.
Life consumes life; we humans depend on plants and animals for sustenance. Does anyone but the butcher truly know/feel the sacrifice by the animal and the effort required to provide meat? Does anyone but the farmer know the effort required to plant, tend and process crops?
Modern life is far removed from these basic processes … a disregard creeps in. How do I maintain a respect for the life I consume, so that I am more aware; less prone to abuse?
Answer: know thyself and balance thyself. body --- soul (being), heart --- mind (awareness), self --- other (connectedness)
Life consumes life; we humans depend on plants and animals for sustenance. Does anyone but the butcher truly know/feel the sacrifice by the animal and the effort required to provide meat? Does anyone but the farmer know the effort required to plant, tend and process crops?
Modern life is far removed from these basic processes … a disregard creeps in. How do I maintain a respect for the life I consume, so that I am more aware; less prone to abuse?
Answer: know thyself and balance thyself. body --- soul (being), heart --- mind (awareness), self --- other (connectedness)
4
This was a really difficult article to read because my preconceptions wanted it to be just gibberish. I can see why so many of the reader's are troubled by it. I am. There is a huge cost in believing that other animals may have the same needs and rights we have. I can't say I agree or disagree with Cary Wolfe, but the comments here are as enlightening as the article, showing how very resistant we are to ideas that make us uncomfortable.
5
Praise for readers who write intelligent replies, whether they agree or disagree with the original comment. Today I refer to the replies to my first comment at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/is-humanism-really-humane.html... where repliers are willing to actually discuss a comment, contribute questions and challenges. And, on the lighter side, to write a one-word reply as anonymous Candide does with the one word reply "What?".
I write this so I can once again suggest to the Public Editor and to the head of the Comment Review Board, that a Times staff member should study the comments more carefully to analyze when and in what ways comments seem to function particularly well. Then give us a Commenter Page.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
I write this so I can once again suggest to the Public Editor and to the head of the Comment Review Board, that a Times staff member should study the comments more carefully to analyze when and in what ways comments seem to function particularly well. Then give us a Commenter Page.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
4
“Rights discourse is the coin of the realm,” as Cory Wolfe states wisely in this interview. This should be recognized as an essential part of the Posthumanist attitude. An enlightened understanding of our place in the world can no longer coin new values to replace the old ones. But the old ones are changed forever in the new dawning. They are now no more than life rafts in a swirling feedback vortex, like the one Wolfe describes—survival equipment for emergencies, not vessels of truth.
1
Q: Why didn't God instill us with a love and admiration of Creation for its own sake?
A: He wanted to, only there is no God.
Q: Oh. Well why didn't we evolve to cherish our environment, if destroying it will destroy us, too?
A: Apparently, up to now that wasn't important for survival.
Q: I see. So what do we do now?
A: Nobody knows.
A: He wanted to, only there is no God.
Q: Oh. Well why didn't we evolve to cherish our environment, if destroying it will destroy us, too?
A: Apparently, up to now that wasn't important for survival.
Q: I see. So what do we do now?
A: Nobody knows.
4
Human beings are animals—mammals to be exact. We are not separate from the natural world, we are part of it. We have instincts like all mammals, and like other mammals, our behaviour is influenced by such things as endocrines, exocrines, pheromones, learned shared behaviour (culture) and the subconscious. Hierarchy is a subjective assignment of value where none objectively exists. The devaluing inherent in hierarchy may be used as justification for all sorts of things, but again, it is entirely subjective and has no basis in fact. Perhaps we need to get over ourselves.
9
I thought the reason it's bad to treat people of other races as no better than animals is that it's wrong -- the are better than animals. No? When the national socialists said Jews were morally on a par with rodents and cockroaches, weren't they wrong to do so in part because Jewish life is more important than cockroach life? I'm confused by where all this lands although I find it interesting.
5
The way of using outnumbered terminology of language is the only and invincible way to make human being as the greatest creature among all creatures ,which is nothing but a self trapped ludicrous childish game ,cautiously and reasonably ignored by all the species but the arrantly foolish one - "THE HUMAN BEING".
The tusk of Comparing human species with other species ( animal ) based on the criterion of superiority is as much stupid as to rank the beauty between two different colours ( i.e) blue and purple, which may evoke some grandiloquent discourses, may unleash some dirty skirmishes of pundits ,may add a beautiful crest at the showcase of a distinguish pedagogue but ,at the end of day, surely enlarge the loophole of the game - "the self trapped language game" or may reveal a subjective truth as a result of fairly hit-and-miss outcome and that's that.
However, I am not a strict supporter of my words lest I should be transmuted to be "THE GREATEST HUMAN BEING" ,rather I feel like " I need not define my emotion into words "- to make me great,to make me superior ,to make me irrationally rational creature .
The tusk of Comparing human species with other species ( animal ) based on the criterion of superiority is as much stupid as to rank the beauty between two different colours ( i.e) blue and purple, which may evoke some grandiloquent discourses, may unleash some dirty skirmishes of pundits ,may add a beautiful crest at the showcase of a distinguish pedagogue but ,at the end of day, surely enlarge the loophole of the game - "the self trapped language game" or may reveal a subjective truth as a result of fairly hit-and-miss outcome and that's that.
However, I am not a strict supporter of my words lest I should be transmuted to be "THE GREATEST HUMAN BEING" ,rather I feel like " I need not define my emotion into words "- to make me great,to make me superior ,to make me irrationally rational creature .
1
I am particularly discouraged with the negative comments to this really good discussion. Those comments suggest the discussion was a lot of "hot air" and no content. However, to me, those comments point out the failure of our society to promote critical thinking. Instead we have fostered denigration of intellectual, reasoned thought and a lack of understanding of our interdependence with all levels of our environment. this 'unawareness' will be our undoing.
3
"Trump’s election reflects and emboldens white supremacy and misogyny to a frightening degree. Could a posthumanist intervention risk moving focus away from a direct and much-needed struggle against these things, or could it help?"
While C.W. posits that ethical posthumanism can be a positive force, I'll stick with the aphoristic idea that if one places a high value on all life, then it follows that your own life shares in that high valuation.
Our society has evolved to become based in trust and in placing a high value on life. All life.
We can quibble about where to draw the line... animals, plants etc but it doesn't really matter. The high value of life is our highest and best value.
All the more reason to avoid an impeachment and campaign for a new election.
While C.W. posits that ethical posthumanism can be a positive force, I'll stick with the aphoristic idea that if one places a high value on all life, then it follows that your own life shares in that high valuation.
Our society has evolved to become based in trust and in placing a high value on life. All life.
We can quibble about where to draw the line... animals, plants etc but it doesn't really matter. The high value of life is our highest and best value.
All the more reason to avoid an impeachment and campaign for a new election.
1
This is so weird. I always thought of humanism as existential: it is up to humans - rather than some divine authority or force - to decide what is right, what we should do, how we should be. It never occurred to me that some see it as setting mankind apart from the rest of nature, i.e. the Old Testament "be fruitful and multiply".
3
We are fortunate to have the opportunity to even philosophize in such a manner, though a little humility goes a long way. We are not necessarily smarter than other animals simply because we dominate them. We are just different. In the end, as was sung, "We are stardust." Nothing less, nothing more.
3
Humans are a transition form between animal biology and post-biological forms. As such we have a weird blend of being the most ferocious and destructive animal the planet has ever seen, and understanding of where we Intelligent behavior is not just cunning, it is about the ability to predict and control long term consequences. The major concern that humanity should have is that it does not control itself. It is crazy to let people do what they want, regardless of the consequences to the rest of humanity, but we praise just that and call it Liberty.have come from and are going to - if we can make it.
1
I believe Popper's comment applies to this article:
The degeneration of philosophical schools in its turn is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been compelled to philosophize by problems outside philosophy…. Genuine philosophical problems are always rooted outside philosophy and they die if these roots decay…. These roots are easily forgotten by philosophers who “study” philosophy instead of being forced into philosophy by the pressure of nonphilosophical problems.
The degeneration of philosophical schools in its turn is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been compelled to philosophize by problems outside philosophy…. Genuine philosophical problems are always rooted outside philosophy and they die if these roots decay…. These roots are easily forgotten by philosophers who “study” philosophy instead of being forced into philosophy by the pressure of nonphilosophical problems.
3
There is a tone and cadence to critical thinkers like Wolfe that provokes resentment in people. Look at the most popular comments to this piece, which include observations like "gibberish," "so little content," "shallow," etc. The obvious thorn in readers' sides here (aside from anti-intellectualism) is specialization of knowledge. Simply, Wolfe reminds me that it would take a lot of reading (maybe years?) to get to the point that I could engage intelligently on humanism or posthumanism. Isn't that a bit ironic? I now need a specialist to explain to me what "human" means. It feels a bit oppressive, and basically undermines, rather than resonates with, my own experience as a human.
5
Since all values and rights and moralities are social constructs and as such, entirely arbitrary, it's best to retain humanity as the anchor center of such musings. Anything else leads to even greater chaos and confusion.
"As long as you take it for granted that it’s O.K. to commit violence against animals simply because of their biological designation, then that same logic will be available to you to commit violence against any other being, of whatever species, human or not, that you can characterize as a “lower” or more “primitive” form of life. "
I think this is a rash assertion. I deny that it is not possible to eat meat and fail someone you disdain to the utmost, but still regard as..."a human."
I think this is a rash assertion. I deny that it is not possible to eat meat and fail someone you disdain to the utmost, but still regard as..."a human."
1
How about another way to frame a dialogue with philosophers and critical thinkers on the question of violence: what would planet earth look like if there was no religion and no concept of god? What would violence look like then? Would we have a different definition of violence, or even have that word any more at all?
1
I think if you cannot understand the importance of the world view that preceded that rise of humanism, you really cannot appreciate it. When Columbus sailed west to find a shorter route to Asia he and his fellows believed in God, believed in the notion that life was a trial in which one assured eternal life with God or doom at Judgment Day, and that God intervened in the world as he wished. People did not doubt the truths about the world described in the Bible nor by the ancients like Aristotle nor the infallibility of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Man had the benefits of divine revelation to help him transcend the limits of mortality. When those authorities proved inadequate it threw man back upon man and man's limited ability to discern truths and fallacies. Humanism is a term that reflects this process. Humanism means people taking responsibility for determining upon what is and is not to be relied. It offers no certainties like those upon which human society had relied for a thousand years after the fall of Rome. The liberal philosophy which has reduced so much brutality and violence in our modern world since the 18th century was a product of the Enlightenment but did not lead necessarily from Humanism. As long as we are using our knowledge based upon science rather than revelation and reasoning to develop our solutions to life's challenges, I think that we are following Humanism. Once we rely entirely upon sacred authorities again, then we might call it post-humanism.
1
Human and Humane are not synonyms.
To be human is to be be one of the four great ape cousins, Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Bonobo. We are the only one with writing, but we all have non verbal communication, express sympathy and also when provoked, rage. It's good to be humane as a value, but some emotions are just as real but more intense. We all have fear of other tribes, along with proclivity to gravitate to strong leaders.
Of course we make a big deal over our rationality, but it is really "a weak force in the affairs of men," as first stated by William James in 1890 and confirmed most recently by Donald J. Trump.
AlRodbell.com
To be human is to be be one of the four great ape cousins, Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Bonobo. We are the only one with writing, but we all have non verbal communication, express sympathy and also when provoked, rage. It's good to be humane as a value, but some emotions are just as real but more intense. We all have fear of other tribes, along with proclivity to gravitate to strong leaders.
Of course we make a big deal over our rationality, but it is really "a weak force in the affairs of men," as first stated by William James in 1890 and confirmed most recently by Donald J. Trump.
AlRodbell.com
3
So, to sum up, not everything is about the human.
1
I am writing from and with my mobile phone, and my left arm is in a cast, so pardon me if this lacks the verbal grace that sometimes infuses my prose. I want to address one point which is perhaps secondary to the major thrust of this article but which is worth delving
Into because it illustrates how out of touch these dudes are.
The article heartily acclaims that we treat animals in a benign and inoffensive fashion. It might sound lovely but it is malarky. Think about pathogens, such as, for example, bacteria. They are alive. They have mitochondria, the site where sugar and oxygen dance their primordial dance common only to living things and produce energy; dna, the code of life and are just as much alive as a rabid sewer rat.
What do you propose to do with, say, strep bacteria. Sing kumbaya. Yeah, you do that and soon you may have a roaring fever of 105 and scarring of the heart. Bacteria need to be killed. And so do rats. Whether your perspective is humanist or post humanist -- I think the conclusion is more important than the so called methodology employed -- you must not succumb to the sort of namby pamby thinking that makes one seem like a trumpian stereotype of an educated, woody allenesque new yorker
Into because it illustrates how out of touch these dudes are.
The article heartily acclaims that we treat animals in a benign and inoffensive fashion. It might sound lovely but it is malarky. Think about pathogens, such as, for example, bacteria. They are alive. They have mitochondria, the site where sugar and oxygen dance their primordial dance common only to living things and produce energy; dna, the code of life and are just as much alive as a rabid sewer rat.
What do you propose to do with, say, strep bacteria. Sing kumbaya. Yeah, you do that and soon you may have a roaring fever of 105 and scarring of the heart. Bacteria need to be killed. And so do rats. Whether your perspective is humanist or post humanist -- I think the conclusion is more important than the so called methodology employed -- you must not succumb to the sort of namby pamby thinking that makes one seem like a trumpian stereotype of an educated, woody allenesque new yorker
2
In other words, a non-rigorous post-humanism is just as vulnerable to sentimentality as humanism, and a rigorous post-humanism is likely to be taken in light of Chesteron's bon mot about madmen - that they have lost everything but their reason.
2
I think that the conversation is about "boundary issues" here. We used to see humans as made in the image of God, then Darwin showed how humans are animals descended from other animals. And then there is this boundary issue: humans have there own kind of systems that use plants and animals as productive inputs. Now the problem is one of scale. Extracting and utilizing fossil carbon gives us access to enough energy to enlarge the human system beyond the size of the biosphere. We know the system is too big when it is big enough to change the direction of the Earth's climate.
Knowing what the right size that the human system should be, can help us to see our place in nature, and to feel more humble besides species and ecosystems that have existed much longer than humans have. We are newcomers and need to respect our elders.
Knowing what the right size that the human system should be, can help us to see our place in nature, and to feel more humble besides species and ecosystems that have existed much longer than humans have. We are newcomers and need to respect our elders.
4
Humanism seems to have been reviled, as history shows our tribal willingness to destroy 'the other' for our own survival and 'assertion', perhaps condoned as a cultural phenomenon and imperative. I believe that true humanism does follow the 'Golden Rule' so that, eventually, we can get rid of our ego...and become one with nature...and redeem our beings by transcending the 'having'. No need for language here, or a rational belief; just being in the moment, a strong feeling of belonging to each other, and loving it. Perhaps we need to simplify our lives and live in the 'here and now', our only reality at hand. Could this be called 'humanism at work'?
