It seems to me that the Humanist ideal is universal comfortable self-preservation, that is to say for all human beings to live as comfortably as they want for as long as they want.
It also seems to me that Humanists should consider it praiseworthy for someone who lives comfortably to risk his comfort and even his life in trying to actualise that ideal.
Thirdly, it seems to me that Humanists should even consider it praiseworthy for a majority to do so for a minority–indeed, especially praiseworthy! This would mean that the reason they consider it praiseworthy is not that they consider the comfortable self-preservation of any number of human beings worth the sacrifice of any smaller number.
But if universal comfortable self-preservation were attained, there could no longer be praiseworthy actions of this kind.
Therefore, it seems to me that, instead of universal comfortable self-preservation, the Humanist ideal ought rather to be the universal risking of one’s comfort and even one’s life–not for that self-preservation but for something higher even than self-sacrifice. Comfortable self-preservation is subhuman!
In order to distinguish this genuine Humanism from the prevailing, subhuman so-called “Humanism”, I’ve christened it Superhumanism. But what is higher even than self-sacrifice? What’s higher than all reconciliation?
In the loss of one’s ego (triumphs and tragedies-self forgiven and justly deserving), one’s base comfort as human in emotion from villainy to heroic which goes as high as Peace, crossing that threshold of Peace into the beyond, one would gain of the totality of God’s mind, the true kingdom that most reject, is my guess. Would one become a God at that point?
“Vote for me because my goal is to make everyone a billionaire, no matter who they are, chosen or unchosen, black or white, male or female, aristocrat or plebeian, majority or minority, rich or poor.”
…better yet … let me make that trillionaire. Why not?
In this case, the point is that promises are easy to make, especially when it sounds like everyone is going to benefit. Hillary tried that. People are tired of that. What won the election was: “This is what I want to do.
This is why.
And this is how.”
Saying that it is a higher ideal for the top dogs to sacrifice for the lower dogs, is pretty ancient and carries minimal persuasion due to all of the deceit involved dealing with people. Humanism is supposed to be about getting real, facing reality - Trump vs Hillary (of course the former religions were also, but another subject).
How is the most wealthy person on the planet to be persuaded to do anything other than what he has always been doing so as to obtain and maintain his wealth? If he is but a Humanist, what incentive has he to do anything other than please himself?
You got more of a political spin out of Sauwelios’ post than I did, but I don’t subscribe to Facebook and took it at face value as posted.
Then you definitely would be surprised. Oh, and thanks for your “Honest, I’m the good guy as I show you my contempt routine.” You soar above on your graceful self indulgences.
Well, as I indicated, I take “but a Humanist” to refer to the prevailing, subhuman so-called “Humanism”. My “Superhumanist” ideal is certainly not necessarily for the top dogs to sacrifice for the lower dogs–and certainly necessarily not for the sake of the comfortable self-preservation of the latter!
It has a political spin in that I originally wrote something like “modern humanists/progressives/liberals/democrats/socialists/anarchists and what have you”, but then decided to summarise that as “Humanists” because I didn’t want to complicate the matter by leaving open the possibility of referring to “animal rights” activists as well. Anyway, I think James has a point in that Trump is very much still to prove that he’s not “but a Humanist” in this sense–i.e., not that he also cares about the rights of other animals, but that he cares about something higher than the comfortable self-preservation even of all living beings–let alone than petty egoism (utilitarianism).
Well, my answer may depend on whether the Peace you mention is compatible with the peace of which I wrote–ironically on BTL–:
Well, I even think your original question may be unfair to the so-called “Humanist” as I’ve conceived him in my OP, in that I do think he does have an incentive to do something else than please himself: namely to bring about the situation in which all others are also in the position to do nothing but please themselves…
But maybe you mean if universal comfortable self-preservation were attained. Then the so-called “Humanist” as I’ve conceived him will indeed not have any incentive to do anything else. But the genuine Humanist or Superhumanist as I conceive him will. What incentive, then?
