View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 29th, 2014, 11:54 pm



Reply to topic  [ 450 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
 Are you a humanist or what? 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm
Posts: 1211
Location: Lake Como
Moller: Yes. Exactly! But to follow the dictaes of our fragmented and imperfect ideals is IMO also not the way. When we are open and receptive to our inner of intelligence and love, we do not choose to be good or not. These qualities move us quite naturally. Love and charity cannot be created. They are innate and integral to our human nature.

Gottard: quite agree!

Moller: By virue of my natural condition i am a humanist, as i pointed out we all are by default. When I add 'spiritual' to the term humanism, I suggest a way of exploring humanism differently, for instance to secular humanism, religious humanism etc.

Gottard: this is a dangerous/confusing way of expressing oneself! Humanism includes both the rational thinking and the creative/spiritual aspects. The term “Secular Humanism” is a qualification of our Humanism just to oppose it to the “religious humanism”. This distinction is necessary – at least here in Europe - because of the pun often used by the Vatican as a technique to set what is good (Christian) and what evil (Atheism!).

_________________
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience


November 28th, 2010, 6:37 pm
Profile

Joined: November 22nd, 2010, 9:52 am
Posts: 13
Gottard wrote:

Moller: Yes. Exactly! But to follow the dictaes of our fragmented and imperfect ideals is IMO also not the way. When we are open and receptive to our inner of intelligence and love, we do not choose to be good or not. These qualities move us quite naturally. Love and charity cannot be created. They are innate and integral to our human nature.

Gottard: quite agree!

Moller: By virtue of my natural condition i am a humanist, as i pointed out we all are by default. When I add 'spiritual' to the term humanism, I suggest a way of exploring humanism differently, for instance to secular humanism, religious humanism etc.

Gottard: this is a dangerous/confusing way of expressing oneself! Humanism includes both the rational thinking and the creative/spiritual aspects. The term “Secular Humanism” is a qualification of our Humanism just to oppose it to the “religious humanism”. This distinction is necessary – at least here in Europe - because of the pun often used by the Vatican as a technique to set what is good (Christian) and what evil (Atheism!).


Moller.

My sense here is that there is nothing dangerous about exploration, giving the subjects of explorations some kind of title to distinguish them from other forms of enquiry along a broad interest such as humanism. The only danger, IMO, is that of dogmatism and not leaving enough space for liberating and liberated exploration.

You mention something interesting here:

>>Humanism includes both the rational thinking and the creative/spiritual aspects.>>

On the Secular Humanist Counsil website they appear to disagree here:
>>Unlike religious humanism, secular humanism eschews transcendentalism in any and all forms. Depending on the context, transcendentalism can mean outright mysticism, the “spiritual” (itself a term with many meanings), or simply a rush toward emotional closure disproportionate to the knowable data. However defined, transcendentalism is rejected by secular humanists in favor of a rigorous philosophical naturalism: “naturalists maintain that there is insufficient scientific evidence for spiritual interpretations of reality and the postulation of occult causes.”>>

It is this kind of narrow-mindedness I believe has no place in a truly humanistic approach to life. For instance, is 'mysticism' not also part of our human experience and therefore rightfully integral to our human exploration. What do they mean by 'transcendentalism'? Why reject transcendence per se. Have any of these Secular Humanists ever had any deep transcendental experiences? Do they even know what the term implies in all or many of its forms? The Secular Humanist Council seems to reject any inner experience purely on the basis of 'insufficient scientific evidence', to support the validity of these 'spiritual' (transcendental) experiences. Is this not making a final arbiter of science and rationality? Is this not to dig themselves into a hole of ignorance rather than opening up their minds and hearts to that which is integral to human experience, and discover what could be learnt from it?