1
The notion of "self" seems to be at the core of human-centric systems of thought and belief, including most forms of what we think of as "humanism", even the most "humane." But if we accept that humans and humanity are simply present in the totality of being - that the "self" is an invented or imagined entity lacking solidity or permanence, and that there is no hierarchy of importance, whether in the "living" world or the inanimate one - the perspective shifts. Then, rather than seeing myself as a center around which everything else moves and occurs, I can become aware, albeit imperfectly, that I am simply in the mix of entities, occurrences, streams of history that "were" before my "self" came into being, and will "be" after it no longer "is". Impermanence, not solidity, are the hallmarks of my "me". We have ample vocabulary for discussing humanism, but little if any for discussing that state of awareness and what it may comprehend.
Kudos to those who strive to improve the killing process of animals. However,
a man has to eat. Certainly there are times, when reflecting on the sacrifice a animal has made, one can become very ambivalent about consuming meat. This narrative of human - animal relationships can be polarizing. Looking at the bigger context that the universe is a metabolic system that requires the constant sacrifice of all those fortunate to participate in this play makes it a little easier for me.
a man has to eat. Certainly there are times, when reflecting on the sacrifice a animal has made, one can become very ambivalent about consuming meat. This narrative of human - animal relationships can be polarizing. Looking at the bigger context that the universe is a metabolic system that requires the constant sacrifice of all those fortunate to participate in this play makes it a little easier for me.
Human lives matter? No. If a crocodile, lion or bear eats a child some say they were here first. They have a right to live. Human encroachment has it's risks. Build a dam to supply water to cities and farms. No way salmon may die. Surplus farm land who needs it. Africans don't need to industrialize they could live off the tourist industry. Not enough jobs in the tourist industries well they could reduce their population by 95%. It's all Ok if we feel their poverty.
The Church while trying to conevert the heathen at the same time said the uncoverred were animals and gave blessing to the slauughterers and slavers. The students of eugenics studied the human skull and declared non northern Europeans lacking. Women to, they have small heads. Hitler declared if you weren't Aryan you were subhuman no more than an animal and exterminated.
Why am I writing here? I only read philosophy because it was a requirement but how naive can you be to believe that when you elevate animals to human beings you don't diminish humanity. How is it you don't know you are openin the doors to all that's evil in the world when you say humans are no more than animals?
The Church while trying to conevert the heathen at the same time said the uncoverred were animals and gave blessing to the slauughterers and slavers. The students of eugenics studied the human skull and declared non northern Europeans lacking. Women to, they have small heads. Hitler declared if you weren't Aryan you were subhuman no more than an animal and exterminated.
Why am I writing here? I only read philosophy because it was a requirement but how naive can you be to believe that when you elevate animals to human beings you don't diminish humanity. How is it you don't know you are openin the doors to all that's evil in the world when you say humans are no more than animals?
1
Read the article again. It does not say what you think it said.
1
EMPIRICAL Evidence is AWOL in this argument on Humanism. First and foremost, the neuron is universal. Nonetheless, other genomic differences among species are also of great significance. Nowhere in the discussion is there any mention of brains scans that could support or disprove the critique of humanism no any biological basis. Which leaves us with definitions of terms unsupported by the latest scientific studies and most current advances in human knowledge. Implicit in all the statements of the critique of humanism is a disdain for scientific discovery and any remote suggestion of empiricism. Now that we are beginning to understand the workings of the human brain and characteristics of the human genome, any critique of humanism must reckon with the new discoveries and facts that would influence the critique of humanism profoundly. Indeed, the scientific method owed much to the humanist rationalistic philosophers, including Spinoza, DesCartes and Leibniz.
2
If anyone is interested in a more viable and objective "posthumanist" approach, consider the beauty/power/truthfulness of theism--of a God-created and -loved universe--that anchors objective fundamental values and rights, such as those expressed in the Declaration of Independence--"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights". (We haven't found a solid foundation for fundamental rights elsewhere.)
A lovely and thoughtful articulation of such ethics may be found in The Nature of True Virtue by early American philosopher and theologian Jonathan Edwards. If I remember correctly, in his delineation, true virtue involves a general love of being (i.e. all beings, e.g. God, angels, humans, animals) and a specific love of beauty (by which Edwards meant beauty of charcacter or virtue) so that the greatest or most perfect being (God) merits our most comprehensive love, while less perfect beings such as humans call forth our particular love due to their beauty of character. Animals also would presumably merit our love as beings which are part of God's creation, reflecting creativity, generosity, and even affection at times.
A lovely and thoughtful articulation of such ethics may be found in The Nature of True Virtue by early American philosopher and theologian Jonathan Edwards. If I remember correctly, in his delineation, true virtue involves a general love of being (i.e. all beings, e.g. God, angels, humans, animals) and a specific love of beauty (by which Edwards meant beauty of charcacter or virtue) so that the greatest or most perfect being (God) merits our most comprehensive love, while less perfect beings such as humans call forth our particular love due to their beauty of character. Animals also would presumably merit our love as beings which are part of God's creation, reflecting creativity, generosity, and even affection at times.
2
Not surprising that both Trump boys are avid big game hunters. Taxonomy of sentient forms is basically the same as division of homo sapiens into color groups. Both are fallacious constructs sprung from the mind of man and both for purposes of exploitation. Many associate technological advancement with some form of mass enlightenment, when the reality appears to be the opposite. We exploit because we can, its manifest destiny, that is how man's psyche is hardwired. Man is more barbarous today then ever, we've only improved on our sanitizing of the ugly truth.
The extension of, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to all forms of life, not simply human- is difficult for modern culture to accept. Perhaps it is feared applying the Golden Rule to all life would somehow devalue human life. The last understandable, because it is not clear how much today's human culture actually values human life.
But ethics and morality do not exist in vacuums- It is clear that the biosphere is highly interdependent and fragile- and you can't sit complacently and watch today's mass extinctions and somehow think human life is "exempt." Nor can you ignore the continuity of evolution and consciousness that exists from the Tree to the Amoeba to the Dolphin to Humans.
Perhaps the most important notion is that societal and cultural views of life and humans role in it- are permeable. Based on tradition- and rarely collectively and individually questioned and changed. Yet tradition breaking- comes with a price- and potential reward.
The entire argument is rooted in ethics- and without clear choices- and a commitment to compassion, truthfulness, fairness and responsibility- the argument unravels into episodic thought and words without meaning. Which is why the admonition, "Love one another," is less a reminder but a prerequisite for human existence. Forgotten too often- culture, society and ultimately life collapses.
But ethics and morality do not exist in vacuums- It is clear that the biosphere is highly interdependent and fragile- and you can't sit complacently and watch today's mass extinctions and somehow think human life is "exempt." Nor can you ignore the continuity of evolution and consciousness that exists from the Tree to the Amoeba to the Dolphin to Humans.
Perhaps the most important notion is that societal and cultural views of life and humans role in it- are permeable. Based on tradition- and rarely collectively and individually questioned and changed. Yet tradition breaking- comes with a price- and potential reward.
The entire argument is rooted in ethics- and without clear choices- and a commitment to compassion, truthfulness, fairness and responsibility- the argument unravels into episodic thought and words without meaning. Which is why the admonition, "Love one another," is less a reminder but a prerequisite for human existence. Forgotten too often- culture, society and ultimately life collapses.
1
Early in the conversation, the interviewee maintains that humanists consider the involuntary and non-verbal aspects of person to be "non-human." That is simply wrong. Humanists have written the book on non-verbal communication and celebrate all aspects of the human, not just thinking or consciousness. Humanists encouraged the sexual revolution, and no one ever said that sex was a matter of logical discourse only.
Later in the conversation, the interviewee maintains that humanism's distinction between people and animals leads somehow to persecution of people. The logic of this is most torturous. On the contrary, the separation from animals has always led to a special distinction regarding people. We don't raise, kill, and eat people. But we do so to animals. If we really treated people like animals, there would be cannibalism.
The "posthumanism" employing systems theory described by the interviewee is just another example of an environment-centered set of values, where humans are devalued in favor of ecology. The second major philosophical orientation is the God-centered universe, where humans are viewed as flawed sinners in need of redemption, scripture, and martyrdom. Humanism is the third. I proudly am a humanist. and one of the things we humanists do is to respect the rights of others to speak their mind, never mind how destructive the enactment of their theories might be.
Later in the conversation, the interviewee maintains that humanism's distinction between people and animals leads somehow to persecution of people. The logic of this is most torturous. On the contrary, the separation from animals has always led to a special distinction regarding people. We don't raise, kill, and eat people. But we do so to animals. If we really treated people like animals, there would be cannibalism.
The "posthumanism" employing systems theory described by the interviewee is just another example of an environment-centered set of values, where humans are devalued in favor of ecology. The second major philosophical orientation is the God-centered universe, where humans are viewed as flawed sinners in need of redemption, scripture, and martyrdom. Humanism is the third. I proudly am a humanist. and one of the things we humanists do is to respect the rights of others to speak their mind, never mind how destructive the enactment of their theories might be.
1
The extension of, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to all forms of life, not simply human- is difficult for modern culture to accept.
Perhaps it is feared applying the Golden Rule to all life would somehow devalue human life. The last understandable, because it is not clear how much today's human culture actually values human life.
But ethics and morality do not exist in vacuums- It is clear that the biosphere is highly interdependent and fragile- and you can't sit complacently and watch today's mass extinctions and somehow think human life is "exempt." Nor can you ignore the continuity of evolution and consciousness that exists from the Tree to the Amoeba to the Dolphin to Humans.
Perhaps the most important notion is that societal and cultural views of life and humans role in it- are permeable. Based on tradition- and rarely collectively and individually questioned and changed. Yet tradition breaking- comes with a price- and potential reward.
The entire argument is rooted in ethics- and without clear choices- and a commitment to compassion, truthfulness, fairness and responsibility- the argument unravels into episodic thought and words without meaning. Which is why the admonition, "Love on another," is less a reminder but a prerequisite for human existence. Forgotten too often and culture, society and ultimately life collapses.
Perhaps it is feared applying the Golden Rule to all life would somehow devalue human life. The last understandable, because it is not clear how much today's human culture actually values human life.
But ethics and morality do not exist in vacuums- It is clear that the biosphere is highly interdependent and fragile- and you can't sit complacently and watch today's mass extinctions and somehow think human life is "exempt." Nor can you ignore the continuity of evolution and consciousness that exists from the Tree to the Amoeba to the Dolphin to Humans.
Perhaps the most important notion is that societal and cultural views of life and humans role in it- are permeable. Based on tradition- and rarely collectively and individually questioned and changed. Yet tradition breaking- comes with a price- and potential reward.
The entire argument is rooted in ethics- and without clear choices- and a commitment to compassion, truthfulness, fairness and responsibility- the argument unravels into episodic thought and words without meaning. Which is why the admonition, "Love on another," is less a reminder but a prerequisite for human existence. Forgotten too often and culture, society and ultimately life collapses.
The claim that the ontological divide between human and animal life is the grounds an ethical hierarchy, which is the source of all evil, is simplistic and naïve. When you do away with the idea that a human life is worthy of dignity as such, as Prof. Wolfe suggests, then what will be the criteria that determine value? Is everything of equal value in nature? There is the philosophical problem of determining what the source of that value claim is. But there is also a practical problem of deciding how to justify hard choices from the perspective of nature itself. Many of the greatest evils in the last two hundred years--social Darwinism, Eugenics, Nazi racial theories, etc.--were based in the notion that humans as such as not worthy of respect and that nature should be our guide to selecting who should live and who should die. In other words, when you do away with the ethical hierarchies based on human dignity and worth, why assume that the liberal values that are based on this ideal (freedom, equality, etc.) will persist? Non-humanism might just as well lead to illiberalism--that is, back to Trump.
3
I wish the animal rights folks were not so hostile to the plant rights idea. It is just one more step in the right direction, in my opinion. For more from this perspective, please visit plantological.blogspot.com
2
To answer the headline question. Humanism is certainly more humane than the alternatives. The rest of this "philosophical" debate is unintelligible gibberish.
1
"The fear of the Lord is beginning of wisdom"
This article to me demonstrates the absurdity and
stupidity of taking the flawed theories of Darwin,
Freud and Marx to their logical ends.
"A tree is known by its fruit"
The nonexistent fruit of humanist thinking will become
more self evident as extremist thinking like this becomes
acceptable. Selfish, relation-less, God-less.
This article to me demonstrates the absurdity and
stupidity of taking the flawed theories of Darwin,
Freud and Marx to their logical ends.
"A tree is known by its fruit"
The nonexistent fruit of humanist thinking will become
more self evident as extremist thinking like this becomes
acceptable. Selfish, relation-less, God-less.
2
Isn't Unitarian Univeralism basically humanist? I'll take their theology/ideology over any orthodox Christian creed any day.
This article I believe supports my skepticism about the strong momentum among earth scientists to name our Age the Anthropocene, as this coming term recognizes the centrality of humans in both causing and taking responsibility for the state of the world.
While I recognized up-sides to this in a comment to a NYT article on the Anthropocene, I also wondered if to some degree we are fooling ourselves about how "in charge" we really are.
Here's the comment, which includes the original article.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/teds-science-curator-sees-h...
Any comments?
While I recognized up-sides to this in a comment to a NYT article on the Anthropocene, I also wondered if to some degree we are fooling ourselves about how "in charge" we really are.
Here's the comment, which includes the original article.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/teds-science-curator-sees-h...
Any comments?
"posthumanist"
Does that mean we are shedding the notion of "humans"? Mother Earth should be so lucky.
Wait till we get to neo-postmostern-humanist. So old fashioned.
Does that mean we are shedding the notion of "humans"? Mother Earth should be so lucky.
Wait till we get to neo-postmostern-humanist. So old fashioned.
1
The slogan "Human Rights" is now used by US/UK elites and their media as a weapon to achieve regime change in countries that have the audacity to question western domination of the world. The International Court of Justice is one of the weapons used.
I find many of the comments surprisingly anti-intellectual, given that this is a piece on philosophy (and therefore should contain philosophical language), and especially since these are my fellow NYTimes readers.
I thought it was wonderful!
I thought it was wonderful!
1
Is it inherently oppressive and violent to value animals over rocks?
7
Rocks do not feel pain.
1
Hey David. You skipped right over plants!!!
1
CW writes, "An elephant or a dolphin or a chimpanzee isn’t worthy of respect because it embodies some normative form of the “human” plus or minus a handful of relevant moral characteristics. It’s worthy of respect for reasons that call upon us to come up with another moral vocabulary, a vocabulary that starts by acknowledging that whatever it is we value ethically and morally in various forms of life, it has nothing to do with the biological designation of “human” or “animal.”
CW is, on face-value, wrong, because I think he would be hard-pressed to justify, when push comes to shove, if you've got a gun pointed to a toddler and to a dog, sacrificing the toddler. There is an unavoidable kind of dualism that is present, one based on a distinction that places human beings as apart from other animals. It might not be anthropomorphic, but it is there nonetheless. You can argue this within the confines of Darwinism even, if you wanted to restrict the discourse to naturalism.
That CW fails to produce the advocated-for novel moral vocabulary on top of which his premise hangs is problematic. If not him as the expert, who? Does the author really think that the creation of a new kind of morality that normalizes animal/human relations is the seminal first step, presumably, in fixing racism or sexism? Look to how we treat our livestock and pets?
