Post #253,123
4/23/06 3:43:54 PM
|
A declaration of humanism
I am a humanist. My entire philosophy, and all of my political and social opinions, are derived from certain axioms. I believe there are epistemological truths and there are moral truths. And the foundation of all my moral truths is humanism.
Humanism is one of those words that get repeatedly hijacked, raped, and then slandered as a whore. Different groups use the word to mean different things, spreading confusion about the word and its meaning. This always seems to happen to word and phrases that stand for something about which people have strong feelings: love, truth, justice, quality, liberty, liberalism, conservatism, humanism. So I will need to define my term, at length.
[link|http://www.jcn.com/humanism.php4|Let's start here]
Excerpt:
Philosophical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest. Sub-categories of this type include Christian Humanism and Modern Humanism.
I say:
That's me. I implicitly reject any point of view that despises or hates humanity. Call this anti-humanism. Yes, I know [link|http://www.vhemt.org/|some of them are probably kidding]. In fact, anyone who dares say in as many words that he wishes the human race would go away is probably either making a bad joke, or is Friedrich Nietzsche. This is one of things you just don't admit in polite society. It's like admitting you like to grope small children, or that you just murdered your grandmother and stuffed her in a large mason jar. If it happens to be true, you keep it to yourself.
No, anyone who really despises humanity is not likely to trumpet the fact. If you want him to admit it, you've got to catch him off guard. And if you do, he'll simply say that's not what he meant, and change the subject. At least that's what happens when I try it.
How do you recognize someone who won't admit his true feelings? Follow the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy takes two forms: either the hypocrite says A and then says B, where B logically contradicts A, or he says A and does B, where B contradicts A. That's how you spot a hypocrite. Now, how do you know which is his sincere position, A or B? Well, if B is an action, then it's pretty straightforward. There is no such thing as an insincere pattern of action. But if both A and B are words, it's a lot trickier. Observe the pattern of his words. Which gets upheld more, and which does he contradict more? Anyone can misrepresent himself, but it takes effort, and no one can do it comprehensively. A lie spread thin enough becomes faintly transparent.
There are certain ideologies that *implicitly* hate humanity. [link|http://www.zianet.com/wblase/endtimes/terror.htm|Environmental extremism] is an obvious one. Some people just behave and speak as if endangered frogs are more important to them than people. Some of them gladly endanger people on behalf of the frogs. The rest will simply [link|http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v4n1/homepage.html|endanger human jobs and livelihood] on behalf, of, oh, owls or something. Will they say so in as many words? Not bloody likely. But they will say things that add up to it, and they will act accordingly. And then there's the body language, the averted eyes, and the stammer.
Other ideologies are a bit more clever. They masquerade *as* humanism. Remember that phrase: "human need and interest." What exactly constitutes human need and interest?
A sincere humanist tries to understand human nature, and thereby determine human need and interest. In insincere "humanist" comes up with his own definition of human need and interest, and then invents a theory of human nature to support it. Let's look at some examples.
A cursory study of human nature reveals than man is both an individual and a social creature. In short, he is an individual functioning within society. There is a dynamic tension here, and it invites two abuses: ignoring the one side to emphasize the other, and ignoring the other side to emphasize the one. And, lo and behold, both these abuses can easily be found!
Ignore man's need for a decent, civil society, and focus only on his need for autonomy. The result: [link|http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/|Objectivism!] Sorry, no, Nathaniel Branden isn't really an Objectivist!. And yes, I know Ayn Rand admitted the need for some government and and a certain type of human interaction. But what she advocated falls far short of what I would call a human society.
Ignore man's need for autonomy, and you have either [link|http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html|Communism], [link|http://www.remember.org/hist.root.what.html|fascism], or some other totalitarian system. Downplay man's need for autonomy, and you have socialism, or at least excessive government involvement in private affairs.
(Charles Schultz summarized the collectivist mindset nicely: "I love mankind; it's people I can't stand.")
Now let me concede a point. There is much evil in human nature. It will do no good to deny it. But there is also much [link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm|potential for good] in humanity. This is another dynamic tension at the core of human nature. Because good is, by definition, something that ought to be encouraged, and evil is, by definition, something that ought to be discouraged, I define human interest as follows:
That which tends to increase the numbers and lengthen the existence of the human race, which encourages the growth of all that is good in human nature, and contains or defeats what is evil in human nature, that is human interest.