My understanding of Spiritual Humanism does not in principle marginalse any aspect of human experience, but rather attempts to place experience and our human potential in some kind of order of functionality. For instance, the thought of love is not love. The practice of love based on the thought of love can only be an immitation. Here we have two categories: the thought of love and the deeply felt natural revelation of love. Clearly both are legitimate human experiences and as such integral to our human condition. But unless we can see them, through insight and inner clarity, as two distinct manifestations of our potential, the one of a lesser order to the other, we may express our love as immitation rather than as the genuione article. No science is going to assist us to make the distinction. Only our deeper human intelligence, transcending conditioned rationality, has the clarity to do this.


November 29th, 2010, 7:38 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4365
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
mollerdlr wrote:
My sense here is that there is nothing dangerous about exploration, giving the subjects of explorations some kind of title to distinguish them from other forms of enquiry along a broad interest such as humanism. The only danger, IMO, is that of dogmatism and not leaving enough space for liberating and liberated exploration.

You mention something interesting here:

>>Humanism includes both the rational thinking and the creative/spiritual aspects.>>

On the Secular Humanist Counsil website they appear to disagree here:
>>Unlike religious humanism, secular humanism eschews transcendentalism in any and all forms. Depending on the context, transcendentalism can mean outright mysticism, the “spiritual” (itself a term with many meanings), or simply a rush toward emotional closure disproportionate to the knowable data. However defined, transcendentalism is rejected by secular humanists in favor of a rigorous philosophical naturalism: “naturalists maintain that there is insufficient scientific evidence for spiritual interpretations of reality and the postulation of occult causes.”>>

It is this kind of narrow-mindedness I believe has no place in a truly humanistic approach to life. For instance, is 'mysticism' not also part of our human experience and therefore rightfully integral to our human exploration. What do they mean by 'transcendentalism'? Why reject transcendence per se. Have any of these Secular Humanists ever had any deep transcendental experiences? Do they even know what the term implies in all or many of its forms? The Secular Humanist Council seems to reject any inner experience purely on the basis of 'insufficient scientific evidence', to support the validity of these 'spiritual' (transcendental) experiences. Is this not making a final arbiter of science and rationality? Is this not to dig themselves into a hole of ignorance rather than opening up their minds and hearts to that which is integral to human experience, and discover what could be learnt from it?

My understanding of Spiritual Humanism does not in principle marginalse any aspect of human experience, but rather attempts to place experience and our human potential in some kind of order of functionality
I think you keep confusing "investigation" with "belief". Of course, all human experience, including what might called transcendental and mystical experiences and beliefs, are of interest to humanists and worthy of investigation; and I think this forum, Think Humanism, is very good in that it does not exclude contributions from people who are not actually Humanists - for instance, MickeyD is an evangelical Christian who has sent in many posts now, and I find it interesting to try to understand his beliefs. But I do think that humanism, as a very loose collection of beliefs, does exclude such beliefs if they involve belief in supernatural entities, which would include ghosts, angels, spirits, fairies and gods - plus many more things in which people have believed. I also think that you are too ready to identify "reason" with "science". Again, I have to ask you to define the terms which you use in your eloquent posts.


November 30th, 2010, 1:22 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm
Posts: 1211
Location: Lake Como
Moller,
Animist anticipated what my answer would be. I am sure there is a problem of 'word meaning' or 'hue' if you prefer; this can easily be due to the geographical/language distance separating us.
Let's put down a few pivots (Webster dictionary):
Transcendence:
-exceeding usual limits
-transcending the universe or material existence — compare
-extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience

Spiritual:
1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2: a: of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5: of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena

Secular:
a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns>
b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music>
c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>

I must infer that, according to Webster, Secular is just the opposite of Spiritual.
You spoke of 'Secular Humanist Council', would you pls. mention their website so that we may know who they are?
I used the word "creative" not in the religious sense but marked by the ability or power to create "the human creative impulse".
Sorry to be too brief in this post but I am really in a hurry....I'll read you in 1-3 days.

_________________
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience


November 30th, 2010, 5:56 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 14275
Location: Gloucester
I am trying to keep out of this discussion - but it is hard!

