Humanism

[civplayah]

I'd like to discuss the belief of humanism with you all and exchange thoughts and possibly critiques related to it.

What I'm referring to is, to use a cliché, the "inherent good" in all of humanity. However, that's not really what I want to talk about, because in my opinion it's overused and, frankly, boring. I'd like to talk about the merits of possible extrapolations from that idea. I tend to trust people to a very large degree because of that goodness I typically see. Unless my best friend--who is a renowned cynic-- points out someone's deception to me, I won't really be able to see it. Is that a good mode of thought? Or is it more destructive than helpful? I'd argue that even if one were to behave cruelly, there's a definite underlying cause, and mistrusting people only inflames that.

I'd like to be careful and say that I in no way consider myself superior because of this worldview-- I know that I'm pretty naive. I'd like to be careful and distinguish naivete from ignorance, though; I do know if people have done bad things in the past (I'm in high school; the rumor mill flourishes), but I choose to ignore that and really emphasize the fundamental capacity for goodness.

Does any of you share a similar viewpoint? Or do you possibly consider me horribly idealist to a destructive extent? I'm curious about this, because I was at a large social gathering just now and I really do pick up on the positive energy of others well.

 

[fret]

I am a humanist and I do consider myself superior because of that viewpoint. I am able to be a morally good person without the need of a nonsensical higher authority telling (forcing?) me to act in that way.

 

[Tahuti]

People are able to choose morality. The merit of humanism is that it sheds the thought that morality necessarily comes from a deity. Morality is - plainly speaking - a definition of good and bad or good and evil. But frankly, people have overall differing views over what constitutes either good or bad and therefore have different morals. Thus, the flaw of humanism is the concept of humanity effectively inadvertently became a surrogate for the discredited higher power.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I've considered myself a humanist for seven years now, but I don't consider people to be inherently good. Describing ourselves as inherently good, or inherently bad, is preposterous; both are needless, groundless judgments. We are what we are; sometimes our actions are healthy and productive, sometimes they are destructive. No one is consistent, and sometimes it's impossible to discern whether an action was "good" or "bad", because actions are often done with the best of intentions and then have tragic, unforeseen circumstances.

My humanism has many faces: at the heart of it, I suppose, is a belief that people ought to be in control of their lives. Our morals should be based on what fulfills our needs, what makes good sense, not what some self-appointed prophet declares is the Will of God in his magic book. This belief in people controlling their own lives manifests itself in my support of freethought and democracy, as well. Tradition is well and good if it serves human needs, but it must not become static and authoritarian.

Another element of my humanism is a kind of faith, an abiding hope in the spirit of humanity to preservere, to fight, to triumph. Regardless of what the future brings, no matter what darkness comes, I believe and hope we will not give in to it, that the world of 1984 will never come into being because we cannot be broken permanently. We have great resilience. This faith in the human spirit is my religion, and I practice it in museums, in conservatories, in theaters, as I experience the range of profound human emotions as people respond to life.

I am a humanist; I believe in people, nothing else. I don't put my hope in technology, I put it in human strength, human intelligence, and human adaptability. I value my life not by money in the bank, but by the strength of my friendships, and the extent to which I can make a difference in people's lives. I offer allegiance not to flags, not to systems of thought, not to arbitrary lines on a map, but to the people whose lives daily intersect with my own, and to a lesser extent, to the greater body of humanity on this globe. I believe that everyone is someone, that we all have the same problems and fears, same hopes and aspirations.

 

[Traitorfish]

People are able to choose morality. The merit of humanism is that it sheds the thought that morality necessarily comes from a deity. Morality is - plainly speaking - a definition of good and bad or good and evil. But frankly, people have overall differing views over what constitutes either good or bad and therefore have different morals. Thus, the flaw of humanism is the concept of humanity effectively inadvertently became a surrogate for the discredited higher power.

