Is it? Would a secular humanist advocate enslaving a small portion of the population for the greater good is ok? Seems to be more complex than that.
What's wrong with reductionism? Or maybe I should ask for a more detailed definition of reductionism in this context.
And I don't know that secular humanism even advocated a technocracy.
Well, in regards to technocracy, I'd just say that from what I've read in Bacon and Hobbes what I see in the world around me, plus reading from other more contemporary commentary, I think it's pretty natural for moderns to consider the rule of technology over nature. By nature, I mean everything, including humans.
Reductionism is fine. The first modern, Machiavelli, believed that all human action could be reduced to motive. There's nothing wrong with it. Heck, I have nowhere near the intellectual power required to ask Machiavelli what he'd like for lunch, but I can see a few problems with it. Mainly that it absolves humanity of principle or virtue.
This is a great post and I thank you for it. The first point. I don't care if I get people on my side. The point of philosophy is to argue against sides and provide invalidation of any common folk wisdom.
Briefly, because as I said, I want to respond when I've had more time to think about this, but secular humanism is distinct for being pretty absolutist in regards to past eras and paradigms. I am stunned by Textcritics response, for example, that a biblical scholar could make note to the unifying principle of material evidence. That simply is completely contrary to the human experience.
Also, in defense of myself, often I make fairly constructed and drawn out arguments for/against something and it doesn't get responded to at all. So you can see why I might resort to cynical drive-bys.
I don't know if it's just me but I get irritated when people constantly refer to religions or ideologies or schools of thought by lumping people into certain sets of beliefs or appeal to certain authorities or schools by saying "well Marx says, well Bacon says, well Rand says, well Strauss says, well Plato says, well Dawkins says, the founding fathers say this etc."
My skepticism is based upon that fact that while I appreciate the thoughts and writings of others, my beliefs are always my own and I refuse to be placed or defined in rigid and heuristic catagories. While secular humanism might be absolutist in certain ways, it doesn't mean that I believe in those aspects.
Most people's religion or philosophy or world view is based upon external influences but it does not mean that that influence is the complete explanation of the individual. It may simply hold an aspect that appeals to that individual. That is why there is so much division and criticism and skeptism in any religion, philosphy, ideology, or belief.
Ultimately, you end up just labelling things and it would take an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite amount of time with a infinite number of label makers to properly label human nature. You seem to do this all the time when you appeal to a certain authority or claim that an argument is flawed just because a certain school of thought is incomplete or has it's critics, or even saying that you are stunned that Textcritic is advancing some argument just because his nametag might say "a Biblical Scholar".
Maybe this is all just a giant cop-out myself because I am too lazy to actually read anything anymore or try to catagorize or judge the macrocosm of ideological thought and just want to come to my own conclusions out of my own life experiences and don't want to be defined by anything.
I don't know if it's just me but I get irritated when people constantly refer to religions or ideologies or schools of thought by lumping people into certain sets of beliefs or appeal to certain authorities or schools by saying "well Marx says, well Bacon says, well Rand says, well Strauss says, well Plato says, well Dawkins says, the founding fathers say this etc."
My skepticism is based upon that fact that while I appreciate the thoughts and writings of others, my beliefs are always my own and I refuse to be placed or defined in rigid and heuristic catagories. While secular humanism might be absolutist in certain ways, it doesn't mean that I believe in those aspects.
Most people's religion or philosophy or world view is based upon external influences but it does not mean that that influence is the complete explanation of the individual. It may simply hold an aspect that appeals to that individual. That is why there is so much division and criticism and skeptism in any religion, philosphy, ideology, or belief.
Ultimately, you end up just labelling things and it would take an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite amount of time with a infinite number of label makers to properly label human nature. You seem to do this all the time when you appeal to a certain authority or claim that an argument is flawed just because a certain school of thought is incomplete or has it's critics, or even saying that you are stunned that Textcritic is advancing some argument just because he is "a Biblical Scholar".
Maybe this is all just a giant cop-out myself because I am too lazy to actually read anything anymore or try to catagorize or judge the macrocosm of ideological thought and just want to come to my own conclusions out of my own life experiences and don't want to be defined by anything.
Probably laziness, but that's ok. I should do more myself.
The world is chaos, at least politically, and we can only understand it by applying ourselves to the Great Arguments or Books and giving ourselves the time and experience to work it out. When I say "Bacon says" or "Plato says," I am just appealing to a different part of the puzzle.
That's not to say I am a relativist, I definitely believe in a hierarchy of knowledge.
Probably laziness, but that's ok. I should do more myself.
The world is chaos, at least politically, and we can only understand it by applying ourselves to the Great Arguments or Books and giving ourselves the time and experience to work it out. When I say "Bacon says" or "Plato says," I am just appealing to a different part of the puzzle.
That's not to say I am a relativist, I definitely believe in a hierarchy of knowledge.
It is laziness and that is part of my humanism. I believe steadfastly with great zeal that I am actually just stupid and lazy and life is about pretending that I am not.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
The ones we discover through experience, though discussion, through thought, through investigation. The ones that evolve over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
We just exited a century where the amount of humans killed by other humans exceeded the total of all other centuries combined.