The so-called “Humanist” is supposedly motivated by compassion for all human beings who cannot comfortably preserve themselves. Of course, there may also be more cynical motivations, like the desire to feel morally good, or morally superior to others who do not risk their own comfortable self-preservation. Such other motivations may also exist for the genuine Humanist, who is then a genuine Humanist only insofar as his activism itself is concerned; not insofar as his motivation is. But, such cynical considerations aside, I think there is something like the supposed motivation of so-called “Humanists” for genuine Humanists.
I have pointed to that superhuman counterpart of compassion in my Dionysa thread. I can’t think of a better word for it in English than “conjoylessness”. But my whole “Dionysa” idea is problematic because it means one is a Dionysus, and thereby experiences the highest enjoyment of existence (see that BTL thread I linked to), precisely in striving to change one’s Ariadne into a Dionysa. The “something higher even than self-sacrifice” would then be to spur others to also risk themselves in order to spur others etc. etc. etc…
But two days ago, I quoted and wrote the following in a private email:
::
“Neumann reveals what I call Bloom’s Willie Sutton complex. Bloom’s attack on academic relativism, and his concern for the morals of his students is reminiscent of Willie’s anxiety for the morals of bank managers. Willie didn’t want to go to all the trouble of breaking open the bank’s safe, only to find out that the man with the combination already emptied it. (In the age of the S&L scandal, this tale takes on added poignancy.)” ([Harry] Jaffa, Foreword to [Harry] Neumann’s book, Liberalism. [Allan] Bloom basically wanted to close the American mind again only so he could open it again.)
So what is the solution to all this? I keep coming back to Nietzsche’s solution, which is indeed closing the Western mind again only so it can be opened by philosophers again–but only over a long period of time…
::
And in another private email, to a different correspondent, I referred the latter to aphorism # 113 of Nietzsche’s Daybreak:
I still want to meditate more on this lucky find of an aphorism, but what it suggests is the ideal of the opposite of universal comfortable self-preservation…
But what would cause that? For example, the Abramist (if I can invent that word), believes in a God that he is to serve and thus if God says to be that way, then so be it. But the humanist hasn’t any higher authority to make such demands. And what that means is that even though there might be a good hearted humanist now and then (or superhumanist), eventually, if not immediately, the one on top is not a nice giving person at all and has absolutely no reason to change his mind. Once that happens (it only takes once), that one ensures that his reign of heartlessness continues.
My question is, “Is there anything to prevent that rather obvious scenario?” What incentive would a humanist or superhumanist have for changing his mind from being a go getter money hound (his original cause for becoming wealthy), to an altruistic saint? He can’t claim, “Oh I found Jesus!”
I have heard that as propaganda, but have never actually witnessed it. Frankly I put it right up there with road show flim-flam preachers out for a buck or a vote (aka “trolls”).
Except that humanists don’t believe in morality either.
You speak of compassion as though it is merely inherent and without cause. Nothing is without cause. How could a large population become endowed with extra-humanist compassion … by what process? Because it isn’t going to just happen naturally.
Sauwelios though won’t be as glib with you as he and you are with me (Swine logic to blame), in general, but we are discussing the same thing, the lack of NEED. <—the lowbrow approach, less wordy.
I think “a good hearted humanist” is supposed to be a pleonasm. More on this below.
Even so, I think their propaganda should (also) be taken at face value–i.e., as more than propaganda–, and refuted as such. But I doubt it’s just propaganda.
Wrong. Humanists, or liberals (see my list of names for Lefties above), definitely believe in morality. The difference from conservatives is that liberals only believe in one of the six or so aspects of morality in which conservatives believe:
(Note that this article, which I found after writing the sentence that refers to it, is somewhat at odds with that sentence, which I based on talks by Haidt that I watched on YouTube. The “one aspect” I was thinking of is called Care in the article.)
It is, and has. It evolved as a fitness indicator. But there are other things which may, and I think should, counteract it. Whereas for progressives, Care tends to trump Fairness, I think Loyalty to sacro-Sanct Authority should trump all other moral foundations. But what sacred authority? This is the same question as the ones at the end of my OP. What is worthy of self-sacrifice? The phrase “higher than all reconciliation” was a reference or allusion to this:
“Something higher than all reconciliation must the Will will which is the Will to Power–: but how doth that take place? Who hath taught it also to will backwards?” (Thus Spake Zarathustra, of Redemption.)
