/lit/ - Literature

im not a dumb fuck

Because I'm a transhumanist.

>>2617446
what's dumb about humanism?

I'm a qualitative humanist. As opposed to a regular quantitative one. I'm concerned with the very best and most glorious, not with all. I want to get to the greatest hights of humanity, not the widest plains.

>>2617458
youre a nietzschean, basically?

>>2617463
Well, you could say that. More or less. These are still merely ideas I'm afraid, I haven't done much to contribute to such a world yet.

>why aren't you a Humanist, /lit/?
why don't you piss off and die, fellow human?

I don't know enough about humanism to make what I feel would be a qualified judgement regarding it, even generally.

From what I do know, it seems like a pretty reasonable philosophy/world view to partake in.

The one thing that bothers me is that it specifically places emphasis on human matters and perspectives only. That is all well and good from a religious and dogmatic point of view, I agree with throwing shit out the window that is based on: GOD SAYS SO, AND SO IT IS!

I don't agree with taking a hard line selfish view based solely on humanity. There are other "things" that should be accounted for in the grand scheme. There are powers outside of our control - such as scientific laws with which reality as we know it is bound by and to. There are considerations to be made outside of humanities best interests in order to preserve the greater good - eg. not making everything extinct.

Is there any divide or guideline about where the line is drawn, or is it simply put - human issues first and foremost, fuck everything else it's unsubstantial?

>>2617463
in other words, a superhumanist

>why aren't you a Humanist, /lit/?
but I am.

>>2617487
Well, for exmaple, Humanists support animal testing for the purposes of producing lifesaving drugs but are ecological and believe animals should be 'treated with respect, as they can suffer too'.

>>2617501
*example, fuck

>>2617495
That's a nice term. I've always been conflicted about the term transhumanist, since it tends to come with a sort of an egalitarian, last man sort of flavour. Not that we can accurately predict what will happen with humanity in the technological sense anyway, so we'll just have to see what happens.

For now I think the most important thing to influence is simply human culture. Get some vigorous values back in there. Create some sort of social environment where self-development is pushed to the utmost. Make it hip to become some sort of homo universalis again.

>>2617504
A nice idea, but it's simply impossible to be a renaissance man. In the 1700s, libraries were measured in hundreds or thousands of books, and calculus was the cutting edge of math.

It's all a professional can do to make a name in their field, let alone a mark. There is simply too much knowledge for any one person to handle.

>>2617441
>fire
>no chimney
>2012
ISHYGDDT

>>2617524
That's true, but I meant it in the less strict sense of the word. It should be entirely possible for a person to be knowledgable in multiple fields, play an instrument, speak a few languages, practice a few sports/forms of exercise and have the body of a greek statue. In fact it's more manageable than ever. Combine such a development with Nietzschean values and you've got yourself a cultural trend that beams with a vitality unmatched since modernity.

The access to information, to good nutrition, to medicine, all this could work much more to our benefit than we currently allow it to.

>>2617441
I am.
I'm not British though.

>>2617497
You aren't.

>>2617555
can you do all of these things?

because I'm a Kierkegaardian/Wittgensteinian fideist Christian

get on my level.

>>2617656
Yes we can.

>>2617664
I said you, personally. Post pics of your physique to start with.
>>2617661
>2012
>believing in god

get on the rest of humanity's level

>>2617555
So like a real life Pat Bateman?

>>2617666
>666

GET BEHIND ME SATAN

>>2617666
so the level of the mass is the way to go?

>>2617661
>Christian
>get on my level.
Many of us were on your level, but found it very wanting.

>>2617666
I was born and raised Christian, in the US, and in a crazy family no less, so I am not the poster child for a new renaissance, but I know children can be raised right and instilled with confidence and a love of learning. Society and individuals are not living up to their full, or even half their potential

>>2617675
no, I really doubt you were on my level. read some Kierkegaard and take Christianity more seriously than some evidentially falsifiable empirical-historical doctrine and then come back here.

I'm a human, is that not good enough?

>>2617680
Child...


Don't go away mad, just go away.

>>2617656
I've a rather encyclopaedic basic knowledge on a lot of subjects compared to most people. I'm pretty well versed in philosophy with Nietzsche, egoist philosophies and ancient Cynicism as main interests. I'm bilingual and play a rather shitty blues harp. Currently imposed an almost impeccable diet on myself and working on getting /fit/. Kicked the drinking and smoking habit to the point where I can take it or leave it and enjoy it in moderation. Training myself in simplicity and poverty as well. Discarded most of my possessions. Getting into writing again too. I'm far from accomplished, but I'm working on it.

