Secular Humanism

 
PermieMan
 
Avatar
 
 
PermieMan
Total Posts:  85
Joined  08-12-2019
 
 
 
20 December 2019 10:51
 

REVISED"The meaning of the term humanism [like Socialism] has fluctuated according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it.[1]” -Wikipedia on Humanism.  It is my opinion that the more popular secular Humanist philosophies do not share the same Sociological relevance because it discounts fundamental natural laws governing the earth plane, which certain fields of science are beginning to prove like; The Constructal Law.  This means the that the very basis for secular Humanism is contradicting itself as the deeper reaches of science unveil and prove previous unknown realities and phenomena.  In other words,  if the Earth Plane were multi dimensional and human beings are in themselves multi dimensional, possessing a full spectrum of consciousness that can know in the ‘beyond’, then it could be said that contemporary Humanism must also hold these implications.  Because secular Humanism cannot have implications of a reality that has not yet been discovered by science.  It cannot be anything more than a blinded sectarian belief system based on what science has already discovered.  And because of The End of Faith in the religious context and the Secularization Theory proves the validity of global connectivity as opposed to a religious congregation, knowing God or NonGod does not require religion in any form.  In other words secular Humanism is a glorified fan base for science.  While it is morally authentic for science it is not so for secular Humanism.  Billionaires are Consuming Altruism for the majority.  The real morality regarding Humanism (not secular Humanism) is the succession of individual values graduating to family values then community values and finally humanitarian values (the collective of the Human Kingdom) where by deeper levels of reality can be known, which are beyond the confines of the surface levels of reality in the mundane of ‘secular Humanism’.  As they say, “shit rolls downhill.”  There is no basis for ‘secular’ in Humanism from the frame of reference of Capitalism.

[ Edited: 13 March 2020 06:31 by PermieMan]
 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3117
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
20 December 2019 13:14
 

Humanism won’t survive the rise of Transhumans.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5783
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
20 December 2019 13:15
 
BarfootSage - 20 December 2019 10:51 AM

Humanism in an era of Climate Change must follow the furtherest reaches of science in the discovery of unknown realities in order for it to be morally authentic.

I hope you are eventually able to express this (and the rest of what you wrote) in terms relative to which an ethical non-cognitivist such as myself can offer a response. I respect the fact that you are obviously translating your thoughts into English from some other language, perhaps that of the Muffin People of ÆHIOÇA,  and something may be lost in the effort, but there’s not much to be done about that, is there?

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5783
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
20 December 2019 13:18
 
Twissel - 20 December 2019 01:14 PM

Humanism won’t survive the rise of Transhumans.

But, surely, humanism can get a few good licks in before that happens, n’est-ce pas?

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21959
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
20 December 2019 17:54
 

I say stuff like that when I’ve had too much bourbon.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8118
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
20 December 2019 19:53
 

?!

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18127
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
20 December 2019 20:07
 

I’m pretty sure that came from the Deepak Chopra Quote Generator

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1578
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
21 December 2019 14:20
 

Yes, indeed — the eternal question mark of existence:

Why are we here?

Where did we come from?

Where are we going?

What’s for dinner?

May I have another one of those drinks, you know, with the umbrella in it?

 
 
PermieMan
 
Avatar
 
 
PermieMan
Total Posts:  85
Joined  08-12-2019
 
 
 
23 December 2019 04:20
 

REVISED"The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it.[1]” -Wikipedia on Humanism.  It is my opinion that the more popular secular (and non secular) Humanist belief do not share the same Sociological relevance because it discounts fundamental natural laws governing the earth plane, which certain fields of science are beginning to prove like; The Constructal Law.  This means the that the very basis for secular Humanism is contradicting itself as the deeper reaches of science unveil and prove previous unknown realities and phenomena.  In other words,  if the Earth Plane were multi dimensional and human beings are in themselves multi dimensional, possessing a full spectrum of consciousness, then it could be said that contemporary Humanism must also hold these implications of it’s meaning.  Humanism in an era of Climate Change must follow the furtherest reaches of science in the discovery of unknown realities in order for it to be morally authentic.  Because secular Humanism cannot have implications of a reality that has not yet been discovered by science it cannot be anything more than a sectarian belief system based on what science has already discovered.  While it is morally authentic for science it is not for secular Humanism.  Morality regarding Humanism is the succession of individual morality graduating to family values then community values and finally humanitarian values (the collective of the Human Kingdom) where by deeper levels of reality can be known without science and data to bring it into the form of the system of society.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8118
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
23 December 2019 08:09
 

What definition of “humanism” is it that we’re all meant to be marching to?

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5397
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
14 January 2020 09:31
 

I suspect I miss your point entirely. I’ll try to address it.

Humanism in contemporary usage is a baseline for value. It doesn’t comment on the methods of science except maybe to dissuade experiments or inventions that hurt people.  I see no conflict with integrating new information. In my experience it has been a fairly functional framework for the consideration of how emerging science should be integrated into the community. Particularly those with medical implications.

It is probably inconsistent. Ethical systems generally are. I know of no reliable standard for judging moral authenticity however. This seems like an issue of character. Not an attribute of a principle or a theory. Please clarify as needed.

If you claim that humanism, as it is used today discounts natural law I need a citation for that. That may have been true during the reformation when humanists tried to resurrect platonism in the face of new astronomical evidence… and I’m really reaching for a concession with that but I see no evidence of this today. Again, please clarify if I’ve missed your premise entirely.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8118
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 February 2020 11:03
 
Brick Bungalow - 14 January 2020 09:31 AM

I suspect I miss your point entirely. I’ll try to address it.

Humanism in contemporary usage is a baseline for value. It doesn’t comment on the methods of science except maybe to dissuade experiments or inventions that hurt people.  I see no conflict with integrating new information. In my experience it has been a fairly functional framework for the consideration of how emerging science should be integrated into the community. Particularly those with medical implications.

It is probably inconsistent. Ethical systems generally are. I know of no reliable standard for judging moral authenticity however. This seems like an issue of character. Not an attribute of a principle or a theory. Please clarify as needed.

If you claim that humanism, as it is used today discounts natural law I need a citation for that. That may have been true during the reformation when humanists tried to resurrect platonism in the face of new astronomical evidence… and I’m really reaching for a concession with that but I see no evidence of this today. Again, please clarify if I’ve missed your premise entirely.

If - as GAD has suggested - this came from a Deepak Chopra bot of some sort, then we can also address a common Chopra misapprehension:

What’s true at the quantum level ain’t true at more macro levels. The fact that the quantum level operates differently than more macro levels, doesn’t make either level wrong, nor does it necessarily follow that they ought to try to invade each other’s domain.

 
 
PermieMan
 
Avatar
 
 
PermieMan
Total Posts:  85
Joined  08-12-2019
 
 
 
09 February 2020 12:07
 

“...The fact that the quantum level operates differently than more macro levels, doesn’t make either level wrong…” -Icehorse

Okay, in Sanskrit the word Para means Beyond (or reality pertaining to the beyond).  And Apara means that which is opposite of the beyond (Para).  So which is wrong for a student of the Beyond?  Neither Para nor Apara are opposing the student.  However, if a guru were to use the Sanskrit language through the corresponding celestial sounds vibrations while in a trance state or samadhi to decode natural laws pertaining to the beyond could it be considered opposing the student?