A New Humanism

Interesting.



This sounds to me as a weak point. Whenever there is talk of an elite, especially one that has the task of "reintroducing resposnible humanity into the mechanical shell of modern living" I get wary.

This elite gets the oportunity to secure power to itself, and regardless of the ideals of humanism, we are men and women at the bottom. Animals who carry around humanity as an idea in our heads.

But after reading your post about the new humanism, I am tempted to ask "what happened?".

I see the mechanical shell of modern living removing itself form "responsible humanity" the further we "progress".

So what happened to the elite of the new humanism? Maybe they just ended up on the payroll of some major corporation like all those of the sixties who screamed about revolution. :wink:

Cyracuz

I am reading a book by Earnest Becker "Beyond Alienation". Becker is making an argument which is long and I think it is important. I am trying to set the stage for the argument.

It is the basic problem of means and ends. One cannot comprehend the argument until one has the means to do so. This is part of furnishing those means. Like a person cannot comprehend algebra until one has first learned multiplication. I am learning the necessary means to comprehend his argument. I am taking the forum along so that you too can comprehend the argument when we get there.

We have many problems that are a result of the fact that we have never learned to develop a moral rationality to handle the high tech world we have created with our great scientific rationality. Becker offers a solution that I am trying now to comprehend and several of my posts are part of his setting the stage for his argument as to how we might solve this problem.

The Great Books effort has failed to accomplish its goal. The elite never developed. The Great Books idea had difficulties on several points. One big problem was the static nature of this technique. The Great Books was just that, it was the best of the past but it was not dynamic. To be useful it must take into account an ever changing society with its every changing knowledge.

I think that you are correct about the conclusion that the elite of our society have abandoned the task that generally fall to an elite--they have gone for the gold and any other matter is left unfixed. Becker has put together an argument that deals with this matter and I am trying to grasp it now.

This breaches some topics that greatly interest me, especially the notion of "uncritical Romanticism."



That is something to which I am sympathetic. Ironically, though, this Romantic view of intellectualism is at the heart of what you, paraphrasing Carl Sagan, frequently describe as "the ecstasy of understanding." For example, you've written more than once that:



It is a view of knowledge that has a long tradition, to be sure, and had some of its most extreme expressions in German Romanticism. Schopenhauer once described it like this: "Intellectual life floats ethereally, like a fragrant cloud rising from fermentation, above the reality of worldly activities which make up the lives of the peoples..." It sounds beautiful when it's put like that, but it is a token example of Romantic idealization at the expense of critical thinking. The idea of treating knowledge like art (or like music, as you are fond of doing) is another way of saying that knowledge shouldn't be held accountable to anything except the beholder. Leave me alone with my ecstasy of understanding, in other words. It's a perfectly reasonable request when it comes to artistic appreciation, but is it reasonable when it comes to truth and knowledge? I question whether art is an appropriate model for knowledge. Ecstasy, since it is so personal and unassailable, is a glorified way of resisting criticism.

In other words, it may sound great to pursue a "truth unconnected from any specific application," but those applications are the only way to test truth. If you reject the testing, then on what basis do you accept truths? Do you simply choose the ones that sound nice? The hyper-Romantic view you seem to be espousing, and which the "Modern Humanists" are rejecting, is one in which truth is valued according to the aesthetic pleasure it gives the receiver; and since aesthetic pleasure is not subject to verification, it's not surprising that these kinds of truths take the form of extreme abstractions--matador's veils, hypothetical frontier families, etc.

With whom are you ultimately casting your lot, Coberst? The Romantics or the Modern humanists?

Shapless

I have written several times about disinterested knowledge, nevertheless it appears that I have not yet been able to make myself clear. I guess I shall just have to keep trying.

I think you've been pretty clear about what you mean. I quoted what I think is your most succinct formulation of the idea: "truth unconnected to any specific application." What I'm inquiring about is what "truth" even means if it's unconnected from some end or application; I would argue that it is the application that defines it as truth in the first place. When you, personally, feel you've come to a "pure" understanding of something--i.e. a kind of understanding that excites the kind of "ecstasy" you frequently mention--do you ever attemt to verify that your understanding is correct? If so, how? Your previous threads about the "ecstasy of understanding" lead me to believe that you use the ecstasy to validate the understanding, which is prototypically Romantic (not to mention circular); but in this thread you seem to be rejecting Romantic views of understanding. Which of these, if any, is it?

The only truths I can think of that are "truths unconnected to any specific application" are equations of mathemathics and maybe physics.

