The Movie 300 [Archive]

Pindar

03-09-2007, 18:17

Given the film is opening in the U.S. I thought I would repost what follows. I had originally posted this in the Entrance Hall.

This is a piece written by the Classicist Victor David Hanson on the upcoming film and the proper perspective when it comes to historicity and narrative.

Victor Davis Hanson was educated at the University of California , Santa Cruz (BA, Classics, 1975), the American School of Classical Studies (1978-79) and received his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University in 1980. Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University , a professor emeritus at California University , Fresno , and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services. He has written or edited 16 books, including Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece (1983; paperback ed. University of California Press, 1998); The Western Way of War (Alfred Knopf, 1989; 2d paperback ed. University of California Press, 2000); Hoplites: The Ancient Greek Battle Experience (Routledge, 1991; paperback., 1992); The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization (Free Press, 1995; 2nd paperback ed., University of California Press, 2000); Fields without Dreams: Defending the Agrarian Idea (Free Press, 1996; paperback, Touchstone, 1997); The Land Was Everything: Letters from an American Farmer (Free Press, 2000); The Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Cassell, 1999; paperback, 2001); The Soul of Battle (Free Press, 1999, paperback, Anchor/Vintage, 2000); Carnage and Culture (Doubleday, 2001; Anchor/Vintage, 2002); An Autumn of War (Anchor/Vintage, 2002); Mexifornia: A State of Becoming (Encounter, 2003), Ripples of Battle (Doubleday, 2003), Between War and Peace (Random House, 2004) and A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War, published by Random House in October 2005.

"The phrase “300 Spartans” evokes not only the ancient battle of Thermopylae, but also the larger idea of fighting for freedom against all odds — a notion subsequently to be enshrined through some 2500 years of Western civilization.

Even today we remember the power of the Spartans’ defiance. “Come and take them,” they tell the Persian emissaries who demand their arms. “Then we will fight in the shade,” the Spartans boast when warned that the horde of Persian arrows will soon blot out the very sunlight. “Go tell the Spartans that here we lie obedient to their commands” the tombstone of their dead reads.

In 480, an enormous force of more than a quarter-million Persians under their King Xerxes invaded Greece, both to enslave the free city-states, and to avenge the Persian defeat a decade earlier at Marathon. The huge force of ships and soldiers proved unstoppable on its way west and southward until it reached the narrow pass at Thermopylae (“The Warm Gates”) in northern Greece. There a collection of 7,000 Greeks had blocked the way. They hoped to stop Xerxes’ horde outright — or at least allow enough time for their fellow countrymen to their rear to mobilize a sufficient defense of the homeland.

Among the many Greek contingents was a special elite force of 300 Spartans under their King Leonidas — a spearhead that offered the other Greeks at Thermopylae some promise that they could still bar the advance of the vastly superior invader. And that hope proved real for two days of hard fighting. The vastly outnumbered, but heavily-armed Greek infantrymen in their phalanx — taking advantage of the narrow terrain and their massed tactics — savagely beat back wave after wave of advancing Persian foot soldiers and cavalry.

But on the third day of battle, Leonidas’s Greeks were betrayed by a local shepherd Ephialtes, who showed the Persians an alternate route over the mountains that led to the rear of the Greek position. When he realized that he was nearly surrounded, Leonidas nevertheless made a critical decision to stay and fight, while ordering most of the other various allies to flee the encirclement to organize the growing Greek resistance to the south.

Meanwhile the King and his doomed 300 Spartans, together with other small groups of surrounded Thespians and Thebans, would indeed battle to buy the Greeks time. They ranged further out from the pass on this third and last day of battle — at first with spears and swords, finally with teeth and nails —killing scores more of Persians. The last few Spartan survivors were buried under a sea of Persian arrows. The body of Leonidas was found among the corpses, his head soon impaled on a stick as a macabre reminder of the wages of resistance to the Great King of Persia.

The Greeks took encouragement from the unprecedented sacrifice of a Spartan King and his royal guard on their behalf. And so a few weeks later at the sea battle of Salamis near Athens — and then again the next year at the great infantry collision on the plains of Plataea — the Greeks defeated, and eventually destroyed, the Persian invaders. The rallying cry of the victors was Thermopylae, the noble sacrifice of the final stand of the outnumbered Greeks, and especially the courage of the fallen Three Hundred Spartans under King Leonidas.

So almost immediately, contemporary Greeks saw Thermopylae as a critical moral and culture lesson. In universal terms, a small, free people had willingly outfought huge numbers of imperial subjects who advanced under the lash. More specifically, the Western idea that soldiers themselves decide where, how, and against whom they will fight was contrasted against the Eastern notion of despotism and monarchy — freedom proving the stronger idea as the more courageous fighting of the Greeks at Thermopylae, and their later victories at Salamis and Plataea attested.

Greek writers and poets such as Simonides and Herodotus were fascinated by the Greek sacrifice against Xerxes, and especially the heroism of Leonidas and his men. And subsequently throughout Western literature poets as diverse as Lord Byron and A.E. Houseman have likewise paid homage to the Spartan last stand — and this universal idea of Western soldiers willing to die as free men rather than to submit to tyranny. Steven Pressfield’s novel Gates of Fire and the earlier Hollywood movie The 300 Spartans both were based on the Greek defense of the pass at Thermopylae.

Recently, a variety of Hollywood films — from Troy to Alexander the Great — has treated a variety of themes from classical Greek literature and theater. But 300 is unique, a sui generis in both spirit and methodology. The script is not an attempt in typical Hollywood fashion to recreate the past as a costume drama. Instead it is based on Frank Miller’s (of Sin City fame) comic book graphics and captions. Miller’s illustrated novelette of the battle adapts themes loosely from the well-known story of the Greek defense, but with deference made to the tastes of contemporary popular culture.

So the film is indeed inspired by the comic book; and in some sense its muscular warriors, virtual reality sets, and computer-generated landscapes recall the look and feel of Robert Rodriquez’s screen version of Sin City. Yet the collaboration of Director Zack Snyder and screenwriters Kurt Johnstad and Michael Gordon is much more of a hybrid, since the script, dialogue, cinematography, and acting all recall scenes of the battle right from Herodotus’s account.

300, of course, makes plenty of allowance for popular tastes, changing and expanding the story to meet the protocols of the comic book genre. The film was not shot on location outdoors, but in a studio using the so-called “digital backlot” technique of sometimes placing the actors against blue screens. The resulting realism is not that of the sun-soaked cliffs above the blue Aegean — Thermopylae remains spectacularly beautiful today — but of the eerie etchings of the comic book.

The Spartans fight bare-chested without armor, in the “heroic nude” manner that ancient Greek vase-painters portrayed Greek hoplites, their muscles bulging as if they were contemporary comic book action heroes. Again, following the Miller comic, artistic license is made with the original story — the traitor Ephialtes is as deformed in body as he is in character; King Xerxes is not bearded and perched on a distant throne, but bald, huge, perhaps sexually ambiguous, and often right on the battlefield. The Persians bring with them exotic beasts like a rhinoceros and elephant, and the leader of the Immortals fights Leonidas in a duel (which the Greeks knew as monomachia). Shields are metal rather than wood with bronze veneers, and swords sometimes look futuristic rather than ancient.

Again, purists must remember that 300 seeks to bring a comic book, not Herodotus, to the screen. Yet, despite the need to adhere to the conventions of Frank Miller’s graphics and plot — every bit as formalized as the protocols of classical Athenian drama or Japanese Kabuki theater — the main story from our ancient Greek historians is still there: Leonidas, against domestic opposition, insists on sending an immediate advance party northward on a suicide mission to rouse the Greeks and allow them time to unite a defense. Once at Thermopylae, he adopts the defenses to the narrow pass between high cliffs and the sea far below. The Greeks fight both en masse in the phalanx and at times range beyond as solo warriors. They are finally betrayed by Ephialtes, forcing Leonidas to dismiss his allies — and leaving his own 300 to the fate of dying under a sea of arrows.

But most importantly, 300 preserves the spirit of the Thermopylae story. The Spartans, quoting lines known from Herodotus and themes from the lyric poets, profess unswerving loyalty to a free Greece. They will never kow-tow to the Persians, preferring to die on their feet than live on their knees.

If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others."

ShadeHonestus

03-09-2007, 18:30

In a show of solidarity with Thespians everywhere, I will boycott until the title reads "1300"!

TinCow

03-09-2007, 19:13

I agree with his analysis. The significance of Thermopylae isn't really in the details of the battle itself. Many historians argue over how many Persians were in the invading army. Estimates range from 2 million to 25,000 and everywhere inbetween, but the actual answer means nothing and would not chance the meaning of Thermopylae. We remember it today, not because of the victory or the defeat, but because of the psychological impact it had on the rest of Greece. It is therefore entirely appropriate that Thermopylae continue to be remembered in popular culture in this psychological manner rather than in pinpoint historical accuracy.

Azi Tohak

03-09-2007, 19:18

I like Hanson. I read his book Carnage and Culture for college. And this is probably the best review one could read on the film if he knows what happened.

Thanks for the article!

Azi

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-09-2007, 19:47

300 is a pile of manure and so is that man's opinion.

The Spartans were fighting for themselves, they did not retreat because they could not, under their law. Yes, the idea was to buy the rest of the Greeks time but the fact that we remember the 300 and not those who died with them is a testement to the lack of a clear Pan Hellenic ideal.

Added to which the Persians were not that bad, the idea of Eastern Tyranny vs Western Democracy is anachronistic in the extreme.

ShadeHonestus

03-09-2007, 20:25

The Spartans were fighting for themselves, they did not retreat because they could not, under their law.

Yes, and as part of the battle plan of Themistocles.

Yes, the idea was to buy the rest of the Greeks time but the fact that we remember the 300 and not those who died with them is a testement to the lack of a clear Pan Hellenic ideal.

The final stand was a rearguard action seperate from the battle as a whole. In fact it was the miscalculations by other Greeks, that were present, that forced the issue into a withdrawl rather than victory.

The reason we remember the 300 in particular is that it is the epitome of Hellenic culture. The story of the last stand was humanistic, individualistic, and heroic, not to mention largely secular, while also maintaining the integrity to the Spartans' own ideals. This is the same reason the Illiad stands today as a work of that time and that place.

Added to which the Persians were not that bad, the idea of Eastern Tyranny vs Western Democracy is anachronistic in the extreme.

If nothing else, the lack of present Hellenic ideals in Persian philosophy and indeed their suppression is the Eastern Tyranny. The Persian way was much the way of making tomorrow like today, which is distinctly oppressive and non Greek.

Adrian II

03-09-2007, 23:04

But most importantly, 300 preserves the spirit of the Thermopylae story. The Spartans, quoting lines known from Herodotus and themes from the lyric poets, profess unswerving loyalty to a free Greece.Strange. There are no Spartan 'lines' mentioned in Herodotus. Nothing about freedom either, which would have been amiss anyway since according to Herodotus, Leonidas stayed behind and died because he was inspired by an oracle, not by 'freedom'.
Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty (..)Greek autonomy -- maybe. Spartan autonomy, certainly. But freedom in the sense of autonomy was not the preserve of Sparta, Greece or any other nation. Freedom as we know it was nowhere to be found in Sparta. To suggest otherwise would be a total anachronism. If we want to stretch historical understanding to such impossible lengths (which I think we shouldn't), then fascism would be a better word.

I didn't understand why a classicist like Victor Davis Hansen would sell his soul to commerce. Until I noticed that Hansen's piece is actually the introduction to the Dark Horse Comics book that is part of the '300' merchandising. They sell a Leonidas action doll (http://www.tfaw.com/Profile/300-12-In-Leonidas-Action-Figure-With-Sound___263703) as well. With sound.

I think I'll stick with G.I. Joe. :yes:

Lemur

03-09-2007, 23:51

I'm a little worried; the initial reviews are all lukewarm. Oh well, I'm already committed, the babysitter's hired, and I'm going, even if it's awful. I shall have my popcorn! I shall have my Spartans in leather thongs!

Hosakawa Tito

03-10-2007, 01:11

Strange. There are no Spartan 'lines' mentioned in Herodotus. Nothing about freedom either, which would have been amiss anyway since according to Herodotus, Leonidas stayed behind and died because he was inspired by an oracle, not by 'freedom'.

This was my understanding too. The Spartans were very religious and had absolute faith in and reverence of the Oracle at Delphi.

One of the major importances of Thermopylae was that it was a major catalyst for the separate Greek City States to merge as the Greek Nation.

I shall have my popcorn!
The battle cry. "They may take our lives, but they'll never take our hot buttered popcorn."
They can have my popcorn when they pry my cold dead fingers from the bag.

We expect a movie review Lemur.:2thumbsup:

Pindar

03-10-2007, 02:16

Strange. There are no Spartan 'lines' mentioned in Herodotus.

My friend, either your translation is flawed or you've misremembered. Dienekes is one simple example of a Spartan with lines mentioned by Herodotus. His line is noted in the movie's trailer as I recall.

Nothing about freedom either, which would have been amiss anyway since according to Herodotus, Leonidas stayed behind and died because he was inspired by an oracle, not by 'freedom'.

The Oracle stated that either Sparta would be sacked or one of her kings must perish. Leonidas' sacrifice then was to appease the fates and thus maintain a Sparta free from the barbarian horde. A desire to live under one's own mantle: Lycurgus, rather than a foreign hand is sufficient to warrant an appeal to freedom. It is the same sentiment that motivated a Vercingetorix, Boudicca or Dutchman spurning a Catholic Spanish King.*

*Though the roles would reverse a Helot would understand this sentiment. :whip:

Adrian II

03-10-2007, 02:49

My friend, either your translation is flawed or you've misremembered. Dienekes is one simple example of a Spartan with lines mentioned by Herodotus. His line is noted in the movie's trailer as I recall.Dianekas' line in Herodotus 7 does not 'profess unswerving loyalty to a free Greece' at all. He is bragging in the face of impossible odds, that is all.

Besides, you are bound to know that Sparta has been regarded as a model and inspiration for fascist theorists and movements, and for a reason. Great minds like Popper, Russel and Toynbee have expounded this. In Volume 1, Chapter 10 of his Open Society Popper states six principles of Spartan policy that fundamentally agree with modern totalitarianism, bar one: Sparta was too tribal to strive for world conquest.

As for the Helots, my friend; no one fought on their behalf in Thermopylae.

Pindar

03-10-2007, 03:14

Dianekas' line in Herodotus 7 does not 'profess unswerving loyalty to a free Greece' at all. He is bragging in the face of impossible odds, that is all.

Your statement was that "There are no Spartan 'lines' mentioned in Herodotus." This was an error.

Besides, you are bound to know that Sparta has been regarded as a model and inspiration for fascist theorists and movements, and for a reason.

This doesn't relate to Herodotus where the presentation is as a cultural struggle: disparate Greek polities coming together against the Eastern foe: the other.

As for the Helots, my friend; no one fought on their behalf in Thermopylae.

Quite.

TinCow

03-10-2007, 03:15

There are lessons in totalitarianism that can be learned from Sparta, but that does not make the mythos of Thermopylae any less important to history. Sometimes the legend is of more value than the truth.

Pannonian

03-10-2007, 03:20

One of the major importances of Thermopylae was that it was a major catalyst for the separate Greek City States to merge as the Greek Nation.

Meaning it was the catalyst that caused the Athenians and Spartans to start getting ideas above their station, and seek an empire by dominating other Greeks, setting an example that was followed by the Thebans, until Philip and the Macedonians swept them all away.

The Oracle stated that either Sparta would be sacked or one of her kings must perish. Leonidas' sacrifice then was to appease the fates and thus maintain a Sparta free from the barbarian horde. A desire to live under one's own mantle: Lycurgus, rather than a foreign hand is sufficient to warrant an appeal to freedom. It is the same sentiment that motivated a Vercingetorix, Boudicca or Dutchman spurning a Catholic Spanish King.*

And nothing about sending a token Spartan force to save face (having missed out at Marathon) while they tried to persuade the people that mattered that fighting a foreign war would be worth their while? IIRC they eventually solved that problem by having Spartan leadership of both land and sea forces. Of course, the Spartan naval commander was just a figurehead, with Themistocles in real control.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-10-2007, 07:17

Movie was really cool.

I couldn't quite bring myself to dislike McNulty though.

Dooz

03-10-2007, 10:56

AntiochusIII

03-10-2007, 11:21

Historical or otherwise accuracies aside, simply based on its merits as a movie it was terrible. If you care about watching a film that is good with regards to the writing, acting and directing, you won't find this one enjoyable.

Only a few of the action scenes were mildy entertaining, but even those got old after the 3rd battle with the same choreography and directing. Way too over the top, the acting, the over-dramatic musical close ups every few moments, everything.

I really wanted to like this movie, really I did. Even a positive outlook going in didn't help though. I walked out of the movie in a bad mood ultimately. I would not recommend it to anyone who is sensitive about movies. I would assume however, big fans of the comic or over-the-top action movies that are light on content might enjoy it.

Oh and I especially hated the King's wife. Feminism jammed down your throat, choking the man out of you, just like she choked the man out of Leonidas.Gah. Sounds like Troy. And any other Hollywood epics out there. Gah!

*goes back to watching quirky arthouse films*

In any case, the movie is the adaptation of the comic book which is the adaptation of the recorded event. While I heard the comic is good, speaking comic-wise, I have little hope for the movie. I'm quite sick of the glorified omglolbigbattlezwitlotsacglol movies Hollywood's been churning out these last few years, you see. Who started it, really? Mel Gibson?

Edit: Oh, and the idea that the Spartans are some sort of Freedom Fighters tm fighting to protect all Greeks selflessly is a rather...romanticized...view of the stuff, really. Sparta was Sparta, not Greece. And they sure aren't fighting for "freedom" in the modern sense. Political freedom; state's freedom, may be, but convince me that the Spartans are champions of human rights...

Adrian II

03-10-2007, 11:25

This was an error.I might have written 'such lines' to make myself clearer.
This doesn't relate to Herodotus where the presentation is as a cultural struggle: disparate Greek polities coming together against the Eastern foe: the other.Exactly. Hansen (and the movie director, apparently) twists it into something different. Spartan mentality is not a model or example for all time, as he suggests.

Tristrem

03-10-2007, 16:44

Well after seeing 300 last night I would have to say it was not as bad as troy. At the core, this movie isn't about spartans promoting freedom, it is about how badass they were in battle. It isn't about historical accuracy either, I think it even said the movie is based on the events.

Once you get over the fact the the persians look like mutants, and the spartans fight in banana hammocks, the movie really isn't bad. The combat is not glamorous at all, it is very dark, and gritty. The movie depicts that the spartans were looking for a fight. Freedom is moreover an excuse to kill some more deformed persians- almost like a punch line.

Overall I thought the movie wasn't bad, the scene where the 300 finally perish is a little corny, but going in we all know they are going to die anyway. This is definitely a movie you go see for entertainment, not historical accuracy, and if you go in with an open mind it is quite enjoyable.

nokhor

03-10-2007, 17:07

the spartans fought for the liberty of sparta and the political rights of the spartan citizens which accounted for maybe 5% of the population of sparta. when athens joined in, the most democratic state of ancient greece, they were fighting for the liberty of athens and the political rights of the athenian citizens. somewhere around 10% of the population of athens. so the freedoms they were fighting for was for the elites, the nobles if you will, they surely weren't fighting for 'freedom' in the modern sense of universal freedom of a population of a state nor were they fighting for freedom for the greek nation, simply because the greek nation did not exist.

just 10 years before thermopylae, the ionian greeks had asked for spartan aid in their revolt against this same persian juggernaut and the spartans refused, for what did ionian independence have to do with spartan freedom. it wasn't until the persians had overrun northern greece proper that the remaining city states in greece began to start talking about a all-greek alliance and it was led by athens and sparta because they had the most to lose under persian domination. thebes, macedon, and argos all reached accomodations with the persians because it served their best self interest. as it was in the spartan and athenian best interest to fight the persians. so i think the idea of fighting for 'greek' independence was propaganda that was effectively and appropriately used by sparta and athens to further their own self interest.

furthermore, the villain of thermopylae, ephialetes, the 'traitor' who betrayed a greek nation that did not exist suffered no consequences for his betrayal even after the greeks won. he died relatively soon after the events, but not from any persecution by the greeks but rather from a personal quarrel.

within a few years of the decisive greek victories over the persians, as the athenians were gaining control of the eastern mediterranean, the spartans attacked the athenians, as the athenians had fought the aeginians during the war. so i don't think the persians was really a fight for independence in the modern sense of the word, either for individual freedoms or national rights.
but i think it helped create a sense of nationality for the greeks for the first time.

Suraknar

03-11-2007, 02:13

Interesting analysis, I happen to agree with it.

I posted my impressions of the movie in the other thread in the Monastery https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80894

As for the freedom concept, well of cource it does not have the same connotation as today in exact detail. It was the concept of freedom from the then perspective.

The most striking aspect of this is the coexistance of democracy and slavery. Democracy and citizenship was reserved for those that were not slaves.

So when they talk about freedom, it is not a Universal freedom, it is a Freedom of the citizens of a specific City State, and since slaves are not considered Citizens they were not included in that freedom.

Nevertheless, this all was done in a period where slavery was Universal. So it goes without saying.

The notion of a free Greece was more in relation to the independent status of each city state and its citizens according to each city state's own system of law and traditions.

Lemur

03-11-2007, 04:22

We expect a movie review Lemur.
And you shall have one.

The best thing I can say about 300 is that it doesn't look like any movie you've ever seen. It takes its blatant artificiality to new and interesting heights; don't think Troy or Gladiator, instead consider West Side Story or Little Shop of Horrors. There really is a musical, theatrical quality (http://www.gaycamp.org/index_eng.html) to it. Some of the scenes feel halfway natural, most do not. At times the effect was like watching a stage play, which was cool; at other times it felt like sitting through an R-rated beer commercial designed for Warhammer fanatics (http://www.thomarillion.de/).

The Greeks didn't look at all Greek to me. They seemed to hail from Germania or Britannia (northern Gaul at a stretch), certainly not from anywhere in the Mediterranean. Do I nit-pick? Then I nit-pick. I am small, and contain singularities.

I can state without reservation that every deviation from the book was ill-advised. Losing "Stumblios" was a bad idea, and elevating the Queen (and her mustachio-twirling "I'm so very evil" foil) did nothing to advance the film. Hearing Spartan warriors yammer about "freedom," "liberty," "free men" and (weirdly enough) "the potential of Greece" was jarring. Having one of them intone about "a world without mysticism" was downright strange, given that the plot hinges on the utterings of a drug-addled oracle. Way too many of the new lines sound like they ought to be engraved in bronze and tossed into Franco's Valley of the Fallen (http://www.feelmadrid.com/valleyofthefallen.html). You know, they have that sense of We Are Making History. I was reminded of that B-film (can't remember the name) where the knight runs into the room and shouts, "Sire, the French have begun the Hundred Years' War!"

King Xerxes is made to look nine feet tall, which may serve some purpose that eludes me. His lines are done entirely in a distracting voice-over. I don't care how bad the dude's voice is, I'd just like to hear it. God-kings don't have to have movie-trailer tones. (I kept waiting for Xerxes to say "In a world ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_LaFontaine)")

The first battle scene was really interesting. They made an attempt to show phalanx warfare (http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/history/phalanx.html), so props to the filmmakers for that. Their idea was an impenetrable wall of shields ... which would then be broken whenever a Spartan wanted to make a cool flourish with his spear. After that first scene they made no attempt to show the phalanx in action. All of the battles become John Woo-style ballets of single warriors leaping around killing loads of Persians. This is made very strange when their allies join in and do the exact same thing, and the voice-over says something like, "They were more bralwers than soldiers, no order to it at all. Amateurs." Except that we've been seeing the Spartans doing the exact same thing for thirty minutes.

Oh, that's another thing they added that did nothing to help the film. Since we need to know that the Persians are bad, bad I say, we get a scene near the beginning where they check out a village that has been slaughtered by nasty Persian people. A lone survivor manages to die gracefully, having just lived long enough to collapse in King Leonidas' arms. Anyway, this begs the question of how exactly they wound up behind the Persian army they're going to intercept. Frickin' Hollywood screenwriting rules (http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/02/writing-adaptation-pt-2.html), they never fail to irritate the Lemur.

Moving on ... the actual book 300 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(comic_book)) is quite short, so the filmmakers pad in a few different ways. First off, they add scenes, which are universally bad ideas from start to finish. The other technique is to have the actors take a very ... long ... time ... delivering their lines (http://www.ooze.com/ooze10/html/shatner.html). Example:

In the book, when Leonidas sends off his tale-teller to recount their story of bravery and doom, the messenger asks, "Any message for the queen?" And Leonidas responds, "Nothing that can be said in words." Simple. Clean. Done.

In the film version, the messenger spends at least twenty seconds working up to say, "Any message for ..." pause. Pause. Pause. "The queen?" Leonidas finally grunts. Pause. "Yes." Pause. Pause. Pause. Pause. Lots of pauses. "Nothing ... that can be said ... in words." Long pause as they both think about how important this is. Also some fiddling with a silly prop necklace that is supposed to have great meaning. Gah! Gah I say!

If you've read this far (a doubtful proposition, but still) you can tell I have problems with this movie. Despite my ragging, I still think it's worth seeing. It looks like no other movie. It tries to be faithful to the book. It's a big-budget history flick, a trend that should be encouraged. It's bold and brash. It has nothing like the stinking mediocrity of Gladiator (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/23367/the_pepsi_gladiators/).

Go see it. But lower your expectations.

Mooks

03-11-2007, 05:17

It seems to me that the movie says alot about spartans going on about "Freedom". Yet Sparta had thousands of slaves that were brutally terrorized by the spartan youth.

Strike For The South

03-11-2007, 09:34

A high body count and :daisy: this movie gets an A+

spmetla

03-11-2007, 10:41

I watched the movie today and to me it seems as if it was Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, and Troy all mixed into one. It had everything from the Gollum like hunchback, the elephants and rhinos and the strange cave troll like guy. Lots of stuff about freedom and saving greece, hell it even had Sith Lords acting as oracles!
With all this it was without a doubt an entertaining movie to watch. I knew it would be no where near what the actual events that happened so I went into the movie with that mind set and won't comment on historical things any further. The cinematography and lighting was well done and as mentioned by an earlier post here, seemed to add a theatric quality to it. The battle scenes were entertaining and somewhat new in that the spears were for the most part used as the primary weapons unlike Troy in which Brad Pitt is almost instantly using a sword. This aspect made the slow motion scenes (of which there were plenty) a bit better to watch because for some reason movies don't show people fighting with spears. There were of course plenty of scenes with sword fighting, especially when the ninja monkey Immortals show up.
The voicing was alright I guess, it was of course going to be in English and because they needed to make it foreign a whole bunch of English with a slight sterotypical Scottish accent were used. I wouldn't have minded this too much if it weren't for all the freedom speeches which kept reminding me of Bravehearts "Freedom!!!"
For special effects I guess that's limited to the fire crackers (naptha things like in MTW I assume) and the arrows blocking the sun, guess it's 90% computer animated anyhow so I'm not sure what more to comment on this.

The redeeming moments of the movie was for me the, if I may be so plain: the :daisy: shots. After having to watch guys in speedos stab each other with spears it was nice to have the occasional :daisy: thrown in there so the movie wasn't too 'manly'

That's my initial review, perhaps after letting it soak in overnight I'll edit in some more about it.

Adrian II

03-11-2007, 18:52

A high body count and :daisy: this movie gets an A+

Last edited by Banquo's Ghost:laugh4: I love the daisy.
Banquo's Ghost, you are certainly making your mark as a Moderator. :bow:

Soulforged

03-11-2007, 21:16

If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others."That arguement refutates itself. Reducing it to "freedom vs. tyranny" is a simplification, no matter who does it. Not because Herodotus was who he was, a man with a name, we're simply to say that he's right. As far as historical accuracy goes many things have to change movie-wise and also respecting the subject of freedom vs. tyranny, I think it was more like Greece vs. Persia, it will be naive to think that this battle could be reduced on all it's causes and consequences to that cheesy frase. And of course greek freedom was on trial, the same would have happened if the invader was Greece: persian freedom at trial.

Let's be serious though, nobody is going to see this movie to feel what the greeks felt, not even to live a modern representation of those supposed values at stake. People are going to watch it, because there's a lot of blood, impalements, sliced and pierced meet, but above all, there's a lot in the way of visuals, it's perhaps the most beatiful movie I've ever seen, so beatiful in fact that it makes every death seem like a portrait of a glorious moment, I could take every frame of the battle scenes and hang them on my wall. That doesn't mean that it's a good movie though...

Sasaki Kojiro

03-11-2007, 22:03

Edit: Oh, and the idea that the Spartans are some sort of Freedom Fighters tm fighting to protect all Greeks selflessly is a rather...romanticized...view of the stuff, really. Sparta was Sparta, not Greece. And they sure aren't fighting for "freedom" in the modern sense. Political freedom; state's freedom, may be, but convince me that the Spartans are champions of human rights...

hmm, I don't remember the movie claiming that. It seemed like that's what leonidas was saying to rile up his troops, doesn't have to be accurate in that case.

Adrian II

03-12-2007, 02:05

Sasaki Kojiro

03-12-2007, 02:12

*throws stone at Adrian*

It's an action movie.

Adrian II

03-12-2007, 02:14

*throws stone at Adrian*

It's an action movie.You missed.

Dynamic action and American self-understanding are not exactly mutually exclusive...

*ducks*

KukriKhan

03-12-2007, 02:15

Heh. I thought he did pretty good for a guy on cognac. :)

Adrian II

03-12-2007, 02:19

Heh. I thought he did pretty good for a guy on cognac. :)It's 'good', not 'god'. That little typo tells me it's early whisky hour at Kukri's. Am I right? ~D

I really miss my sip o 't French waters today. :shame:

I'll go see the movie when I can. Based on the Lemur's review and his remarks about scenery and background. Seems they use a specific limbo technique that creates a cartoony atmosphere. I love that sort of stuff (Sin City, etcetera) and its possibilities.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-12-2007, 02:33

You missed.

Dynamic action and American self-understanding are not exactly mutually exclusive...

*ducks*

When the director says he didn't intend any commentary, just an action movie...

*ricochet*

I think sparta = holland actually. Look at how tall all the spartans are. The "invasion" is actually "immigration of muslims" in this case. The director chose to make them dark skinned against all historical facts to indicate this...

:inquisitive:

Papewaio

03-12-2007, 02:38

You missed.

Dynamic action and American self-understanding are not exactly mutually exclusive...

*ducks*

However 16 year old hormones tend to focus on the action and ignore any of the self-understanding.

Adrian II

03-12-2007, 02:38

*ricochet*Ouch!

Actually it's the Belgospartans. The Netherpersians throw so many Gouda cheeses that they block the sun...

*weaves*

Suraknar

03-12-2007, 02:41

OK, I am going to go out on a limb here.

This movie is not about Sparta or Thermopylae, it is about the self-image of the United States. Freedom from tyranny is what the U.S. is supposed to be all about, and so, apparently, is this movie. We are shown a contingent of martial Amerispartans who make a stand against tyranny on behalf of al the freedom-loving nations of the world. Their sacrifice buys us time to get (re)organized, to evacuate our cities, prepare our fleets for Salamis and constitute our phalanges for Plataea. The enemy believes in Ahura Mazda - that other God - and allows itself to be slavishly whipped into battle by a fabulously rich, cunning and merciless elite.

Sound familiar?

You may stone me now.

No stones for you, or anyone else for that matter, we are beyond stoning or we are not at all, plain and simple.

I dont find your analogy rediculus really, knowing that there is many things from both ancient Greece and ancient Rome incorporated in the symbolism and values of the U.S. who comparativelly is a new country and had the luxury to choose its own Symbols and Values, coincidently people from the US, artists, writters cinematographers, that have grown influenced by such values, will inherently express them in one form or the other through their work.

It goes without saying, at least for me.

That being said, and knowing these things, they do not constitute a virtual wall in the decision of watching a movie, an artistic interpretation of Historical events with the goal of entertainment.

Adrian II

03-12-2007, 02:43

However 16 year old hormones tend to focus on the action and ignore any of the self-understanding.Yikes!

OK, but self-understanding does not have to be immediate or profound, it can even be subconscious and come in the form of innocent identification and 'feel-good'.

*bleeds*

Adrian II

03-12-2007, 02:48

No stones for you (..)*squints suspiciously*
I dont find your analogy rediculus really, knowing that there is many things from both ancient Greece and ancient Rome incorporated in the symbolism and values of the U.S.Yes, it's enough to read Kaplan's Warrior Politics or recall Charles Krauthammer going: 'The fact is, no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history of the world since the Roman empire.'

*bobs*

KukriKhan

03-12-2007, 02:55

It's 'good', not 'god'. That little typo tells me it's early whisky hour at Kukri's. Am I right?

Note to self: figger out some way to stop getting busted by Dutchmen. :)

Mr. J. Daniels and I are trying to re-establish relations, yes.

Adrian II

03-12-2007, 03:02

Mr. J. Daniels and I are trying to re-establish relations, yes.Don't worry, he's the yielding type. Monsieur Courvoisier, of similar persuasion, is sorely missed here.

I'm off to bed, it's been a while. https://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2969/pillowsleeppo4.gif (https://imageshack.us)

Lemur

03-12-2007, 04:08

Funniest comment I've yet read about the movie:

Those who try to deconstruct the movie into a statement on the current war, or who say that it is racist or (most glaringly wrong) anti-gay are utterly missing the point. Everyone (perhaps excluding the Queen) in the film is gay. You have the butch gym queens of Sparta (I mean can any chisled man run around in speedos and a cape and call himself straight?), and the pierced, shaved, and bejeweled bar queens of Persia. It's gay-on-gay violence, pure and simple.

KukriKhan

03-12-2007, 04:22

Sandals 'n Swords epics have always been subject to such criticism, since at least 1959 Hercules with Steve Reeves.

Let's be careful to not further the aims of stereotypes and bigotry by quoting unattributed bash-pieces.

Lemur

03-12-2007, 04:49

Sorry, Kukri, I just got an unexpected belly-laugh from the image of bar queens versus gym queens. And although it might not sound it, the writer was praising the film. As he also writes:

All those beautiful, beautiful men dancing around in briefs and capes. It almost brought me to tears. It is perhaps the gayest movie that I've ever seen that wasn't porn.

I have no doubt that a red-blooded gay man might appreciate the film in a very different way from a tower of heterosexuality like Strike from the South. Both are perfectly correct in their way, just as I am also correct in my fit of nit-picking and irritation.

But no matter how much gay men may appreciate 300, it will still never be the gayest film of all time. Top Gun (http://www.ieatpaint.com/topgun/) is safe for now.

KukriKhan

03-12-2007, 05:21

Touche', and point appreciated. :bow:

Pindar

03-12-2007, 21:25

I might have written 'such lines' to make myself clearer.

