John Page

You're right, of course, but I see Pragmatism as being less contradictory to Atheism than Humanism. At least Pragmatism admits truth as a working hypothesis and maybe thats what it is!

As I'm sure you've observed in this thread, I have also discovered Humanism seems to be just as much a movable feast as god. Guess we're back to the definition game on that one.

I'm interested in the comments you got about things not necessarily following logically, which was indeed your assertion at the outset - does this eventually prove humans are illogical (because they can contradict each other!) and therefore non-deterministic or does it merely point to our poor understanding of logic? Either way suggests Pragmatism as an suitable expedient measure during the indefinite reign of our ignorance.

Cheers!

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Laurentius

John Page

AVE

Any philosophical standpoint presupposes a certain degree of faith (people invest their wishes in it, whether they're aware of it or not) and more or less lax frame where one can intervene and adapt one's position as things develop.

As for logic, it is not a human drive. In general people act as they feel like, make choices and decisions under the influence of what their whole personality consists of, that is both rational and irrational aspects. In relation to the general human interplay, I don't think humanity can really plan some long term project that will necessary lead to the desired outcome, but they can pursue ideas that can form a certain configuration that will make the specific mentality of an era. Should this mentality encourage humans to act as they find most suitable for reaching their best "feelgood" goals, both as individuals and species, then they could be said to live under the reign of Humanism, or even Secular Humanism.

AVE

Gurdur

Um, I know I said this before, but I think you've set yourself an impossible goal.

May I ask why you think it necessary ?
Why isn't it simply enough to choose to be a humanist, then justify your humanist stance on each individual issue in terms that apply to that immediate situation ?

You can always try building a new central foundation for your ethics, but I do not think you can ever derive the "should" of humanism from the "is" of atheism.

BTW, it's "Gurdur" not "Gurdun".
___________

@ John Page:

I'm afraid I know of no links to any good secular humanist pages that reflect my own thinking, because I've never bothered looking.

Among the reasons I've never bothered looking are:

Ethics is such a tangled and complex field that I simply work out what my own ethics are in any relevent situation, and proceed from there, while also attempting to every now and then keep up with the academic research into ethics.
On the humanist side, I'm just happy when I am in agreement with others on any particular issue.

I personally suscribe to the Kantean maxim, as well as other maxims, however also I try not to get too dogmatic, since I've seen people tie themselves in knots with those to no apparent use.
On a practical, everyday level, I tend to be an issue-by-issue person, guided by those maxims.
Sorry to sound so vague, however we may have a conversation later on a specific issue, in which case I can be more concrete.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Ender

It's the disease of reason in philosophers- always seeking the final solution to the problems of life in a ratiocinative way and assume that the god's view is the philosopher's privilege.

Very astute for any given philosophical system that attempts to draw an "ought" from an "is" falls victim to the Naturalistic fallacy, induced into being by Hume a coule hundred years ago. However, a descriptive humanism should evade this- rather than a prescriptive one- as well as Sartre accomplished such in his ontological treatise L'etre et le Neant.

~WiGGiN~

Laurentius

Gurdur

AVE

Sorry.

Humans have never been passive recorders of reality, they have always devised some kind of sophisticated response, which in fact makes the peculiarity of Homo mythopoesis.

Actually, it's even simpler. It's like:

1. This is the state of affairs. (--&gt;atheism)

2. What do we do now? (--&gt;humanism)

Does the posts of Ohwilleke early in this thread not make any sense to you?

AVE

Laurentius

Ender

AVE

Someone has to do the "great thinking" on this planet after all --

AVE

Gurdur

oooooo, they made sense - whether I agree or not, but did you not understand the point of my reply to you ? Expanded on by Ender ?

And I've already answered your question above.

BTW, a note to both Ender and you:

It's quite possible to build up a good system of descriptive ethical tendencies, based on the statistical tendencies of humans in various social systems and eras. I myself every now and then expand on objective elements in human tendencies that underlie the further built-up system of general human ethics.

However, you still cannot derive a prescriptive system from that - understand ? - all you can hope to do is build political rhetoric that will sway people, and that has to be closely scrutinized.

As for what we do now, for my own POV see my last answers to John Page and yourself.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Laurentius

Gurdur

AVE

Let's then start from the individual then.

The individual emerges from his family.
Basic emotions.
Gets language and code of behavior.
First why's.
Goes to school.
Learns more about world.
More complex emotions.
Absorbs more codes of behavior.
Becomes more social.
Meets people.
Makes friends.
Experiences the whole range of emotions.
Starts to muse on his place in the world.
Defines the world, man, him/herself.
Stick to a creed.
Follows a type of moral system.

How do you practically separate what is from what should be?

Humans do not describe for the sake of it, no way. They're not contemplative creatures that objectively describe the reality so that some database should get enriched. They assume an attitude. They respond, they have to. It will always be the case of: "This what things are like now. What do I/we do?"

