Ask Me About Humanism

And I'll do my best to answer. I'm a lifelong Humanist, though I only discovered the term a few years ago. It was a real "Whoa, there's a word for my worldview!!!" moment.

If you're a Humanist too, when did you discover or become one? When people ask you what Humanism is, what do you tell them? What's your biggest issue?

If you're not a Humanist, what have you heard about our philosophy? And go ahead, ask me anything you like.

 

First I'd like to say that while I would not be considered a Humanist, I do appreciate that it is more logical and benevolent than religious dogma. At least in my opinion.

My question is, how does Humanism view the rights of non-human life, such as humane slaughter for livestock and ethical treatment of pets and wildlife?

 

Can Humanism change?

 

It's merely a re-invention of paganism, and despite all the pseudo-intellectual window dressing just a semantic apologia for mindless self-indulgence and totalitarianism, complete with its own collection of superstitions and brutalism.

Its greatest 'achievements' and ultimate expression are seen in Stalinism, Nazism, and Maoism, rises in poverty, revivals of venereal disease epidemics, mass legalized murders of babies for the horrible crime of inconvenience, legitimizing absurdities such as promoting neurotic sexual fetishes and other mental illnesses as ' rights' movements, dumbing down education systems to help make all of the above easier to peddle, etc., all of these and more just revivals of pagan savagery and sociopathy. It just favors reducing human experience to a collection of mere chemical reactions, and isn't very 'humanistic' at all, really; it's a lot like 'Libertarianism', in that its peddlers can just make up whatever they want as they go along, as it has no roots in reality.

 

dblepost

 

Ok, humanism rejects theism instead focusing on human needs but many humans have a psychological need for religion, so by denying theism, aren't humanists being anti-humanism?

 

Democracy, science, and education are foundational Humanism values, so I'd say your opinion is spot-on.

I don't know as many other Humanists as I'd like, so I can't make any definitive and specific statements about demographics. But I'd bet there are quite a few Humanists concerned with humane slaughter and whatnot, even a few PETA's. On the other hand, there is a blog post about Humanism floating around the internet somewhere, which criticizes Humanism for being specie-ist.

Personally, animal rights is not one of my issues. It'd be nice to eat only animals that had that one bad day, but I've never felt like I had the extra money to spend on humanely raised and slaughtered animals.

 

If you read the original Humanist Manifesto (1933), it refers to 'religious humanism.' Whereas the Humanist Manifesto III (2003) refers to 'Humanism.' Note the capitalization, as well as the 'religious' modifier. No doubt if Humanism sticks around for long, it'll go through even more noteworthy change.

 

Could you comment on the movie, "My Dinner with Andre" ?

 

And where did you hear these lies?

 

He seems be extrapolating out of 'humanism' that which you have not stated. Perhaps a bit more information. A mission statement, if there is one ?

 

1.) Humanists believes in cultural relativism and in universal hunan rights, both at the same time. But, don't the two contradict each other? If you believe in the uniqueness of every culture, you cannot - at the same time - believe there are certain values that every culture has to conform to. Or can you?

If there are certain values that are indeed "universal", then who gets the right to define the connotations of such values?

Can you explain to me how a Humanist views this and how she would solve this moral conflict?

2.)Humanism has alot in common with Christianity and the perfect Humanist role model would be Jesus Christ. So, why can't Humanists just stop pretending and confess that they are basically "Atheist Christians"?

 

Yes. Modern 'humanism' is basically a rip off of Christian egalitarianism, more a propaganda ploy than a genuine 'rationalism'. 'De-Humanism' is more descriptive.

 

Most Humanists would agree that many people use religion for one thing or another, and some even believe that they need it -- but that every person has the potential to live without religion. Where a humanist goes with that conviction depends on the individual. For example I used to be pretty judgmental about religion, and believed that everyone would be universally better off without it. I'm still not convinced that religion is a net positive -- but I've come to a more nuanced understanding of why people practice religion, and I'd rather have a good religionist stand with me against injustice and evil than have him as a debate opponent.

I do however oppose the insanity of mass suicide cults, violent sects, and scriptural literalists with passion.

