Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [stoics] Secular humanism

Expand Messages
  • Michel Daw
    1. You assume correctly. I consider myself to be a secular humanist. 2. I choose to be one. 3. We have already had this conversation. (
    Message 1 of 6 , May 1, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      1. You assume correctly. I consider myself to be a secular humanist.

      2. I choose to be one.

      3. We have already had this conversation. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/message/31271)

      Cheers

      On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:42 AM, gich7 <gich7@...> wrote:
      Hello Michel,

      I assume from *your* response you consider yourself to be a secular humanist.

      How do *you know* that you are one?

      What do *you* believe in?

      Gich


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Michel Daw" <michel.daw@...>
      To: <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 5:13 PM
      Subject: Re: [stoics] Secular humanism


      Try starting here. http://www.secularhumanism.org/

      <http://www.secularhumanism.org/>However, unlike religion (and some
      philosophies, it would seem) the definition is generated by consensus, so it
      is roughly reflective of what most humanists believe with a 3% margin of
      error, 19 times out of 20. (The last part was a joke, in case that wasn't
      obvious)




      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/

      <*> Your email settings:
         Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join
         (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
         stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com
         stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
         stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
         http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




      --
      Cheers,

      Michel

      "If one accomplishes some good
      though with toil,
      the toil passes,
      but the good remains;

      if one does something dishonorable
      with pleasure,
      the pleasure passes,
      but the dishonor remains."

      Musonius Rufus
    • Erika M
      ... Another thing one might want to read if one were investigating Humanism is the Humanist Manifesto
      Message 2 of 6 , May 1, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        :-) Good one. 

        Another thing one might want  to read if one were investigating Humanism is the Humanist Manifesto .

        And Gich, writing out everything I believe would take up a frankly impossible amount of time and space, so I'll stick to the short version.  No, I don't believe in any gods or goddesses.  Yes, I do believe that nature always was and is self-sustaining.  Yes, I do believe that one should always try to do right by oneself and one's fellow human beings, and that these two things aren't contradictory.  In fact, I believe that what is right for oneself is what is right for one's fellow humans.  It was studying philosophical ethics to develop myself personally that led to my first coming across Stoicism.  I like Stoicism because there's a heavy overlap between it and my own personal ethical beliefs, and because it provides a nice model for personal self development.   "Atheist" only describes what I am not, and what I don't believe.   "Humanist" denotes what I am and what I do believe.   


        Erika
      • Michel Daw
        Dearest Gich. It seems that you are a little quick to reply to this one. ... You asked what *I* believe (question 3.) I responded. ... Somewhat confused by
        Message 3 of 6 , May 2, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Dearest Gich. It seems that you are a little quick to reply to this one.

          On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:31 AM, gich7 <gich7@...> wrote:
           

          The message you refer to is entitled, "The core of Stoic thought for moderns."
          I didn't realise this "core of Stoic thought for moderns" was *synonymous* with "secular humanism". 


          You asked what *I* believe (question 3.) I responded.
           

          You ended message 31271 with the declaration:

          "With that, I wrap up my contributions in the conversation, having said all I
          can think of on the subject."

          So WHY, since you have *nothing new* to say, did you 'feel the need' to *jump in* so urgently on this thread, thereby intimidating others from contributing?

           
          Somewhat confused by this one. How does referencing a post add to my posting of the core of my personal stoic practice? How can you sense urgency in an email? And finally, (drumroll, please), it would seem that my short comment did not intimidate anyone, as Erika posted more than 12 hours before your hastily typed replies.

          My original post was in response to one from Erika McCants -- her *first* post to the group, I think.


          Her second post quickly followed, and included additional information (thanks Erika, I was looking for that. Very helpful)
           

          I put it to you that we ought to encourage participation in the group by the
          quieter members, and I also put it to you that your apparently *authoritative*
          response to my questions was almost *designed* to drive these quieter members into silence. After all, Michel has provided an *authoritative* response, so what can other, presumably less knowledgeable members, possibly add in face of this authority.


          I am hardly an authority, my dear Gich. You do me too much honour. And if you read my other post, I actually encourage interaction, quite the opposite of your read on my intentions. I believe that new posters are far more brave that you seem to give them credit for. 
           

          I repeat Erika's post below and hope she will be encouraged to contribute to
          the thread . . . even if all she says is "I agree with Michel!" :)

          Which she seems to have, without your invitation. Interesting, if pointless, rant.

          ------------------------------------
          Original Message -----
          From: "Erika McCants" <Bascilla@...>
          Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 4:31 PM



          Very well said, Keith. I would apologize for the actions of my fellow atheists
          if I thought it were appropriate to apologize for the actions of others (which I
          don't.) I myself try to avoid just dismissing ideas in childish tones. The ideas
          of other thinking people are at least worth the respect of a proper refutation.
          Gods are a very tricky thing to argue about, and I have many theist friends and
          loved ones whom I respect very much, even though I myself am a secular humanist.
          (A secular humanist who tries very hard to adopt Stoic ethical teachings because
          they make sense.)
          ------------------------------------


          Gich

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Michel Daw" <michel.daw@...>
          To: <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 2:17 PM
          Subject: Re: [stoics] Secular humanism

          > 1. You assume correctly. I consider myself to be a secular humanist.
          >
          > 2. I choose to be one.
          >
          > 3. We have already had this conversation. (
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/message/31271)
          >




          --
          Cheers,

          Michel

          "If one accomplishes some good
          though with toil,
          the toil passes,
          but the good remains;

          if one does something dishonorable
          with pleasure,
          the pleasure passes,
          but the dishonor remains."

          Musonius Rufus
        • Erika M
          ... one side, ... I mean that nature is eternal and uncreated. ... concerning ... described as a ... philosophy. ... The preferred term is usually
          Message 4 of 6 , May 2, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > I'm not sure what you mean by "nature always was" but leaving that to one side,
            > I believe all this as well, Erika!

                I mean that nature is eternal and uncreated.

             
            > Is humanism a philosophy?
            > I don't see how any 'view of the world' that doesn't contain views concerning
            > *how* the world works, and *how* it came to be, can possibly be described as a
            > philosophy.
            > Humanism is a way of living, that is sufficient for some.
            > But Humanism cannot be sufficient for philosophers -- it is *not* a philosophy.
            >

                The preferred term is usually "lifestance", and I think that it is fair to say that Humanism alone is not a philosophy, although a philosophy could be informed by Humanism.  Rational philosophy is very well accepted within Humanist communities, as a matter of fact, as is modern science.  But, neither is one and the same with Humanism.  There are Humanists who are scientists and Humanists who are philosophers, though.

            Erika
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.