Gottard, do you have an alternative to "spiritual" for those sensations that, though they are merely a function electrochemical activity in the brain, have that certain "something" that is not easy to define? It may be just something in the emotional spectrum but you cannot directly measure such things. Hormonal levels have different effects on different people; some are transported by pain, others by pleasure.

I think humanist language is missing out on a whole lexicon of descriptive words simply because it is afraid of those words that have been used by others that we oppose. "Spirit" and its derivatives have been the property of the religious for most of history so it must be something to avoid. We also avoid those things we cannot measure or quantify.

"Love" is also something that we cannot measure or quantify accurately, can't even really describe for that matter! Should we ban "love" to the language scrap heap? The religious use that word an awful lot as well.

I am moved by certain pieces of music, scenes and others things beyond merely liking them but I would not say that I love them. But they touch something deep within me that has nothing to do with the basic functions of sex and survival (in fact they may be things that threaten survival!) And have no noticeable intellectual content either. So how do I describe that sensation if I cannot use "spiritual" to describe a something that touches the inner self?

_________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain


November 30th, 2010, 10:43 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm
Posts: 3985
Dave B wrote:
So how do I describe that sensation if I cannot use "spiritual" to describe a something that touches the inner self?


A couple of words come to mind: pulchritudinous or sublime. :)

_________________
Transformative fire...


December 1st, 2010, 10:25 pm
Profile

Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm
Posts: 3014
I LOVE pulchritudinous! Beautiful, Marian, literally!.


December 1st, 2010, 10:41 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4365
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
Dave B wrote:
I am trying to keep out of this discussion - but it is hard!

Gottard, do you have an alternative to "spiritual" for those sensations that, though they are merely a function electrochemical activity in the brain, have that certain "something" that is not easy to define? It may be just something in the emotional spectrum but you cannot directly measure such things. Hormonal levels have different effects on different people; some are transported by pain, others by pleasure.

I think humanist language is missing out on a whole lexicon of descriptive words simply because it is afraid of those words that have been used by others that we oppose. "Spirit" and its derivatives have been the property of the religious for most of history so it must be something to avoid. We also avoid those things we cannot measure or quantify.

"Love" is also something that we cannot measure or quantify accurately, can't even really describe for that matter! Should we ban "love" to the language scrap heap? The religious use that word an awful lot as well.

I am moved by certain pieces of music, scenes and others things beyond merely liking them but I would not say that I love them. But they touch something deep within me that has nothing to do with the basic functions of sex and survival (in fact they may be things that threaten survival!) And have no noticeable intellectual content either. So how do I describe that sensation if I cannot use "spiritual" to describe a something that touches the inner self?
think you make some good points. Some of what you mention could be called aesthetic experience, and some is emotion, and there is also our ethical life. The human "spirit" sort of includes all of this, but as you say, it is hard not to sound as though you believe in some separate entity if you use the word. "Humanistic" does sound as though it includes these non-quantifiable activities, so again I would have to say that Moller is too concerned to add something to the concept of humanism


December 3rd, 2010, 8:24 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 14275
Location: Gloucester
Marian wrote:
Dave B wrote:
So how do I describe that sensation if I cannot use "spiritual" to describe a something that touches the inner self?


A couple of words come to mind: pulchritudinous or sublime. :)
Yes, lovely words, Marian, but they are adjectives, I am looking for something more like a noun, or can be used as one. The thing I view may not even be beautiful, "awesome" might fit and even utter ugliness can be moving at times.

OK, some might consider ugliness as beautiful . . .

_________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain


December 3rd, 2010, 8:44 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm
Posts: 1211
Location: Lake Como
Dave B wrote:
Gottard, do you have an alternative to "spiritual" for those sensations that, though they are merely a function electrochemical activity in the brain, have that certain "something" that is not easy to define? It may be just something in the emotional spectrum but you cannot directly measure such things. Hormonal levels have different effects on different people; some are transported by pain, others by pleasure.

