The project known as humanism is that of us becoming gods. Antinatalism resents us not being there yet, us still being embarrassingly vulnerable. Humanism is willing to put in the work, put bodies on the altar, in the hope of a relative utopia to come ,though I will include ironism as a last late rancid version of humanism. — plaque flag

I agree with your description of humanism's ultimate goal, but I think the goal will forever be an asymptotic approach, which I am very happy about, as to reach the omni qualifications required for the god standard, would mean there are no more questions, which is a return to a state of a mindless singularity, with no intent or purpose. Perhaps Roger Penrose's CCC theory best mirrors my thinking here. I also agree with your projection of impatience onto antinatalism, although I think it's a more pointless position than that label suggests. Yes, humans will continue to do the work, but your attached 'sacrificial' imagery, adds nothing of value that I can find commonality with.

Consider the sigil of a lion on a shield on the morning of a battle. The glory and immortality of its god is the glory and immortality of the tribe. — plaque flag

Are we still fighting for the same tribe today and for the same reasons, in your opinion?
If you think we are, then is that wise? Is it not time to reinterpret your lion shield aesthetic?
What tribe do you belong to?

The project known as humanism is that of us becoming gods. — plaque flag

According to Genesis we are already gods, although that was not the intention and not a task we were ready to take on. A responsibility that god took from us when it became clear that nothing man set out to do would be impossible for them (Genesis 11). What was stolen from them was stolen back by the thinkers of Enlightenment Humanism and the goal of a universal language.

:up:

Some years ago I participated in a discussion of the Tractatus. — Fooloso4

Oh great, I'll read with interest. Cheers.

I agree with your description of humanism's ultimate goal, but I think the goal will forever be an asymptotic approach — universeness

:up:

Yes, humans will continue to do the work, but your attached 'sacrificial' imagery, adds nothing of value that I can find commonality with. — universeness

This is a Hegelian point. History moves toward more freedom and justice. People suffer terrible things now in this world. That's why an antinatalist thinks its cruel to bring children into such a place. But an optimist considers that things will keep getting better, that it's good overall to keep making babies. That some are born to endless night is considered a price worth paying, a reasonable sacrifice for the general weal.

To tell you the truth I was a bit disappointed that there was not more response at that time.

The link brings you to my first post. I trust you will be able to look passed the noise, but after that settled down there were some questions that were helpful.

Are we still fighting for the same tribe today and for the same reasons, in your opinion?
If you think we are, then is that wise? Is it not time to reinterpret your lion shield aesthetic?
What tribe do you belong to? — universeness

I think you misread me. In our 'impostume of peace' in which nailbiting adolescents find new diseases every day to wear for a camera that follows them endlessly, it's easy to forget that humans aren't necessarily alienated from their gods, wallowing beneath them in confusion and fear. Humanism itself has a lion on its shield. Christ the lion is the light bringer, Lucifer, child of thunder, the morning star. I speak metaphorically to dig out the emotional charge of Enlightenment's Oedipal autonomy project. 'I will not serve. I will not have been thrown. Nothing is sacred but my own freedom to question.' [Our God is a devouring fire.] Satan laughing spreads his wings. Our metaphysics is a gloriously anemic mythology.

Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding [= reason[33]] without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. Sapere aude! [Dare to be wise!] Have courage to make use of your own understanding [= reason]! is thus the motto of enlightenment.

Reason must subject itself to critique in all its undertakings, and cannot restrict the freedom of critique through any prohibition without damaging itself and drawing upon itself a disadvantageous suspicion. For there is nothing so important because of its utility, nothing so holy, that it may be exempted from this searching review and inspection, which knows no respect for persons [i.e. no person bears more authority than any other—GW]. On this freedom rests the very existence of reason, which has no dictatorial authority, but whose claim is never anything more than the agreement of free citizens, each of whom must be able to express his reservations, indeed even his veto, without holding back

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/#ReasCommPrin

I belong to the tribe of philosophers. I'm a piece of the self-articulating Hegel bot.

