Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I think this question becomes a bit of a shield issue for humanists as they are not necessarily sure what their own humanism means so they depend upon opponents to define it for them so they can critique it.
|
You brought it up. If you are unwilling to define and to clarify what you mean, then how are we to ever understand what you are talking about. The claim that one is "undeserving" of the moniker humanist is a pretty strong one; I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect that you contextualize and justify such an opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
The point is, real humanism doesn't exist anymore because it has separated itself from the historical reality of atheism and proper humanism. Two things, actual atheists like Nietzsche and Marx aren't properly read or understood anymore and the Enlightenment ethic that opposed Aristotelian science has been completely subsumed by the worship of technological innovation.
|
That is like saying that "real Darwinism" or "real physics" or "real Christianity" no longer exist because of the changes they have necessarily incurred over hundreds and thousands of years of necessary interpretation. I don't disagree at all that "humanism" has changed, but that is in tune with the very nature of humanity, language and is part of hermeneutics. Your brief description of types of "love" points to this phenomenon, as "agape" came to develop ranges of meaning beyond what Plato intended. So much so that its use became interchangeable with other Greek words such as "philos" and "xaris". Does this mean that people were "wrong" in their use? Not at all, given that their own context had an undeniable effect on what the word came to mean.