Some basic questions raised by the home page

These are given in the basic orientation (HOME). Here you can agree, elaborate, or disagree.
Post Reply
Rock
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:25 am

Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by Rock »

After reading some of the humanian literature, I have twelve questions for the forum raised by the summary of humanianity on the banner above and on the homepage.

1. “The Religion for Everyone”. Why is “humanianity” called a religion and not an ethical philosophy?
2. What is meant by “for Everyone”? Is it in the sense of a formal cause, namely, humanianity is “catholic”, that is, everyone is welcome to embrace its ethical doctrines; or is it in the sense of final cause, namely, “for the benefit of everyone”, in the sense that its ethical doctrine is meant to benefit everyone; or is it in the sense of material cause, that is, it is a religious group composed of every human being; or is it in the sense of agent cause, namely, a religion made and defined by everyone? Some philosophies would consider the REUEP to be logically problematic, or even incoherent: would adherents to such philosophies be excluded from humanianity, or would they be welcome to overturn the REUEP? (I am thinking of the issue faced by Christianity, where certain people raised in Christianity continue to call themselves Christians while reject some of Christianities most fundamental doctrine, something they accomplish by attempting to redefine Christianity.) Could a humanian accept some of the doctrines developed in the Belief Manual while rejecting the primacy of the REUEP, perhaps even at some point reject the REUEP itself? Seemingly not: “The only requirement for you to consider yourself a Humanian is the commitment to try to live according to the Rational-Ethical Ultimate Ethical Principle.”But is this “requirement” consistent with humanians’ claims that it does not define any view as heresy, and that it is the property of all humanity.
3. In the name of the REUEP principle, why is “ethical” repeated? Is this meaningless redundancy, or redundancy for emphasis, or does it signify differently in each occurrence?
4. Are there any limitations on the interpretation of the REUEP or does it mean what humanians say it means? Does REUEP simply become whatever we interpret the REUEP to be? If so, then does humanianity simply become a name for an illusory construct, an embrace of five letters that stand for a fluctuating proposition? If the words of REUEP means different things to different people, in what sense is humanianity a community of believers?
5. What is meant by “we”? Is “we” undefined or defined? If it is defined, is it defined as a species (as in Plato) or is it simply a set of individuals (as in class logic)? If it is defined, can this definition change and what does that do to “humanianity”?
6. What is meant by “should”? Is this concept defined or undefined? Does it presuppose freedom on the part of “we”?
7. What is meant by “will promote”? Is this an existential claim, a prediction of a predetermined, inevitable state, or is it a hope which exists because our knowledge of the future is limited, a psychological wishing, either a brain-state which is forced upon us by our particular genes and the environmental conditions in which our brains developed, or one which we freely embrace? And if we do not know the answer to this question, does it affect what we mean by the REUEP?
8. What is meant by “our species”? Is this intended to be a biological concept or an ethical one? If science comes to the consensus that “species” has no existential import, does this invalidate or “falsify” REUEP by making it meaningless?
9. Are JCA/PSDED existential, ethical, or aesthetic states? How does one quantify JCA and PSDED, to measure “as much as possible”? For example, do we commit ourselves to a materialist interpretation of these, e.g. dopamine levels in the brain, making chemical states of the brain the only “value”, and if so, then how does humanianity escape the scenario of Huxley’s “Brave New World”? Or do we commit ourselves to the fact that the values that humanianity aims at are social constructs, making the REUEP simply a form of moral relativism, and if so, then how does it escape the problem of the tyranny of the values defined by the majority or power-dominant? Or do we commit ourselves to a Kantian system of ideal values or the Platonic system of ideal goods, and if so, how do we escape the metaphysical difficulty of objectively determining what those absolute goods are? And if we do not commit to any of these interpretations, then in what sense is maximizing JCA and minimizing PSDED meaningful goals?
10. What if an increase in JCA also leads to an increase in PSDED, how does one measure whether there is a net gain or loss? How does one balance present JCA against future PSDED or present PSDED against future JCA? How does one balance the gain or loss in one individual against the gain or loss in another? How does one establish a hierarchy of goods, or an equivalence of goods? If one coarse of action maximizes JCA and minimizes PSDED for most of humanity at the cost of minimizing JCA and maximizing PSDED for one individual, is that coarse justified, and how could such a question possibly be answered? And if this calculus of values is undefined, then isn’t the very heart of the REUEP a meaningless concept, like a physics built on the notion of mass where mass has no operational definition?
11. How is humanianity different from J.S. Mill’s Utilitarian philosophy, and how does it escape the internal, logical difficulties of that system?
12. If a proposition is accepted as true (because it can be verified or at least shown to be highly probable and consistent with all other accepted propositions) but the dissemination of this proposition will deduce JCA or increase PSDED, would the REUEP require that it be suppressed? (In other words, does the REUEP place “truth” among its values?)