Where would the addition of "such as" have clarified this statement of yours:

"There are no Spartan 'lines' mentioned in Herodotus." ?

It seems clear to me your statement was a simple error. Maybe the "such as" is meant for something I didn't comment on. This would be odd, but this was your following statement: "Nothing about freedom either, which would have been amiss anyway since according to Herodotus, Leonidas stayed behind and died because he was inspired by an oracle, not by 'freedom'."

I already commented on Leonidas' choice to sacrifice himself. As to the freedom comment: this would again suggest an unfamiliarity with the text as Herodotus does make explicit reference to it. A simple example (by Spartans no less):

"Men of Lacedaemon, why will ye not consent to be friends with the king? Ye have but to look at me and my fortune to see that the king knows well how to honor merit. In like manner ye yourselves, were ye to make your submission to him, would receive at his hands, seeing that he deems you men of merit, some government in Greece."
"Hydarnes," they answered, "thou art a one-sided counselor. Thou hast experience of half the matter; but the other half is beyond thy knowledge. A slave's life thou understandest; but, never having tasted liberty, thou canst not tell whether it be sweet or no. Ah! hadst thou known what freedom is, thou wouldst have bidden us fight for it, not with the spear only, but with the battle-axe."

Another reference, as two is better than one (again from a Spartan):

"So likewise the Lacedaemonians, when they fight singly, are as good men as any in the world, and when they fight in a body, are the bravest of all. For though they be free-men, they are not in all respects free; Law is the master whom they own; and this master they fear more than thy subjects fear thee."

Whether the addition of "such as" was meant to clarify the original comment on there being no Spartan lines in Herodotus or referred to there being no statements about freedom in Herodotus, both were/are in error.

Exactly. Hansen (and the movie director, apparently) twists it into something different.

No, he does not. From Hanson: "Again, purists must remember that 300 seeks to bring a comic book, not Herodotus, to the screen."

Spartan mentality is not a model or example for all time, as he suggests.

I don't think this is suggested. "The (Dutchman) doth protest too much, methinks."

Adrian II

03-13-2007, 00:16

Where would the addition of "such as" have clarified this statement of yours:My dear Pindar, all this has been dealt with above.

As for Hansen's suggestion that this is an example for all generations, here it is.
In universal terms, a small, free people had willingly outfought huge numbers of imperial subjects who advanced under the lash. More specifically, the Western idea that soldiers themselves decide where, how, and against whom they will fight was contrasted against the Eastern notion of despotism and monarchy — freedom proving the stronger idea as the more courageous fighting of the Greeks at Thermopylae, and their later victories at Salamis and Plataea attested.

Greek writers and poets such as Simonides and Herodotus were fascinated by the Greek sacrifice against Xerxes, and especially the heroism of Leonidas and his men. And subsequently throughout Western literature poets as diverse as Lord Byron and A.E. Houseman have likewise paid homage to the Spartan last stand — and this universal idea of Western soldiers willing to die as free men rather than to submit to tyranny.A 'universal idea of Western soldiers', no less. An anachronism on top of a contradiction.

Maybe the Master of the Horse should chose his reviews more wisely. ~;)

Pindar

03-13-2007, 01:05

My dear Pindar, all this has been dealt with above.

Where has the categorical: 'no Spartan lines' or 'nothing about freedom' in Herodotus, or the "such as" qualifier been dealt with?

As for Hansen's suggestion that this is an example for all generations, here it is.
In universal terms, a small, free people had willingly outfought huge numbers of imperial subjects who advanced under the lash. More specifically, the Western idea that soldiers themselves decide where, how, and against whom they will fight was contrasted against the Eastern notion of despotism and monarchy — freedom proving the stronger idea as the more courageous fighting of the Greeks at Thermopylae, and their later victories at Salamis and Plataea attested.

Greek writers and poets such as Simonides and Herodotus were fascinated by the Greek sacrifice against Xerxes, and especially the heroism of Leonidas and his men. And subsequently throughout Western literature poets as diverse as Lord Byron and A.E. Houseman have likewise paid homage to the Spartan last stand — and this universal idea of Western soldiers willing to die as free men rather than to submit to tyranny.A 'universal idea of Western soldiers', no less. An anachronism on top of a contradiction.

Maybe the Master of the Horse should chose his reviews more wisely. ~;)

With the above what is your specific complaint?

Is it: a smaller people outfought a larger imperial force?

Is it: there is a Western idea of freedom as opposed to an Eastern notion of despotism?

Is it: the Greeks were more courageous in fighting at Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea?

Is it: Greek writers were fascinated by the Greek sacrifice?

Is it: Leonidas and his fellows were given a recognized place is subsequent Western Literature?

Is it: the idea of a willing sacrifice to be free from tyranny?

Adrian II

03-13-2007, 01:45

ith the above what is your specific complaint?Oh my, Pindar - isn't that obvious? It is the notion that the 300 Spartans would represent a 'universal idea of Western soldiers'.

And there are no Spartan lines in Herodotus that confirm their freedom-loving nature, unless in the restricted sense of attachment to their local autonomy. This has been explained in prior posts.

Papewaio

03-13-2007, 05:18

[cynic mode]
Is it: a smaller people outfought a larger imperial force?
A small elite force of royalist who outfought a larger imperial force. This same army that was beaten did not help its neighbours when they were in trouble, and later on when the time was ripe tried to put them under their heels.

Is it: there is a Western idea of freedom as opposed to an Eastern notion of despotism?
A small elite nobility and royalty that decides the fate of everyone else is not Western freedom.

Is it: the Greeks were more courageous in fighting at Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea?
When you are forced to fight or die then choosing a mountain pass seems more logical then courageous.

Is it: Greek writers were fascinated by the Greek sacrifice?
I'm sure many cultures have a fascination with their warriors and how they died.

Is it: Leonidas and his fellows were given a recognized place is subsequent Western Literature? I would be more interested to see how a third party or the enemy wrote about them. I would say that the 300 that were wrote about a hundred years after the event are as factual as those written 2000 years, whatever sells or serves propaganda spreads.

Is it: the idea of a willing sacrifice to be free from tyranny?
To be free to impose tyranny on the helots rather and surrounding Greek city states... who saves the saved from the saviour? The Spartans were amazing warriors, they were not liberators but enslavers.
[/cynic mode]

I think the Afghans vs the Russians had more in common with the 300 Spartans in reality. Small hard force that beat a superior number of troops.

However it is the legend, and more importantly the comic book version of it that is linked to Western ideals that is important.

Also it is the sacrifice and sheer stubbornness of the warriors and their willingness to die which impresses the modern movie man whose sense of duty is to which TV network they get their news diet.

Keeping with the numbers and willingness to die, modern movie man admires the likes of the 47 Ronin. Not only are they willing to fight to the death to avenge their lord, once they have won, they quite merrily slice their taunt stomaches into pieces so they can die with honor. We of course watch this while balancing a litre of cola on our beer guts and thinking cool!

The link between the 300 in history and who we westerners today as a whole is on the whole farcical. It is like most of us comparing ourselves to Special Forces or Olympic athletes... we can admire what they do, but that level of motivation that we admire is not something many of us employ.

Xiahou

03-13-2007, 05:37

Major Robert Dump

03-13-2007, 07:55

Incongruous

03-13-2007, 10:49

All Hail the Dump:shame:

Adrian II

03-13-2007, 11:00

Pull the corncobs out of your buttholes and enjoy a bloody, stylized old-style war flick. It's not there to be a history lesson, its there to be a take on cartoon strip.The origial incident is presented by Hansen as a moral lesson. That's why we discuss the subject matter in detail, not the movie. I can dig a cheap flick like the next hillbilly. 'The cheaper they are, the badder they are' (Frank Zappa).

*pulls corncob out of butt*

Redleg

03-13-2007, 13:54

Pull the corncobs out of your buttholes and enjoy a bloody, stylized old-style war flick. It's not there to be a history lesson, its there to be a take on cartoon strip.

Did I get frustrated when they broke phalanx and left the valley? yeah. Did I cryl "raise your shields" when they stood and stared at the first incoming volley of arrows? yeah. Do I hate witty banter during bloody fight scenes? yeah. But its not like I expected to learn anything from the movie or had any questions as to how the story ended. It was fun and worth a matinee at the least. Better than troy, or alexander, or LOTR. And I got homemade pot pie and sex afterwards

Oh, and I loved the pope hat the hunchback retard wore later in the movie.

Me too brother, except my meal was bloodly pot roast, yummy in the tummy.

As an action flick it meant all the main parts; explosions, violence, and sex. :2thumbsup:

As a film to make one think of the current times, it did rather poorly. Hince I decided to ignore that part of the film and focus on the above mentions requirements for an action flick.

Adrian II

03-13-2007, 14:40

As a film to make one think of the current times, it did rather poorly. Hince I decided to ignore that part of the film and focus on the above mentions requirements for an action flick.I understand you approach. But the impact of a movie is not necessarily that it makes you think. It appeals to an audience emotionally as well, though identification. And identification often precedes thinking, if thinking is involved at all.

Hitchcock (and who better to pick as a teacher) once gave a simple example of this. I could start a movie in two different ways, he said:

1. I could start a movie by showing a man rummaging through the cupboards and drawers of a half-lit room. This is followed by a shot of feet walking down a pavement. The next shot shows the man rummaging about more frantically. Then another of shot of the feet, walking a tad faster. Result: the audience would like to shout to the man in the room: "Look out, someone's coming!"

2. I could start the movie by showing a man full frontal as he walks down a pavement in broad daylight. Then I cut to the half-lit room and show a shot of a man's hands rummaging in the closets. Then back to the first man walking innocently up the steps to a house and taking a key from his pocket. At this point the audience is ready to shout: 'Look out, there's someone in your house!"

In both cases, Hitchcock said, he had the audience by the you-know-whats before they had time to think what was actually going on in those shots. They would indentify with one character or another based on the flimsiest of movie conventions.

In the same way audiences can made to identify with the Spartans and anything they might represent in the movie, and yet come away with the feeling they have only seen an action flick, nuttin' more.

Proletariat

03-13-2007, 15:03

What 'current times' is 300 supposedly making a commentary on? I've seen a couple reviews so far that pointed out in these 'war weary' times that 300 came across as insensitive or obtuse.

You all know that the comic it was based almost page for page off of, was written about 9 years ago? When the clever and always fresh 'why do u hate freedom lol' jokes weren't even common place on the internet.

I liked the movie alot, last time an action movie was that fun was when Terminator 2 was in theaters. Hearing Hansen bloviating on it and the rest of you tearing it apart is ruining a perfectly stupid and fun action movie.

(Can anyone find what Noam Chomski's thoughts on The Big Lebowski are? DYING TO FIND OUT!!11)

Redleg

03-13-2007, 15:32

I understand you approach. But the impact of a movie is not necessarily that it makes you think. It appeals to an audience emotionally as well, though identification. And identification often precedes thinking, if thinking is involved at all.

Hitchcock (and who better to pick as a teacher) once gave a simple example of this. I could start a movie in two different ways, he said:

1. I could start a movie by showing a man rummaging through the cupboards and drawers of a half-lit room. This is followed by a shot of feet walking down a pavement. The next shot shows the man rummaging about more frantically. Then another of shot of the feet, walking a tad faster. Result: the audience would like to shout to the man in the room: "Look out, someone's coming!"

2. I could start the movie by showing a man full frontal as he walks down a pavement in broad daylight. Then I cut to the half-lit room and show a shot of a man's hands rummaging in the closets. Then back to the first man walking innocently up the steps to a house and taking a key from his pocket. At this point the audience is ready to shout: 'Look out, there's someone in your house!"

In both cases, Hitchcock said, he had the audience by the you-know-whats before they had time to think what was actually going on in those shots. They would indentify with one character or another based on the flimsiest of movie conventions.

In the same way audiences can made to identify with the Spartans and anything they might represent in the movie, and yet come away with the feeling they have only seen an action flick, nuttin' more.

For some this may be true, all I got out of the movie was that it was an excellent attempt at an action movie, but a piss poor attempt at a historical tell.

But then I don't pay much attention to film, I get my deep thought from reading.

caravel

03-13-2007, 15:36

I understand you approach. But the impact of a movie is not necessarily that it makes you think. It appeals to an audience emotionally as well, though identification. And identification often precedes thinking, if thinking is involved at all.

Hitchcock (and who better to pick as a teacher) once gave a simple example of this. I could start a movie in two different ways, he said:

1. I could start a movie by showing a man rummaging through the cupboards and drawers of a half-lit room. This is followed by a shot of feet walking down a pavement. The next shot shows the man rummaging about more frantically. Then another of shot of the feet, walking a tad faster. Result: the audience would like to shout to the man in the room: "Look out, someone's coming!"

2. I could start the movie by showing a man full frontal as he walks down a pavement in broad daylight. Then I cut to the half-lit room and show a shot of a man's hands rummaging in the closets. Then back to the first man walking innocently up the steps to a house and taking a key from his pocket. At this point the audience is ready to shout: 'Look out, there's someone in your house!"

In both cases, Hitchcock said, he had the audience by the you-know-whats before they had time to think what was actually going on in those shots. They would indentify with one character or another based on the flimsiest of movie conventions.

In the same way audiences can made to identify with the Spartans and anything they might represent in the movie, and yet come away with the feeling they have only seen an action flick, nuttin' more.
:bow:

Unfortunately the old 'good vs evil' struggle for freedom stuff combined with the usual emotional and thinly veiled patriotic drivel/cheese, tends to be the basic formula for such "epics". Nothing new, standard Hollywood etc, likely to change? No.

I'm glad I read Lemur's review as I now definitely know not to bother.

:2thumbsup:

ShadeHonestus

03-13-2007, 16:00

Is it: there is a Western idea of freedom as opposed to an Eastern notion of despotism?
A small elite nobility and royalty that decides the fate of everyone else is not Western freedom.

Is it: the Greeks were more courageous in fighting at Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea?
When you are forced to fight or die then choosing a mountain pass seems more logical then courageous.

Is it: Greek writers were fascinated by the Greek sacrifice?
I'm sure many cultures have a fascination with their warriors and how they died.

Is it: the idea of a willing sacrifice to be free from tyranny?
To be free to impose tyranny on the helots rather and surrounding Greek city states... who saves the saved from the saviour? The Spartans were amazing warriors, they were not liberators but enslavers.

You miss the entire basis of Greek culture and that which put them at a state of freedom compared to its eastern neighbors. I'll tell it again for all those who missed the previous point. The Greek culture embraced humanism, individualism, and secularism with an eye on tomorrow being better than today. The eastern cultures springing from Persia and Egypt were in distinct contrast to this in their mission to make tomorrow like today. This is early civilization and culture 101 stuff. Within this context the Spartans could be liberators of the ideals yet enslavers and embrace heroic actions of the individual. The entire Spartan civilian population lived liked an armed camp, it embraced that lifestyle for many reasons, including their slave population. They were not themselves slaves whipped into battle by a small ruling nobility. You don't have to look further than the unending number of would be leaders and heroes claiming descent directly from Heracles to find this heroic ideal a common thread throughout Greece.

You also have to remember that the point of the real story of the 300 has its emphasis on being Greek, that those most warrior like Greeks held out in the most warrior like fashion. The last action, taken by the Spartans, in fact, preserved Athens which was largely a direct democracy. Athens was at another range in the spectrum of humanism, individualism and secularism. The Athenians wanted their individuals and their heroic pursuits great, but in manageable doses. Every year they'd gather and collectively take to the ostraka against anyone they fear gained too much influence or stood too tall.

Of course if you don't want to listen to somebody like me who has had many colleagues who have worked directly on the subject from both sides(and thus forced to listen on many occasions with or without personal interest), you could just read the Iliad and understand the majority of Greek ideals.

Sjakihata

03-13-2007, 16:13

I'll tell it again for all those who missed the previous point. The Greek culture embraced humanism, individualism, and secularism with an eye on tomorrow being better than today.

This is not the case. All of those words are anachronistic in the sense you use them combined with Greek culture and citystates.
Especially humanism and secularism are notions of the age of Enlightenment and the renaissance (humanism).
Also Greek culture believed in a cyclic cosmos and had no idea of linear time as we do have (introduced by Christianity).

Perhaps we agree, but I thought your claims came across wrongly and wanted to correct that.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-13-2007, 16:21

I understand you approach. But the impact of a movie is not necessarily that it makes you think. It appeals to an audience emotionally as well, though identification. And identification often precedes thinking, if thinking is involved at all.

Hitchcock (and who better to pick as a teacher) once gave a simple example of this. I could start a movie in two different ways, he said:

1. I could start a movie by showing a man rummaging through the cupboards and drawers of a half-lit room. This is followed by a shot of feet walking down a pavement. The next shot shows the man rummaging about more frantically. Then another of shot of the feet, walking a tad faster. Result: the audience would like to shout to the man in the room: "Look out, someone's coming!"

2. I could start the movie by showing a man full frontal as he walks down a pavement in broad daylight. Then I cut to the half-lit room and show a shot of a man's hands rummaging in the closets. Then back to the first man walking innocently up the steps to a house and taking a key from his pocket. At this point the audience is ready to shout: 'Look out, there's someone in your house!"

In both cases, Hitchcock said, he had the audience by the you-know-whats before they had time to think what was actually going on in those shots. They would indentify with one character or another based on the flimsiest of movie conventions.

In the same way audiences can made to identify with the Spartans and anything they might represent in the movie, and yet come away with the feeling they have only seen an action flick, nuttin' more.

umm yes "fighting for freedom" and such is a message sent by the movie (and lots of movies). It's also very transparent that it makes you feel that way.

It's not any more brainwashing than any other movie, or the nows, or this forum though...

Lemur

03-13-2007, 16:37

I liked the movie alot, last time an action movie was that fun was when Terminator 2 was in theaters. Hearing Hansen bloviating on it and the rest of you tearing it apart is ruining a perfectly stupid and fun action movie.
Forgive us, lady. Surely, though, you can understand the historical nit-picking, given that we're on a board dedicated to historical military sims? We're all geeks for greeks, although I know that's no excuse ...

(Can anyone find what Noam Chomski's thoughts on The Big Lebowski are? DYING TO FIND OUT!!11)
Is this for real? Big Lebowski is possibly the Lemur's favorite film ever. I even named my cat The Dude.

Proletariat

03-13-2007, 16:46

Hands down my favorite as well! I find a new gem every single time I watch it.

As far as people thinking this was a brain washing, propaganda piece, that's like your opinion, man. But I was more grousing about that than any historical factuality nit picking.

Pannonian

03-13-2007, 17:11

ShadeHonestus

03-13-2007, 17:16

Especially humanism and secularism are notions of the age of Enlightenment and the renaissance (humanism).

The renaissance was a rebirth of greco-roman thought and hence the rebirth of humanism and secularism. I actually prefer to call it the reflowering of greco-roman thought as it was always there, just below the surface.

The cyclic cosmos was one school of thought found in many philosophies often contempltated in the great conflaguration. However, linear time was distinctly a current in Greek philosophy and way of life, from mathematics and geometery to the point in that they just didn't want to know, but to know more and not be satisfied with what was known, in fact to question everything known even at the moment of a known's concpetion. Knowledge was nothing to be absolute. Eastern in contrast was distinct in the satisfaction of knowing and the acquisiton of that known.

ShadeHonestus

03-13-2007, 17:29

You seem to be taking the best aspects of Greek civilisation and expanding it to describe Greece as a whole. No doubt doing the same from the Persian perspective would create an equally attractive idealised society.

Actually yes, and I did. The Persian is in direct contrast to that of the Greek.

For another perspective of the attractiveness of Spartan society, note that under half the total armed strength of Sparta would be made available at any one time, as substantial strength had to be kept in Laconia to keep the helots in check. The Spartan slave class was viciously suppressed, even by the standards of those barbaric times, and the Spartans expected them to rise up given half a chance.

In fact rites of passage to formal military standing included the killing of a slave without discovery.

Of course this home brewed slave brutality did not stop them from freeing many slaves of their enemies in war.

Thermopylae was a heroic stand, but don't talk about it being the triumph of western civilisation and ideals. There were numerous Greek communities Sparta ceded to Persia to settle the Peloponnesian wars, and AFAIK they didn't suffer under Persian rule in comparison to their mainland counterparts, who enjoyed freedom and constant fraternal war.

The majority of those ceded, with exceptions, were largely greek colonies at one point. Its not by accident that this place, free from Persian subjugation, became the birthplace of most which we consider western. It is in fact, the first principle in being western. Without its independant development the world would be so very different.

Sjakihata

03-13-2007, 18:40

The renaissance was a rebirth of greco-roman thought and hence the rebirth of humanism and secularism. I actually prefer to call it the reflowering of greco-roman thought as it was always there, just below the surface.

The cyclic cosmos was one school of thought found in many philosophies often contempltated in the great conflaguration. However, linear time was distinctly a current in Greek philosophy and way of life, from mathematics and geometery to the point in that they just didn't want to know, but to know more and not be satisfied with what was known, in fact to question everything known even at the moment of a known's concpetion. Knowledge was nothing to be absolute. Eastern in contrast was distinct in the satisfaction of knowing and the acquisiton of that known.

Humanism was not to be found in Greek culture. I would argue that Seneca and Cicero was perhaps the inspirators for the european renaissance humanism found in Thomas More and others. Agreed that you can find roots in Greek thought, but to say that a system of humanism was to be found in Greek intellectual history is wrong. Although renaissance means rebirth, it does not mean that nothing new was coming from that period, only that it was inspired from greco-roman tradition. Humanism as we know it was derived from the renaissance - and not from the Greek. To say otherwise would be an anachronism and wouldnt make sense, it is two distinctly separate concepts. One should be careful not to idealize ancient times and simple transfer their concepts to the present day. This is the main flaw of philosophy a flaw that a careful historian seeks to correct.

And I plainly don't understand you take on the notion of time in ancient Hellas. The understanding of time has nothing to do with the formal sciences. In ancient Greece time was a very diffuse conception and one that you didnt measure as we do it today. You referred to your lineage and once forgotten it was simply not relevant any more. That means that you didnt remembered the past as we do it, history wasn't written in the same way and the notion that you could learn from the past was not present in Greek thought. In the same way you had no aspirations to the future - actually (as one of my professors have noted) cyclic time isn't very descriptive of Greek sense of time, rather it is one big very contained universe of humdrum not moving in any general way.

Pannonian

03-13-2007, 18:52

The majority of those ceded, with exceptions, were largely greek colonies at one point. Its not by accident that this place, free from Persian subjugation, became the birthplace of most which we consider western. It is in fact, the first principle in being western. Without its independant development the world would be so very different.
How did the communities of Greek Asia fare under Persian rule? Was the progress of western civilisation severely retarded in places like Mytilene, Halicarnassus, etc. during the Persian period? Or did it continue with barely any interference?

Banquo's Ghost

03-13-2007, 19:01

Well, apparently the Persians are still hacked off (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6446183.stm) about the whole thing.

Iran condemns Hollywood war epic

Historical war epic 300 has been criticised as an attack on Iranian culture by government figures.

The Hollywood film, which has broken US box office records, is an effects-laden retelling of a battle in which a small Greek army resisted a Persian invasion.

Javad Shamqadri, a cultural advisor to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said it was "plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization".

He branded the film "psychological warfare" against Tehran and its people.

But Iranian culture was strong enough to withstand the assault, Mr Shamqadri said.

"American cultural officials thought they could get mental satisfaction by plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization," he said.

"Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the US initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture.

"Certainly, the recent movie is a product of such studies."

Daily newspaper Ayandeh-No carried the headline "Hollywood declares war on Iranians".

The paper said: "It seeks to tell people that Iran, which is in the Axis of Evil now, has for long been the source of evil and modern Iranians' ancestors are the ugly murderous dumb savages you see in 300."

Three MPs in the Iranian parliament have also written to the foreign ministry to protest against the production and screening of this "anti-Iranian Hollywood film".

The film has already proved a major box office hit in the US where it earned almost $71m (£36.8m) in its first weekend, making it the best ever March opening in North American cinemas.

This is not the first time Iran has protested over its portrayal in films made in the West.

There was outrage over the 2004 epic Alexander which showed the Macedonian general easily conquering the Persian Empire.

Crikey, I thought we Irish had long memories. :shocked2:

ShadeHonestus

03-13-2007, 19:39

Although renaissance means rebirth, it does not mean that nothing new was coming from that period, only that it was inspired from greco-roman tradition.

It was the rebirth and inspiration from greco-roman thought that spawned the flowering and innovation of the time.

Humanism as we know it was derived from the renaissance - and not from the Greek. To say otherwise would be an anachronism and wouldnt make sense, it is two distinctly separate concepts. One should be careful not to idealize ancient times and simple transfer their concepts to the present day. This is the main flaw of philosophy a flaw that a careful historian seeks to correct.

This is absolutely incorrect my friend and please don't take that in a derogatory manner. The term humanism was not coined a philosophy until the renaissance and from there it further flowered under those who you mention. Man as the measure of all things, which is the definition of humanism is distinctly and absolutely Greek. The earliest recognizable humanist was a well known Greek, Protagoras, in the 5th or 4th (:help:) century BC.

And I plainly don't understand you take on the notion of time in ancient Hellas. The understanding of time has nothing to do with the formal sciences.

The formal sciences are the practical side of rational thought.

In ancient Greece time was a very diffuse conception and one that you didnt measure as we do it today. You referred to your lineage and once forgotten it was simply not relevant any more.

Absolutely incorrect.

That means that you didnt remembered the past as we do it, history wasn't written in the same way and the notion that you could learn from the past was not present in Greek thought.

You don't have to look further than the study of Virtue in Thucydides' work to know that this is absolutely incorrect. Hell look at the plays by Euripides and say this again, you cannot.

In the same way you had no aspirations to the future - actually (as one of my professors have noted) cyclic time isn't very descriptive of Greek sense of time, rather it is one big very contained universe of humdrum not moving in any general way.

See above. I'm sorry to tell you this, but that professor is letting you down.

The modern idea of linear time, if you mean "Christian" (as you had mentioned earlier) is in a conflict of the secular and the here after. Beyond that, the formal nature as demonstrated in art, science, philosophy is one of linear time, even if in some schools, that time follows a pattern. It is beginning here and will end up there, in the Greek mind.

How did the communities of Greek Asia fare under Persian rule? Was the progress of western civilisation severely retarded in places like Mytilene, Halicarnassus, etc. during the Persian period? Or did it continue with barely any interference?

They continued under the direct rule of autocrats who while under the umbrella of Persian rule, varied greatly in allegiance between Athens and Persia. Largely the ideas of polis and polemos were allowed to thrive, it would have been a mistake not to as these Greeks were more useful as an ally on the frontier with free-Greece than a direct enemy. Remember the idea that controlled diplomacy in this region was fear. One was a fear of power exerted by influence of economics (example: ability in piracy suppresion), the other was a fear of coming under the rule of another's power. The Asian Greek city states were in a situation to directly affect both for Persian and Greek alike. If you remove entirely the ability of one or the other the nature of the relationship changes.

The Wizard

03-13-2007, 19:43

At risk of repeating someone else's previous comment on the matter: Iranians are angry at (and signing petitions against) this movie, saying that it's historically incorrect and completely misrepresenting the armies and culture of Achaemenid Iran.

Aside from the political allegations (many Iranians are saying the same as Adrian II): they have a bloody darned good point.

EDIT: Whoops, just saw a previous comment on the matter. As Banquo's Ghost says.

Adrian II

03-13-2007, 20:20

Aside from the political allegations (many Iranians are saying the same as Adrian II): they have a bloody darned good point.Oh great, now I'm guilty by association.

As if there wasn't enough semi-literate comment in this thread, I now stand accused of ranting off about a conspiracy of 'American culture officials'. Pray in what post did I refer to such a conspiracy?

Next thing, I suppose the Iranians are also going to quote that postmodern feminist Alfred Hitchcock who didn't know how to throw together a half-decent action scene anyway.

I should have known.. :dizzy2:

ShadeHonestus

03-13-2007, 20:26

Next thing, I suppose the Iranians are also going to quote that postmodern feminist Alfred Hitchcock who didn't know how to throw together a half-decent action scene anyway.

I believe that is the first time a post on these forums has had the power to make me sincerly laugh in humor. :laugh4:

Honestly, why don't the protest Gigli or Ishtar?

Lemur

03-13-2007, 20:29

As if there wasn't enough semi-literate comment in this thread, I now stand accused of ranting off about a conspiracy of 'American culture officials'. Pray in what post did I refer to such a conspiracy?
Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?

The Wizard

03-13-2007, 20:36

Oh great, now I'm guilty by association.

As if there wasn't enough semi-literate comment in this thread, I now stand accused of ranting off about a conspiracy of 'American culture officials'. Pray in what post did I refer to such a conspiracy?

Next thing, I suppose the Iranians are also going to quote that postmodern feminist Alfred Hitchcock who didn't know how to throw together a half-decent action scene anyway.

I should have known.. :dizzy2:

Err... I was just saying, without using the words themselves, that Iranians are of the opinion that this is nothing but Hollywood propaganda against Iran.

My point in saying that was that, while I agree with their comments on the horrendous historical inaccuracy of the movie (which I take for granted, seeing as its based on a -- really cool -- comic), I don't, in the least, agree with those allegations.

So you weren't declared guilty by association... you were just abused as a tool to state something more easily and quickly ~D

Adrian II

03-13-2007, 20:44

So you weren't declared guilty by association... you were just abused as a tool to state something more easily and quickly ~DThank you, I feel better now. :mellow:

@ShadeHonestus. Dutchmen are drowning for mankind every day.

@Lemur. Will you marry me? In an off-hand, manly sort of way? :wink3:

drone

03-13-2007, 21:34

At risk of repeating someone else's previous comment on the matter: Iranians are angry at (and signing petitions against) this movie, saying that it's historically incorrect and completely misrepresenting the armies and culture of Achaemenid Iran.
The Greeks could probably say the same thing...

Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?:laugh4: Might have to siggy that one.

Strike For The South

03-13-2007, 22:06

This is really simple. The Spartans represent Texans and the Perisnans are Mexicans led by Xerexs the evil Yankee overlord. The Texans are trying to defend ouyrseleves from a massive invasion

ShadeHonestus

03-13-2007, 22:32

This is really simple. The Spartans represent Texans and the Perisnans are Mexicans led by Xerexs the evil Yankee overlord. The Texans are trying to defend ouyrseleves from a massive invasion

Billy Bob Thorton as Leonidas?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-13-2007, 22:34

"Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

It's relativism, not humanism, I will agree with you about the Greek notion of time, in that they believed you could learn from it, but the conception was cyclic. Herodotus and Thukydides both believed history was destined to repeat, that's why their works move in cycles.

Here's a little factoid for you:

1,300 odd Greek states. 30 in the Alliance at the time of Plataea. The idea of Greek unity is specifically a construct of Herodotus because he was (probably) writing at the time of the truce in the Peloponesian War.

The idea of a Greek identity goes back to Homer and the Iliad, at least.

ShadeHonestus

03-13-2007, 23:01

"Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

It's relativism, not humanism

Man is the measure of all things
Values assigned from the norm of his existence and experience.
Anthropocentric.
Placing humans as the central principle.

That is Greek Humanism.

Here's a little factoid for you:

1,300 odd Greek states. 30 in the Alliance at the time of Plataea. The idea of Greek unity is specifically a construct of Herodotus because he was (probably) writing at the time of the truce in the Peloponesian War.

The idea of a Greek identity goes back to Homer and the Iliad, at least.

Furthermore Greek unity was a construct of Thucydides in his writings as a lesson and call for virtue. Euripides states in one of his plays, (terrible paraphrase and memory)"They know what they ought to do, but they do not do it," when speaking of the factionalism and the need to unify as they had done previously when it suited them. Albeit never entirely.

Papewaio

03-13-2007, 23:27

You miss the entire basis of Greek culture and that which put them at a state of freedom compared to its eastern neighbors. I'll tell it again for all those who missed the previous point. The Greek culture embraced humanism, individualism, and secularism with an eye on tomorrow being better than today. The eastern cultures springing from Persia and Egypt were in distinct contrast to this in their mission to make tomorrow like today. This is early civilization and culture 101 stuff.

You could have at least quoted that it was in cynic mode. I love the Spartans for what they were, fierce disciplined highly motivated warriors.

Humanism is not elitist cadres of warriors oppressing their fellow man.
Individualism is definitely not what even the average Spartan warrior was. They were raised, trained, lived, ate and fought as a company.
Secularism is not listening to religious Oracles and then fighting to the death over it, nor is it not sending your army because you are celebrating a religious festival. Spartans were most definitely not secularists.

If we use what a culture is on just an elite few and not take an honest look at what the rest live like, then that isfactual as in 2500 years from now saying that our society was populated by people who all live like Paris Hilton and Astronauts.

Within this context the Spartans could be liberators of the ideals yet enslavers and embrace heroic actions of the individual. The entire Spartan civilian population lived liked an armed camp, it embraced that lifestyle for many reasons, including their slave population. They were not themselves slaves whipped into battle by a small ruling nobility. You don't have to look further than the unending number of would be leaders and heroes claiming descent directly from Heracles to find this heroic ideal a common thread throughout Greece.

Yes the Helots lovingly charged into battle out of sheer devotion for the freedoms afforded them by their masters. The Spartans were no different in context to the Persians, the only real difference was the Persians pulled it off at a larger magnitude. Might as well state that the Confederates were fighting to stop slavery. I'm still pretty certain that every culture has heroes that they look up to and that isn't just a greek thing.

You also have to remember that the point of the real story of the 300 has its emphasis on being Greek, that those most warrior like Greeks held out in the most warrior like fashion. The last action, taken by the Spartans, in fact, preserved Athens which was largely a direct democracy. Athens was at another range in the spectrum of humanism, individualism and secularism. The Athenians wanted their individuals and their heroic pursuits great, but in manageable doses. Every year they'd gather and collectively take to the ostraka against anyone they fear gained too much influence or stood too tall.

Of course if you don't want to listen to somebody like me who has had many colleagues who have worked directly on the subject from both sides(and thus forced to listen on many occasions with or without personal interest), you could just read the Iliad and understand the majority of Greek ideals.

Again Athens direct democracy isn't anything like our modern version. Its more like members of the board in a company deciding the fate of the workers and how to spend all the lovely silver that was being mined by those who cannot vote.

What each of these greek states had were flavours of ideas that were partly used as inspiration for later models.

Now cynic mode off... I normally play the Spartans as much as possible in TW. Enslave cities, use huge units and depopulate surrounding cities and make sure Sparta produces Spartan units ASAP. The Spartans were great warriors... that what makes them so good in TW.