A lot of people treat their pets pretty well. Even racist and sexist people. Pretty sure that's not the key.
CW is, on face-value, wrong, because I think he would be hard-pressed to justify, when push comes to shove, if you've got a gun pointed to a toddler and to a dog, sacrificing the toddler. There is an unavoidable kind of dualism that is present, one based on a distinction that places human beings as apart from other animals. It might not be anthropomorphic, but it is there nonetheless. You can argue this within the confines of Darwinism even, if you wanted to restrict the discourse to naturalism.
That CW fails to produce the advocated-for novel moral vocabulary on top of which his premise hangs is problematic. If not him as the expert, who? Does the author really think that the creation of a new kind of morality that normalizes animal/human relations is the seminal first step, presumably, in fixing racism or sexism? Look to how we treat our livestock and pets?
A lot of people treat their pets pretty well. Even racist and sexist people. Pretty sure that's not the key.
10
"He would be hard-pressed to justify, when push comes to shove, if you've got a gun pointed to a toddler and to a dog, sacrificing the toddler."
What if it was the last giraffe or blue whale on earth, and you had to choose between killing it or a human child? Remember, there is no chance that the human race will become extinct. It's very easy to create more humans. We have no natural predators, and we don't have the common sense to voluntarily reduce our numbers. We are breeding out of control, and approaching 8 billion.
If rats invaded a city and bred out of control, we would have no problem "eradicating" them, because it's "unnatural" to have one animal overtake the others, and they carry disease. The human animal also carries disease.
It would follow that you must choose to save the blue whale or giraffe. Or you could make sure women in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia have access to contraception, and avoid unneeded suffering instead.
What if it was the last giraffe or blue whale on earth, and you had to choose between killing it or a human child? Remember, there is no chance that the human race will become extinct. It's very easy to create more humans. We have no natural predators, and we don't have the common sense to voluntarily reduce our numbers. We are breeding out of control, and approaching 8 billion.
If rats invaded a city and bred out of control, we would have no problem "eradicating" them, because it's "unnatural" to have one animal overtake the others, and they carry disease. The human animal also carries disease.
It would follow that you must choose to save the blue whale or giraffe. Or you could make sure women in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia have access to contraception, and avoid unneeded suffering instead.
1
For something to have value in its own right doesn't mean to have the same value as everything else. The point is that human "traits" aren't the only things of value in this world. And we can learn to have respect for everything. Even the chicken that provided the wings for my "buffalo wings" last weekend.
Some thoughts: It occurs to me that looking back through history, people have never been particularly kind to each other - well, sometimes amazingly kind, and sometimes amazingly cruel - so I'm not totally convinced that when we treat people cruelly, we are dehumanizing them, treating them like animals - lots of times we are treating them exactly like people we don't like. And maybe sometimes when we treat animals particularly cruelly, we are pretending they are people, in a sense. (And aren't there times when we make ourselves like an animal, like a berserker bear or an affectionate puppy?) You'll say, look at all the explicitly racist attempts to demonstrate deep biological differences between the "races", for legal and philosophical purposes - well, yes. There's all that. But maybe those are more like flimsy legal superficialities, and on a deeper level, the boundaries between us and each other, animal or not are... very complex. I think I'll go back and reread "The Woman Who Married a Bear", by John Straley. I don't even remember what it was about, exactly...
4
"We are dehumanizing them, treating them like animals." We are treating animals far worse than humans! We are slaughtering animals large-scale, driving rhinos, elephants and giraffes to extinction, without outcry, without protests. Human wars haven't made a dent in the 8 billion humans and growing. If we did to other humans what we've done to large mammals, there would be despair and rioting in the streets.
The seas will be barren by 2050---no more blue whales, no more dolphins, and yet you worry about humans not being "kind" to each other? The problem is far worse than that. Unlike every other large mammal on earth, we have no natural predator. That means, in order for other animals to survive and even thrive, we must voluntarily reduce our numbers. Can we do this? As long as the argument skirts the issue, and devolves into discussions about race and culture and even Trump, I sincerely doubt that we can, and every other animal other than the human one is doomed.
The seas will be barren by 2050---no more blue whales, no more dolphins, and yet you worry about humans not being "kind" to each other? The problem is far worse than that. Unlike every other large mammal on earth, we have no natural predator. That means, in order for other animals to survive and even thrive, we must voluntarily reduce our numbers. Can we do this? As long as the argument skirts the issue, and devolves into discussions about race and culture and even Trump, I sincerely doubt that we can, and every other animal other than the human one is doomed.
1
The optimal number of humans the earth can support, in order for other animals to thrive, is 1.5 to 2 billion, not the 8 billion we see on earth. How do we stop the killing of large mammals like giraffes, or elephants, to feed the insatiable hunger by the Chinese for ivory statues? How do we prevent decimation of the seas from overfishing, pollution and sonar? The seas will be barren by 2050. In India, 90% of the animals are gone because of 1.5 billion people and growing.
Respecting the rights of animals is not possible if your ten children in sub-Saharan Africa or South East Asia are starving.
Is a giraffe's life equal to a human life? I believe it is. That's the main question. Humans breed easily. Not so with elephants and blue whales, not with the human population exploding.
All these arguments by philosophers are silly, when a human is simply another animal, with, unfortunately, no predator to keep its numbers in check. Developed nations have the wealth and power to save other animals on earth. It's our responsibility to get birth control to the areas that don't have it.
Respecting the rights of animals is not possible if your ten children in sub-Saharan Africa or South East Asia are starving.
Is a giraffe's life equal to a human life? I believe it is. That's the main question. Humans breed easily. Not so with elephants and blue whales, not with the human population exploding.
All these arguments by philosophers are silly, when a human is simply another animal, with, unfortunately, no predator to keep its numbers in check. Developed nations have the wealth and power to save other animals on earth. It's our responsibility to get birth control to the areas that don't have it.
11
Wait. Did I say, “I love you”? What I meant to say is that you’re an emotionally needy, high-maintenance individual who likes to play the sick role, but I thought we should get to know each other first to be sure. I have trouble distinguishing between the physiology of my sexual responses and the psychology of my sexual responses, so I don’t fully trust myself. I now understand that a really good night for you will end with a really good meal, not me, and that you spent more time thinking about what to wear on our date than about me. All in all, you’ve made a good call.
6
Ms. Lennard is confusing philosophy and with its counterfeit, "critical theory", espoused by Dr. Wolfe. The simple reason why the “....deconstruction and philosophy about the various problematic assumptions built into rights discourse” cannot be effectively communicated to the members of a state legislature is because it is only at a critical theory conference that such patent nonsense won't get you laughed out of the room. The only "nuances" arising out of critical theory are all the clever ways poor grammar can be married to insufferable jargon.
Hitler owned dogs and gave them cute names like "Mucki" and "Blondi". He likely would have been aghast at the thought of exterminating the non-human canines of Europe. Dr. Wolfe's commonplace belief that racism, misogyny and genocide are driven by an underlying denial of the humanity of its victims is at best facile. Germans circa 1938 wouldn’t treat their dogs as bad as they treated their Jewish neighbors.
"Caring" for the planet, the impoverished and persecuted, or the suffering of animals is essential to ethical "humanism" and the subject matter of authentic philosophy. It is readily translated into social action. “Post-humanism” is just another in a long line of overblown “theories” created by wasted intellects following the footsteps of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault who discovered a brisk academic market for pedestrian observations dressed up in impenetrable rhetoric, dynamic obfuscation and pure chicanery.
Hitler owned dogs and gave them cute names like "Mucki" and "Blondi". He likely would have been aghast at the thought of exterminating the non-human canines of Europe. Dr. Wolfe's commonplace belief that racism, misogyny and genocide are driven by an underlying denial of the humanity of its victims is at best facile. Germans circa 1938 wouldn’t treat their dogs as bad as they treated their Jewish neighbors.
"Caring" for the planet, the impoverished and persecuted, or the suffering of animals is essential to ethical "humanism" and the subject matter of authentic philosophy. It is readily translated into social action. “Post-humanism” is just another in a long line of overblown “theories” created by wasted intellects following the footsteps of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault who discovered a brisk academic market for pedestrian observations dressed up in impenetrable rhetoric, dynamic obfuscation and pure chicanery.
28
Yet many racists and bigots precisely declare those they hate to be less human and inferior. Your argument ignores the reasons why they hate.
1
What a pleasure to read such a rapier sharp wit.
Thank you, Gary.
As Jon Stewart would say, "Nailed it!!!!!"
Thank you, Gary.
As Jon Stewart would say, "Nailed it!!!!!"
2
I am concerned that part of the reason for the rise of Trump and populists like him worldwide is that people have grown tired of the demands of continued ethical progress. While I embrace the opportunities of this progress, I can also appreciate the backlash we are seeing towards “political correctness” and progress at the expense of those that consider themselves its victims. This is a very dangerous situation since even widely acceptable standards could be lost as those that wish to prosper via fewer requirements on a myriad of ‘fronts’ or want to take us back to a ‘better time’ and erase decades of progress. We may need to focus more on preserving the gains we have made versus spending as much effort as we have recently on advancement. That is not and exciting prospect and thus finding the resources for this defence may be hard.
3
We need to rethink just what "ethical progress" is. "Advances" that involve group rights, rather than individual rights, are inherently two-edged swords. E.g. Lilla's recent piece in NYT on identity politics, which explores this and in my view needs more attention. This part of the social experiment while resulting in some measurable changes, is ultimately flawed. That doesn't mean go back to the 1800's. It does mean to attempt learn how to see beyond your tribe and to work for the flourishing of all.
"Justice" is a nice concept. Pity we're just loyal to clan and tribe, in our hearts. Of course, the intelligentsia don't suffer from such disabilities, but a quarter of a million years of living in tribes doesn't fall away overnight. Tribes protect and nurture individuals, and they also raid other tribes and kidnap women and children as slaves, even as Native Americans did into the early days of our republic, until they were set straight, of course. All our modern sins are the sins of the tribe writ large. And yet if you open a volume on sociology, you won't find either "clan" or "tribe" in the index.
6
Until they were set straight? So their genocide was somehow justified?
"Trump’s election reflects and emboldens white supremacy and misogyny to a frightening degree. Could a posthumanist intervention risk moving focus away from a direct and much-needed struggle against these things, or could it help?
C.W.: Oh, I think it can help enormously, by drawing out more clearly the broader base that these struggles share in what I’ve called a posthumanist ethical pluralism. My position has always been that all of these racist and sexist hierarchies have always been tacitly grounded in the deepest — and often most invisible – hierarchy of all: the ontological divide between human and animal life, which in turn grounds a pernicious ethical hierarchy. As long as you take it for granted that it’s O.K. to commit violence against animals simply because of their biological designation, then that same logic will be available to you to commit violence against any other being, of whatever species, human or not, that you can characterize as a “lower” or more “primitive” form of life. This is obvious in the history of slavery, imperialism and violence against indigenous peoples."
I agree with you. But the real issue is how you communicate this rather complex idea to persons who seem to have no aptitude or interest in complex ideas. That may not be a philosophical point, but it certainly is a real world issue.
C.W.: Oh, I think it can help enormously, by drawing out more clearly the broader base that these struggles share in what I’ve called a posthumanist ethical pluralism. My position has always been that all of these racist and sexist hierarchies have always been tacitly grounded in the deepest — and often most invisible – hierarchy of all: the ontological divide between human and animal life, which in turn grounds a pernicious ethical hierarchy. As long as you take it for granted that it’s O.K. to commit violence against animals simply because of their biological designation, then that same logic will be available to you to commit violence against any other being, of whatever species, human or not, that you can characterize as a “lower” or more “primitive” form of life. This is obvious in the history of slavery, imperialism and violence against indigenous peoples."
I agree with you. But the real issue is how you communicate this rather complex idea to persons who seem to have no aptitude or interest in complex ideas. That may not be a philosophical point, but it certainly is a real world issue.
6
Trump has appointed several women to his administration including three who are Asian American. The "misogynist" Trump threw his support behind Jane Timken in Ohio.
But never mind, There will be a "women's" march against Trump on Jan 21.
Trump has faults but his critics seem to have no acquaintance with either logic or language.
They say something which makes no sense but as long as other people in their echo chamber agree, they are not challenged except by the "deplorables" who, being deplorable, have no standing.
So there is no thought, no real dialogue, just pointless phrases.
"Sad" as Trump would say.
Actually,Trump himself might just laugh or tweet something, but old style liberals who value logic and reason are appalled.
But never mind, There will be a "women's" march against Trump on Jan 21.
Trump has faults but his critics seem to have no acquaintance with either logic or language.
They say something which makes no sense but as long as other people in their echo chamber agree, they are not challenged except by the "deplorables" who, being deplorable, have no standing.
So there is no thought, no real dialogue, just pointless phrases.
"Sad" as Trump would say.
Actually,Trump himself might just laugh or tweet something, but old style liberals who value logic and reason are appalled.
Boy, what a mess of intellectual parsing of forms while avoiding the IDEA of Human Being. If one is really interested in what HUMAN Means and Signifies the "vaunted intellect," is going to have to stop data processing, be put on a shelf and told to shut up, while one actually thinks, that is becomes negative to the higher dimensions of reality or the abstract realms of Cosmos.
Human being does not have anything to do with "biology". Human is an Idea. As an Idea it can be and undoubtedly is physically manifested in any number of biological formulations. In no case would the form be the Human.
Human Being is actually an harmonic of a greater song. Human beings are notes in the harmony of Life. Most of us are on the way to becoming human. It's called evolution.
Any behavior that does not support the life liberty and freedom of all beings, that is the entire life forms on the planet is non-human ignorance.
Anyone who sees him/herself as somehow superior to, more deserving, better than others, any others including the trees and fish, is not being human. Non-humans are individuals who are running around in what appear to be what humans use for bodies on this planet. However, they are unconscious. Humans are Conscious. Those who assume, who are identified with their dense physical bodies are simply unconscious. They are not human....yet. Donald Trump and most of those with whom he consorts are not humans, and as in the Donald's case have a very long way to go.
Human being does not have anything to do with "biology". Human is an Idea. As an Idea it can be and undoubtedly is physically manifested in any number of biological formulations. In no case would the form be the Human.
Human Being is actually an harmonic of a greater song. Human beings are notes in the harmony of Life. Most of us are on the way to becoming human. It's called evolution.
Any behavior that does not support the life liberty and freedom of all beings, that is the entire life forms on the planet is non-human ignorance.
Anyone who sees him/herself as somehow superior to, more deserving, better than others, any others including the trees and fish, is not being human. Non-humans are individuals who are running around in what appear to be what humans use for bodies on this planet. However, they are unconscious. Humans are Conscious. Those who assume, who are identified with their dense physical bodies are simply unconscious. They are not human....yet. Donald Trump and most of those with whom he consorts are not humans, and as in the Donald's case have a very long way to go.
11
Just wow! Such are the rationalizations that it's fine to harm homo sapiens who disagree with you or don't measure up to your idiosyncratic standard of human.
1. Humanism appropriated values from the gods--as it made the cosmos Nature--operating "by nature;" god stories relegated to mythology.