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

All excellent questions, and I intend to answer all of them. I am aiming for this weekend or Monday and Tuesday. But also, many of these questions have been answered at least to some extent in Book1 and Book2. I say this because it will be difficult to provide really easily understood answers when the thinking is in some areas different from the way we normally think, and if the way we normally think is what this is all about, then we would already know and accept the answers. So I am hoping that you will indeed test out these ideas fully by doing the reading. My impression so far is that you really do have an interest in what we are writing about. I hope that I am making a contribution, but that remains to be seen.

Regarding whether Humanianity is a religion or an ethical philosophy, one has to recognize that there can be different definitions of "religion." If you look at all things that we have called "religion" and ask what the common denominator is, it appears to be the set of psychosocial efforts, and social institutions that aid in those efforts, to figure out how best to live our lives. So Religion is that set of psychosocial efforts to arrive at a basic ethical philosophy. Science helps us to achieve increasingly accurate existential beliefs, and Religion helps us to develop a set of consistent, effective ethical beliefs. Science helps us to know how to, and Religion helps us to decide whether to. Science gives us nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs. Religion should help us to decide which to do. Science and Religion should be coworkers. And one without the other can easily be dangerous. But so is bad Science, and so is bad Religion. And Science is always seeking improvement. Religion is improving, but rather slowly. Humanianity is the underlying Religious movement that is going in the direction of improvement. ("Humanianity" is just my label for that movement that is occurring among us, in my opinion.) Many people have aligned themselves with Science or Religion, and think that the other should be stamped out. Both are valuable, and both should move ahead as we as a species are gradually doing.

That's all I have time for at the moment. I'll be back.

Bill

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote: 2. What is meant by “for Everyone”? Is it in the sense of a formal cause, namely, humanianity is “catholic”, that is, everyone is welcome to embrace its ethical doctrines; or is it in the sense of final cause, namely, “for the benefit of everyone”, in the sense that its ethical doctrine is meant to benefit everyone; or is it in the sense of material cause, that is, it is a religious group composed of every human being; or is it in the sense of agent cause, namely, a religion made and defined by everyone?
Although I do not understand your use of "cause" in your question, my answer would be that the first, second, and fourth definitions would be appropriate. BUT, it is not a doctrine. I believe you may be imposing upon Humanianity a stereotype that does not apply.
Some philosophies would consider the REUEP to be logically problematic, or even incoherent: would adherents to such philosophies be excluded from humanianity, or would they be welcome to overturn the REUEP?
Neither. "Humanianity" is just a label applied to a general movement that I believe, rightly or wrongly, is occurring. A Humanian is a "Humanian" because of meeting the definition. If a person really is committed to some other ultimate ethical principle, then the person could not be labeled as a Humanian. There would be no reason to "overturn" anything. That person could advocate for a different ultimate ethical principle, and could also suggest to others that, if they agree that that ultimate ethical principle is more desirable, they consider themselves to be _____s. The label is just to help communicating. Using symbols to engage in cooperation is something we humans do that is done comparatively very, very little by other species. But if Humanians wished to restate the REUEP in other words, they would be welcome to do so. The important effort is at cooperation, using good communication.
(I am thinking of the issue faced by Christianity, where certain people raised in Christianity continue to call themselves Christians while reject some of Christianities most fundamental doctrine, something they accomplish by attempting to redefine Christianity.) Could a humanian accept some of the doctrines developed in the Belief Manual while rejecting the primacy of the REUEP, perhaps even at some point reject the REUEP itself? Seemingly not: “The only requirement for you to consider yourself a Humanian is the commitment to try to live according to the Rational-Ethical Ultimate Ethical Principle.”But is this “requirement” consistent with humanians’ claims that it does not define any view as heresy, and that it is the property of all humanity.
Again, you talk about "doctrines" in the Belief Manual. There are none. The Belief Manual is only a report as to what people believe, by the people who believe those things. The Belief Manual can have in it beliefs that are the opposite of one another. Two Humanian organizations can endorse two opposite beliefs. This allows for further discussion and friendly debate. The Belief Manual is a study tool. You have not yet understood the fundamental differences between the Belief Manual and literature like the Bible, that has indeed been used for the construction or support of "doctrine." I recommend you read about the Belief Manual on the Home page.