Note: There are at least 6 different 300 movie threads in the Org at the moment, one or more of them will match the tone and flavour of what those who aren't into this social-political dissection are looking for... do expect the Backroom one to be focused on the political parts of the movie unlike the following:

Rome > Singleplayer > Colosseum
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1460282#post1460282

Rome > Hosted mods for RTW > Europa Barbarorum
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80913

Rome > Hosted mods for RTW > Europa Barbarorum
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80749

Monastery
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80894

Tavern > Frontroom
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=81063

Tavern > Backroom
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80930

Pindar

03-13-2007, 23:39

Oh my, Pindar - isn't that obvious? It is the notion that the 300 Spartans would represent a 'universal idea of Western soldiers'.

I see. So this is the clause that got your panties in a bunch: "and this universal idea of Western soldiers willing to die as free men rather than to submit to tyranny".

Do you wish to argue the soldiers at Thermopylae were not free? Do you wish to argue they should have submitted? Do you wish to argue freedom isn't constitutive to a larger notion of the Western Civilizational Ideal? Do you wish to argue dying to be free is a bad thing?

And there are no Spartan lines in Herodotus that confirm their freedom-loving nature, unless in the restricted sense of attachment to their local autonomy. This has been explained in prior posts.

You didn't read the quotes from Herodotus I supplied. Here they are again:

"Men of Lacedaemon, why will ye not consent to be friends with the king? Ye have but to look at me and my fortune to see that the king knows well how to honor merit. In like manner ye yourselves, were ye to make your submission to him, would receive at his hands, seeing that he deems you men of merit, some government in Greece."
"Hydarnes," they answered, "thou art a one-sided counselor. Thou hast experience of half the matter; but the other half is beyond thy knowledge. A slave's life thou understandest; but, never having tasted liberty, thou canst not tell whether it be sweet or no. Ah! hadst thou known what freedom is, thou wouldst have bidden us fight for it, not with the spear only, but with the battle-axe."

and

"So likewise the Lacedaemonians, when they fight singly, are as good men as any in the world, and when they fight in a body, are the bravest of all. For though they be free-men, they are not in all respects free; Law is the master whom they own; and this master they fear more than thy subjects fear thee."

Both of the above relate to a Spartan sense of freedom. The qualifier you put forward in the second clause is dismissible as freedom refers to a political standing vis-a-vis the law. This of course ties to ones' polity: for a Spartan this was Sparta and thus local.

Now, your earlier two comments on the content of Herodotus were wrong. These were: "There are no Spartan 'lines' mentioned in Herodotus." and "Nothing about freedom either...". The qualifier 'such as' you put forward in a subsequent post doesn't seem to fit either statement. Do you have anything else you wish to put forward with these two statements that would redeem them? If not, then they can dismissed as the errors they are and we can focus on you personal judgments.

My take is your post was a rather knee jerk reaction that for whatever reason you've decided to entrench over. The references to Herodotus were wrong and the judgments over Hanson's essay a little overboard (much like the independent post in the thread about the movie being about the self image of the U.S.). An essay is an essay. This means it is not some formal thesis, fully footnoted and indexed for formal consumption. Rather, it touches on general themes. The themes Hanson addresses are not remarkable, but play into a rather standard presentation of Thermopylae as understood in the West.

Pindar

03-13-2007, 23:49

[cynic mode]

The link between the 300 in history and who we westerners today as a whole is on the whole farcical.

Is this the point of your post replying to my questions to Adrian?

ShadeHonestus

03-13-2007, 23:54

You could have at least quoted that it was in cynic mode.

Yes I did forget your cynic mode :shame: . My apologies.

Humanism is not elitist cadres of warriors oppressing their fellow man.

Amusing generalization however inaccurate.

Individualism is definitely not what even the average Spartan warrior was.
They were raised, trained, lived, ate and fought as a company.

The individual was the measure of the unit. I could go much further with Spartan individualism as recognized throught Thucyidides for example, but at this point I'm not sure I want to :duel: with your cynic mode.

Secularism is not listening to religious Oracles and then fighting to the death over it, nor is it not sending your army because you are celebrating a religious festival. Spartans were most definitely not secularists.

Greek Secularism is defined as much by the nature of their gods and how they were believed to interact with man, than by the absence of gods. The research of the Oracle places squarely as an instrument of secular politics, even in the name of Gods. If you wish I will try and find you volumes and volumes to read on this, but please, I do not wish to type them verbatim for the sake of a point which is accepted outside the backroom.

If we use what a culture is on just an elite few and not take an honest look at what the rest live like, then that isfactual as in 2500 years from now saying that our society was populated by people who all live like Paris Hilton and Astronauts.

Very true, however the march of mankind long and that of the individual brief. We are talking about hundreds of years of Greek culture, not a single lifespan. Not only this but the "elite few" as you mention is an entire city state autonomous and distinct and in fact one which the world has not seen the likes of since nor prior in recorded history.

BTW, it could come very true that Paris Hilton embodies what America came to be if we die of excess.

Yes the Helots lovingly charged into battle out of sheer devotion for the freedoms afforded them by their masters.

I never made any reference to the Helots in battle.

The Spartans were no different in context to the Persians, the only real difference was the Persians pulled it off at a larger magnitude.

very different actually... *sigh*

Might as well state that the Confederates were fighting to stop slavery.

What left field did that come out of? The Spartans had in fact many times liberated slaves of their foes, while at the same time being brutal slave owners themselves...quite different from an abstract confederacy refernce lol.

I'm still pretty certain that every culture has heroes that they look up to and that isn't just a greek thing.

Of course there are heroes in practically every culture, but the story of that hero is what tells you about that culture. Heroism was a central fiber of Greek culture which is hard to compare to any before or since then.

Again Athens direct democracy isn't anything like our modern version. Its more like members of the board in a company deciding the fate of the workers and how to spend all the lovely silver that was being mined by those who cannot vote.

Not sure which one you are stating as the board of trustees. Athenian democracy was a direct democracy by civilians of that city state without qualification. Today most democracies are representative or confederate republic in nature.

Now cynic mode off... I normally play the Spartans as much as possible in TW. Enslave cities, use huge units and depopulate surrounding cities and make sure Sparta produces Spartan units ASAP. The Spartans were great warriors... that what makes them so good in TW.

There is much more underneath than what is popularized as symbolic.

Goofball

03-13-2007, 23:56

ShadeHonestus

03-14-2007, 00:01

Out of curiosity, I contacted Mr. Chomski and asked him what his thoughts were about said film. His response?

"That rug really tied the room together..."

Okay, thats the 2nd time. :laugh4:

Soulforged

03-14-2007, 00:31

This is absolutely incorrect my friend and please don't take that in a derogatory manner. The term humanism was not coined a philosophy until the renaissance and from there it further flowered under those who you mention. Man as the measure of all things, which is the definition of humanism is distinctly and absolutely Greek. The earliest recognizable humanist was a well known Greek, Protagoras, in the 5th or 4th (:help:) century BC.The real innovation of the ancient greeks in general was that they started to look at the human and ask questions about it, instead of thinking this world and the individual (wich didn't exist in the rest of the world) as a reflection of the cosmos. In constrast the Egyptians saw the head of their society as the incarnation of a god, so did other civilizations at that time. The cycles on babilolian society moved acording to the position of the stars. This "first look" at the human as such can be traced back to Homer, even if the gods of Olympus determined the fate of all causal things, men still made its own decisions. Protagoras (580-500) is the creator of the human relativism, not humanism as you used it in general. All sophists were humanists, not just Protagoras, and he wasn't the first of course. Also Socrates, Plato, Aristotele were all opposed to the sophists and still humanists.

The modern idea of linear time, if you mean "Christian" (as you had mentioned earlier) is in a conflict of the secular and the here after. Beyond that, the formal nature as demonstrated in art, science, philosophy is one of linear time, even if in some schools, that time follows a pattern. It is beginning here and will end up there, in the Greek mind.
As far as I know all greek philosophers believed that the time was cyclical. Aristotele, for example, reaches the logical conclusion that time is eternal and is not movement. I think that Sjakihata was correct on his ascertion.

ShadeHonestus

03-14-2007, 00:47

Protagoras (580-500) is the creator of the human relativism, not humanism as you used it in general. All sophists were humanists, not just Protagoras, and he wasn't the first of course. Also Socrates, Plato, Aristotele were all opposed to the sophists and still humanists.

I did not state Protagoras as the creator of humanism. I stated that he can be viewed in history as the earliest example of a humanist, there was another gentleman whose names escapes me, "Ana-" something, but personally my view is on Protagoras as the earliest embodiment. Greek Humanism is or rather was as I stated. The endurance of my interest in this topic is spent, so rebut to the mute if you must and know that it is respected, even if it is not answered.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-14-2007, 01:09

ShadeHonestus

03-14-2007, 01:52

[/i] with religion, seriously, you couldn't squeeze another drop of the stuff in. The Spartans were subbordinate to the Law because the Law was given them by their quasi-mythical Hero-(God)-King, Lycurgus.

So don't tell me Greece was secular, don't tell me it was united and most certainly don't tell me it was free. Of the 1,331 Poleis we know of at the time a considerable number were under tyrannies at the time and Athens had only thrown her own tyranny off in the previous century.

Just when I think I'm out....they pull me back in!

Okay, you need to look at this a little different than modern concepts of religion and culture. First of all, the entire nature of the religion and the role the gods play is largely secular. How's that for a dichotomy? I'll put things a lot more simply. The Greeks were in contrast to any other culuture at the time and definately in contrast with the Persian East when it came to their understanding of law and human tradition. A characteristic of Greece that cannot be overstated is their recognition and understanding that laws and their tradition were secular in origin. Indeed this was the realization that time and their traditions, customs and law were due to the march of mankind and not the march of Providence. The east inhereting from the Babylonian model the divine intervention of Marduk and his creation of everything, the cities, its institutions and customs. You can look at the Egyptian creation the same way. These were therefore above question, just as we witness with religious fundamentalists today "that of the divine is above man". The Greeks however knew the secular origin not only of their cities creation, but of its previous leaders and their evolution of law. This allowed for the flourishing of debate, doubt, skepticism and dare I say, humanism. Take a look at the Twelve Tables and their inspiration (delegates sent to Athens and southern Italian Greek colonies). Take a look at the art, the art reeks of secular individual ideals. Statues of men? Just men? Some of the men named? Show me sculptures of men, not reliefs of nameless masses, not rulers, not deities, but just men, heroes, individuals outside of Greece at that time without the purpose of communion with the divine.

I will tell you that the Greeks were secular do not be fooled. :smash:

[edit]
You need to look at the history of Lycurgus again...and the evolution of their constitution over time.

Pindar

03-14-2007, 02:07

Humanism and individualism I might be able to buy just, with the qualification that even in Athens every citizen defined themselves as a member of the collective Polis and that the Polis was bigger than any one of them.

Secularism? Greek culture is saturated with religion, seriously, you couldn't squeeze another drop of the stuff in. The Spartans were subbordinate to the Law because the Law was given them by their quasi-mythical Hero-(God)-King, Lycurgus.

So don't tell me Greece was secular, don't tell me it was united and most certainly don't tell me it was free. Of the 1,331 Poleis we know of at the time a considerable number were under tyrannies at the time and Athens had only thrown her own tyranny off in the previous century.

Greek secularism can be seen in the rise of philosophy which is a mode of inquiry that rests independent of any religious appeal. This does not mean embrasure of an atheism per say, but rather a system wherein truth claims are made outside a religious vehicle.

Freedom in any political context is by its nature qualified. While it is certainly possible to question the freedom of any age or system that is less inclusive: such a position is somewhat problematic, because any system that admits boundaries in participation is subject to the same critique and thus ends up begging the question. The reality is the Greek experience, whether it be via Lycurgus, Solon or another was an attempt to typify the citizen as free under the law of his place and not the whimsy of a despot or tyrant alone. This is one reason the Spartan envoys sent to Persian Susa to die as replacements for Persian envoys who had been killed in Sparta refused to bow to the King, as they saw themselves as free men meeting the needs of the state, and were unwilling to place another above them as the act betokened.

Adrian II

03-14-2007, 07:42

Do you wish to argue the soldiers at Thermopylae were not free?The words bovine regurgitation come to mind.

Sjakihata

03-14-2007, 08:58

Man is the measure of all things
Values assigned from the norm of his existence and experience.
Anthropocentric.
Placing humans as the central principle.

That is Greek Humanism.

It isn't humanism as it isnt universal, simple as that - claiming otherwise is an error

Soulforged

03-14-2007, 15:41

I did not state Protagoras as the creator of humanism. I stated that he can be viewed in history as the earliest example of a humanist, there was another gentleman whose names escapes me, "Ana-" something, but personally my view is on Protagoras as the earliest embodiment. Greek Humanism is or rather was as I stated. The endurance of my interest in this topic is spent, so rebut to the mute if you must and know that it is respected, even if it is not answered.
Easy Shade, you're suffering from the Noob-Backroomer syndrome. There was no need for your last lines. Don't worry if I see I'm mistaken I'll pullback and apologize.

Read your words carefully again in the post wich was subject to my answer: "Man as the measure of all things, which is the definition of humanism is distinctly and absolutely Greek." This statement is not only wrong, but it's also wich leads me to believe that you believed that Protagoras was the author of humanism. If X ("Man as the measure of all things...") is taken as the definition of Y (Humanism) and those words were first written/spoken by Protagoras, then what should I extract from this... Even more, if you pay close attention to the last words on my post I clearly said that Socrates, Plato and Aristotele were humanist and were also opposed to the views of Protagoras. Now, if you want to see a real rebirth of human relativism, you'll have to look at Karl Popper wich wrote a dialogue in wich he opposed his friends (i.e. Protagoras) against his enemies (i.e. Aristotele, Socrates, Plato, etc.). Thus those words of yours are simply false, that's not the definition of humanism.

ShadeHonestus

03-14-2007, 17:27

Easy Shade, you're suffering from the Noob-Backroomer syndrome.

We differ, and what I state I conclude is Greek Humanism. I could go on and on why, this is so, Protagoras in particular as acredited with this statement of relativism (which you are stuck on as the measure of his view) combined with his secularism makes his statement in my opine the definition of Greek Humanism. If you have issues with that, thats fine, you can have your opine and state it, forgive me for issuing you any respect which I see was premature as reasonable individual. If that is Noob-Bachroomer syndrome, than I shall forever be inclined to be a noob.

Pindar

03-14-2007, 17:47

Do you wish to argue the soldiers at Thermopylae were not free?

The words bovine regurgitation come to mind.

Cow vomit? Nasty. Does cow vomit mean you think the Spartan soldiers were slaves on par with the Persian Horde? If so, I'll certainly read your argument. If that's not your stance, then I think we can dismiss this notion along with the earlier errors on the content of Herodotus, regardless you're still a fine fellow. :yes:

Pindar

03-14-2007, 17:57

Thus those words of yours are simply false, that's not the definition of humanism.

What is your definition of humanism?

ShadeHonestus

03-14-2007, 18:38

What is your definition of humanism?

I believe what he is doing is taking the split in Greek humanism and defining it solely by Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc in their opposition to Protagoras (and their opposition to the Sophists in general) as he likes to classify Protagoras' measure as purely relativism. He fails to see that there were two schools of thought and that the opposition exists as indeed opposition to the secular humanism as they reject relatvism and instead embrace a virtue ethics based on morality with some further objections particularly by Aristotle in perceptions simply and a bit too literal in statements of existence being independent of man. I remember reading about a book that was written, a huge volume by a skeptic, which supposedly examined in detail the split and particularly the debate between Socrates and Protagoras, but it was lost...centuries ago. To dismiss one school as he claims to do in total reeks of the danger of limited knowledge and its potential arrogance. We are afterall discussing history and its existence and not having a philisophical debate.

Soulforged

03-14-2007, 21:17

We differ, and what I state I conclude is Greek Humanism. I could go on and on why, this is so, Protagoras in particular as acredited with this statement of relativism (which you are stuck on as the measure of his view) combined with his secularism makes his statement in my opine the definition of Greek Humanism. If you have issues with that, thats fine, you can have your opine and state it, forgive me for issuing you any respect which I see was premature as reasonable individual. If that is Noob-Bachroomer syndrome, than I shall forever be inclined to be a noob.
You didn't understand, the problem are not our differences but the way you ended your post "The endurance of my interest in this topic is spent, so rebut to the mute if you must and know that it is respected, even if it is not answered.", I thought that was a prodcut of your anxiety. And for the record I'm not saying that Protagoras didn't have humanist ideas, I'm saying that his words don't define what humanism is.

I believe what he is doing is taking the split in Greek humanism and defining it solely by Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc in their opposition to Protagoras (and their opposition to the Sophists in general) as he likes to classify Protagoras' measure as purely relativism.Not at all. What I'm saying is, again, that Protagoras words don't define what humanism is, but Protagoras as well as the three you mentioned had the human as the center of their respective philosophies. And I didn't say that Protagoras words on human relativism are pure relativism.

He fails to see that there were two schools of thought and that the opposition exists as indeed opposition to the secular humanism as they reject relatvism and instead embrace a virtue ethics based on morality with some further objections particularly by Aristotle in perceptions simply and a bit too literal in statements of existence being independent of man. I remember reading about a book that was written, a huge volume by a skeptic, which supposedly examined in detail the split and particularly the debate between Socrates and Protagoras, but it was lost...centuries ago. To dismiss one school as he claims to do in total reeks of the danger of limited knowledge and its potential arrogance. We are afterall discussing history and its existence and not having a philisophical debate.I want to believe that you're not seriously calling me arrogant, I never implied that I'd a better knowledge than you Shade, and as an example I'll not call you arrogant (and I said Noob-Backroomer syndrome exactly for what you just did). Now, I do know of the two schools, wich were in fact more than two. For the rest, I can safely imagine that you have understood my position by now. But read carefully because I never stated the words of Protagoras to be pure relativism, I never implied anything about ancient greek schools, etc.

What is your definition of humanism?Is that philosophy that has the human as the center of its universe, independent of other elements like God. That doesn't imply that the human is the measure of all things.

EDIT: Spelling.

ShadeHonestus

03-14-2007, 22:07

Easy Shade, you're suffering from the Noob-Backroomer syndrome. There was no need for your last lines. Don't worry if I see I'm mistaken I'll pullback and apologize.

That was your line in response to my stating the fact that I was growing tired of the discussion on humanism and that there was little point to me pointing out again and again what anyone could research with the tiniest bit of diligence. I wanted to state, however, that I did not want you to take my lack of further response for disinterest or lack of respect for what you might of had to say. You took this as some angst ridden statement and pounced upon it with notions of noob and inherent arrogance in the line above.

I retract my notion of your arrogance which I misread(?) in your posts if you likewise overtly retract.

And for the record I'm not saying that Protagoras didn't have humanist ideas, I'm saying that his words don't define what humanism is.

We still have this problem of this. I say they do, is not this the first principle argument? Whether you are in opposition to relativism or not, isn't man as measure distinctly humanistic for its affirmitive and descent?

Is that philosophy that has the human as the center of its universe, independent of other elements like God. That doesn't imply that the human is the measure of all things.

That is more in line with Protagoras than Aristotle and Socrates, yet you revoke his maxim as undefining humanism?

Here is an "according to hoyle" definition of Humanism:

any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.

If that isn't in essence, the man as measure than I don't know. If you want to, look at it in the negative, remove man, then assert to me humanism.

Adrian II

03-14-2007, 22:56

Cow vomit? Nasty. Does cow vomit mean you think the Spartan soldiers were slaves on par with the Persian Horde? If so, I'll certainly read your argument. If that's not your stance, then I think we can dismiss this notion along with the earlier errors on the content of Herodotus, regardless you're still a fine fellow. :yes:Some of our previous discussions are among the finest I have had on the Web. I am glad that you are willing to discuss substance, after seemingly insisting on the most uncharitable reading of my every word. I guess we both suffer from professional deformation. ~;)

Mine are those of the historian, mitigated by years of journalism. Hence my tendency to look at this movie both as an attempt at historiography and an attempt to capture some of the spirit of our own time (materialising in the shape of a phat audience and loads of box office money). After all movies don't come straight out the blue. Movies are rooted in the moment and the surrounding culture and they are always a comment on it.

I think that the true nature of Spartan society, like so many episodes of ancient history, will never be completely unravelled by historians. Our knowledge is extremely thin, sketchy, based on isolated sources and mostly inconclusive. Herodotus work is certainly the first attempt at modern historiography that we know of, but modern historians treat it as a source like all the others, taking anto account its possible bias and lack of internal consistency. There is no proof, for instance, that Lycurgus ever existed. Some modern classicists argue that it was the legend of Thermopylae that gave rise to the 'invention' of Lycurgus and his laws, as if to justify the Spartan sacrifice at Thermopylae after the fact -- instead of the other way round, namely Spartans sacrificing themselves in obedience to their ancestral law.

A friend of mine, who is a classicist, mailed me some suggestions. He is rather fond of a German book by a certain Lukas Thommen. Alas, all I could find about it on the Web was this Bryn Mawr review (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1998/98.2.12.html).

The Spartan victory in the Persian Wars and the development of a wide foreign policy deepened some of the developments caused by the war and introduced a new image of Sparta. It was during this time, immediately subsequent to the victory that, for Thommen, the idea of the existence of an ancestral constitution, which would be attributed to Lycurgus, developed.

However, based on what we know now about Sparta, I would say that the Spartan notion of freedom is as worth of emulation as Spartan eugenics or Spartan pederasty, i.e. not at all.

For several reasons, all mentioned by posters in this thread, the Spartans under Leonidas appear to have been interested in the preservation of their local autonomy and their elite privileges more than anything else. Their regard for Greek freedom was scant, if it existed at all, as shown by their attitude before and after Thermopylae. As Jacob Burckhardt stated one hundred years ago, the 'Dorian' Spartans were considered something of a foreign body within 'Ionian' Greece, an 'abomination' as he put it, held in contempt by the other poleis for their provincialism and stupidity, although surreptitiously admired or feared for their warrior tradition.

I was interested to read the Victor Hansen review because it was written for the Dark Horse booklet, and I believe Miler and Snyder have used his work as an inspiration. There are certainly other views on the whole episode, as shown in this piece (http://www.utexas.edu/research/pasp/publications/articles/13oct06.html) by another classicist, Tom Palaima, who compares the Spartans to Arab suicide bombers.

I would have understood if Miller and Snyder would have presented the Spartans at Thermopylae as a sort of Ancient 'Dirty Dozen', an unpalatable bunch of criminals and semi-retards whose cold-blooded attitude helped save the Greek autonomy. But I fear they portray the Spartans as an example for our time. Miller has been explicit about his views on the present conflict between the United States and Arab nations. These are his recent comments of the state of the Union, uttered on January 25, 2007, on National Public Radio:

NPR: […] Frank, what’s the state of the union?

FM: Well, I don’t really find myself worrying about the state of the union as I do the state of the home-front. It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western World is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants … and we’re behaving like a collapsing empire. Mighty cultures are almost never conquered, they crumble from within. And frankly, I think that a lot of Americans are acting like spoiled brats because of everything that isn’t working out perfectly every time.

NPR: Um, and when you say we don’t know what we want, what’s the cause of that do you think?

FM: Well, I think part of that is how we’re educated. We’re constantly told all cultures are equal, and every belief system is as good as the next. And generally that America was to be known for its flaws rather than its virtues. When you think about what Americans accomplished, building these amazing cities, and all the good its done in the world, it’s kind of disheartening to hear so much hatred of America, not just from abroad, but internally.

NPR: A lot of people would say what America has done abroad has led to the doubts and even the hatred of its own citizens.

FM: Well, okay, then let’s finally talk about the enemy. For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we’re up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people’s heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.

NPR: As you look at people around you, though, why do you think they’re so, as you would put it, self-absorbed, even whiny?

FM: Well, I’d say it’s for the same reason the Athenians and Romans were. We’ve got it a little good right now. Where I would fault President Bush the most, was that in the wake of 9/11, he motivated our military, but he didn’t call the nation into a state of war. He didn’t explain that this would take a communal effort against a common foe. So we’ve been kind of fighting a war on the side, and sitting off like a bunch of Romans complaining about it. Also, I think that George Bush has an uncanny knack of being someone people hate. I thought Clinton inspired more hatred than any President I had ever seen, but I’ve never seen anything like Bush-hatred. It’s completely mad.

NPR: And as you talk to people in the streets, the people you meet at work, socially, how do you explain this to them?

FM: Mainly in historical terms, mainly saying that the country that fought Okinawa and Iwo Jima is now spilling precious blood, but so little by comparison, it’s almost ridiculous. And the stakes are as high as they were then. Mostly I hear people say, ‘Why did we attack Iraq?’ for instance. Well, we’re taking on an idea. Nobody questions why after Pearl Harbor we attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism, we’re doing the same thing now.

NPR: Well, they did declare war on us, but…

FM: Well, so did Iraq.Good grief. If this man doesn't have an agenda, then I don't know who does. He even disses the Athenians, 2500 years after the fact, for having been decadent 'whiners'.

Of course these days Miller may protest that his comic has nothing to do with current affairs, but I believe that is merely because he doesn't want a fatwa on his hands.

Now it you will excuse me, before I make any comments on the movie proper I will go and watch it first. There is a press screening this Friday (the Dutch release is on the 22nd) and I'll be there. On the dot. With popcorn. I'm a sucker for lust, gore, cheap thrills and over-acting. I adored Sin City and I am sure there will be a lot to enjoy in this movie, too.

ShadeHonestus

03-14-2007, 23:45

Good grief. If this man doesn't have an agenda, then I don't know who does. He even disses the Athenians, 2500 years after the fact, for having been decadent 'whiners'.

Well I believe his reference is to that which is growing in sentiment over here. The belief that the teachings of multiculturalism as it is currently being done, has become destructive via a deconstruction of any national culture. This is seen as a huge asset to anyone opposed to the U.S. as they know the appeal to the populous only has to insinuate doubt. This pea sized issue of doubt supposedly bounces around the halls of academia and comes out a bowling ball of anti-American sentiment. The security sought in this are the teachings of "being okay" with everyone, being liked, you can see grains of this everywhere at the cost of personal belief and principle. The claim, quite accurately in most cases, is that instead of teaching respect for other cultures on the basis of respect for mankind and universal sentiment, we assign universal equality and relativity. They belive that only in a world this blind can Iran be considered a nation with the moral authority to declare anything and be taken seriously and expect equal consideration.

His Athenian sentiment is modeled to appeal to us as Gibbon wrote: (which is tossed around more these days and as loosely as the ugly chick at last call)

"In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again."

Tristrem

03-14-2007, 23:46

Well I hope you enjoy the movie like I did. To me the dialogue and the script were a bit weak, but the action made up for it. One thing I liked in particular was how it depicts the spartans fighting with spears for the most part, they even used a phalanx in the beginning. It definitely a movie you go to to watch the fighting, and with a somewhat open mind it is quite entertaining.

Papewaio

03-15-2007, 00:03

I'm a sucker for lust, gore, cheap thrills and over-acting.

Does that make me your favourite moderator? ~;) :dizzy2: :laugh4:

Adrian II

03-15-2007, 00:08

Does that make me your favourite moderator? ~;) :dizzy2: :laugh4:You know full well I hold you in high esteem as a moderator, as well as the .org's Meister of the Meme. :bow:

KukriKhan

03-15-2007, 00:47

Thanks for that citation of the NPR interview. :thumbsup: I've been wondering if Miller just accidentally tapped into the American zeitgeist, or if he purposefully jumped straight in with both feet, rubber duckies under his arms.

Soulforged

03-15-2007, 01:25

That was your line in response to my stating the fact that I was growing tired of the discussion on humanism and that there was little point to me pointing out again and again what anyone could research with the tiniest bit of diligence. I wanted to state, however, that I did not want you to take my lack of further response for disinterest or lack of respect for what you might of had to say. You took this as some angst ridden statement and pounced upon it with notions of noob and inherent arrogance in the line above.This genererated my answer " so rebut to the mute if you must", I took it as an imperative that I should shut my mouth. Perhaps my english isn't as good as I thought...

We still have this problem of this. I say they do, is not this the first principle argument? Whether you are in opposition to relativism or not, isn't man as measure distinctly humanistic for its affirmitive and descent?
It's distinctly humanist, but it's not its definition.

That is more in line with Protagoras than Aristotle and Socrates, yet you revoke his maxim as undefining humanism?
Not necessarily...

If that isn't in essence, the man as measure than I don't know. If you want to, look at it in the negative, remove man, then assert to me humanism.
That it predominates doesn't mean that it measures everything.

ShadeHonestus

03-15-2007, 01:42

This genererated my answer " so rebut to the mute if you must", I took it as an imperative that I should shut my mouth.

:laugh4: no my friend, that was me stating that rebuttal to me directly would be a rebuttal without a response, my condition of being mute...as I went on to say, it wouldn't be for lack of interest in what you had to say or respect for you.

~:cheers: ?

Adrian II

03-15-2007, 13:17

Well I believe his reference is to that which is growing in sentiment over here. The belief that the teachings of multiculturalism as it is currently being done, has become destructive via a deconstruction of any national culture.I am familiar with the argument. But even if one agrees with that view, it does not justify such sweeping statements about Antiquity. There are all sorts of lacunae, ambiguities and subtleties to be taken into account.

As an example of such ambiguities, consider the other topic of discussion that runs through this thread: were the Greeks secular humanists? On the one hand: no they were not, because they believed in a pantheon of living gods. On the other hand: yes they were, because their gods were in so many ways human and because man, not any supernatural force or being, was even considered by some Ancient Greek philosophers to be the measure of all things. It first epic was was supposed to have started with a human, all too human row between goddesses, a mimetic struggle over a golden apple left behind by Eris. The reader can't help but laugh about those goddesses and their ploys to earn for themselves the coveted fruit. Compare this to the pompous, heavy-handed treatment of that other apple incident by contemporaneous Jews in their Babylonian captivity, and to their distant yet miserly God who was a mere projection of their own provincial outlook, prejudice and thwarted ambitions of autonomy. The difference is as clear as that between darkness and daylight.

In order to be fair in the light of available sources, one would have to conclude that the Ancient Greeks certainly sowed the seeds of secular humanism, even though many of them did not come to fruition at the time.

In a similar vein one can claim that, even though they knew and practiced inequality, slavery, tyranny and ostracism of exceptional minds, the Ancient Greeks sowed the seeds of democracy as we know it.

Now, still in the same vein, I believe that Herodotus, for one, helped sow the seeds of multiculturalism as we know it. His sympathy clearly lay with Athens, but he treats the Spartans, the other poleis and even the Persians and otehr Barbarians with great empathy and in great detail, specifically human detail. This is what sets his book apart from all other contemporary sources. Even if taken as sheer fantasy or literature -- as an early novel, of sorts -- his Histories are far, far superior in that respect to any other extant texts. Of course this is not to say that the way in which Greeks, or even the 'democratic' Athenians, treated other peoples was humane, tolerant and respectful in any modern sense of the word.

Many such seeds of our modern outlook were sown by Ancient Greeks. We have developed the notion and practice of democracy, we have developed the philosophy of secular humanism, we have developed the notion of multicultural understanding. So have others. These originally Greek notions have spread to Italy, where they have been taken up and spread by Italians (Romans) throughout large parts of the known world. Greek notions of political autonomy and democracy took hold from Moscow to Cadiz and from Portland, Oregon, to Punta Arenas in Chile.

However, there have been other, equally important Ancient contributors to multiculturalism: the creators of Empires and great religions. Xerxes, Alexander, the Roman Republic and Empire, the Christian Church and Islam have all contributed to the breakdonw of cultural barriers. At the time of Thermopylae (to return to our point of departure) the Achaemenid Empire was a vast multicultural composite, as witnessed by the ethnic origins of its satraps and other servants, including its soldiers. This multicultural composition -- making use of local talent as found, much like the Romans or Napoleon would do -- reached a high level of civilization, infrastructure and knowledge by contemporaneous standards. And the military synergy of Persian infantry, steppe cavalry and Phoenician ships was exceptional for the time. I remind you of Robert Graves' poem The Persian Version:

Truth-loving Persians do not dwell upon
The trivial skirmish fought near Marathon.
As for the Greek theatrical tradition
Which represents that summer's expedition
Not as a mere reconnaisance in force
By three brigades of foot and one of horse
(Their left flank covered by some obsolete
Light craft detached from the main Persian fleet)
But as a grandiose, ill-starred attempt
To conquer Greece - they treat it with contempt;
And only incidentally refute
Major Greek claims, by stressing what repute
The Persian monarch and the Persian nation
Won by this salutary demonstration:
Despite a strong defence and adverse weather
All arms combined magnificently together.
Similarly, Alexander, the Romans and other later conquerors and liberators discovered that combining the best traditions and assets of various cultures makes for a powerful and heady mix indeed. Oh, all of them failed in the end. So will we. But we should take the broadest possible view of what we can learn from Antiquity - not project out worst fears onto it and remain stuck in Gibbon.

Soulforged

03-15-2007, 14:31

:laugh4: no my friend, that was me stating that rebuttal to me directly would be a rebuttal without a response, my condition of being mute...as I went on to say, it wouldn't be for lack of interest in what you had to say or respect for you.

~:cheers: ?
No problem, I must be suffering from the Syndrome myself.:laugh4:

Pindar

03-15-2007, 20:17

Is that philosophy that has the human as the center of its universe, independent of other elements like God. That doesn't imply that the human is the measure of all things.

I don't understand the above: if man is the the center then what other than man would act as the measure?

Pindar

03-15-2007, 20:19

Some of our previous discussions are among the finest I have had on the Web. I am glad that you are willing to discuss substance, after seemingly insisting on the most uncharitable reading of my every word. I guess we both suffer from professional deformation. ~;)

Alas. all too true.

Mine are those of the historian, mitigated by years of journalism. Hence my tendency to look at this movie both as an attempt at historiography and an attempt to capture some of the spirit of our own time (materialising in the shape of a phat audience and loads of box office money). After all movies don't come straight out the blue. Movies are rooted in the moment and the surrounding culture and they are always a comment on it.

I have no issue with the above. I think a serious statement on a film can include all you mentioned. That was not my focus however or the interesting point I saw in the Hanson piece. I don't think the film is akin to Oliver Stone's "Alexander the Fabulous". It is not intended as an insight into how things may have been. I noted the many comments that focused on historicity or Helots or some other critique. Such a perspective from a film derived from a comic derived from Herodotus (and thereby two steps removed from the original source of rhetoric) seems a bit lazy as they are only noting the obvious.

The interesting aspect of the film (aside from simple entertainment value) as I see it, is that it conveys a legendary sense for how Thermopylae came to be taken by the Greeks. A simple illustration of this legendary quality from Herodotus (which isn't in the film) is how Leonidas death is presented. After he falls there is a battle over his body where the Spartans rally four times before finally being able to recover it. This recalls the battle over the body of Patroclus from the Iliad which any Greek would have recognized. A simple illustration of the legendary from the film is how Ephialtes (as the betrayer) is presented as twisted and deformed, as opposed to the bare chested perfectly formed Spartans who then again compare to the exotic other of the Persian Horde or the giant god/king Xerxes. The camera angles, mode of cinematic presentation, speech of the characters all reinforce this notion of legend.