According to Genesis we are already gods, although that was not the intention and not a task we were ready to take on. A responsibility that god took from us when it became clear that nothing man set out to do would be impossible for them (Genesis 11). What was stolen from them was stolen back by the thinkers of Enlightenment Humanism and the goal of a universal language. — Fooloso4

:up:

Moloch demands a tower ! Drop us on fossil fuels and watch the explosion of selfreferential complexity.

I'd say you're onto something deep!

The appeal to reason works because it is appealing. (or doesn't because it fails to meet the standards of reason -- it is unappealing by the standard of reason)

The trick with aesthetics is to get it off the ground you have to, in some sense, be talking about more than what you individually like. And that's similar to the appeal to reason -- it's just appealing to another sensibility or standard.

If the same entity wanted Bad things to happen to creatures as part of his divine game, it begs the question as to what morality this entity holds. — schopenhauer1

Right, but the thrust of the Euthyphro dilemma is the undecidability between whether something is good because the gods love it or whether the gods love it because it is good. The problem comes with the possibility of disagreement between the gods as to what is good, just as it is with humans.

God, however is a single entity, so there is no possibility of disagreement, and thus no inconsistency or contradiction in saying that something is good because God loves it and God loves it because it is good.

Whether there is a God, or whether what God loves is good are separate questions, and nothing to do with the Euthyphro.

But I witness very important differences in the behaviour and claims of both camps. Scientific endeavour is much more humble and rational than religious endeavour. — universeness

And the way you see it is completely free from bias, right?

The trick with aesthetics is to get it off the ground you have to, in some sense, be talking about more than what you individually like. — Moliere

I think that's a useful observation. I guess if we set standards of 'good' and 'bad' aesthetics, we probably need something like Platonic forms, right? Or else aesthetics is untied to anything but cultural and personal values, which are transitory. As a reluctant anti-foundationalist, I gravitate to the latter.

I'd say it feels like we need Platonic forms, but I'm not sure why I feel that. It's definitely a thought I've held at one point, but have come to let go of it somehow.

In terms of having a conversation, though, I'd say you have to have some kind of standard -- be it a Form or no -- that isn't just "yeah I like that" to count as a conversation in aesthetics. Not that sharing what one likes is bad or anything. Just different from what it takes to talk aesthetics.

It was Kant who pointed out that when we deem something to possess aesthetic value, we take ourselves to be talking about something universal. and not to be merely talking about personal liking.

It seems obvious that there is universal aesthetic value: Shakespeare just is better than Mills and Boon, right? I think aesthetic value is real, and that you can be, given the aptitude for it, trained to get better and better at recognizing it. Some just see better than others, which sounds elitist, and probably is. But the aesthetic rating of particular things cannot be argued for and established propositionally.

What is beauty? Who can say? Must all things of an aesthetic character be beautiful? It seems not. I don't think it has anything to do with platonic forms. The way I see it the essence of aesthetic value is some kind of potent livingness or other.

It was Kant who pointed out that when we deem something to possess aesthetic value, we take ourselves to be talking about something universal. and not to be merely talking about personal liking. — Janus

And in my conversations with people this is often how they consider their judgements. As somehow objective and true.

Shakespeare just is better than Mills and Boon, — Janus

I dislike and avoid both. But I know what you are saying.

You are essentially talking about sophistication and layering. But not all great art is complex or nuanced.

I think aesthetic vale is real, — Janus

I think a lot of people believe this. I am uncertain. I don't know how we would justify this but maybe we can.

I personally think that to judge something as aesthetically valuable is a bit like pragmatic accounts of truth - subject to certain purposes. If you are going to appeal to middle-aged English professors (for instance) Shakespeare is better than Dan Brown. If you are appealing to my mum (now dead) Brown is better.

But how do we determine whether Mozart is a better composer than Beethoven? When works are nuanced and complex it's a more complex conundrum.

Deserves it's own thread.

What is beauty? Who can say? Must all things of an aesthetic character be beautiful? It seems not. I don't think it has anything to do with platonic forms. — Janus

It may not. But I suspect if we are going to say there is a standard of beauty then where is this located? How is this standard to be understood, except as an 'immutable form' or something culturally located?

And in my conversations with people this is often how they consider their judgements. As somehow objective and true. — Tom Storm

I think it is pretty much universal: when people see or feel a quality, they tend to think others should see or feel it too.