Your observation is correct that within the religious tradition called "Christianity" there is significant diversity of opinion and significant adaptation to our increasingly more knowledgeable state. It is a difficult process for them. But that process is a part of the phenomenon of "Humanianity" as the term is meant to be used. Religion can improve. And the idea of "doctrine" is one that is gradually being abandoned, I believe. Religion has a long way to go in its improvement, but that improvement is occurring, and, I believe, is the most essential feature of the third exponential change that I have written about. My effort is to call attention to that change and to do what I can to help it along.

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote:3. In the name of the REUEP principle, why is “ethical” repeated? Is this meaningless redundancy, or redundancy for emphasis, or does it signify differently in each occurrence?
To understand this well, you would best read Book1 (at HomoRationalis.com) at least through the chapter on "Basic Concepts; Ethics." But I understand your wondering about it. And I will try to explain briefly.

The third exponential change (very early in its development) is, I believe, a change from the kind of ethics that is a part of our basic animal nature to a different kind of ethics. The change in ethics is a change from what I have labeled "authoritarian ethics" to what I have labeled as "rational ethics." The only difference between the two kinds of ethics is the ultimate ethical principle.

In "authoritarian ethics," the ultimate ethical principle is something like: "We should do that which X wants us to do, X being whoever or whatever is most powerful."

In "rational ethics," the ultimate ethical principle is the REUEP (given at the top of the page), "We should do that which will promote not only…."

[edit 1/21/2017: I happened to be reading this today and just wanted to point out that subsequently I have realized that there can be other rational-ethical systems that are based upon some other ultimate ethical principle than the Humanian one. I advocate for the Humanian one.]

So there is the authoritarian-ethical ultimate ethical principle and the rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle.

And an ultimate ethical principle, by the way, is arbitrary. That is what is meant by ultimate. It cannot be legitimated. Otherwise it would not be ultimate.

But now there is one part of this labeling that I am indeed somewhat dissatisfied with. Actually, authoritarian ethics is just as "rational" as ethics with the REUEP as its UEP. What would be better would be the "Humanian ultimate ethical principle." But when I first looked for a label for what I was talking about, the "Humanianity" label had not been put forth. And so now I ask myself how disruptive it would be to bring about the change in the label. We would need to keep in mind the earlier label, so that we could understand the history of the development of the label and concept. What do you think about that? As a Humanian, if you believe you are one, what would you like for us to do?

And if you aren't a Humanian, I would be interested in what your ultimate ethical principle, that you are committed to, is. Or are you committed to any ultimate ethical principle? Or do you think there should be no way of legitimizing ethical beliefs?