>>2617666
I'm not that guy you responded to.

>>2617670
No.

>>2617688
Why not? Apart from your petty decisions of what constitutes vitality?

>>2617700
Patrick Batemen is a mentally ill spoiled yuppie who's obsessed with his image. This requires some discipline, but no more than that of your average beach bum. He's more of a very dedicated last man than anything remotely self-overcoming.

"Christianity is not based on a historical truth; rather, it offers us a (historical) narrative and says; now believe! But not, believe this narrative with the belief appropriate to a historical narrative, rather: believe, through thick and thin, which you can only do as a result of a life."
-Wittgenstein

The point being, the "truth" of a (historical, metaphysical) religious claim is not "confirmed" empirically so to speak, as though it could be falsified by data in the world - in this case, by the evident lack of "data". Its truth is confirmed by what it can do with your life, how it can transform you - if it can, as James said, "heal the sick soul". I think Christianity has that potential for everyone, but perhaps you may not see it, and I don't judge myself, as it were, to be in a position to judge you if your humanism is perhaps what has this function. But one must see the continuing merit of Christianity (or any religion) in this way. Stalinism (and I say this as a Socialist )and Fascism have shown that the "atrocities" of Christianity are not something inherent in religion itself (a la Dawkins).

>>2617709
good post

>>2617709
Humanists recognise the power of moral values which christianity offers but can't accept something baseless as a 'comfort' to them - we believe there's only this life, and we should do the best we can with it.

I object to christianity partly because people are being misled to be good people - if you're only good because you fear hell, you're not a good person - I object to it because its tenets fly right in the face of my beliefs as a scientist. Christians object to stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia etc. all of which have their place, and in the case of stem cell research, should be invested in hugely. It could, and is, changing the world.

>>2617709
Those atrocities are a result of belief, of idealism, of something higher than oneself that should be served. In that sense Stirnerism is the greatest safeguard aginst such large scale atrocities, since any actual ideology can always be transformed into a demagogic device.

>>2617723
>implying the moral values of Christianity are in any way justifiable without a God

If you want to dismiss Christianity, do so wholly. Don't keep the Christianity and only dismiss Christ.

>>2617733
Humanists do entirely dismiss christianity. That's why they're Humanists.

>>2617737
Humanism is secular christianity. It's ethics are mostly maintained. Once the belief in God fell, there wouldn't be a single reason to adhere to his moral system. It's like sticking to the laws of a fallen regime. Without God you are free to do as you will. If you still wish to adhere to the old forms of morality, you will have to justify that.

>>2617746
Humanists disagree on many key points with christians.
The justification for a moral code is the belief that adherence to it will improve the life we life right now (the only one we have) for everyone. That's a valid goal.

>>2617750
Ayn Rand detected

>>2617747

No it isn't. There is no logical reason to look out for the benefit of anyone but oneself.

>>2617747
When I'm poor and I see a man with a lot of cash that I could easily rob and get away with it, I would have a hard time believing that it is better for everyone (including me) to not steal. If there isn't some peeking stern father who will burn my ass, I will most certainly take that money.

On a related note, I believe that our history of Abrahamic religion has kept us more savage than the peoples of the orient. While their morality (Confucianism, Buddhism) was more based on human matters, ours was based on the punishment or reward from a deity. This has kept us obedient, but not inherently well mannered. When our stern master blew out his last breath, we became stray dogs that don't fear a kick in the behind as much as before. At least some of us. Which is a good thing.

>>2617757
You see, I wouldn't dream of stealing from anyone, yet I don't fear retribution from any god if I did...

Because I'm not a cunt.

>>2617759
You may not be a cunt, but many people, including myself, are cunts. Not only by nature, but also because we have no rational incentive not to be cunts. Therefore humanism is pretty flawed on a larger scale.

>>2617750
It is looking out for oneself, in a grand sense.
If I help myself and am generally not a dick to others (See: help others where possible/convenient), then the usual response is for that person to now view me in a favourable light. This causes them to make my life easier.

Also, if everybody works for both themselves and and the greater good of the community, then everybody that is a part of said community benefits.

That said, I'm not humanist. I prefer to define my own morality, rather than cling to one already made.