Compare:
“By saying Yes to everything that was and is Nietzsche may seem to reveal himself as radically antirevolutionary or conservative beyond the wildest wishes of all other conservatives, who all say No to some of the things that were or are.” (Leo Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, “Note on the Plan of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil”.)
Reconciliation is when you stop being driven and become the driver I.e. stop being driven by satan/nature and become ‘son of man’ ~ human. There is no higher than that, how can a human be more than human, especially when its so hard just to be that? why seek any kind of ‘super’ human when that would infer the omnipotent God has made something imperfect. God wouldn’t make one human less than another, as all his creations are his omnipotent creations. problem is, that nature is also his creation and nothing in nature is equal, so I can only assume that there is a journey from base life to human, and then life marries the creation ideal - original intent, when it ultimately becomes human [son of man human].
Then hurrah, humanity has defeated Satan, and we no longer need to do that. Thing is, as long as there are people being born into original sin, there will be people who have to learn how to have command over themselves/Satan/nature.
Why authority? That only makes sense as that which enforces the others, a fatal flaw imho. Loyalty to what? King and country it seems has been the usual, when those things have no meaning compared to care and fairness. You can’t have fairness if it requires authority and a group of persons in authority to make it happen. that’s been the justification of monarchy over gods law since the dark ages and beyond.
Well, due to technical definition, I am going to have to give you that one. But frankly, that is like saying that Christians have the same attitude as Jesus (what are the chances). My default connotation for the word “humanist” is that of someone who disavows any authority greater than humanity (aka Humanity = God), not someone merely being a Humanitarian.
It becomes all too academic to image what would come from having the Humanist, the Superhumanist, or the Christian ideal person on top of the compost heap that is humanity.
I would argue that they have (probably intentionally) conflated the idea of morals with that of ethics. The distinction being the sacredness of a moral code vs the preference of an ethic code. It becomes very relevant when the fire gets hot (as noted after the conservative won the election - all liberal civility was forsaken in sight of defeat). Note that among these; “Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity”, Honor is not mentioned (although contradictory concerns are given equal billing).
I see. So you don’t believe in the Yin-Yang principle - the good is only instilled by virtue of the bad and vsvrsa?
That list of virtues; “Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity” will not, in and of themselves, cause their own continuance, but will instead, spawn their exact opposite, which in time, will reverse again. There is a precise irrevocable reason for that to happen.
I could tell you, but you wouldn’t believe me - which gets back to having to have a cause for any specific effect.
I don’t think that I can be confident of a proper translation of that.
It seems that you are saying that humanism (the attitude of being compassionate toward humanity) is natural and self sustaining. But then you prefer a “super-humanist” version, which is apparently not natural and thus in need of a cause. Christianity gave it a cause, but then obviously you aren’t speaking of Christian revival. You want something even above that. And it seems to be that the real issue is not
“What is there to make sacred”, but rather “By what means is any sacred priority going to become dominant?”
Who would one believe even if told the precise answer to such a question?
I disagree. I think reconciliation is merely when you’re reconciled with being driven. I think the “something higher than all reconciliation” is when you become the driver.
To the contrary: become Satan/Nature (identify with the will to power).
I actually agree with this–albeit with the above corrections to the aforesaid–, but the fact is that the word “human” is used wrongly or at least loosely most of the time, which is why the word “superhuman” is necessary. When the word “human” is used in the strict sense, those who are at best human in the loose sense of the word are really subhuman; when the word “human” is used wrongly or loosely, those who are human in the strict sense are basically superhuman.
Even if I grant the metaphor of an omnipotent God, doesn’t the Christian concept of Heaven have a wide hierarchy of angels?
Religious mumbo-jumbo if you ask me.
You understand that comfortable self-preservation is despicable, right?
Thank God.
Indeed, in your humble opinion.
Fairness need not mean equality–in fact, it necessarily means the opposite. Also, I definitely think king and country have meaning even compared to care and fairness.
By the way, it has been the justification of monarchy since long before the Middle Ages. But yeah, if you have any idea who you’re talking to, I’m talking about the philosopher kings…
