Author Topic: 'Is humanism really humane?'  (Read 4182 times)

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
'Is humanism really humane?'
« on: January 10, 2017, 07:59:28 AM »
The interviewee makes the strong point that our ability to worship ourselves as 'little gods' makes further gradations within humans an easy leap.


http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/is-humanism-really-humane.html?_r=0

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15639
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2017, 09:22:14 AM »
Not being a humanist, the definition of posthumanism in the article seems to me to be functionally equivalent to what Robinson Jeffers called inhumanism - humans are natural creatures and part of the natural world, yet while that same natural world creates us, it also creates an impressive array of ways to harm and kill us, one of which will ultimately be successful. Nature doesn't care, and there's no reason why it should. Anything that knocks us off the rather infantile little pedestals humanists put ourselves on is all to the good.
Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back. - Al Swearengen, Deadwood.

Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25569
    • Tools With A Mission
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2017, 10:29:15 PM »
I suppose it depends on how one defines 'humane'.  I've long felt that it is a rather overused term, what with humane killers/slaughter for anything from horses to slugs, and its antonym (inhumane) being applied to attitudes, policies, thoughts and actions.
Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

Lists of what is needed and a search engine to find your nearest collector (scroll to bottom for latter) are here:  http://www.twam.uk/donate-tools

Samuel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • geology rocks
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2017, 01:42:34 PM »
Anything that knocks us off the rather infantile little pedestals humanists put ourselves on is all to the good.

I agree with that, from a certain point of view there is no reason to give any one thing more meaning or importance relative to anything else. Objectively we are no more 'meaningful' than sand, the Orion nebula or the tuna and sweetcorn sandwich I just ate for lunch (yummy)

...however. I don't apologise for putting myself on a pedestal. But that's evolution for you. Survival happens at the expense of other stuff that happens to exists at the same time as you. My relative importance, as far as I'm concerned, is rather high.
A lot of people don't believe that the loch ness monster exists. Now, I don't know anything about zooology, biology, geology, herpetology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, marine biology, cryptozoology, palaeontology or archaeology... but I think... what if a dinosaur got into the lake?

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2017, 12:18:54 PM »
Yes, Samuel, I know what you mean. No matter how much I want to adore the planet I'll still pollute it with my car and cleaning chemicals and I'll still want clothes and chocolate and a washing machine. But I am rather embarrassed about it.

But I guess this is what makes humanism so crap really. I don't expect selflessness from my cat or the birds in the garden and when it comes to it we're really no different. In fact we are totally absurd.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2017, 12:26:57 PM »
I can see the point of humanism, as a move from theism, but it is surely just an imaginary stopping off place. And, Samuel, I don't think humans are important per se, and nor is Percy important, I think I am and is my wife.


 
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 12:46:54 PM by Nearly Sane »

Samuel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • geology rocks
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2017, 12:35:50 PM »
Exactly.

And hey! nice to see you Rhiannon!

we are absurd. and that is mostly funny... in a dark sort of way
A lot of people don't believe that the loch ness monster exists. Now, I don't know anything about zooology, biology, geology, herpetology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, marine biology, cryptozoology, palaeontology or archaeology... but I think... what if a dinosaur got into the lake?

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2017, 12:47:56 PM »
Hey, Sam, good to see you too.  :)

Yeah, if we didn't laugh darkly at ourselves and our capacity to turn ourselves into radioactive soup (among other things) we might be a touch gloomy.

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2017, 03:44:28 PM »
Yes, Samuel, I know what you mean. No matter how much I want to adore the planet I'll still pollute it with my car and cleaning chemicals and I'll still want clothes and chocolate and a washing machine. But I am rather embarrassed about it.

But I guess this is what makes humanism so crap really. I don't expect selflessness from my cat or the birds in the garden and when it comes to it we're really no different. In fact we are totally absurd.

Hello Rhiannon - good to see you here again. I appreciate the point that you, Shaker and others have made, that since we are part of the order of nature, then it is absurd and pointless to see ourselves as having some ultimate value as individuals (I wonder, though, just how close you and Shaker are on this matter - you believing in some sort of 'spiritual' order and all).
But doesn't Dicky Dawkins take a stand against this sort of idea? Namely, that though we are nothing but the result of natural selection and the promptings of the 'selfish' gene, we can - since we have become conscious and potentially sensitive beings - act as if we had the ability to override our genetic inheritance?

Then, of course, along comes John Gray (Straw Dogs etc) and says: nope, whatever you do, you're still only part of the order of nature, so it's no point thinking that you can 'improve' things at all?
But even Gray thinks modern dentistry is a good thing :). Perhaps getting away from the main theme....
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2017, 03:55:22 PM »
If you put Dawkins and Gray in a white room with a black door on which there was a flashing pink neon sign that said Subtlety, and said there was a million pound prize fir finding Subtlety, it would be the longest most boring reality TV programme ever.  Neither are great thinkers, but they are great polemicists.