Humans are beings that consciously make judgemnts within the complex social interplay that they more or less consciously strive to norm so that the functioning of the society will not get stuck just because it would be more interesting to judge every situation in particular.

Of course, one can choose his own position, without trying to impose it onto others. But especially in a globalized world where all systems of values become relative a minimum number of principles to be observed by everyone are necessary, and I do not see why they cannot be humanistic, since religions cannot ofer the necessary openness for that.

The Secular Humanist can initiate the code that would allow everyone to speak the same "language", and this is the reason why I would recommend secular humanists to be reserved in their attacks unless they have to defend their position against aggressive believers.

There is no god for the atheist, and no objective meaning of the world. However, there are objective values one individual comes in contact with since he cannot all by him/herself make changes in the mentality of the community.

Given the fact that social, objective systems of values can be molded by the group as a community, they can only come to the conclusion, whether the individuals are religious or not, that human life and so on are important.

Suppose that there are a humanist, a nihilist and religious fundamentalist, and they have to make a decision about a tax destined to help people infected with HIV. The humanist will, obviously, agree, the nihilist will fail to see the point, while the religious fundamentalist will perhaps say that God will take care of those guys, and after all afterlife is more precious.

I think that a congenial humanistic attitude should be spread by Secular Humanists in response to religious active and even aggressive propaganda around the world.

Sometimes it is not as difficult to reveal one the absurdity of one's creed as to replace it with a prescriptive view that makes sense. I was born in communism and educated to despise religion, although people were still vaguely sticking to it under the influence of national tradions, but I had the acute feeling that in the absence of some faith nihilism will follow.

I am surrounded by co-nationals who, after the fall of communism, fell back into either mysticism, or superstion-ism, or plagiaristic Christianity, or nihilism. Widespread nihilsm - there is a public agreement that we should pose in Christians, but everyone does as he pleases at home or in relation with the others.

I may be exaggerating a bit. However, what solution do you have against nihilism? Or do you think it is a workable social solution? (it simply does not matter whether or not a modern Nero or Caligula gets to power?)

AVE

John Page

Laurentius:

Isn't it interesting that as soon as you mentioned a real situation there was a deafening silence.

If I understand your key concern its that while Secular Humanism may be an intellectually appealing basis for developing morals and ethics it has significant practical failings in a society that might descend into inhuman lawlessness and despair that tear into the fabric of society.

Irrespective of whether god exists or not, the concept of god provides a basis for moral constructs. Different flavors of god provide different results. Thus, the concept of god can be useful and outlives any mortal example, to my mind it has distinct advantages over communistic atheism that became so terribly subverted. Non-god ethics fail to provide a rallying point.

What is to be done? From having lived in Hungary and the former Soviet Union I think it comes down to "What does it mean to be a Romanian". What is the identity of Romania in terms of national values etc? This is what can provide coherence and a set of values that cross regional, ethnic and religious boundaries. The Magyars of Hungary have a very definite sense of national identity, probably because they have been concentrated down from a regional power 300 years ago to a landlocked population of around 11 million. Russia, on the other hand, as the largest country in the world geographically, is having a hard time with separatists - especially those in the south whose identity stems more from the Ottoman empire than from Czarism.

I have a poor understanding of Romania. Whatever political, legal and moral framework is still effectively operating, I hope a meritocracy can emerge. That way, a country can get the best out of the people and the people can get the best out of their country. What shall be of merit? A democracy can enable the citizens to determine that on its merits!! Secular Humanism? Its just another a priori set of values IMO. Moral values are subjective so one just needs to be pragmatic. Nihilism? I am sure no true Romanian is a Nihilist.

Cheers!

Gurdur

@ Laurentius and John Page:

I hate to tell you this, but I do have a life, which means my time on the net is limited.

Not at all true. Relgions most often host a great variety of ideological conflicts within themselves, as people seek to fit their religion to what they believe should be the case.
So the rallying cries there are already divided.

As for humanist rallying cries, they often work; I refer you to the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, the crumbling of the GDR and the Polish regiémes, the defense of the White House in Moscow against the attemted Communist coup, the Simultankichen (my previous example), etc. etc. etc.

Just because humanism offers no great Grand Master Plan does not mean that it is not effective.
On the contrary, it has often been very effective.


You nicked the title from Vladimir Illich Ulanov.
Plagiarism ! Bouergeois opportunism !


Laurentius:

You ignored completely - or did not understand my point whatsoever - that there is no way to derive consistant and definite prescriptiveness from descriptiveness.

I repeat: you cannot derive a "should" from an "is".

Now let's look at your and JohnPage's concerns.

In essence, you both are repeating the age-old human and fallacious tendency of wanting an authority to derive ethics from. However, there is no such ultimate competent authority.

JohnPage:
My defence against the nihilist positions is the social response.
People on the whole, in the main, do not like nihilism.

The best defence against nihilism is an active, socially involved electorate with a long memory.

Shall I expand ?

I'll draw up a long post on this subject, but for Darwin's sakes, please address my replies to you; one gets tired of conversations where the other simply talks past one.