2. Darwin made humans fully natural animals--not half supernatural, shedding DNA, moving to Hades; reinstating Aristotle's "humans are (normally) rational animals."
3. Rational/irrational are matters of degree and value.
4. Healthy/sick are also matters of values/ideals/norms, applying to all life forms and by analogy to all systems--physical, biological, cultural, political. Normal/abnormal applies to all.
5. Rational/irrational is a species of normal/abnormal. Aristotle's virtues/vices were matters of moderation/ideals vs excess or deficiency regarding all human motivation and emotion. Moderation is the perfect ratio--thus rational, in one sense.
These are LIKE order/disorder, forms of health/illness. But order/disorder are more a matter of autonomic nervous systems; virtue/vice are more a matter of pedagogy--habituation.
6. Rights/duties (legal or ideal) are another matter--presuming rationality as self-control (consciousness + self consciousness + self criticism + the capacity to resist temptations and habits).
Rights are protected options (in a system--a game or polity), presuming choice. Fetuses, organs and many organisms don't have it. Duties also need choice; penalties attach to wrong choices. Normal/healthy adult humans can have duties to animals etc without their having rights or duties, except metaphorically.
2. Darwin made humans fully natural animals--not half supernatural, shedding DNA, moving to Hades; reinstating Aristotle's "humans are (normally) rational animals."
3. Rational/irrational are matters of degree and value.
4. Healthy/sick are also matters of values/ideals/norms, applying to all life forms and by analogy to all systems--physical, biological, cultural, political. Normal/abnormal applies to all.
5. Rational/irrational is a species of normal/abnormal. Aristotle's virtues/vices were matters of moderation/ideals vs excess or deficiency regarding all human motivation and emotion. Moderation is the perfect ratio--thus rational, in one sense.
These are LIKE order/disorder, forms of health/illness. But order/disorder are more a matter of autonomic nervous systems; virtue/vice are more a matter of pedagogy--habituation.
6. Rights/duties (legal or ideal) are another matter--presuming rationality as self-control (consciousness + self consciousness + self criticism + the capacity to resist temptations and habits).
Rights are protected options (in a system--a game or polity), presuming choice. Fetuses, organs and many organisms don't have it. Duties also need choice; penalties attach to wrong choices. Normal/healthy adult humans can have duties to animals etc without their having rights or duties, except metaphorically.
1
This discussion nicely illustrates the principle that a philosophy which is not rooted in some conception of God inevitably degenerates into senseless gibberish.
What are this philosopher's first principles?
What are this philosopher's first principles?
2
I have always found that any philosophy founded on god falls into nonsense. One only has to look at manifest destiny, the reasoning by christians that god gave them america, okayed slavery, is perfectly willing to divide people up by a non-existentent point of race when no such thing is real, that gays and others are labeled as at best 2nd class citizens, when people who follow the so called same god are divided by the most ridiculous small differences and a fight to the death must occur.
One only has to look at the history of religion to see what nonsense is thought of in the name of god. The 1st principle of religion, find someone else different to hate and kill. I'll take the w/o god philosophy. Some of it may be gibberish, but unlike religious gibberish, people don't hate and kill over it.
One only has to look at the history of religion to see what nonsense is thought of in the name of god. The 1st principle of religion, find someone else different to hate and kill. I'll take the w/o god philosophy. Some of it may be gibberish, but unlike religious gibberish, people don't hate and kill over it.
“Rights discourse is the coin of the realm,” as Cory Wolfe states wisely in this interview. This should be recognized as an essential part of the Posthumanist attitude. An enlightened understanding of our place in the world can no longer coin new values to replace the old ones. But the old ones are changed forever in the new dawning. They are now no more than life rafts in a swirling feedback vortex, like the one Wolfe describes—survival equipment for emergencies, not vessels of truth.
The problem with philosophy is that grabs things backwards. Racism and sexism are not caused by how we construct the categories "human" and "animal" in our mind. They are caused by the withholding rights from specific groups of people or women in society. Oppressed people are oppressed in reality, not first in thought that is then imposed on reality. Once oppression exists it is then justified ideologically.
For example, immigrants from Syria in Western countries are not oppressed because of some hierarchy of thought rooted in a fundamental distinction - in thought - between "human" and "animal". Immigrants are oppressed because they do not have the same rights as citizens of the countries in which they are living.
They key to ending oppression is extending humanism, not deconstructing it. Humanism does indeed place humanity at the pinnacle of life. The problem is that the universalism implied by humanism has to be won by people fighting for their rights and, more importantly, people with rights already fighting alongside those deprived of them in solidarity. Solidarity is the key to the progress of the humanist project. Unfortunately, it is solidarity with those who are oppressed that is undermined by philosophies that celebrate difference for its own sake.
For example, immigrants from Syria in Western countries are not oppressed because of some hierarchy of thought rooted in a fundamental distinction - in thought - between "human" and "animal". Immigrants are oppressed because they do not have the same rights as citizens of the countries in which they are living.
They key to ending oppression is extending humanism, not deconstructing it. Humanism does indeed place humanity at the pinnacle of life. The problem is that the universalism implied by humanism has to be won by people fighting for their rights and, more importantly, people with rights already fighting alongside those deprived of them in solidarity. Solidarity is the key to the progress of the humanist project. Unfortunately, it is solidarity with those who are oppressed that is undermined by philosophies that celebrate difference for its own sake.
I am in agreement.
Unification is key.
To commence, I propose that--at the least--all manner of institutional mysticism (i.e., religion), be renounced, that all religious texts be destroyed, and that any assertions to or promotion of the existence of an invisible anthropomorphic entity be prohibited...for the benefit of the species.
The lack of resources necessary to execute the change, especially when contrasted to what will be gained, makes the proposal quite appealing...I opine.
Unification is key.
To commence, I propose that--at the least--all manner of institutional mysticism (i.e., religion), be renounced, that all religious texts be destroyed, and that any assertions to or promotion of the existence of an invisible anthropomorphic entity be prohibited...for the benefit of the species.
The lack of resources necessary to execute the change, especially when contrasted to what will be gained, makes the proposal quite appealing...I opine.
This intellectual philosophical self-abuse suffers from what Vonnegut called "big complicated brain syndrome" as in large brains that can entertain simultaneous complicated thoughts that can be destructive and reduce humans to inaction and depression. Slicing and dicing is entertaining for academic Alpha's but for better or worse most of the time its the Beta's that run our human world.
Navel gazing philosophical discussions "may" assist us in reinventing our cultural framework. Meanwhile, we are rapidly being overtaken by actual events.
All thinkers "stand upon the shoulders of giants" as in new ideas are based on previous ideas. Accelerated communications (Internet) has sped up the dissemination of ideas and caused inexorable and unpredictable cultural and economic change that will continue to accelerate worldwide.
There has been more technology change in the last 100 years then in the previous 1000 years. Unfortunately, our understanding of human psychology and the closed bio system that we live in is still rooted in philosophical and religious concepts centuries old.
ALL of our political leaders have failed us as they are well behind this kinetic technology curve. The latest US political shift is a fear-based/belated attempt to turn back the technological and cultural clock.
Rational thought based on evidence based observation is our only hope to understand our psyche and biome. In the meantime, we are in for some very tumultuous decades.
Navel gazing philosophical discussions "may" assist us in reinventing our cultural framework. Meanwhile, we are rapidly being overtaken by actual events.
All thinkers "stand upon the shoulders of giants" as in new ideas are based on previous ideas. Accelerated communications (Internet) has sped up the dissemination of ideas and caused inexorable and unpredictable cultural and economic change that will continue to accelerate worldwide.
There has been more technology change in the last 100 years then in the previous 1000 years. Unfortunately, our understanding of human psychology and the closed bio system that we live in is still rooted in philosophical and religious concepts centuries old.
ALL of our political leaders have failed us as they are well behind this kinetic technology curve. The latest US political shift is a fear-based/belated attempt to turn back the technological and cultural clock.
Rational thought based on evidence based observation is our only hope to understand our psyche and biome. In the meantime, we are in for some very tumultuous decades.
2
Who is it that will be left to supposedly be discussing posthumanism? Machine small talk maybe? Watercooler to watercooler? Glub, glub, glub. Finally, something that makes sense.
I'm all in favor of appreciating and caring for other species, but is there no "ontological divide between human and [other] animal life"? For one thing, I don't see other species developing and debating ethical theories, as we're doing here. Doesn't the activity in which we're engaged right now show that there is something distinctive and remarkable about humans?
3
I find things that are remarkable about dogs. They are loyal, loving beings. Does the fact that I can't have a discourse with mine means they are less than me, not so worthy of life? My dog can do many things better than I could. Is that an argument that she is superior to me?
Humans like to think they are so superior, even over other humans. The problem is, they aren't superior.
Humans like to think they are so superior, even over other humans. The problem is, they aren't superior.
This my 2d comment submission is in part an effort to explain to repliers to comment 1 why I focus on the untouchable subject (I use CWs words), the use of "...a racial.. taxonomy to countenance a violence that doesn't count as violence etc..."
We in the USA use a racial taxonomy (USCB system with terminology from the 18th century) originally created in part to justify violence on the part of those who were "white by law" against those who were "black by law".
Slaves and their descendants were seen as "lower" or more "primitive" forms of life. During WW II when I was a child, Japanese, always referred to by other words, were seen as a "lower" form of life. And now, routinely in NYT comments Muslims, Middle Easterners, Afghanis, Horn of Africa people are seen as practicing lower forms of life than such higher forms of life as our president to be - sarcasm intended.
By continuing to place each American in one of those race boxes each is seen, if silently, as they were historically seen when they came here. Swedes who lived in Swede Hollow, MN in the 18th century were seen as "black" and inferior people against whom violence was justified.
CW's replies to NLs question: "Could a post-humanist intervention risk moving focus away from a direct and much needed struggle against these things...?" deal with this subject.
I have learned that any mention of ending classifcation by "race" leads to the reply: "we cannot do that".
And you?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
We in the USA use a racial taxonomy (USCB system with terminology from the 18th century) originally created in part to justify violence on the part of those who were "white by law" against those who were "black by law".
Slaves and their descendants were seen as "lower" or more "primitive" forms of life. During WW II when I was a child, Japanese, always referred to by other words, were seen as a "lower" form of life. And now, routinely in NYT comments Muslims, Middle Easterners, Afghanis, Horn of Africa people are seen as practicing lower forms of life than such higher forms of life as our president to be - sarcasm intended.
By continuing to place each American in one of those race boxes each is seen, if silently, as they were historically seen when they came here. Swedes who lived in Swede Hollow, MN in the 18th century were seen as "black" and inferior people against whom violence was justified.
CW's replies to NLs question: "Could a post-humanist intervention risk moving focus away from a direct and much needed struggle against these things...?" deal with this subject.
I have learned that any mention of ending classifcation by "race" leads to the reply: "we cannot do that".
And you?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
2
Elitist nonsense - 'deconstruction,' with all of its associated self-loathing claptrap, is fuel of the post-truth mess we are in.
5
With due deference to acknowledging the history of religious discrimination against scientists, the article's notion that "the bioenergetic physical entity called “Socrates” ceased to exist a long time ago" is pure speculation and not fact. Of course, Socrates "died," which means that minimally, his biologic organism is no longer evident to our perceptual apparatus as humans. Exactly where/how/when/what Socrates may currently be existing is an open question which goes beyond merely noting his ongoing systemic influences.
I find it strange that folks so steeped in the logic of the scientific method could fail to realize that the unsolvable conundrum of life after death represents a vast unknown, and not a supposed energetic nihilism. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that our awareness of humans of our own brand of human consciousness means that there are not other types of awarenesses also possible which might operate differently than the "bio-energetics" of our known mode of existence. Anyone who knows even a little about the General Theory of Relatively and thinks a little about what it means that the universe has some as-yet unproven space-time "Shape" will quickly get to a place in their head where the assumption that "bio-energetic" realities are all there is looks like crude and unseemly as a theory when compared to the wondrous and extravagant properties -- at all scales -- with which the space-time material universe is bountifully suffused.
I find it strange that folks so steeped in the logic of the scientific method could fail to realize that the unsolvable conundrum of life after death represents a vast unknown, and not a supposed energetic nihilism. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that our awareness of humans of our own brand of human consciousness means that there are not other types of awarenesses also possible which might operate differently than the "bio-energetics" of our known mode of existence. Anyone who knows even a little about the General Theory of Relatively and thinks a little about what it means that the universe has some as-yet unproven space-time "Shape" will quickly get to a place in their head where the assumption that "bio-energetic" realities are all there is looks like crude and unseemly as a theory when compared to the wondrous and extravagant properties -- at all scales -- with which the space-time material universe is bountifully suffused.
2
Articulate, but others have pointed out some issues.
Humanism has historically been on the inclusive fringe of thought; in short, it has *already* integrated the "post-human" aspects Wolfe emphasizes. Animal rights may have been significantly deciphered from study of human (animal) rights - for historical and accessibility reasons (yes, it's easier to make arguments by relating to things people understand). However, animal rights aren't grounded on "Human-minus" designations today. An emphasis on sentience as a relevant characteristic for moral concern isn't an anthropocentric one. Is it possible Wolfe is interpolating her own anthropocentrism in asserting we value elephants and dolphins for their human-ness?
If you want to find someone pushing for human (animal) rights, animal rights, ethical consideration that invokes a broader self, and even machine rights - you'd best search for a Humanist. A typical Humanist has already incorporated "post-human" thinking, like understanding biology. Is the label itself imprecise, given that Humanists are among the least anthropocentric? Sure, but Post-Humanism as a label isn't any more precise.
Much of the rest of the population that say, ignores factory farming or categorically sees non-human animals as having no souls - do not self-identify as Humanists. More likely than not, they're just average (probably religious) people. When Wolfe promotes her ideas to politicians, she's not challenging Humanist norms, she's promoting them.
Humanism has historically been on the inclusive fringe of thought; in short, it has *already* integrated the "post-human" aspects Wolfe emphasizes. Animal rights may have been significantly deciphered from study of human (animal) rights - for historical and accessibility reasons (yes, it's easier to make arguments by relating to things people understand). However, animal rights aren't grounded on "Human-minus" designations today. An emphasis on sentience as a relevant characteristic for moral concern isn't an anthropocentric one. Is it possible Wolfe is interpolating her own anthropocentrism in asserting we value elephants and dolphins for their human-ness?
If you want to find someone pushing for human (animal) rights, animal rights, ethical consideration that invokes a broader self, and even machine rights - you'd best search for a Humanist. A typical Humanist has already incorporated "post-human" thinking, like understanding biology. Is the label itself imprecise, given that Humanists are among the least anthropocentric? Sure, but Post-Humanism as a label isn't any more precise.
Much of the rest of the population that say, ignores factory farming or categorically sees non-human animals as having no souls - do not self-identify as Humanists. More likely than not, they're just average (probably religious) people. When Wolfe promotes her ideas to politicians, she's not challenging Humanist norms, she's promoting them.
1
You can see the entire universe in every species when you look close enough and long enough.
1
That is so true. As a scientist, the more I have learned about the universe, the more I realize how it is all interconnected. When you pluck one strand, everything around it is affected.