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2017, 04:20:16 PM »
If you put Dawkins and Gray in a white room with a black door on which there was a flashing pink neon sign that said Subtlety, and said there was a million pound prize fir finding Subtlety, it would be the longest most boring reality TV programme ever.  Neither are great thinkers, but they are great polemicists.

I'd have to agree about Dawkins, but I haven't read enough of Gray to make up my mind*. I think you once said he changes his views about as often as reasonably civilised people change their underpants (well mine are clean on this morning...:) )

*That would be presuming that I had the ability to determine who is a 'great thinker' or not. I have my favourites, though.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 04:22:43 PM by Dicky Underpants »
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2017, 04:34:56 PM »
I'd have to agree about Dawkins, but I haven't read enough of Gray to make up my mind*. I think you once said he changes his views about as often as reasonably civilised people change their underpants (well mine are clean on this morning...:) )

*That would be presuming that I had the ability to determine who is a 'great thinker' or not. I have my favourites, though.
More likely to have said that of Gray, though can't recall saying it of either. Obviously any civilised person changes their pants after four days.

Anyhoo I think that on this sort of subject we probably have to cite Singer but that may bring on the empty horses.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 04:37:03 PM by Nearly Sane »

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2017, 04:52:24 PM »
More likely to have said that of Gray, though can't recall saying it of either. Obviously any civilised person changes their pants after four days.

Anyhoo I think that on this sort of subject we probably have to cite Singer but that may bring on the empty horses.

Yes, you did say something similar about Gray, though possibly without the reference to underpants.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2017, 05:13:38 PM »
Hello Rhiannon - good to see you here again. I appreciate the point that you, Shaker and others have made, that since we are part of the order of nature, then it is absurd and pointless to see ourselves as having some ultimate value as individuals (I wonder, though, just how close you and Shaker are on this matter - you believing in some sort of 'spiritual' order and all).
But doesn't Dicky Dawkins take a stand against this sort of idea? Namely, that though we are nothing but the result of natural selection and the promptings of the 'selfish' gene, we can - since we have become conscious and potentially sensitive beings - act as if we had the ability to override our genetic inheritance?

Then, of course, along comes John Gray (Straw Dogs etc) and says: nope, whatever you do, you're still only part of the order of nature, so it's no point thinking that you can 'improve' things at all?
But even Gray thinks modern dentistry is a good thing :). Perhaps getting away from the main theme....

Hi, Dicky, good to see you too.

You know I'm a pantheist I think, and to me that means we're all part of one big neutral whole. Not entirely sure what order I'm supposed to believe in.

I've never wasted my retina on Dawkins, but as you say we are also conscious (although we aren't alone in that) and we have these complicated things called emotions, and they can make us do what appear to be selfless things. But are they really? The obvious example is buying a very special gift - we spend hours pondering the right thing, go to huge effort to source it, wrap it lovingly, give it to the recipient - and they look mildly indifferent to it. Whose reaction to the present matters most to us in that moment?

Aside from that we have in varying degrees - those with personality disorders aside - a need to do the right thing. I think this accounts for so much heroism, self sacrifice and so on, as well as etc small acts of kindness and loving that happen every day, apart from the fact that we like to feel good about ourselves. But the thing about not doing the right thing is that it's like wearing a shoe with a pebble in it - it's uncomfortable, it hurts after a bit, and if you don't deal with it you end up with a hell of a mess.

And there's this love thing. My kids aren't neutral parts of the whole, they are the most precious creatures on the planet and I will go to all kinds of lengths to make sure they are ok because them not being ok hurts them but it also hurts me more than anything ever. And so this involves hurting other parts of the whole - hence the car, the washing machine, medicines, food.

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8265
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2017, 07:10:16 AM »
I've never wasted my retina on Dawkins, ...
I'm sorry to hear that, because you have missed reading some excellent books. One of the best books I have read* is 'The Ancestor's Tale' which is the best and clearest explanation I have read about how evolution works.

*It is also read by RD who has, whatever else one might think of him, one of the very best reading voices I have heard, and there are quite a few I've heard over the years which are so poor that I cannot continue with that particular book.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2017, 08:24:54 AM »
Horses for courses I guess, Susan. The worst reading voice I've heard is Eckhart Tolle, who sounds like a Peter Lorre villain.

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2017, 03:39:38 PM »
I'm sorry to hear that, because you have missed reading some excellent books. One of the best books I have read* is 'The Ancestor's Tale' which is the best and clearest explanation I have read about how evolution works.

*It is also read by RD who has, whatever else one might think of him, one of the very best reading voices I have heard, and there are quite a few I've heard over the years which are so poor that I cannot continue with that particular book.

Hello Susan
Despite my reservations about some of his comments on religion, I certainly have to agree that of his several virtues, his beautiful, clear speaking voice is just one. And I have to say that his demolition of Anselm's and Aquinas' 'proofs' for the existence of God are as good as any I've read.
As for his books on biochemistry and evolutionary biology, he has indeed written some crackers. The Greatest Show on Earth is an prime example of clear scientific writing. I have the 'Ancestor's tale' on my shelves, but haven't got round to reading it yet.

