniformed or misinformation cause more damage to us than the greedy.

Our politics are not bad when you consider their progress in humanism, what really needs humanist values is our capitalist system. The form of capitalism we use now is apathetic towards everything except financial profit, it has no soul and loves no one. What is needed is to give capitalism a conscience. For that I refer to the work of E F Shumacher.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 07, 2013, 03:27:51 PM
I dunno, the Founding Fathers and the constitution and bill of rights are of their time and place. As good as it is and as enlightened as they were, it is still not a permanent solution, and I along with many others would say the constitution and BoR are really just rough drafts for the UDHR.

There are really two problems with our democracy, one, too much money in there, really should have public funded only elections, with a three month lead up, not 4 years campaigning. And second, the populace is full of idiots. The uniformed or misinformation cause more damage to us than the greedy.

Our politics are not bad when you consider their progress in humanism, what really needs humanist values is our capitalist system. The form of capitalism we use now is apathetic towards everything except financial profit, it has no soul and loves no one. What is needed is to give capitalism a conscience. For that I refer to the work of E F Shumacher.

People are easily led.
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-Fascism!" - Huey Long
People will line up to throw their own rights and representation right out the window.
It's bad enough that big money has perfected influencing (buying, bullying and controlling) the government,
but they've also convinced the average person not to.
Next to religion they are the all time champions of selling bullshit.

Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: RighteousDude on March 07, 2013, 08:07:11 PM
I think I'll take him at his word.

"The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific." -- FDR, who provoked Japan to attack with an oil embargo against Japan earlier in 1941 after having been counseled by several trusted advisors that doing so was tantamount to declaring war, and also with an asset freeze on all Japanese assets under US control (via Executive Order 8832, July, 1941)
"I am not a crook." -- Richard Milhouse Nixon
"We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -- Donald Rumsfeld

 ;)

I don't believe anything that the founding fathers spoke of are to blame for making us a democracy of the wealthy.

The US is a republic, specifically a Federal Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. And it was founded with the interests of the wealthy in mind, which is why the constitution contains only property rights and no human rights. Which is why only land owners (of relatively large tracts, not mere homeowners) were allowed to vote in the early days of the republic. Which is why we have (since the 12th Amendment, passed in 1804) an electoral college to elect the president, and it is perfectly legal for electors to completely disregard the popular votes of the states who've appointed them. And so on.

We no longer have anything resembling a government by the people.

We never had that. When Lincoln coined the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people" he knew that the United States was not a democracy. He lied.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 08, 2013, 09:22:16 AM
We have an elected representative government.
Again, pointing out the evils of the government does nothing to change the stated principles.
It simply shows how the principles have never been exemplified in our actual government.
But it does nothing to effect the question of whether we should require that our government DOES conform to the very worthy vision that the founders had for it. We should require a Government by the People for the people. Lincoln had a vision. He was a great man. Like MLK when he stated that he had a dream.
The vision is mirrored in the words of the Declaration of independence. The first official "vision statement".
It's a worth fucking endeavor.
To gripe about how we have a Government for the wealthy simply illustrates the point it does not negate it.
The reason why we say that is "wrong" or "bad" is because it does not live up to the ideal.
The fix for undue influence on the part of the wealthy is more influence by the average person.
In my opinion we should fight for that.



Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Rev. Gary (revgms) on March 08, 2013, 09:43:53 AM
Yeah see, what the Biker Dude said.

We are a republic, true, but a republic, by definition, is a democracy, a representative one. I would argue our form of government is not a "bad" one, rather useful actually, we have accomplished many great things using it, civil rights, emancipation ect.

The problem is the "average" citizen has surrendered their influence because of irrational fears or greed. That or they are just willfully ignorant wastes.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 08, 2013, 03:35:57 PM
Yeah see, what the Biker Dude said.

We are a republic, true, but a republic, by definition, is a democracy, a representative one. I would argue our form of government is not a "bad" one, rather useful actually, we have accomplished many great things using it, civil rights, emancipation ect.

