Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Here is the place to comment on, clarify, and/or challenge the REUEP itself, and any derivative ethical principles or values.
Post Reply
wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by wvanfleet »

One of the most popular responses to Humanianity is the opinion that it should not exist, because its essentials exist elsewhere.  It seems to be just another XXX.  So far, the criticisms have been that it is essentially the same as Ethical Culture, that it is essentially the same as Secular Humanism, and that it is just another form of Utilitarianism.  I suspect that with time, even other names will claim property invasion.

There is a basic assumption in such criticisms, I believe, that territoriality of this sort is a good thing.  It's like "We are a good thing, so don't try to be like us or do the same thing we are doing.  Go find your own gig, that is different from everyone else's."  I can't help wondering why there would not be praise that another good effort was being made, if the motivation is indeed to do good.  But there has been criticism that another kid on the block might detract from what the others are trying to do, causing a loss of good rather than an increase in good.

I can't see it that way.  I believe anything we can do to help our poor species stop causing itself so much PSDED is a valuable thing to do, unless we can obtain some evidence that there are unintended negative effects of significance.

So, here would be the place for you to make your case for the extermination of Humanianity.  If doing so would be consistent with the REUEP, then I, as a Humanian, would feel obligated to do so.  It sure would give me a lot of free time to do other things.

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

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by wvanfleet »

I moved this post here, where it is no longer off topic.  Bill Van Fleet
REveritt wrote:
You (or we) should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species, but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future, the "good life" being here defined as "as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible, and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED) as possible.
This is nothing more or less than a form of utilitarianism; I see no reason to give it a new name.
Last edited by wvanfleet on Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by wvanfleet »

I moved this post here, where it is no longer off topic.  Bill Van Fleet
wvanfleet wrote:
REveritt wrote:
You (or we) should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species, but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future, the "good life" being here defined as "as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible, and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED) as possible.
This is nothing more or less than a form of utilitarianism; I see no reason to give it a new name.
Gosh, Humanianity is just Secular Humanism, just Ethical Culture, just Utilitarianism.  What next?!  It must be on the right track if it merges in with so many other efforts.

Why give Brights a name?  Isn't it just a form of Atheism?  Being a bright, how do you justify having this label?  Don't answer that.  I think the label is fine.

I know that you believe that Humanianity ought not to exist, or that a label should not be used for it, and we have discussed that a lot.  I'm hoping we can get beyond that issue and talk about what needs to be done by you and me to help make this world a better place.  All of the boards and topics under the Philosophical-Relgious Issues board are in some way connected to our worst problems as a species, and I, as a Humanian, believe that we should promote dialogue and increased understanding in these areas.  I hope you will take an interest in this aspect of Humanianity, even if you are not Humanian.

Again, thanks for your participation in the Forum.  I look forward to reading and responding to your posts.

Bill Van Fleet
Last edited by wvanfleet on Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by wvanfleet »

I moved this post here, where it is no longer off topic.  Bill Van Fleet
REveritt wrote:
Why give Brights a name?  Isn't it just a form of Atheism?  Being a bright, how do you justify having this label?  Don't answer that.  I think the label is fine.
The definition of a Bright is somewhat different than that of an atheist.  Atheists don't believe in God.  Brights don't believe in anything supernatural (including God).  Moreover, Brights have a specific civic action agenda.  But don't get me wrong--plenty of Brights (myself included) are not thrilled with the name.  I looked hard at some atheist groups prior to joining the Brights.  I was turned off by the very anti-religious rhetoric.  We do see some of that in the Brights, too, but much less than in some other groups.
I know that you believe that Humanianity ought not to exist, or that a label should not be used for it, and we have discussed that a lot.
Actually, I have two problems with Humanianity:
  • The name, which is goofy
  • Styling it a "religion", which is repugnant to me.

