Humanism is Nonsense

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.

Ok, seriously, I apologize for the outburst. I don't have contempt for what you type here. Sometimes what you say just frustrates me and that's why I tried to get a rise out of you. It frustrates me because I really do not understand where you're coming from. I feel like I can communicate with somebody like Seditious, for example, because I feel like we speak the same language. You and I think from two entirely different perspectives, and we do not communicate well. That's why our exchanges never go anywhere. If it helps at all, I will just stop trying to engage you and you can stop responding to me and we'll all be happy.
 
And, as if on cue, analytic philosophy fails to produce anything more meaningful than an attack on the linguistic usage of its opponents.

I would love for you to point out where this so-called attack on linguistic usage occured.
 
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.

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

concurred.
 
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.
for one, humans have the right to 'life' and not to be cruel and unusaully punished, or enslaved.
animals on the other hand, can kill or be killed, torment their prey, and homo sapians of course enslave countless animals for our own service. All I ask is that humans be given the right to treat the homo sapian as he has the right to treat all other animals, in other words, this delusion of 'rights' vanishing. I make no request for an end to liberty or law, merely the delusion that there is something that by way of being human is deserved, as if we have no right to die or be killed. (no one who speaks of our 'self-evident' rights bothers to say from whence they came)


What exactly would we be giving up if we were to give up human rights in your sense?
our pretense war is "just" but terrorism is "wrong" for one.


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.
well of course it's invoked by people who speak of human rights, but that doesn't say anything about our actually having human rights.


Do you want to give up that one and similar rights?
that, similar, all...


Would giving that up make the world a better place to live in?
Equality is never better. It's why we've throughout history never wanted equality, we want control and power because it makes the world a better place for us. gays and blacks and children and women, before they were seen as equal the world was a much better place... for us.

but again, I'm not saying much would change, keep law and liberty, just because we drop the pretense that governments have no right to torture suspected whoevers doesn't mean we would allow them to do it (since we ourselves would fear being regarded as such suspects) and in a national army like the US military, (rather than the peoples army like in China) the government wouldn't even have the force to sustain such oppression because even these people would not want such a thing to occur. Apply the notion in a thousand situations and the world doesn't change, it merely drops a baseless delusion.


Sure, eliminating people like rapists might seem like a helpful thing, but I'm not necessarily worried about stuff like that.
what are your concerns? I've been thinking/writing about this for a fair amount of time now, I'm sure I can address them.
 
Hobbes' view IS the Christian view - man as measured against the abstract standard of moral perfection that is 'God.'

in the state of nature man will have sex with many women he isn't married too, and maybe who aren't even willing, or of adult age....

I'd like to know which Christians support man in this form of behavior.
 
Are you trying to maintain that there are no things that we ought not to do?
Yes and no.

The only oughts are self-imposed. (for example: If a fish is on the ground and I perceive that as food, I ought eat it. If the fish on the ground is guarded by a grizzly bear I ought not eat it. If the fish is in a chillybin at a campsite, capitalism says the fish belongs to you, but whether or not I and the bear 'ought' eat your fish depends on whether you are a man or a mouse.)


I don't mean to be rude but are you a sociopath?
no, I assure you I have the sentiment of empathy, and I agree with most of what Hume writes.
 
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..

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

it would be pathological to help the jews in Nazi Germany, or to not be a pedophile if a colony of nothing but pedophiles was founded. Majority rule is hardly a good measuring stick for health.
 
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.

oh dear oh dear oh dear. The fact is a sociopath can't relate to his victim. I know I don't want someone to steal my ipod, but if an ipod is sitting on the desk and no one is around you're damn right I'm going to steal it, despite my empathy. all actions are on 'an equal moral footing,' you just don't realise, to quote Dick Sutphen "you've been brainwashed since birth to worry about what other people think."


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. .

I don't believe that people ought not rape others.