The problem is the "average" citizen has surrendered their influence because of irrational fears or greed. That or they are just willfully ignorant wastes.
And the things you mention where achieved when people were willing to fight for them.
And people were able to speak out and fight for their rights because of our freedoms.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Hominid on March 08, 2013, 04:41:13 PM
Yeah see, what the Biker Dude said.

We are a republic, true, but a republic, by definition, is a democracy, a representative one. I would argue our form of government is not a "bad" one, rather useful actually, we have accomplished many great things using it, civil rights, emancipation ect.

The problem is the "average" citizen has surrendered their influence because of irrational fears or greed. That or they are just willfully ignorant wastes.
And the things you mention where achieved when people were willing to fight for them.
And people were able to speak out and fight for their rights because of our freedoms.


And it seems that is being eroded all over the free world. The bigger the population, the more stupid people get to vote.  We have that in Canada too.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: RighteousDude on March 08, 2013, 08:42:52 PM
We are a republic, true, but a republic, by definition, is a democracy, a representative one.

By definition, a republic is not a democracy. If the distinction is important to you, this might help (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html). If the distinction is not important to you, then let's not have this discussion because I'm sure to piss you off and I'd rather never piss anyone off.

When I bag on the US for being what it is, my intent is simply to cast light upon what this place really fucking is, which until recently was exactly what it was designed to be right from the start. Recently, we've had traitors in the Congress and the Oval Office, elected representatives who are hostile to the Constitution and who have openly undermined it and continue to do so, but the sheeple are good with it so what the fuck. It doesn't matter at all what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence because the Declaration is not law. It was never law. It doesn't matter at all what the founders wrote or said unless it was made into law, and what the founders made into law was a rich man's constitution. The founders would be very supportive of Citizens United, because it is exactly what they had in mind when they denied the vote to all except wealthy landowners. The founders would be very supportive of the wealthy running the government because it is exactly what they created, and how they ran things themselves. The founders would be good with the Bill of Rights being dismantled, because they didn't really want it included. To believe otherwise, one must actually ignore history.

I'd be good with going back to the principles that guided the nation from FDR's New Deal through LBJ's Great Society, principles that were completely and openly at odds with the founders' vision. Principles that created a working middle class for the first time in all of human history, and gave us neat shit like 40 hour work weeks, Social Security, Medicare, collective bargaining, and all of that other liberal shit that the founders would have opposed. I could get fully behind abandoning the principles of the founders to get back on that course. And it would be 100% Dudely, since The Dude was a fucking socialist.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Rev. Gary (revgms) on March 08, 2013, 09:16:58 PM
Nope, the dictionaries agree a republic is a type where the power is in the hands of the populace, either directly or indirectly through democratic action. It is why I was careful to use "by definition", because I was aware of the semantic arguments one could put forth. You see, I was syntactic, and you were being semantic, no big, it happens.

Not sure I go for your broad strokes about the thinking of the founding fathers, but I am with ya once you hit the FDR New Deal. I tend to be more progressive than liberal, but count me in man.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Hominid on March 08, 2013, 09:31:22 PM
Vagina
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: RighteousDude on March 08, 2013, 11:32:43 PM
Nope, the dictionaries agree a republic is a type where the power is in the hands of the populace, either directly or indirectly through democratic action.

I should have been a tad more careful, I suppose, and said "constitutional republic" or even "federal constitutional republic", but I kinda figured we were on the same page there for a while. That's what I get for being so generous as to call the stuff that happens in my mind "thinking". Still:

Fuck the dictionary, man. We have a Supreme Court who can tell that majority of democratically elected representatives down the street to shove their laws up their asses. Where there is an entity who can do that, there is not a democracy. There may be democratically elected legislators who conduct their dealings in a democratic manner, but the government is not itself a democracy. The cake is not defined by the spoon that stirred the batter.

Thirty years ago I was a liberal, but today I'm a progressive -- and my thinking hasn't shifted all that much. Fucking Billy Clinton went and unilaterally redefined liberal on us, and now people apply the term to the guy in the Oval Orifice with straight faces. Only in America, huh? But we can buy toilet paper whose strongest selling point it that it leaves less lint on our assholes, so what the fuck.

Vagina

Breakfast of Champions, Dude!