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

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Nee

Post by wvanfleet »

REveritt wrote:
Why give Brights a name? Isn't it just a form of Atheism? Being a bright, how do you justify having this label? Don't answer that. I think the label is fine.
The definition of a Bright is somewhat different than that of an atheist.
Exactly the reason for adding “Humanianity” to the list of somewhat similar phenomena!
Atheists don't believe in God. Brights don't believe in anything supernatural (including God). Moreover, Brights have a specific civic action agenda. But don't get me wrong--plenty of Brights (myself included) are not thrilled with the name. I looked hard at some atheist groups prior to joining the Brights. I was turned off by the very anti-religious rhetoric. We do see some of that in the Brights, too, but much less than in some other groups.
I know that you believe that Humanianity ought not to exist, or that a label should not be used for it, and we have discussed that a lot.
Actually, I have two problems with Humanianity:
  • The name, which is goofy
  • Styling it a "religion", which is repugnant to me.
Regarding the goofy name, I looked around for a name that had something to do with what it was naming, and that was not already in extensive use. “Humanianity” was the only name that met those criteria. People can’t say it, spell it, or remember it, so it’s not optimal.

I am not “styling” it as a religion. I define “religion,” and it meets the criteria of that definition, and that definition, as I have pointed out, seems a reasonable one if one takes a look at all things called “religion” and looks for the most common denominator.

You take a look at the bad that is in many religions and therefore develop a negative reaction to all religions. This is understandable prejudging. I believe that none of the bad that you have reacted to is present in Humanianity. I regret that you have that negative reaction to this effort just because of the word used to classify it. I hope that you will come to see the value in it.

REveritt
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by REveritt »

You take a look at the bad that is in many religions and therefore develop a negative reaction to all religions. 
Not all religions.  I don't have a negative reaction to Zen Buddhism.

What I see as the common denominator in all religions, and which defines "religion" for me, is unthinking devotion to some unchanging dogma or metaphysical discipline.  It is true that there are people who try very hard to stretch the boundaries of religious practice, while still adhering to some central belief in which they have a deep emotional investment.  But I have no such emotional investment in any religion.  I've never been a member of one, and have no intention of ever being a member of one.

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

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by wvanfleet »

REveritt wrote:
You take a look at the bad that is in many religions and therefore develop a negative reaction to all religions. 
Not all religions.  I don't have a negative reaction to Zen Buddhism.

What I see as the common denominator in all religions, and which defines "religion" for me, is unthinking devotion to some unchanging dogma or metaphysical discipline.  It is true that there are people who try very hard to stretch the boundaries of religious practice, while still adhering to some central belief in which they have a deep emotional investment.  But I have no such emotional investment in any religion.  I've never been a member of one, and have no intention of ever being a member of one.
Are you saying, then, that Zen Buddhism does not meet your definition of religion, since you do not have a negative reaction to it?

I agree that many religions are characterized by "unthinking devotion to some unchanging dogma or metaphysical discipline," but I don't see this as the common denominator of all religion, or its most important common denominator.  If I defined religion as you do, I would probably agree with you.  But I obviously believe something valuable is lost by using that definition.  I doubt that Unitarian Universalists would regard your description as an accurate picture of them.

Your concept of religion does not seem to include the possibility of religions improving, such that what you reject about them would ultimately not be a part of at least some religions.

Rejecting all religions as bad because they have bad features I think is less optimal than regarding religions to be the same as humans in general, not perfect and having a lot of improving to do.

I don't know of any human activity that is as prone to help individuals to focus on the question as to what is important in life and to provide a sense of meaning to people's lives.  I am not saying that this cannot be accomplished without any of the religions, but I am saying that there is no other activity that has this as such a central function, at least that I can think of.

You have the option of temporarily accepting my definition for the purpose of this discussion, in order to see if indeed there is value in these ideas, or the option of not so exploring this line of thought.  It could still turn out that this line of thought is nonproductive, but you won't be able to make that judgement if you decide that it can't be productive because of the name applied to it or the category in which it is placed.  You can judge the line of thought, or prejudge it.  You have said elsewhere that you do engage in dialogue with others who disagree with you, so it would be great if you were to come inside and look around, rather than just marking off the house as not valuable because of its external appearance.  Hopefully you will not judge Humanianity by the color of its label and definition.