And I define human need as: whatever is required to further human interest.
Definition: A sham humanism is any ideology that substitutes something for human need and interest - as I have defined then - and claims that thing is best for humanity. (Could they be honestly mistaken? If so, wouldn't they have come to their senses by now?) I've just given two examples. But there are so many possibilities here, we can't enumerate them. So let's list at some categories:
1. Those which deny or downplay the need for man to live in a civil society.
2. Those which deny or downplay the need for each human being to be his own person to some extent.
3. Those which deny or downplay the need to resist evil.
4. Those which restrict the legitimate concern of a human being to anything less than humanity as a whole, be it the self, the family, the tribe or the nation state.
5. Those who angrily advocate models for social order that are known to be contrary to human interest.
(To be a socialist two centuries ago may have been forgivable. But there's no excuse nowadays. We all know better.)
6. Those who have no regard for beautiful art.
7. Those who have no regard for human reason.
8. Those who would deny any man the right to seek self improvement in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.
9. Those who would deny any man the right to seek happiness in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.
10. Those who would deny any man the right to seek God in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.
11. Those who would forbid any criticism of a philosophy, ideology, culture or system of government, where that criticism is by the criterion of human needs and interest. (It's jingoistic to love your country without a good reason.)
12. Those who would either attack or defend a philosophy, ideology, culture or system of government, other than from the standpoint of human needs and interest. (It's not jingoistic to love your country if your country happens to be one of the better ones.)
I oppose all of these. And I make no apologies for it.
And there's misanthropy. I define a misanthrope as an anti-humanist who hasn't bothered to adopt or formulate a sytem of thought to give structure (or cover) to his attitude.
So, I care about what's best for humanity. Everything else is secondary to me. I am an unrepentant [link|http://www.allwords.com/word-speciesist.html|speciesist]. I exploit helpless animals, as well as helpless plants. And oh, what I do to helpless inanimate objects!
I will not worship [link|http://www.cthulhu.org/cthulhu/positions.html|any god that is not humanist]. If such a god exists, there's no point in humans worshipping him. What's in it for us?
Are there other other life forms in the universe, more intelligent than we? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. So far SETI's come up empty, and it's not for want of trying.
[link|http://www.jcn.com/humanism.php4|Now, some final notes about types of humanism]:
Excerpt:
The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence.
I say:
A semantic red herring. Philosophy vs religion is a distinction which I have never found useful in trying to understand anything.
Excerpt:
Now, while Secular Humanists may agree with much of what religious Humanists do, they deny that this activity is properly called "religious." This isn't a mere semantic debate. Secular Humanists maintain that there is so much in religion deserving of criticism that the good name of Humanism should not be tainted by connection with it.
I say:
That [link|http://www.standpoint.com/claim.php?id=10563|cuts both ways]. This is a double standard. For it to be a mere semantic debate would be a step up.
Excerpt:
The fact that Humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox. Another is that both Religious and Secular Humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point of eschewing faith altogether. The dichotomy between reason and faith is often given emphasis in Humanism, with Humanists taking their stand on the side of reason. Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather as an alternative way of being religious.
I say:
I value human reason as far as it goes. But it seems unrealistic to me, to pretend that human reason is capable of understanding all there is. Besides, it would probably violate Goedel's Imcompleteness Theorem. Faith is a substitute for reason. Religion is a crutch. But sometimes we need to make do with substitutes, and sometimes we can't walk unaided. It won't much help human needs and interests to pretend that the human condition is other than it is.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/humanism.html|Angelfire link] (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 out of 5 Iraqis choose democracy!
If you don't like my posts, don't click on them.
Never mind the AP. Here's the real Iraq reporting: [link|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/]
"The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
|
Post #253,126
4/23/06 4:06:36 PM
|
I don't hate humanity
Just your corner of it.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #254,700
5/7/06 6:40:40 PM
|
Oh, you're soooo intolerant.
I don't hate you. I don't much respect you, but I don't hate you.
Now hand over that more-tolerant-than-thou gold star. It's mine now.
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 out of 5 Iraqis choose democracy!
If you don't like my posts, don't click on them.