 

I would say humans have a need which religion can, and often has, filled. However, it can also be filled with other things (or different aspects of that need can be filled with different things). In particular, our humanity and various aspects of humanity can fill much of that role.

 

What exactly do you mean by Humanism? What subgroups of humanism, if any, do you subscribe to?

Some argue "Humanism made Stalin bring about Stalinist Soviet, which was bad". I think we would both reject such arguments. However, what if we phrase the criticism as "Humanism was hijacked by Stalin to bring about Stalinist Soviet which was bad"? I.e. I don't propose that humanism is the source of the evil of Soviet, but I suggest that humanism provided a loose enough ground for Soviet to take root (I don't particularly believe that, but I would like to hear your answer).

 

Heh, I consider Christianity and its morals to be a rip off of humanism (or some predecessor thereof). Humanism says morality and many other things come from our inherent humanity. Christianity observed these human traits and incorporated them into itself.

It is true that modern humanism has used Christianity as a jump-off point, seeing that it was a common world view when modern humanism took form. I don't really see that as a problem for humanism though.

 

Humanists are not committed to cultural relativism fundamentally, Humanism UK says "Few humanists are relativists".

There is a related idea which is common among humanists which is more about promoting cooperation between cultures. It will sometimes look similar, but the latter is a practical approach, whereas true cultural relativism makes a more fundamental statement.

One can't deny the relationship between Christianity and humanism, but it's not quite enough for that conclusion. Seeing how God and the Christhood are very central in Christianity, classing humanism as "Atheist Christians" seems to me like saying "A human is like a banana, except for anything that a banana actually is".

You will find several threads from FreedomSeeker rejecting Jesus on humanist grounds (sounds more like you're cherry picking Jesus' merits).

But sure, the link is there, and I don't think anyone denies that.

 

True, Boasian cultural relativism means nothing more than that a culture can only be understood on its own premises. In other words, I am not talking about moral relativism here. I would say that most Humanists stand behind this kind of cultural relativism. At the same time, as I see it, Humanists love 'universal human rights' and as I see it, the two contradict each other.

Humanism is a Western invention and The West is the direct result of Christianity. There is a reason 'Humanism' did not come about in MENA and there is a reason why there are no Azandes and Nuers who advocate it. It is not at all an exagerration to claim Humanism is Christianity without God.

With its strict focus on "egalitarianism", I am even prepared to say that they have not been able to completely "break up" with Christianity. The thought-process is still virtually the same.

 

What about humanism can fill the need to believe that death isn't final?

 

Well, my argument is that humanists would consider universal human rights (for some definition thereof) very highly. We have noticed that riding in on our high horses and proclaiming what we think is best is not a very useful approach to other cultures. In fact, doing so can lead to conflict which is actively bad for human rights. As such, there is a practical relativism which is not the same as proclaiming "real" cultural relativism.

Well, this is a question of semantics. How far does a ism have to stray before it can no longer be considered a variation of the initial strain? I personally wouldn't call it Christianity without God, but it's not an inconceivable angle to take.

 

I don't believe that is a proper need. It's natural for humans to think death isn't final, but one doesn't have to stick to that belief.

For the sake of argument, I would say the fact that humanity lives on covers a bit of that perceived need. One's descendants live on, and so do our relatives (including all of humanity). Seeing a true fundamental value in humanity and its existence/wellbeing/similar means the things you value stretch beyond your own being, even if that being dies.

I would also argue for a certain kind of non-finalism. The final result of things is not the only valuable goal. A life well lived has value on the same scale as someone with their lives still in front of them. There can be value in a life having been lived, even if it is now over. As such, death being final isn't a problem.

 

Whether you consider is a "proper need" or not, it is a big part of why religions persist. Your DNA living on isn't the same as thinking your mother lives on when you are standing there looking at her dead body.

 

I agree. Doesn't mean humanism is unable to address it.

Again, I agree. All I'm saying is that humanism's interest in pursuing human needs is not at conflict with humans' perceived need to believe death is not the end.

 

I haven't seen it so I can't comment on the whole. I can certainly relate to being bored, and to some of Andre's sense of creeping gloom; but I'm not in the right mindset for cinematic analysis so I don't see any immediate connection with Humanism.