Now one could take the work as some larger socio-political commentary and this would be more or less strained depending on the rhetoric employed, but for me: I liked the film quite a bit and one of the reasons is I saw it in the terms described above. After you've seen it this weekend, I'll be interested in your take.

Soulforged

03-16-2007, 13:13

I don't understand the above: if man is the the center then what other than man would act as the measure?
Maybe you and Shade have a point, but then how do you reconciliate that definition with the fact that other philosophers, even on the same time frame, were humanists but didn't consider the human to be the measure of all things. I'm trying to find a definition for myself here without excluding anyone from the group.

Pindar

03-16-2007, 19:33

Maybe you and Shade have a point, but then how do you reconciliate that definition with the fact that other philosophers, even on the same time frame, were humanists but didn't consider the human to be the measure of all things. I'm trying to find a definition for myself here without excluding anyone from the group.

What other philosophers are you thinking of?

Adrian II

03-16-2007, 19:34

Seen the movie.

It confirmed the best and the worst I had expected. I subscribe to all that has been said by various posters above. All of them are right in some way, and I have very little to say that hasn't been said already.

Before we went in, a colleague of mine urged me to 'think of this film as a poem, sort of detached from reality, a timeless tale of heroism, sex and the deathwish of every man'.

Well yeah. My inner fascist wanted to feast on this. But the director made it impossible. I couldn't help laughing out loud a few times at the slimy Spartan priests or the Spartan's spandex thongs and washboard tummies straight from Papa's Gym on Venice Boulevard. I couldn't help my knowledge getting in the way. Young Leonidas fighting a wolf of course was a stand-in scene for the historic Leonidas killing an unarmed helot, which was one of the 'heroic' rites of passage in ancient Sparta. I felt like a Catholic watching The Da Vinci Code: yes it's just a movie, and no it's just a crappy fake. I half expected Leonidas to die with the words of Marv as he was in the electric chair in [Sin City: 'Is this the best you can do, pansies?'

As for the fighting .. how shall I put it? My respect for Oliver Stone increased fivefold this afternoon. Guys, can we rerun that Guagamela phalanx scene from Alexander and show Mr Snyder how it's done? Thank you.

The digital backlot definitely has the future though.

Soulforged

03-16-2007, 21:46

What other philosophers are you thinking of?
I've already mentioned them. Well they're not exactly in the same time frame, but that doesn't matter as we're talking about definitions. Just in case, I mentioned: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

Pindar

03-17-2007, 00:59

I've already mentioned them. Well they're not exactly in the same time frame, but that doesn't matter as we're talking about definitions. Just in case, I mentioned: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

None of these fellows fit this definition: "Is that philosophy that has the human as the center of its universe, independent of other elements like God." They all would be examples of stances that diametrically oppose this definition.

Maybe you and Shade have a point, but then how do you reconciliate that definition with the fact that other philosophers, even on the same time frame, were humanists but didn't consider the human to be the measure of all things. I'm trying to find a definition for myself here without excluding anyone from the group.

I looked at this post noted above again. To your question: I wouldn't reconcile the fellows you mention with humanism as they weren't humanists.

Soulforged

03-17-2007, 02:43

I looked at this post noted above again. To your question: I wouldn't reconcile the fellows you mention with humanism as they weren't humanists.Strange I could swear that in a manual of Politic Law I read something on this lines: with Socrates the greek philosophy returned to the human as its center (or humanism). I've only read three works of Plato and two of Aristotle, and I didn't understand why they were called humanists on par with the sophists. That might explain my mistake... Anyway, what will be your definition? (if you've the time, of course)...

Pindar

03-19-2007, 19:49

Strange I could swear that in a manual of Politic Law I read something on this lines: with Socrates the greek philosophy returned to the human as its center (or humanism). I've only read three works of Plato and two of Aristotle, and I didn't understand why they were called humanists on par with the sophists. That might explain my mistake... Anyway, what will be your definition? (if you've the time, of course)...

Sorry for the late reply: the surfing gods need to be placated on the weekends.

Humanism can be defined a number of different ways depending on what one is going for and the degree of rigor.* In simple terms, Humanism implies some kind of emphasis on man. Under a philosophical rubric this can mean man as the touchstone for judgment and meaning. This is why Shade introduced Protagoras. He is taken as the quintessential Classical Humanist. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all appeal to an understanding where there is an Absolute, distinct from man, that serves as the ethical and ontic foundation. This is why a base humanism label would be problematic.

* To illustrate: Erasmus is typically considered a Christian Humanist. The adjective places him within a certain theological context (where there is an overarching God) but he also follows the pattern set by Petrarch where Classical models on man were valued. This was a new move distinct from the prior Medievals. This is why the Humanist label is useful.

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 01:22

Sorry to barge in here,

However, after reading a few replies, (I havent read them all) I am left with the feeling that we are maybe viewing Humanism from the wrong angle here?

The way I see it, Humanism places man at the center but from an ethical point of view, acknowledging and affirming the dignity and worth of all people.

In my view Humanism does not place Man as a supreeme being the center of everything in any egocentric, selfish or dominating fashion or reasons.

Quite the contrary, it makes the point of accentuating the importance of Humans, with Humility, emphasising the capacity of Humans to discern between right and wrong, their capacity to rationalise, their capacity for self determination. In incites people to make use of these human means in search of the truth that in support of human interests.

Humanism in its core is secular in that it rejects devine intervention and makes use of the condition of the Human nature, and its capacity for universal morality, based on reason.

Histoprically humanist philosophy has become an ingredient or component of other philosophies. Christianity, viewed as a philosophy makes extensive use of Humanism philosophies.

It is also one of the reasons that there are non Secural currents of Humanist Philosophies, because both approachies cross paths when it comes to moral values.

The work that Ancient Greek Humanist Philosophers have done can be considered as the ground work upon which later morality was able to flourish upon, such as Christian Morality.

~:cheers:

ShadeHonestus

03-20-2007, 01:27

Sorry to barge in here,

~:cheers:

Welcome to the thread and your post was a fine read. :2thumbsup:

Adrian II

03-20-2007, 01:39

Welcome to the thread and your post was a fine read. :2thumbsup:Yeah, nice to see you Suraknar. That Monastery thread on '300' wudn't much compared to what we had going in the Backroom. But I appreciated your posts there.

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 01:55

Thank you for the welcome gentlemen ~:cheers:

Pindar

03-20-2007, 02:06

Suraknar

03-20-2007, 07:35

Hello,

Why does a Humanist stance require any affirmation of dignity or worth? Do you consider Machiavelli's "The Prince" a Humanist work?

No I do not. Machiavelli's work is that of Political Philosophy. Ene where the ends justify the means, and even if some means in his exemples borrow from a deep moral/ethical and Humanistic evaluation, these do not make the work in its intirety Humanist.

Under a Humanist point of view, the means are very important since consideration of a moral order towards our fellow Humans is required. And any means that would infring on the integrity or well being of a fellow Human being are immoral, and inhumain, therefore anti-Humanist.

In other words, under Machiavelli's thought, killing a few rioters in order to preserve everyone else's well being is ok. Albeit he cautions strongly against such radical decisions. Nevertheless, it is a means to a greater end for him.

While under a Humanist point of view it is not, because these rioters are also living breathing Human beings that require equal consideration.

I don't understand your position here. If you mean "Christianity, viewed as a philosophy" as a general referent for a belief system then that system is Semitic in origin, not Greek. If you mean Christianity as it adopted a formal philosophical model then that rubric was neo-platonic. Neo-Platonism is not a Humanist system.

I dont know if you are Christian or not (just hoping we can talk of this without emotional reactions).

However, what I mean here, is that if you take he Christian belief, for the purpose of analysis, and instead of believing it, you consider its message as a Philosophical world view, and not the word of God, we can say that its core message, philosophically, is that of "Peace and Love amongst Human beings" based solelly on the notion that our fellow Humans merit equal respect of their Life just because they are Living beings with own dignety which must be acknowledged, and treated with equal worth as one's own.

Evaluating this in a rational way without the notion of divine good and evil and its divine reprecautions, is basically a Humanist Philosophy.

Now, Christianity may have been originally Semitic, yet, it flourished amongst Greeks (and Romans) not Jews. I think it was influenced by previous Humanist Philosophies, and it seemed appealing to Greeks more than Jews because they were also accustomed to the notions of Humanist Philosophies from their own Philosophers.

Soulforged

03-20-2007, 13:18

Humanism can be defined a number of different ways depending on what one is going for and the degree of rigor.* In simple terms, Humanism implies some kind of emphasis on man. Under a philosophical rubric this can mean man as the touchstone for judgment and meaning. This is why Shade introduced Protagoras. He is taken as the quintessential Classical Humanist. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all appeal to an understanding where there is an Absolute, distinct from man, that serves as the ethical and ontic foundation. This is why a base humanism label would be problematic.Thank you for sharing your definition Pindar, it was very helpful.:bow:

Pindar

03-20-2007, 18:46

No I do not. Machiavelli's work is that of Political Philosophy. Ene where the ends justify the means, and even if some means in his exemples borrow from a deep moral/ethical and Humanistic evaluation, these do not make the work in its intirety Humanist.

Under a Humanist point of view, the means are very important since consideration of a moral order towards our fellow Humans is required.

Very interesting. Am I understanding your conclusion correctly: you reject the humanist label because you disagree with the works conclusions? Do you feel the same about Machiavelli's 'Discourses on Livy'?

Do you consider Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' a humanist work?

What is it within Humanism that requires consideration of a moral order towards our fellow humans?

However, what I mean here, is that if you take he Christian belief, for the purpose of analysis, and instead of believing it, you consider its message as a Philosophical world view, and not the word of God, we can say that its core message, philosophically, is that of "Peace and Love amongst Human beings" based solelly on the notion that our fellow Humans merit equal respect of their Life just because they are Living beings with own dignety which must be acknowledged, and treated with equal worth as one's own.

Evaluating this in a rational way without the notion of divine good and evil and its divine reprecautions, is basically a Humanist Philosophy.

The above makes a false distinction. One cannot separate any ethical posture within Christian rhetoric from its theological/cosmological root. The one is derived from the other. A simple illustration would be Jesus' response in the Gospels to what is the greatest commandment. His answer is a fealty and love of God as foremost with an attending love of one's fellow man and self understood through the initial charge.

Now, Christianity may have been originally Semitic, yet, it flourished amongst Greeks (and Romans) not Jews. I think it was influenced by previous Humanist Philosophies, and it seemed appealing to Greeks more than Jews because they were also accustomed to the notions of Humanist Philosophies from their own Philosophers.

The rhetoric of Christianity is derived from Judaism. Jesus cites Isaiah not Hesiod. The Hellenization of Christianity, not unlike its Imperialization, is nonetheless separate both chronologically and hermeneutically from the faith's impetus.

Pindar

03-20-2007, 18:47

Thank you for sharing your definition Pindar, it was very helpful.:bow:

:bow:

Adrian II

03-20-2007, 21:24

Pindar is the .Org master of definitions. It is better to have him inside your tent defining out, than outside your tent defining in.
~;)

Suraknar

03-21-2007, 07:52

Pindar is the .Org master of definitions. It is better to have him inside your tent defining out, than outside your tent defining in.
~;)

Alright, nice to meet you Pindar.

And as a reputed master of definitions I would assume you are very familiar with these as well:

1. Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth, and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness.

2. Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science, believes that homo sapiens is an evolutionary product of this great Nature of which we are a part; that our minds are indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of our brain; and that as an inseparable unity of body and personality, we can have no conscious survival after death.

3. Humanism, having its ultimate faith in humankind, believes that human beings possess the power or potentiality of solving their own problems, through reliance primarily upon reason and scientific method applied with courage and vision.

4. Humanism believes, in opposition to all theories of universal predestination, determinism, or fatalism, that human beings, while conditioned by the past, possess genuine freedom of creative choice and action, and are, within certain objective limits, the masters of their own destiny.

5. Humanism believes in an ethics or morality that grounds all human values in this-earthly experiences and relationships; one that holds as its highest goal the this-worldly happiness, freedom, and progress (economic, cultural, and ethical) of all humankind, irrespective of nation, race, or religion.

6. Humanism believes that the individual attains the good life by harmoniously combining personal satisfactions and continuous self-development with significant work and other activities that contribute to the welfare of the community.

7. Humanism believes in the widest possible development of art and the awareness of beauty including the appreciation of Nature's loveliness and splendor, so that the aesthetic experience may become a pervasive reality in people's lives.

8. Humanism believes in a far-reaching social program that stands for the establishment throughout the world of democracy, peace, and a high standard of living on the foundations of a flourishing economic order, both national and international.

9. Humanism believes in the complete social implementation of reason and scientific method; and thereby in the use of democratic procedures including full freedom of expression and civil liberties, throughout all areas of economic, political, and cultural life.

10. Humanism, in accordance with the scientific method, believes in the unending questioning of basic assumptions and conviction, including its own. Humanism is not a new dogma, but is a developing philosophy which remains ever open to experimental testing, newly discovered facts, and more rigorous reasoning.

Of cource these describe the many currents of Humanism in existence, such as Scientific Humanism, Secular Humanism, Naturalistic Humanism, Democratic Humanism etc ...

And all could be encompassed by this definition aswell:

Humanism is the viewpoint that people have but one life to lead and should make the most of it in terms of creative work and happiness; that human happiness is its own justification and requires no sanction or support from supernatural sources; and that in any case the supernatural, usually conceived of in the form of heavenly gods or immortal heavens, does not exist; and that human beings, using their own intelligence and cooperating liberally with one another, can build an enduring citadel of peace and beauty upon this earth.

That being said(or rather quoted) and read, let me try to address some of your multiple questions in your reply.

I have to admit I do feel a bit under the gun here, like if you are trying to size me :P But anyways, maybe I am just not used to the form of discussion in this area of the forums.

What is it within Humanism that requires consideration of a moral order towards our fellow humans?

Simply put our actions thruout our lives.

If we acknowledge the Human being as the center of our existance, the product of the evolution of our universe, and its life aa precious as the complete process that led to this product, then we have an obligation to evaluate morally our actions when these affect our fellow human beings. And it only thus hat we can avoid actions which harm others from actions that contribute to the well being of Humanity. In respect to the equally precious life of everyone else other than ourselves. And the conclusion of this affirmation comes naturally following a rational examination of our own selves and also the examination of those around us.

The above makes a false distinction. One cannot separate any ethical posture within Christian rhetoric from its theological/cosmological root. The one is derived from the other. A simple illustration would be Jesus' response in the Gospels to what is the greatest commandment. His answer is a fealty and love of God as foremost with an attending love of one's fellow man and self understood through the initial charge.

Well, I just did.

Are you saying that Humans cant or are not capable of love towards one's fellow man without love towards God? Or are you saying that this is not possible under a Christian Context?

The rhetoric of Christianity is derived from Judaism. Jesus cites Isaiah not Hesiod. The Hellenization of Christianity, not unlike its Imperialization, is nonetheless separate both chronologically and hermeneutically from the faith's impetus.

While there is no doubt that Jesus, being himself a Jew, based his own version of Faith upon a continuation of the already existing one (Old testament), it is not impossible to entertain the possibility that his "new view" is influenced by philosophies such as the Greek Humanists which place a great importance on man, even if they reject the devine, nevertheless reasonably promoting a valid ethical message.

Why is it impossible that Jesus (were we to consider him as a Human rather than the Son of God), could not have combined Humanist Philosophies with the Philosophy of his religion in a moral stage, and arrive to his version of it?

Pindar

03-21-2007, 18:33

And all could be encompassed by this definition aswell: "Humanism is the viewpoint that people have but one life to lead and should make the most of it in terms of creative work and happiness; that human happiness is its own justification and requires no sanction or support from supernatural sources; and that in any case the supernatural, usually conceived of in the form of heavenly gods or immortal heavens, does not exist; and that human beings, using their own intelligence and cooperating liberally with one another, can build an enduring citadel of peace and beauty upon this earth."

Is this the view of Humanism you hold to? If so, it is an atheistic stance. Why must Humanism be atheistic and not, say agnostic? By placing Humanism as an affirmed atheism (based on the above terms) you have forced the stance to embrace a logical absurdity which would undercut any rational pretense.* In addition, does this mean then you reject the traditional referents to Christian Humanism (14th to 16th Century movement) which would include previously mentioned figures like Petrarch and Erasmus? I know you reject The Prince' as a humanist text and didn't respond to my questions on the 'Discourses on Livy' or 'Being and Nothingness', but I get the sense you are opting for a rather narrow and untraditional understanding of Humanism.

*I'll explain this statement. The assertion in your quote opts for a strong atheism. This is seen in:..."any case the supernatural, usually conceived of in the form of heavenly gods or immortal heavens, does not exist...". To say X does not exists is a categorical. Further, it is a positive affirmation about a negative (it is the case there is no X or simply put -X). This is problematic because under any rational guise there is no way to prove the position without begging the question which is a logical absurdity.

That being said(or rather quoted) and read, let me try to address some of your multiple questions in your reply.

I have to admit I do feel a bit under the gun here, like if you are trying to size me :P But anyways, maybe I am just not used to the form of discussion in this area of the forums.

The Backroom can be very confrontational (much of this is due to the tortured state of the Liberal Mind and the pain any remedy may involve). I hope my posts haven't been too off putting. I responded to you as I took your posts to indicate some interest in the subject and I thought your stance curious.

What is it within Humanism that requires consideration of a moral order towards our fellow humans?

Simply put our actions thruout our lives.

If we acknowledge the Human being as the center of our existance, the product of the evolution of our universe, and its life aa precious as the complete process that led to this product, then we have an obligation to evaluate morally our actions when these affect our fellow human beings.

Why must accepting the position human beings are the center of things entail seeing life as precious or that any obligation is thereby entailed? You are applying a moral posture on top of a verdict, but there doesn't appear to be anything in the base affirmation (that man occupies the center point) that would justify this.

The above makes a false distinction. One cannot separate any ethical posture within Christian rhetoric from its theological/cosmological root. The one is derived from the other. A simple illustration would be Jesus' response in the Gospels to what is the greatest commandment. His answer is a fealty and love of God as foremost with an attending love of one's fellow man and self understood through the initial charge.

Well, I just did.

Yes you did, but it is an error as it fails to take account of the system as it presents itself.

Are you saying that Humans cant or are not capable of love towards one's fellow man without love towards God? Or are you saying that this is not possible under a Christian Context?

I am saying that the rhetoric of Christianity is tied to a theism and the relation and obligation of man to God is fundamental to the belief and thus prior to any other relation. Further, it is because of the relation to God that any other attending obligation is meaningful. The example of Jesus answering what is the greatest commandment illustrates the point.

While there is no doubt that Jesus, being himself a Jew, based his own version of Faith upon a continuation of the already existing one (Old testament), it is not impossible to entertain the possibility that his "new view" is influenced by philosophies such as the Greek Humanists which place a great importance on man, even if they reject the devine, nevertheless reasonably promoting a valid ethical message.

Why is it impossible that Jesus (were we to consider him as a Human rather than the Son of God), could not have combined Humanist Philosophies with the Philosophy of his religion in a moral stage, and arrive to his version of it?

It is not impossible to assume Jesus was influenced by a Greek Humanism. The problem is in justifying the claim. Within the texts the first move toward a non-Jewish (non-Semitic) audience is done by Peter (Book of Acts) after Jesus' death. This is what led to the Council of Jerusalem (circa 50 AD). The rub of the council concerned how 'Jewish' gentile coverts had to be: what, if any, fealty to Mosaic Law needed to be followed. This is actually an inversion of the idea of a Greek influence (let alone any notion of a Humanism) as the question focused on imposing Jewish understanding outward.

ShadeHonestus

03-21-2007, 19:09

:2thumbsup: enjoying the discusson you two...

Pindar

03-22-2007, 02:02

:2thumbsup: enjoying the discusson you two...

:bow:

Suraknar

03-22-2007, 08:54

:2thumbsup: enjoying the discusson you two...

Yes :) Pindar has made it enjoyable.

And thank you Pindar for permiting a the stage to be less confrontational and more open for exchange of Ideas. I indeed realised the confrontational nature of this area of the forum after I jumped in hehe, and confrontation is not what I seek, however you are permiting for such an exchange to take place, and so I am motivated to continue :) If that is what you would like also, I think you do.

And so let me start with a small clarification. About the Jesus/Christianity in relation to Humanism topic, this topic rests in a hypothetical level, and for the interest of clarity I suggest that we put it on the side for now, and mayhap come to it later when the opportunity arises. I am not avoiding your response to it, its just that I feel we started the conversation with two topics, and this one in particular will require a common point of reference which can only be established through the evolution of the discussion of the first topic. If that makes sence.

The Backroom can be very confrontational (much of this is due to the tortured state of the Liberal Mind and the pain any remedy may involve). I hope my posts haven't been too off putting. I responded to you as I took your posts to indicate some interest in the subject and I thought your stance curious.

No your posts havent been off puting, and yes I have an interest in the subject :) And may I say I felt your curiosity, I just had to make sure we are not heading towards armaggedon :P

So lets discuss :)

Is this the view of Humanism you hold to? If so, it is an atheistic stance. Why must Humanism be atheistic and not, say agnostic? By placing Humanism as an affirmed atheism (based on the above terms) you have forced the stance to embrace a logical absurdity which would undercut any rational pretense.* In addition, does this mean then you reject the traditional referents to Christian Humanism (14th to 16th Century movement) which would include previously mentioned figures like Petrarch and Erasmus? I know you reject The Prince' as a humanist text and didn't respond to my questions on the 'Discourses on Livy' or 'Being and Nothingness', but I get the sense you are opting for a rather narrow and untraditional understanding of Humanism.

Yes I hold to this view of Humanism. However, not as categorically on a personal level. I understand the definitions I brought forth have a strong atheist stance, however they do not exclude Spirituality itself. I personally subscribe more with the #10 definition. Overall, I think the strong stance towards the categoric denyal of the divine, is there to emphasise the basis of the philsophical questioning & reasoning.

In that the basic questioning of that reasoning starts by accepting the axiom that God or Gods and Immortal beings did not exist. If then, they do not exist, what are we left with? What is it to be Human? Where does that Human come from or the world, universe that sorounds it (it for Human being - Including Male and Female). In that sence.

We dont live in an atheist world, our evolution is tied with religion if not, a certain degree of Spirituality. And therefore to be able to focus on the being of Humanity, evaluate its value in the universe and recognise its importance, we must eleviate the notion of divine intervention from the equation, in our philosophical reasoning and search of truth of this topic.

That is what Philosophy is all about, seeking a certain truth about a certain chosen topic, through questioning what seems obvious challengng what is wiedly accepted as true, and through reasoning methods try to answer them, right? I assume we, all present here, are familiar with the fundamentals of Philosophy not need to go further in to the details.

Must Humanism be atheist? Not necesarilly in my personal opinion. And no I do not reject Christian Humanism either. However, I do take under account the context in which each current of Humanism appears throught the work of certain individuals through time.

Good exemples as you mentioned are indeed, Desiderius Erasmus and Francesco Petrarch. And their context is that of a life suspended between two worlds, the world of faith and the world of Reason. As a result, their work reflects this dual existance, yet, their work is part of the continuing evolution of Humanism an not necessarilly a "take" on Humanism, at least it is what my position towards this is.

As for "The Prince", I reject it as a Humanist work, for the reasons I previously stated, yet, I dont reject its author as a Humanist. I make this distinction as part of my understanding of the notions and values the author tryed to convey through his work and the context in which he lived in.

Even if the convention to attribute the qualities of the author to its work is what usually hapens. To me that represents the tendency that people have to generalise, and I prefer not to do so.

So you are right in that I opt for an untraditional understanding of Humanism, in this regard, yet, not a narrow one, quite the contrary, a wider one, which takes under account the evolution and historical context of the people involved not only the references to their work. It is also the reason, I did not answer the questions about 'Discourses on Livy' or 'Being and Nothingness', in my view we were heading towards a more traditional approach of back and forth based on work of others and opinion on the validity of what others have said in their works rather than an expression of our own views and thoughts towards the topic at hand, yes referenced on work of others but not based upon them necessary.

A more open and wide discussion between all participating here, exchange of views, and throughts, on the topic of Humanism, rather than a contest of literary knowledge in other words.

I hope you like that aswell :)

Why must accepting the position human beings are the center of things entail seeing life as precious or that any obligation is thereby entailed? You are applying a moral posture on top of a verdict, but there doesn't appear to be anything in the base affirmation (that man occupies the center point) that would justify this.

Because that is what Humanism is about. It considers the Human being as its center value. But at the same time it takes that value and applies it under the context of Life with the purpose of rendering that life better and in Happyness.

"5. Humanism believes in an ethics or morality that grounds all human values in this-earthly experiences and relationships; one that holds as its highest goal the this-worldly happiness, freedom, and progress (economic, cultural, and ethical) of all humankind, irrespective of nation, race, or religion."

Now, what can be considered as one of the ingredients of leading a happyer life? Is peace such an ingredient? And if peace is an ingredient which leads to a happyer life for Humanity, that intails that War is not.

Therefore, here in comes the moral evaluation, if our acts are detrimental towards other human beings and cause war, these acts can be considered immoral. So evaluating morally our acts is an obligation if, having accepted Humanity as the center value of our existance, the positive progression and continued evolution of that Humanity is our goal.

---

But lets also make this a bit more interactive here :) What is your view of Humanism.

You have stated a definition.

Humanism can be defined a number of different ways depending on what one is going for and the degree of rigor.* In simple terms, Humanism implies some kind of emphasis on man. Under a philosophical rubric this can mean man as the touchstone for judgment and meaning.

For what purpose? (According to you)

When I felt the interest to participate in this discussion with my original reply, I felt that the purpose of Humanism was not expressed in the few replies I read to catch up on the discussion that lead to your definition.

Pindar

03-22-2007, 19:45

Yes :) Pindar has made it enjoyable.

:bow:

And so let me start with a small clarification. About the Jesus/Christianity in relation to Humanism topic, this topic rests in a hypothetical level, and for the interest of clarity I suggest that we put it on the side for now, and mayhap come to it later when the opportunity arises. I am not avoiding your response to it, its just that I feel we started the conversation with two topics, and this one in particular will require a common point of reference which can only be established through the evolution of the discussion of the first topic. If that makes sence.

OK.

Yes I hold to this view of Humanism. However, not as categorically on a personal level. I understand the definitions I brought forth have a strong atheist stance, however they do not exclude Spirituality itself. I personally subscribe more with the #10 definition. Overall, I think the strong stance towards the categoric denyal of the divine, is there to emphasise the basis of the philsophical questioning & reasoning.

In that the basic questioning of that reasoning starts by accepting the axiom that God or Gods and Immortal beings did not exist. If then, they do not exist, what are we left with? What is it to be Human? Where does that Human come from or the world, universe that sorounds it (it for Human being - Including Male and Female). In that sence....

Must Humanism be atheist? Not necesarilly in my personal opinion.

I need some clarification: in the above you suggest the denial of God as an operative assumption of sorts and also suggest Humanism is not necessarily tied to atheism. What then do you take as the core humanist notion that threads through either an atheist or theist humanist position?

Note: regarding the 10 points on Humanism. When I read over them they struck me as more political than critical (i.e. definitional). This means I took them more as reflecting an agenda than being actually reflective.

Because that is what Humanism is about. It considers the Human being as its center value. But at the same time it takes that value and applies it under the context of Life with the purpose of rendering that life better and in Happyness.

This is the rub: with man as the central value why must any moral appeal, let alone a specific eudaimonian version of it, be a defining trait? Man simplicitur, as a base referent, doesn't necessarily contain any moral appeal. When one says 'Man is' and that is the standard for whatever follows: there is no moral charge in the existential claim alone. In simple Humean language: one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' to conflate the two is to commit a category mistake. This is the problem I see.

What is your view of Humanism. You have stated a definition:"Humanism can be defined a number of different ways depending on what one is going for and the degree of rigor.* In simple terms, Humanism implies some kind of emphasis on man. Under a philosophical rubric this can mean man as the touchstone for judgment and meaning."

For what purpose? (According to you)

I don't think Humanism alone implies any purpose. Man is simply taken as a theoretical first premise from which an argument then proceeds. If thinker one posits man and then argues the pursuit of the good and freedom and fuzzy bunnies for all and thinker two posits man and the pursuit of power, both are humanist positions. The assigning of goal or purpose is not found in the concept itself, such is after the fact.

Lemur

03-22-2007, 22:21

If I may lower the level of discourse for a moment, Penny Arcade has a very funny message (http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20070321.jpg) for those of us who weren't wild about 300. I'd re-print the comic here, but it contains exactly two naughty words.

Suraknar

03-22-2007, 22:27

Suraknar

03-22-2007, 23:38

@ Pindar, and everyone else in the Humanism discussion.

Permit me to make another quote plese, maybe this will set the stage at some degree so we have a common frame of reference, and can then express more freely our thoughts on the topic.

By Frederick Edwords
Executive Director, American Humanist Association

What is Humanism?

What is humanism?

The sort of answer you will get to that question depends on what sort of humanist you ask!

The word "humanism" has a number of meanings, and because authors and speakers often don't clarify which meaning they intend, those trying to explain humanism can easily become a source of confusion. Fortunately, each meaning of the word constitutes a different type of humanism -- the different types being easily separated and defined by the use of appropriate adjectives. So, let me summarize the different varieties of humanism in this way.

Literary Humanism is a devotion to the humanities or literary culture.

Renaissance Humanism is the spirit of learning that developed at the end of the middle ages with the revival of classical letters and a renewed confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for themselves truth and falsehood.

Cultural Humanism is the rational and empirical tradition that originated largely in ancient Greece and Rome, evolved throughout European history, and now constitutes a basic part of the Western approach to science, political theory, ethics, and law.

Philosphical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest. Sub-categories of this type include Christian Humanism and Modern Humanism.

Christian Humanism is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary as "a philosophy advocating the self- fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles." This more human-oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism.

Modern Humanism, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scientific Humanism, Ethical Humanism and Democratic Humanism is defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion." Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub-categories.

Secular Humanism is an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and 19th century freethought. Many secular groups, such as the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy.

Religious Humanism emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian- Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense.

The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence.

Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 and Humanist Manifesto II in 1973. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree.

The definition of religion used by Religious Humanists is a functional one. Religion is that which serves the personal and social needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical world view.

To serve personal needs, Religious Humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals, methods for dealing with life's harsher realities, a rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense of purpose.

To serve social needs, Humanist religious communities (such as Ethical Culture societies and many Unitarian-Universalist churches) offer a sense of belonging, an institutional setting for the moral education of children, special holidays shared with like-minded people, a unique ceremonial life, the performance of ideologically consistent rites of passage (weddings, child welcomings, coming-of-age celebrations, funerals, and so forth), an opportunity for affirmation of one's philosophy of life, and a historical context for one's ideas.

Religious Humanists maintain that most human beings have personal and social needs that can only be met by religion (taken in the functional sense I just detailed). They do not feel that one should have to make a choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith context versus not meeting them at all. Individuals who cannot feel at home in traditional religion should be able to find a home in non-traditional religion.

I was once asked by a reporter if this functional definition of religion didn't amount to taking away the substance and leaving only the superficial trappings. My answer was that the true substance of religion is the role it plays in the lives of individuals and the life of the community. Doctrines may differ from denomination to denomination, and new doctrines may replace old ones, but the purpose religion serves for PEOPLE remains the same. If we define the substance of a thing as that which is most lasting and universal, then the function of religion is the core of it.

Religious Humanists, in realizing this, make sure that doctrine is never allowed to subvert the higher purpose of meeting human needs in the here and now. This is why Humanist child welcoming ceremonies are geared to the community and Humanist wedding services are tailored to the specialized needs of the wedding couple. This is why Humanist memorial services focus, not on saving the soul of the dear departed, but on serving the survivors by giving them a memorable experience related to how the deceased was in life. This is why Humanists don't proselytize people on their death beds. They find it better to allow them to die as they have lived, undisturbed by the agendas of others.

Finally, Religious Humanism is "faith in action." In his essay "The Faith of a Humanist," UU Minister Kenneth Phifer declares --

Humanism teaches us that it is immoral to wait for God to act for us. We must act to stop the wars and the crimes and the brutality of this and future ages. We have powers of a remarkable kind. We have a high degree of freedom in choosing what we will do. Humanism tells us that whatever our philosophy of the universe may be, ultimately the responsibility for the kind of world in which we live rests with us.

Now, while Secular Humanists may agree with much of what religious Humanists do, they deny that this activity is properly called "religious." This isn't a mere semantic debate. Secular Humanists maintain that there is so much in religion deserving of criticism that the good name of Humanism should not be tainted by connection with it.

Secular Humanists often refer to Unitarian Universalists as "Humanists not yet out of the church habit." But Unitarian- Universalists sometimes counter that a secular Humanist is simply an "unchurched Unitarian."

Probably the most popular example of the Secular Humanist world view in recent years was the controversial author Salman Rushdie. Here is what he said on ABC's "Nightline" on February 13, 1989, in regard to his novel The Satanic Verses.

(My book says) that there is an old, old conflict between the secular view of the world and the religious view of the world, and particularly between texts which claim to be divinely inspired and texts which are imaginatively inspired. . . . I distrust people who claim to know the whole truth and who seek to orchestrate the world in line with that one true truth. I think that's a very dangerous position in the world. It needs to be challenged. It needs to be challenged constantly in all sorts of ways, and that's what I tried to do.

In the March 2, 1989, edition of the New York Review, he explained that, in The Satanic Verses he --

. . . tried to give a secular, humanist vision of the birth of a great world religion. For this, apparently, I should be A tried. . . . "Battle lines are being drawn today," one of my characters remarks. "Secular versus religious, the light verses the dark. Better you choose which side you are on."

The Secular Humanist tradition is a tradition of defiance, a tradition that dates back to ancient Greece. One can see, even in Greek mythology, Humanist themes that are rarely, if ever, manifested in the mythologies of other cultures. And they certainly have not been repeated by modern religions. The best example here is the character Prometheus.

Prometheus stands out because he was idolized by ancient Greeks as the one who defied Zeus. He stole the fire of the gods and brought it down to earth. For this he was punished. And yet he continued his defiance amid his tortures. This is the root of the Humanist challenge to authority.

The next time we see a truly heroic Promethean character in mythology it is Lucifer in John Milton's Paradise Lost. But now he is the Devil. He is evil. Whoever would defy God must be wickedness personified. That seems to be a given of traditional religion. But the ancient Greeks didn't agree. To them, Zeus, for all his power, could still be mistaken.

Imagine how shocked a friend of mine was when I told her my view of "God's moral standards." I said, "If there were such a god, and these were indeed his ideal moral principles, I would be tolerant. After all, God is entitled to his own opinions!"