I dislike and avoid both. But I know what you are saying.

You are essentially talking about sophistication and layering. But not all great art is complex or nuanced. — Tom Storm

You dislike both but can you perceive the quality in Shakespeare? I can, and I don't particularly like his works either, in the sense that I have no desire to read them.

I think a lot of people believe this. I am uncertain. I don't know how we would justify this but maybe we can. — Tom Storm

I don't think we can justify this, but I think it can be recognized. It's a conundrum to be sure. I think it has something in common with the Eastern conception of enlightenment or awakening.

I don't see it as being subject to purposes, because I think great works have no particular purpose. You know: "art for art's sake".

But how do we determine whether Mozart is a better composer than Beethoven? When works are nuanced and complex it's a more complex conundrum. — Tom Storm

For me Beethoven is the greater composer, both in terms of harmonic inventiveness and "depth", but I can't give you any argument for that beyond mere assertion.

It may not. But I suspect if we are going to say there is a standard of beauty then where is this located? How is this standard to be understood, except as an 'immutable form' or something culturally located? — Tom Storm

I don't think it has to be located anywhere; I think it's just a matter of seeing. As an analogy, where is our ability to recognize pattern located? Every leaf of a particular species of tree is different and yet the same; where is that difference and sameness located? The question seems meaningless.

I think this kind of recognition is pre-cultural; even animals can do it. And I can't see anything immutable about it, so...where does that leave us? With a mystery...something inexplicable and yet wonderful.

Perhaps the best things in life just cannot be explained...to be explicable is to be pedestrian.

You dislike both but can you perceive the quality in Shakespeare? I can, and I don't particularly like his works either, in the sense that I have no desire to read them. — Janus

Ha! Shakespeare is more nuanced and 'deeper' more skill.

For me Beethoven is the greater composer, both in terms of harmonic inventiveness and "depth", but I can't give you any argument for that beyond mere assertion. — Janus

Agree on both points.

I think it's just a matter of seeing. As an analogy, where is our ability to recognize pattern located? Every leaf of a particular species of tree is different and yet the same; where is that difference and sameness located? The question seems meaningless. — Janus

Whenever people say a question is meaningless I suspect it is redolent... gravid with meaning. :razz:

Perhaps the best things in life just cannot be explained...to be explicable is to be pedestrian. — Janus

How then do we determine which are the best things? :wink:

Whenever people say a question is meaningless I suspect it is redolent... gravid with meaning. :razz: — Tom Storm

NIce retort and a fair point. Perhaps I should have said "undecidable" instead of "meaningless".

How then do we determine which are the best things? :wink: — Tom Storm

We just see which ones are the best. :razz: Seriously though, no one's seeing is perfect...or maybe only the sage's. But again even if the sage's seeing is perfect, that 'fact' cannot be discursively established.

What motivates you to 'reason' something, surely you must have been 'inspired' to? — universeness

No. It's an efficacious habit acquired through learning and experience. What "motivates" reasoning? Survival. No doubt though, creative (non-instrumental) uses of reason are "inspired".

As for reclaiming words, I take your point, universeness, however, I don't think epistemic concepts and bigoted slurs are comparable. I don't care that the religious claim "faith" – I prefer trust instead since that term doesn't connote 'worship' or 'make believe'. Also, as I discern it, science consists in 'belief that' statements methodologically in contrast to 'belief in' convictions (biases). Magical thinkers' vocabulary simply doesn't concrrn me to the degree many of their public-facing 'fairh-based practices' do. :mask:

Seriously though, no one's seeing is perfect...or maybe only the sage's. — Janus

Raises an interesting question. Assuming we can identify who is deserving of the appellation 'sage' what kind of taste (aesthetic preferences) do sages have? What if the Dalai Lama (say) prefers the films of Michael Bay to those of Stanley Kubrick? What if good taste is an exclusive purview of the profane...

Raises an interesting question. Assuming we can identify who is deserving of the appellation 'sage' what kind of taste (aesthetic preferences) do sages have? What if the Dalai Lama (say) prefers the films of Michael Bay to those of Stanley Kubrick? What if good taste is an exclusive purview of the profane... — Tom Storm

I don't think we can identify sages reliably...maybe other sages can. Even then maybe there are not 'universal' sages but rather musical sages, mathematical sages, philosophical sages. painterly sages and so on.

