Humanism is Nonsense

[JoeVice]

(I did not understand what JoeVice was saying ealier about longevity btw - any of these intermediates could have short life spans).

i'm sorry, i jumped at my chance to poke fun. i didn't take into account interbreeding, which you even mentioned.

that is still a silly example though. but, i can imagine that we would try to establish communication. if they could cope in society, i imagine we would let them. imagine how many defendants would be pleading insanity.

 

[Justin S.]

I request a pause- Talk of "rights" (or moral "obligation") is highly ambiguous. What is the ontological standing of "right(s)"? What is this sort of mechanism, pact, guarantee, its functionality/relationality? What "grants" them, enables them, sustains them? It seems to me that the liberal tradition (including, ironically, our present day "analytic" thought) is a most obscure ontotheology.

A further request- Lets not fall back on the murky, almost seedy, notions of "reason" and "rationality" which, not coincidentally, always find themselves hitched to and in the service of the conceptual schemata put forth as argument. "Reason" seems to be, absent the gods, the most universal justification that is the engine, the drive, for all argument systems- that magical operation the whole thing turns on.

As another has said, we must evaluate our notions of the human. I contend that the analytic of Dasein in conjunction with a careful anthropology (science in general, but not as we know it today) is an important step in confronting our existence, but not in order to put forth another system of "under-standing" (another metaphysics).

"Rights" and other notions of "humanism" are foreign to such thinking.

 

[JoeVice]

A further request- Lets not fall back on the murky, almost seedy, notions of "reason" and "rationality" which, not coincidentally, always find themselves hitched to and in the service of the conceptual schemata put forth as argument. "Reason" seems to be, absent the gods, the most universal justification that is the engine, the drive, for all argument systems- that magical operation the whole thing turns on.

welp, i'm out.

 

[Cythraul]

because you would have the right to shoot his head off?

Yeah, ok. But I'm a little confused as to what exactly are supposed to count as human rights and what are supposed to count as these so-called animal rights you speak of. What exactly would we be giving up if we were to give up human rights in your sense? What about the right not to be tortured or killed by your government because of dissent? Is that a human right? That seems to be one invoked by people who speak of human rights. Do you want to give up that one and similar rights? Would giving that up make the world a better place to live in? Sure, eliminating people like rapists might seem like a helpful thing, but I'm not necessarily worried about stuff like that.

 

[Justin S.]

Joe,

I do not mean to imply we must make a dash for the "irrational". Rather, the concept "reason" cannot be evoked as a ground as it can, and has been, used to justify anything. It remains totally obscure.

I am requesting that responses be thoughtful, and not fall back on the same old flimsy structures.

 

[Cythraul]

I never said I have a problem with that. I only have a problem with any other "method of survival" being judged immoral.

So what are you trying to say? Are you trying to maintain that there are no things that we ought not to do? I don't mean to be rude but are you a sociopath?

 

[Justin S.]

Uh oh, if we question the ethical/moral enterprise we suffer from pathologies! Couldn't see that one coming...

 

[Scourge of God]

But 'what is man'---do you take Hobbes view (the dominant beast), or the Christian view (a feather short of an angel), where in between does your estimation of man fall???

Hobbes' view IS the Christian view - man as measured against the abstract standard of moral perfection that is 'God.'

 

[Scourge of God]

Uh oh, if we question the ethical/moral enterprise we suffer from pathologies! Couldn't see that one coming...

Pathology is defined against a normative baseline. So yes, given the structure of our society, questioning the moral fixities is a sign of pathological behaviors as they are defined by this culture.

Not that I care. They called Uncle Addy a madman, when he was the last truly sane leader. Kill the Jews, and their nasty mental 'science' will die with them.

 

[Cythraul]

Uh oh, if we question the ethical/moral enterprise we suffer from pathologies! Couldn't see that one coming...

You're a real shithead, you know that? It is one thing to question the grounds for something, but it is another thing to honestly believe deep down in your gut that all actions are somehow on an equal moral footing. If somebody really believed that, they'd be a sociopath. That's just a fucking fact. Also, nice way to totally ignore the possibility that I was joking, which I in fact was. I do not think seditious is a sociopath. Why? It seems pretty clear to me that seditious' beliefs are inconsistent; He clearly believes, e.g. that people ought not to rape others, yet he's probably one of the most morally anti-realist people I've ever encountered.

Now, please fuck off with your pretentious, self-satisfied bullshit.

 

[speed]

As another has said, we must evaluate our notions of the human. I contend that the analytic of Dasein in conjunction with a careful anthropology (science in general, but not as we know it today) is an important step in confronting our existence, but not in order to put forth another system of "under-standing" (another metaphysics).

"Rights" and other notions of "humanism" are foreign to such thinking.

