Humanism

[G L Wilson]

Humanism is a cause for honour, yet all's futile in the end. I am not a writer, I am a failure. I do love humanism so but I cannot save it by deceit, it is not in my nature. The task is too monumental, the subject is too immense. Love is simple. Love conquers all in our dreams. Love is simply not enough. Love is a waste without a meeting of minds. There must be charity, and there is none. I am lost in a strange land.

[MarkBastable]

I am not a writer, I am a failure.

It is possible to be both.

[Delta40]

Is that a way to avoid responsibility for your existence or something?

[G L Wilson]

Is that a way to avoid responsibility for your existence or something?

I am a stranger in a strange land.

[billl]

I think it's an unfortunate title for this post, it being located in the Philosophical Literature thread (since I think people will expect a discussion of Humanism here).

It seems like you maybe want to do more on behalf of some project, and that you (personally) find love valuable, but are frustrated about complexity--of course I will have summed it up wrong here, I guess, it is undoubtedly difficult to put into words, whatever it is. But anyhow, I think there's a lot missing if this is meant to somehow connect to ideas about Humanism.


Love is simple. Love conquers all in our dreams. Love is simply not enough. Love is a waste without a meeting of minds. There must be charity, and there is none.

I think that someone who has lived a human life might very well, on their death-bed (and well before then) feel that their life was not at all futile. Of course, others might feel differently, but it isn't a view that should be laid out in a post that is titled as a discussion of Humanism. (Same goes for the bit about being a bad writer, I think, especially without further explanation.) And love can sometimes lead to a meeting of minds, but I've had and have love for people and creatures with whom I haven't really communicated too much at all, and/or haven't received recognition/thanks/praise from, etc. (for example). And really, if someone you love can't or doesn't want to have some sort of "meeting of minds" with you, well that's part of the human condition as much as anything else. Respect and uniqueness makes a loving relationship all the more powerful and significant.

And there is charity.

[YesNo]

Love is simple. Love conquers all in our dreams. Love is simply not enough. Love is a waste without a meeting of minds. There must be charity, and there is none. I am lost in a strange land.
I think the only solution to the problem is that you become the source for what you see lacking in the world. The rest should fall into place.

[G L Wilson]

I think it's an unfortunate title for this post, it being located in the Philosophical Literature thread (since I think people will expect a discussion of Humanism here).

It seems like you maybe want to do more on behalf of some project, and that you (personally) find love valuable, but are frustrated about complexity--of course I will have summed it up wrong here, I guess, it is undoubtedly difficult to put into words, whatever it is. But anyhow, I think there's a lot missing if this is meant to somehow connect to ideas about Humanism.


I think that someone who has lived a human life might very well, on their death-bed (and well before then) feel that their life was not at all futile. Of course, others might feel differently, but it isn't a view that should be laid out in a post that is titled as a discussion of Humanism. (Same goes for the bit about being a bad writer, I think, especially without further explanation.) And love can sometimes lead to a meeting of minds, but I've had and have love for people and creatures with whom I haven't really communicated too much at all, and/or haven't received recognition/thanks/praise from, etc. (for example). And really, if someone you love can't or doesn't want to have some sort of "meeting of minds" with you, well that's part of the human condition as much as anything else. Respect and uniqueness makes a loving relationship all the more powerful and significant.

And there is charity.

My ethics are fine until I meet with ignorance, then they go out the window if I am not careful. Liberty is the light on the hill, not equality or fraternity. Freedom means difference, nonetheless I will not get down on my belly like a frantic scavenging beast to a dullard. Stupidity must be eliminated, not soothed with sweet words that no-one believes in. Ignorance is not bliss, it's death to basic human rights. As Robespierre would say, it's very popular; that doesn't make it right.

[The Atheist]

My ethics are fine until I meet with ignorance, then they go out the window if I am not careful.

I can see why you struggle - ignorance is not just endemic, but a way of life. Ignorance is strength.


Stupidity must be eliminated, not soothed with sweet words that no-one believes in.

Good luck with that!

[G L Wilson]

Ignorance is strength - now that does sound Orwellian.

[MarkBastable]

Stupidity must be eliminated, not soothed with sweet words that no-one believes in..

No one? Surely not. Presumably the soothed people believe in them. I mean, unless they are too stupid to actually count as people.



Freedom means difference, nonetheless I will not get down on my belly like a frantic scavenging beast to a dullard.

We dullards are most disappointed. Well, to the extent that we're capable of any kind of real sentiment at all.

[G L Wilson]

No one? Surely not. Presumably the soothed people believe in them. I mean, unless they are too stupid to actually count as people.

We dullards are most disappointed. Well, to the extent that we're capable of any kind of real sentiment at all.

Both the soothed and soothers are too stupid for words. Dullards are like cows, they can chew grass and produce dung. The Devil defecates on the biggest dungheap. It is the way of the world.

[cyberbob]

It is possible to be both.

In fact, one usually precedes the other. :)

[G L Wilson]

Humanism is the scientification of love. The Scientification of Love is a book, it is a very humanistic means to a new psychology. It has a strange title, although its contents could seem even stranger to the illiterate. I recommend it highly to all right-thinking people.

[MarkBastable]

What are your views on the music of Mozart?

[G L Wilson]

I am not a Nazi. Nice try, Bastable.

[MarkBastable]

Huh? I think you mistake my purpose. Interesting mistake to make, though.

[G L Wilson]

Humanism concerns itself with all art and artists, crafts and craftsmen. Art is a high endeavour.