Never mind the AP. Here's the real Iraq reporting: [link|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/]
"The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
|
Post #253,136
4/23/06 5:36:42 PM
|
What I want to hear from you is . . .
. . just how you square those 12 points (and your others) with a slavish dedication to an administration that violates any point it pleases whenever it pleases for its own advantage.
Also, you never gave us the spin on how Iran's total victory in the Iraqi elections was precisely as planned by the administration and how that theocratic victory squares with spreading democracy - even though I asked several times.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #254,702
5/7/06 6:46:22 PM
|
Your confusion of opinion with reality...
is your responsbility, not mine.
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 out of 5 Iraqis choose democracy!
If you don't like my posts, don't click on them.
Never mind the AP. Here's the real Iraq reporting: [link|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/]
"The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
|
Post #253,137
4/23/06 5:40:29 PM
|
Im glad you support legalizing drugs and prostitution
good man ya are,
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #253,139
4/23/06 5:50:35 PM
4/23/06 5:51:10 PM
|
Fascist-humanist
Interesting article on your beliefs. First time I've ever seen a statement of fascist-humanist beliefs, but that is pretty much where your's end up.
I think the biggest thing is the huge omission. You created a list that summarize your beliefs about rights, and no where on the list does the right to simply live appear. Combine that with the way you consider collective rights as being more important then individual rights.
And what you end up with a sorta fascist-humanism. Where the good of humanity as a whole, in the form of state, trumps the good of individuals. And since our state embodies the best form of facist-humanism, it's rights are more important then the rights of other states.
Jay
edit: spelling fix
|
Post #254,708
5/7/06 7:19:19 PM
|
There's a little thing called logic.
It's something that people use when they're not the type to scream "fascist!" at everyone they don't agree with.
It's like this: if you're not alive, then you can't exercise rights. So other rights imply right to life. That's what logic looks like. Isn't that neat?
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 out of 5 Iraqis choose democracy!
If you don't like my posts, don't click on them.
Never mind the AP. Here's the real Iraq reporting: [link|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/]
"The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
|
Post #254,712
5/7/06 8:06:28 PM
|
Then how
If the right to live is important to you, how do you reconcile it with supporting the invasion of Iraq?
Jay
|
Post #254,718
5/7/06 8:47:57 PM
|
Rules in society aren't black and white.
Being alive is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to exercise rights. We don't give infants the right to vote. And [link|http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcemeteryrights.html|some rights] exist even for the dead. So saying your version of humanism implies a right to life isn't a very satisfying way to address the question.
You really need to define "life" in this context. Is it human volitional motion? Response to stimuli? Breathing? Heart beat? Electrical activity in the cerebrum? Body temperature above 95 F? Cell division?
Can a person over 18 forfeit their life to the state as a result of a trial or a decision by a representative of the state? What about a person under 18? What about a fetus?
I don't think you can come up with a comprehensive one-size fits all definition that wouldn't result in a police state. "I'm sorry that some blood cells escaped my body and died, officer. I accidently skinned my knee. It wasn't intentional." :-/
If a fertilized egg is a "life", then why isn't an unfertilized egg or a sperm cell? If it is "life", with as much meaning as that for a person over 18, then whose responsibility is it to protect those rights? How intrusive should that protection be? And what about vestigial (or [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin|parasitic]) twins? Do they have the same rights as their host?
As much as you seem to want it to be, modern society isn't black and white. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't stupid, evil, and wrong (as you too often imply or even state directly).
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #254,801
5/8/06 7:23:17 PM
|
You just heard of it?
Now if you could only make use of it, that would be progress.
[link|http://www.blackbagops.net|Black Bag Operations Log]
[link|http://www.objectiveclips.com|Artificial Intelligence]
[link|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html|Scrutinizer]
|
Post #253,188
4/24/06 12:50:29 AM
|
Zero grasp of basic economic theory
which is pretty much in keeping with the rest of his chosen party.
"Some people just behave and speak as if endangered frogs are more important to them than people. Some of them gladly endanger people on behalf of the frogs."
Its that whole supply/demand thing. Value is inversely proportional to supply and all that. Plus you're taking the short view. Suppose that endangered frog makes a chemical that cures some illness afflicting millions of people, but saving it inconveniences only thousands? Which position is the humanist's?
Real humanists would just consider you a short sighted fascist.
