The Movie 300

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Reenk Roink]

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. That renegade Aristotle and his ideas continue to plague me. Off to reread Crito.

[Suraknar]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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 ;)

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]

First of all, let me say i really enjoy the discussion with you, and in the hopes it is mutual.

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]

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

[Pindar]

First of all, let me say i really enjoy the discussion with you, and in the hopes it is mutual.

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]

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

[Suraknar]

Interesting.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Suraknar]

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]

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.

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.

If I may?

Suraknar, I think you have come to an impasse with Pindar. The fact is, nailing down what "philosophy" is terribly hard (just like nailing down what "science" or "religion", etc...).

Pindar is of the view that philosophy is a method and "logic is it's rubric". I have heard this from others as well; I'm tempted to say that it is the "academic" definition.

Now, 'philosophy' is used in much broader terms as well, for example, "our company philosophy" or "our teaching philosophy". The little definition I gave of Plato is another one of those broad and wider encompassing definitions.

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.

Personally, I think it would be better to move on to that topic than to stay on this impasse. This is a very interesting discussion, and I'd hate to see it get bogged down with semantics.

After all, when people debate Cartesian Dualism, the discussion is not whether it is a philosophy or not, but rather the merits of the position.

[Pindar]

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]

Three Hundred Freeeking Ruuuullled!!!!!!!! Eeeeeeeyeeyeyeyeyeeeeyeyeeeeeeeyyyaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Back On Track

[Pindar]

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.

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]

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]

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 :)

[QUOTE=Pindar]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.

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]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

...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]

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