The Strangest Group → Discussion•
Philosophical Naturalism11-20>>   21-28>|


Sponsor
MorosophOct 22, 2004 3:12pm
A thread for those on the spectrum ranging between Lao Tzu and Neitzsche.

Sponsor
SlowHandOct 22, 2004 3:21pm
Count me in ;o)

Sponsor
homebaseOct 22, 2004 3:29pm
So the original question that started this thread:
What are Naturalistic values (or What are the values of Philosophical Naturalism)?

Sponsor
chimichurriOct 22, 2004 3:31pm
I have a feeling this thread is going to blow me away... I'll be lurking, OK?!

Sponsor
philigranOct 22, 2004 3:35pm
Oh, I might follow this one...

Am I right to assume that the difference lies in their attitude towards the ego?
Should we free ourselves from it or go totally along with it?

I'm going to be the one lurking and asking stupid questions.

Sponsor
MorosophOct 22, 2004 4:02pm
I was going to post a varient of this post here, but instead created a link to this group.


Logically, a secular humanist would be considered an atheist, but humanism, like conventional religion contains a will to distort, as, to some extent, does atheism. "The truth that humans are our primary concern" is a judgement call. My main concern might be art, or the welfare of specific humans. That it should extend in such a way as to posit equality between humans is an implicit critique of evolution, and neglects other possiblities such as extending it to other creatures or other fields, such as a will to understand the world, which one might occasionally pursue at a cost to others, or even (from a conventional perspective) oneself. The Christian will to distort, as an example, is revealed by the phrase "doubting Thomas".

Practically, humanism is a movement that is intended to parallel the church and its good works. It is collective in the same way that a political party is collective, and gives us a different way to distort or reshape our natural values to a collective yolk.

I agree with you [homebase] that atheism does not logically imply a change of values, but it is my belief (!) that the dynamics of one's mind necessarily shifts, and the result of this is that some "universal" human values (such as the golden rule) gradually lose their apparent common-sensical appeal, as one become less inclined to brush aside criticisms such as "different people want different things" with the response that "that's not what's really meant..."; analysis of this response reveals a serious begging of the original answer. Ultimately, rules like this rely upon the (original) speaker's authority.


I'm sorry that this post approaches the question negatively, but I didn't wish to lose what I had written. I also think that it's easier to see what philosophical naturalism is when one sees examples of its opposite.

5: I think that the role of the ego does distinguish Lao Tzo and Nietzsche, yet both are somehow naturalistic. Both invoke an appreciation of a larger "economy of values" for example, instead of prescribing a "correct" morailty. Both posit different forms of "self-overcoming", meaning a recovery of one's naturalness, unprogrammed by society. Despite their very different styles and emphasis, they're more similar than would be immediately apparent.

The Wikipedia entry on Nietzsche explicitally mentions Taoism.

Sponsor
homebaseOct 22, 2004 4:29pm
Why do you say there is a will to distort in Humanism and Atheism?

That hypothetical statement I gave in that other thread for something a humanist might say: "The truth is that humans are our primary concern." is a judgment call. My point was that people of different belief systems are going to have different ideas of what is Truth.

Art holds a high place in my values as well. More than that, a special place.
But I don't understand what you meant here:
"My main concern might be art, or the welfare of specific humans. That it should extend in such a way as to posit equality between humans is an implicit critique of evolution, and neglects other possiblities such as extending it to other creatures or other fields, such as a will to understand the world, which one might occasionally pursue at a cost to others, or even (from a conventional perspective) oneself."

I think you are right, there is a drive to create a community for Humanists - this is to make up for the absence of such a community from a conventional religion. This is a separate issue than the ideas within Humanism.

I agree completely that becoming an atheist brings about a shift in the dynamics of the mind. One's fundamental model of reality changes. There is no longer an eye in the sky watching over us, doing whatever it is we used to think He did.
Why do you say becoming an atheist eventually leads to a dismissal of such principles as the golden rule?

Sponsor
SlowHandOct 22, 2004 4:44pm
May I have the temerity to paraphrase from the Tao Te Ching to 'balance' your contribution Morosoph;

"Everything in the Universe, when defined, is relative to every other thing. What the Sage should do is not to try to distinguish things nor show his/her preference for any, either by making efforts or by giving demonstrations. This does not mean that he/she does nothing or speaks nothing at all, but that he/she takes things as they are, with ease, naturally, and makes no fuss about them."

Granted, a persons values can and do shift, but the concept of balance can be a profound anchor in a turbulent sea.

7 - Sorry homebase, I missed the other thread, could you direct me so that I have a fuller picture of your exchange with Morosoph.

Sponsor
homebaseOct 22, 2004 4:58pm
8 - In this case, balance in respect to what?

Sponsor
SlowHandOct 22, 2004 5:06pm
In respect to how we react to external stimuli, balance is a concept which can reach across belief systems, across different ideas of truth.

Ah yes, have visited the features thread, am up to speed now.


Philosophical Naturalism11-20>>   21-28>|