[link|http://www.blackbagops.net|Black Bag Operations Log]
[link|http://www.objectiveclips.com|Artificial Intelligence]
[link|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html|Scrutinizer]
|
Post #253,201
4/24/06 3:00:03 AM
|
Okay now I have more time to address your concerns
That's me. I implicitly reject any point of view that despises or hates humanity. Call this anti-humanism. Yes, I know some of them are probably kidding [*]. In fact, anyone who dares say in as many words that he wishes the human race would go away is probably either making a bad joke, or is Friedrich Nietzsche. This is one of things you just don't admit in polite society. It's like admitting you like to grope small children, or that you just murdered your grandmother and stuffed her in a large mason jar. If it happens to be true, you keep it to yourself. What point of view is that? You despise Christians because they hate gays? You despise Muslims because they hate the state of Israel? Or do you enjoy the great unwashed as long as they speak American properly and clear the plates before desert? Its a non statement you have there. averted eyes, the stammer did you catch them jerking off? I think you are plagarising badly here, or is that hypocritical? Did you actually here them stammer, could you expound with actual conversations? Yes these people are nut jobs but you dont have to like them, its okay. A sincere humanist tries to understand human nature, and thereby determine human need and interest. In insincere "humanist" comes up with his own definition of human need and interest, and then invents a theory of human nature to support it. you just said the same thing twice is that hypocritical? Cmon lad you can think better than that, I have read your stuff. That which tends to increase the numbers and lengthen the existence of the human race, which encourages the growth of all that is good in human nature, and contains or defeats what is evil in human nature, that is human interest.
And I define human need as: whatever is required to further human interest. well according to your description in the above paragraph, you are an insincere "humanist", you self define then invent a position to support it. So lets examine your points 1. Those which deny or downplay the need for man to live in a civil society. Actually I would rather live in a somewhat savage society, people are much politer, now if you ment a civic society where people gather together and voluntarily surrender some personal freedoms for the betterment and protection of the whole you have foundationary Blackstone which is one basis of American Jurisprudence. 2. Those which deny or downplay the need for each human being to be his own person to some extent. anti collectivist, good. 3. Those which deny or downplay the need to resist evil. now here is an iffy statement, you need to better define evil before you condemn those who disagree with the level of evil you are postulating. Perhaps 3. Those which deny or downplay the need to resist horrific evil. that separates serial killers from those who only want to buy beer on Sundays and after Midnight. 4. Those which restrict the legitimate concern of a human being to anything less than humanity as a whole, be it the self, the family, the tribe or the nation state. you need to merge this with 2 as part of the anti collectivist portion. 5. Those who angrily advocate models for social order that are known to be contrary to human interest.
(To be a socialist two centuries ago may have been forgivable. But there's no excuse nowadays. We all know better.) your second sentence has fuck all to do with the first sentence, The first sentence applies equally to the Monarchists, Theocratics, Communists and The current Administration. The current Admin wants to restrict freedoms and angrily suggests that any who dont like it can fork off. This portion applies equally to all coersive movements who get angry, let it stand alone. 6. Those who have no regard for beautiful art. 7. Those who have no regard for human reason. combine these into 6. Those who have no regard for art or reason. Beauty is localized reason is subjective. 8. Those who would deny any man the right to seek self improvement in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.
9. Those who would deny any man the right to seek happiness in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so. combine these, Hookers and Dope is okay and should be legal and taxed. 10. Those who would deny any man the right to seek God in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.
11. Those who would forbid any criticism of a philosophy, ideology, culture or system of government, where that criticism is by the criterion of human needs and interest. (It's jingoistic to love your country without a good reason.)
12. Those who would either attack or defend a philosophy, ideology, culture or system of government, other than from the standpoint of human needs and interest. (It's not jingoistic to love your country if your country happens to be one of the better ones.) you are as bad a moses, you only have one point here so make it. 10. Those who would impose religious, idealogic or loyalty oaths upon an unwilling populace. There, I have cleaned your stuff up, makes it easier to read and defend. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #253,211
4/24/06 9:19:02 AM
|
It was nice of you to do that
but easier to call bulls**t staight away.
Think there is some serious confusion between humanism and moral relativity going on here.
Terms like "evil" and "beautiful art" and "polite society" and the best yet "human need and interest".