>>2617723
I recognize your frustration there. I mentioned of course that I'm a Leftist and do also object to so many of Christians' disapproval of stem cell research, abortion when necessary, homosexual marriage, etc. (As an American you must understand my dismay when, in fact, most "Christians" in this country are more or less Randians).

I might in fact think there is "only this life", in whatever valence of meaning you take the phrase; as I understand it: "there is no afterlife", which for a pragmatist such as myself, is really of no concern. "Salvation" might be personal, but for example I also hope for it to mean something interpersonal, perhaps "ethical".

But I must object that the "moral values" that Christianity offers are something "baseless" as you put it. For as I explained, the base of Christianity (the Resurrection in this case) has nothing to do with historical fact in the normal sense. In fact, I might be willing to note that science has disproved to us empirically that the dead simply cannot rise. Yet the point is that "belief" in the "fact" of the Resurrection is not something confirmed in fact but in how one lives one's life in light of it. That is not at all baseless, but is as nebulous and supporting a base as any.

>>2617762
see >>2617764
- helping others makes you feel good, releases endorphins, because it's evolutionarily advantageous to have a community and people who see you as a friend and will help you when you need it. Also, research into the sciences and medicine helps everyone, including you.

>I prefer to define my own morality

I did. Like many Humanists, I was a Humanist in my own sense of morality and right/wrong long before I knew what a Humanist is, and so it made sense to identify myself as one.

>>2617777
>helping others makes you feel good, releases endorphins,
exactly. it is for your own benefit. it feels good for you to help others so you help them.

>>2617786
He's not arguing against you. He's saying that helping others helps oneself, therefore (by the logic you stated) it is a good idea to help others.

>>2617786
>>2617788
Indeed, I was agreeing with >>2617764

>>2617777
>I was a Humanist in my own sense of morality and right/wrong long before I knew what a Humanist is, and so it made sense to identify myself as one

Your moral code is probably strikingly similar to that of Chritianic moral code, because that's what you know to be "right" as those are the conditions you grew up in. You probably say it's immoral to kill people, but if you were raised in a different time and place you'd say that it's practical. And I'm sure you'd still say, "but I'm not a Aztec sun-worshiper, I'm a 'humanist', but I still see no moral wrong in sacrifice".

If you clearly state that there is a moral code and you claim to be an "atheist" you're not an "atheist", but a deist.

If you have any moral code you put that code inherently ahead of humans, thus making you a non-Humanist. When you have an birth-raised moral code ingrained into you, when you give charity or help others, as you morally see as correct, you're treating them as nothing more than a part of your code, not an actual human.

>>2617803
But the moral code is created based on the furthering of the interests of all humanity, not individuals. And to be a 'deist' you need to believe in a 'deity' - a creator, by definition. I certainly do not.

>>2617706
>>2617706
>mentally ill spoiled yuppie who's obsessed with his image
Funnily enough our resident Nietzschean on /lit/ calls empathy a mental illness and buys into fashion. You've failed to show how your distinction is anything more substantial than your personal tastes.

Heidegger was right...

>>2617813
>But the moral code is created based on the furthering of the interests of all humanity, not individuals

Which particular one. Is there one line of codes, and who dictates what's "good for humanity", views on that could differ. Person A thinks that killing all Jews would be beneficial to humanity and Person B thinks that killing all Gentiles would be beneficial to humanity, whose definition of morality is correct? Would something like a deity have to decide? I think so, according to you.

>And to be a 'deist' you need to believe in a 'deity' - a creator, by definition. I certainly do not.
Your "god" is your moral code. You do not kill another because your code says not to, just as the Christian man does not kill because his God says not to. (even thought he says to, but that's neither here nor there.

>>2617822
Humanist ideals are based on scientific principles and research - the whole organisation is rooted in science. Any argument with a Humanist ideal would come down to intelligent research, not to appeals to a deity or source of higher knowledge.

>>2617846
Oh, so it's based on empiricism? In that case, I'd completely dismiss Humanism as a whole. This is not the Humanism that Sartre talked about, you're talking about some neo-Humanism.

I guess I just misunderstood.

>why aren't you a Humanist, /lit/?
If you don't believe in God. If you believe in the scientific method. The I think you have to be a Humanist to some degree. I imagine the degrees vary greatly.

>>2617860
You can believe in God and be a "Humanist".

But again, I'm talking about a different definition.

>>2617857
>>2617861


"Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

-trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)

-makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals

-believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same."