When I think of humanism, I think of the classics, the renaissance. I think of those men (from Petronius to Rabelais; Socrates and Antisthenes, Sextus Empiricus and Epicurus, Montaigne, and Shakespeare--and so on), who accepted all humanity warts and all, yet joked about it; who loved life, searched for a posteriori knowledge (that what is knowable) not theories, searched inside themselves, accepted their own limitations, and never moralized or accepted conventional ideas and standardized thinking. In essence, these greats were concerned about man first and foremost, and man in all of his rottenness and splendour.


For Justin:
I think Heidegger was on this track (and clearly post-modern philosophy is on this track, or has reverted back to it), but Ive previously listed all the reasons why I dont think he succeeded. He succeeded, but was afraid of the simple truth of it all, and thus failed. Clouded it all in a mist, instead of illuminating with light.

 

[Justin S.]

Pathology is defined against a normative baseline. So yes, given the structure of our society, questioning the moral fixities is a sign of pathological behaviors as they are defined by this culture.

I'm aware of this. The point is, if this benchmark and normative claims in general are called into question, pulling the pathology card (normative) is senseless, and cannot even address the line of inquiry. Its simply a violent evasion.

Obviously, if a moral "reality" is presupposed during its "questioning", no such effort is undertaken.

 

[Justin S.]

You're a real shithead, you know that? It is one thing to question the grounds for something, but it is another thing to honestly believe deep down in your gut that all actions are somehow on an equal moral footing. If somebody really believed that, they'd be a sociopath. That's just a fucking fact. Also, nice way to totally ignore the possibility that I was joking, which I in fact was. I do not think seditious is a sociopath. Why? It seems pretty clear to me that seditious' beliefs are inconsistent; He clearly believes, e.g. that people ought not to rape others, yet he's probably one of the most morally anti-realist people I've ever encountered.

Now, please fuck off with your pretentious, self-satisfied bullshit.

I'll be sure to try and emulate the reserved, properly analytic approach you display. How can I come down from my high flown obscurantist prose and find the humility to type "That's just a fucking fact"?

Nah, I'll stick to my pretense.

 

[Cythraul]

I'll be sure to try and emulate the reserved, properly analytic approach you display. How can I come down from my high flown obscurantist prose and find the humility to type "That's just a fucking fact"?

Nah, I'll stick to my pretense.

Good. There's really no use in pulling your head out of your convoluted ass and acknowledging a simple fact, is there? There's a perfectly straightforward sense in which the label 'sociopath' applies to what I described, and it doesn't necessitate bullshit contrarian ramblings from you or any other coffeehouse intellectuals. You and your ilk make me fucking sick. I'm done with this shithole. Goodbye.

 

[Nile577]

You and your ilk make me fucking sick. I'm done with this shithole. Goodbye.

Please do not post like this. I understand you are outraged and annoyed but I don't quite think your tone is appropriate. I am sorry you feel you must leave, as you are easily among the more intelligent posters here, but if that is the case: don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[speed]

Good. There's really no use in pulling your head out of your convoluted ass and acknowledging a simple fact, is there? There's a perfectly straightforward sense in which the label 'sociopath' applies to what I described, and it doesn't necessitate bullshit contrarian ramblings from you or any other coffeehouse intellectuals. You and your ilk make me fucking sick. I'm done with this shithole. Goodbye.

Oh come on, dont leave Cythraul. It will ruin the balance, or the chi of this board.

 

[Justin S.]

Good. There's really no use in pulling your head out of your convoluted ass and acknowledging a simple fact, is there? There's a perfectly straightforward sense in which the label 'sociopath' applies to what I described, and it doesn't necessitate bullshit contrarian ramblings from you or any other coffeehouse intellectuals. You and your ilk make me fucking sick. I'm done with this shithole. Goodbye.

I must admit, I am taken aback by this, and am greatly disappointed that you feel such contempt for what I type here. I honestly have no desire to be merely contrary and engage in petty polemics.

However, it is my constitution to press. There may be "simple facts", but what we are discussing here are not, and I am uncomfortable with such proclamations. I don't know what to say if you see my concerns as "coffeehouse" variety.

A shame.

 

[Scourge of God]

And, as if on cue, analytic philosophy fails to produce anything more meaningful than an attack on the linguistic usage of its opponents.

 

[JoeVice]

And, as if on cue, analytic philosophy fails to produce anything more meaningful than an attack on the linguistic usage of its opponents.

thats why you are all wrong, a bunch of self-centered assholes....... and why no one understands me.

 

[speed]

And, as if on cue, analytic philosophy fails to produce anything more meaningful than an attack on the linguistic usage of its opponents.

Im glad Im just a armchair philosopher, because it seems, the more I learn and talk with philosophers or about philosophy, the more I understand how much of philosophy is (or has become) about nothing more than the misunderstanding, distortion, and confusion of language. This thread is the perfect example...