Its simply not possible to have any one group determine the meaning of any of the above terms.
Leave him to his delusions of grandeur.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #253,249
4/24/06 1:58:09 PM
|
+5 Insightful
I love hearing you talk sense....
jb4
"Every Republican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
— an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #253,259
4/24/06 2:49:17 PM
|
I'm gonna say it again
By and large, I'd call myself on the left of the spectrum, but I find that Beep's views are misrepresented often.
I can have a great deal of respect for how he looks at things, and the consistency, candour, and willingness to acknowledge error, while disagreeing with some of the basic tenets.
In short, it's possible for us to disagree with honour, and I often find common ground with his views. I do sometimes wish he'd see what life was like on the down side of the median income these days (as opposed to the bad ol' days of yore in NA).
For myself, I'm an equality of opportunity liberal, and I think that (esp. in this day and age of globalised competition), not giving everyone the opportunity to live up to their potential regardless of socio-economic origins is simply setting up our societies to be less competitive than they can be... and that the decline of relative economic power of the last twenty years of the West (and esp. in North America), while to some extent inevitable, has been both accelerated and deepened by neglect of public infrastructure in poor regions, both of the educational and more prosaic bricks'n'mortar (or pipes, or asphalt, or electrical, etc) variety.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #254,701
5/7/06 6:44:42 PM
|
I don't know much about art...
but I know [link|http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/991008/madonna.html|shit] when I see it.
Come on. Only a complete philistine really believes there's no objective standard of beauty.
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 out of 5 Iraqis choose democracy!
If you don't like my posts, don't click on them.
Never mind the AP. Here's the real Iraq reporting: [link|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/]
"The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
|
Post #254,709
5/7/06 7:26:20 PM
|
Define objective. Define beauty.
Somehow, I don't think such they can be reduced to sound-bites and retain any meaning. [link|http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html|Russell] had a few things to say about this: Ethics, if the above analysis is correct, contains no statements, whether true or false, but consists of desires of a certain general kind, namely such as are concerned with the desires of mankind in general - and of gods, angels, and devils, if they exist. Science can discuss the causes of desires, and the means for realizing them, but it cannot contain any genuinely ethical sentences, because it is concerned with what is true or false.
The theory which I have been advocating is a form of the doctrine which is called the "subjectivity" of values. This doctrine consists in maintaining that that, if two men differ about values, there is not a disagreement as to any kind of truth, but a difference of taste. If one man says "oysters are good" and another says "I think they are bad," we recognize that there is nothing to argue about. The theory in question holds that all differences as to values are of this sort, although we do not naturally think them so when we are dealing with matters that seem to us more exalted than oysters. The chief ground for adopting this view is the complete impossibility of finding any arguments to prove that this or that has intrinsic value. If we all agreed, we might hold that we know values by intuition. We cannot prove, to a colour-blind man, that grass is green and not red. But there are various ways of proving to him that he lacks a power of discrimination which most men possess, whereas in the case of values there are no such ways, and disagreements are much more frequent than in the case of colours. Since no way can be even imagined for deciding a difference as to values, the conclusion is forced upon us that the difference is one of tastes, not one as to any objective truth. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #256,168
5/21/06 6:29:26 PM
|
You really need "objective" defined for you?
Oh, brother. If you can't handle [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective|objective], I guess it's too much to expect you'll ever grok beauty.
But hey, I'll give you an inch:
3
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 out of 5 Iraqis choose democracy!
If you don't like my posts, don't click on them.
Never mind the AP. Here's the real Iraq reporting: [link|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/]
"The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
|
Post #256,169
5/21/06 6:37:37 PM
|
Define "objective beauty".
And stop dodging the question.
Alternatively, you could make like an adult and admit that you said something stupid.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #256,171
5/21/06 8:57:41 PM
|
Objective beauty == oxymoron
like
Military Intelligence
Microsoft Security
Painless Dentist
Republican Integrity
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
|
Post #256,201
5/22/06 3:09:50 AM
|
I know that and you know that.
I want to know if the eejit will admit that.