There's also more humans alive now, and more capability to kill them. And I don't know if the # of humans killed is a good measure of moral progress, since even if morals have progressed not everyone on the planet is going to have the latest morality patch.. and the ability to act morally is probably partially dependent on circumstances as well.
But maybe you are right, maybe the areas of progress (equal rights, etc) are offset by other areas of stagnation or regression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I've heard this argument before and it doesn't sit with me at all.
What argument, I'm not making one! It was your question to start with, I thought you were the one leading into something, not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Are you telling me that Plato's philosophical standards for a just society are somehow inferior morally?
Probably not since I don't know what Plato's philisophical standards for a just society are.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Well, in regards to technocracy, I'd just say that from what I've read in Bacon and Hobbes what I see in the world around me,
I haven't read Bacon and almost nothing of Hobbes, so that doesn't mean anything to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
plus reading from other more contemporary commentary, I think it's pretty natural for moderns to consider the rule of technology over nature. By nature, I mean everything, including humans.
I don't think technology should rule over nature.. But I don't think nature is some unassailable perfection either, nature is just the best path nature could find to a given end, nature is "just good enough".
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Mainly that it absolves humanity of principle or virtue.
Why? How does reductionism absolve humanity of principles? I have principles. I think there are virtues.
This seems like the argument that all morality comes from god because if there were no god there would be no morals but there are morals therefore there is a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
Maybe this is all just a giant cop-out myself because I am too lazy to actually read anything anymore or try to catagorize or judge the macrocosm of ideological thought and just want to come to my own conclusions out of my own life experiences and don't want to be defined by anything.
I think it's simpler than that; lingo. Every discipline has lingo associated with it, because you need to be able to communicate a complex set of ideas in a few words to facilitate communication. The references to people are just lingo.
The problem is many people don't have the definitions and knowledge at the top of their head, so lingo just serves to confuse of obfuscate rather than facilitate as it should.
Just like if I started using lingo for programming or electronics or physics most people wouldn't know what I was talking about. Nor would I expect them to, it just takes longer to explain things.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Heck, I have nowhere near the intellectual power required to ask Machiavelli what he'd like for lunch, but I can see a few problems with it. Mainly that it absolves humanity of principle or virtue.
And the fact that she wouldn't go to lunch with you anyway because you mistook her for a dude.
Chicks hate that.
On point, it seems to me that there may be a growing role for proactive or "militant" atheism in the world as a counterbalance to the rising influence of religious fanaticism/fundamentalism. Not all beliefs are worthy of respect, and it's a dangerous mistake to give such beliefs a seat at the grownups table.
As for the cross-memorials, this doesn't seem like proactive atheism's most noble causes.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flylock shox For This Useful Post:
If you want to end hostility on CP, keep talking philosophy. Man, even the emoticons are falling asleep.
__________________ “The fact is that censorship always defeats it's own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.”
Henry Steel Commager (1902-1998)
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bcb For This Useful Post:
http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/t...sses-3445.html
Guess some must find the above song very disturbing There is no end to these types of things. For me it is a nice reminder to have for someones life who was cut short. I was a first responder when I was out for a run 2 years ago on 22x and I watched a guy die right in front of me at an intersection. I will never forget that day and I pass the spot almost daily and I like having a cross there to remind me that I am lucky to continue on down the road as it could have just as easily been me. The cross reminds me not to take things for granted. Besides if you are ever down near Zion where crosses are literally everywhere it will keep your speed down....
I seriously like that state of Virginia sign solution that I previously posted. To me that's the way to go.
Roadside memorials are gaudy. That cute teddy bear quickly turns into dirty rubbish and flowers become mulch. It's unsightly. And distracting.
More permanent memorials are not much better. If forbid I personally were to die in a traffic accident I'd rather a sign imploring people to drive safe than a memorial. Have enough of these, and maybe folks will get the message.
Last edited by Reggie Dunlop; 08-20-2010 at 01:36 AM.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
It's not a trap at all. What evidence supports the belief in moral progress?
The near eradication of slavery is pretty compellingly a moral progression. The rule of law is a moral progression. The granting of equal rights to women is a moral progression. It's not so much a belief as an observed fact.
What evidence supports a belief in lack of moral progress? Nothing but your mistaken idea that because a long-dead philosopher understood morality, the society that philosopher lived in was equally moral. There may have been no *theoretical* advances in morality for thousands of years, but in *practical* morals current Western culture is far, far ahead of the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and especially our Western forebears.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
There is no end to these types of things. For me it is a nice reminder to have for someones life who was cut short. I was a first responder when I was out for a run 2 years ago on 22x and I watched a guy die right in front of me at an intersection. I will never forget that day and I pass the spot almost daily and I like having a cross there to remind me that I am lucky to continue on down the road as it could have just as easily been me. The cross reminds me not to take things for granted. Besides if you are ever down near Zion where crosses are literally everywhere it will keep your speed down....
. Everyone needs to chill out.