What a loose bag of contemporary cliches! I can't find a single philosophical thought or argument anywhere in this interview. The casual, contentless dismissals of humanism are just silly. The humanist tradition is vast, and Mr. Wolfe, for whatever professional advantage he gets from being a post-ie, is as imbued with it and, as an academic, as dependent and grounded in it, as anyone. Even going beyond humanism is a somewhat humanistic project.
One of the central projects of humanism is, as as some other commenters have pointed out, to go on trying to say what human dignity is. Jens Zimmerman has a good historical account of this that includes the neglected tradition of religious humanism.
Why does academic life have to be such a silly game?
One of the central projects of humanism is, as as some other commenters have pointed out, to go on trying to say what human dignity is. Jens Zimmerman has a good historical account of this that includes the neglected tradition of religious humanism.
Why does academic life have to be such a silly game?
18
"We have no friends on this earth, you know...it's no mystery why. We are destructive. We have antagonized every living being on this earth. That's why we have no friends."
Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan
Another bioenergetic physical entity, a sorcerer, who renounced the personal aggrandizing behavior of his antecedent practitioners, hating human slavery, embracing freedom & was an intermediary between the natural and the unseen.
Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan
Another bioenergetic physical entity, a sorcerer, who renounced the personal aggrandizing behavior of his antecedent practitioners, hating human slavery, embracing freedom & was an intermediary between the natural and the unseen.
3
On these issues, may I suggest my 1993 book, An Unnatural Order, now in paperback from Lantern Books. I tried to explain the construction of the myth of human supremacy and our species' alienation from other animals and nature. As many are now saying, it all began c. 10,000 years ago with agriculture, but, as I argue, specifically with animal domestication/husbandry because that broke and replaced the much older totemic worldview of kinship with animals and the living world.
And there were some spin-offs-- such as slavery, patriarchy, and private, property-- and its spinoffs: materialism, greed, warfare and imperialism.
No wonder that the peoples of the last remnants of this (I call it "primal") worldview are suffering greatly in the chaos of our modern world.
And there were some spin-offs-- such as slavery, patriarchy, and private, property-- and its spinoffs: materialism, greed, warfare and imperialism.
No wonder that the peoples of the last remnants of this (I call it "primal") worldview are suffering greatly in the chaos of our modern world.
1
Western so called civilization has esp. separated itself from the natural world. The spin offs that you mention are the result of that divorce from reality. As one insists that they are superior, one must demand that others acknowledge it. Then problems ensue.
As someone who has studied history, biology. paleobiology, anthropology, paleoanthropology, and how it all fits together, civilization might not be our best invention considering how we have used it against ourselves and against the planet. Our disrespect for the earth and life on it is mirrored by the disrespect we show one another. How willing we are to destroy rather than create.
Your book sounds interesting. And I agree with what you say. As an atheist, the only religion I find reasonable is that practiced by people like the native americans. Not that they are perfect, no one is, but it is a more respectful religion of life and how we treat the planet.
As someone who has studied history, biology. paleobiology, anthropology, paleoanthropology, and how it all fits together, civilization might not be our best invention considering how we have used it against ourselves and against the planet. Our disrespect for the earth and life on it is mirrored by the disrespect we show one another. How willing we are to destroy rather than create.
Your book sounds interesting. And I agree with what you say. As an atheist, the only religion I find reasonable is that practiced by people like the native americans. Not that they are perfect, no one is, but it is a more respectful religion of life and how we treat the planet.
Humanism is nothing more than the historical development of ethics across millenia. Post-humanism is as useless a concept as 'post-ethics' would be to us 'humans' and even to animal welfare. It does not help anybody but the people who make a living discussing it, like 'post-modernism', 'post-truth' and any other 'post-' concoctions.
5
This article predictably avoids discussion of the natural nonhuman right against human caused genocide - a species right to exist. As usual it focuses on the killing and suffering of individuals - which conveniently does not threaten the ability of the NY Times corporate advertisers &PC Pretend to Care about others "liberals' to continually increase the size of the human enterprise (population x consumption) for ever more profit and power.As Bob stated it is an illustration of complete leadership intellectual failure when the economist Paul Krugman fails to acknowledge "limits to human activity" on the finite sphere and its ecosystems we call earth.The intention of this omission is of course to enable the destruction of earth's natural ecosystems, and habitats of most not commercially profitable species so the resources they contain can be liquidated and made into more human bodies, supporting infrastructure and artifacts that can be sold at a profit by our assorted business owner, financial institution and merchant few percent nobility. And the social Darwinian reason that this appears to be morally acceptable to our homicidal leaders is that even if it is highly probable that their greedy destruction of other species and ecosystems will lead to a 2008 like housing bubble crash that on the biosphere scale will kill billions, the most fit (them) will survive due to their hoarding of the wealth gained from destroying the earth the majority of us lesser beings need to survive.
9
This seems a faulty definition of the Enlightenment "self". The ideals of Renaissance or Enlightenment self-fashioning aren't mere branding. They can be aspirational and in that sense progressive. How can I become a better human being, given that I can't be any other kind of—what was it?—"bioenergetic physical entity." It's true that most individuals will define "better" in a very superficial way having to do with the correct grooming of one's eyebrows or the arbitrary likes of fashion.
But the placing of humans at the top of a biological hierarchy, while profoundly destructive from an ecological perspective, can also speak to a demand on oneself to be better—to defer gratification, not to attempt to dominate others, not to be a creature of appetites and frivolous emotions. So often we try to excuse our failures by saying they're "natural"; that is, inherent to us as animals. It's natural to break a promise to our mate to be faithful. It's natural to want to hoard as many resources as possible. It's natural to establish dominance and bully others.
However, we know that it's best for the overall health of our species and that of all other species of life for humans not to act on all the impulses that come naturally to us as animals. We label these conscious mechanisms of self-control as human because they are created through social, moral and intellectual mechanisms we developed as a species.
I lack the space to pursue this further.
But the placing of humans at the top of a biological hierarchy, while profoundly destructive from an ecological perspective, can also speak to a demand on oneself to be better—to defer gratification, not to attempt to dominate others, not to be a creature of appetites and frivolous emotions. So often we try to excuse our failures by saying they're "natural"; that is, inherent to us as animals. It's natural to break a promise to our mate to be faithful. It's natural to want to hoard as many resources as possible. It's natural to establish dominance and bully others.
However, we know that it's best for the overall health of our species and that of all other species of life for humans not to act on all the impulses that come naturally to us as animals. We label these conscious mechanisms of self-control as human because they are created through social, moral and intellectual mechanisms we developed as a species.
I lack the space to pursue this further.
8
"As long as you take it for granted that it’s O.K. to commit violence against animals simply because of their biological designation, then that same logic will be available to you to commit violence against any other being, of whatever species, human or not, that you can characterize as a “lower” or more “primitive” form of life."
Yes, precisely what is done when the genetically and physical, individual member of the human race known as the embryo or fetus is violently destroyed because the mother finds her/his presence unwelcome and the child is dismissed as a lower and less worthy form of life.
Yes, precisely what is done when the genetically and physical, individual member of the human race known as the embryo or fetus is violently destroyed because the mother finds her/his presence unwelcome and the child is dismissed as a lower and less worthy form of life.
5
Presumably, then, you are a vegan and opposed to capital punishment.
9
He doesn't have to be opposed to capital punishment.
A murderer has already proven to be anti-life. He is killed
so he can't do it again. That is pro-life AND a logical, sensible position
A murderer has already proven to be anti-life. He is killed
so he can't do it again. That is pro-life AND a logical, sensible position
1
I think quepiensa's comment is fair and directs your vegan/anti-c.p. standard back onto Cary Wolfe and the posthumanists.
2
Not much deep philosophy here. Never liked the subject much, as many commenters have noted it tends to be overly verbose using far too many words that one has to look up the definition of to say far too little.
But become "post-carnivore." Non-human sentient beings have rights. It's healthier, cheaper, and imperative in combatting global warming. Factory farms are simply a blight on the planet. The animals' waste products are a huge environmental concern, as is the need to constantly cut down more trees to replace them with what essentially are animal prisons. Methane released from farting is a huge contributor to heat trapping gases in our atmosphere. Besides, why contribute to the suffering of a sentient being?
Post-carnivore.
But become "post-carnivore." Non-human sentient beings have rights. It's healthier, cheaper, and imperative in combatting global warming. Factory farms are simply a blight on the planet. The animals' waste products are a huge environmental concern, as is the need to constantly cut down more trees to replace them with what essentially are animal prisons. Methane released from farting is a huge contributor to heat trapping gases in our atmosphere. Besides, why contribute to the suffering of a sentient being?
Post-carnivore.
6
No jargon is required to define what humanism is.
Contemporary humanism emphasis on the dignity and worth of individuals.
In post humanism, individual was not an end to the self, but a sacrificial animal or a means to the end of kings, war loards priest, and the moder version manifested in forms of collectivism is for tyranical rulers.
Contemporary humanism emphasis on the dignity and worth of individuals.
In post humanism, individual was not an end to the self, but a sacrificial animal or a means to the end of kings, war loards priest, and the moder version manifested in forms of collectivism is for tyranical rulers.
6
Even though English isn't my first language, I understood the concepts raised in this article. They're related to deep ecology, ecofeminism, nonviolence. Look for those terms on Wikipédia if you need some light.
3
So - the next wolf that senselessly murders a deer gets sent to wolf-jail?
11
No, the wolf eating a deer doesn't go to "wolf jail." That would be putting the animals in a human context. The point here is to remove that as a framework or point of comparison.
3
By that senseless remark, you would have to go to jail for eating any life. Plants are alive also. And you just killed.
1
I can eat fish and game knowing they lived a life in decent surroundings, however I have a hard time swallowing meat raised under terrible conditions.
I regret not being able to follow Nobel Laureate C.V. Raman's ethical values fully, but when I do I feel better about myself.
I regret not being able to follow Nobel Laureate C.V. Raman's ethical values fully, but when I do I feel better about myself.
1
"ontologically separate and discrete domains like “human” and “animal,” or “biological” and “mechanical.”"
Humans are animals, and there are in fact a great many biological structures/processes that are mechanical in every way except that they were not "constructed" by humans.
So if "humanism" begins by putting humans at the center of all things, just because we ontologize, then humanism should die and be buried under the dust of time. Navel gazing is what has caused the humanities to become despised and neglected even in our University curricula.
Philosophy, as I've said many times here at 'The Stone' needs to be absorbed by the history department as 'The History of Mostly Secular But Still Quasi-Scientific Human Argument Through The Ages'. Not that historians are perfect. Far from it. The over-specialization and utter failure of history professionals to seek biological answers in evolutionary theory for why history tends to repeat itself for instance- whether one knows history or not (apologies to George Santayana and every other student of history worth his salt who noticed this "mechanical" repetition)- is evidence the fundamental anti-science bias that prevents the field of history from providing any real answers, just as chronic navel gazing and an obsession with obfuscating jargon prevents philosophy from doing so.
When are we going to admit the real age we live in might simply be Post Philosophical?
Humans are animals, and there are in fact a great many biological structures/processes that are mechanical in every way except that they were not "constructed" by humans.
So if "humanism" begins by putting humans at the center of all things, just because we ontologize, then humanism should die and be buried under the dust of time. Navel gazing is what has caused the humanities to become despised and neglected even in our University curricula.
Philosophy, as I've said many times here at 'The Stone' needs to be absorbed by the history department as 'The History of Mostly Secular But Still Quasi-Scientific Human Argument Through The Ages'. Not that historians are perfect. Far from it. The over-specialization and utter failure of history professionals to seek biological answers in evolutionary theory for why history tends to repeat itself for instance- whether one knows history or not (apologies to George Santayana and every other student of history worth his salt who noticed this "mechanical" repetition)- is evidence the fundamental anti-science bias that prevents the field of history from providing any real answers, just as chronic navel gazing and an obsession with obfuscating jargon prevents philosophy from doing so.
When are we going to admit the real age we live in might simply be Post Philosophical?
3
Except, isn't that a philosophical question? And if it is . . . .
2
Are humans really human?
Or are humans one of the three primate apes along with the bonobo and chimpanzee?
Are there any signs of intelligent life on Earth?
Ants? Whales? Cephalopods? Canines? Primates?
Is there any science in the social, the political, the theological, the philosophical or the historical?
Or are humans one of the three primate apes along with the bonobo and chimpanzee?
Are there any signs of intelligent life on Earth?
Ants? Whales? Cephalopods? Canines? Primates?
Is there any science in the social, the political, the theological, the philosophical or the historical?
2
Reasoning, yes/Science, not much.
@ blackmamba IL - Would you consider rephrasing that first question to something like: "What tests must each individual pass to be judged as really human?"
As for your 2d question, I would refer that to Svante Pääbo.
Larry L.
As for your 2d question, I would refer that to Svante Pääbo.
Larry L.
@ blackmamba - IL - blackmamba I would like you to take a look at the excellent reply to my 1st comment (URL at end) from Andre in Germany. Andre closes with this line: "...If the intended meaning of "race" is "geographical origin", why not call it that way?" You and I have made that point many times in the past 3 years but no Times columnist or Editor shows any awareness of what Andre points out and as you and I do.
Any chance you would go to my blog and find my Gmail there and use it? How can we get the New York Times to invite Dorothy Roberts (I hope you have looked at her TED talk) or Svante Pääbo to introduce readers to what you and I write about here in comment land?
Larry
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/is-humanism-really-humane.html...
where Andre's reply is last.
Any chance you would go to my blog and find my Gmail there and use it? How can we get the New York Times to invite Dorothy Roberts (I hope you have looked at her TED talk) or Svante Pääbo to introduce readers to what you and I write about here in comment land?
Larry
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/is-humanism-really-humane.html...
where Andre's reply is last.
I'm not sure I have ever read an essay so long that said so little. I couldn't tell if the author was trying to make a semantic argument, a moral argument, an ethical argument, or trying to order a cheeseburger.
As one of my favorite sayings goes: If you can't explain your thesis in a sentence, it's not a real thesis
As one of my favorite sayings goes: If you can't explain your thesis in a sentence, it's not a real thesis
56
For sure he's not ordering a cheeseburger, lest "human" rights be violated. I, for my part, love animals: for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
3
@ Jesse Denver - Jesse, this is not an essay but a set of answers to questions. After reading the 18 or 19 Stone Q and A sessions run by George Yancey on "Race" - never about "race", always about racism - I decided that the format does not work. Same here. I think there are some interesting "passages" and my two comments (only one in print so far) are based on those.
In short, there is no author here.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
In short, there is no author here.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
This reads like a joke essay that was produced by a computer program that emulates writing essays. Such programs exist...people have used them to produce gibberish "science" articles that have been sent to some of these online "journals" and accepted for publication.
Raising animals to the level of humans does not enhance but rather degrades both. A rat is not a pig is not a dog is not a child, but in the topsy-turvy world of transhumanism and the New York Times, a baby seal has a lot more rights than a baby human.
6
I disagree. Humanism does not "raise animals to the level of humans". Humanism does ask us to behave humanely toward animals, and toward humans who are more vulnerable than we are.
Cruelty is what degrades humans. Animals behave according to their nature.