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote:4. Are there any limitations on the interpretation of the REUEP or does it mean what humanians say it means? Does REUEP simply become whatever we interpret the REUEP to be? If so, then does humanianity simply become a name for an illusory construct, an embrace of five letters that stand for a fluctuating proposition? If the words of REUEP means different things to different people, in what sense is humanianity a community of believers?
Humanianity is not "a community of believers." It is the religious orientation of a growing number of people. "Humanianity" is the label for that religious movement (in the direction of improvement). The REUEP is just a set of words that is to convey an ethical principle that is emerging within our species and that I am trying to advocate for, as would any Humanian, whether recognized by himself or herself (or others) as Humanian. There may be even better ways to say it. I have used some variation of those words also.

Language is very ambiguous and imprecise. That's why true understanding is brought about by more words, not fewer ones. That is why, if you wish to be Humanian, you will need to study. I hope that is your interest. I hope you want to make the world a better place. I believe that we are making progress, but have a long way to go.

And the REUEP is not some sort of legal doctrine that is designed to control people. It is a clarification of an idea, by putting it into the seemingly best words that can be thought of at the time of constructing it. Any Humanian would have an interest in whether there was a better way to say it. But what a Humanian would not do would be to say that because the REUEP is not precisely defined, as in a mathematical or scientific-technical sense, there is no reason to spend any time or effort on becoming a better person and on making the world a better place for everyone.

Many people believe that significant change of the kind I'm talking about is impossible, that we are as good as we will ever get. I don't believe that, and I think we can already see some change. The drifting away from totalitarian rule is one such way. The emergence of the concept of "human rights" (as opposed to the rights of citizenship) is another. We are becoming less tribal and more concerned about everyone in our species. And the emergence of non-punitive child rearing is another example.

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote:5. What is meant by “we”? Is “we” undefined or defined? If it is defined, is it defined as a species (as in Plato) or is it simply a set of individuals (as in class logic)? If it is defined, can this definition change and what does that do to “humanianity”?
It means "we humans."

If 'we" is to mean ourselves (humans) and also chimps, and cats, and dogs, then the REUEP wording would not reflect what the REUEP is meant to convey.

If you are waiting for an ultimate ethical principle that is completely, precisely defined, with no ambiguous boundaries of meaning, in order to be an ethical person, then you will not be able to be one, because language is inherently ambiguous and imprecise. Even technical language is ultimately that way, when you take a technical definition and try then to define each of the words in that definition, and each of the words in those definitions, etc.

In Book2 (at HomoRationalis.com), the REUEP is somewhat defined, and the problem about precise boundaries not existing is discussed. The fact that you cannot precisely say when death is early does not mean that we should consider the death of children to be accepted as okay.

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote:6. What is meant by “should”? Is this concept defined or undefined? Does it presuppose freedom on the part of “we”?
Your second question above is, I assume, referring to the mind-body problem with its sub-problem, the free-will vs. determinism problem. That problem is too complex to answer here (at least involving my answer). But it is given in Book3 at Homorationalis.com.

But the concept of "should" is indeed quite interesting and complex. I would again refer you to Book1 for a discussion of the development of ethics.

"Should" is a word used in a sentence such that it makes the sentence a linguistic model of an ethical belief. (There are other uses of "should,' of course, as in "According to this map, the store should be around the corner," a sentence modeling an existential belief.)

Such beliefs have to a greater or lesser extent motivation to do that which one believes one "should," called by some the "ethical sense."

So a person using the word is trying to convey an ethical belief by putting it into a sentence that will convey sufficient meaning to the listener or reader.

I do not know the equivalent words in other languages.

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote:7. What is meant by “will promote”? Is this an existential claim, a prediction of a predetermined, inevitable state, or is it a hope which exists because our knowledge of the future is limited, a psychological wishing, either a brain-state which is forced upon us by our particular genes and the environmental conditions in which our brains developed, or one which we freely embrace? And if we do not know the answer to this question, does it affect what we mean by the REUEP?
Good question. A perhaps better wording would be "We should do that which we believe is most likely to promote…" or "more likely to promote…."