I suspect that my request for a definition of his "objective beauty" will go unanswered.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #256,208
5/22/06 8:24:44 AM
|
you havnt answered why the people you date arnt objectively
appealing to hottentots.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #254,710
5/7/06 7:51:39 PM
|
give me a break, look at the women(or men) you date
what is attractive to you is not attractive to a hottentot and what the hottentot finds attractive would make yer Irish gonads crawl back into your stomach.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #254,728
5/8/06 1:50:05 AM
|
I like motorway intersections, integrated circuits and fonts
I think there's real beauty in all those things. Do you?
Oops.
So, what scale do we use to measure beauty? Is it an ISO standard?
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #254,763
5/8/06 11:34:19 AM
5/8/06 11:34:53 AM
|
Don't know much about history...
(Which, in bot's case is truth incarnate).
And yes, this isn't the right forum for this... ;-)
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
Edited by jb4
May 8, 2006, 11:34:53 AM EDT
|
Post #254,953
5/10/06 12:43:42 PM
|
I don't think so, pal.
Come on. Only a complete philistine really believes there's no objective standard of beauty. No there is not. (PERIOD). There are relative standards based upon groupthink. Different cultures will have different standards because the "group" has a different mindset. Even the same groups will have a dynamically changing version of "beauty" over time. Take, as an example, female beauty...and look at how the "standard" has changed by sampling the playboy centerfold from the magazines inception until now. CLEARLY the standard of female beauty has changed over this time. If it was a clear objective standard there would not have been such a migration. If there were a clear objective standard of "art"...then Picasso would never have become a leading artist and his paintings would have never fetched millions at auction. You, sir, are not demonstrating a clear understanding on culture and its impact on morality and perception. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #254,967
5/10/06 2:12:25 PM
|
Who you callin' "sir"?!?
A bit more respect than is warranted, I wot....
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
Post #255,188
5/12/06 3:48:23 AM
|
Or anything else it seems
[link|http://www.blackbagops.net|Black Bag Operations Log]
[link|http://www.objectiveclips.com|Artificial Intelligence]
[link|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html|Scrutinizer]
|
Post #255,705
5/17/06 11:06:05 AM
|
I'm surprised at you
"Complete philistine" coming from you... I would expect you to happily use the modern term "palestinian" here.
What are you, a Hittite or something?
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
|
Post #256,198
5/22/06 2:47:20 AM
|
Why does a humanist care about the madonna?
Matthew Greet
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
|
Post #256,209
5/22/06 8:25:30 AM
|
why does anyone care about madonna?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #256,211
5/22/06 8:36:23 AM
|
Re: I don't know much about art...
Should have posted the subject line and left it at that, eh?
Do you like the sculpture of [link|http://tlfe.org.uk/imart/bretton%20park/bretton.html|Henry Moore]?
What about the [link|http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00076NYPK/qid=1148301261/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-6468984-1015131?s=music&v=glance&n=5174|music] of [link|http://www.avalancheinc.co.uk/visual2.html|Jesu]?
Does the art of [link|http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/images/nude2.jpg|Marcel Duchamp] float your boat?
I find all of these things beautiful. Do you? Do you still want to pursue this line of argument?
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #256,223
5/22/06 9:57:04 AM
|
I, on the other hand,
find Moore's first two works very similiar to the art work my dogs drop every morning on the our walk, though the rest are nice.
So, Marlowe, what is the "Objective beauty" of art, and how is it measured?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
|
Post #256,229
5/22/06 11:14:37 AM
|
Objective beauty of art? That's too easy!
Duh. The "Objective beauty" of art is the beauty of the thing as an object, most commonly measured in petrodollars (classically at auction, but since 9/11 the no-bid contract has assumed a pre-eminent role).
Some of the most devastatingly beautiful pieces of art of the last 4 years are the live theater productions "Abu Ghraib Celebration of Universal Human Dignity" and "Superdome Ode to the Common Man", both produced by the immensely talented We the People group, funded in part by Dubai-Mao limited.
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
|
Post #256,231
5/22/06 11:52:46 AM
|
And someone called *me* snarky
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #256,267
5/22/06 2:25:11 PM
|
Well, they were right...
...no one called you "exclusively snarky". And certainly not "objectively snarky"....
;-)
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
Post #256,270
5/22/06 2:31:08 PM
|
How about "table-driven snarky"? OOP is a lie!
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #256,271
5/22/06 2:32:31 PM
|
Alright! Who stole Drew's ID and is holding it for ransom?