Sorry to be late DaveB, I was busy elsewhere. I would suggest "sublimity" (courtesy of Marian!)
but even "emotionality" would do imo. Also "human spirituality" (as opposed to 'divine / transcendental') but, in the end, it's important to communicate the meaning rather than the word; yes not always easy!

_________________
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience


December 4th, 2010, 5:36 pm
Profile

Joined: November 22nd, 2010, 9:52 am
Posts: 13
animist wrote:
Dave B wrote:
I am trying to keep out of this discussion - but it is hard!

Gottard, do you have an alternative to "spiritual" for those sensations that, though they are merely a function electrochemical activity in the brain, have that certain "something" that is not easy to define? It may be just something in the emotional spectrum but you cannot directly measure such things. Hormonal levels have different effects on different people; some are transported by pain, others by pleasure.

I think humanist language is missing out on a whole lexicon of descriptive words simply because it is afraid of those words that have been used by others that we oppose. "Spirit" and its derivatives have been the property of the religious for most of history so it must be something to avoid. We also avoid those things we cannot measure or quantify.

"Love" is also something that we cannot measure or quantify accurately, can't even really describe for that matter! Should we ban "love" to the language scrap heap? The religious use that word an awful lot as well.

I am moved by certain pieces of music, scenes and others things beyond merely liking them but I would not say that I love them. But they touch something deep within me that has nothing to do with the basic functions of sex and survival (in fact they may be things that threaten survival!) And have no noticeable intellectual content either. So how do I describe that sensation if I cannot use "spiritual" to describe a something that touches the inner self?
think you make some good points. Some of what you mention could be called aesthetic experience, and some is emotion, and there is also our ethical life. The human "spirit" sort of includes all of this, but as you say, it is hard not to sound as though you believe in some separate entity if you use the word. "Humanistic" does sound as though it includes these non-quantifiable activities, so again I would have to say that Moller is too concerned to add something to the concept of humanism


Moller:
Hi DaveB,
I think you have put your finger on the right question with regard to how one would describe the experiences you mention. 'Spiritual' seems fine to me. I have no hang-up with the connotations the religions have attached to this word. 'Spiritual' certainly includes that which transcends mind, as conditioned emotionality and thought. It points to a deeper aspect of human nature where free intelligence, intuition, insight, self-transcendending experiences, emotional equanimity and feelings such as love, charity and care simply present themselves as natural to our human condition. But for these to reveal themselves, certain inner conditions are necessary, such as an inward quiet state of emotional equilibrium, wholeness (non-duality), ego-transcendence, and the general noise of the so-called rational mind and mere emotional reactivity and the random movements of attention have come under conscious control. These inner conditions are made possible by proper forms of inner practice such as meditation. In the process mystical experiences may arise and these may include a deep sense of unity consciousness, where the presumed observer/observed duality is fundamentally transcended. In fact, at its core, human experience presents itself as nothing but this sense of innate wholenes of experience.
So, rather than being 'too concerned with adding something to the concept of humanism' my complaints is rather that secular humanism has painted inself into a corner with its emphasis on rationality and science.
In fact, my concern no longer dwells primarily on definitions of humanism or what a humanist is, but rather explores what it means to be fully and completely human, in the most fundamental sense of this term. Because to be human is to think, feel and act in any circumstance we may find ourselves in. Our job as humanists is to discover how to live fully in the context of human life and how most effectively to deal with the challenges facing us. We can play around with definitions and other such superficialities, but life awaits us at every corner. We have made a mess of our world. My sense is that as humanists we need to discover how to correct this mess by making use of all of our faculties in an appropriate a manner as possible. Not as ideas but as living reality.
Humanism is a challenge of life itself. It is not only a comfortable alternative philosophy to religion, social dogma and the irrational. It has to present us with a way of life which is better and more sustainable than the folly we have been presented with up to now. How we go our humanism, is of crucial importance to our own sanity and well-being as well as to that of the world in general. This for me is the challenge of humanism and it is here where my interest lies. Not as mere intellectual values, but as a new paradigm for living.