The mind-body problem is lurking in this question also (see 6.).

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote:8. What is meant by “our species”? Is this intended to be a biological concept or an ethical one? If science comes to the consensus that “species” has no existential import, does this invalidate or “falsify” REUEP by making it meaningless?
A biological label, with the assumption that the reader/listener would have little trouble distinguishing one of our selves from a chimp, bonobo, ape, tiger, etc. The question is, is what is communicated by the phrase sufficiently clear that the phrase is adequate for the the communicative task being attempted. Do you think that someone might think it was meant to include chimps, cats, etc.? If so, clarification is indeed needed. You are the first person to raise the question. Are you unclear in your mind as to what is meant by "our species"? If indeed a human successfully impregnates a bonobo (or vice versa), I would welcome the offspring into our species, as the phrase is being used in the REUEP. But I would listen to you if you thought we shouldn't do so. I prefer inclusiveness, when there is sufficient question. I believe it is the Humanian thing to do, because the more we exercise our empathy, the more empathetic we become, and empathy usually reduces PSDED.

Regarding the whole problem of definition in such discussion, I refer you to Book1 (at HomoRationalis.com), in the chapter "Basic Methods in This Book."

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote:9. Are JCA/PSDED existential, ethical, or aesthetic states? How does one quantify JCA and PSDED, to measure “as much as possible”? For example, do we commit ourselves to a materialist interpretation of these, e.g. dopamine levels in the brain, making chemical states of the brain the only “value”, and if so, then how does humanianity escape the scenario of Huxley’s “Brave New World”? Or do we commit ourselves to the fact that the values that humanianity aims at are social constructs, making the REUEP simply a form of moral relativism, and if so, then how does it escape the problem of the tyranny of the values defined by the majority or power-dominant? Or do we commit ourselves to a Kantian system of ideal values or the Platonic system of ideal goods, and if so, how do we escape the metaphysical difficulty of objectively determining what those absolute goods are? And if we do not commit to any of these interpretations, then in what sense is maximizing JCA and minimizing PSDED meaningful goals?
They (JCA and PSDED) are experiences or situations. They can only poorly and somewhat arbitrarily be "quantified." The question is whether that makes them meaningless, and therefore able to serve no benefit. For instance, are you sufficiently unclear as to what suffering is that you would feel free to engage in torturing someone? Does the lack of precise definition justify your robbing someone?

In Brave New World, there was much suffering, wasn't there? That would mean to me that they were probably not doing what they should be doing, that there would be a better way. Control from behind the scenes I believe leads to PSDED more than open decision-making with friendly debate of all issues. That is my Humanian opinion. What is yours?

You speak of moral relativism. I would say that every situation must be considered, as much as possible, in its totality, and that there will always be ambiguity. Ambiguity and uncertainty do not make impossible doing that which will most likely increase JCA and reduce PSDED. But in many situations, what should be done will be impossible to determine, or at least impossible to decide upon with any strong feeling of certainty. That doesn't mean we should throw out the window all effort to increase JCA and reduce PSDED, does it? This is covered in Book2 (HomoRationalis.com) [Edit: 12/30/20], now humanianity.com under PHILOSOPHY. [End Edit]

Indeed, Humanianity is the answer to "the tyranny of the values defined by the majority or power-dominant." It advocates for everyone, not just the majority or the power-dominant.

The concept of "absolute goods" seems to be a relatively useless concept, and I think that has been the philosophical conclusion for some time now, right?