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
Post #256,273
5/22/06 2:51:02 PM
|
Objective beauty is soviet era art with american flags
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #256,274
5/22/06 2:54:10 PM
|
I believe Rand has a nice collection of that
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #256,999
5/27/06 7:26:43 PM
|
So, please, tell me. Is there such "thing" as beauty?
Is there anything to it beyond "that which I find pleasing"? In other words, is there really an objective beauty, independent from the observer?
Please answer yes or no.
As to the art you're refering to, I find some of it intellectually stimulating. It's as if the authors were really capabale of producing something beautiful, but decided to show that ability in the most indirect way they could. I wonder if the things you find beautiful are the result of your effort to extract the art out of hiding. IOW, I wonder if you're the real author of the beauty, not mr Moore or what's his name.
------
179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]
|
Post #257,011
5/28/06 3:12:39 AM
|
Point = missed.
You seem to be making a habit of this with my posts.
The WHOLE POINT of my post is that there's no such thing as objective beauty.
I don't really mind either way if you think Moore's stuff is beautiful or looks like dog turds.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #257,015
5/28/06 11:17:27 AM
|
Not really missed
I just couldn't bring myself to believe that you'd say "no".
Well, welcome to the brave new world, where dog turds are as good as Michelangelo, and rap may be even better than Bethoven. Wake me up when you folks will reach the ultimate reward of your beliefs. I'd rather sleep through the whole process, if I may.
------
179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]
|
Post #257,035
5/28/06 9:25:52 PM
|
Yeah, you have.
You've got stuck on disliking the stuff I linked to. Which is fair enough, but whether you like it or not doesn't alter my point.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #257,020
5/28/06 11:59:35 AM
|
I have to apologise here
As Beep reminded me, I made a huge assumption about you, an assumption that I would not make about, say, mmoffitt. I assumed that you and I are the same "type" of observer, and in our discussion only that particular type matters. I was wrong. You are indeed a different type. No discussion about beauty is possible between us. And you were right, the "objective beaty" does not exist as far as you and I are concerned. We are too different.
I have to ask you another question, though. Is there anything that some people call "beautiful" that you would call "ugly" (Pontiac Aztec not included)? In the area of art, I mean.
------
179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]
|
Post #257,034
5/28/06 9:23:24 PM
|
You're still missing the point
The point was not whether I can have a discussion about beauty with anyone; I just picked three things that I know I find beautiful but which are probably examples of the kind of thing that wreck Marlowe's "There is an objective standard of beauty" argument - it takes a particular kind of brain to regard Jesu's music as beautiful.
Art that some people call beautiful but which I regard as ugly? Roy Lichtenstein. Andy Warhol. Jackson Pollock. Pop Art in general. I also regard most naive art as fairly horrible. Stuff like [link|http://images.google.com/images?svnum=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=naive+art&btnG=Search|this].
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #257,189
5/30/06 1:44:21 PM
|
those pictures are loverly
Of course I like dogs playing poker on black velvet so what do I know.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #257,185
5/30/06 1:08:15 PM
|
The Pontiac Aztek has a face...
...(and an arse) only a GM designer could love....
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
Post #257,201
5/30/06 2:07:24 PM
|
Grargh.
That's grim.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #257,017
5/28/06 11:36:05 AM
|
Independent from the observer? No.
While it is altogether likely that you and I and Peter and everyone else here would find the same painting "beautiful"..say Van Gogh's Nightwatch...this is NOT an objective standard...this is a common perception among humans with similar programming.
And since we have "common programming", I also agree with you that some of the "shit" that passes for art (including shit :-)) is indeed shit.
doesn't change the point I made nor the point Peter made, however.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #257,018
5/28/06 11:47:55 AM
|
I guess I have to agree
about "human" and "common programming". The problem starts when "programming" gets so vague that anything goes. Or when the carriers of a particular kind of "programming" decide that their programming is the only one in the world that does not deserve respect.
The reason a "programming" survives is because it's advantageous for a society to have it. When the society decides to eliminate its own concept of beauty, the society is sick or suicidal.
------
179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]
|
Post #257,019
5/28/06 11:59:25 AM
|
And I with you
Just because there is no "objective" standard doesn't mean there cannot be a common belief. I find the defense of some of the "art" now to be troubling in that fashion.