REveritt
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by REveritt »

Are you saying, then, that Zen Buddhism does not meet your definition of religion, since you do not have a negative reaction to it?
No, I am not saying that. 
I doubt that Unitarian Universalists would regard your description as an accurate picture of them.
No, but the UUs hardly qualify as a religion.  They don't believe much of anything.  It's more of a social and political action organization.  I have nothing against the UUs; I just find it difficult to think of them as a religion in the usual sense.
Your concept of religion does not seem to include the possibility of religions improving, such that what you reject about them would ultimately not be a part of at least some religions.
OK; I'll stipulate that religions can improve.  I still have no use for them.  They offer nothing that I can't find without them, and they offer much that I find unacceptable.
I don't know of any human activity that is as prone to help individuals to focus on the question as to what is important in life and to provide a sense of meaning to people's lives.  I am not saying that this cannot be accomplished without any of the religions, but I am saying that there is no other activity that has this as such a central function, at least that I can think of.
Too bad for those people who must believe that a ghost in the sky will damn them for eternity before they are willing to think about how they live their lives.  Some of us see the importance of thinking about ethics without any recourse to mumbo-jumbo.
You have the option of temporarily accepting my definition for the purpose of this discussion, in order to see if indeed there is value in these ideas, or the option of not so exploring this line of thought.  It could still turn out that this line of thought is nonproductive, but you won't be able to make that judgement if you decide that it can't be productive because of the name applied to it or the category in which it is placed.
Or...we can explore each other's ideas without the prerequisite of my accepting your definitions for things.
ou have said elsewhere that you do engage in dialogue with others who disagree with you, so it would be great if you were to come inside and look around, rather than just marking off the house as not valuable because of its external appearance.
That is what I have been doing here.

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

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by wvanfleet »

REveritt wrote:
Your concept of religion does not seem to include the possibility of religions improving, such that what you reject about them would ultimately not be a part of at least some religions.
OK; I'll stipulate that religions can improve.  I still have no use for them.  They offer nothing that I can't find without them, and they offer much that I find unacceptable.
Now it is my belief that Humanianity has much to offer you, and that it does not offer anything that you would consider unacceptable, assuming that you came to understand what it really is.  Knowing your values, I would predict that you would even eventually come to advocate for it.  What is stopping you is all the negative stuff that you have come to associate with religion, because probably all of them have negative stuff, this being true of humans in general.
I don't know of any human activity that is as prone to help individuals to focus on the question as to what is important in life and to provide a sense of meaning to people's lives.  I am not saying that this cannot be accomplished without any of the religions, but I am saying that there is no other activity that has this as such a central function, at least that I can think of.
Too bad for those people who must believe that a ghost in the sky will damn them for eternity before they are willing to think about how they live their lives.  Some of us see the importance of thinking about ethics without any recourse to mumbo-jumbo.
Again, you are condemning religions because of the archaic function that they retain from before the second exponential change, rather than seeing religion, assuming continuing improvement, as having the potential for helping people to 93think about ethics.94  (I think we think about ethics all the time, almost automatically, but we do not do it effectively, and we are still primarily committed to authoritarian ethics, as I define it, and only beginning to make the major transition to rational ethics, as I define it).
You have the option of temporarily accepting my definition for the purpose of this discussion, in order to see if indeed there is value in these ideas, or the option of not so exploring this line of thought.  It could still turn out that this line of thought is nonproductive, but you won't be able to make that judgement if you decide that it can't be productive because of the name applied to it or the category in which it is placed.
Or...we can explore each other's ideas without the prerequisite of my accepting your definitions for things.
We can92t explore each other92s ideas unless we know what they are.  And we can92t know what they are unless we are told, and we still can92t know what they are if we understand incorrectly what we have been told.  And we can92t understand correctly what we have been told if we have different meanings for the words that the other is using than what the other means by them.