Humans, if we consider ourselves to be superior to the rest of creation, have an obligation to be good stewards of the earth, and to rise above the level of instinct in our behavior.
Cruelty is what degrades humans. Animals behave according to their nature.
Humans, if we consider ourselves to be superior to the rest of creation, have an obligation to be good stewards of the earth, and to rise above the level of instinct in our behavior.
2
My guard immediately goes up when I hear "post-" used as a prefix to any philosophical designation (still working on "post-racial" 8 years later - it sure doesn't seem like what I thought they meant), because now we likely have two undefined terms, one referencing another and implying that one has gone further in thought than the other or that something is already settled. I suspect that like any two "philosophers," two "post-humanists" might vehemently disagree about issues. If a philosophical designation (like humanist) just means here is someone who thinks about this type of thing, then "post-" has no meaning at all. It is just confusing.
Here's a more concrete example - does/should a post-humanist opposed to hunting? A humanist might argue it is human centered and cruel and another that but for hunters paying for all those parks in Africa, there would be few if any big game parks there preventing extinction to big game animals, so to eliminate it would be human-centered and cruel. And do any of them think differently because they are post-humanists as opposed to just humanists? Better to just discuss the issue without the labels.
Last, this hysteria about Trump is just ridiculous - must everything be about him? You get the feeling that if space aliens made contact today the first question some people would ask would be - would you have voted for him?
Here's a more concrete example - does/should a post-humanist opposed to hunting? A humanist might argue it is human centered and cruel and another that but for hunters paying for all those parks in Africa, there would be few if any big game parks there preventing extinction to big game animals, so to eliminate it would be human-centered and cruel. And do any of them think differently because they are post-humanists as opposed to just humanists? Better to just discuss the issue without the labels.
Last, this hysteria about Trump is just ridiculous - must everything be about him? You get the feeling that if space aliens made contact today the first question some people would ask would be - would you have voted for him?
7
Actually, I think that would be a pretty good indication of whether the aliens were here on an exploratory diplomatic mission or to grind us up for Venusian sausage.
5
How To Serve Man-Rod Serling
3
People don't like to think about this because they know that if they do, they will have to boycott all animal products. Indulgence defeats ethics.
3
The disintegrated modern mind is the context for Leftist fascism. See Ayn Rand's rational system for the human alternative.
2
Ayn Rand's philosophy was to maximize selfishness and greed . It didn't even work for her personally. It won't work for a nation, either. That's how empires topple.
1
"Rand's moral theory of self-interest is derived from man' s nature as a rational being and end in himself, recognizes man's right to think and act according to his freely-chosen principles, and reflects a man's potential to be the best person he can be in the context of his existing circumstances."
"Best" being the operative word here, which is not happening as far as I can see.
Amoral corporate interests, operating at the expense of others, is hardly "best".
Leftist Fascism is an oxymoron
"Best" being the operative word here, which is not happening as far as I can see.
Amoral corporate interests, operating at the expense of others, is hardly "best".
Leftist Fascism is an oxymoron
2
Thank you Prof. Wolfe. Sometimes a short interview removes the peels from ones eyes and stimulates a different way of viewing the world.
As you are likely aware, the Andean countries, particularly Bolivia and Ecuador, have given rights to nature in their constitutions. This is not just an extension of the rights discourse. The idea is also embedded in an Andean philosophy known as Buen Vivir (Sumak Kusay in Quechua, Good living in English). Buenvivir, like you describe as post-humanism, respects the plurality of life forms and attempts to view each on its own terms, de-centering and removing humans as the lords of the natural and animal worlds.
Buen vivir emerged largely as a reaction to the western notions of underdevelopment and modernity. In practice, however, it is not easy to remove the privileges of economic and political elites who derive their status from a globalized, human-centric world where capital accumulation rides roughshod over the needs and rights of the majority, humans, animals and nature.
In the world of politics, action and social mobilization, then, we find ourselves returning to the language of rights. Rights open up the possibility of legal action on behalf of Nature.
However aspirationally, we are returning to a pre-modern vision derived from our indigenous ancestors who always knew that the universe is built on harmonies among animal and plant species as the foundation of all of life. In this, Buen Vivir is a post and pre-humanist philosophy.
As you are likely aware, the Andean countries, particularly Bolivia and Ecuador, have given rights to nature in their constitutions. This is not just an extension of the rights discourse. The idea is also embedded in an Andean philosophy known as Buen Vivir (Sumak Kusay in Quechua, Good living in English). Buenvivir, like you describe as post-humanism, respects the plurality of life forms and attempts to view each on its own terms, de-centering and removing humans as the lords of the natural and animal worlds.
Buen vivir emerged largely as a reaction to the western notions of underdevelopment and modernity. In practice, however, it is not easy to remove the privileges of economic and political elites who derive their status from a globalized, human-centric world where capital accumulation rides roughshod over the needs and rights of the majority, humans, animals and nature.
In the world of politics, action and social mobilization, then, we find ourselves returning to the language of rights. Rights open up the possibility of legal action on behalf of Nature.
However aspirationally, we are returning to a pre-modern vision derived from our indigenous ancestors who always knew that the universe is built on harmonies among animal and plant species as the foundation of all of life. In this, Buen Vivir is a post and pre-humanist philosophy.
11
Savages? Really?
Great interview. In order to explain the political value of posthumanism even more effectively, it might be helpful to consider a real-world issue that enmeshes humans and nonhumans together on a daily basis. For example, industrial meat production destroys 50 billion nonhuman lives every year for food while wrecking rural human communities and the environment through water pollution, deforestation, CO2 emissions, and race-to-bottom labor conditions. The meat industry also wastes taxpayer money through agricultural subsidies that ought to enrage even the most conservative Americans. Moreover, industrial meat fosters ignorance about our food supply by making us think that protein comes from shrink-wrapped packages at the grocery store instead of living beings and working people. Posthumanism, like ecology, invites us to reconnect some of these dots in order to think critically about our relationships to various beings.
7
Modernists are becoming clearer about their anti-humanist nihilism, their lust for destruction for the sake of destruction. If they succeed, Nazism will seem a Sunday school picnic.
There is a point in here but one wonders if this is communication or performance?
20
Of course it's performance. That's what she does for a living.
1
At last, a humanist who recognizes that the facts elucidated by modern Biology (especially Evolutionary Biology) must shape the discourse of the Humanities. Well done, Stone.
2
@ Frank Midwest - Frank, at least a start. My 1st comment touches on this. Larry L. Sweden
Some aspects of humanism have roots in the Christian notion of dominion. A better view is that each living creature has an inherent right to its own existence. Evolutionarily speaking, no creature evolved to serve man.
5
Indeed, but it is actually interesting to re-read Genesis. While Genesis 1:28 gives humans dominion over the earth: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground,” Genesis 1:22 suggests that God expects a flourishing biosphere: “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” So, mankind would be custodian of the earth, but should not arbitrarily dominate it. Interestingly also, Genesis 1:28 states that before the Fall humans were vegetarian: "“I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." Genesis 9:2 shows that humans started eating meat only after the Deluge: "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teemeth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered." So, the dominant view that Christianity would give mankind unchecked power over the biosphere is not even compatible with the Bible.
2
"Rights are moral sanctions to man's freedom of action in society."
-Ayn Rand
Morality applies to man only because of his volitional/conceptual mind.
-Ayn Rand
Morality applies to man only because of his volitional/conceptual mind.
Human rights are for those whose rights are either denied of deprived of by the State.
1
First, "post" does mean "after".That's all it means—not "better", just "after".
Second, errors in various uses of the term "humanism" or "humanity" do not justify eliminating it, but rather for illuminating it. Languages evolve as times change; so our sense of humans' place in nature may enrich, and not dispel, how we understand human ecology.
Third, the idea that humans are animals goes back at least to Aristotle; the idea that other forms of "life" should be valued according to their biological similarity to humans is a straw man in this discussion, not a reason to replace the idea of humanity. Discussions of "rights" are based on ideas about life itself, not just human life.
Bottom line: there is nothing in this article that justifies expelling the words "human" or "humanism" from our vocabulary. The term "posthumanism" is pretentious nonsense.
Second, errors in various uses of the term "humanism" or "humanity" do not justify eliminating it, but rather for illuminating it. Languages evolve as times change; so our sense of humans' place in nature may enrich, and not dispel, how we understand human ecology.
Third, the idea that humans are animals goes back at least to Aristotle; the idea that other forms of "life" should be valued according to their biological similarity to humans is a straw man in this discussion, not a reason to replace the idea of humanity. Discussions of "rights" are based on ideas about life itself, not just human life.
Bottom line: there is nothing in this article that justifies expelling the words "human" or "humanism" from our vocabulary. The term "posthumanism" is pretentious nonsense.
30
While "post" does indeed mean "after," it doesn't mean that what came before no longer exists or has value. It means it's seen in light of the previous understanding; founded on that understanding, even if not following it. I didn't see anyone say that humanism needed to disappear, just that setting aside the putting of humans in the center of the discussion (the "human" in "humanism" does that, you must admit) is a useful approach.
" ... whatever it is we value ethically and morally in various forms of life, it has nothing to do with the biological designation of 'human' or 'animal.' "
Only humans can value something morally and ethically, so it has everything to do with being human to care enough about animals, for example, to want them not to be abused, hurt, or neglected. The minute you talk about "how they should be treated," you can only be addressing humans. Did you want to talk to animals about how they should treat others? I don't value and care about animals because I see them as second-class "humans" (whatever that might mean)--but rather because they "have no voice .... they have no choice" (to quote the old Carpenters' song) in a world where the human animal does.
Much of this conversation seemed like a lot of rhetorical contortions to diminish the self (more postmodern blather that there is no self--while each of us knows, in our everyday life, that we aren't someone else and that the self is a complex gathering of mind, body, experiences, language, etc.). Instead, the argument here seems moral (that is, human) in that humans should not treat other beings dismissively or derisively. But, to quote Blake, "The eye altering, alters all."
Only humans can value something morally and ethically, so it has everything to do with being human to care enough about animals, for example, to want them not to be abused, hurt, or neglected. The minute you talk about "how they should be treated," you can only be addressing humans. Did you want to talk to animals about how they should treat others? I don't value and care about animals because I see them as second-class "humans" (whatever that might mean)--but rather because they "have no voice .... they have no choice" (to quote the old Carpenters' song) in a world where the human animal does.
Much of this conversation seemed like a lot of rhetorical contortions to diminish the self (more postmodern blather that there is no self--while each of us knows, in our everyday life, that we aren't someone else and that the self is a complex gathering of mind, body, experiences, language, etc.). Instead, the argument here seems moral (that is, human) in that humans should not treat other beings dismissively or derisively. But, to quote Blake, "The eye altering, alters all."
15
So many words. So little content.
62
The concept of "humanism" is inherently flawed. It presumes that homo sapiens collectively are rational and benign. History shows us to be a plague upon our planet. We are at the tipping edge of rendering ourselves a failed species and good riddance to us. Perhaps evolution's next attempt at satience will be more successful
3
Perhaps in the next attempt the sentient beings will be able to spell.
4
Man ,as Ayn Rand recognized, is volitionally rational. Modernists choose to evade reason and to rationalize the evasion with brain-cracking, floating abstractions and out-of-context concretes.
1
Volitionally, doesn't mean that man is rational. 1st any life that can move will do so under different circumstances. That means they make a rational decision by your standard. 2nd Ayn rand was a nut. She thought that humans didn't need one another and that selfishness and greed were great qualities and that self-sacrificing was bad.
Until a john galt can build a railroad ALL by himself, that means clear the land, lay the rails, etc, he didn't build anything by himself. It is a foolish concept. And it ignores reality. But then again, I don't see ayn rand fans as being in touch with reality.
Until a john galt can build a railroad ALL by himself, that means clear the land, lay the rails, etc, he didn't build anything by himself. It is a foolish concept. And it ignores reality. But then again, I don't see ayn rand fans as being in touch with reality.
1
C. W., skillfully perhaps, nevertheless exhibits what Marilynne Robinson calls a "hermeneutics of condescension"--contemporary science and thought is declared to be superior to and more adequate in dealing with complexity than all of history, art, religion, theology, literature, philosophy, metaphysics and the history of science itself. Like much contemporary thought it mistakes thinking with that point where we become tired of thinking. Science becomes scientism. The skillful part is where C. W. advocates the "decentering" of the human being in human knowing and creation, which is precisely what scientism does. You can't throw out the cake and have dessert if the cake is all you have for dessert.
7
Skip makes the basic point -- divorcing humanity and our society from the environment leads to disasters like the ones that are now accelerating. It's true in every aspect of our existence but especially in economics and law. The abject failure of even the brightest economists like Paul Krugman to acknowledge and embrace this simple and obvious fact, their inability to face LIMITS to human activity confounds me. Systems thinking is so much superior to our old modes of thought that it is often surreptitiously incorporated into our views of the world while failing to acknowledge its obvious truths about interconnectedness and limits.
2
Thank you for this discussion of post-humanism and why it's an important emerging discourse in the humanities and academia at large. Note to those who complain about "philosophical gibberish": academic language and its precision are the tools that enable the discovery of new approaches for articulating the world and ourselves. It is not mainstream language because it can't be mainstream language. If it were, it would be saying something that we already know. So as, if you understood 80% of what Lennard says here, you are reading this correctly. We learn and grow by pushing against what we don't know, not be reaffirming what we already believe.
7
"We learn and grow by pushing against what we don't know, not be reaffirming what we already believe."
Thank you for this simple, profound truth. Unfortunately by the time most people (even educated) focus on the latter at the expense of the former.
Thank you for this simple, profound truth. Unfortunately by the time most people (even educated) focus on the latter at the expense of the former.
1
Ever hear of Dante?
It's interesting to see that Western philosophy is veering toward traditional Eastern philosophy with its more holistic view of the world where humans are one element in the context of the entire universe. Posthumanism harks to Daoism and Buddhism. Also, recently I read an Economist article that questioned why China stopped its technology building and empire expansion 500 years ago, as if that were a fault. Think about it in the very long view...maybe philosophically it's better not to be ever-exerting human power and inventing things to defy nature. Where are we headed with high-tech and great powers?
6
Virtually the entire history of Western philosophy is mere rationalization of evasion, thus its similarity to the virtually schizophrenic intellectual impotence of Eastern mysticism. This has been growng since Kantian nihilism. Postmodernism is honest about its intellectual fraud. . The alternative is the realism and rationality of Aristotle and Ayn Rand.
Anyone who think Ayn Rand has more substance than Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, or just about any other Western philosopher is delusional.
7
I don't know if you caught the 60 Minutes segment last night about autonomous drone swarms called Perdix. As the name implies, they are released and then operate without human control. They are self-directed using artificial intelligence. Some are claiming this is the most revolutionary thing to happen to warfare since the atomic bomb. Indeed, where are we headed.
1
Racist and sexist hierarchies have always been tacitly, and at times explicitly, grounded in the deepest hierarchy of all: the ontological divide between "man" and "God," not the porous distinction between human and animal life. By calling bluff on divinely ordained hierachies, humanism has propelled the greatest advances to date in the ethical treatment of animals.