The vehemence to defend the most marginal simply means that people are wiling to suspend their consideration of the greater good in persuit of anarchy.
The care is in where the line is drawn...which is where most err on the side of caution...hence open displays of fesces in major museums and galleries.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #257,021
5/28/06 12:08:16 PM
|
s /Van Gogh/Rembrandt perhaps?
|
Post #257,022
5/28/06 12:20:25 PM
|
Yeah...my bad.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #257,024
5/28/06 2:03:07 PM
|
Not I
I had never ween Night Watch, so I just googled it. Granted painting/art will always look better when actually view, I found Night Watch a painting that I would easily pass on. Just not something that I'd be interested in owning or viewing.
In Minneapolis there is a sculpture of a huge spoon and cherry. I consider it interesting, but not worth the money spent.
Common perceptions/programming? Dunno. Unless you want to define it as what the majority believes is beautiful.
I think I'll stick to my statement that there is no Objective Beauty. Beauty is completely subjective. What I think is beauty, is beautiful, no matter what you may think. And, of course, the reverse is also true.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
|
Post #257,026
5/28/06 5:54:29 PM
|
Its a huge painting
and it catches you when you stand in front of it.
But your statement is one more nail in the coffin of the notion of objective beauty.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #257,027
5/28/06 6:31:51 PM
|
Yabbut
Without there being an objective standard of beauty, if beauty is subjective, if it varies from individual to individual, from culture to culture, how can one rationalize controlling what art the public is allowed to see with 'freedom'? How can you tighten the noose areound the neck of 'freedom of speech'?
Objective standards of beauty and art are necessary to the next step in der Master Plan. It is necessary to that these standards appear unlinked to a particular religion, as well (you know, like 'creation science'). Therefore the declaration of 'humanism'.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #257,036
5/28/06 9:27:26 PM
|
And we will burn that which fails the test!
For the greater good!
That's where this crypto-fascistic bullshit of Marlowe's leads.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #257,065
5/29/06 12:52:31 PM
|
Um...
you have been reading me in this thread, right?
You can't.
The problem is that this inability is now being taken advantage of by the fringe who know that no matter what now (let me throw shit at religious artifacts...I'll call it art and they'll >have< to let me show it) they'll will be able to gain noteriety.
Its "shock art"...and the emphasis is on shock...cause I don't even think the folks making it think its art either. They're "making a statement".
And you know full well that I understand this as the "dark side" of freedom...and that its necessary to endure. I don't go, don't give it my money...vote with my feet.
Same with satellite radio. Stern went there. I will not. Again, voting with my feet.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #257,072
5/29/06 6:09:12 PM
|
ROFL... Come now, Beep!
I actually agree - but 'shock art' is a form of communication as well.
My point was that this whole 'tempest' was caused by our own 'private dick''s laying a background for censoring art (probably in the name of saving the cheeeldrun).
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #257,073
5/29/06 6:25:01 PM
|
Oh, come on now - 'Saving the Cheeeldrun' is . . .
. . so "Last Century". Surely there must be a way to link "art" and "objective beauty" to the pressing need for National Security.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #257,074
5/29/06 6:35:41 PM
|
Here's how:
Art - appreciated by the loyal (I'm feeling uplifted just looking at it. Or I've got flatulence. One or t'other):
[image|http://www.skylinepictures.com/Freedo1.jpg||||]
Shit - viewers are terrorists and could do with a good arresting:
[image|http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg/463px-The_Scream.jpg||The work of a left-wing mentalist||]
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #257,191
5/30/06 1:47:36 PM
|
why dont you like the picture of a labrador wearing a coat?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #257,687
6/4/06 12:28:30 PM
|
Gah! I've seen "Glory to CPSU"posters that were better made.
------
179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]
|
Post #254,719
5/7/06 11:46:07 PM
|
Me too! Give me a break too!
The bot has already accrued eternal obloquy associating itself with the most poisonous tendencies in the former Republic's civic discourse, and now L'il Phil wants to be taken seriously as a moral philosopher?? It is to guffaw.
mirthfully,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #254,721
5/8/06 12:01:30 AM
|
For those of you who need a dictionary
[link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obloquy|http://dictionary.re.../search?q=obloquy]
|
Post #254,727
5/8/06 1:46:51 AM
|
Calumny!
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
