slag@charm.UUCP (Peter Rosenthal) (04/11/84)
for the vaxcrusher What is wrong with humanism??
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) (04/12/84)
for the vaxcrusher
>What is wrong with humanism??
Men set the standards in humanistic philosophy.
A German Nazi of the Hitler years could easily consider himself a cultured
humanist. Jews, Gypsies and certain others simply were not human.
--
Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
(Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals can believe them)alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (04/12/84)
+ > >What is wrong with humanism?? > Men set the standards in humanistic philosophy. > A German Nazi of the Hitler years could easily consider himself a cultured > humanist. Jews, Gypsies and certain others simply were not human. > Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo Men set the standards in all philosophies. --> Allen <-- ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/12/84)
>>What is wrong with humanism?? > Men set the standards in humanistic philosophy. > A German Nazi of the Hitler years could easily consider himself a cultured > humanist. Jews, Gypsies and certain others simply were not human. On the other hand, men (sic) set the standards in religious philosophy based on their obviously more enlightened perspective achieved by understanding the truth, though they have no way of proving that this perspective has its roots in anything remotely connected to "the truth". -- You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
tjt@kobold.UUCP (04/13/84)
Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo (ihuxt!martillo) objects to humanism on the grounds: >Men set the standards in humanistic philosophy. >A German Nazi of the Hitler years could easily consider himself a cultured >humanist. Jews, Gypsies and certain others simply were not human. To use a favorite explanation from this news group: "But these aren't the *real* humanists." After all the discussions about "Real Christians", "Real Jews", "Real Moslems", "Real Men" and "Real Programmers", how are you supposed to identify a "Real Humanist"? I would like to exclude anyone who attempts to exclude members of our biological species from the human race. Thus, someone who says "Jews, Gypsies and certain others simply are not human" is not a humanist. Is this axiom and "article of faith", and does this make humanism a religion after all? I don't think so. The primary dictionary definitions for religion specify belief in some god or gods (a "superhuman being" or "supernatural powers"). The fourth or fifth definition of religion may be more secular, and refers to any belief system or activity that is pursued with extreme zeal (by this definition, for many hackers, computers are a religion). -- Tom Teixeira, Massachusetts Computer Corporation. Westford MA ...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!tjt (617) 692-6200 x275
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/13/84)
Question: >>What is wrong with humanism?? Answer?: >Men set the standards in humanistic philosophy. Another Question: Who else is there to set standards in philosophy? -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70}!hao!ward BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (04/15/84)
> >What is wrong with humanism?? > Men set the standards in humanistic philosophy. i take this to be "men" as opposed to "gods". i think this is one of the reasons religion is popular; it lets one set standards for others while passing responsibility to a "higher power". this is, of course, not exclusive to religion. it is done in business, bureauocracy and politics too.
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) (04/19/84)
+ > > >What is wrong with humanism?? > > Men set the standards in humanistic philosophy. > > A German Nazi of the Hitler years could easily consider himself a cultured > > humanist. Jews, Gypsies and certain others simply were not human. > > Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo >Men set the standards in all philosophies. Just because a flaw might be common to all philosophies does not make it less a flaw. The original article requested an objection and did not specify that it be an objection unique to humanism. -- Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo (I don't care what you think about my signature)
Pucc-H:Pucc-I:ags@CS-Mordred.UUCP (04/20/84)
> >What is wrong with humanism?? > > Men set the standards in humanistic philosophy. > > A German Nazi of the Hitler years could easily consider himself a cultured > humanist. Jews, Gypsies and certain others simply were not human. > -- > > Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo > > (Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals can believe them) It is certainly true that a Nazi COULD have considered himself a cultured humanist. The fact is, however, that nearly all Nazis DID consider themselves Christians. -- Dave Seaman ..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags "Against people who give vent to their loquacity by extraneous bombastic circumlocution."
ljdickey@watmath.UUCP (Lee Dickey) (04/21/84)
[] > > >What is wrong with humanism?? > > > Men set the standards in humanistic philosophy. > > i take this to be "men" as opposed to "gods". > > i think this is one of the reasons religion is popular; it lets one set > standards for others while passing responsibility to a "higher power". > this is, of course, not exclusive to religion. it is done in business, > bureauocracy and politics too. Fantastic. You have hit on it! That is exactly the right answer. -- Lee Dickey, University of Waterloo. (ljdickey@watmath.UUCP) ... {allegra, decvax} !watmath!ljdickey
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) (04/22/84)
Nazism is probably a post-Christian phenomenon. 18th century Germans
hated Jews probably no less than early 20th century Germans, yet a
holocaust would have been relatively unthinkable (even if the technology
were available) in the 18th century. Traditional Christianity favored
degradation and humiliation of Jews but absolutely forbade massacres
(though of course they did occur). A holocaust became possible because
secularization of 19th century German society broke down traditional
constraints on collective behavior.
Significantly, the Orthodox Patriachs of Athens and several Rumanian
Patriarchs and the Uniate Archbishop of the Ukraine, who were avowed
antisemites, forbade their congregations to aid the Germans. In these
areas, traditional Christianity still existed or was the norm. I am not
sure but I seem to remember that the Germans executed the Patriarch of
Athens and the Archbishop. (A reader could point out the Spanish Expulsion
as actually having been worse than the German Holocaust. Yet the Catholic
church was officially opposed to expelling the Jews from Spain.)
A similar situation obtains in Iran. Khomeini is a rather traditional
leader, and feels constrained by Islamic tradition. Consequently, he has
not massacred the Jewish community as long as they grovel enough (I mean
lick the dirt). Hafez el-Assad of the modern nationalist secular Baath
party feels no such constraints and has shown a willingness to commit
massacres well beyond the bounds of Islamic tradition.
The Soviet Union also demonstrates the breakdown of traditional
constraints. Despite the softness of a large part of the American Jewish
community toward the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union has without any doubt
whatsoever treated its Jews worse than the Czarist Empire. As rotten as
the Czarist Empire was, it was constrained by the Orthodox tradition.
Solzhenitsyn wrote an excellent comparison between the behavior of Czarist
soldiers in WWI and the behavior of Soviet soldiers in WWII.
While Christianity is an intolerant religion (I recommend Faith &
Fratricide by Rosemary Reuther) and while this religion has partial
responsibility in the holocaust because it inculcated hatred against Jews
for the past 2 millenia, real responsibility for the holocaust lies in
the development of secularist, nationalist, humanist and romantic
philosophies which broke down the constraints of traditional society in
Europe during the 19th century.
--
Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
(I don't care what you think about my signature)ags@pucc-i (Seaman) (04/30/84)
Two follow-ups to my earlier posting in which I pointed out that most Nazis
considered themselves Christians:
1. It was not my intention to blame the Holocaust on Christianity. I was
merely pointing out the flaw in the argument raised by Martillo, who
said that a Nazi could have considered himself a humanist (with the
implication that this was a defect in humanism, rather than in the Nazi).
2. Predictably, the objection has been raised that a Nazi could not REALLY
have been a Christian, even if he considered himself one. This is fine
with me, as long as you apply the criterion uniformly to humanists, Jews,
Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, .... As long as it is understood
that Christianity is not special, deserving a different set of criteria
than other religions/value systems, the only problem is that you can no
longer take anyone's word as to his/her true beliefs. Who is to judge?
--
Dave Seaman
..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags
"Against people who give vent to their loquacity
by extraneous bombastic circumlocution."