I don't think most humanists treat "humanity" as any sort of authority, as you imply here. I'm not even really sure where'd you get such an impression.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't think most humanists treat "humanity" as any sort of authority, as you imply here. I'm not even really sure where'd you get such an impression.

Well, humanism effectively "worships" humanity, independently of any religion, though it may involve religion in the traditional sense of the word. I'm not trying to say it functions like a religion, but I do feel that humanism effectively retrogrades into a platonic vision of an ideal man based on the average or modal of humanity that every human should strive towards. Of course, this doesn't matter if you're a platonicist - which I doubt you are - but I'm not really convinced.

EDIT: In some ways, I might consider myself a humanist in that I sincerely think being human is special. But I do think that it is a matter of personal preference, not too different from "I [think I] am special". There won't be anything objective to it in my conception of humanism, save for the fact I know I think that way.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, humanism effectively "worships" humanity, independently of any religion, though it may involve religion in the traditional sense of the word. I'm not trying to say it functions like a religion, but I do feel that humanism effectively retrogrades into a platonic vision of an ideal man based on the average or modal of humanity that every human should strive towards. Of course, this doesn't matter if you're a platonicist - which I doubt you are - but I'm not really convinced.

I don't agree. I think most modern humanism is concerned with humanity as a community, whether cultural, spiritual or material, and not simply as an extra-historical essence. Deification, rather by definition, means alienation, presenting the object of deification as something other and above yourself, while modern humanists are concerned with humanity as something which they actively participate in. Perhaps humanists of a Randian sort, who see "humanity" embodied not in those around them but in a elite of Promethean supermen, might be described as making a religion of humanism, but they are an eccentric minority at best.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually, I don't really understand what humanism is.

 

[civplayah]

It's interesting how most of the responses have mentioned religion or God (or the lack of those). I guess I should have expected that. I'm certainly fine discussing religion. I think I'd call myself atheist, and one reason that I identify as such is that I really value personal growth and learning from bad experiences. I hate it when people say that things happen "for a reason" because then they don't see any mistakes that they would have made and they essentially rob themselves of any wisdom that they should have gained from that negative experience.

 

[innonimatu]

I've considered myself a humanist for seven years now, but I don't consider people to be inherently good. Describing ourselves as inherently good, or inherently bad, is preposterous; both are needless, groundless judgments. We are what we are; sometimes our actions are healthy and productive, sometimes they are destructive. No one is consistent, and sometimes it's impossible to discern whether an action was "good" or "bad", because actions are often done with the best of intentions and then have tragic, unforeseen circumstances.

My humanism has many faces: at the heart of it, I suppose, is a belief that people ought to be in control of their lives. Our morals should be based on what fulfills our needs, what makes good sense, not what some self-appointed prophet declares is the Will of God in his magic book. This belief in people controlling their own lives manifests itself in my support of freethought and democracy, as well. Tradition is well and good if it serves human needs, but it must not become static and authoritarian.

Another element of my humanism is a kind of faith, an abiding hope in the spirit of humanity to preservere, to fight, to triumph. Regardless of what the future brings, no matter what darkness comes, I believe and hope we will not give in to it, that the world of 1984 will never come into being because we cannot be broken permanently. We have great resilience. This faith in the human spirit is my religion, and I practice it in museums, in conservatories, in theaters, as I experience the range of profound human emotions as people respond to life.

I am a humanist; I believe in people, nothing else. I don't put my hope in technology, I put it in human strength, human intelligence, and human adaptability. I value my life not by money in the bank, but by the strength of my friendships, and the extent to which I can make a difference in people's lives. I offer allegiance not to flags, not to systems of thought, not to arbitrary lines on a map, but to the people whose lives daily intersect with my own, and to a lesser extent, to the greater body of humanity on this globe. I believe that everyone is someone, that we all have the same problems and fears, same hopes and aspirations.

Though I don't really believe humanism is a thing, some well defined philosophy, I like your kind of humanism.