34
> the ontological divide between "man" and "God,
This is a rationalization of the terror of man's independent mind.
This is a rationalization of the terror of man's independent mind.
1
Well put. Or you could say that man's alienation from nature was preceded by his invention of a God alienated from nature. Minus this invention, man can still set himself in opposition to nature, but at least he can't blame god, and maybe he's more likely to see he's only fighting himself.
1
You know that many humanists have been deeply religious, right?
Nice article. One sentence caught my eye - "Bateson said that's why we don't trust actors." If only! I think he meant "That's why we shouldn't trust actors."
1
@ John B Boston - I like your version, wonder what Bateson actually said in context.
Larry
Larry
What I see is that when we make Humanity our Ideal, we come up short, because humans are limited.
When we make God, or more specifically, Jesus the Messiah and the Logos, our Ideal, we are on target.
When we make God, or more specifically, Jesus the Messiah and the Logos, our Ideal, we are on target.
2
In my experience, secular humanism does not idealize humanity, it relies on scientific method, democracy, and social empathy minus belief in a deity.
5
This conversation has been going on at least since the 16th century when Montaigne raised the question of whether humans are superior to animals and Europeans to so called primitive peoples. All the same, I applaud continuing the work. However, I do wonder about attacking email. Emails are simple letters in a new form. People can't always be embodied, and if we are being non-hierarchical, embodiment is extremely hierarchical, favoring the dominant class and the ably bodied. Emails or letters can offer people with disabilities or class disadvantages a leveler playing field, and they have a long history, in the form of letters, of enhancing the human spirit.
14
Humanism in my view is an attempt to elevate humans above God; to equate humans with God or to deny altogether the existence of God.
I have come to the conclusion that this is why the far left reacts so unexpectedly viscously when their core beliefs are challenged; what they are protecting is their God, which has become themselves and their brand of ideology.
This explains the lack of rationality amongst intelligent and educated individuals on the left toward an uncertain future ideologically different from the one that is accepted within their religion of humanism. There exists in the far left an illogical commitment to only one viewpoint and to a future that has to be sanctioned as acceptable and previously envisioned by their kind. From the outside, the left appears illogically stubborn and close minded. The only explanation is that the Left is defending their faith.
Humanism has replaced the reality of the existence of God and has made deities of ourselves; which would require a fierce defense mentality, as one might have seen during the crusades.
Humanism can only lead to misery, as, no matter how we contort ourselves, we will never replace our loving God.
I have come to the conclusion that this is why the far left reacts so unexpectedly viscously when their core beliefs are challenged; what they are protecting is their God, which has become themselves and their brand of ideology.
This explains the lack of rationality amongst intelligent and educated individuals on the left toward an uncertain future ideologically different from the one that is accepted within their religion of humanism. There exists in the far left an illogical commitment to only one viewpoint and to a future that has to be sanctioned as acceptable and previously envisioned by their kind. From the outside, the left appears illogically stubborn and close minded. The only explanation is that the Left is defending their faith.
Humanism has replaced the reality of the existence of God and has made deities of ourselves; which would require a fierce defense mentality, as one might have seen during the crusades.
Humanism can only lead to misery, as, no matter how we contort ourselves, we will never replace our loving God.
2
:...an illogical commitment to only one viewpoint and to a future that has to be sanctioned as acceptable and previously envisioned by their kind."
Isn't this true of any "far to the" group? Far to the left, far to the right, stubborn, uncompromising, defending their faith? Dogma? Historical, traditional, upbringing?
Pointing across the chasms of isolation.
Isn't this true of any "far to the" group? Far to the left, far to the right, stubborn, uncompromising, defending their faith? Dogma? Historical, traditional, upbringing?
Pointing across the chasms of isolation.
2
What great and absolute goodness has come from Religion? Wars? Torture? Humane laws? Please, let us know what goodness was spread over us in the years before the Enlightenment when Kings were God's representatives on earth or were considered Gods themselves? Humanism isn't perfect but the life of most men shows that "God" isn't perfect either except by your definition. What piffle you believe.
3
Dear Rixax,
My point exactly.
My point exactly.
Great thing about animals is that they can't talk, can't write, can't use a smart phone, write seer-reviewed papers and don't live in their heads, but are alive and in the now, without mediating or reading books about Buddha or Sartre. They don't THINK, and that's why they just Is. Just simply true Be-ists.
1
It's great, but that's what makes them different from the participants in this commentary column, and why they do not have the same rights.
1
He begins by denying that 'posthumanism' means any of the things the world could possibly mean -- thereby availing himself of all those connotations without having to take responsibility for any of them. Shallow attacks on the Enlightenment, which fail to understand the least bit of what it was about, have been a staple among both 'postmodernists' and also fundamentalists and the political right. We now see this coming home to roost politically with a post-truth culture. There is reason to be interested in our (that is, humans') relation to other species, but this too is warped in this guy's presentation of it. As with other forms of post-x culture, the hyperintellectual unites with the anti-intellectual and all distinctions, with them all clarity of mind, are erased.
29
"As with other forms of post-x culture, the hyper-intellectual unites with the anti-intellectual and all distinctions [and] with them all clarity of mind are erased."
I suspect that that was the point.
Remember: Those who define, rule.
You make a great point.
I suspect that that was the point.
Remember: Those who define, rule.
You make a great point.
3
I'm not sure we read the same article. I found it very clear what post-humanism is: the ability to see humans in a context that doesn't center on a predefined understanding of humanity. This makes it possible to understand us from alternative perspectives, and to give non-human life a fairer shot at being comprehended and/or respected.
Great article! More, please :-)
Great article! More, please :-)
A.W...., So true. Post-truth and post-humanism both reflect post-modern relativism at its worst.
Where truth becomes relative , right from wrong follow just behind, paving the way for an idiotic compilation of inhuman trait personified to enter the field.
I think you know who I'm talking about.
REVOTE or at least leak the frigging tax returns somebody... please!
Where truth becomes relative , right from wrong follow just behind, paving the way for an idiotic compilation of inhuman trait personified to enter the field.
I think you know who I'm talking about.
REVOTE or at least leak the frigging tax returns somebody... please!
Human speciesism will never change as long as so many folks believe God created all the kinds of animals on Day 6 and then mankind to rule over them all.
12
The "value" language used throughout this piece is theological...even atheists can get away from it.
1
"...communication is a multilayered phenomenon that requires attention to both its “human” and “nonhuman” ... that’s what makes email such an incendiary form of communication: all those dampening and texturing dimensions of the communication go away."
Technological evolution. We communicate electronically in different ways, with different subtleties. Rather than dilated pupils, we've got response time, punctuation, language choices, etc. Clearly electronic communication works on many levels, both business and personal; don't assume new=bad.
Technological evolution. We communicate electronically in different ways, with different subtleties. Rather than dilated pupils, we've got response time, punctuation, language choices, etc. Clearly electronic communication works on many levels, both business and personal; don't assume new=bad.
2
It seems to me that this point of the article is that there is no real "self" to be found and we should learn to let go of the cultural markers that define who we are.
Lets hear it for voting rights for chimpanzees.
Is humanism (attempt at ethics, enlightenment, justice between humans) even possible much less humane in a wider sense of respect for animal life and the natural world?
I am reading a book my father recommended--"The Infinite River", about cycle of water from ocean to sky to mountain to trickle to stream to river and back to ocean--and one of the salient points of book is how much there is not only interdependence in nature but how predatory everything is...in fact balance in nature, interdependence, seems to exist simply because everything ruthlessly checks everything else...
Now humans seem to have broken the balance, seem to have escaped to point of imagining justice between not only themselves but between themselves and the natural world--in fact humans imagine bringing justice to the natural world itself! The reality? It appears humans cannot even do justice to themselves. It appears for all progress of civilization we have emphasis on not only technological advancement but this technology in hands of the typically powerful people, those of military/political/business oriented/ambiguous bent, which leads us to more than suspect that the human race is a quite interesting species, one arguably moving to consciousness only to arrive at self-extinction.
We are truly a strange species--imagining justice between ourselves and the natural environment, a universal justice and peace between everything in fact--while in actuality little removed from nature. A rare anomaly?
I am reading a book my father recommended--"The Infinite River", about cycle of water from ocean to sky to mountain to trickle to stream to river and back to ocean--and one of the salient points of book is how much there is not only interdependence in nature but how predatory everything is...in fact balance in nature, interdependence, seems to exist simply because everything ruthlessly checks everything else...
Now humans seem to have broken the balance, seem to have escaped to point of imagining justice between not only themselves but between themselves and the natural world--in fact humans imagine bringing justice to the natural world itself! The reality? It appears humans cannot even do justice to themselves. It appears for all progress of civilization we have emphasis on not only technological advancement but this technology in hands of the typically powerful people, those of military/political/business oriented/ambiguous bent, which leads us to more than suspect that the human race is a quite interesting species, one arguably moving to consciousness only to arrive at self-extinction.
We are truly a strange species--imagining justice between ourselves and the natural environment, a universal justice and peace between everything in fact--while in actuality little removed from nature. A rare anomaly?
2
This is like walking in on a coffee-house discussion by students of the latest trends in the philosophy department.
38
If you mean 'mind numbing', I agree. But then I don't have any philosophy cred.
1
More like the English department, from which Cary Wolfe hails. At least a few of the philosophy students would, I hope, realize that there are some serious questions being evaded. But then philosophy has been slowly sinking into the sociology of knowledge (an interesting enterprise when it's not mistaken for philosophy), so maybe not.
3
I majored in philosophy and entertained the thought, for about five microseconds, of continuing through a PhD and a teaching career while exploring the depths of my navel in my free time. Found out I could spelunk in my navel while also making money and abandoned academe and professional philosophy except as observational hobbies almost forty years ago. Never looked back, never regretted the decision.
The history of humankind is an almost-unbroken one of violence, greed, INhuman self-interest, self-destruction and foolishness, with VERY occasional discontinuities devoted to Kumbaya and enlightenment – just enough of them to keep us from being mistaken too easily for the OTHER Great Apes. At least in full daylight.
“… call upon us to come up with another moral vocabulary, a vocabulary that starts by acknowledging that whatever it is we value ethically and morally in various forms of life, it has nothing to do with the biological designation of ‘human’ or ‘animal.’ Holy we’re-too-deep-in-the-cave-system-Batman-and-may-never-find-our-way-out!
I’d offer to turn on a light as a favor, but what would that do the publishing residuals on which defenders of the rights of California smelt rely for their occasional pot-excursions to Colorado?
The history of humankind is an almost-unbroken one of violence, greed, INhuman self-interest, self-destruction and foolishness, with VERY occasional discontinuities devoted to Kumbaya and enlightenment – just enough of them to keep us from being mistaken too easily for the OTHER Great Apes. At least in full daylight.
“… call upon us to come up with another moral vocabulary, a vocabulary that starts by acknowledging that whatever it is we value ethically and morally in various forms of life, it has nothing to do with the biological designation of ‘human’ or ‘animal.’ Holy we’re-too-deep-in-the-cave-system-Batman-and-may-never-find-our-way-out!
I’d offer to turn on a light as a favor, but what would that do the publishing residuals on which defenders of the rights of California smelt rely for their occasional pot-excursions to Colorado?
7
And when your unabashed support for the dominance of human consumerism is relegated to the historical assignment of the cause of the sixth major planetary extinction you wont be around to be ashamed of your beliefs. If you cant see that all systems require balance to continue then your future is limited. While no system can forever maintain a perfect balance, to be able to see the imbalance and act to alleviate it is self destruction.
In all cases, 'post' indicates failure as to what's been 'posted'. In this case, 'post-humanism' means the failure of humanism--ostensibly based upon the failure of the grounds by which humanity is studied. This refers to the failure of the social sciences to offer a complete picture of human behavior and its motives.Simply put, humans, possessing will or intentionality, cannot be completely objectified.
1
You said it right. "Post" may indicate failure as to what's been "posted," but it doesn't necessaily indicate failure OF what's been "posted." The actual failure often lies in our comprehension of the precedent.
For example, modern philosophers reject Socrates' assertion that moral turpitude can be attributed to failure to realize that righteous behavior results in a greater outcome for all, including the misbehaving party. It is a product of stupidity. Though reasoning is hardly the only dimension to consider, particularly in a time such as now when emotion rules, Socrates had a valid point.
Our failure to understand Socrates stems from the fact that, contrary to our self-perception, in important ways we aren't as bright as we were in his day. The more we advance technologically, the more we regress in terms of social intelligence.
For example, modern philosophers reject Socrates' assertion that moral turpitude can be attributed to failure to realize that righteous behavior results in a greater outcome for all, including the misbehaving party. It is a product of stupidity. Though reasoning is hardly the only dimension to consider, particularly in a time such as now when emotion rules, Socrates had a valid point.
Our failure to understand Socrates stems from the fact that, contrary to our self-perception, in important ways we aren't as bright as we were in his day. The more we advance technologically, the more we regress in terms of social intelligence.
An insightful interview, even if phrased in often needlessly obscure language. The authors, however, might have remarked on the tension between an emphasis on "self-realization," on the one hand, and humanism or post-humanism, on the other. Either of the latter embeds the individual in relationships with other people or other creatures, from whom all of us derive much of our sense of identity and worth.
Self-realization, however, while certainly not incompatible with a stress on the value of relationships, shifts the focus to the individual and his needs and aspirations. If my concern centers on the full development of my own potential, I might unconsciously reduce other people or creatures to bit players whose only importance stems from their impact on my destiny.
Self-realization, however, while certainly not incompatible with a stress on the value of relationships, shifts the focus to the individual and his needs and aspirations. If my concern centers on the full development of my own potential, I might unconsciously reduce other people or creatures to bit players whose only importance stems from their impact on my destiny.
8
I have considered myself a humanist, but I didn't see any description that would encompass my beliefs. For one I don't look down upon what others consider lesser lifeforms. My view is that humans are animals 1st, but then I am a biologist and see that humans biologically are no different. We share DNA, our emotions are the same as other animals, and a bond stretching back to the 1st life on earth.
Too me, many people desire to feel superior, over other animals and other humans and use all sorts of excuses. Smarter, faster, more knowledgable, some poor excuse to act better than someone else.
Perhaps I need a better name for what I believe, an atheist that believes all life is sacred and that the universe is connected to all life, for that is the true nature of the universe. All the science I study shows me that.
Too me, many people desire to feel superior, over other animals and other humans and use all sorts of excuses. Smarter, faster, more knowledgable, some poor excuse to act better than someone else.
Perhaps I need a better name for what I believe, an atheist that believes all life is sacred and that the universe is connected to all life, for that is the true nature of the universe. All the science I study shows me that.
90
As I read the interview I kept thinking that there are more than simply ethical reasons for respect for "lower" animal life. The entire planet depends on the diversity and interdependency of plant and animal life. If we simply look to "ethics" it would not matter of other animal life is destroyed. But it does matter.
Sometimes I feel that humans are the "kudzu" of animal life, fated to destroy most other forms of animal (and plant) life before we destroy ourselves.
Sometimes I feel that humans are the "kudzu" of animal life, fated to destroy most other forms of animal (and plant) life before we destroy ourselves.