I believe in a society full of people who hate rapists you ought not rape if (qualifier here) you're likely to get caught. If you can drug her and kill her and dispose of the body and have a good alibi then there is no 'ought not'
 
for one, humans have the right to 'life' and not to be cruel and unusaully punished, or enslaved.
animals on the other hand, can kill or be killed, torment their prey, and homo sapians of course enslave countless animals for our own service. All I ask is that humans be given the right to treat the homo sapian as he has the right to treat all other animals, in other words, this delusion of 'rights' vanishing. I make no request for an end to liberty or law, merely the delusion that there is something that by way of being human is deserved, as if we have no right to die or be killed. (no one who speaks of our 'self-evident' rights bothers to say from whence they came)

So, if human society legislates a set of 'human rights' - laws that endeavour to limit the treatment of all humans to within what are deemed base acceptable boundaries, with the idea being that this is a 'net good' for people - you object? Yet if human soceity legislates against murder, but doesn't categorise this under some 'human rights' term, it is ok? What is the difference, or alternatively, where have I misunderstood you? :)
 
So, if human society legislates a set of 'human rights' - laws that endeavour to limit the treatment of all humans to within what are deemed base acceptable boundaries, with the idea being that this is a 'net good' for people - you object?
I would object if it wasn't in my favor. I would object to it's being 'right' rather than just 'what the law today says'. and I would not object to those who act against those 'human rights' suggesting they had no 'right' because humans have rights against him doing it. I might stop a cop or criminal from shooting me, but I don't oppose his right to do it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall thought Voltaire might have said something like. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I complement physical expression with that Voltairean sentiment of verbal expression, ‘I may disapprove of what you do, but I believe in your right to do it.’


Yet if human soceity legislates against murder, but doesn't categorise this under some 'human rights' term, it is ok? What is the difference, or alternatively, where have I misunderstood you? :)
the difference is the delusion that law is anything but force. It essentially means an end to pluralist dominance. even if pluralists have the majority and the power (or the power over the majority) they may be in control, but I will never say 'they're in control because they're the only people who deserve to be in control and have their will considered 'just' (righteous).'
 
trolls aren't revered here, you might want to try to impress the kids elsewhere, or quit that shit.

i'm sorry...seriously...for being a "troll"...i know that's sociopathic behaviour on this forum. i won't do it now because i care what you think...but seriously, i'm done.

mods, please call me out if my behaviour is disrupting this forum. i truly respect that.

seditious, i'm truly sorry...but in light of what i perceive to be such a stupid and childish quote, i can't help but be a smartass. from now on i won't post in this manner, except for this one.
 
seditious, i'm truly sorry...but in light of what i perceive to be such a stupid and childish quote, i can't help but be a smartass. from now on i won't post in this manner, except for this one.

I don't mind someone being a smart ass, what I don't like is that you posted a useless remark on some ridiculous lack of comprehension of the quote.
 
I complement physical expression with that Voltairean sentiment of verbal expression, ‘I may disapprove of what you do, but I believe in your right to do it.’

From where does this 'right' arise? I'd accept if you want to argue that a 'right' is a human construction that endeavours to allow one to do something without imposition from others - but you seem to argue that there is some natural state of 'rights', when it seems to me that the natural state is merely 'capabilities'. Suggesting that we have a 'right' to do everything we are capable of, seems to make the concept of 'rights' entirely unnecessary.
 
From where does this 'right' arise?
on the contrary, from where does any right against this arise?

Thomas Hobbes had this shit locked down since way back. "The right of nature... is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life."

I'd accept if you want to argue that a 'right' is a human construction that endeavours to allow one to do something without imposition from others - but you seem to argue that there is some natural state of 'rights', when it seems to me that the natural state is merely 'capabilities'. Suggesting that we have a 'right' to do everything we are capable of, seems to make the concept of 'rights' entirely unnecessary.
if the 'human construction' of rights have no foundation to be defended from, is it not fit to use the language of rights and say 'since we can't defend the notion that you have no right to torture others, essentially you do have a right to torture others'?

how would you suggest it be phrased in a world that still loves to talk about rights? To speak of having 'no rights' sounds as if you have no rights because someone else has rights which oppress you having any right to something, and surely if no one has rights which others don't have it means we all have rights, in other words, we would never say 'you have no right to xyz' so speaking of 'no rights' instead of infinite rights seems just confusing.