Quite so. One of the intriguing differences between scientific and humanist conceptions of truth is that for the former, "universal truths" (or the closest thing to them) are fundamentally important; for the latter, "universal truths" are almost inevitably trivial. That is, in the realm of the sciences, 2+2=4 goes a long way; there's a lot you can do with that information. In the realm of the humanities, 2+2=4 is remarkably uninteresting; it is no less fundamentally true, but there isn't a whole lot you can do with that information.

It seems to me that the critical characteristic of what I would call "humanism" is that it rejects the notion of the supernatural and it considers man to be the measure of all things. The rest is footnote.

Would you not consider that reading "Hamlet" as containing truth unconnected to a specific application?

Yes I agree. Becker speaks of humanism for the purpose of focusing both on this matter of the mind/body dualism and also as humanism proposed the Great Books program as a solution to the problem of needing a unified knowledge. If people are ever to dialogue together to solve moral problems rather than war to solve moral problems we need a common pool of knowledge.

For people to reason together they must have a pool of shared knowledge.

Cob

I am not sure I understand.

Do you mean that "Hamlet" contains truths unconnected to any specific application?

How so?

Possibly, but if this understanding is brought on by his desire to repair the car, then the knowledge he now "understands" is quite firmly connected to an "application."




That is exactly the kind of conflation of aesthetic experience and empirical understanding that I referred to in my first post. To use the former as a model for the latter is a quintessentially Romantic viewpoint. Cyracuz raises a good question: can you give us an example of the kind of truth that Hamlet illustrates? My guess is this Shakespearean truth, whatever it is, can be articulated in only the vaguest terms; it may be that it can't be articulated at all because, as an aesthetic experience, it is intensely (and unassailably) personal. As a Romantic would say, it can't be put into words. (More accurately, "I don't want to put it into words.") Either that, or explaining the "truths" of Hamlet would consist of simply quoting the text and "letting it speak for itself" (i.e. "Relieving myself of the task of explaining").

This is why, in my opinion, aesthetic experience is such a covert and uncritical model for "understanding." It is designed to leave the knower less accoutable by transferring the burden of explanation to abstract or inanimate things like Hamlet. No one can test the truths that you might claim to get from Hamlet because, as you mentioned, they are (conflated with) subjective responses. The Romantic view you seem to be espousing is one that knowingly evades testing, and a "truth" that evades testing is... well, ask Popper.

Atheists say they've been threatened over their views
A dear friend mailed this article to me today. They recently moved from Albuquerque to North Carolina and the Bible Belt. Strange how these people realize how much in common they have with the Taliban. ---BBB

Posted on Sat, Dec. 30, 2006
Atheists say they've been threatened over their views
DYLAN T. LOVAN
Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - The note on Blair Scott's windshield wasn't a nice one.

The anonymous writer had to have seen Scott's atheist-themed bumper sticker, an uncommon sight in the small south Alabama town where he lived at the time.

"It just amazed me that people would take time out of their day to return to their car, grab a pen and paper and write a 'You're going to hell and you're going to burn in a lake of fire,' and stick it under my windshield," said Scott, a 36-year-old veteran who installs computer systems in prisons.

Outspoken atheists like Scott remain a minority, but there are dozens of atheist chapters sprouting up around the country, and even many in Southern states dominated by conservative Christians.

Many who consider themselves atheists said they're afraid to mention their views on religion or that they don't believe in deities. It's an especially unpopular opinion in the South, they said.

"Do I think that any of these people are really afraid if someone knows they're an atheist that they're going to get shot down on the street tomorrow? No. But the thought is always there in the back of your mind," said Joe Mays, Louisville computer technician who helped organize an atheist group that meets monthly.

Atheism is generally considered a disbelief in god or other deities, but some self-described atheists said they feel it is better described as a conclusion one arrives at sometime in their life.

"I don't really care for the word belief," said Edwin Kagan, a northern Kentucky lawyer who has defended atheist clients. "People say do I believe in evolution? It's not something to be believed in, it's something to be learned. Like the multiplication table. Do you believe in the multiplication table, or do you use it, do you learn it?"

Some estimates say as much as 15 percent of the population is atheist, though few call themselves by that title, said Jim Heldberg, national affiliation director for American Atheists in San Francisco. Heldberg said his group has 60 independent groups in many cities around the country. And there are many high-profile people who have expressed atheist views or a disbelief in God, including cyclist Lance Armstrong, golfer Annika Sorenstam and actresses Angelina Jolie and Jodie Foster.