I have the strong impression that you still do not understand that I am not asking you to use certain definitions for words whenever you use them.  I am simply trying to convey ideas to you and giving you a glossary for how I am using the words so that my meaning for my words will be the same, in the given discussion, as your meaning of them.  We can of course use your definitions, and then I would probably agree with much that you say, maybe all of it.  But a set of definitions is like a slice through an orange to see what it is like inside, and certain slices may be more useful than others for seeing things clearly.
You have said elsewhere that you do engage in dialogue with others who disagree with you, so it would be great if you were to come inside and look around, rather than just marking off the house as not valuable because of its external appearance.
That is what I have been doing here.
Yes, and I think that is great.  And I very much appreciate it.  You are helping me a lot, and I hope that you also are getting something out of this effort.  It is very important to a Humanian like me that we both get something out of it.

REveritt
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by REveritt »

Now it is my belief that Humanianity has much to offer you, and that it does not offer anything that you would consider unacceptable, assuming that you came to understand what it really is.  Knowing your values, I would predict that you would even eventually come to advocate for it.  What is stopping you is all the negative stuff that you have come to associate with religion, because probably all of them have negative stuff, this being true of humans in general.
I don't have a strongly negative attitude about Humanianity, or I would not be here, but I do not see that it offers me anything that I cannot get elsewhere.
Again, you are condemning religions because of the archaic function that they retain from before the second exponential change, rather than seeing religion, assuming continuing improvement, as having the potential for helping people to 93think about ethics.94  (I think we think about ethics all the time, almost automatically, but we do not do it effectively, and we are still primarily committed to authoritarian ethics, as I define it, and only beginning to make the major transition to rational ethics, as I define it).
It is my aversion to "authoritarian ethics" that is one of the reasons that I react negatively to your styling Humanianity as a religion.  Humanianity seems to be a philosophy (a form of Utilitarianism, as I have said).  Certainly, religions often contain elements of ethics, but they also typically contain other elements, including supernatural beliefs, revealed truth, threat of punishment, and so on.  If Humanianity has none of those other elements, then why not simply call it a philosophy?  Do you call it a religion in the hope of attracting people who think they need religion?

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

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by wvanfleet »

REveritt wrote:
Now it is my belief that Humanianity has much to offer you, and that it does not offer anything that you would consider unacceptable, assuming that you came to understand what it really is.  Knowing your values, I would predict that you would even eventually come to advocate for it.  What is stopping you is all the negative stuff that you have come to associate with religion, because probably all of them have negative stuff, this being true of humans in general.
I don't have a strongly negative attitude about Humanianity, or I would not be here, but I do not see that it offers me anything that I cannot get elsewhere.
Well actually, that is an interesting issue.  Indeed, anything that Humanianity has to offer, if it is good, surely must exist elsewhere also, because Humanianity is all about identifying all the different ways of promoting the REUEP.  If only Humanianity had all the answers, then the world would surely be a strange place!  Of course the good and helpful things in this world are distributed throughout the world, and replicated many times over.  It92s not that the whole world is wrong, with the exception of the tiny island of Humanianity.

But if that is so, then what is the use of Humanianity?

First of all, we have to remember that Humanianity is for everyone.  That doesn92t mean that everyone has just found out that they are embedded in Humanianity.  It means that Humanianity is there for them if they wish it.  And Humanianity is there for those that indeed are Humanian (committed to trying to live according to the REUEP), but also for those that simply find it interesting or helpful in any way.

But what is that help supposed to be?

Humanianity is supposed to be a central, most convenient 93place94 for an individual to do the most profound thinking regarding the central issues in his or her life, the construction of the meaning of the life that he or she will have lived, the answer to who he or she is and who he or she wishes and intends to become.  And it is free.

Now I would like to ask you where that is available to you other than at Humanianity?  I92m sure it is available, maybe at some religious organizations, but you don92t like them.  You could hire a psychotherapist, but I92ll bet you would not be able to talk about the things you can talk about at Humanianity, and it will cost you.

And it could be rather stressful and unrewarding (and even unwise in some cases) to attempt to do this with your primary significant other.

So where can you go for this function within your life?

