Humanism

[Don't Change Your Name]

I just found this (http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html).

Anyway, would you describe yourself as a humanist? If you don't, why?

[Zanzibar]

Not really. When I think of "humanists" I think of zealot religious types - Bourgeois Socialists. That is to say I think every member of the of the proletariat struggles for our liberation. This is right and just, but "humanism" has this connotation to it. That what these humanists seek to do is something extraordinary.

Ex: "Bishop fred is feeding those starving wretchs! What a noble fellow!"

But in reality he is not motivated by true concern or care. He's a guilty bugger(in the case of catholicism I mean bugger in the truest sense of the word) who simply hands out a few crumbs here and there to keep the people "just content enough."

That is to say if you view humanism as:
Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans: “the newest flower on the vine of corporate humanism” (Savvy).

However, if you mean:
A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.

Then who isn't a humanist?

Additionaly ...... Yes I am a cynical, and often belligerent, person.



Bourgeois Socialists:

The second category consists of adherent of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.

To this end, some propose mere welfare measures -- while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.

Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.

[Pete]

I stand firmly against humanism, and I have in the past if you go searching the forums for older threads on this topic (don't waste your time though).

Humanism can be defined, using the link you provided, as an egotisical obsession with humanity by a member of humanity. It puts humans ahead of the rest of the natural world, which are but a part of, albeit a destructive part.

I propose a more environmentally friendly view point, which encompasses both the human and nonhuman world into one parsal.

Every action has reactions, and each reaction in turn has its reactions, and so on and so forth. I am not suggesting thinking about how cutting down this tree will effect a butterfly in New Zealand, or how the butterfly in Africa causes the vicious hurricanes that strike America every year (and increasingly so with global warming), but to take into account the nonhuman world when acting.

As leftists we want to bring about an equality among humans. Great. But what about the rest of life on this planet? We should bring them into it aswell. One of the major flaws with capitalism is that it relies on industry obessively. We need not make this mistake by being humanistic, or humo-centric, instead we should respect life that surrounds us.

We do not need to beat capitalist at their own game, we need to defeat them and dismantle their system. Take our means of production back and make the sustainable.

I do not oppose eating meat, forestry, fishing, hunting (whether it be bear, moose, seal, or beaver), gathering, farming, or domestication of animals. Only extreme and shortsighted environmentalists think like this. We as humans have evolved that the above mentioned things are a part of our existance, whether they are essential or not.

Hunting, fishing, forestry, and farming should all be done at sustainable levels. We are part of the natural world whether we like it or not. Hunting seals in the artic is a part of the lively hood of many people who live in those areas, and the fur is the easiest means of creating warm clothes. Also, there is a corealition between the end of hunting seals and the decline of fish stocks. What do seals eat? Fish. Hmm I wonder.

But just remember this word: Sustainability.

Humanism is trash as it is about humanity first and above all. We will kill ourselves that we. We need to be naturalists and work towards sustainability. Survival is more important than profit or the sentiments of antifur people in Toronto and New York.

Anyways, that went off on a tangent.

-Pete

[Zanzibar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:48 AM
What pete said
Yah. I thought maybe I was talking out of my ass there, lol. Nice to know others feel the same.

[redstarshining]

Secular humanism simply means that you believe that everything we are is not entirely predetermined by some kind of abstract concept such as "human nature" or a deity, but that instead we are at least to a great extent conditioned by our environment and socio-economic background.
By putting human values above state and religion and by rejecting any kind of absolute determinism, we as a species try to take responsibility for our own actions, rather than clinging to a religious or abstract dogma, since it is in our own best interest. And of course, those best interests include environmentalism.

The reason why the early humanists didn't mention the necessity for the protection of the environment is simply that it wasn't a big issue back then.

[DEPAVER]

I have a difficult time identifying with any particular dogma. None of the socially approved belief systems seem to fit.

I think, therefore, I am, I think, a rationalist, an idealist certainly, maybe a humanist, by definition, or perhaps I'm an "earthiest." I know that human beings can find solutions to human problems through rational decision-making, when they are allowed to work together in free-thinking, cooperative associations of like-minded people, free from the coercion of state, corporate, economic and religious oppression.

The biggest problem with humanism is that it places man at the center of everything, over and above the lynx, the elk or even the turkey vulture.

Human beings do not need religions to tell them what and when to believe. Human beings do not need a centralized state to tell them how to live, where to live and when to die. Human beings are capable of self-organization in their own self-defense, disaster response, social support and protection of their own freedoms.

The history of the human race is the history of human struggle to throw off the yoke of the central state and the petty tyrants who seek to control it. The state is an apparatus of control that limits freedom, encourages greed, crime, graft and corruption. The state limits independent rational thought and uses the tools of religion, industrial capitalism (or socialism), war and fear of war to keep the populace in a constant state of fear and oppression, thus to be controlled to the advantage of the tyrants at the wheel of the state.

[Wenty]

Existentalist humanism is different. Sartre says common humanism is absurd but the existentalist side is humanism because "we remind man that there is no law maker other than himself, and that in his forlorness he will decide by himself". He also says that "There is no universe other than a human universe, the universe of human subjectivity".

Just thought i'd inject summat into the debate that i read today.

[Pete]

"we remind man that there is no law maker other than himself, and that in his forlorness he will decide by himself". He also says that "There is no universe other than a human universe, the universe of human subjectivity".

And this is what in my post I said I heavily agree with.

[redstarshining]

Yet I do not see how this contradicts environmentalism. On the contrary, with a secular approach to humanism you acknowledge your own responsibility rather than justifying your deeds by a "great plan".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps I could be considered a Humanist... I put humans first, above gods, above money, and above the lesser spotted warbling toad...

[Wenty]

And this is what in my post I said I heavily agree with.

I obviously didn't read it thoroughly then!

[Pete]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 11:19 AM

And this is what in my post I said I heavily agree with.

I obviously didn't read it thoroughly then!
Hardly.

Why is man supreme? Why? Because we are egotistical to believe that we prove our selves not to be. Sure we can only find 'truth' within our frame of reference (no I have not read spinoza), world view, and mode of interpretations, but that does not set us above the interactions of nature, not a diest nature but the very physical nature very material, which we are part of.

Humanisim is just as bad as capitalism in its inherent favouring of one group over a nother. We should try and survive, but survive without destroying what allows us to survive.


And by agree I mean disagree.

[Wenty]

i don't know why you quoted my post, what you just said had nothing to do with what i said! I just said i hadn't read your post and you responded by going off on a tangent!