Only a Humanist is inclined to speak this way. Only a Humanist can suggest that, even if there be a god, it is OK to disagree with him, her, or it. In Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates shows that God is not necessarily the source of good, or even good himself. Socrates asks if something is good because God ordains it, or if God ordains it because it is already good. Yet, since the time of the ancient Greeks, no mainstream religion has permitted such questioning of God's will or made a hero out of a disobedient character. It is Humanists who claim this tradition.

After all, much of Human progress has been in defiance of religion or of the apparent natural order. When we deflect lightening or evacuate a town before a tornado strikes, we lessen the effects of so called "acts of God." When we land on the Moon we defy the Earth's gravitational pull. When we seek a solution to the AIDS crisis, we, according to Jerry Falwell, thwart "God's punishment of homosexuals."

Politically, the defiance of religious and secular authority has led to democracy, human rights, and even the protection of the environment. Humanists make no apologies for this. Humanists twist no biblical doctrine to justify such actions. They recognize the Promethean defiance of their response and take pride in it. For this is part of the tradition.

Another aspect of the Secular Humanist tradition is skepticism. Skepticism's historical exemplar is Socrates. Why Socrates? Because, after all this time, he still stands out alone among all the famous saints and sages from antiquity to the present. Every religion has its sage. Judaism has Moses, Zoroastrianism has Zarathustra, Buddhism has the Buddha, Christianity has Jesus, Islam has Mohammad, Mormonism has Joseph Smith, and Bahai has Baha-u-lah. Every one of these individuals claimed to know the absolute truth. It is Socrates, alone among famous sages, who claimed to know NOTHING. Each devised a set of rules or laws, save Socrates. Instead, Socrates gave us a method --a method of questioning the rules of others, of cross- examination. And Socrates didn't die for truth, he died for rights and the rule of law. For these reasons, Socrates is the quintessential skeptical Humanist. He stands as a symbol, both of Greek rationalism and the Humanist tradition that grew out of it. And no equally recognized saint or sage has joined his company since his death.

Because of the strong Secular Humanist identity with the images of Prometheus and Socrates, and equally strong rejection of traditional religion, the Secular Humanist actually agrees with Tertullian--who said:

"What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?"

That is, Secular Humanists identify more closely with the rational heritage symbolized by ancient Athens than with the faith heritage epitomized by ancient Jerusalem.

But don't assume from this that Secular Humanism is only negative. The positive side is liberation, best expressed in these words of Robert G. Ingersoll:

When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free--free to think, to express my thoughts--free to live my own ideal, free to live for myself and those I loved, free to use all my faculties, all my senses, free to spread imagination's wings, free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope, free to judge and determine for myself . . . I was free! I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

Enough to make a Secular Humanist shout "hallelujah!"

The fact that Humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox. Another is that both Religious and Secular Humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point of eschewing faith altogether. The dichotomy between reason and faith is often given emphasis in Humanism, with Humanists taking their stand on the side of reason. Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather as an alternative way of being religious.

These paradoxical features not only require a unique treatment of Religious Humanism in the study of world religions, but also help explain the continuing controversy, both inside and outside the Humanist movement, over whether Humanism is a religion at all.

The paradoxes don't end here. Religious Humanism is usually without a god, without a belief in the supernatural, without a belief in an afterlife, and without a belief in a "higher" source of moral values. Some adherents would even go so far as to suggest that it is a religion without "belief" of any kind-- knowledge based on evidence being considered preferable. Furthermore, the common notion of "religious knowledge" as knowledge gathered through nonscientific means is not generally accepted in Religious Humanist epistemology.

Because both Religious and Secular Humanism are identified so closely with cultural humanism, they readily embrace modern science, democratic principles, human rights, and free inquiry. Humanism's rejection of the notions of sin and guilt, especially in relation to sexual ethics, puts it in harmony with contemporary sexology and sex education as well as aspects of humanistic psychology. And Humanism's historic advocacy of the secular state makes it another voice in the defense of church/state separation.

All these features have led to the current charge of teaching "the religion of secular humanism" in the public schools.

The most obvious point to clarify in this context is that some religions hold to doctrines that place their adherents at odds with certain features of the modern world which other religions do not. For example, many biblical fundamentalists, especially those filling the ranks of the "Religious Right," reject the theory of evolution. Therefore, they see the teaching of evolution in a science course as an affront to their religious sensibilities. In defending their beliefs from exposure to ideas inconsistent with them, such fundamentalists label evolution as "humanism" and maintain that exclusive teaching of it in the science classroom constitutes a breech in the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state.

It is indeed true that Religious Humanists, in embracing modern science, embrace evolution in the bargain. But individuals within mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism also embrace modern science--and hence evolution. Evolution happens to be the state of the art in science today and is appropriately taught in science courses. That evolution has come to be identified with Religious Humanism but not with mainline Christianity or Judaism is a curious quirk of politics in North America. But this is a typical feature of the whole controversy over humanism in the schools.

Other courses of study have come to be identified with Humanism as well, including sex education, values education, global education, and even creative writing. Today's Christian fundamentalists would have us believe that "situation ethics" was invented by 1974 Humanist of the Year Joseph Fletcher. But situational considerations have been an element of Western jurisprudence for at least 2,000 years! Again, Secular and Religious Humanists, being in harmony with current trends, are quite comfortable with all of this, as are adherents of most major religions. There is no justification for seeing these ideas as the exclusive legacy of Humanism. Furthermore, there are independent secular reasons why schools offer the curriculum that they do. A bias in favor of "the religion of secular humanism" has never been a factor in their development and implementation.

The charge of Humanist infiltration into the public schools seems to be the product of a confusion of cultural humanism and Religious Humanism. Though Religious Humanism embraces cultural humanism, this is no justification for separating out cultural humanism, labeling it as the exclusive legacy of a nontheistic and naturalistic religion called Religious Humanism, and thus declaring it alien. To do so would be to turn one's back on a significant part of one's culture and enthrone the standards of biblical fundamentalism as the arbiter of what is and is not religious. A deeper understanding of Western culture would go a long way in clarifying the issues surrounding the controversy over humanism in the public schools.

Once we leave the areas of confusion, it is possible to explain, in straightforward terms, exactly what the modern Humanist philosophy is about. It is easy to summarize the basic ideas held in common by both Religious and Secular Humanists. These ideas are as follows:

1. Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for themselves. There is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore.

2. Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims to possess or have access to supposed transcendent knowledge.

3. Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness.

4. Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, flashes of inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even religious experience, while not valid means to acquire knowledge, remain useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of looking at the world. These ideas, after they have been assessed rationally for their usefulness, can then be put to work, often as alternate approaches for solving problems.

5. Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now. Humanists regard human values as making sense only in the context of human life rather than in the promise of a supposed life after death.

6. Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems--for both the individual and society--and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities.

7. Humanism is a realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the existence of moral dilemmas and the need for careful consideration of immediate and future consequences in moral decision making.

8. Humanism is in tune with the science of today. Humanists therefore recognize that we live in a natural universe of great size and age, that we evolved on this planet over a long period of time, that there is no compelling evidence for a separable "soul," and that human beings have certain built-in needs that effectively form the basis for any human-oriented value system.

9. Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives.

10. Humanism is in tune with new technological developments. Humanists are willing to take part in emerging scientific and technological discoveries in order to exercise their moral influence on these revolutions as they come about, especially in the interest of protecting the environment.

11. Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, Humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails.

Though there are some who would suggest that this philosophy has always had a limited and eccentric following, the facts of history show otherwise. Among the modern adherents of Humanism have been Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and 1957 Humanist of the Year of the American Humanist Association; humanistic psychology pioneers Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, also Humanists of the Year; Albert Einstein, who joined the American Humanist Association in the 1950s; Bertrand Russell, who joined in the 1960s; civil rights pioneer A. Philip Randoph who was the 1970 Humanist of the Year, and futurist R. Buckminister Fuller, Humanist of the Year in 1969.

The United Nations is a specific example of Humanism at work. The first Director General of UNESCO, the UN organization promoting education, science, and culture, was the 1962 Humanist of the Year Julian Huxley, who practically drafted UNESCO'S charter by himself. The first Director-General of the World Health Organization was the 1959 Humanist of the Year Brock Chisholm. One of this organization's greatest accomplishments has been the wiping of smallpox from the face of the earth. And the first Director-General of the Food and Agricultural Organization was British Humanist John Boyd Orr.

Meanwhile, Humanists, like 1980 Humanist of the Year Andrei Sakharov, have stood up for human rights wherever such rights are suppressed. Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem fight for women's rights, Mathilde Krim battles the AIDS epidemic, and Margaret Atwood is one of the world's most outspoken advocates of literary freedom--Humanists all.

The list of scientists is legion: Stephen Jay Gould, Donald Johanson, Richard Leakey, E.O. Wilson, Francis Crick, Jonas Salk, and many others--all members of the American Humanist Association, whose president in the 1980s was the late scientist and author Isaac Asimov.

The membership lists of Humanist organizations, both religious and secular, read like Who's Who. Through these people, and many more of less reknown, the Humanist philosophy has an impact on our world far out of proportion to the number of its adherents. That, I think, tells us something about the power of ideas that work.

This may have been what led George Santayana to declare Humanism to be "an accomplishment, not a doctrine."

So, with modern Humanism one finds a philosophy or religion that is in tune with modern knowledge; is inspiring, socially conscious, and personally meaningful. It is not only the thinking person's outlook, but that of the feeling person as well, for it has inspired the arts as much as it has the sciences, philanthropy as much as critique. And even in critique it is tolerant, defending the rights of all people to choose other ways, to speak and to write freely, to live their lives according to their own lights.

So, the choice is yours. Are you a Humanist?

You needn't answer "yes" or "no." For it's not an either-or proposition. Humanism is yours--to adopt or simply to draw from. You may take a little or a lot, sip from the cup or drink it to the dregs.

It's up to you.

© Copyright 1989 by Frederick Edwords

So long as profit is not your motive and you always include this copyright notice, please feel free to reproduce and distribute this material in electronic form as widely as you please. All nonprofit Humanist and Freethought publications have additional permission to publish this in print form. Other permission must be sought from the author through the the American Humanist Association, which can be contacted at the following address:

AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION
1777 T Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-238-9088

Your questions:

I need some clarification: in the above you suggest the denial of God as an operative assumption of sorts and also suggest Humanism is not necessarily tied to atheism. What then do you take as the core humanist notion that threads through either an atheist or theist humanist position?

I hope this is answered by the above quote, it is the nature of Humanist reality and currents, it is the paradox which stems from our own Human Nature and our Common History.

As for agenda, not there is no agenda here. Just discussion and exchange of Ideas, Humanism much like our Human nature is complex and varied, because it is a Philosophy about the Human condition, that evolves in perpetuity as we evolve.

This is the rub: with man as the central value why must any moral appeal, let alone a specific eudaimonian version of it, be a defining trait? Man simplicitur, as a base referent, doesn't necessarily contain any moral appeal. When one says 'Man is' and that is the standard for whatever follows: there is no moral charge in the existential claim alone. In simple Humean language: one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' to conflate the two is to commit a category mistake. This is the problem I see.

Clarification maybe needed. When I use the word moral, I am implying ethical evaluation, not doctinal morality. Man is - an ethical being, amongst other things.

What is your view of Humanism. You have stated a definition:"Humanism can be defined a number of different ways depending on what one is going for and the degree of rigor.* In simple terms, Humanism implies some kind of emphasis on man. Under a philosophical rubric this can mean man as the touchstone for judgment and meaning."

For what purpose? (According to you)

I don't think Humanism alone implies any purpose. Man is simply taken as a theoretical first premise from which an argument then proceeds. If thinker one posits man and then argues the pursuit of the good and freedom and fuzzy bunnies for all and thinker two posits man and the pursuit of power, both are humanist positions. The assigning of goal or purpose is not found in the concept itself, such is after the fact.

Humanism is a Philosophy.

A definition of Philosophy (From from Wikipedia):

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); what existence is and what it means to be (ontology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).[

The Discipline has a purpose, many purposes actually, which define the different areas of Philosophy.

And they all have a purpose, to ask questions and try to provide answers, explanations through a given method.

And hence the question about Humanism and your own thoughts on its purpose.

Now, if you dont have personal thoughts towards this philosophy, that is another question, yet that is what the discussion we are entertaining is about, exchanging our views on this philosophy.

You referenced works of Humanist Philosophers, which contain their own views and thoughts of this philosophy, Machiavelli etc. In the discussion here, we can use their work as reference, but the discussion is an exchange of our own conclusions, views and thoughts, not theirs.

And it started when I read your definition of Humanism, I came in to the discussion to offer a more broad definition. That is why I am asking your view on it. Ofering a definition implied that you had examined the Humanist Philosophy and defined it as you did based on that examination.

Maybe I am not asking the right triggering question here?

Pindar

03-23-2007, 18:11

Suraknar,

Ahh, I thought those ten points were a tract. The American Humanist Association, may lay out what its membership believes, but that is not necessarily the same as an investigation into the base concept humanism. Much like the charter of the American Communist Party does not have a corner on what the core notion communism entails, so one must look beyond organizations to the concept itself.

This is the rub: with man as the central value why must any moral appeal, let alone a specific eudaimonian version of it, be a defining trait? Man simplicitur, as a base referent, doesn't necessarily contain any moral appeal. When one says 'Man is' and that is the standard for whatever follows: there is no moral charge in the existential claim alone. In simple Humean language: one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' to conflate the two is to commit a category mistake. This is the problem I see.

Clarification maybe needed. When I use the word moral, I am implying ethical evaluation, not doctinal morality. Man is - an ethical being, amongst other things.

One can't simply assume a conclusion to avoid the difficulty. For example, is an infant an ethical being? If not, and one admits they are human then the problem is clear. I'll give another example using culture. In English when one says: 'Bob is an honorable fellow' honorable entails a certain moral rectitude. Were one to say 'Kenji is an honorable fellow' in Japanese there is no necessary moral referent in the use of honor. Rather, honor conveys fame or recognition. Not all cultures appeal to the same standards or order the universe in the same way. The posit man as an extant thing does not necessarily indicate an ethical referent.

Humanism is a Philosophy.

This is a major difference in how we see the issue. If humanism were a philosophy (by which we mean a distinct system amenable to logic) then it would have to cohere to rational standards. Were one to take your own statements as an example, humanism can be both atheistic and theistic. Atheism and theism are mutually exclusive (A and -A). Any system that admits contradictory conclusions (absurdities) is outside the bounds of reason.

Humanism is a premise. From that base premise a variety of positions may proceed, but the premise remains distinct from any attending argument that might follow. Much like atheism or theism, humanism does not imply purpose or moral standing or aesthetic sensibility in and of itself.

Maybe I am not asking the right triggering question here?

I think your questions are fine, I simply reject the assumptions that inform them.

Suraknar

03-24-2007, 00:33

Esteemed Pindar,

Ahh, I thought those ten points were a tract. The American Humanist Association, may lay out what its membership believes, but that is not necessarily the same as an investigation into the base concept humanism. Much like the charter of the American Communist Party does not have a corner on what the core notion communism entails, so one must look beyond organizations to the concept itself.

The Quote I brought up so we have a common point of reference of the topic, I think it served its purpose well, the discussion just got more rigorous. Wither it was a quote from an organisation or from the Bible or Darwin's Theory of Evolution that imports not, its purpose was to bring forth some clarification and it did. That clarification is to explain that Humanism has many meanings depending on the context.

Pindar, you are very knowledgeable in the literary, English is not my first language (I am Canadian), your vocabulary is very rich. But once I looked at the dictionary for some key words I can understand the Ideas of your phrases (most of the time), so its oki :) But, let us not be hampered and be gogged down by what is considered proper "Literary Form", althought that form maybe suited for writing a book and transmiting a message it can, on the other hand, constitute an obstacle to discussion and dialogue.

Example this:

One can't simply assume a conclusion to avoid the difficulty. For example, is an infant an ethical being? If not, and one admits they are human then the problem is clear.

Well, the form in the case of Infant Cats will lead us to wrong conclusions, As Infant Cats are born Blind, but Blindness is not what Characterises Cat nature. So to say "Cat - is not Blind" is very valid, but under your exemple of form it would not, yet it would be false.

So yes we can say "Man - is an ethical being" in philosophical dialogue, it is a position that the philosopher takes. In this case it is the position of Humanism.

Literary form and rules of literature can be detrimental to such a discussion, we are not writting books, we are writting replies to one another, we are using the medium of the internet in the form of this forum throught the means of our keyboard. Yes it is not a vocal form, it is written, the means of our communication are written words, but not under the context of a book, they are under the context of Communication between 2 or more people.

It depends how you see it, there is no "good" or "bad" way to communicate through a forum (As long as it is Civil and mutually respectfull and not agaist any established TOS etc). I personally see forums as a communications means, for discussion and exchange of Ideas as well as information.

So to characterise Human nature - provided that we agree on the form that when we say "Man is an ethical being" we are talking about the Human nature - based on a specific period of the underdevelloped being as part of its natural aging process is not fair.

I'll give another example using culture. In English when one says: 'Bob is an honorable fellow' honorable entails a certain moral rectitude. Were one to say 'Kenji is an honorable fellow' in Japanese there is no necessary moral referent in the use of honor. Rather, honor conveys fame or recognition. Not all cultures appeal to the same standards or order the universe in the same way. The posit man as an extant thing does not necessarily indicate an ethical referent.

This is context, I understand this very well. And I think our context is Philosophical right now.

This is a major difference in how we see the issue. If humanism were a philosophy (by which we mean a distinct system amenable to logic) then it would have to cohere to rational standards. Were one to take your own statements as an example, humanism can be both atheistic and theistic. Atheism and theism are mutually exclusive (A and -A). Any system that admits contradictory conclusions (absurdities) is outside the bounds of reason.

So in other words, you are also like myself and everyone else in the world outside of the bounds of reason. Is that your position?

because, if Humans are a system of biological processes, and Humans adhere to both Logic and Emotions, two mutually exclussive states of being, that would imply that Humans admit to contradictory conclusions (absurdities) and are therefore outside the bounds of reason.

As such, I can qualify your response as unreasonable and invalid, under the the present discussion which falls under the Philosophical context, and Philosophy is a distinct system amenable to logic.

In other words, Philosophy exists independently of Humans, and is not dependent upon Humans.

Is that your conclusion?

If yes, then I respect your logical position on the matter, but I disagree with it. Because I acknowledge that Philosophy is dependent on Humans since it is something that Humans made. Man made philosophy, just the same as man made God.

Because, both Emotions and Logic is what makes Humans, and not only one or the other. (As much as I would like us to be Vulcans, unfortunently we are not, but it maybe a good thing after all).

Or do you deny that man is an absurdity?

Humanism is a premise. From that base premise a variety of positions may proceed, but the premise remains distinct from any attending argument that might follow. Much like atheism or theism, humanism does not imply purpose or moral standing or aesthetic sensibility in and of itself.

Well, Humanism is a Philosophy, (albeit not only a Philosophy which is why I think there is some confusion about the whole subject), and it falls under the Philosophical branch of Ethics. It is why the Humanist position implies ethical and/or moral standing.

Now, the fact that this Philosophical Branch of Ethics, namelly Humanism contains both Theist and Atheist positions, that is a premise. Which is very self evident since, being Theist or Atheist is part of Human nature, and if we are to place Humans as the center value of Humanism we have to acknowledge both the Theist and Atheist nature of Man, we have to acknowledge both the Logical and the Emotional states of Human nature, even if they represent an absurdity, it is just how it is.

Unless you deny that man has both a Logical and Emotional nature. Do you?

And saying that Humanism is not a Philosophy is contrary to all these definitions aswell:

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism.
from wikipedia

Humanism encompasses atheism and agnosticism ‑ but is an active and ethical philosophy far greater than these negative responses to religion.

British Humanist Association

Of all the practices of Renaissance Europe, nothing is used to distinguish the Renaissance from the Middle Ages more than humanism as both a program and a philosophy. Textbooks will tell you that the humanists of the Renaissance rediscovered the Latin and Greek classics (hence the "rebirth" or "renaissance" of the classical world), that humanist philosophy stressed the dignity of humanity, and that humanists shifted intellectual emphasis off of theology and logic to specifically human studies. In pursuing this program, the argument goes, the humanists literally created the European Renaissance and paved the way for the modern, secular world.http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REN/HUMANISM.HTM -

Secular humanism, is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Again Wikipedia, different article.

Philosophy. a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God. from Dictionary.com

1. A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. from bartelby.com -

1. belief in human-based morality: a system of thought that is based on the values, characteristics, and behavior that are believed to be best in human beings, rather than on any supernatural authority from MSN Encarta

noun 1 a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters Oxford Dictionary

And so on and so forth... Humanism is a Philosophy, that roots in the Ancient World, and that was ecclipsed by the advent of Christianity in the Middle Ages much like many other things. Started reapiring in Renaissance, and that is what we call the Renaissance Humanism Movement, the Movement is witnessed or represented by the various works of people such as Erasmus and Machiavelli, they constitute the movement which is based on the Philosophy of Humanism that they discovered in Ancient Letters.

Additionally, I found something interesting in Wikipedia called, Religious Humanism and defined as:

Religious humanism is an integration of religious rituals and/or beliefs with humanistic philosophy that centers on human needs, interests, and abilities.

Mayhap, this Human behavior has blured the facts a bit?

---------

I think your questions are fine, I simply reject the assumptions that inform them.

Me too, hehe. But its becoming more and more interesting we are engaging in philosophical dialogue here :)

Pindar

03-26-2007, 18:32

Pindar, you are very knowledgeable in the literary, English is not my first language (I am Canadian), your vocabulary is very rich. But once I looked at the dictionary for some key words I can understand the Ideas of your phrases (most of the time), so its oki :)

Sorry. If you have questions about the meaning of something I post ask and I'll explain.

Well, the form in the case of Infant Cats will lead us to wrong conclusions, As Infant Cats are born Blind, but Blindness is not what Characterises Cat nature. So to say "Cat - is not Blind" is very valid, but under your exemple of form it would not, yet it would be false.

Actually, I would say being born blind is a standard characteristic of a cat. What is relevant is the cat goes from a blind state to a seeing state. If you claim infants are moral then the claim must be supported. If you admit infants are not moral, but then at some point become moral you have the task of determining when and how this occurs. For a cat this is a biological process. Do you wish to argue the same for men? If so, the biological component of the claim is before you. If not, then the claim to morality is based on some other criteria that is outside of man proper (meaning his person) and therefore not intrinsic and the claim fails.

So yes we can say "Man - is an ethical being" in philosophical dialogue, it is a position that the philosopher takes. In this case it is the position of Humanism.

We disagree.

1) There is no singular Humanist position on Man and ethics.

2) "Man - is an ethical being" is not the position of Humanism as Humanism does not imply any moral stance. Further, there are a host of humanists who rejected just such a notion: Hume, Nietzsche and Sartre would be three simple examples.

3) As stated above, the posit man as an existential reality does not alone indicate a moral positioning. To argue otherwise, one would need to demonstrate what in the biology makes it so. This is problematic.

This is a major difference in how we see the issue. If humanism were a philosophy (by which we mean a distinct system amenable to logic) then it would have to cohere to rational standards. Were one to take your own statements as an example, humanism can be both atheistic and theistic. Atheism and theism are mutually exclusive (A and -A). Any system that admits contradictory conclusions (absurdities) is outside the bounds of reason.

So in other words, you are also like myself and everyone else in the world outside of the bounds of reason. Is that your position?

because, if Humans are a system of biological processes, and Humans adhere to both Logic and Emotions, two mutually exclussive states of being, that would imply that Humans admit to contradictory conclusions (absurdities) and are therefore outside the bounds of reason.

Neither you or I are theoretical systems. Philosophy, is theoretical: it is concerned with ideas. The rubric for their presentation is logic. If a position cannot abide by rational standards then it cannot claim philosophical standing. The admittance of contradictory conclusions within a system would be a violation of logical norms and thus disqualify Humanism (were one to entertain the notion it were a philosophy in the first place).

In other words, Philosophy exists independently of Humans, and is not dependent upon Humans.

Is that your conclusion?

Validity is independent of personal preference. It is objective that is the reason logic has value.

If yes, then I respect your logical position on the matter, but I disagree with it. Because I acknowledge that Philosophy is dependent on Humans since it is something that Humans made. Man made philosophy, just the same as man made God.

Because, both Emotions and Logic is what makes Humans, and not only one or the other. (As much as I would like us to be Vulcans, unfortunently we are not, but it maybe a good thing after all).

Or do you deny that man is an absurdity?

People may be more or less rational, but that is not relevant to the point. A system that purports to be philosophy (by this I mean part of the rational tradition and not the other use of the term: a belief or view) then it must abide by the dictates of logic. The Humanism you have advocated cannot do this.

Humanism is a premise. From that base premise a variety of positions may proceed, but the premise remains distinct from any attending argument that might follow. Much like atheism or theism, humanism does not imply purpose or moral standing or aesthetic sensibility in and of itself.

Well, Humanism is a Philosophy, (albeit not only a Philosophy which is why I think there is some confusion about the whole subject), and it falls under the Philosophical branch of Ethics. It is why the Humanist position implies ethical and/or moral standing.

Humanism is not a philosophy. To argue: Humanism is both a philosophy and not a philosophy, alone indicates the problem: this is another breach of rational form. Humanism is not a subdivision of ethics. It has no necessary connection to ethics. I have already referenced humanist thinkers whose work act as counters to this idea. Further, I have already explained the category mistake in that an 'is' cannot be an 'ought': the posit man indicates both a logical and ontic priority over and above any ethical posture.

Now, the fact that this Philosophical Branch of Ethics, namelly Humanism contains both Theist and Atheist positions, that is a premise.

Theism and atheism are not subdivisions of ethics. They are premises concerned with ontology.

And saying that Humanism is not a Philosophy is contrary to all these definitions aswell:

In English philosophy has a few definitions. One of these is a synonym for belief or point of view. Philosophy, as I have referred to it, is a distinct mode of making truth claims that are amenable to logic alone. The humanism you have advocated fails in this regard (which you have admitted by its use of contradictory conclusions).

Note: when one is looking to the underlying principle of an idea, referencing dictionaries, or similar fair, is of little value. Such are not rigorous.

To review: our discussion is looking at two points of conflict: one, humanism is a philosophy (which I reject). Two, humanism is necessarily ethical (which I reject).

To the first, humanism fails to meet the standards of a philosophy. It is not rationally bound (the admittance of contradictory conclusions as an example). It is not systemic: there are a vast array of humanistic stances some at odds with each other. It has no systemic theoretical pedigree: no philosopher can be referenced as the source (unlike all other philosophies i.e. Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, Marxism etc.)

To the second: there are a variety of humanist thinkers who never argued any necessary ethical component and in fact argued an amoral system. The base posit man, which serves as the root of humanism is, at its core, an ontological positioning: man is. An 'is' is not conduct. It does not indicate either purpose or propriety. To conflate an 'is' with any 'ought' is to commit a category mistake.

Suraknar

03-28-2007, 08:02

Note: when one is looking to the underlying principle of an idea, referencing dictionaries, or similar fair, is of little value. Such are not rigorous.

Alright I understand this, but, on the other hand, applying rules of formof phraseology to reject one's point of view is neither.

I have to resort to commonly accepted definitions because it is easyer (my knowledge of playing with words in english is not as attuned as yours) for me to express the points and ideas I am trying to make, however, I shall accept your rules of discussion the best I can. On the other hand dont consider this as an attempt to "misbehave" on purpose.

-----

Oki before I continue with a longer reply. Let me ask you this. Do you recognise that in Philosophy there is both Theist and Atheist positions, branches or sub-branches?

And please dont reply with "you cant this or that".

Suraknar

03-28-2007, 09:23

We have a difference of available hours here, so let me tackle some of your replies before you answer the above question.

Actually, I would say being born blind is a standard characteristic of a cat. What is relevant is the cat goes from a blind state to a seeing state. If you claim infants are moral then the claim must be supported. If you admit infants are not moral, but then at some point become moral you have the task of determining when and how this occurs. For a cat this is a biological process. Do you wish to argue the same for men? If so, the biological component of the claim is before you. If not, then the claim to morality is based on some other criteria that is outside of man proper (meaning his person) and therefore not intrinsic and the claim fails.

I maintain that Man is an ethical being.

Now, are babies ethical, I would say yes, however, I would also say that their biological state does not permit them to demonstrate or express it.

Same a cats not being able to demonstrate sight when they are babies.

So before, going in to as to why and how man is ethical, we need a basis upon which we both agree, that basis is , what is man?

We need to define man itself, as a being, my position on this is based on our knowledge of science, with all its reasoning, observational and experimental diagnosis, according to scientific methodology. So far so good? (I hope I did not say anything that is against form rules).

In short. Man is as such the result of a long process of evolution which has separated him from his animal origins. The biological factor which separates man from animals is the evolution of his brain, capable of abstract thinking, self-awareness, and a develloped means of communication such as language, coupled with several anatomical adaptations, the sum of which, permits man to shape its own environment, and thus not be dependent upon it.

Now, because of that evolution, man is no longer governed by the laws of natural selection. Man is no longer driven by instinct either, even if remnants of that dependency exist - they constitute another link to his animal origins - they nevertheless dont govern man's actions.

Man is governed by a mixture of reason and emotions.

Using the capacity to reason, man has put in place certain rules that define basic behavior and actions with his peers. These rules we call Ethics and Moralilty. And as man evolves through history in the ever growing and changing society amongst his peers these rules also evolve through his own evaluation of them and amendment.

The capacity that permits man to do so, is biological, it is something with what man is born with, as it comes from within the biological disposition of his own brain. As such, man is born ethical, and as such a baby is ethical.

Now it can be argued that if we leave a baby in the wild, this baby will not demonstrate ethics. However that is a falacity, as man in his natural state is a communal animal, and not a solitary one, Therefore the exemple places man under very very extreeme circomstances that is not representative of the nature of Human beings. Additionally, this baby, is biologically predisposed to ethical behavior, and if reintegrated to a Human society can express it.

Conclusion: man is an ethical being.

1) There is no singular Humanist position on Man and ethics.

Is there any singular Philosophical Position on any specific philosophical branch? No, we always have the philosophers that support or demonstrate if you prefer one way and others the other, it does not nevertheless disqualify the Philosophy branches themselves from being.

2) "Man - is an ethical being" is not the position of Humanism as Humanism does not imply any moral stance. Further, there are a host of humanists who rejected just such a notion: Hume, Nietzsche and Sartre would be three simple examples.

Yet, Hume, Nietzsche and Sartre, are philosophers, which rejected the position of other philosophers...or Philosophies :) In this case...Humanism. And lets not forget Kant and Spinoza.

3) As stated above, the posit man as an existential reality does not alone indicate a moral positioning. To argue otherwise, one would need to demonstrate what in the biology makes it so. This is problematic.

I just did above, and to me it is not problematic at all, it is on the contrary, quite clear.

ICantSpellDawg

03-28-2007, 18:29

i love philosophical examples using cats.

Reenk Roink

03-28-2007, 20:36

On the subject of cats, why not dogs?

Philosophy, as I have referred to it, is a distinct mode of making truth claims that are amenable to logic alone.

I prefer to hold a much wider view of what philosophy is, like my man Plato: (:tongue2:)

A philosopher is someone who distinguishes based on the criteria of knowledge.
Guard dogs distinguish based on the criteria of knowledge.
Thus, guard dogs are philosophers. And true philosophers at that!

:grin:

Pindar

03-29-2007, 00:24

Oki before I continue with a longer reply. Let me ask you this. Do you recognise that in Philosophy there is both Theist and Atheist positions, branches or sub-branches?

And please dont reply with "you cant this or that".

Actually, you can't this or that. Just kidding. Theism and atheism are certainly positions one can hold within a philosophical context.

I maintain that Man is an ethical being....

That is fine, but the issue concerns humanism in general, not the views of a single fellow. There is nothing within humanism itself that requires an ethical turn. I have already given counter examples of humanist thinkers that illustrate the point.

Note: if you wish to discuss your own views we can do that. This would be separate from the basic topic. There are a number of points that I, as your humble interlocutor, would look at. One simple example would be the idea infants are ethical. Without some verification schema this appears as a bald assertion which means it either begs the question or is less than compelling.

1) There is no singular Humanist position on Man and ethics.

Is there any singular Philosophical Position on any specific philosophical branch? No, we always have the philosophers that support or demonstrate if you prefer one way and others the other, it does not nevertheless disqualify the Philosophy branches themselves from being.

Within a particular philosophical school of thought there are certain defining elements. A simple example would be neo-Kantianism. A neo-Kantian, by the label alone, accepts a set epistemic schema. Were they to reject that positioning they would not be neo-Kantians at all. As to humanism, there is a particular positioning that humanists must share: thus the label, but this does not include any ethical posture. As already explained, there are humanist thinkers for whom this is not either an emphasis or relevant to their thought.

Yet, Hume, Nietzsche and Sartre, are philosophers, which rejected the position of other philosophers...or Philosophies :) In this case...Humanism. And lets not forget Kant and Spinoza.

Hume, Nietzsche and Sartre certainly rejected the views of some thinkers and agreed with others, but this does not effect the fact they were humanists and did not offer any 'man is fundamentally ethical' posture or any version of the same to their thought.

3) As stated above, the posit man as an existential reality does not alone indicate a moral positioning. To argue otherwise, one would need to demonstrate what in the biology makes it so. This is problematic.

I just did above, and to me it is not problematic at all, it is on the contrary, quite clear.

Going to your own thinking: I don't think you did. I commented on the problems of asserting infants are moral above. The other potentially relevant point you brought up: man is communal and rules exist within the community is not demonstrative of ethics. Wolves are communal and operate their packs along set patterns. The same could be said of bees with their hives. Do you wish to argue wolves and bees are ethical beings? If not, the position fails.

I mentioned two problems: one was the stance humanism is necessarily ethical. This is the point you tried to respond to above. The other problem was the idea humanism is a philosophy. One counter example I gave was such a view would force one to admit humanism allows antithetical conclusions. This would disqualify it as a rational system and thus not philosophy.

Pindar

03-29-2007, 00:25

i love philosophical examples using cats.

I aim to please. :bow:

Pindar

03-29-2007, 00:27

On the subject of cats, why not dogs?

I added a wolf example to appease the god of the canines.

I prefer to hold a much wider view of what philosophy is, like my man Plato: (:tongue2:)

A philosopher is someone who distinguishes based on the criteria of knowledge.
Guard dogs distinguish based on the criteria of knowledge.
Thus, guard dogs are philosophers. And true philosophers at that!

:grin:

You rogue you. This is how mobocracy starts.

ICantSpellDawg

03-29-2007, 02:07

Reenk Roink

03-29-2007, 02:42

A philosopher is someone who distinguishes based on the criteria of knowledge.
Guard dogs distinguish based on the criteria of knowledge.
Thus, guard dogs are philosophers. And true philosophers at that!