Take musical sages: maybe there are jazz sages, classical sages, heavy metal sages, punk sages...maybe sagehood is a specialized business...who knows? :nerd:

:clap: :100:

The appeal to reason works because it is appealing. — Moliere

Nice.

We can think of reason as a network of semantic norms which is used on itself. Philosophy rationally articulates in an accumulating way what it means to be rational. Neurath's boat. We take most of these norms (meanings of concepts, legitimacy of inferences) for granted as we argue for exceptions and extensions to those same norms.

Take musical sages: maybe there are jazz sages, classical sages, heavy metal sages, punk sages...maybe sagehood is a specialized business...who knows? :nerd: — Janus

I want to meet a sage sage.

I want to meet a sage sage. — Tom Storm

Adjective and noun: a wise sage.

But an optimist considers that things will keep getting better, that it's good overall to keep making babies. That some are born to endless night is considered a price worth paying, a reasonable sacrifice for the general weal. — plaque flag

Tracing that path back, I would say that the fact that abiogenesis happened, was not an act of optimism.
All species that reproduce don't exclusively do so due to optimism. Some species reproduce asexually.
Reproduction is fundamentally a natural survival instinct for a species survival.
The fact that some newborns (in many species it's actually most) don't make it to adulthood.
I just don't think a term like sacrificial, fits the 'natural selection,' imperative very well as natural selection has no intent. Humans are able to reduce human suffering, so the antinatalist remains a boring defeatist imo.

Humanism itself has a lion on its shield. — plaque flag

No, you have simply chosen to place such an image on such a defensive implement and imagineer humanist's brandishing such. I can just as easily suggest that humanism itself is a small innocent child, tying to think it's way into a more enlightened state. Which aesthetic attracts more people is a matter of preference, yes?

Christ the lion is the light bringer, Lucifer, child of thunder, the morning star. I speak metaphorically to dig out the emotional charge of Enlightenment's Oedipal autonomy project. 'I will not serve. I will not have been thrown. Nothing is sacred but my own freedom to question.' [Our God is a devouring fire.] Satan laughing spreads his wings. Our metaphysics is a gloriously anemic mythology. — plaque flag

I always appreciate pretty prose but your imagery to me, seems very old. I don't know if your last sentence in the above quote means that you in fact reject the misleading imagery that traditional human mythologies/religions have tried to peddle to us, so that the nefarious few can opiate the masses.
Perhaps you should take more note of the scientific KISS advice. Keep It Simple Stupid!

Have courage to make use of your own understanding [= reason]! is thus the motto of enlightenment. — plaque flag

Sounds good to me!

On this freedom rests the very existence of reason, which has no dictatorial authority, but whose claim is never anything more than the agreement of free citizens, each of whom must be able to express his reservations, indeed even his veto, without holding back — plaque flag

I agree, with the exception's that people must 'hold back,' from inciting or performing violence unless they are under actual or immanent attack.

I belong to the tribe of philosophers. I'm a piece of the self-articulating Hegel bot. — plaque flag

I continue to learn more about that rather 'quirky' tribe. It has an academic/expert section, which I think DO assist and compliment my preferred tribe of scientists.
I continue to be convinced that the final arbiter of any philosophical posit IS scientific scrutiny.
But, I freely admit that my scientific musings have become deeper, wider and more personally meaningful, since I joined TPF and read what your philosophy tribe types.

My lack of academic prowess on the details of who, what, when and why of past and present philosophers, does mean that I often misunderstand what a particular knowledgeable philosopher is typing. I appreciate it when such folks attempt to correct any misinterpretations they think I am displaying. I also appreciate that doing so might be frustrating for them at times, but I feel the same way, when I think they misunderstand scientific/political/social or sometimes even humanist concepts.

And the way you see it is completely free from bias, right? — Janus

Quite a biased observation/question.
Do you have a bias towards what you consider good/true/positive/correct/beneficial?

Of course, do you?

I understand the preferences you identify.