However, where religion is concerned, I sometimes think he doth protest too much (and I'm a non-believer, by the way)
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2017, 04:26:48 PM »
Yep, I clearly don't get Dawkins like others do.

Where he is spot on though is on his statement that the church had evolved to serve itself. As someone who was once inside it I agree 100%.

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32502
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2017, 07:40:15 PM »
Yep, I clearly don't get Dawkins like others do.

It's interesting that Dawkins has only written one book that does not address issues of biology and science i.e. The God Delusion. Try reading some of his pop. science books, they are really good.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2017, 07:44:03 PM »
I'm sure you are right, Jeremy. Popular science isn't a genre I read - maybe I should.

It's a shame I've only encountered Dawkins on a far more abysmal genre (popular religious programming) and found him incredibly irritating.

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15639
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2017, 07:53:28 PM »
I'm sure you are right, Jeremy. Popular science isn't a genre I read - maybe I should.
IMHO his best book is his most difficult, the gnarly one that laypersons can read if they're prepared for a difficult experience and a good deal of effort on their part given that it's also aimed at professionals - The Extended Phenotype. Good luck. Not for everyone, that. Worth it, but not everybody's ride. I loved and love it, but that's me. It's unique amongst all his books and there's a reason for that. Dawkins has gone on record as saying that TEP is his single greatest contribution to biology and the book by which he hopes to be remembered. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view, it reads like it. Still: your call.

Otherwise: The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show on Earth are the way to go.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 08:01:21 PM by Shaker »
Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back. - Al Swearengen, Deadwood.

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32502
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2017, 08:08:22 PM »
IMHO his best book is his most difficult, the gnarly one that laypersons can read if they're prepared for a difficult experience and a good deal of effort on their part given that it's also aimed at professionals - The Extended Phenotype. Good luck. Not for everyone, that. Worth it, but not everybody's ride. I loved and love it, but that's me. It's unique amongst all his books and there's a reason for that. Dawkins has gone on record as saying that TEP is his single greatest contribution to biology and the book by which he hopes to be remembered. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view, it reads like it. Still: your call.

Otherwise: The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show on Earth are the way to go.
My favourite is Climbing Mount Improbable. The only problem is that it is a bit of a sequel to The Blind Watchmaker, so you should read TBW first.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Walter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4463
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2017, 08:25:59 PM »
IMHO his best book is his most difficult, the gnarly one that laypersons can read if they're prepared for a difficult experience and a good deal of effort on their part given that it's also aimed at professionals - The Extended Phenotype. Good luck. Not for everyone, that. Worth it, but not everybody's ride. I loved and love it, but that's me. It's unique amongst all his books and there's a reason for that. Dawkins has gone on record as saying that TEP is his single greatest contribution to biology and the book by which he hopes to be remembered. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view, it reads like it. Still: your call.

Otherwise: The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show on Earth are the way to go.
The Greatest Show on Earth is the only one of his books I haven't read all the way through . I find his reference to his TV shows excellent in that it connects what I'm reading with the people he's interviewing, revealing what planks they are and what they look like.

However what does aggravate me slightly about this book is how he says 'but we will come to that in chapter   so and so ..

So I go and look for it but don't go back,  I'm still reading it ...........

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2017, 03:54:49 PM »

And there's this love thing. My kids aren't neutral parts of the whole, they are the most precious creatures on the planet and I will go to all kinds of lengths to make sure they are ok because them not being ok hurts them but it also hurts me more than anything ever. And so this involves hurting other parts of the whole - hence the car, the washing machine, medicines, food.

Hi Rhiannon

Yes, sometimes compromise is difficult, that's if you've some kind of developed moral sense, and don't just go for the first thing that takes your fancy or comes into your head a la Donald Trump. However, I have found that certain areas of those very concerned about planetary welfare* do tend to have some rosy-tinted view of a Golden Age in earth's history when all went well. I noticed this when I worked for a while in the offices of the Organic Farming movement. I sometimes felt that they had some idea of balance and ultimate purity which was avoiding the obvious fact that humans are always intervening in the 'balance of nature' (the extremes of the animal rights movement sometimes seem to think the earth would be better off without people - except the a.r. protesters themselves, of course).
*Of course we should be concerned about planetary welfare, but it's sometimes difficult to know where to start. I put out my kitchen waste for recycling, in the pious hope that "it is better to light one candle than to curse the dark". Beyond that - search me, guv.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: 'Is humanism really humane?'
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2017, 12:05:29 PM »
Dicky, I live near the Fenland. Draining it destroyed a huge amount of precious wildlife habitat but it also eradicated malaria.

Organic farming is a wonderful concept but nature rarely works as harmoniously as we'd like. Some organic veg farmer friends of mine got thrips in their salad crops and lost the lot. They had to use chemicals on the land to eradicate them and lost their organic certification for the next three years. Pragmatism doesn't seem to matter where there's a golden ideal involved.