To be sure, you don92t have to do this in the first place.  And no one is going to force you to.  Humanianity is there only if you find it useful. I believe that the world would be a better place if everyone had such motivation, but we are young as a species and only some of us will have this kind of motivation until we become much more mature.  (That time I refer to as the time of 93Homo rationalis.94)
Again, you are condemning religions because of the archaic function that they retain from before the second exponential change, rather than seeing religion, assuming continuing improvement, as having the potential for helping people to 93think about ethics.94  (I think we think about ethics all the time, almost automatically, but we do not do it effectively, and we are still primarily committed to authoritarian ethics, as I define it, and only beginning to make the major transition to rational ethics, as I define it).
It is my aversion to "authoritarian ethics" that is one of the reasons that I react negatively to your styling Humanianity as a religion. 
But hopefully you are beginning to contemplate the possibility of religion based upon rational ethics rather than authoritarian ethics (using my definitions of these terms).
Humanianity seems to be a philosophy (a form of Utilitarianism, as I have said).
Humanianity is a human activity designed to help people choose the answers to the philosophical questions that are important to them.  What form of Utilitarianism is it?
Certainly, religions often contain elements of ethics, but they also typically contain other elements, including supernatural beliefs, revealed truth, threat of punishment, and so on.  If Humanianity has none of those other elements, then why not simply call it a philosophy?
Well first, I think everything that has been called a religion has ethics as its central feature.  None of the 93other elements94 you name are found universally in all things called 93religion.94  Humanianity can contain them, but does not have to.  Your Humanianity and mine would be rather similar, I suspect.
Do you call it a religion in the hope of attracting people who think they need religion?
YES!  And I believe they are right!  We as a species need a religion or religions, but they need to be much better than most that we currently have.  As we mature as a species, so will our religions.  And our maturing religions will help us to mature.  People are not all at the same level of maturity.  A good example is that of children and adults.  Another is that of the relatively uneducated and educated.  Another is that of the relatively emotionally impaired and unimpaired.  We humans do best by helping each other to become the best we can become, and to live the best lives of which we are capable.

And the more we do this, the better is life for all of us, now and in the future.  By better, I mean only having as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible.

REveritt
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by REveritt »

Now I would like to ask you where that is available to you other than at Humanianity?
Good grief, Bill, do you imagine that I have nowhere else to discuss philosophy?  Obviously you haven't explored the Brights forum very much, or you would know that that is a major part of what we do there.  And there are dozens of other Internet forums where one can have discussions on this level--without the "umbrella" of a pre-defined "ultimate ethical principle".  I used to work at a university,where I relished the heavy philosophical conversations.  I must admit that I do miss those face-to-face dialogues.
YES!  And I believe they are right!  We as a species need a religion or religions, but they need to be much better than most that we currently have.  As we mature as a species, so will our religions.  And our maturing religions will help us to mature.  People are not all at the same level of maturity.  A good example is that of children and adults.  Another is that of the relatively uneducated and educated.  Another is that of the relatively emotionally impaired and unimpaired.  We humans do best by helping each other to become the best we can become, and to live the best lives of which we are capable.
OK; you have convinced me that Humanianity might be useful for some people.  I don't think I am one of them.  Not that I am not enjoying our dialogue, mind you, but I am not ready to sign up.  And it would be nice if there were other people here.  Where is everybody?

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

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by wvanfleet »

REveritt wrote:
Now I would like to ask you where that is available to you other than at Humanianity?
Good grief, Bill, do you imagine that I have nowhere else to discuss philosophy?  Obviously you haven't explored the Brights forum very much, or you would know that that is a major part of what we do there.  And there are dozens of other Internet forums where one can have discussions on this level--without the "umbrella" of a pre-defined "ultimate ethical principle".  I used to work at a university,where I relished the heavy philosophical conversations.  I must admit that I do miss those face-to-face dialogues.
Exactly!!  Where else on the Internet can you have discussions on this level97with the 93'umbrella' of a pre-defined 'ultimate ethical principle'94?  You have described the uniqueness of Humanianity.com!  Remember, of course, that Humanians consider all ideas open to question.  So of course Humanians would consider the question as to whether they should exist or not.

