Author Topic: Humanism vs nationalism  (Read 1544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4168
Humanism vs nationalism
« on: October 29, 2018, 04:12:16 PM »
On Twitter there was this tweet:

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1054583666360360961

Which received this response:

https://twitter.com/Goldrushcomic/status/1054778507769741312

Ignoring the cringe-worthy name of this paper, Paul Kurtz outlined:

Quote from: Paul Kurtz
What I think is rather unique about humanism today as a first principle is that “we are citoyen du monde;” that is, citizens of the world community, members of the human species over and beyond our gender, national, racial, or religious affiliations, which all too often have separated human beings in the past. We are planetary dwellers before we are Americans or Russians, Chinese or Africans. ancients or moderns.

Is humanism a good antidote to nationalism? Or does it carry its own weaknesses, for example the potential for speciesism?

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7736
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2018, 04:32:50 PM »
Why is the name of the paper cringeworthy?

Is this going to be another one where you ask an open ended question and then tell people they're wrong?
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4168
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2018, 05:33:19 PM »
Why is the name of the paper cringeworthy?

I just thought the name "neo-humanism" was a bit cringeworthy. That's all?

Is this going to be another one where you ask an open ended question and then tell people they're wrong?

Huh? I will only tell people they are wrong if I think they are wrong. Now please return to the topic at hand.

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7736
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2018, 06:38:04 PM »
Why is the name of the paper cringeworthy?

I just thought the name "neo-humanism" was a bit cringeworthy. That's all?

Is this going to be another one where you ask an open ended question and then tell people they're wrong?

Huh? I will only tell people they are wrong if I think they are wrong. Now please return to the topic at hand.

What makes it cringeworthy?

If you already have an opinion on the subject, why not state it in the opening post?
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10132
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2018, 07:20:55 PM »
Part of the idea of humanism is rejecting hate towards other groups of people. By definition, in that sense, nationalism and humanism are not compatible. It is intended to be the antithesis to nationalisms and other labels or geopolitical lines that separate people.

BTW that paper does add some fairly specific ideals that take it beyond [sexular] [secular] humanism.

Are they really the same kind of -isms? Does nationalism come from something else besides simple-minded intolerance? It looks like the EU tried unsuccessfully to fix nationalism with liberal democracy.

P.S. Are we really going to jump down each other's throat for using the Socratic method?

Offline AQB24712

  • Not a Euphemism.
  • Global Moderatrix
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7994
  • Did you just call me..."Bacon girl"?
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2018, 08:05:51 PM »
P.S. Are we really going to jump down each other's throat for using the Socratic method?

Oy. I hope not.
"There's only one rule that I know of, babies—God damn it, you've got to be kind."  Kurt Vonnegut
"You can bet your last money it's all gonna be a stone gas, honey."  Don Cornelius
"Wow! You spark up my entire thinking faculty."  A scammer/bot on a dating site

Offline Mr. Beagle

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4434
    • When God Plays DIce
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2018, 09:19:37 AM »
Parsing the definition of "nationalism," as many are doing, is an exercise in pedantry. The important definitions are not the historical ones, but the ones advocated by those who claim the word as their own. And these folks are overt white racists.
Mister Beagle
The real world is tri-color
now blogging at http://godplaysdice.com

Offline Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6502
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2018, 10:01:42 AM »
The only nationalism I can maybe accept as not complete, destructive evil is sub-national nationalism of peoples who desire self-determination. I am kind of sympathetic towards Scottish and even some kinds of Catalan independentism, and very supportive of the struggles for Kurdish self-rule, Mexican indigenous autonomism or other such movements.

Of course, internationalism is vastly superior. But it is not yet globally feasible, and in the post-colonial world, certain people should have the right to seprate themselves from whatever entity with whcihc they were shoved together by some dudes in London or Paris.

But stoking or professing a toxic admiration to arbitrarily determined pieces of land called "states" is as bad as it gets. Yeah, you happened to have been born in a part of the planet that, at that point in time belonged to this or that random entity. Big whoop.

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12822
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2018, 12:01:07 PM »
Why is the name of the paper cringeworthy?

I just thought the name "neo-humanism" was a bit cringeworthy. That's all?

Is this going to be another one where you ask an open ended question and then tell people they're wrong?

Huh? I will only tell people they are wrong if I think they are wrong. Now please return to the topic at hand.

What makes it cringeworthy?

If you already have an opinion on the subject, why not state it in the opening post?
It does have a sort of weird sci-fi sound to it.  I could see it being the official ideology of the government in some dystopian movie or tv show. Base on the sound of it not the content. 

In defense of Quetz's posting style, I occasionally do something similar when I'm interested in getting others opinions without influencing them first. 

Also, I'll point out that nations and states aren't quite the same thing.  Nations being groups of people that tend to share cultural, linguistic, genetic, etc heritage.  States being a geographic area under control of a sovereign government. 
« Last Edit: October 30, 2018, 12:03:54 PM by Ah.hell »

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4168
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2018, 01:26:37 PM »
The only nationalism I can maybe accept as not complete, destructive evil is sub-national nationalism of peoples who desire self-determination. I am kind of sympathetic towards Scottish and even some kinds of Catalan independentism, and very supportive of the struggles for Kurdish self-rule, Mexican indigenous autonomism or other such movements.

Yet even the Kurdish struggle in Iraq has involved ethnic cleansing of Arabs:

Quote
Destroying Homes for Kurdistan

Diplomats and human rights workers claim that America’s closest ally in Iraq is engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing designed to push Arabs out of the future Kurdish state.

ERBIL, Iraq — War is an ugly business, but in some northern villages scattered near the front line between Kurdish fighters and the jihadis of the Islamic State, there is growing evidence of a far uglier crime perpetrated by America’s closest allies in Iraq. For months, humanitarians working in areas wrested back from the Islamic State have quietly documented a pattern of Sunni Arabs, who were displaced during the jihadis’ advance, being denied the right to return home.

Witnesses — including a half-dozen aid workers, a European diplomat, and a terrified resident of the affected area — say the Kurdish Peshmerga, the military force of Iraqi Kurdistan, has an agenda that goes beyond fighting the Islamic State: establishing the boundaries of a future Kurdish state and moving the Arabs out.

As for Scotland and Catalonia, I'm not opposed to them choosing, but my instinct would be to oppose separatism, unless there is a case of oppression, which in these two cases there isn't.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4168
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2018, 01:46:26 PM »
Why is the name of the paper cringeworthy?

I just thought the name "neo-humanism" was a bit cringeworthy. That's all?

Is this going to be another one where you ask an open ended question and then tell people they're wrong?

Huh? I will only tell people they are wrong if I think they are wrong. Now please return to the topic at hand.

What makes it cringeworthy?

If you already have an opinion on the subject, why not state it in the opening post?
It does have a sort of weird sci-fi sound to it.  I could see it being the official ideology of the government in some dystopian movie or tv show. Base on the sound of it not the content. 

In defense of Quetz's posting style, I occasionally do something similar when I'm interested in getting others opinions without influencing them first. 

Also, I'll point out that nations and states aren't quite the same thing.  Nations being groups of people that tend to share cultural, linguistic, genetic, etc heritage.  States being a geographic area under control of a sovereign government.

I don't understand SkeptiQueer's objection at all. I wrote that the title ("neo-humanism") was cringeworthy, but quoted approvingly a part of the text. I also put forth a potential problem with the concept (speciesism). I don't know what opinion SQ wanted me to have spelled out in the OP.

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5192
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2018, 02:09:55 PM »
Adding the prefix, "neo-" tells us nothing specific about the ideology, except for the fact that its promoters expect us to regard it as a new approach to an old concept. In reality, this "neo-humansim" may or may not be any more reasonable than the kind of humanism it's intended to replace. Hence, "neo-" in reference to an ideology always strikes me as more of a marketing term than a descriptive one.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2018, 02:12:02 PM by John Albert »

Offline haudace

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Reality under scrutiny
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2018, 03:11:28 PM »
Or does it carry its own weaknesses, for example the potential for speciesism?

People tend to treat differently whatever they classify as the "other". Historically, we are all very aware how this had led to some very disastrous results. I prefer to err on the side of caution and think humanists are not necessarily immune to this tribal BS.

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5192
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2018, 04:51:15 PM »
One of the main points of humanism is to explicitly reject the tribal BS.

Of course, that doesn't prevent some unreasonable humanists from disparaging other humans on the basis or their religious or nationalistic beliefs... which rather defeats the purpose of humanism in the first place.

Online arthwollipot

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7990
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2018, 06:39:12 PM »
One of the main points of humanism is to explicitly reject the tribal BS.

That's not part of the Humanist Manifesto. There's a bit in there acknowledging that humans are social in nature and find meaning in relationships, and a bit about working for society to maximise human happiness, and then it says
Quote
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

But that's as close as it gets to "rejecting tribal BS".
Self-described nerd

 

personate-rain