I just realized that I referred to Plato in a syllogistic fashion instead of a dialectic. :shame: That renegade Aristotle and his ideas continue to plague me. Off to reread Crito. :book:

Suraknar

03-29-2007, 03:11

Actually, you can't this or that. Just kidding. Theism and atheism are certainly positions one can hold within a philosophical context.

Well then in that case, I do not understand how you can dismiss Humanism as a philosophy based on the fact that it has both a Theist and Atheist views, when Philosophy itself does. Care to elaborate, because I see Humanism as a Philosophy still.

Going to your own thinking: I don't think you did. I commented on the problems of asserting infants are moral above. The other potentially relevant point you brought up: man is communal and rules exist within the community is not demonstrative of ethics. Wolves are communal and operate their packs along set patterns. The same could be said of bees with their hives. Do you wish to argue wolves and bees are ethical beings? If not, the position fails.

Hehe, in my above reply I actually had a passage about wolves, bees, lions etc...but i decided to remove it waiting your reply, its a classic counter argument ;)

Well, yes this communal behavior is observed in such animals however the fact that they addopt such a behavior is not a conscious choice like humans, the rules that govern animal communities are based on instinct and they are in fact hierarchies based on an adaptation that improves the survival chances of the species within natural selection laws.

Humans, albeit, originally in its animal stages was also such a communal animal, once evolved past the laws of natural selection, a transitory move as human brain develloped, established such rules via the use of this brain, not by instinct.

I mentioned two problems: one was the stance humanism is necessarily ethical. This is the point you tried to respond to above. The other problem was the idea humanism is a philosophy. One counter example I gave was such a view would force one to admit humanism allows antithetical conclusions. This would disqualify it as a rational system and thus not philosophy.

Yes and also you admitted above about the existance of theist and atheist positions within philosophy. Antithetical positions, which nevertheless do not disqualify them from being philosophies.

So, if we are to apply a logical rule here, and disqualify an assertion based on that then you are saying that many of the recognised philosophies are not philosophies.

But that, dear Pindar, is your version and view of Philosophy, which is narrowed down to being a system amenable to logic alone.

It is not my position, as I do recognise the nature of Humans as not solelly logical, I therfore accept the antithetic positioning of a given philosopher, which is also based upon emotions, that is, the emotion of belief and faith.

And I do accept this statement aswell:

A philosopher is someone who distinguishes based on the criteria of knowledge.

Knowledge is the basis of Philosophy, logic is a means, a methodology, not the basis.

EDIT: Additionally, yes I am stating my position on Humanism here. It is what I have been trying to explain to you, the reason also for bringing the long quotes from various sources.

The fact is that there are many views of Humanism, I think we cant disagree on that part yes? Now, I mentioned that Humanism is not necessarilly only a position, and that it is also a philosophy, you deny that based on the points you brought up which I perceive are based on a certain form, rules or established protocol if you will...yet, my friend, I have trouble accepting those as the answer.

If I can make an analogy here. Its like if I am asking proof of god and you say that it exists because its written in a book we consider holy, yet itself written by people. To me that does not constitute proof, as much as I respect the belief and faith someone has for the book and its scripture.

Do you understand the problem at hand, is it because of language barrier, is it because of my ignorance of these rules, is it because of your position of their validity, I cant say yet, but I am trying to determine on a reply by reply basis here. :)

Humanism can be defined a number of different ways depending on what one is going for and the degree of rigor.* In simple terms, Humanism implies some kind of emphasis on man. Under a philosophical rubric this can mean man as the touchstone for judgment and meaning.

And I added Ethics and Morality, which you do not agree. Yes?

Well, for me it goes without saying, albeit, I have to find the way to say it for the purpose of this discussion :P I read philosophical works (books) in French, which may constitute here a problem in the way I am trying to convey the point across, but also in the way I perceive your questions. Now I do keep mentioning of this language impediment here, to make sure we are both aware of the level of accuracy and specificity between us, which should not be expected as 100%, to remind of the margin of error. So please dont interpret this as a scapegoat or anything of the sort.

I have to think a bit before posting more on the stance of humanism being ethical.

Suraknar

03-29-2007, 07:08

I just realized that I referred to Plato in a syllogistic fashion instead of a dialectic. :shame: That renegade Aristotle and his ideas continue to plague me. Off to reread Crito. :book:

:idea2:
Hehe thanks :)

In Plato's dialogues and other Socratic dialogues, Socrates attempts to examine first principles or premises by which we all reason and argue. Socrates typically argues by cross-examining someone's claims and premises in order to draw out a contradiction or inconsistency among them. For example, in the Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro to provide a definition of piety. Euthyphro replies that the pious is that which is loved by the gods. But, Socrates also has Euthyphro agreeing that the gods are quarrelsome and their quarrels, like human quarrels, concern objects of love or hatred. Therefore, Socrates reasons, at least one thing exists which certain gods love but other gods hate. Again, Euthyphro agrees. Socrates concludes that if Euthyphro's definition of piety is acceptable, then there must exist at least one thing which is both pious and impious (as it is both loved and hated by the gods) — which, Euthyphro admits, is absurd. Thus, Euthyphro is brought to a realization by this dialectical method that his definition of piety is not sufficiently elaborate, thus wrong.

I see now what Pindar is doing... heh

Well, I am affraid I am not that good with english to engage in dialectic...yet. I tend to think in another language even if I write english...some may say that Logic is universal but dialectic is not pure logic, in that, knowledge of language is required in order to be able to express logically one's statements assertions, fallacies, contradictions etc.

So Pindar, I dont know if english is your first language or not but clearly your mastery of it is greater than mine.

As such, keep it or dismiss it, here it comes.

Your original question before we go in to the quotes etc Pindar.

Why does a Humanist stance require any affirmation of dignity or worth?
and

What is it within Humanism that requires consideration of a moral order towards our fellow humans?

The way I see it, from the knowledge I have through the study of works on fields such as Philosophy, History, Theology, Sociology, Anthropology, Biology, Archeology and Theoretical Astrophysics. All fields of great interest to me.

As well as personal life experience, I had the opportunity to travel lots during my upbringing, 3 times around the world actually.

A humanist stance requires the affirmation of dignety and worth of Human beings in order be humanist.

That is what Humanism implies, the view or stance that Humans are the product of a natural evolution and all that which is considered great, as well as bad about Humans is the result of the actions of Humans themselves, not influenced in any manner by divine or supernatural beings or entities.

However, our common Human History, as a Human race - and personally I consider all Humans being of the same race, independently of appearence, language or religion, customs and traditions, culture - contains a Theist belief in one form or another for several thousands of years.

That puts the Humanist view in contradiction with that Theist view that all humans have had for so long. So humanism in its rejection of the Theist origins or Theist destination, promotes the affirmation of dignety and worth of Human beings. And in response to the dialectics of the Theist point of view.

Now, even if Humanism rejects a Theist origin or destination of Human Lives, it does not never theless reject the Humans that have such a faith and beleifs, (and here is where ethics come in to play) Because, based upon science, History being a science, recognises the importance that religion has played during Human Evolution. I would even say that religion was a necessary mechanism in order for the Human race to be able to evolve till today, as in our beginings our knowledge and understanding of our environment was much more limited than it is today, and religions not only were able to provide explanations of different phenomenae that early Humans observed around them on a daily basis, religions (And I am using the term religion in a very broad sence here including ceremonial burial if you will), they also gave a purpose for early humans to survive, as well as after a certain time when humans addopted a sedantary existance, religions provided moral codes.

In addition, that disposition for religion, is actually biological, it is yet another mechanism that evolved as part of our brains. There are several scientific studies which have proven and demonstrate the areas of our brain responsible for our predisposition to faith.

Acknowledging all this, Humanism therefore promotes the next logical step for a Humanity to be able to prosper and lead happy lives, it would require Humans to adhere to an understanding of ethics. Yet Humanism itself does not prescribe what these ethics should be, it is left on its natural continuance.

For instance, we know that a predisposition to violence is also part of being Human, however, that served us when humans were nomadic in small groops and insured our relative survival, when humans stoped being nomadic and larger human populations came together concentrated in common areas, that predisposition to violence could be counter productive. As such, religions provided the basis upon which to tame that predisposition to violence or at least discourage it in our daily behavior with one another.

Killing your neigbor for just any reason or because you just felt to do so could be viewed under many religions as a bad thing to do and some type of divine consequece existed. Since beleif to the divinities was enforced and part of every day life, most people behaved relativelly peacefull with their neigbors.

Under the Humanist view, that divinity is no longer there, therefore there is no consequences from a God or Higher entity towards immoral actions. Therefore, man requires a self understanding of ethics in order to be able to discern right from wrong on one's own, without divine lecturing and guidance.

Furthermore, if under the Humanist context we affirm the worth and dignety of Humans, that view does not only include ourselves, it includes all Humans, if a person understands and accepts this, it comes naturally that certain acts detrimental to other Humans are considered bad. The capacity to discern between right and wrong does therefore come naturally, and is part of the Humanist proposition as its logical continuance and evolution.

In that sence, I assert, that Humanism implies an ethical stance.

Thank you

Pindar

03-30-2007, 01:35

Pindar, If you have time, why not edit the Wiki page on Humanism?

A central point of Humanism to them, mentioned as a main qualifier, is compassionate morality/ethics (which, as you have said, is a merely a subset of the topic).

From what I have read in actual basic definitions on the topic of Humanism, your definition conforms accurately.

Anywho, I have no place editing the passage and you do, so do us the favor, por favor.

Wiki is a bog of uncritical positions. I hadn't and don't look at it too often. I fear were I to wade in to drain the swamp some, it would be like King Cnut ordering the tide not to come in.

Pindar

03-30-2007, 01:37

I just realized that I referred to Plato in a syllogistic fashion instead of a dialectic. :shame: That renegade Aristotle and his ideas continue to plague me. Off to reread Crito. :book:

Aristotle also wrote a host of dialogues, but none have survived. One thought is his dialogues couldn't compete with the rigor of the drier lectures.

Pindar

03-30-2007, 01:43

Theism and atheism are certainly positions one can hold within a philosophical context.

Well then in that case, I do not understand how you can dismiss Humanism as a philosophy based on the fact that it has both a Theist and Atheist views, when Philosophy itself does. Care to elaborate, because I see Humanism as a Philosophy still.

A theist stance: "there is a god" or an atheist position: "there is no god" are posits or premises that may be conclusions or part of an argument, but are not in and of themselves systemic. Moreover, neither can be jointly held rational views as they are mutually exclusive. Let me illustrate the point: Cartesian thought is theistic. Descartes argued for and claimed a proof for God. The conclusion 'God exists' is fundamental to his 'Meditations' and larger philosophical position, but the theism he embraced is not itself a philosophy. It (his theism) is simply are part of what constitutes Cartesianism. In simple terms: it is a part, not the whole.

A philosophy X refers to a rational system of thinking, not a single aspect of it. Humanism, like theism or atheism is a premise that may inform a larger system, but is not the system itself. This is why there can be the vast array of humanistic positions: secular humanism, religious humanism, renaissance humanism etc. Another illustration using our good Renee: were Descartes to have held to both: 'there is a God' and 'there is no God' simultaneously this would have been a contradiction and his position would have been rationally untenable. What does not adhere to reason is not philosophy, but something else: mere belief, superstition, tradition, a faith etc.

Hehe, in my above reply I actually had a passage about wolves, bees, lions etc...but i decided to remove it waiting your reply, its a classic counter argument ;)

:2thumbsup:

Well, yes this communal behavior is observed in such animals however the fact that they addopt such a behavior is not a conscious choice like humans...

If communal behavior is a conscious choice then it can be either chosen or no. This undercuts the claim sociality is fundamental. The other point remains: sociality alone does not constitute morality or ethics.

Yes and also you admitted above about the existance of theist and atheist positions within philosophy. Antithetical positions, which nevertheless do not disqualify them from being philosophies.

See my reply at the first of this post. Any system that admits antithetical conclusions is irrational and thereby cannot be philosophy.

It is not my position, as I do recognise the nature of Humans as not solelly logical, I therfore accept the antithetic positioning of a given philosopher, which is also based upon emotions, that is, the emotion of belief and faith.

Regardless one's feelings about man's nature: philosophical conclusions and the method followed must be rationally bound or they might as well be labeled poetry. What makes philosophy what it is, is the rational marker.

EDIT: Additionally, yes I am stating my position on Humanism here. It is what I have been trying to explain to you, the reason also for bringing the long quotes from various sources.

The fact is that there are many views of Humanism, I think we cant disagree on that part yes? Now, I mentioned that Humanism is not necessarilly only a position, and that it is also a philosophy, you deny that based on the points you brought up which I perceive are based on a certain form, rules or established protocol if you will...yet, my friend, I have trouble accepting those as the answer.

If I can make an analogy here. Its like if I am asking proof of god and you say that it exists because its written in a book we consider holy, yet itself written by people. To me that does not constitute proof, as much as I respect the belief and faith someone has for the book and its scripture.

The analogy you provide is an example of a logical fallacy. It does not relate to my position. There are a variety of methods whereby knowledge claims are made. Philosophy, as the unique contribution of the Greeks, is based on the rational appeal. Starting with the break made by Parmenides and ultimately formulized by Aristotle this refers to logic. Logic is the arena of the rationalist and the philosopher. Truth claims that do not appeal to reason operate under a different criteria and by that separateness have nothing to do with rationality nor can they be accepted by it. If humanism (as a system) is part of the rational tradition it must adhere to rational norms. If it does not then, from a rational perspective, its conclusions have no more value than geomancy.* The admission that humanism (as a proposed system) allows contradictory conclusions would disqualify any rational appeal.

*Of course, I reject the notion humanism is a system. The above simply demonstrates the absurdity (this is a logical designation) any such assumption would entail.

I have to think a bit before posting more on the stance of humanism being ethical.

OK

Why does a Humanist stance require any affirmation of dignity or worth? and What is it within Humanism that requires consideration of a moral order towards our fellow humans?

A humanist stance requires the affirmation of dignety and worth of Human beings in order be humanist...Now, even if Humanism rejects a Theist origin or destination of Human Lives, it does not never theless reject the Humans that have such a faith and beleifs, (and here is where ethics come in to play) Because, based upon science, History being a science, recognises the importance that religion has played during Human Evolution. I would even say that religion was a necessary mechanism in order for the Human race to be able to evolve till today, as in our beginings our knowledge and understanding of our environment was much more limited than it is today, and religions not only were able to provide explanations of different phenomenae that early Humans observed around them on a daily basis, religions (And I am using the term religion in a very broad sence here including ceremonial burial if you will), they also gave a purpose for early humans to survive, as well as after a certain time when humans addopted a sedantary existance, religions provided moral codes.

I think you have confused social anthropology with humanism.

Acknowledging all this, Humanism therefore promotes the next logical step for a Humanity to be able to prosper and lead happy lives, it would require Humans to adhere to an understanding of ethics. Yet Humanism itself does not prescribe what these ethics should be, it is left on its natural continuance... Killing your neigbor for just any reason or because you just felt to do so could be viewed under many religions as a bad thing to do and some type of divine consequece existed. Since beleif to the divinities was enforced and part of every day life, most people behaved relativelly peacefull with their neigbors.

Under the Humanist view, that divinity is no longer there, therefore there is no consequences from a God or Higher entity towards immoral actions. Therefore, man requires a self understanding of ethics in order to be able to discern right from wrong on one's own, without divine lecturing and guidance.

The above does not answer my two questions you quoted. It does not explain why any dignity be afforded or the justification for a moral order. More to the point, and a point I have previously mentioned: there are several examples of humanist thinkers who do not make any ethical leap. They serve as a counter example that humanism is necessarily ethical. Also, mentioned: there is nothing in the posit 'human' that necessitates ethical. You seem to recognize this in your statement: "Yet Humanism itself does not prescribe what these ethics should be..." Indeed it does not. Neither does it even require any ethical appeal at all.

I think you should be clear: our disagreement is not over your personal beliefs, but what the core of humanism entails. The discussion is thereby partially historical and partially conceptual, but in no way personal.

Suraknar

03-30-2007, 05:40

First of all, let me say i really enjoy the discussion with you, and in the hopes it is mutual. ~:cheers:

A theist stance: "there is a god" or an atheist position: "there is no god" are posits or premises that may be conclusions or part of an argument, but are not in and of themselves systemic. Moreover, neither can be jointly held rational views as they are mutually exclusive. Let me illustrate the point: Cartesian thought is theistic. Descartes argued for and claimed a proof for God. The conclusion 'God exists' is fundamental to his 'Meditations' and larger philosophical position, but the theism he embraced is not itself a philosophy. It (his theism) is simply are part of what constitutes Cartesianism. In simple terms: it is a part, not the whole.

A philosophy X refers to a rational system of thinking, not a single aspect of it. Humanism, like theism or atheism is a premise that may inform a larger system, but is not the system itself. This is why there can be the vast array of humanistic positions: secular humanism, religious humanism, renaissance humanism etc. Another illustration using our good Renee: were Descartes to have held to both: 'there is a God' and 'there is no God' simultaneously this would have been a contradiction and his position would have been rationally untenable. What does not adhere to reason is not philosophy, but something else: mere belief, superstition, tradition, a faith etc.

What do you consider as Philosophy? What can take that "X" you have in your answer in other words?

If communal behavior is a conscious choice then it can be either chosen or no. This undercuts the claim sociality is fundamental. The other point remains: sociality alone does not constitute morality or ethics.

Sociality alone does not constitute morality or ethics, I think you misunderstood my angle on this. As I have both said originally and in the reply communal behavior is biological and instinctive, man having evolved from his animal state as a communal animal kept the behavior, however, the moment man leaped outside of the boundaries of instinct man required something else to be able to make his communal life viable. That additional factor, is the rules that man established, rules that constitute basic ethics and morality. And these rules were made via the help of mans brain which is biologically addapted to make such thought of rules possible. A=B and B=C therefore A=C. Let me quote myself for clarity :)

Using the capacity to reason, man has put in place certain rules that define basic behavior and actions with his peers. These rules we call Ethics and Moralilty. And as man evolves through history in the ever growing and changing society amongst his peers these rules also evolve through his own evaluation of them and amendment.

The capacity that permits man to do so, is biological, it is something with what man is born with, as it comes from within the biological disposition of his own brain. As such, man is born ethical, and as such a baby is ethical.

Now it can be argued that if we leave a baby in the wild, this baby will not demonstrate ethics. However that is a falacity, as man in his natural state is a communal animal, and not a solitary one, Therefore the exemple places man under very very extreeme circomstances that is not representative of the nature of Human beings. Additionally, this baby, is biologically predisposed to ethical behavior, and if reintegrated to a Human society can express it.

As you can see, the comunal nature of man was only used to refute the argument about infants in the wild.

See my reply at the first of this post. Any system that admits antithetical conclusions is irrational and thereby cannot be philosophy.

I am keeping this in reserve, the answer to this depends on your answer above and what you consider Philosophies.

Regardless one's feelings about man's nature: philosophical conclusions and the method followed must be rationally bound or they might as well be labeled poetry. What makes philosophy what it is, is the rational marker.

Yes, I agree with this my friend, and I am expressing rational conclusions here, not feelings. It is vaery rational to acknowledge Human nature, it is very rational to recognise that people dont function only through logic but also emotions. And that is what I am refering to here.

The analogy you provide is an example of a logical fallacy. It does not relate to my position. There are a variety of methods whereby knowledge claims are made. Philosophy, as the unique contribution of the Greeks, is based on the rational appeal. Starting with the break made by Parmenides and ultimately formulized by Aristotle this refers to logic. Logic is the arena of the rationalist and the philosopher. Truth claims that do not appeal to reason operate under a different criteria and by that separateness have nothing to do with rationality nor can they be accepted by it. If humanism (as a system) is part of the rational tradition it must adhere to rational norms. If it does not then, from a rational perspective, its conclusions have no more value than geomancy.* The admission that humanism (as a proposed system) allows contradictory conclusions would disqualify any rational appeal.

*Of course, I reject the notion humanism is a system. The above simply demonstrates the absurdity (this is a logical designation) any such assumption would entail.

Again awaiting your answer in order to be able to answer this one aswell.

I think you should be clear: our disagreement is not over your personal beliefs, but what the core of humanism entails. The discussion is thereby partially historical and partially conceptual, but in no way personal.

Not personal at all no wories, and it is not beleifs, it is conclusions, yet, I would also gladly welcome a result proving my conclusions false. It is the only way to improve, reasses, evolve one's views, but we are not there yet :) To me this is not a contest per se, to discover that my conclusions are wrong is as important as to discover they are right, and equally exciting.

Ironside

03-30-2007, 10:10

A theist stance: "there is a god" or an atheist position: "there is no god" are posits or premises that may be conclusions or part of an argument, but are not in and of themselves systemic. Moreover, neither can be jointly held rational views as they are mutually exclusive. Let me illustrate the point: Cartesian thought is theistic. Descartes argued for and claimed a proof for God. The conclusion 'God exists' is fundamental to his 'Meditations' and larger philosophical position, but the theism he embraced is not itself a philosophy. It (his theism) is simply are part of what constitutes Cartesianism. In simple terms: it is a part, not the whole.

A philosophy X refers to a rational system of thinking, not a single aspect of it. Humanism, like theism or atheism is a premise that may inform a larger system, but is not the system itself. This is why there can be the vast array of humanistic positions: secular humanism, religious humanism, renaissance humanism etc. Another illustration using our good Renee: were Descartes to have held to both: 'there is a God' and 'there is no God' simultaneously this would have been a contradiction and his position would have been rationally untenable. What does not adhere to reason is not philosophy, but something else: mere belief, superstition, tradition, a faith etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Humanism more of giving the answer "We don't know and don't care, because we're going to base our stance on "there is no god worth following and thus basing rules due to this god's existance" leaving only the humans left", to the question on "Is there a god?"
I think it's possible to formulate it a bit more general (I suspect that this would leave out religious humanism).
"The answer comes from the man, not the divine, even if the divine works through the man, the final answer would still come from the man".

Thinking a bit more, I would say that the fundamental question for humanism isn't "Does a god exist?", but rather "Does humans exist?", and answering "Humans does exist" to that question.

It's a very interesting debate you and Suraknar have :2thumbsup: :bow:

Pindar

03-30-2007, 19:13

First of all, let me say i really enjoy the discussion with you, and in the hopes it is mutual. ~:cheers:

That is good to know. I like ideas and am always interested in how others see a thing.

What do you consider as Philosophy? What can take that "X" you have in your answer in other words?

Of coarse I could quote Plato about philosophy being a sense of wonder, or break the word down to its Pythagorean catch phrase 'love of wisdom' etc. but philosophy in the simplest and most succinct terms is any rationally bounded* system. This is what makes it distinct from faith traditions or other avenues that make knowledge claims.

*Rationally bounded means subject to logic. Science (formally known as natural philosophy) is a subset of philosophy. It is typically distinguished because of its practical orientation whereas the larger set remains theoretical.

Sociality alone does not constitute morality or ethics, I think you misunderstood my angle on this. As I have both said originally and in the reply communal behavior is biological and instinctive...

Yes, I recall you did. My retort(s) has been pointed at both postures. One, community is not alone a moral/ethical indicator. Two, to equate biology as the moral referent is problematic. This second retort had two subpoints: one arguing infants are moral is simply a bald assertion (lacking any support). Two, arguing humans come to their morality via biology (as in newborn blind kittens gaining sight) would need some demonstrable data.

See my reply at the first of this post. Any system that admits antithetical conclusions is irrational and thereby cannot be philosophy.

I am keeping this in reserve, the answer to this depends on your answer above and what you consider Philosophies.

OK.

Regardless one's feelings about man's nature: philosophical conclusions and the method followed must be rationally bound or they might as well be labeled poetry. What makes philosophy what it is, is the rational marker.

Yes, I agree with this my friend, and I am expressing rational conclusions here, not feelings. It is vaery rational to acknowledge Human nature, it is very rational to recognise that people dont function only through logic but also emotions. And that is what I am refering to here.

Ahh, I think you misunderstood my point. I was not looking at the form of your argument, but rather the content. To say man can be governed by his irrational passions or the nature of man is X is distinct from the base idea of humanism as a rational system. If humanism were a rational system, it could not admit contradictory conclusions within that system. For example, if our assumed system humanism (H) allows conclusion A and conclusion -A then that system is not rational. If it is not rational then it is not philosophy.

To reiterate: my stance is humanism is not a system, but a premise or posit that can then inform a system. This is why Secular Humanism can come to radically different conclusions from say Christian Humanism.

Again awaiting your answer in order to be able to answer this one aswell.

OK.

Not personal at all no wories, and it is not beleifs, it is conclusions, yet, I would also gladly welcome a result proving my conclusions false. It is the only way to improve, reasses, evolve one's views, but we are not there yet :) To me this is not a contest per se, to discover that my conclusions are wrong is as important as to discover they are right, and equally exciting.

To review: to argue humanism is a philosophy (and thereby a rational system) is problematic because it forces one to admit contradictions which undercut the rational claim.

To argue humanism is necessarily ethical is problematic because:

1) there are humanist thinkers who never opted for this stance.
2) there is nothing within the basic posit 'human' that requires a moral referent.
community doesn't indicate morality
biology doesn't have any moral referent either.

Pindar

03-30-2007, 19:18

Thinking a bit more, I would say that the fundamental question for humanism isn't "Does a god exist?", but rather "Does humans exist?", and answering "Humans does exist" to that question.

I think humanism in its standard form is mute to the God question. Further, I don't think humanism can be construed as questioning and then answering whether man exists. Rather, the posture is: 'man is' and then from that posit whatever follows, follows.

It's a very interesting debate you and Suraknar have :2thumbsup: :bow:

:bow:

Suraknar

03-31-2007, 04:30

Interesting. :beam:

Oki I am sorry, maybe I was not clear enough in my question. Your definition is not what I expected yet it seems well structured ...but let me build some Ladders and Siege towers here ;)

In other words, I was expecting an enumeration of categories, not unlike this definition:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

Though no definition of philosophy is uncontroversial, and the field has historically expanded and changed depending upon what kinds of questions were interesting or relevant in a given era, it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Some think that philosophy examines the process of inquiry itself; others, that there are essentially philosophical propositions which it is the task of philosophy to prove. ... ...

Yet, according to you. As per the above you wrote...

A philosophy X refers to a rational system of thinking, not a single aspect of it.

It seems to refer to various types of Philosophy, and my questions was what would you replace that "X" with.

You give this as the answer, which is just as good:

Of coarse I could quote Plato about philosophy being a sense of wonder, or break the word down to its Pythagorean catch phrase 'love of wisdom' etc. but philosophy in the simplest and most succinct terms is any rationally bounded* system. This is what makes it distinct from faith traditions or other avenues that make knowledge claims.

*Rationally bounded means subject to logic. Science (formally known as natural philosophy) is a subset of philosophy. It is typically distinguished because of its practical orientation whereas the larger set remains theoretical.

From it we can really extract this passage (having layed siege to its sourounding fortifications):

any rationally bounded* system.... *Rationally bounded means subject to logic.

Which is in essence the same as your previous definition of Philosophy:

"A system of thought amenable to logic" Provided that this is still your position.

I am considering that it is and as such lets work with it.

If that is indeed your definition of philosophy, then, I dont see how you can say Humanism cannot be a Philosophy or is not one, since it is indeed made up of Rationally bonded means, which are subject to logic. Humanism is based on scientific knowledge to demonstrate, it is reflection of reasoning, how Humans and not Divinities are both the product and the means of their own evolution and within an ever evolving universe. And it makes some informed conclusions as to how Humanity having been rationally demonstrated as the center value, can now continue to evolve and exist in peace with itself and its souroundings. If that is not a system of thought amenable to logic then what is my fiend?

Philosophy is not a science! That is clear to me, yet philosophy is what gave birth to science (we seem to agree here). As some thinkers have demonstrated, Jaspers and Heidegger for instance, science was born from the decision to think rationally about the world, which in and of itself is a philosophical decision.

On the other hand, philosophy is neither a religion! Clear, I think once more, yet it is through philosophy that the patristics were able to forge religion's synthesis which provided them with the instruments to deploy it in to our culture.

Lest not forget either that the philosophical questioning or reflection, upon the sence of life itself, guides some towards the dimension of faith, Descartes for instance, which is born from a system of thought that coexists with belief and faith.

As it is also true that the genuine beleiver is in a lesser degree the one who just contemplates faith than the one who undertakes the journey to unlock the meaning of existance itself in order to access the openess of it towards the All and Everything that it may contain.

As such my friend, to say that Humanism is not a Philosophy, based on the fact that it contains some contradictory positions in its many forms and interpretations, or systems of thought, is the same as saying that Philosophy is not Philosophy because it contains many philosophers and in almost all its branches which occupy different positions, contradictory positions towards one another, within the same system of thought, namelly philosophy in its general sence.

Maybe through the use of Dialectics you can feel confident in dismissing whatever does not follow its rules, but the Ancient Philosophers did not have the priviledge to see the world evolving as we all here have almost 2500 years of History after them. They did not have the priviledge to witness or studdy the events of this period of time that passed, let alone observe the evolution of thought systems themselves in relation to the historical events and the changing realities of life itself. However, they did have the priviledge to establish methods that influence the way systems of thought evolved, one of these methods is dialectics.

While I am not dismissing dialectics as a means to communicate clearly Ideas or a means to verify if one's ideas hold on their own, I caution, that to apply this form of evaluation in everything always can cause the mind to become narrow and close in on itself, which would defy and destroy the thing that dialectic discource was suposed to protect and help devellop, namelly philosophical thought and its openess within the journey towards truth via the means of reasoning to find the answers of a given question.

In other words, it can create a sinical thinking patern towards its own self, through its own means, logic, and on a such level that its user may not even realise it.

I am not saying that this is the case with you, no offense meant, I am only pointing out the possibility. It is really up to each of us to assess if this has indeed become the case.

Additionally, philosophy, the nature of philosophy, is not something carved in stone, it is one of the more apparently difficult disciplines, that is exactly why. Philosophy evolves along side with its inceptors, the Human Brain Structures that spawned it, through their own reflection and reasoning.

Philosophy is about keeping an open mind, to possibilities. It is the catalyst that invites one to undertake a journey of knowledge through the process of reasoning.

Philosphy is there to hear what everybody has to say about the fundamental questions of Humanity, it is there to say "Tell me what you think.", it is there to say "Very intereesting, let us analyse the cource of this thinking journey", it is there to say "Lets us make adjustments to the cource as needed in order to avoid detrimental paths and dangers", it is there to say "Let us fertilise the grounds upon which new ideas can flourish"...in a positive, rational and encouraging tone, making use of Logical processes to aid in its task, yet not solelly amenable to logic itself.

Closer to our more specific topic, about Humanist Philosophy, or Humanism as being one, I now think that the rejection of Humanism as a Philosophy is itself a Fallacy which is based on the mistaken definition of Philosophy itself. As Philosophy is much more than a System of Thought amenable to Logic, time and again proven by the countless Philosophers that have established its foundations and their nature as Human beings whose thought paterns are not sollelly based on logic, albeit logic is a means to avoid error in one's reasoning, philosophy is an encompassing reflection.

As such, Computers can be systems amenable to Logic, systems of thought that are required to writte the Languages upon which computers function are amenable to Logic. But not Philosophy, because philosophy is a Human Reasoning process, and Humans are not walking calculators with binary thinking processes.

Human nature, implies the coexistance of both emotions and logic, which sum to Human Reasoning on the basis of knowledge. As such, my friend, I submit that your argument fails.

And I think, unless you can respond otherwise with proof that subsantiates that definition and proves that Humans are indeed walking Logical entities, or, reasses the approach and reject that initial definition, that this question about Humanism being a Philosophy, is answered and its debate, over.

Well, not categorically :P If there is something in Philosophy which we cant deny is the fact that there is nothing that can ever be said with 100% certainty, the very nature of philosophy is that openess towards possibilities and acknowledgement of uncertainty.

Permit me to further express the reasoning.

To review: to argue humanism is a philosophy (and thereby a rational system) is problematic because it forces one to admit contradictions which undercut the rational claim.

While you have been very clear in your exemple of Cartesian Thought, containing a Theism, and that this Theism constitutes a posit of the larger system of thought, itself a Philosophy. The same I say about Humanism, in that the Secular/Theist Humanisms are posits to the larger system of thought that is the Philosophy of Humanism.

To argue humanism is necessarily ethical is problematic because:

1) there are humanist thinkers who never opted for this stance.
2) there is nothing within the basic posit 'human' that requires a moral referent.
a) community doesn't indicate morality
b) biology doesn't have any moral referent either.

Humanist Philosophy addopts a stance towards ethics because its reasoning proclaims Humans as the center value, however, Theist influence has been part of humanity for thousands of years and has provided a moral basis. If Humans are the center value now, then the moral basis comes from thos humans not a divinity. In that sence, what provides this man-made moral basis is the capacity of man to discern right from wrong, and to decide on its own a certain cource of action, this process is ethics.

Therefore an ethic stance is relevant and necessary within the Humanist philosophical system of thought.

While yes, there are Humanist thinkers that never opted for this stance this does not mean that it cant exist, maybe these Humanists subscribed more to a posit of Humanist Philosophy, such as Secular Humanism rather than the system of thought that encompasses it.

As for community and morality I have expressed my position in previous replies. As well as the biological link between Humans and morality. mayhap I have not been very clear, if it is confusing I can try to repeat in a different manner.

EDIT: (boy I am starting to writte like you hehe)

Ironside

03-31-2007, 11:30

I think humanism in its standard form is mute to the God question. Further, I don't think humanism can be construed as questioning and then answering whether man exists. Rather, the posture is: 'man is' and then from that posit whatever follows, follows.

More or less agreed. What really caught my eye ws the argument that humanism is not a philosophy because it can allow both conclusion A or conclusion -A, when the argument was moot for the basis.

But if I've understood you correctly you're argumenting that Humanism, by it self isn't a philosophy, but rather a basis, were you later can build a philosophy on.

Did I understand you correctly?

Suraknar

03-31-2007, 19:42

More or less agreed. What really caught my eye ws the argument that humanism is not a philosophy because it can allow both conclusion A or conclusion -A, when the argument was moot for the basis.

But if I've understood you correctly you're argumenting that Humanism, by it self isn't a philosophy, but rather a basis, were you later can build a philosophy on.

Did I understand you correctly?

Hello Ironside,

First thank you for,

It's a very interesting debate you and Suraknar have , sorry for not acknowledging this earlyer, under the excitment of Pindar's responses I missed it. :shame:

I understood what Pindar said the same way as you, it is why I felt necessary to touch the definition of philosophy itself in the above reply to Pindar.