And to make sure it's said and I hope taken at face value: I'm not putting all this stuff out there to be some kind of contrary dickhead or America hater or some shit. Those things aren't even components of my nature. It just fucks up my mellow state of being to witness my friends and neighbors getting all uptight and fucked up because they believe that this is not the America the founders intended. The America we have today is still a tad more liberal than those guys intended, in truth, and they did intend that the rich would run the government. It's a lot easier to achieve a limber mind free of uptight thinking if we unfuck our minds -- because we were, every one of us who grew up in the US, mindfucked as children. If we unfuck our minds, a whole bunch of shit that's new to us comes to light. And just as in our foundational fiction, when new shit comes to light and we stop believing the bullshit the rich guy laid on us we can achieve a way of being that is more in tune with reality. And then we can say fuck it and enjoy our occasional acid flashbacks with limber minds free of uptight thinking.

But here I am rambling again.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Hominid on March 09, 2013, 08:39:53 PM
Quote
But here I am rambling again.

Sorry, what day is this?
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 11, 2013, 08:19:36 AM
We are a republic, true, but a republic, by definition, is a democracy, a representative one.

By definition, a republic is not a democracy. If the distinction is important to you, this might help (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html). If the distinction is not important to you, then let's not have this discussion because I'm sure to piss you off and I'd rather never piss anyone off.

When I bag on the US for being what it is, my intent is simply to cast light upon what this place really fucking is, which until recently was exactly what it was designed to be right from the start. Recently, we've had traitors in the Congress and the Oval Office, elected representatives who are hostile to the Constitution and who have openly undermined it and continue to do so, but the sheeple are good with it so what the fuck. It doesn't matter at all what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence because the Declaration is not law. It was never law. It doesn't matter at all what the founders wrote or said unless it was made into law, and what the founders made into law was a rich man's constitution. The founders would be very supportive of Citizens United, because it is exactly what they had in mind when they denied the vote to all except wealthy landowners. The founders would be very supportive of the wealthy running the government because it is exactly what they created, and how they ran things themselves. The founders would be good with the Bill of Rights being dismantled, because they didn't really want it included. To believe otherwise, one must actually ignore history.

I'd be good with going back to the principles that guided the nation from FDR's New Deal through LBJ's Great Society, principles that were completely and openly at odds with the founders' vision. Principles that created a working middle class for the first time in all of human history, and gave us neat shit like 40 hour work weeks, Social Security, Medicare, collective bargaining, and all of that other liberal shit that the founders would have opposed. I could get fully behind abandoning the principles of the founders to get back on that course. And it would be 100% Dudely, since The Dude was a fucking socialist.

I agree that the term republic in the parlance of our times has little or no meaning.
People's Republic of China, United Soviet Socialist Republic, the Republic of Texas etc..
The important thing is that there were some ideals clearly enunciated in the foundations of the country.
The extent to which we embody them has been the key to our success.
The "Land of Opportunity".
The American Dream. The more real those ideas are the better we do.
And IMHO those are successful to the extent that everybody has a place at the table.
If things run their course and we end up with an oligarchy the plane hits the mountain.
Happens every time.

I'd don't agree with the most of the points in the link you've provided.
Quote
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

We have the constitution as protection against that.
Not all things are democratic.
A person running a business can't decide to have a water fountain for blacks.
And a town like wise can't have segregated schools etc.

Quote
In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority?s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government.
I don't believe that at all.
In fact I think it's very clear that it is the majority's power that has co-opted the will of a powerful minority.

To me getting into a hair splitting thing about terms like Democracy or Republic doesn't serve anything IMO. There are those Ideals and then there is actual government. I believe that we have a representative democratically elected government and their powers are limited and delineated by a constitution and ongoing legislation.
No matter how you term it we are both types and neither. It's a scale not a type of car.
England, The US, all share commonalities and differ in other ways. It's simply impossible to put a hard and fast label on it. The best you can do is a generality and at the core are certain ideals and concepts.
The reality falls somewhere along the scale. Not 100% one side or the other.
To me the thing that was somewhat unique about the US is that we clearly stated the desire that government receives it's powers by the consent of the governed.

Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 11, 2013, 01:32:02 PM
Quotes
Republicans stand for greed, pollution, bigotry, and war. Democrats pretend to feel guilty about greed, pollution, bigotry, and war
- Jello Biafra


I'm totally down with insurrection in the street. I've had a great time with that over the years. Insurrection in the voting booth is the other part of the equation.
- Jello Biafra


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAciMwjYxmg&list=PL-VDBlMh2vQ2eEXh255AoWXssg3q7lZGk&index=24 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAciMwjYxmg&list=PL-VDBlMh2vQ2eEXh255AoWXssg3q7lZGk&index=24)

Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: RighteousDude on March 11, 2013, 02:00:28 PM
We have the constitution as protection against that.

And a Supreme Court to uphold that constitution, which is why we have a federal constitutional republic and not a democracy.  ;)

To me getting into a hair splitting thing about terms like Democracy or Republic doesn't serve anything IMO.

But they're very helpful if you want to avoid the pitfalls that tend to get people all uptight and fucked up in their thinking. Misunderstandings about how things work lead to negative emotional responses when things we believe to be unlawful are done by our government, and can cause us to expend our energy in ways that cannot change anything. One of the beefs I hear all the time is "Our elected representatives are disregarding the will of the people!". Well no shit. There's no law requiring them to act in accordance with the will of the people. Our only recourse is to vote for someone else next time -- someone who still will not be obligated to consider the will of the people.

Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The Declaration of Independence is not, never has been, and was never intended to be the law of the land, Dude. It's a nice statement and all, and expresses some high ideals, but it has as much force of law as does Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas. Or so says that rotten attorney of mine, Dr. Gonzo.
Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: BikerDude on March 12, 2013, 08:43:46 AM
I understand that our reps are not obliged to act on the will of their constituents.
But if they don't they run the risk of not be re-elected. And when we consider who we elect in their place wouldn't we start by evaluating how much they support the very premise that they SHOULD represent our will? I don't believe that they should be legally obliged to, but as a general principle I like to see that they at least believe in the principles.

Even if we get into the misguided course of confabulating the terms with the likewise named parties, neither can claim the constitution. The Democratic party was founded by Thomas Jefferson specifically to champion the bill of rights in opposition to the federalists. It was called Ironically the "Democratic Republican Party". It split in the 1820's to the Democrats (Jefferson et al) and most others became whigs.


Bottom line
I just don't think that you can get into a "this or that" view on these terms democracy or republic.
(It's the completely irrelevant fact that the political parties use those terms that confuses the entire debate.)
Republic is a more generic term than democracy IMO. They just aren't relative terms.
A republic is essentially anything without a monarch, but the complexion of that is a function of the AMOUNT of democracy. You can have a republic that is not democratic. You can't have a democracy that is not a republic. (Perhaps Athens around 500AD would be a "pure" democracy. In practice ALL work through elected representitives. But even athens qualifies as not having a monarch) North Korea is a self proclaimed Republic with zero democracy. Either way it's essentially hair splitting over terminology.

We are IMO a constitutional Democracy. And yes we are a republic also. They are not exclusive.

Just for reference the Merriam Webster definition of democracy and republic and constitutional democracy.

Quote
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy ? C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Quote
Definition of REPUBLIC
1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2
: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3
: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

Quote
Main Entry:      constitutional democracy
Part of Speech:      n
Definition:      a system of government based on popular sovereignty in which the structures, powers, and limits of government are set forth in a constitution
Usage:      politics

Quote
A constitutional democracy has two essential ingredients, (1) a constitutional ingredient and (2) a democratic ingredient.

The Constitutional Ingredient. The constitutional ingredient of modern constitutional democracy is called "constitutionalism," or "constitutional government." This ingredient relates to how political authority is defined, limited, and distributed by law. Under constitutionalism, the Constitution, the basic law of the political community, (1) defines and limits the power of government and (2) determines the degree and manner of distribution of political authority among the major organs or parts of the government.