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote:10. What if an increase in JCA also leads to an increase in PSDED, how does one measure whether there is a net gain or loss? How does one balance present JCA against future PSDED or present PSDED against future JCA? How does one balance the gain or loss in one individual against the gain or loss in another? How does one establish a hierarchy of goods, or an equivalence of goods? If one coarse of action maximizes JCA and minimizes PSDED for most of humanity at the cost of minimizing JCA and maximizing PSDED for one individual, is that coarse justified, and how could such a question possibly be answered? And if this calculus of values is undefined, then isn’t the very heart of the REUEP a meaningless concept, like a physics built on the notion of mass where mass has no operational definition?
No, I don't think so. The fact that we cannot precisely measure the amount of suffering we are contemplating causing does not, to me, mean that we should just go ahead and do it. The fact that some ethical decisions are very difficult to feel confident about, or that there are some ethical decisions that would seem totally uncertain, does not mean that all ethical decisions are that way, and that there is no reason to be ethical, to do the right thing. All we can do is try to do the best that we can do. I have seen examples of the reasoning that because some efforts to make the world a better place (e.g., communism) have actually led to things being worse, then we should stop trying to make the world a better place so we won't end up making it worse, rather than concluding that we can make mistakes and that it is important to work continually on coming up with better answers. So although I cannot come up with a precise, universal "calculus of values" does not mean to me that I should give up on having values, on trying to make the world a better place. That we can't be God doesn't mean that we can't be better humans.

See, you are asking all these questions of me without giving me any of your answers. Would you answer this question: "Is there anything that you believe you should not do?" If you say no, I will say that you should go to a church, synagogue, temple, psychotherapist, or police station. If you answer yes, then I would like to ask you how you legitimate your belief. How do you arrive at it? What is your ultimate ethical principle that you use for your basic ethical philosophy? If you have no ethical beliefs at all, you are an anomaly. I am advocating that all of us who are concerned and distressed by all of the (what we regard as) awful, even tragic things that we do to ourselves and each other join forces and try to make the world an even better place, where we treat each other in ways consistent with the REUEP, as much as we can, to the best of our understanding. Does that move you at all to study further this effort that many of us are engaged in? Will you join us? If not, why?

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote:11. How is humanianity different from J.S. Mill’s Utilitarian philosophy, and how does it escape the internal, logical difficulties of that system?
Well, the REUEP doesn't say the same thing, does it? That's how it is different. A Humanian is concerned about everyone, not just the majority, and the inability to precisely quantify emotional states, physical suffering, and undesirability of situations does not mean that we should give up trying and just live for the maximal pleasure of the moment, no matter what the consequences.

Again, what do you propose as a more optimal alternative to what I advocate for?

If you believe what I am advocating for is not what should be done, then either you believe you know of a better alternative, or you believe there is no answer, right? And if there is no answer, then there isn't anything that you should not do, right? Please state what your conclusions are, that you believe are better than mine. I am eager to hear. If what you advocate makes sense to me, I will graduate from Humanianity into your way of thinking and will study what you have to say.

I think it is wonderful that you have asked all these questions, because you are not alone in having them, and they need to be answered.

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Some basic questions raised by the home page

Post by wvanfleet »

Rock wrote:12. If a proposition is accepted as true (because it can be verified or at least shown to be highly probable and consistent with all other accepted propositions) but the dissemination of this proposition will [r]educe JCA or increase PSDED, would the REUEP require that it be suppressed? (In other words, does the REUEP place “truth” among its values?)

Those are not two ways of asking the same question. They are different questions.

The REUEP doesn't do anything. People do things. People value things. Humanians probably do value truth because lying generally causes PSDED. But if a Humanian thought that by telling the truth he or she would increase PSDED, he or she probably would withhold the truth. It would depend on the total situation, and would require doing some serious thinking. You are perhaps thinking of Humanianity as a rigid way of thinking that is imposed upon people, rather than as an effort to make the world a better place by sharing and comparing of beliefs in the effort to arrive at agreement necessary for cooperation.

Well, I answered all 12 of your questions. I hope you will answer all of mine. I hope you will come to the conclusion that studying what is being advocated for here is tentatively worth your time. And you are making the world a better place by asking these questions, because others can learn from the dialogue and form more accurate conclusions themselves. So welcome to Humanianity (which, BTW, is capitalized).

Post Reply