>>2617857
Satre was hypocritical. Whatever name you would personally give >>2617862's definition, it is Humanism, and there's no reason to dismiss it.

>>2617862
that website has a picture of Richard Dawkins on its front page, so I'd kindly dismiss anything it has to say on the subject.

I understand the guy is knowledgeable concerning Biology, but when he tries to open his mouth about epistemology, philosophy, metaphysics, or politics he constantly sounds like a total dumbass.

>>2617863
I'd trust Sartre's analysis over Dawkin's analysis any day.

>>2617868
nice ad hominem there, just dismiss an entire philosophy because of one proponent

>>2617870
>philosophy
no, I'm dismissing the WEBSITE, not the philosophy. That website doesn't seem to have any merit. What books are there defending your type of "humanism", I'll gladly read them and get back to you.

I have to go now, I'll be glad to finish this discussion once I get back in 6-6.5 hours.

>>2617875
That's one reason I posted on /lit/, perhaps this Humanism is fairly new as I've struggled to find texts on it.

>>2617846
>Humanist ideals are based on scientific principles and research
They really aren't.
They might use scientific principles to find the best course of action, according to their moral code, but that doesn't mean they're any more scientific than anyone else.

>>2617916
The moral code comes from natural human essence. Which is discerned through science if not natural instincts.

>>2617916
[citation needed]

Major religions:
'you should do this/this is forbidden/believe this'
'why?'
'God/our holy book says so'

Humanism:
'you should do this'
'why?'
'because medical research (for example) has shown that...'

I prefer to believe in the divine.

>>2617925
Out of interest, why?

>>2617923
lrn2 hume

>>2617927
How does Hume contradict what I said?

>>2617926

It just makes everything seem more profound. It may not seem like just willfully believing in something could make much difference in how you view things, but it actually does. I was surprised at the amount.

Now, whether this is actually because of any divinity actually existing, I don't claim to know. But at a basic, pragmatic level, it has made my life better simply believing.

>>2617939
he discovered that no normative conclusion is to be drawn from a descriptive proposition.
so while the descriptive power of science does help to clarify ethical dilemmas ect., it will forever remain unable to provide moral judgements.
what you describe is ethical naturalism, i.e. any ethical system that infers its judgements from the properties of the natural world. humanism is not built entirely on ethical naturalism, thus your statement is false.
im not the guy youre arguing with, but i just wanted to clarify soem things.

>>2617942
Is it a source of personal comfort? I don't feel the need in my life to have it improved by believing in anything 'higher'. I don't mind feeling insignificant - it makes me wonder in greater awe at the universe and appreciate just how much we, as a species working together, have the potential to achieve.

>>2617947
I'd agree it's not based entirely on ethical naturalism because I advocate things which are against nature - stem cell research etc. and human medical advancement I'm not 100% on, such as germ line therapy, is not because of a moral issue but a lack of evidence to suggest it's totally safe.

>>2617948

>Is it a source of personal comfort?

Kind of. It's hard to articulate exactly how it makes me feel.

I used to feel as you do, but as I got older I changed. (Not implying I'm somehow more 'progressed' or anything. Nothing linear like that, I just changed).

>>2617952
im afraid you misunderstood my point.

>>2617962
Well, I'm saying that 1) I agree humanism is not based on ethical naturalism, but that doesn't matter
2) I can't see why empirical evidence which successfully clarifies ethical dilemmas does not then lead to a 'scientific' moral standpoint, or at least lend strong evidence to one side of the argument - the side that Humanism takes.

>>2617777
Helping others I care about makes me feel good. Fucking people over I dislike makes me feel good to. I still have a community, but I don't have universal morals. I get your point, but if taking a stranger's money makes me feel better than leaving him alone, your theory doesn't apply to it. Doing "the right thing" isn't always the thing that makes a person the most happy. This can only be so in the case of some construct.

From an evolutionary point of view, both solidarity and enmity are valuable traits. It's all about figuring out who belongs to which group, not mindlessly including everyone amongst your circles because of some moralistic ideal. This causes your downfall rather than success.

>>2617817
I don't care about your so called resident Nietzschean. Patrick Bateman has both an ethic and personality that is incompatible with the actual philosophy of Nietzsche. I would say that is a very compelling argument against him being a Nietzschean ideal.

i can't even comprehend how someone could think that patrick bateman represents nietzsche's ideal

how fucking stupid do you even have to be

holy shit