What's the meaning of life

[danot]

Therefore, effectively, the purpose of "human" life, is to scavenge and extinguish all of the earth's natural resources, as our very existence(way of life) depends on it, this is looking more and more bleak by the minute.

[USUK]

Therefore, effectively, the purpose of "human" life, is to scavenge and extinguish all of the earth's natural resources, as our very existence(way of life) depends on it, this is looking more and more bleak by the minute.

 

I refer you to my previous statement. "We are the ONLY species on the planet who has a need to do this" Hmmmmm

[IamChiChi]

I refer you to my previous statement. "We are the ONLY species on the planet who has a need to do this" Hmmmmm

 

Or possibly the only species on the planet that has the ability to do this.

[Cavegirl]

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood what humanism is then, I really don't see how what danot said or what you said shows that.

 

What consequences does the fact that it is (in your opinion, I can't really comment having not read it) "reasonable for McCarthy to portray humans as scavenging cannibals completely devoid of morality or for people to infer that we're a destructive virus on the earth." have for humanism?

(I'm not being facetious here I really am interested).

 

Humanism began in the Renaissance period as a school of philosophical thought and teaching based upon the works of classical Greek and Roman authors. During the Enlightenment it was taken up as the body of philosophy that would help to subjugate the teachings of the church and promote the idea that humans could control their own destiny, that released from religion they would flourish through reason and science.

 

The British Humanist Association describe humanists as...

atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values.

It is of importance that they describe their atheism before they describe their values. Humanism was at its most potent during the Georgian and Victorian periods because the development of technology during the Industrial Revolution alongside sweeping social reforms confirmed the idea that humans could succeed better without religion.

 

In his 1972 BBC TV series 'The Ascent of Man' Bronowski described humanism in this way-

 

Man is distinguished from other animals by his imaginative gifts. He makes plans, inventions, new discoveries, by putting different talents together; and his discoveries become more subtle and penetrating as he learns to combine his talents in more complex and intimate ways. So the great discoveries of different ages and different cultures, in technique, in science, in the arts, express in their progression a richer and more intricate conjunction of human faculties, an ascending trellis of his gifts

 

It is of course social darwinism- the idea that humanity will always progress towards a greater degree of civilisation than existed before and further away from its animalistic roots. The more man ascends the less animal he is.

 

However, humanism came into disrepute during the early part of the 20th century. The brutality experienced by people during the two world wars made them not just question whether humans were really rational, reasonable creatures, but take the opposite stance that we are inherently just beasts. Social darwinists now look predominantly at the darker sides of man. Robert Foley (1995) stated-

 

The camps of Dachau and Belsen, the millions killed in religious wars, the extent of poverty, famine and disease and the almost boundless capacity of humans to do damage to each other ...have in the 20th century, rather dented human self-esteem...Where it was originally thought that humans were the advanced and progressive form of life (the angels) and other animals the more primitive, now it may be argued that the animal within us is our noble side, and humanity or civilisation the blacker side- a complete reversal of the original Victorian image.

 

Kenan Malik (2000) describes social darwinism as 'The Ascent of Man, and the descent of humanity".

 

Right now we see it going one step further, no longer are we noble beasts even- now we're reduced to cannibals, vermin, viruses and plagues and the strange thing is that this seems perfectly reasonable to people. I've done it myself on occasion and Danot has just described us as 'a bad case of acne' which shows that I'm not alone in having been affected by this.

 

The consequences are that humanism is dieing as a philosophy because we have such a poor view of ourselves. The effects are the atomization of individuals, poor social cohesion, general mistrust and the adoption of 'game theory'-like tactics in our social relationships amongst others.

 

The problem with our current view of our human nature is that we've become largely objectified, (the world imposes itself upon us- we have no control) and we tend to adopt a sense of fatalism about human prospects (I've done this many times myself).

 

This image needs to turn 180 degrees again. I think we need to perceive ourselves as agents in the world capable of having a desired effect, not just passive participants. As such, I think my proposal of viewing the meaning of life through our ability to change our environment for the better is a beneficial and useful one.

[flamingjimmy]

<snip humanism 101>

I did not know that humanism includes some sort of naive idealistic belief about human nature. Is it not possible to be a humanist without that?

 

Because that's kind of what I think I am.

 

I definitely still fit with that little definition you gave earlier:

 

"atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values"

 

This image needs to turn 180 degrees again. I think we need to perceive ourselves as agents in the world capable of having a desired effect, not just passive participants. As such, I think my proposal of viewing the meaning of life through our ability to change our environment for the better is a beneficial and useful one.

I kind of agree, its a nice idea, and yeah it could be beneficial, but an absolute and all-encompassing meaning of life, it is not.

[Cavegirl]

I kind of agree, its a nice idea, and yeah it could be beneficial, but an absolute and all-encompassing meaning of life, it is not.

 

So tell me, do you have a proposal for an absolute and all-encompassing meaning of life? Or do you think that our current path is the best one possible? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

[flamingjimmy]

So tell me, do you have a proposal for an absolute and all-encompassing meaning of life?

Nope, and to be honest I'm not sure that there is one, though I'm open to suggestions.

 

Or do you think that our current path is the best one possible? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

 

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean, which path?

 

Also, any ideas on whether I'm a humanist or not? You've made me doubt myself.

[Cavegirl]

 

Also, any ideas on whether I'm a humanist or not? You've made me doubt myself.

 

Would you like me to start a new thread with a poll for you?

[beckysbunny]

why are we here?.do you know.I don't!!! and what happens to the soul when we die. When we die why do we weight 11 once less.where does it go? where do you think it's go's

 

does it really matter just enjoy it

[beckysbunny]

What's the meaning of life - 42

 

does it really matter just enjoy it