December 5th, 2010, 9:35 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 14275
Location: Gloucester
I think that I can largely accord with the sentiments you express, mollerdlr. However I do not feel that humanism is a
Quote:
comfortable alternative philosophy to religion, social dogma and the irrational.
At least not if one is "converting" to it or indulges in the consideration of the responsibilities it implies!

Per haps, though, any "discomfort" comes from inside and is not imposed by the expectations dogma, there is no official set of rules and the humanist has to carve his or her own image of themselves and the rest of humanity and the world - then get them to mesh harmoniously and live to that pattern. Thus, in my view, humanism possesses more honesty and sincerity - integrity. And takes a degree of moral effort.

_________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain


December 5th, 2010, 1:24 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm
Posts: 1211
Location: Lake Como
Moller,
I agree with all your thoughts and considerations but I am not in tune with you when you say
that "humanism has painted itself into a corner with its emphasis on rationality and science".
Humanism encompasses rationality, science, compassion and love for the arts; let's not forget that Aristotle, Democritus, Lucretius, Petrarca, Botticelli, Voltaire, Hume, Rousseau, J.S. Mills, Dunant, Sartre ......were all Humanist philosophers, some also poets and some painters.
However, it is possible that rationality is sometimes emphasized when in opposition to religious dogma, but I hope you will accept that we have to respond to the overwhelming power of some religions. :smile:

_________________
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience


December 5th, 2010, 3:08 pm
Profile

Joined: April 5th, 2011, 9:16 pm
Posts: 26
Tried to read this thread to decide what i was and my brain melted and leaked out my ears by page 8!
Oh my goodness but you lot can be painfully pedantic! :D no offence meant at all but i'm no closer to a label and really don't want one :wink:


April 7th, 2011, 10:31 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm
Posts: 5228
Location: Scotland
:welcome: Diesel, and - you are who you are. Labels are probably more useful to others than ourselves, but as you've surmised, on TH we do like to work our way through stuff, and have our fair share of pendants. Hey we're all pedantic about some things and it's good to share...


April 7th, 2011, 10:40 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 14275
Location: Gloucester
DIESEL wrote:
Tried to read this thread to decide what i was and my brain melted and leaked out my ears by page 8!
Oh my goodness but you lot can be painfully pedantic! :D no offence meant at all but i'm no closer to a label and really don't want one :wink:
Good on you, Diesel, and greetings.

"Labels do not maketh man" they are only things others hang around your neck for their convenience. I know Christians who are possibly more humanistic and tolerant in their attitude towards others than some humanists I also know!

It is actions that count in the end, regardless of the motivation behind them.

Being a pedant I have to defend that stance. Ben Jonson (17thC playwright) said, "Language most shows a man; speak that I might see thee." If we use sloppy language we end up with sloppy opinions and others taking what we say the wrong way.

_________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain


April 8th, 2011, 10:19 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm
Posts: 1211
Location: Lake Como
:pointlaugh: :thumbsup:

_________________
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience


April 8th, 2011, 9:37 pm
Profile

Joined: April 5th, 2011, 9:16 pm
Posts: 26
Dave B wrote:
Being a pedant I have to defend that stance. Ben Jonson (17thC playwright) said, "Language most shows a man; speak that I might see thee." If we use sloppy language we end up with sloppy opinions and others taking what we say the wrong way.


Absolutely agree!I think i should aspire to be a little more pedantic myself.. :wink:


April 9th, 2011, 9:37 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm
Posts: 5228
Location: Scotland
Diesel, if it helps your aspiration we have a whole thread on pedantry here :D


April 9th, 2011, 12:34 pm
Profile

Joined: April 4th, 2010, 8:06 pm
Posts: 603
Location: cornwall
dont worry diesel I often find my brains leeking through my ears but i stick around for the fun and inerest


April 10th, 2011, 3:14 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 450 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.