3
@ Skip Moreland Baldwinsville NY - I share your views. Since it is very rare for any commenter to state "I am a biologist" I pose a question related to my comment, 2 down from yours in Readers Picks.
Have you given any thought to what I write about, the USA's preservation of a system assigning people to "races" that as Kenneth Prewitt (see comment) notes still uses the categories of the racists or implicit races, some of them biiologists. that Blumenbach, Linné, and their successors created.
Donald Trump tells us that his superior mind is due to his German Genes (he used to say Swedish) and we see this view in Times comments from time to time.
For the moment I simply refer you to Dorothy Robert's TED talk - easy to find - in which she makes clear for anyone interested some of the arguments against the American medical researchers (many) use of "race" as a variable.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Geologist to begin with but as medical research manuscript reviewer for Swedish researchers more and more interested in human difference and human similarity.
Have you given any thought to what I write about, the USA's preservation of a system assigning people to "races" that as Kenneth Prewitt (see comment) notes still uses the categories of the racists or implicit races, some of them biiologists. that Blumenbach, Linné, and their successors created.
Donald Trump tells us that his superior mind is due to his German Genes (he used to say Swedish) and we see this view in Times comments from time to time.
For the moment I simply refer you to Dorothy Robert's TED talk - easy to find - in which she makes clear for anyone interested some of the arguments against the American medical researchers (many) use of "race" as a variable.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Geologist to begin with but as medical research manuscript reviewer for Swedish researchers more and more interested in human difference and human similarity.
I want to agree 100% - but I just squashed an Asian Stink bug, and have, to be honest, done worse, shared DNA notwithstanding. I mean - I do a lot of things that I wound't do if I lived as if I believed all life is sacred. Even writing this - on a computer using all the technological connections at my finger tips, etc, I know I have caused damage to the habitat and maybe am indirectly responsible for some young girl's cancer in China ( see "A Poem Praises Smog, and Why Not? It’s From Cancer’s Perspective" in the 1/6/2016 NYT). Without belaboring this all, I remain human-centered, even if I mourn the destruction of other species. I do not seem capable of making the leap to holding other beings absolutely equal to humans.
2
Way, way, way too much philosophical gibberish. If you want these ideas to compete in the world you have to make them intelligible to more people. Otherwise the haters win.
73
But the writer did acknowledge that there are 2 different ways to approach this, and that philosophers need to do both.
1. The "pure" philosophical way, which is discussed at length, as it should be in a piece that is part of a series on philosophy.
2. The layperson's way, as you'd speak to a politician.
I think the writer is already doing exactly what you suggest, if you read the response to the 2nd question, near the end.
1. The "pure" philosophical way, which is discussed at length, as it should be in a piece that is part of a series on philosophy.
2. The layperson's way, as you'd speak to a politician.
I think the writer is already doing exactly what you suggest, if you read the response to the 2nd question, near the end.
William Blake wrote, Everything that lives is Holy, and later, Everything that is, is holy. Walt Whitman wrote, Welcome is every organ and attribute of me, and of every [one] hearty and clean,
Not an inch nor a particle of an inch is vile, and none shall be less familiar than the rest.
(I substituted "one" for "man", as women are human too.)
Things have value, and should be treated with proper respect. This does not mean that they cannot be used, but they should not be wasted.
Not an inch nor a particle of an inch is vile, and none shall be less familiar than the rest.
(I substituted "one" for "man", as women are human too.)
Things have value, and should be treated with proper respect. This does not mean that they cannot be used, but they should not be wasted.
17
Apparently, Cary did not read Blake, or Shelly, or Shakespeare, or Plato, or Faulkner, or even Keats, good heavens Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon" He is an English Teacher?
Where does Gregory Bateson discuss Socrates, though having ceased to exist as a physical entity, living on as a cultural legacy, etc.?
First response to this stimulating interview and especially the Bateson observations and then the CW paragraph on racist hierarchies.
Note that the USA, one of my two countries, faithfully preserves the racist hierarchy that began to be put in place by viewing slaves from West Africa as less than human. Thus even today, not only at the US Census Bureau but here every day in the NYT, the total commitment to that system where the white "race" is seen as superior to a black "race".
Not once at the NYT even at the mislabeled Race/Related do we ever see a conversation between a Stone interviewer and a scholar such as Dorothy Roberts who devotes much of her research and teaching to trying to end the US assignment of people to non-existent races (please note non-existent if we combine genetics, anthropology, and sociology to examine the concept. In the USA "races" called statistical races using the concept presented by the other expert the Stone should interview, former USCB Director Prof. Kenneth Prewitt, do exist).
Please Stone People, give us this discussion as a branch of this discussion of humanism.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US-SE
Note that the USA, one of my two countries, faithfully preserves the racist hierarchy that began to be put in place by viewing slaves from West Africa as less than human. Thus even today, not only at the US Census Bureau but here every day in the NYT, the total commitment to that system where the white "race" is seen as superior to a black "race".
Not once at the NYT even at the mislabeled Race/Related do we ever see a conversation between a Stone interviewer and a scholar such as Dorothy Roberts who devotes much of her research and teaching to trying to end the US assignment of people to non-existent races (please note non-existent if we combine genetics, anthropology, and sociology to examine the concept. In the USA "races" called statistical races using the concept presented by the other expert the Stone should interview, former USCB Director Prof. Kenneth Prewitt, do exist).
Please Stone People, give us this discussion as a branch of this discussion of humanism.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US-SE
21
What?
1
Hi Larry: I think you can make a case that a lot of "race related" material in the media, and for instance, information gathered by the US Census, are actually part of an ongoing project of dismantling the deep-rooted structures of racist injustice in this country - the "races" may be imaginary in many senses, but they are all to real in the way we live. Imagine the following dialogue:
Person A: "Why are Black people sentenced so much more severely than White people, for similar crimes? This shouldn't happen."
Person B: "I don't know what you are talking about. What is this "Black" and "White" that you refer to? All I see are judges making individual decisions, for what presumably are good reasons of their own in each case. No reason to think otherwise..."
In other words, when we no longer have any data to demonstrate the racist structures of society, or if we stop talking about them, those structures won't then go away... what we have are two conflicting historical dynamics, one tending to perpetuate racial injustices, in part by denying their reality - and the other, to study and hopefully to dissolve those injustices. At this point in history, a naive "colorblindness" is more a tool of the first tendency than the second.
Person A: "Why are Black people sentenced so much more severely than White people, for similar crimes? This shouldn't happen."
Person B: "I don't know what you are talking about. What is this "Black" and "White" that you refer to? All I see are judges making individual decisions, for what presumably are good reasons of their own in each case. No reason to think otherwise..."
In other words, when we no longer have any data to demonstrate the racist structures of society, or if we stop talking about them, those structures won't then go away... what we have are two conflicting historical dynamics, one tending to perpetuate racial injustices, in part by denying their reality - and the other, to study and hopefully to dissolve those injustices. At this point in history, a naive "colorblindness" is more a tool of the first tendency than the second.
2
@ John Bergstrom/Bergström Boston MA - Yes John, I know all that and therefore somewhere we should be able to read a discussion of what happens in the USA if we finally recognize - admit if you like - that the system used was created by racists - and follow Kenneth Prewitt's proposal that over time we do away with that system and classify people using SES variables. In Ch. 11 of his book he presents this proposal. I have been trying for 3 years to get the Editors and columnists of the Times, notably Charles Blow, to at least recognize that there are major figures arguing that it is time to acknowledge that we need a new system. Professor Roberts, an expert, told me when we first started communicating 3 years ago that she had tried repeatedly to get the Times to deal with this subject. The Times Editors turned her down.
It is impossible to deal with this subject in the comment section, but since the Times refuses to deal with the subject, comments are the only place it can even be mentioned.
Look at Candide's reply to me. What is one to make of that?
Larry
It is impossible to deal with this subject in the comment section, but since the Times refuses to deal with the subject, comments are the only place it can even be mentioned.
Look at Candide's reply to me. What is one to make of that?
Larry
This article is an excellent illustration of process behind the malaise afflicting the West today.
The animal rights proposition here is merely the latest in a centuries long trend of power decentralization.
For centuries power has diffused from monarchs to lords (Magna Carta in 1215 in England), to wealthy commoners (English Civil War-Glorious Revolution) to adult males, to all adults (various reform and representation acts from 1832-1928) to sexual, religious and racial minorities, illegal immigrants, to animals (e.g. veganism).
The initial developments freed a large mass of people in the West from illiterate servitude, creating a pool of educated citizens able to power the scientific and industrial revolutions, leading centuries of Western dominance. Over time, this trend has become a secular religion in the West.
Yet since the mid-20th century, power has been conferred on groups whose empowerment does not create these positive effects, or indeed undermines society, like sexual minorities or illegal immigrants.
It is thus no coincidence that the West has become a serial loser of wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) or is demographically and economically stagnant since then.
For a more detailed view, see tarkmarg.blogspot.com, especially December 2015 post.
The animal rights proposition here is merely the latest in a centuries long trend of power decentralization.
For centuries power has diffused from monarchs to lords (Magna Carta in 1215 in England), to wealthy commoners (English Civil War-Glorious Revolution) to adult males, to all adults (various reform and representation acts from 1832-1928) to sexual, religious and racial minorities, illegal immigrants, to animals (e.g. veganism).
The initial developments freed a large mass of people in the West from illiterate servitude, creating a pool of educated citizens able to power the scientific and industrial revolutions, leading centuries of Western dominance. Over time, this trend has become a secular religion in the West.
Yet since the mid-20th century, power has been conferred on groups whose empowerment does not create these positive effects, or indeed undermines society, like sexual minorities or illegal immigrants.
It is thus no coincidence that the West has become a serial loser of wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) or is demographically and economically stagnant since then.
For a more detailed view, see tarkmarg.blogspot.com, especially December 2015 post.
2
Yet another scholarly-sounding attempt to justify bigotry.
It's inventive, though, I will give it that.
It's inventive, though, I will give it that.
5
I agree it's an attempt to justify bigotry. It's not inventive, though. It's standard white supremacy pseudo-thought & has been around for decades.
3
I find nothing in this discussion of "humanism" that offers any assistance to voters shocked by the ascendancy of Trump to the full power of the United States legislative, executive and soon to be judicial branches. I suggest we look at repairing our secondary education system by demanding no student graduate high school without a demonstrated proficiency in practical logic, ability to handle a checkbook and capable of writing and speaking at least one other spoken language. Those are changes that could matter.
33
How about being educated rather than vocated. How about being steeped in the ancient wisdom of Humanity before they are even allowed to chose a vocation.
1
And knowledge of government/civics, please.
>>
"If there is anything unique about the human animal it is that it has the ability to grow knowledge at an accelerating rate while being chronically incapable of learning from experience. Science and technology are cumulative, whereas ethics and politics deal with recurring dilemmas. Whatever they are called, torture and slavery are universal evils; but these evils cannot be consigned to the past like redundant theories in science. They return under different names: torture as enhanced interrogation techniques, slavery as human trafficking. Any reduction in universal evils is an advance in civilization. But, unlike scientific knowledge, the restraints of civilized life cannot be stored on a computer disc. They are habits of behaviour, which once broken are hard to mend. Civilization is natural for humans, but so is barbarism. The evidence of science and history is that humans are only ever partly and intermittently rational, but for modern humanists the solution is simple: human beings must in future be more reasonable. These enthusiasts for reason have not noticed that the idea that humans may one day be more rational requires a greater leap of faith than anything in religion. Since it requires a miraculous breach in the order of things, the idea that Jesus returned from the dead is not as contrary to reason as the notion that human beings will in future be different from how they have always been.”
John N. Gray
"If there is anything unique about the human animal it is that it has the ability to grow knowledge at an accelerating rate while being chronically incapable of learning from experience. Science and technology are cumulative, whereas ethics and politics deal with recurring dilemmas. Whatever they are called, torture and slavery are universal evils; but these evils cannot be consigned to the past like redundant theories in science. They return under different names: torture as enhanced interrogation techniques, slavery as human trafficking. Any reduction in universal evils is an advance in civilization. But, unlike scientific knowledge, the restraints of civilized life cannot be stored on a computer disc. They are habits of behaviour, which once broken are hard to mend. Civilization is natural for humans, but so is barbarism. The evidence of science and history is that humans are only ever partly and intermittently rational, but for modern humanists the solution is simple: human beings must in future be more reasonable. These enthusiasts for reason have not noticed that the idea that humans may one day be more rational requires a greater leap of faith than anything in religion. Since it requires a miraculous breach in the order of things, the idea that Jesus returned from the dead is not as contrary to reason as the notion that human beings will in future be different from how they have always been.”
John N. Gray
44
Excellent piece. However...
NOW what???
NOW what???
"Torture and slavery are universal evils"
At various points in human history, disobedience to the king, questioning religion, etc were considered universal evils. How do you know that your universal evil is truly universal and not ephemeral like others before it?
Moreover it is a fair bet that much commonly accepted practice today could tomorrow be called "evil". Is eating animal flesh going to be seen in the same light as murder? Is not the use of animals draught purposes slavery?
What is needed is a context independent system to derive moral behavior from first principles.
I've tried to devise one at tarkmarg.blogspot.com, especially the 3rd April and 20 September posts.
At various points in human history, disobedience to the king, questioning religion, etc were considered universal evils. How do you know that your universal evil is truly universal and not ephemeral like others before it?
Moreover it is a fair bet that much commonly accepted practice today could tomorrow be called "evil". Is eating animal flesh going to be seen in the same light as murder? Is not the use of animals draught purposes slavery?
What is needed is a context independent system to derive moral behavior from first principles.
I've tried to devise one at tarkmarg.blogspot.com, especially the 3rd April and 20 September posts.
Are you daring to suggest that we learn from our mistakes? Do you really believe that each generation could learn from the one that preceded it?
Is the "human" capable of recognizing the mistakes that are repeated generation after generation and act on it? Does this species care that barbarism is as ingrained in us as it's pretensions of "growth"? Is there a majority of "humans" who really want to improve?
I suggest that we have found the answers in a series called Westworld. When Ford says "Well then, this is it. This is as far as we go." he is suggesting that we have evolved as far as we can - we are stalling out. It's all down hill from here.
The recent election is simply a declaration of that fact. Arrogance and stupidity have won over compassion and logic. Reason is a casualty. Entertainment is the victor. All is lost. We are doomed.
Is the "human" capable of recognizing the mistakes that are repeated generation after generation and act on it? Does this species care that barbarism is as ingrained in us as it's pretensions of "growth"? Is there a majority of "humans" who really want to improve?
I suggest that we have found the answers in a series called Westworld. When Ford says "Well then, this is it. This is as far as we go." he is suggesting that we have evolved as far as we can - we are stalling out. It's all down hill from here.
The recent election is simply a declaration of that fact. Arrogance and stupidity have won over compassion and logic. Reason is a casualty. Entertainment is the victor. All is lost. We are doomed.
3
We clothe ourselves and speak language, but that's a thin veneer of brain tissue over a mass of visceral impulses.
And whenever I see two men talking, I know they're forgetting about a female's relationships. But without our capabilities, there would be no humans.