I had the experience of being in a Philosophy Discussion Group for about ten years at a UU church, and it contributed much to my philosophical thinking and my ultimately becoming a Humanian.  But my experience there, and in forums in general, is that there is much loss of goal direction, wandering of discussion, and motivation other than toward agreement.  In fact, much of the motivation seemed to have to do with a contest of skills, some of which have not seemed too savory to me.

So my motivation is not to have some 93interesting94 discussions about the way the world probably is ("Ain't it awful?!"), but instead to advocate for a far, far better way of life, recognizing that if no one advocates for it, it will never happen.
YES!  And I believe they are right!  We as a species need a religion or religions, but they need to be much better than most that we currently have.  As we mature as a species, so will our religions.  And our maturing religions will help us to mature.  People are not all at the same level of maturity.  A good example is that of children and adults.  Another is that of the relatively uneducated and educated.  Another is that of the relatively emotionally impaired and unimpaired.  We humans do best by helping each other to become the best we can become, and to live the best lives of which we are capable.
OK; you have convinced me that Humanianity might be useful for some people.  I don't think I am one of them.  Not that I am not enjoying our dialogue, mind you, but I am not ready to sign up.
Sign up?  Where?  Humanianity is a personal religion.  Indeed there may develop organizations to promote it, but one does not have to be in any organization to be a Humanian.  All one has to do is to commit to trying to live according to the REUEP.

And it would be nice if there were other people here.  Where is everybody?
Humanianity as a labeled effort has just been born.  (There is no way of knowing when it appeared on planet Earth.)  It is basically ahead of its time.  Things that are ahead of their time are usually met with prejudice, pejorative labeling, ridicule, hostility, and disregard.  But if they are ahead of their time, and are good, they usually have an exponential growth, imperceptible at first, but eventually 93taking off.94  Our first major exponential change was the development of our usage of symbols and the rules of syntax, giving us language.  The second major exponential change was our construction of the rules of logic and the rules of evidence, giving us science and technology, the growth of which is obviously exponential.  Still in its infancy is the shift from primarily authoritarian ethics (as I define it) to rational ethics (as I define it).  This will have been the emergence of (the metaphoric) 93Homo rationalis,94 as I use the term in the textbook.  And Humanianity will be their religion, I predict.

Yes, I yearn for others to come join us, and believe they will.  But what it will take is some advocacy.  And advocating, especially for something really, really good, is somewhat hazardous.

You might actually be able to interest a few brights in this strange effort.  Since I am so associated with the effort, I am easily dismissed as not worth understanding, though perhaps worthy of ridicule.  Someone other than myself would be more effective at calling attention to this effort.

You would not necessarily want to say that you agreed with it, and certainly would not want to state that you were a Humanian, even if you were, because you know what happens to people like that, being a bright.  So if you do convert, it would be best to stay in the closet for quite a while.  I can take the heat, but I don92t expect others to.
Last edited by wvanfleet on Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Tightwire Guy
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:53 pm

Re: Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?

Post by The Tightwire Guy »

REveritt wrote:
I don't have a strongly negative attitude about Humanianity, or I would not be here, but I do not see that it offers me anything that I cannot get elsewhere.
REveritt,

Consider the following:

When someone thinks/says "Humanianity" using standard English pronunciation rules, the first two syllables sound like "humane". In contrast, when someone thinks/says "Utilitarian", where in the sounds one hears in their mind or speak with their lips is one called to remember to be humane?

And if a human being subscribes to the notion of "I think, therefore I am" -- or any philosophical way of summarizing how/why they exist -- wouldn't you prefer that that person be reminded -- at the moment they are identifying the faith/philosophy/ethic/morality they subscribe to -- to be "humane" rather than all of the other ways they could be reminded of being? I know I do, and that is why I have joined this forum, and now heartily embrace calling myself a Humanian!   :)

And thank you, REveritt, for helping me realize this, even if it was not your intent.

The Tightwire Guy
Last edited by wvanfleet on Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply