@Matias i have not heard that definition of humanism and am not aware -- or convinced -- that it is an accurate definition, or an accurate description of what humanism is based on.

g

@Matias ... makes sense to you. i am sorry if you find other definitions wish-washy. your finding them so does not make your definition correct. your dislike for a definition doesn't invalidate it. we place humans center stage because we're humans, whether we're humanist or not. recognizing human dignity does not exclude other species any more than recognizing that lox is delicious means eschew all other forms of nutrition. (i could say it's the same way black lives matter doesn't mean ONLY black lives matter, and feminism doesn't put females above males but rather is concerned with equal rights for all). so why do humans need humanism? because a lot of people put, say, money center stage instead of humans. it's not ABOUT being the best, most special species. that's a weird way to read it.

g

@Matias i didn't say what you think i said. i think in fact you're agreeing with me but don't realize it. you may wish to reread what i said.

g

@Matias I could accept Humanism as a godless religion, if this means a 'code' or 'philosophy' to follow. But I am uncomfortable with the adjective 'superhuman' which may be interpreted as 'above and/or beyond' human capacity.

@Matias Notwithstanding the dishonored and corrupt entity known as FIFA, soccer is just a game, played by a book of rules. Without a rulebook, you don’t have a game—you have chaos. Whether we engage in backgammon, chess or soccer, the rules must be universlly recognized, and are, in fact, what defines the game.

Humanism is not conveniently defined, but includes the following affirmation: "Humanism is a democratic and ethical lifestance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

@Matias There are certainly ways to frame the conclusions one draws from human behavior in more or less pessimistic terms, but I think you missed my point that if we resist the (very human) tendency to try to see some eldritch quality that I agree isn't there, what we're left with is the simple principle that people tend to live up or down to what you expect of them. That's the basis of the civil society that most (not all) of us actually want: the observation that sustainably civil societies have existed and flourished when we've followed certain practices. Despite the heartbreaking setbacks and counterexamples, the human enterprise as a whole over time is advancing when you look at the broad story arc of history. We do in fact live longer, more prosperous lives overall than we did 500 years ago. That's cold comfort for many individuals within their lifespan, of course, and we can collapse around that and give up I suppose. That's a choice, too. The other choice, which I think is often mischaracterized as "faith in human dignity and worth" and similar, is to think the effort is worth it, despite the counterexamples. Not because of some numinous inherent mojo, but because we're making progress in learning to be better versions of ourselves over time.

The irony in this is that one can believe that humanity is worth the effort to make itself better, despite the fact that one can regard oneself as utterly unimportant and insignificant in the bigger picture. I think removing ego from the picture is actually an important "pro tip" if you will, if humanity wants to survive. Quit thinking that you have some god ordained right to anything whatsoever, which is really the source of strife and war to begin with. Begin from a point of humility instead, which allows you to give precedence to a sense of common cause with others.

Ok @CoastRiderBill. Just a few examples: many founding fathers owned slaves and didn't write anything into the Constitution about ending slavery. A lot of them were in favor of slavery. They didn't want the majority of people voting. They wanted only the "educated" to vote. They set up voting to where it had restrictions to where only certain people could vote based on their status in society. Then you have the electoral college that was created to give the racist south a huge advantage over the north in elections. Then you have Madison in his Federalist Papers No. 10 stating that the "opulent minority" was to be protected from the majority. It's all there in plain sight. These people were just as elitist as the 1% today.