[MD] Modern American Humanism and MOQ

[John Carl]

Craig,

Whether I miss or get your point, I see nothing in the AHM that suggests
> "society's benefit” rather than “individual happiness” is the goal.
>

John:

You don't see, *Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.*
as placing society's benefit as one's goal?  I mean, I'd assume that
intrinsically, individual happiness is always one's goal.  Humanism says the
best way to do this and achieve individual happiness, is to work for (human)
society's benefit.  It puts human social patterning as its highest value.
 Our highest value is that which we strive for, that which we work to
benefit.

Its seems very clear to me.  But then, I'm often accused of being foolish,
so perhaps that's the case here.

Craig:


> Also see Horse’s response.
>
>
John:

Not possible, I'm afraid.  I seem to be cut off from all dialogue with
Horse.  At least as far as recieving anything from him.   I could dig
through the archives I suppose....

Craig:


> When I hear “Humanism”, I don’t presuppose any particular view.
>

John:

I take it  as putting humans as the center of value.  That's what any "ism"
does, eh? And for the most part, it does make a certain sense.  I mean, what
else should public life center upon?  Turtlism?  Snailism?  Donkeyism?  But
a deeper understanding of the metaphysical underpinnings of this view,
reveal some big-time problems.

 I had a post that got bounced, I'll resend it and see if it doesn't get
bucked off this time.  I went into this is much detail.

Craig:


> Not like “humanitarian”, which is just often someone with their hand inyour
> pocket.  Or like when it was fashionable to call oneself a“feminist”.  I
> always thought that was self-defeating.  A movement toeliminate gender-based
> language, gives itself a gender-based label.
>
> John:  Yes, I agree.  But lately I've become fascinated with something I'm
calling in my head "epistemological feminism" .  In this sense that I mean
it, it tells us how our intellect is conscious of intellect.   I got turned
onto to it through a video i found by Kara Barnette, whom I'd been seeking
with my youngest daughter in San Francisco on the last night of the American
Philosophical Association's annual shindig.  I think it was Steve, put me on
to that one.

Anyway, that's all a big digression except I really, really got a lot out of
her interview.  Geez it was long, though.  And some of the best stuff was
near the end.  All the stuff about epistemological feminism was at the end
as I recall.

Craig:


> I’ve been a human for as long as I can remember & that’s enough for meto
> call myself a “humanist”.
>


John:

Guess I'm a coyoteist, if anything.  Actually, Pantheist works pretty good
for me.  I may be human, but I'm a human wrapped in nature, not a human
isolated on his own.

Take care,

John