Oh and my friend Pindar, looking forward to your counter arguments here, that "debate over" there, in my above reply, is not meant to end the debate of cource, it was more part of the "dialectic posturing" than anything else. The arguments are what will determine that, their rational basis and our mutual agreement of them. Just making sure there is no misunderstanding here.

Pindar

04-02-2007, 19:00

Interesting... In other words, I was expecting an enumeration of categories.

Ethics, epistemology etc. are traditional categories of philosophy, but philosophy itself is the rational rubric through which such are approached.

A system of thought amenable to logic"

Provided that this is still your position.

I am considering that it is and as such lets work with it.

If that is indeed your definition of philosophy, then, I dont see how you can say Humanism cannot be a Philosophy or is not one, since it is indeed made up of Rationally bonded means, which are subject to logic.

Humanism itself, is not a system of thought, but a premise or posit from which a system may be constructed. This is one reason why it is not a philosophy.

Humanism is based on scientific knowledge...

Humanism predates the rise of science.

As such my friend, to say that Humanism is not a Philosophy, based on the fact that it contains some contradictory positions in its many forms and interpretations, or systems of thought, is the same as saying that Philosophy is not Philosophy because it contains many philosophers and in almost all its branches which occupy different positions, contradictory positions towards one another, within the same system of thought, namelly philosophy in its general sence.

Philosophy, as a base category is void of content, meaning it is formal. It is a rational schema through and by which truth claims are made. Specific systems that fall under this rubric accept the rational principle, but vary according to the premises (the premises provide the content) they follow: the difference between Aristotelianism and Platonism would be an example.

A rational system must maintain logical coherence in order to qualify. Humanism, as an assumed system, cannot do this. You have recognized the contradictions exist. It therefore fails in any claim of being a philosophy.

Maybe through the use of Dialectics you can feel confident in dismissing whatever does not follow its rules, but the Ancient Philosophers did not have the priviledge to see the world evolving as we all here have almost 2500 years of History after them.

Logic is not time dependant. Aristotle's syllogisms are as valid today as they were 2500 years ago.

Closer to our more specific topic, about Humanist Philosophy, or Humanism as being one, I now think that the rejection of Humanism as a Philosophy is itself a Fallacy which is based on the mistaken definition of Philosophy itself. As Philosophy is much more than a System of Thought amenable to Logic, time and again proven by the countless Philosophers that have established its foundations and their nature as Human beings whose thought paterns are not sollelly based on logic, albeit logic is a means to avoid error in one's reasoning, philosophy is an encompassing reflection.

Philsophy's breadth and width is limited to the rational arena: whatever constitutes an argument must adhere to rational critieria. If one expands philosophy to include any "encompassing reflection" then one must admit Colridge's poem 'Kubla Khan' or the Book of Jeramiah or the assertion of the guy wearing a diaper on the street corner who claims the moon is made of blue cheese. Poetry and philosophy are not the same. Faith and philosophy are not the same. Simple assertions and philosophy are not the same.

Human nature, implies the coexistance of both emotions and logic, which sum to Human Reasoning on the basis of knowledge. As such, my friend, I submit that your argument fails.

Human nature and logic are not the same (though the latter may be used to investigate the former). Philosophy is rationalism i.e. logic. Why? Because the rationalist assumption is that truth is amenable to rationality and rationaliy via logic creates an objective method whereby truth claims may be measured.

Well, not categorically :P If there is something in Philosophy which we cant deny is the fact that there is nothing that can ever be said with 100% certainty, the very nature of philosophy is that openess towards possibilities and acknowledgement of uncertainty.

The core notion of logic is certainty. This is where its value lies. Logic is the mechanic whereby with a valid argument, the conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. For exmaple:

If A then B
A
Therefore B

While you have been very clear in your exemple of Cartesian Thought, containing a Theism, and that this Theism constitutes a posit of the larger system of thought, itself a Philosophy. The same I say about Humanism, in that the Secular/Theist Humanisms are posits to the larger system of thought that is the Philosophy of Humanism.

You have confused a part for a whole. There is no larger philsophy of humanism: nothing. Humanism alone does not indicate any epistemic, ethical, aesthetic or logical positioning without begging the question.

Humanist Philosophy addopts a stance towards ethics...

I have already given examples of humanist thinkers where this is not the case. You cannot use categorical statements unless you can refute the host of counter examples. This is not possible. It is one more reason humanism has no necessary ethical connection.

While yes, there are Humanist thinkers that never opted for this stance this does not mean that it cant exist...

I have not challenged that a humanist could not argue for an ethical posture. What I did put forward is there is nothing necessarily ethical in the base posit.

As for community and morality I have expressed my position in previous replies. As well as the biological link between Humans and morality. mayhap I have not been very clear, if it is confusing I can try to repeat in a different manner.

I don't think you have addressed the problems of asserting infants are ethical at all. Neither have you dealt with the the counter examples of communities that are not ethical.

Sorry for the long post.

Pindar

04-02-2007, 19:09

More or less agreed. What really caught my eye ws the argument that humanism is not a philosophy because it can allow both conclusion A or conclusion -A, when the argument was moot for the basis.

Correct. If one assumes humanism is a philosophy then it must be both systemic and rational. Allowing contradictory conclusions would undercut the rational claim.

But if I've understood you correctly you're argumenting that Humanism, by it self isn't a philosophy, but rather a basis, were you later can build a philosophy on.

Did I understand you correctly?

Correct. Examples would be: the traditional Christian Humanism, Marxism or Sartre's Existentialism.

Suraknar

04-03-2007, 20:04

Suraknar

04-03-2007, 22:24

Examples would be: the traditional Christian Humanism, Marxism or Sartre's Existentialism.

I would also add the inceptors of Humanist Philosophy in that list : Namelly, Democritus and Aristotle.

And also...

Poetry and philosophy are not the same.

The Roman Philosopher Lucretius ;)

Reenk Roink

04-04-2007, 00:24

Pindar

04-04-2007, 00:53

Hello Pindar,

Your post was...dialectic :) And dont worry if its long or not, I welcome any reply.

Yet, I am somehow thinking that we need to reverse this, up till now I have been trying to explain why I think Humanism is a Philosophy, I have used my own arguments as well as references to various sources through quotes, and you have been refuting all of them.

Why dont we do the inverse, can you explain in turn why Humanism is not a Philosophy.

OK. I have already alluded to the general reasons, but I'll lay them out here. For something to be properly labeled philosophy it must be rational and systemic. Why rational? Rationality is the core mechanic whereby a given knowledge claim is distinguishable from other such schema. For example: religion, poetry, mysticism etc. Other schema are not rationally bound therefore the rational marker makes a clear distinction possible. Why systemic? The systemic referent is necessary because we are dealing with more than a single statement or argument, but with a larger rubric that makes any argument meaningful.*

Because everywhere we read, about Humanism, wither it is dictionaries, encyclopedias, works, and descriptive explanations, Humanism is presented also as a Philosophy.

Why and how are all these people wrong? What have all these sources misunderstood in their view of Humanism? Including myself, according to you.

The simple answer is lack of rigor. A longer answer is: philosophy in English has taken on several meanings. In its more common parlance it is nearly a synonym for belief. Thus one can here people say: "my philosophy is...." and what follows may be a total jumble of thoughts with nothing to tie them together save they come from the speaker. Another common usage for philosophy is as a category for larger belief sets. For example, it is common to here about Christian Philosophy or Buddhist Philosophy but neither are actual philosophies: they are rather theologies (or the intellectual tradition within those faiths). These other uses are fine for their general discourse, but when one wants to accurately describe a thing, rigor must be applied and under that standard what is philosophy and what is not becomes clear.

I would also add the inceptors of Humanist Philosophy in that list : Namelly, Democritus and Aristotle.

Aristotle wasn't a humanist.

Poetry and philosophy are not the same.

The Roman Philosopher Lucretius

The distinction between philosophia and poesis is not new or my invention. The point revolves around the source for the truth claim. Under a philosophical mantle a truth claim must meet certain rational criteria i.e. coherence, argument etc.** Poetry, as a source of knowledge is typically seen as intuitive. The Romantic poets are a simple illustration. With Lucretius' 'On the Nature of Things' one must decide the epistemic thrust of the work over and above simple form. Is the work engaged in argument and a systemic presentation or is it something else?

* A base posit and an argument are not the same. A statement is simply a posit. For example: the moon is made of blue cheese. This statement may be true or false, more or less convincing, but a statement alone is not amenable to logic and therefore lacks justification under rational criteria. An argument means there is/are premises and a conclusion. Such is the basis of logic and thereby philosophy.

**This does not mean one couldn't use other devices to carry a point as a rhetorical trope, but the core stance should be notable along the lines described.

ICantSpellDawg

04-04-2007, 01:16

Three Hundred Freeeking Ruuuullled!!!!!!!! Eeeeeeeyeeyeyeyeyeeeeyeyeeeeeeeyyyaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Back On Track

Pindar

04-04-2007, 01:28

It's really unimportant however, to say whether humanism is a philosophical system or not. I think what is more important is the claim of Pindar that humanism has logical problems, incoherencies, etc... If I were a humanist, I would take these very seriously and attempt to defend my position. :wink:

My focus in the thread has basically been with the use of labels. I do think labels are important. If for no other reason than for rhetorical purposes. My critique has thus far only applied insofar as one assumes humanism is a philosophy. If I were to critique humanism independent of any philosophical tie I would use a different argument.

Pindar

04-04-2007, 01:33

Three Hundred Freeeking Ruuuullled!!!!!!!! Eeeeeeeyeeyeyeyeyeeeeyeyeeeeeeeyyyaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

I agree. very fun.

I had a few Japanese lawyers visiting recently. I told them to go see 300. I gave a simple argument that the film wasn't a 'Saving Private Ryan' type of affair, but rather touched the legendary aspects of the battle as seen by the Greeks. I also made sure they see it on an IMAX screen.

I know several actually went to see it a couple times they liked it so much.

Suraknar

04-04-2007, 01:50

Well, please feel free to answer the above question if you wish, but I get the feeling that you will not address it directly. As such let me reply quickly in your own manner the following. And maybe we take it from there :)

Ethics, epistemology etc. are traditional categories of philosophy, but philosophy itself is the rational rubric through which such are approached.[quote]

Such a category is also Humanism.

[quote]Humanism itself, is not a system of thought, but a premise or posit from which a system may be constructed. This is one reason why it is not a philosophy.

Well, your explanation as to why Humanism is a premise or posit and not a philosophy, is not rigorous enough and does not explain why. It just rejects on the basis of one of the laws of Logic. Not sufficient my friend.
You have continuesly repeated the Laws of Logic, applied them in all your replies, but there is no essence behind them, it is like you take whatever someone writes put em in a Logical grid and dismiss or approuve. Not rigorous at all. Good technically but that is it. That is not philosophy! ...so..my friend...express thineself!

Humanism predates the rise of science.

Aristotle, who was also a Biologist and a Psychologist in addition to being a Philosopher, founder science as a discipline and an organised interrelated body of fact. He was also the one that clarifyed and codifyed the laws of Logic. But that does not mean that philosophers or philosophies before him are not valid nevertheless.

Philosophy, as a base category is void of content, meaning it is formal. It is a rational schema through and by which truth claims are made. Specific systems that fall under this rubric accept the rational principle, but vary according to the premises (the premises provide the content) they follow: the difference between Aristotelianism and Platonism would be an example.

A rational system must maintain logical coherence in order to qualify. Humanism, as an assumed system, cannot do this. You have recognized the contradictions exist. It therefore fails in any claim of being a philosophy.

First of all who said that Humanism is an assumed System? I have recognised the positions of various humanists that you consider contradictory. I have then even went to demostrate that these contradictions exist in all categories of philosophy, and that they do not , by their contradictory nature nulify the acceptance of these categories as philosophies nevertheless.

I sence you are trying to shove me (the arguments that I bring up) in to the narrow minded view of dialectic logic. But philosophy is not defined by dialectic logic. That logic is part of Philosophy yes, philosophy is not only defined by the logic laws of dialectics.

Logic is not time dependant. Aristotle's syllogisms are as valid today as they were 2500 years ago.

And when did I say that Logic is time dependent? I spoke of Thought systems not Logic itself. You misunderstand me here.

Aristotle himself, who codified the laws of Logic that are being used here, had nevertheless a naturalistic philosophy that was not intirelly logical according to these very same laws.

From one side Aristotle talks about Nature and Civilisation yet from the other side he talks of the "Active Intellect" as immortal as well as giving us his own version of God.

He thus reduced the quality of his Naturalism by entertaining a confusing redefinition of supernatural concepts. Which, may I add, many centuries later, this tendency, permited the Christian Church to incorporate his thought with seeming logic in to its theology. Again, a philosophical fact of contradiction, which you accept for Humanism yet not for whatever else is considered a philosophy. But my friend by so doing so you show a Biassed view, YOU CANT (hehe my turn to say that you cant), Accept that A=B and B=C and then Deny that B=C. Sorry you cant, its illogical.

Human nature and logic are not the same (though the latter may be used to investigate the former). Philosophy is rationalism i.e. logic. Why? Because the rationalist assumption is that truth is amenable to rationality and rationaliy via logic creates an objective method whereby truth claims may be measured.

Again, I am not debating logical laws, I am simply saying that your use of them is not appropriate and enough to disqualify Humanism as a philosophy.

Furthermore, the purpose of Logical laws is to, you said it yourself, create a method where by truth claims maybe measured. Its purpose is not to evaluate if a Philosophy is Philosophy or not. Albeit it is part of the process, it is not enough to do so on its own.

And herein lies the error. In using Logical method to evaluate everything, when in reality it was develloped for a very specific purpose.

The core notion of logic is certainty. This is where its value lies. Logic is the mechanic whereby with a valid argument, the conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. For exmaple:

If A then B
A
Therefore B

So in other words, to say with 100% certainty "the sun will come up tomorow", is ok by you?

This is elementary Philosophy, you cant assert this because however logical it may seem (The sun has come up everyday, therfore it wil come up again tomorow), we cant know with certainty what will hapen tomorow, (An asteroid may hit the sun and it may explore).

The very foundation of philosophy cautions us from making such blatant assertions in what may seem logical yet uncertain.

Another exemple that applying the Laws of Logic to evaluate the Philosophical validity is an error, becaue Laws of Logic were only incepted and introduced as a process to verify the truth of statemenst that are used to devellop a Philosophy, or if you prefer part of a given Philosophy. I think you misunderstood the purpose of Dialectics and Laws of Logic, within the context of Philosophy my friend.

I have already given examples of humanist thinkers where this is not the case. You cannot use categorical statements unless you can refute the host of counter examples. This is not possible. It is one more reason humanism has no necessary ethical connection.

Dear Pindar, during this debate we are having here, I have brought forth many exemples of works of authors even definitions that point to the fact that Humanism is also a Philosophy. You have made the point of saying that in such a discussion it is not rigorous to do so.

Now you are asking me for more. Well, I can cite I can refer many more, but I think first you may need to do simple searches yourself aswell about this. There is much of reference and documentation on the Internet alone about Humanism as a Philosophy.

I hope you can also provide equal vigor that is not only confined within the parameters of Dialectic Logical Law.

Suraknar

04-04-2007, 01:59

Oki Quick note, You replied while I was typing this.

So please disreguard the first phrase.

Also Reenk, I agree with you on the debate, yet I also feel that it is a problem.

Because, the definition of something is what determines what can be considered part of that definition or not.

If we shrink philosophy to "a system amenable to logic"...not many things except Computers can be part of it, so we have now proclaimed that Computers are Philosophy.

And no I am not talking about the current use of the term such as "Company Philosophy"...that is a Policy not a Philosophy.

I am speaking of the Discipline known as Philosophy.

Suraknar

04-04-2007, 02:26

*Thinks Pindar is a lawyer*

Hehe...I would not be surprised, it can explain your stunched attitute towards such a definition...it puts you in a position of advantage and ready to fend off anything but a Computer, and given the fact that computers dont make assertions of their own. :)

But its oki, (and no I am not a lawyer)

I think we have come to a spot in this discussion where we need a common point of reference, while I am inclined to write a book on my own I do not intend to do so here in this forum :)

As such I serched the Internet, and Guess what I have just found...

Yes a Book on the Philosophy of Humanism :) Which I have never read before myself, but I intend to do so, and I invite all here interested to do so aswell...and THEN..we can maybe discuss if you consider it valid or invalid..and why according to you (maybe you have read it, in which case I need the time to do so before we can contnue).

It is a book written by Professor of Philosophy, of Columbia University.

http://www.corliss-lamont.org/philos8.htm

The book is also offered for Free in electronic form for non profit etc. You can simply Save the .PDF and read at your leisure.

Sounds sensible? Have a good day gentlemen, will come back once I finish reading it. (I read slower in english so will be few days).

Suraknar

04-04-2007, 05:12

Hrm...

I was not aware that Humanism was such a political thing in the states...I have learned something today in the Preface, Intros of various editions of this book.

In any case, I am not here to represent any political agendas, would like to state this for the record, since it seems to be such a serious thing in the states.

So I more or less ignored all the politics, and what interests me is the core of the Book, I am in chapter II now...but its getting somewhat late, so tomorow I shall continue. So far the book has surprised me a bit...because it confirms some of my conclusions...the author's definition of philosophy for instance...wow...I read myself above and they seem to be much in line.

In any case, I shall share my view of it once I finish reading it. So far, it is still establishing basis, havent seen any indication of reasoning yet, maybe in the following chapters.

Pindar

04-04-2007, 19:28

Well, please feel free to answer the above question if you wish, but I get the feeling that you will not address it directly.

This was the first of your post. What is the "above question"?

Ethics, epistemology etc. are traditional categories of philosophy, but philosophy itself is the rational rubric through which such are approached.

Such a category is also Humanism.

If you agree humanism is a category then you have moved a long way toward my position. A category like epistemology has no content on its own. It is not a philosophy. It simply expresses an orientation of speculation: in epistemology's case, the study of how one knows a thing. Various thinkers have various epistemologies: such are system specific. The content of any epistemology comes from the larger system or which it is a part. If you agree humanism is also a category then it cannot be a philosophy

Humanism itself, is not a system of thought, but a premise or posit from which a system may be constructed. This is one reason why it is not a philosophy.

Well, your explanation as to why Humanism is a premise or posit and not a philosophy, is not rigorous enough and does not explain why. It just rejects on the basis of one of the laws of Logic. Not sufficient my friend.

I have previously explained why humanism is not a system.

This is from post 140:

This is a major difference in how we see the issue. If humanism were a philosophy (by which we mean a distinct system amenable to logic) then it would have to cohere to rational standards. Were one to take your own statements as an example, humanism can be both atheistic and theistic. Atheism and theism are mutually exclusive (A and -A). Any system that admits contradictory conclusions (absurdities) is outside the bounds of reason.

Humanism is a premise. From that base premise a variety of positions may proceed, but the premise remains distinct from any attending argument that might follow. Much like atheism or theism, humanism does not imply purpose or moral standing or aesthetic sensibility in and of itself.

This is from post 143:

To review: our discussion is looking at two points of conflict: one, humanism is a philosophy (which I reject). Two, humanism is necessarily ethical (which I reject).

To the first, humanism fails to meet the standards of a philosophy. It is not rationally bound (the admittance of contradictory conclusions as an example). It is not systemic: there are a vast array of humanistic stances some at odds with each other. It has no systemic theoretical pedigree: no philosopher can be referenced as the source (unlike all other philosophies i.e. Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, Marxism etc.)

To the second: there are a variety of humanist thinkers who never argued any necessary ethical component and in fact argued an amoral system. The base posit man, which serves as the root of humanism is, at its core, an ontological positioning: man is. An 'is' is not conduct. It does not indicate either purpose or propriety. To conflate an 'is' with any 'ought' is to commit a category mistake.

I think these two posts explain the wherefore of my position on why humanism is not a system and also explain why humanism does not have any ethical referent.

Humanism predates the rise of science.

Aristotle, who was also a Biologist and a Psychologist in addition to being a Philosopher, founder science as a discipline and an organised interrelated body of fact. He was also the one that clarifyed and codifyed the laws of Logic. But that does not mean that philosophers or philosophies before him are not valid nevertheless.

Your comment doesn't relate to my post.

A rational system must maintain logical coherence in order to qualify. Humanism, as an assumed system, cannot do this. You have recognized the contradictions exist. It therefore fails in any claim of being a philosophy.

First of all who said that Humanism is an assumed System?

'Assumed' means if one accepts the idea humanism is a system then the following issues arise.

I sence you are trying to shove me (the arguments that I bring up) in to the narrow minded view of dialectic logic. But philosophy is not defined by dialectic logic. That logic is part of Philosophy yes, philosophy is not only defined by the logic laws of dialectics.

Philosophy is tied to the rational tradition. If you disagree then you may want to give examples of philosophers who believed their views were irrational and that was OK.

And when did I say that Logic is time dependent? I spoke of Thought systems not Logic itself. You misunderstand me here.

I see.

Aristotle himself, who codified the laws of Logic that are being used here, had nevertheless a naturalistic philosophy that was not intirelly logical according to these very same laws.

From one side Aristotle talks about Nature and Civilisation yet from the other side he talks of the "Active Intellect" as immortal as well as giving us his own version of God.

He thus reduced the quality of his Naturalism by entertaining a confusing redefinition of supernatural concepts. Which, may I add, many centuries later, this tendency, permited the Christian Church to incorporate his thought with seeming logic in to its theology. Again, a philosophical fact of contradiction, which you accept for Humanism yet not for whatever else is considered a philosophy. But my friend by so doing so you show a Biassed view, YOU CANT (hehe my turn to say that you cant), Accept that A=B and B=C and then Deny that B=C. Sorry you cant, its illogical.

If you wish to argue Aristotle's thought contains systemic contradictions feel free to make the argument. I will read it. Whether you feel the Scholastics were successful in baptizing Aristotle is a separate issue from Aristotle's thought itself and separate from our discussion as the Scholastics were Catholic theologians and their project involved an attempted merging of a religious metaphysic with a secular metaphysic.

And herein lies the error. In using Logical method to evaluate everything, when in reality it was develloped for a very specific purpose.

Logic is used to measure the rationality (coherence, correspondence etc.) of knowledge claims and systems of thought. If humanism makes knowledge claims or is a system of thought then logic is applicable. My position is humanism does neither of these things.

The core notion of logic is certainty. This is where its value lies. Logic is the mechanic whereby with a valid argument, the conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. For exmaple:

If A then B
A
Therefore B

So in other words, to say with 100% certainty "the sun will come up tomorow", is ok by you?

Your comment doesn't relate to my post. The example I gave above is called Modus Ponens. It is a deductive argument. The sun statement you make is not an argument. It is simply a statement. I could use the statement to make a deductive argument which if valid would be 100% certain. For example:

If the sun comes up tomorrow then Bob will be at the beach
The sun came up
So, Bob is at the beach.

Maybe you meant your reference as an example of induction. Induction and deduction are not the same.

Another exemple that applying the Laws of Logic to evaluate the Philosophical validity is an error...

Logic is concerned with validity. Validity is a term from logic. It is the core principle that determines correct from incorrect argumentation.

Humanist Philosophy addopts a stance towards ethics...

I have already given examples of humanist thinkers where this is not the case. You cannot use categorical statements unless you can refute the host of counter examples. This is not possible. It is one more reason humanism has no necessary ethical connection.

Dear Pindar, during this debate we are having here, I have brought forth many exemples of works of authors even definitions that point to the fact that Humanism is also a Philosophy. You have made the point of saying that in such a discussion it is not rigorous to do so.
Now you are asking me for more. Well, I can cite I can refer many more, but I think first you may need to do simple searches yourself aswell about this. There is much of reference and documentation on the Internet alone about Humanism as a Philosophy.

You do not understand. You have made two assertions. One, humanism is a philosophy. Two, humanism adopts an ethical posture. Both of these are categorical statements. This means they are saying for all case X, Y applies. What I have done is give counter examples to both positions. In short, showing where Y did not apply. I only need one such successful retort to undercut the claim. Here are my basic points again from an earlier post:

To review: to argue humanism is a philosophy (and thereby a rational system) is problematic because it forces one to admit contradictions which undercut the rational claim.

To argue humanism is necessarily ethical is problematic because:

1) there are humanist thinkers who never opted for this stance.
2) there is nothing within the basic posit 'human' that requires a moral referent.
community doesn't indicate morality
biology doesn't have any moral referent either.
In simple terms: if someone argues all ravens are black and I show a raven that is not black the position fails. This is what has occurred with your view on humanism.

Reenk Roink

04-04-2007, 21:44

...examples of philosophers who believed their views were irrational and that was OK.

Pindar, you are forgetting So(with a line through the 'o')ren? Or do you consider him more of a literary figure and theologian?

Suraknar

04-04-2007, 23:28

This was the first of your post. What is the "above question"?

The above question was the post #167, and the paragraph to ignore, not phrase sorry. was the first of post 174 because you had already answered it by the time I was typing my reply.

If you agree humanism is a category then you have moved a long way toward my position. A category like epistemology has no content on its own. It is not a philosophy. It simply expresses an orientation of speculation: in epistemology's case, the study of how one knows a thing. Various thinkers have various epistemologies: such are system specific. The content of any epistemology comes from the larger system or which it is a part. If you agree humanism is also a category then it cannot be a philosophy

Well, conventionally, if ethics is a category of philosophy (or epistemology etc), then it is not an error to refer to this category as the Philosophy of Ethics, Ethical Philosophy etc...it is a Philosophical Category...right? So, if you agree that Humanism is a catrgory of Philosophy, then it is very valid to say Humanism is a Philosophy aswell, or refer to it as Humanist Philosophy, or Philosophy of Humanism.

So are you coming closer to my position aswell? Maybe we are both moving towards the position of one another. It is the purpose of debate, or discource is it not? :)

I dont agree however on the assertion of saying that a category like epistemology has no content of its own or that it is but speculation. Quite the contrary, each category offers its own content on a specific subject under the rubric of philosophy.

The discipline of epistemology and the Philosophy of epistemology are not quite the same thing. One is concerned of the processes of epistemology and its application while the later evaluates its definitions.

Philosophy is a broad discipline, from which all sciences stem from, both natural and social(Human) as such the categories are a way of being able to manage the various areas of interest of philosophy to a more specific subject.

To say lets talk philosophy, is very broad, to say lets talk about the Philosophy of ethics is more specific and informs the ones participating of the parameters that define a given discussion.

Please also read bellow tol "Comments" for further clarification.

I have previously explained why humanism is not a system.

Thank you for addressing the question a second time :)

This is from post 140:

This is a major difference in how we see the issue. If humanism were a philosophy (by which we mean a distinct system amenable to logic) then it would have to cohere to rational standards. Were one to take your own statements as an example, humanism can be both atheistic and theistic. Atheism and theism are mutually exclusive (A and -A). Any system that admits contradictory conclusions (absurdities) is outside the bounds of reason.

Humanism is a premise. From that base premise a variety of positions may proceed, but the premise remains distinct from any attending argument that might follow. Much like atheism or theism, humanism does not imply purpose or moral standing or aesthetic sensibility in and of itself.

This is from post 143:

To review: our discussion is looking at two points of conflict: one, humanism is a philosophy (which I reject). Two, humanism is necessarily ethical (which I reject).

To the first, humanism fails to meet the standards of a philosophy. It is not rationally bound (the admittance of contradictory conclusions as an example). It is not systemic: there are a vast array of humanistic stances some at odds with each other. It has no systemic theoretical pedigree: no philosopher can be referenced as the source (unlike all other philosophies i.e. Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, Marxism etc.)

To the second: there are a variety of humanist thinkers who never argued any necessary ethical component and in fact argued an amoral system. The base posit man, which serves as the root of humanism is, at its core, an ontological positioning: man is. An 'is' is not conduct. It does not indicate either purpose or propriety. To conflate an 'is' with any 'ought' is to commit a category mistake.

I think these two posts explain the wherefore of my position on why humanism is not a system and also explain why humanism does not have any ethical referent.

Alright thank you again for explaining once more your position as previously stated. Lets keep this as the debate advances. See "comments" bellow for clarification.

Your comment doesn't relate to my post.

But it does, you said that Humanism predates Science, yet, science started with Aristotle, and Humanism states its beginings from Aristotle aswell. That was the relationship. Humanism goes hand in hand with science.

If you wish to argue Aristotle's thought contains systemic contradictions feel free to make the argument. I will read it. Whether you feel the Scholastics were successful in baptizing Aristotle is a separate issue from Aristotle's thought itself and separate from our discussion as the Scholastics were Catholic theologians and their project involved an attempted merging of a religious metaphysic with a secular metaphysic.

Quite the contrary, the fact that the scholastics, patristics etc, used what is reputed to be, aswell as what is accepted to be a System of thought amenable to logic in order to create a basis for a system that is not amenable to logic, it provides plausible precedent that can has relevance in the current discussion to argue that the fact that Humanism contains people that have come to various contradictory conclusions does not in and of itself disqualify Humanism as a Philosophy, it just informs us that some people have chosen to take this philosophy and use it or integrate it with their own views just the same as the early scholastsics chose to take Aristotle's Naturalistic philosophy and merge it with Christian Theology.

Logic is used to measure the rationality (coherence, correspondence etc.) of knowledge claims and systems of thought. If humanism makes knowledge claims or is a system of thought then logic is applicable. My position is humanism does neither of these things.

Well, then you agree with me using different phraseology. If you accept that Logic is used to measure the rationality of systems of thought or claims, then this is the same as I have argued in my previous replies, about logic being a method, a means that is used within the philosophical context to aid in the formulation of a given philosophy or system of thought, pointing out possible fallacies in the statements or conclusions contained in that given system of thought. But, it role is not to make a judgement of the system of though itself. Its role is to aid the system of thought.

It is why I have put forth also the argument that the use of Logic to simply argue that something 'is not' constitutes itself a fallacy.

For more clarification please refer to "comments" bellow.

Your comment doesn't relate to my post. The example I gave above is called Modus Ponens. It is a deductive argument. The sun statement you make is not an argument. It is simply a statement. I could use the statement to make a deductive argument which if valid would be 100% certain. For example:

If the sun comes up tomorrow then Bob will be at the beach
The sun came up
So, Bob is at the beach.

Maybe you meant your reference as an example of induction. Induction and deduction are not the same.

Yes you are right here. It is induction I was refering to. Fundamentals of philosophy teach us that we cant be ever 100% sure, when inducing, and therefore must takes steps to specify such occurences. So point taken here :)

You do not understand. You have made two assertions. One, humanism is a philosophy. Two, humanism adopts an ethical posture. Both of these are categorical statements. This means they are saying for all case X, Y applies. What I have done is give counter examples to both positions. In short, showing where Y did not apply. I only need one such successful retort to undercut the claim. Here are my basic points again from an earlier post:

To review: to argue humanism is a philosophy (and thereby a rational system) is problematic because it forces one to admit contradictions which undercut the rational claim.

To argue humanism is necessarily ethical is problematic because:

1) there are humanist thinkers who never opted for this stance.
2) there is nothing within the basic posit 'human' that requires a moral referent.
community doesn't indicate morality
biology doesn't have any moral referent either.
In simple terms: if someone argues all ravens are black and I show a raven that is not black the position fails. This is what has occurred with your view on humanism.

This we keep also to be answered as the evolution of the debate happens. Please see "comments" for clarification.

Comments

Alright, I feel compelled to call for a recess :) And here is why.

Because, I think, the debate is suffering from temporary deadlocks. We are not making much progress.

However, these deadlocks are the result of language barrier.

While I do not doubt your form of argumentation, I have some difficulty with it, because it feels like what I have observed in many forums during the years in debates between people of various nationalities where, one person whose first language is not english would write something up to the best of their ability in english, only to receive a reply like:

"You missed ponctuation" or "Watch your typos" etc etc, and the person who replies that makes it a point to dismiss the complete argument based on grammar and not the content of what was said.

Now I understand if you are at work and you dont use the proper corporate form to present a point your point is lost because your form was incorect. However, we are not at work here we are on the internet in a forum and at times I feel (present company excluded of cource) that people look at the small dark dot on the board instead of looking the board itself.

In that sence, I feel that I need to learn more upon the topic, in order to be able to properly argument the case to your level of standards in relation to Dialectics and Logical statements, since, albeit not always, at times it feels like an argument is completelly dismissed because of the form by which I am expressing it, that according to english does not seem logical, and therefore it is being used to make a counter-argument in support of the opposite position.

As such, maybe a short recess is in order, for me to catch up a bit. I am going to finish reading that Book on Humanism which I linked above, as well as look for Dialectic sources in english. And Come back in a better position to argument in a better way and closer to your level.

(I need to level my character and get better skills and gear :P hehe )

All in all however, I think we are making some progress even if it is slow. I have to salute your patience with me Pindar. Not many people are as patient and open for discussion, amongst the ones I have encountered on the internet.

Thank you

Pindar

04-05-2007, 01:20

Pindar, you are forgetting So(with a line through the 'o')ren? Or do you consider him more of a literary figure and theologian?

I consider Kierkegaard a philosopher (and quite the ardent critic of Hegel). I don't think Kierkegaard can be properly understood outside the context of his reaction to Hegelian Thought. I don't think he considered himself irrational. Perhaps you are thinking of "Fear and Trembling" If so, do not confuse the Knight of Faith with Soren believing he or his ideas were irrational. The Knight of Faith is a rejoinder to notions of faith as science.

Pindar

04-05-2007, 01:57

Well, conventionally, if ethics is a category of philosophy (or epistemology etc), then it is not an error to refer to this category as the Philosophy of Ethics, Ethical Philosophy etc...it is a Philosophical Category...right?

No, this doesn't follow.

So, if you agree that Humanism is a catrgory of Philosophy, then it is very valid to say Humanism is a Philosophy aswell, or refer to it as Humanist Philosophy, or Philosophy of Humanism.

This doesn't follow either. Categories are not philosophies as they are empty of content.

I dont agree however on the assertion of saying that a category like epistemology has no content of its own or that it is but speculation. Quite the contrary, each category offers its own content on a specific subject under the rubric of philosophy.

A category defines the limit of a type of inquiry, but it does not determine content. For example: Aristotelian ontology is quite different from Platonic ontology.

But it does, you said that Humanism predates Science, yet, science started with Aristotle, and Humanism states its beginings from Aristotle aswell. That was the relationship. Humanism goes hand in hand with science.

Science did not start with Aristotle. Science is a product of the 17th Century. Natural philosophy and science are not the same thing.
Aristotle was not a humanist.

Quite the contrary, the fact that the scholastics, patristics etc, used what is reputed to be, aswell as what is accepted to be a System of thought amenable to logic in order to create a basis for a system that is not amenable to logic, it provides plausible precedent that can has relevance in the current discussion to argue that the fact that Humanism contains people that have come to various contradictory conclusions does not in and of itself disqualify Humanism as a Philosophy, it just informs us that some people have chosen to take this philosophy and use it or integrate it with their own views just the same as the early scholastsics chose to take Aristotle's Naturalistic philosophy and merge it with Christian Theology.