The Democratic Ingredient. The democratic ingredient of modern constitutional democracy is representative democracy and relates to (1) who holds and exercises political authority, (2) how political authority is acquired and retained, and (3) the significance of the latter as regards popular control and public accountability of those persons who hold and exercise political authority. In a representative democracy, (1) political authority--the power to make and enforce authoritative, binding decisions for and in the name of the entire political community--is held and exercised by the voters' elected representatives in the government and by officers appointed or succeeding to their positions of authority in accordance with the laws of the community, (2) political authority is acquired and retained either directly or indirectly as the result of victory in free and competitive elections, and (3) the voting citizenry, through participation in free and competitive elections held periodically, can effectively control their elected representatives and hold them responsible for the consequences of their exercise of governmental power as well as for the manner in which and the purposes for which they exercise that power.
http://www.proconservative.net/cunapolsci201parttwoa.shtml (http://www.proconservative.net/cunapolsci201parttwoa.shtml)


Title: Re: Brief primer on Humanism
Post by: Bradypus on July 18, 2015, 12:55:41 PM
Interesting debate dudes !
I see Humanism as 3 things, it's just a perception of course, and with some differences of approach I guess cause I mostly don't know about American humanist culture. I hope it brings correct and useful ideas.

The 16th century founding movement called that way

Which is great as it is the positive response to middle age obscurantism moroness.
To me the humanist core is all about reducing ignorance and minoring believes based on false assumptions. The first intellectual act building humanism had to be looking backward to forgotten (or even forbidden and mostly destroyed) antic philosophers and scientists, it is an act of science prefiguring archaeology.
So to me humanism is about looking for knowledge and science.
It also a religious questioning, and history proves it : 16th humanism reformed a lot of religious believes. Because this is what science usually does when people believe non senses like "earth is flat and some thousand years old", "waters can be opened with a stick", "a virgin can be pregnant", etc. There's still work to do obviously... cause in front of classical humanism the obscurantism was fighting back. Often alive and strong during couple of centuries like the spanish inquisition.


Actual general word to put cool stuffs together
Which I personally use so it's made of opinions...

Trying to know things, as they are, have huge consequences upon how we understand everything : our place in the universe, what really is the history of humanity, existence and history of other life forms who were there long before us... and it remembers often we know just a few about the whole shit around us. Thanks to nature's reality humanism can be pretty positive for humans social life, with equality and pragmatism, cause well, we're all the same compared to the Universe reality and size : little ephemera dots on an infinite wall. Because of nature's reality humanism carries strong discourse defending human equality, scientific skepticism, agnosticism and develops being humble, open minded, cultivated, relativist, empathic/sympathic and many other positive attitudes.


A corrupted answer to everything

Humanism is screwed by its anthropocentric attitude. It's like a smart guy mainly thinking about his own white ass. Cause humanism has been build by white asses, that's how it is, and it had been used in order to facilitate white asses power upon "not that white" societies. Being an humanist and a self-centered asshole is possible. For example it happened to be humanist, none less than one of the great heroes of freedom and progress of a whole nation for centuries, and at same time owning and exploiting bunch of slaves.

Historically humanism is a perfect step for its place and time, when we knew a shit, like fuckin nothing up to burn women cause they were red haired and supposed to have enjoyed pagan sex under the full moon. Shit, who would not ? But it was just a step. Abiding our ass is not the center of the Universe, nor the center of this planet, is now quite a needed evolution. Like, in order to just survive.

Humanism is a part of something bigger. I would like to call it Universalism if it wasn't already taken by some fucked up philosophy. Now because of our actual knowledge and the ecological state of our planet, guys like Hubert Reeves or Francis Halle are 100% humanists telling how being anthropocentric leads to huge disasters. Beyond the global warming debate, there are no serious scientific to pretend humanity is actually not screwing the biodiversity quite enough to self destroy its fabulous ass. Cause that's pretty factual.

Humanism can be great for humanity peacemaking, but it shows its limits and to go further than human considerations, it asks to evolve into to something else. More BigBang centered maybe. But scientism isn't purely made of correct assumptions neither. There's nothing ending by ism that can be sure to not be wrong at some point, cause we're humans so failure is like, a natural pillar.

Something like that.