Humanism = animalism?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Humanism = animalism?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 10:06 pm
Schopenhauer said 'humanism = animalism', and that 'morality is not of this world'. Let me define humanism in this context as a purely ethical worldview that states that the sciences, the empirical world, and usually some sort of utilitarianism as the basis for morality. Let me quote from Council for Secular Humanism : 'We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it.'

In my opinion humanism is animalism for the simple fact that I would deny there to be anything called 'the human'. I would subscribe to the view that humans are part-animal part-divine, and that we either aspire to the divine, or slide backwards, and that humanism invariably is morality based on some foundation of some sort of mutual appeasement of the animal side of our nature, and disparages the religious desire to try to conquer the animal side of our nature by ascetic practices, and social values (celibacy etc).
 
jgweed
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 07:56 am
@richard mcnair,
There are many definitions of Humanism, and the Council does not have a monopoly on it and often brushes over the various unique perspectives that have been historically valid.

It certainly seems that human beings are in some aspects part of the "animal" world, but in other, and definitive aspects separate from it; whether these aspects are divine or not can be seen to divide the secular from the religious humanists.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 08:59 am
@richard mcnair,
richard_mcnair;140435 wrote:
Schopenhauer said 'humanism = animalism', and that 'morality is not of this world'. Let me define humanism in this context as a purely ethical worldview that states that the sciences, the empirical world, and usually some sort of utilitarianism as the basis for morality. Let me quote from Council for Secular Humanism : 'We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it.'

In my opinion humanism is animalism for the simple fact that I would deny there to be anything called 'the human'. I would subscribe to the view that humans are part-animal part-divine, and that we either aspire to the divine, or slide backwards, and that humanism invariably is morality based on some foundation of some sort of mutual appeasement of the animal side of our nature, and disparages the religious desire to try to conquer the animal side of our nature by ascetic practices, and social values (celibacy etc).
Humanism is good to a certain degree, preventing tyranism and such, but often it gets overphilosophized.

The geneve convention prevents soldiers to take the weapon from an enemy if they do not take him hostage...:brickwall:
Can shoot the enemy with 50 cal weaponry. :brickwall:
..there are endless other stupidities in that law.

We have to lie in unworthy misery and can't end our own lifes, it's even worse than what most other terror regimes commit of crimes against humanity.

We contribute endless wealth to 3rd world contries, some are well needed and justifyed, but things like Afcrica ..have we for many decades send wealth to a buttomless pit! We need to understand we'r undermining their own self understandign. We undermine their industries, we'r creating more misery than helping out.

Stupid parents make Micheling Kids, stuffing them with candy and soft drinks, while thinking that they'r good parents, causing diabetes in the kids.

Imo it takes high IQ/RQ to be humanistic.
 
haribol acharya
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 09:33 am
@HexHammer,
There is nothing called divine in us, and we have evolved considerably and what we are now to distinguish ourselves from the animal world is we are a little capable of thinking, of imagining, of creating ,of inventing.

Man is a worse brute and his acts more brutal.

animalism and humanism are not basically different and we are brutes under the skin
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 09:34 am
@richard mcnair,
richard_mcnair;140435 wrote:
In my opinion humanism is animalism for the simple fact that I would deny there to be anything called 'the human'. I would subscribe to the view that humans are part-animal part-divine, and that we either aspire to the divine, or slide backwards, and that humanism invariably is morality based on some foundation of some sort of mutual appeasement of the animal side of our nature, and disparages the religious desire to try to conquer the animal side of our nature by ascetic practices, and social values (celibacy etc).

Even if everything human is either divine or animal, we are often uncertain which is which, and in our uncertainty, at least, we are human, neither divine nor animal.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 03:52 pm
@richard mcnair,
Humanism for me isn't "animalism." To conceive of the sacred as founded on human nature is not to destroy the sacred, but rather to claim it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 03:58 pm
@richard mcnair,
richard_mcnair;140435 wrote:
Schopenhauer said 'humanism = animalism', and that 'morality is not of this world'. Let me define humanism in this context as a purely ethical worldview that states that the sciences, the empirical world, and usually some sort of utilitarianism as the basis for morality. Let me quote from Council for Secular Humanism : 'We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it.'

In my opinion humanism is animalism for the simple fact that I would deny there to be anything called 'the human'. I would subscribe to the view that humans are part-animal part-divine, and that we either aspire to the divine, or slide backwards, and that humanism invariably is morality based on some foundation of some sort of mutual appeasement of the animal side of our nature, and disparages the religious desire to try to conquer the animal side of our nature by ascetic practices, and social values (celibacy etc).


Human beings, I would have thought, are defined by their DNA. Humans are a part of the animal kingdom genetically, and what we ordinarily call animals in distinction to human beings have been traditionally called "beasts". That is, animals who cannot or barely can reason, and have no language. I don't think that celibacy (being unmarried) is a social value, but chastity (with which it is often confused) may be.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Humanism = animalism?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/22/2024 at 12:52:26