At a meeting of the Louisville atheist group earlier this year, several members spoke of a fear of retribution if they mentioned their views around family or at work. Most didn't want to be identified. The members - including a factory worker, a nurse, a real estate agent, an accountant and some who work in computers - considered putting up flyers in local bookstores to attract new members, but they scrapped the idea when one said they would likely be torn down.

"Nobody's your friend when you're an atheist," one member said. Another member, Christopher Helbert, wryly suggested that he would rather his parents know he was gay than an atheist, because they would say "gay is curable."

A study at the University of Minnesota this year lends credence to the group's discussion. It found that Americans favor gays and lesbians, recent immigrants and Muslims over atheists in "sharing their vision of American society." Respondents also said they were least accepting of intermarriage with atheists than with any other group.

"I think the key to this animosity is probably this idea that somehow morality and religion are deeply linked and if you lose any kind of religious doctrine, you inevitably lose some purchase upon morality," said Sam Harris, best-selling author of "Letter to a Christian Nation."

Harris' book is a response to Christians who have criticized his writings on atheism.

"People think unless you've found Jesus, you can't love your neighbor in any significant sense," he said.

Some atheists have gone to court to challenge American institutions, most popularly the "Under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance, which was added in 1954.

In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools, agreeing with a suit filed by atheist Michael Newdow of Sacramento, Calif. The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed that decision. Newdow has since revived the case and last year a federal judge ruled in his favor.

Newdow said atheists cannot get elected to office and that elected officials consistently side with people of faith on many issues.

"Government sends the message that it's a bad thing to be an atheist," Newdow said in a phone interview.

Scott said when he was living in Mobile, Ala., people were tipped off to his atheist views after he wrote an editorial to the local newspaper protesting a proposed bible class at a public school. He said he never mentioned that he was an atheist in the letter.

Scott said after that, his car was bashed up by a baseball bat and a cross was planted in his yard.

He has since moved to Huntsville and now heads a local atheist chapter in that town, which he said is much more tolerant because of the number of NASA scientists who live there.

"I think there's almost an unwillingness to come out of the closet for most atheists, especially in the Bible belt, because of the type of repercussions from people of faith," he said. "Some nasty stuff has happened to people, some really nasty stuff. And people are afraid of that."
------------------------------

On the net:
"Letter to a Christian Nation" http://www.samharris.org

I know very few theists, but I've always lived in large urban centers of the southwest. You couldn't get me to live in small-town America, too culturally backward. But I have a fundamentalist Christian relative who lives in small-town Indiana. He finds it very awkward to socialize in my city.

Is Beauty a Rival to Truth and Good?

Einstein was said to have rejected the theories of Quantum Mechanics, which he was instrumental in devising, because they lacked beauty. He was constantly attempting to improve on QM; he constantly looked for something more pleasing to his aesthetic considerations.

Physics has discovered the power of symmetry. It has, as I comprehend it, become as important to certain physics considerations as is the conservation of energy and momentum. Symmetry is very important in our judgments regarding beauty.

I think that we all have difficulty in comprehending why anyone would study just to learn something that is not useful because our educational institutions have been designed to make us good workers and avid consumers. A liberal education has slowly passed away just as labor unions are passing away. I suspect those who have designed the schools as they are are also those who have designed away labor unions. We are a consumer society and consumers do not need to know anything that does not fit into the produce and consume story line.

After World War I there was a popular song that contained the phrase "how ya gonna keepem down on the farm after they've seen Pariee". Such is the case with disinterested knowledge. "How ya gonna keepem down on the farm after they have seen new ideas"

Coberst, thanks for a very rewarding post. I tell people who ask me why they should pursue a liberal arts education (as opposed to merely training for a job) that, while both are important, a liberal arts education serves to make ourselves and our lives more interesting, more inherently worth living.
The Einstein perspective, as you've presented it, is very interesting. I love the notion of an esthetic appreciation for the universe.

If you ask me for my favorite conspiracy theory, Coberst, I believe that our education system is designed to produce people specifically ill-equipped to be social critics, which is to say PARTICIPANTS in a democracy; they able only to gripe about how things have not served their narrow economic interests or reflect their sectarian religious values. Whenever our school systems have been attacked by the politicos to improve education they increase the number of arithmetic courses, never courses in history, social studies, literature, or--heavens forbid--philosophy. What seems to be desired is "educated" people in terms of numbers not language.
And if you talk about BEAUTY as one of the great pillars of human meaningfulness (with the true and the good), we see that art classes are among the first to go when there is a need to tighten our economic belt.