Scholasticism is theology not philosophy proper. The same applies to the Patristics' work.

Well, then you agree with me using different phraseology. If you accept that Logic is used to measure the rationality of systems of thought or claims, then this is the same as I have argued in my previous replies, about logic being a method, a means that is used within the philosophical context to aid in the formulation of a given philosophy or system of thought, pointing out possible fallacies in the statements or conclusions contained in that given system of thought. But, it role is not to make a judgement of the system of though itself. Its role is to aid the system of thought.

It is why I have put forth also the argument that the use of Logic to simply argue that something 'is not' constitutes itself a fallacy.

A conclusion is a judgment. If one argues:

Socrates is a man
Men are mortal
Therefore I have a boat

The argument is not rational. This judgment applies to the argument and should this argument be part of a system: the judgment would apply to the system.

Pindar

04-05-2007, 02:02

Alright, I feel compelled to call for a recess :) And here is why.

Because, I think, the debate is suffering from temporary deadlocks. We are not making much progress.

OK. I divided your post into two replies.

While I do not doubt your form of argumentation, I have some difficulty with it, because it feels like what I have observed in many forums during the years in debates between people of various nationalities where, one person whose first language is not english would write something up to the best of their ability in english, only to receive a reply like:

"You missed ponctuation" or "Watch your typos" etc etc, and the person who replies that makes it a point to dismiss the complete argument based on grammar and not the content of what was said.

I hope you don't feel that I've done what you describe above. I reject the core of your idea not the grammar or presentation. I don't think humanism can be coherently considered either a philosophy or necessarily ethical.

All in all however, I think we are making some progress even if it is slow. I have to salute your patience with me Pindar. Not many people are as patient and open for discussion, amongst the ones I have encountered on the internet.

Thank you

:bow:

Suraknar

04-06-2007, 05:42

Alright, without touching the answers to questions of the debate (Humanism Philosophy, and Humanism Ethics). I am going to reply to some of these in the mean time.

No, this doesn't follow.

Why not? And who establishes that?

This doesn't follow either. Categories are not philosophies as they are empty of content.

You drive a hard bargain here. It is categories of Philosophy, not Categories in thee generic sence of the word "category", its definition that is empty of content I agree.

A category defines the limit of a type of inquiry, but it does not determine content. For example: Aristotelian ontology is quite different from Platonic ontology.

Yes and Aristotelian Ontology is a Sub=category of Ontology at the side of Platonic Ontology.

Philosopphy--->Philosophical Categories ---> Ontology ---> Platonic Ontology

A conclusion is a judgment. If one argues:

Socrates is a man
Men are mortal
Therefore I have a boat

The argument is not rational. This judgment applies to the argument and should this argument be part of a system: the judgment would apply to the system.

Irrelevant to our discussion.

Pindar

04-06-2007, 18:55

Why not? And who establishes that?

Assuming I understood you correctly, the answer to why not is because there is no logical entailment. The answer to who establishes that: it is the gods of logic.

Now, what I took you to be saying was the base category of an X (you used ethics) constitutes a philosophy of that X. If this is your position there is nothing in the first idea (noting a category for a thing) that thereby entails an argument regarding that thing.

You drive a hard bargain here. It is categories of Philosophy, not Categories in thee generic sence of the word "category", its definition that is empty of content I agree.

Yes and Aristotelian Ontology is a Sub=category of Ontology at the side of Platonic Ontology.

Philosopphy--->Philosophical Categories ---> Ontology ---> Platonic Ontology

I mixed two of your comments. I think you agree with my point: a category does not imply content. So while ontology is a subcategory of philosophy: there is nothing entailed within that marker or subcategory itself. The category simply notes the orientation of the content. Aristotelian ontology would be an example of content.

How does this relate to our discussion? If one takes humanism as a category then it is void of content and thus cannot be 'a philosophy'.

Irrelevant to our discussion.

In the post I responded to, you typed: "But, (logic's) role is not to make a judgment of the system of though itself. Its role is to aid the system of thought." This is incorrect. Logic measures correct and incorrect reasoning. If a system is composed of reasoning then it is amenable to logical critique. Thus, an irrational system can be rejected just as an irrational argument. This is the point.

How does this relate to our discussion? If one takes humanism as 'a philosophy' then the agreed content of that system contains contradictions. Contradictions are anathema to reason. Therefore one would be forced to accept an absurdity which undercuts the claim.

Suraknar

04-07-2007, 18:09

Alright good :)

Yes, it not a matter of agreeing with you or you agreeing with me, to me.

It a matter of:

"If we talk about apples, lets use apple logic, not orange logic to critisise apples"

Hehe, otherwise we go in circles.

Argumenting for the sake of argument does not help the discussion my friend. But its tough isnt it? hehe

Suraknar

04-07-2007, 18:21

ICantSpellDawg

04-07-2007, 22:03

Suraknar

04-07-2007, 23:35

Pindar now seems to be trying to argue with the way in which you came to this incorrect conclusion regarding the meaning of words.

I am sorry, I am not here to insult anyone. I came in and I shared a view, that view became the center of a debate.

I had expressed that I am not interested in confrontation, even if it is what seems to be the norm of this side of the forums.

I mean, maybe what is the basis of most of this confrontational style is the meaning and definitions of words. But at least for me, this is a debate of Ideas not a debate of word definitions. I would not participate in a words debate, 1st, I have nothing to prove to anyone, 2nd, being right or being wrong to me is equal, third, I am not equiped to participate to a debate of words, I prefer to reflect on things, I am not a "fast talker" per say, and neither am I to the level of word debate skill as many of you maybe here, yet most importantly, it is not of interest to me to be anyways, as long as we can exchange ideas it is enough for any constructive discussion.

Now, if you tell me, that being right is what is most important to you rather than reaching an understanding, that is another story all together. One that I am not really interested in personally, which means, it is not my goal to be right in the debate. The purpose of it is to exchange and evaluate views, in an open mnded way, and through that process come to a common conclusion.

So...in order to advance in the current discussion we need some common points of reference.

What is the point in debating the color of a fruit if you define it as an orange and I define it as an apple? We will never come to an agreement! We could argue endlessly using dialectics and word definitions to peruade eachother of our own definition, but that kind of word sparing is not why I participate in this discussion.

I am not saying this is done intentionally, I am simply pointing out that we have a problem which does not permit us to advance this debate of ideas.

"Humanism is" the lowest common denominator of what people considered "Humanists" believe. You are taking a specific type of ethical Humanism and making a blanket statement about all of Humanism.

I can't see why this is so hard to understand.

As far as Humanism is concerned, I actually do quite the opposite

All I am saying is that Humanism is not ONE thing, a blanket as you call it. Humanism is and can be many things because there is people that view and apply Humanism in different ways.

That is why it has several definitions, one of which is being a Philosophy. So, quite the contrary I am pointing out that we cant just take something reduce it to its common denominator and then based on that, generalise and apply it to everything.

Ideas are more complex than that, and we are dealing with Ideas here, not numbers. While you can do what you said in mathematics, it cant be done with everything in life.

Have I been misunderstood?

This discussion is very entertaining.

An interesting by-product of the discussion if you think so. Sit back, relax and enjoy then. And Happy Easter, if your a Christian.

Suraknar

04-07-2007, 23:37

By the way Pindar,

Quote:
While I do not doubt your form of argumentation, I have some difficulty with it, because it feels like what I have observed in many forums during the years in debates between people of various nationalities where, one person whose first language is not english would write something up to the best of their ability in english, only to receive a reply like:

"You missed ponctuation" or "Watch your typos" etc etc, and the person who replies that makes it a point to dismiss the complete argument based on grammar and not the content of what was said.

I hope you don't feel that I've done what you describe above. I reject the core of your idea not the grammar or presentation. I don't think humanism can be coherently considered either a philosophy or necessarily ethical.

No I dont feel that you have done that. As I said, you have been patient. ~:cheers:

ICantSpellDawg

04-08-2007, 04:41

*Sorry to quote you out of context*

All I am saying is that Humanism is not ONE thing, a blanket as you call it. Humanism is and can be many things because there is people that view and apply Humanism in different ways.

100% agree.

That is why it has several definitions, one of which is being a Philosophy.

I'm not getting involved in that one

So, quite the contrary I am pointing out that we cant just take something reduce it to its common denominator and then based on that, generalise and apply it to everything.

That is exactly what you can do with a common denominator. This doesn't mean that every sub-set is the same, but that they are all held together by something in addition to their unique qualities. We would describe these common ties as what makes up "Humanism" in general. Anything
not shared by every sub-set should be discussed seperately as a BRANCH of "Humanism".

And Happy Easter, if your a Christian.

I am contantly being accused of misunderstandings on this board.
Thanks, Happy Easter to you too.

Suraknar

04-08-2007, 07:54

*Sorry to quote you out of context*

It is ok, since the purporse is to solve a potential misunderstanding :) I think how we treat eachother in these forums (civility and mutual respect) supercede the content of any of our discussions or the points we try to make in a given discussion.

-------
Now, I think we need some closure in this debate. So if Pindar you are willing to do so as well, here is what I think thus far.

I have read that book I linked above on the Philosophy of Humanism, I do not know if you have done so but I think you will find Chapters IV, V and VI more to your liking. (It deals with the Reasoning, Dialectics, Logic, Thought and such aspects of Philosophy that you prefer).

One thing that I realise here, is that maybe the discussion when I jumped in was about the "General" sence of the word Humanism. As I have stated before, I dont like to generalise, everything has it own place and reason of being and albeit this may seem closer to you in some sence, the general picture and basis of any philosophy is what attracts my own interest.

See, from my point of view, what I want to know is the big picture, the basis a given philosopher has in order to then proceid via the laws of logic to express our outline their system of thought.

This basis, for me is very important, as the way I see it a Philosophy has two major parts, one is Knowledge which forms the basis, second is the Reasoning which forms the synthesis out of the first.

You seem very interested by the latter, yet all I have tryed to argue all this time is that no matter how good the reasoning may seem according to the laws of logic, if the basis is flawed the whole system is flawed.

It is also why I just cannot accept your definition of Philosophy, it does not include the Knowledge part. And Logic alone is not Philosophy.

On the other Hand, after reading the work of Corliss Lamont, 20th Century Philosopher, on the Philosophy of Humanism as linked above, I realised a mistake I made during our debate.

I had said Humanist Philosophy would classify under the Ethics rubric, when in reality it is an Ontologic Philosophy. So I stand corrected here.

I also realised that the Humanist Philosophy is a Philosophy that is constructed upon the first part 'Knowledge basis' rather than the second part 'reasoning synthesis'. Being a 20th century Philosophy it does rely upon science.

You will not find deep reasoning like Emmanuel Kant's works in this like:

Analytic proposition
Synthetic proposition
Analytic-synthetic distinction.
A priori and a posteriori
...etc

Its reasoning is softer and naturaly evolves from the 'Knowledge basis' part (It was a good read for me).

It does not contain any contradictions, it does not contain any dualistic theories and it recognises a monistic theory, on the question of the nature of Humans.

So

This is from post 140:

This is a major difference in how we see the issue. If humanism were a philosophy (by which we mean a distinct system amenable to logic) then it would have to cohere to rational standards. Were one to take your own statements as an example, humanism can be both atheistic and theistic. Atheism and theism are mutually exclusive (A and -A). Any system that admits contradictory conclusions (absurdities) is outside the bounds of reason.

This question for me is resolved, as the Humanist Philosophy does not contain contradictory conclusions. Now, that being said, does Humanism in General, in all its forms contain different positions, yes it does, but here maybe the issue that plagued us. We were debating apples with oranges, unintentionally. The way I came in the discussion may have contributed to this. The way I expressed myself aswell.

So wrong place wrong time wrong way in other words.(Story of my life..hehe)

What I am talking about is the Philosophy of Humanism which is a Philosophy that has been develloped in the 20th century. On the other hand you argued about Humanism in its general sence and that it cannot be a Philosophy, and I agree with you. Humanism in its general sence is not a Philosophy but there is a Humanist Philosophy which is best expressed in that Book by Corliss Lamont.

Now

This is from post 143:

To the second: there are a variety of humanist thinkers who never argued any necessary ethical component and in fact argued an amoral system. The base posit man, which serves as the root of humanism is, at its core, an ontological positioning: man is. An 'is' is not conduct. It does not indicate either purpose or propriety. To conflate an 'is' with any 'ought' is to commit a category mistake.

The Humanist Philosophy as explained by Corliss Lamont, is an ethical Philosophy, and in fact rejects conclusions or lack of ethical conclusions to the posit of Man of the Thinkers you mentioned.

Again, does Humanism in its general sence make any claim to ethics, the answer is no, as you said, and I agree. Does the Humanist Philosophy do, yes it does, and it is explained in Chapter VI of the book.

To quote from it a small passage (Chapter III) and in relation to

community doesn't indicate morality

It is as I had concluded actually,

Moral standards, like the categories of mind, originate and
evolve in the course of human association. Hence morality,
too, is a social product.

For more, take a look at the book, its free to download in PDF, unless you prefer the Hard Copy.

And that is that my friend, I hope this brings closure and clarification to the current debate.

Cheers! ~:cheers:

PS: BTW, I found a thread here in the org, and indeed you are a Lawyer!! heheh - And no I havent read everything in the org..I am still exploring ;)

Pindar

04-09-2007, 17:25

Now, another clarification please.

During our discussion you argue that 'Humanism does not' ...or 'Humanism is' ...

What is your point of reference?

What Humanism are you refering to? In other words what is your basis or source for what Humanism 'is' or 'is not', claims or not etc.

I think it is very important to clarify this because otherwise we are arguing apples with oranges.

As I explained earlier there is a conceptual and historical element. The conceptual element means looking at humanism's core notion: 'man is' as the first premise for any attending argument. How does this relate to our discussion? 'Man is' is the assertion man as an existential reality. An 'is' is not an 'ought'. In other words existence does not convey any ethical overtones alone. This undercuts the idea humanism is necessarily ethical.

The historical element is looking to the works of various thinkers taken as humanists. How does this relate to our discussion? Different humanist thinkers argue different and antithetical conceptions of man. Those differences undercut the idea humanism is 'a philosophy' as it would lead to absurdities. These differences also include amoral conceptions which undercut the idea humanism is necessarily ethical.

Pindar

04-09-2007, 17:58

This basis, for me is very important, as the way I see it a Philosophy has two major parts, one is Knowledge which forms the basis, second is the Reasoning which forms the synthesis out of the first.

You seem very interested by the latter, yet all I have tryed to argue all this time is that no matter how good the reasoning may seem according to the laws of logic, if the basis is flawed the whole system is flawed.

It is also why I just cannot accept your definition of Philosophy, it does not include the Knowledge part. And Logic alone is not Philosophy.

I don't understand your distinction here: knowledge and reasoning. If this is arguing for a knowledge that is outside of and independent from reasoning then the position is no longer rational and not a concern of rationalism.

What I am talking about is the Philosophy of Humanism which is a Philosophy that has been develloped in the 20th century. On the other hand you argued about Humanism in its general sence and that it cannot be a Philosophy, and I agree with you. Humanism in its general sence is not a Philosophy but there is a Humanist Philosophy which is best expressed in that Book by Corliss Lamont...

The Humanist Philosophy as explained by Corliss Lamont, is an ethical Philosophy, and in fact rejects conclusions or lack of ethical conclusions to the posit of Man of the Thinkers you mentioned....

Again, does Humanism in its general sence make any claim to ethics, the answer is no, as you said, and I agree. Does the Humanist Philosophy do, yes it does, and it is explained in Chapter VI of the book.

It looks like we agree: humanism is not a philosophy and it is not necessarily ethical. It seems you embrace and now advocate what I will call Lamont Humanism (LH) to distinguish it from humanism in general. If you wish to discuss the merits of LH we can do that. For example, the claim on ethics you quote from his book is highly problematic.

PS: BTW, I found a thread here in the org, and indeed you are a Lawyer!!

Yes, I'm busy corrupting the social and political fabric of society and the world at large as quickly as I can.

Cheers

Suraknar

04-10-2007, 04:42

I don't understand your distinction here: knowledge and reasoning. If this is arguing for a knowledge that is outside of and independent from reasoning then the position is no longer rational and not a concern of rationalism.

Hehe, (really I am laughing, in a good way) you have a knack of surgical insertions in to meanings! :) Then again, its part of your profession ;)

Well, yes I am making a distinction between two parts within the same context, philosophy. And the distinction is not made in a general sence of the word. It is a specific distinction that is part of the philosophical process.

This is because we define philosophy differently. By your definition any system of thought that is logical could be defined as philosophy.

Yet in my view, it cant, because the system of thought first has to have a basis, knowledge about the topic of interest of the thinker, this knowledge, depending how rigorous it is, provides the thinker with understanding of that given topic. Based on that understanding the thinker can then formulate a synthesis of their thoughts and according to the laws of logic.

Hence, just expressing logically a given system of thought, without any understanding derived from knowledge on a given topic, is problematic since, the system of thought, invariably of its logical validity, is flawed if the knowledge and understanding is flawed itself.

Logic alone, is not philosophy.

It looks like we agree: humanism is not a philosophy and it is not necessarily ethical. It seems you embrace and now advocate what I will call Lamont Humanism (LH) to distinguish it from humanism in general.

Yes we agree. :) And yes, the LH is for me a Philosophy of Humanism, I think he got it quite right, maybe not perfect, if perfection even exists, yet I can say that I identify with the reasoning involved.

That being said, I feel important to specify that most philosophers writte for other philosophers and not necessarilly for the average person, LH's work is addressed to all, which is a good thing, I think personally.

If you wish to discuss the merits of LH we can do that. For example, the claim on ethics you quote from his book is highly problematic.

Sure, if you wish. Fire away!

Yes, I'm busy corrupting the social and political fabric of society and the world at large as quickly as I can.

Cheers

Heheh, well one of the oldest records of literature, is a Code of Laws! ~:cheers:

Pindar

04-10-2007, 18:14

Hehe, (really I am laughing, in a good way) you have a knack of surgical insertions in to meanings!

Each has his assigned role in the universe. :ballchain:

Well, yes I am making a distinction between two parts within the same context, philosophy. And the distinction is not made in a general sence of the word. It is a specific distinction that is part of the philosophical process.

This is because we define philosophy differently. By your definition any system of thought that is logical could be defined as philosophy.

Yet in my view, it cant, because the system of thought first has to have a basis, knowledge about the topic of interest of the thinker, this knowledge, depending how rigorous it is, provides the thinker with understanding of that given topic. Based on that understanding the thinker can then formulate a synthesis of their thoughts and according to the laws of logic.

Hence, just expressing logically a given system of thought, without any understanding derived from knowledge on a given topic, is problematic since, the system of thought, invariably of its logical validity, is flawed if the knowledge and understanding is flawed itself.

Logic alone, is not philosophy.

From the above do you want to argue there is a knowledge that is not, nor can be, subject to rational inquiry that is nonetheless still philosophy?

Sure, if you wish. Fire away!

OK, from what you've posted from LH it cannot ground moral judgements.

Suraknar

04-10-2007, 20:41

Each has his assigned role in the universe. :ballchain:

Indeed :)

From the above do you want to argue there is a knowledge that is not, nor can be, subject to rational inquiry that is nonetheless still philosophy?

No I am not arguing that, at all. Are you?

OK, from what you've posted from LH it cannot ground moral judgements.

Hehe, if I were to post that to someone that just came in to the debate, you would be right, but I posted it within the context of our debate, knowing that since we have discussed this there is common point of reference between us and you understand from where it comes from. So it does.

Now if you want to argue an anti-thesis to the overal premise of the ethical positioning in LH, please go ahead.

Pindar

04-11-2007, 18:31

No I am not arguing that, at all. Are you?

So you then agree that any knowledge claim within a philosophical context is subject to reason?

Hehe, if I were to post that to someone that just came in to the debate, you would be right, but I posted it within the context of our debate, knowing that since we have discussed this there is common point of reference between us and you understand from where it comes from. So it does.

Now if you want to argue an anti-thesis to the overal premise of the ethical positioning in LH, please go ahead.

I'm responding to this comment from LH: "Moral standards, like the categories of mind, originate and evolve in the course of human association. Hence morality, too, is a social product." This idea is a relativsim and reduces any moral sentiment to the emotive.

Suraknar

04-11-2007, 22:20

So you then agree that any knowledge claim within a philosophical context is subject to reason?

I agree that, any claim, within a philosophical context, is subject to both reason and the understanding of a given topic, which comes from a knowledge basis.

Logic, reasoning, is the quantitative measure , while the knowledge basis is the qualitative measure. And while there is in History many philosophers that have presented many systems of thought, these systems of thought are not necessarilly valid, and then more philosophers come up with modified systems of thought rejecting or pointing out the fallacies of the first ones...but this is done..taking under account...the basis..not the logical validity of the claims, but rather the knowledge upon which these claims were based upon, and the fallacy that resulted in the reasoning that insued.

I feel like we are having a classical discource here :P

I'm responding to this comment from LH: "Moral standards, like the categories of mind, originate and evolve in the course of human association. Hence morality, too, is a social product." This idea is a relativsim and reduces any moral sentiment to the emotive.

Yes of cource, I know, that is why I say, If I were to post this to someone that just jumped in the discussion, and that they havent followed it from the begining your claim would be right. But since you have been there from the begining you know that this quote refers to a certain knowledgeable basis.

If you want to argue that this quote is not valid, you have to provide an anti-thesis with your own basis and reasoning. Not just take the quote like that put it asside and say its not valid on its own because of this Law of Logic, and then dismiss the overal position based solelly on that.

To give an analogy, in terms of your own field of expertise:

Evaluating the Validity of a given premise based solelly on the Logical validity of single claims, would be like condemning a man based on the fact that they fired the gun that killed someone, and without taking under account of the circomstances sourounding (or led to) this action.

If I may make a personall comment: I am sure that you dont do this in your profession, then, why do you do it for philosophy? It is the same basic principle, and I am sure that the principle is applyed in Law because of Philosophy.

Pindar

04-12-2007, 00:48

I agree that, any claim, within a philosophical context, is subject to both reason and the understanding...

OK. I just wanted to be clear.

Yes of cource, I know, that is why I say, If I were to post this to someone that just jumped in the discussion, and that they havent followed it from the begining your claim would be right. But since you have been there from the begining you know that this quote refers to a certain knowledgeable basis.

I don't know what "a certain knowledgeable basis" means. The LH assertion is clear: morality is a social product. This is a hopeless relativism and thus untenable.

If you want to argue that this quote is not valid, you have to provide an anti-thesis with your own basis and reasoning.

Logical argument does not turn on any presented anti-thesis. It turns on the necessary connection between the premises and the conclusion. An argument is amenable to its content. If that content leads to an absurdity then the argument fails. It has nothing to do with alternate views.

To give an analogy, in terms of your own field of expertise:

Evaluating the Validity of a given premise based solelly on the Logical validity of single claims, would be like condemning a man based on the fact that they fired the gun that killed someone, and without taking under account of the circomstances sourounding (or led to) this action.

Your analogy is flawed. Under U.S. Criminal Law indictment is based on presented evidence. If the evidence is too weak to make the case then it is thrown out. The suspect (or his advocate) is not required to present an alternate suspect or theory as to what happened. Any demonstration the case against the accused does not hold is sufficient to destroy the Prosecution.

Suraknar

04-12-2007, 22:10

I don't know what "a certain knowledgeable basis" means. The LH assertion is clear: morality is a social product. This is a hopeless relativism and thus untenable.

Yes its clear on its own, but that is the conclusion, if you want to say that it is not valid, you have to analyse from where it comes from, what is its basis, to what LH bases himself to affirm or make that claim. (which he does thruout his work, and more specifically in Chapter VI). Analyse the basis for its validity only then we can say with certainty if it is valid or not.

And if you want to refute the position he takes (claim that what he claims is false), you have to provide your own basis as well as reasoning. Not just evaluate the technicality of his conclusion.

Logical argument does not turn on any presented anti-thesis. It turns on the necessary connection between the premises and the conclusion. An argument is amenable to its content. If that content leads to an absurdity then the argument fails. It has nothing to do with alternate views.

Technicalities.

See this is maybe why we approach philosophy from different angles, you are concerned about the form of the synthesis, the technicalities. While I am concerned about the the knowledge basis of the synthesis aswell, the overal premise of the underlying principles.

And that is very important in my view, and I think that many people dismiss many things by simply evaluating tehnicalities, a behavior that under a philosophical context, is detrimental.

Philosophy, like many things in life has a tehnical aspect, but exceling at it does neither make a given philosophy invalid nor does it make someone a philosopher.

What it does at best is maybe a Philosophical technical analyst. And its fine, we need those as well. But the validity of Ideas, under a philosophical context, cannot be sollelly based on technicalities.

Your analogy is flawed. Under U.S. Criminal Law indictment is based on presented evidence. If the evidence is too weak to make the case then it is thrown out. The suspect (or his advocate) is not required to present an alternate suspect or theory as to what happened. Any demonstration the case against the accused does not hold is sufficient to destroy the Prosecution.

This was an analogy of principles of LAW, not a specific case in the US or other country.

Even if the US has a system where one is Innocent until proven Guilty and that base principle affects the methodology that follows thereafter. The US system is but one version of Law. In France the base principle is reversed, one is Guilty and has to Prove their Innocence.

Dont tell me that this is not tought in LAW school, the origins and History of LAW.

So, assuming that I was talking under the US system to make this analogy lead you to a false evaluation of it.

That being said, I made an educated guess here by presenting this analogy, knowing that you are a LAW specialist. I am not a LAW specialist nor do I claim that I know better than you about your profession. However, that does not mean that I dont have some understanding of LAW, it is part of our History.

In relation to our dicussion, your response to this analogy has been in line with your responses on philosophy. You evaluate the technicalities of philosophy in order to form a conclusion about a given philosophy.

However, my friend, while technicalities are important in a court of Justice, and can make or break a case. This is not how philosophy is evaluated.

naut

04-13-2007, 06:36

I thought it was rubbish, utter garbage.

Warluster

04-13-2007, 06:42

What? The movie?

I can't wait to see 300, just haven't had time lately...

Why didn't you like it Rythmic?

Csargo

04-13-2007, 06:46

We're still talking about this? It's like so 3 weeks ago...:shame:

Warluster

04-13-2007, 06:48

SO what, I still talk about Saving private Ryan and it was 9 yeras ago, Darn it that was a good movie, especially the starting bit, or the bit when their drinking tea and the wall falls down.

naut

04-13-2007, 07:40

@ Warluster:

The terrible acting (although I expected it to be bad).
The shocking, cliché and downright lame dialogue.
The crappy script.
And the fact that the plot was so obvious and predictable, I knew exactly what was going to happen.

All-in-all it was a waste of my time.

Pindar

04-14-2007, 00:49

Yes its clear on its own, but that is the conclusion, if you want to say that it is not valid, you have to analyse from where it comes from, what is its basis, to what LH bases himself to affirm or make that claim. (which he does thruout his work, and more specifically in Chapter VI). Analyse the basis for its validity only then we can say with certainty if it is valid or not.

I did not mention validity. I spoke to the assertion alone. The stance: "morality is a social product" ( A is B) by the conflation, is to embrace a relativism by definition. It is also emotive by definition. This means it cannot resolve the assertion and maintain morality has any truth value. Our poor LH is confused in his thinking.

And if you want to refute the position he takes (claim that what he claims is false), you have to provide your own basis as well as reasoning. Not just evaluate the technicality of his conclusion.

No, an argument rises and falls on its own merits. See comments in the previous post and noted below.

Logical argument does not turn on any presented anti-thesis. It turns on the necessary connection between the premises and the conclusion. An argument is amenable to its content. If that content leads to an absurdity then the argument fails. It has nothing to do with alternate views.

Technicalities.

This is not a technicality. It is fundamental to a logic. For example, if someone presents:

A then B
A
Therefore W

This is flawed. Pointing out the flaw does not require any counter argument. Invalidity is a failure of coherence. It is internal to the argument.

See this is maybe why we approach philosophy from different angles, you are concerned about the form of the synthesis, the technicalities. While I am concerned about the the knowledge basis of the synthesis aswell, the overal premise of the underlying principles.

I am concerned with all aspects of any argument that claims rational standing. This includes any and all premesis.

This was an analogy of principles of LAW, not a specific case in the US or other country.

Even if the US has a system where one is Innocent until proven Guilty and that base principle affects the methodology that follows thereafter. The US system is but one version of Law. In France the base principle is reversed, one is Guilty and has to Prove their Innocence.

This is an admitted aside, but I don't think you are correct. I've not studied French Law, but I doubt the French model is 'guilty until proven innocent'. That is not the thrust of the continental model as I understand it.

Suraknar

04-14-2007, 09:14

I did not mention validity. I spoke to the assertion alone. The stance: "morality is a social product" ( A is B) by the conflation, is to embrace a relativism by definition. It is also emotive by definition. This means it cannot resolve the assertion and maintain morality has any truth value. Our poor LH is confused in his thinking.

No, an argument rises and falls on its own merits. See comments in the previous post and noted below.

This is not a technicality. It is fundamental to a logic. For example, if someone presents:

A then B
A
Therefore W

This is flawed. Pointing out the flaw does not require any counter argument. Invalidity is a failure of coherence. It is internal to the argument.

I dont think we will agree on this my friend :)

For me, he does not go from A then B, A therefore W...quite the contary he is very logical, because he does provide a knowledge basis.

So as I said, I dont just look at the single claim "morality is a social product" and form a conclusion there. I look at the claim then read the basis, to understand from where this claim comes from, and then I can say with more certainty if it is valid or not.

I am concerned with all aspects of any argument that claims rational standing. This includes any and all premesis.

Allright good, then you are closer to the way I see it too. Plus the Basis.

This is an admitted aside, but I don't think you are correct. I've not studied French Law, but I doubt the French model is 'guilty until proven innocent'. That is not the thrust of the continental model as I understand it.

I maybe wrong about the present application of the Law in France, I know that at one point in History, French Law was like that, because I live in Quebec, which has a mixed system in comparison to the rest of Canada which has Common Law for both Civil and Criminal Law. While Quebec has Common Law for Criminal but French Law for Civil, and in the Civil the principle is reversed.

Now Quebec has many French Traditions from the Pre-Napoleonian era while France has moved past that point so maybe they changed it, although needs to be verified.

In any case, if its not France it is Japan, and other countries, the point is that the LAW principles vary, and I was merelly making an analogy from that angle, without associating it to a specific Law system of any given country.

Suraknar

04-15-2007, 00:04

A parenthesis on the discussion:

I did some research on the subject of Law here. I really dont like to affirm something without a valid basis.

And, France does use Civil Law, as opposed to Common Law (US, britain, Australia, Canada (Except Quebec which is Mixed).. etc)

Civil law or continental law is the predominant system of law in the world. Civil law as a legal system is often compared with common law. The main difference is usually drawn between two systems, common law draws abstract rules from specific cases, whereas civil law starts with abstract rules, which judges must then apply to the various cases before them.

Civil law has its roots in Roman law, Canon law and the Enlightenment. The legal systems in many civil law countries are based around one or several codes of law, which set out the main principles that guide the law. The most famous example is perhaps the French Civil Code, although the German BGB and the Swiss Civil Code are also landmark events in legal history(...)

(...)Civil law is primarily contrasted against common law, which is the legal system developed among Anglo-Saxon people, especially in England.

The original difference is that, historically, common law was law developed by custom, beginning before there were any written laws and continuing to be applied by courts after there were written laws, too, whereas civil law developed out of the Roman law of Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law).

In 1950 civil law became codified as droit coutumier or customary law that were local compilations of legal principles recognized as normative. Sparked by the age of enlightenment, attempts to codify private law began during the second half of the 18th century (see civil code), but civil codes with a lasting influence were promulgated only after the French Revolution, in jurisdictions such as France (with its Napoleonic Code), Austria (see ABGB), Quebec (see Civil Code of Quebec), Spain (Código Civil), the Netherlands and Germany (see Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch). However, codification is by no means a defining characteristic of a civil law system, as e.g. the civil law systems of Scandinavian countries remain largely uncodified[citation needed], whereas common law jurisdictions have frequently codified parts of their laws, e.g. in the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code. There are also mixed systems, such as the laws of Scotland, Louisiana, Quebec, the Philippines, Namibia and South Africa.

Thus, the difference between civil law and common law lies not just in the mere fact of codification, but in the methodological approach to codes and statutes. In civil law countries, legislation is seen as the primary source of law. By default, courts thus base their judgments on the provisions of codes and statutes, from which solutions in particular cases are to be derived. Courts thus have to reason extensively on the basis of general rules and principles of the code, often drawing analogies from statutory provisions to fill lacunae and to achieve coherence. By contrast, in the common law system, cases are the primary source of law, while statutes are only seen as incursions into the common law and thus interpreted narrowly.(...)

Now...the difference of opinion.

A common opinion held in countries based on common law is that in civil law or inquisitorial justice systems, the accused does not enjoy a presumption of innocence. This idea results from the fact that in most civil law nations, an investigating magistrate supervises police investigations. To common law countries with adversarial systems, the civil law criminal justice system appears to be hopelessly biased, since the judge should remain as impartial as possible. However the magistrate does not determine innocence or guilt and functions much as a grand jury does in common law nations.

In the view of supporters of the inquisitorial system, the latter is less biased than the adversarial system, since the judges supervising cases are independent and bound by law to direct their enquiries both in favor or against the guilt of any suspect, compared to prosecutors in an adversarial system, who will, it is claimed, look only for evidence pointing to guilt and whose re-appointments may depend on the number of successful prosecutions that they have brought.

In general, civil law based justice systems, especially in Europe, avoid use of the term innocent, since it carries a moral charge separate from the phrase not guilty. It is argued a person who is found not guilty still cannot always claim to be innocent, e.g. if he/she has used lethal force in case of valid self-defence exerted against a mentally handicapped attacker with very low IQ. The wording is therefore delivered in a more formal and neutral manner, such that an accused is either declared guilty, not guilty for lack of a crime, not guilty due to lack of evidence, or not guilty due to lack of jurisdiction (in the case that a child or lunatic is accused). Such plain language is better suited for the predominantly written proceedings and less emotionally-charged nature of civil law trials...

On the other hand, there has been reform:

Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In principle, the defense does not have to 'prove' anything. However, the defense may present evidence tending to show that there is a doubt as to the guilt of the accused. (...)

This right is so important in modern democracies that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

* In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

* In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Every man is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.

* Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States

* The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

* The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.

So the Idea remains, yet the affirmation and acceptance of Human Rights of the 20th Century have brought new principles to be applied. So today, all modern democracies are characterised by the "Presumtion of Innocence" principles. Wither they use Common Law or Civil Law systems.

And from the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms,

Chapter III, article 33. Every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.

I guess that solves this :)