Can we really follow the humanism as a philosophy?

ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Can we really follow the humanism as a philosophy?

 After realizing that most of the time human beings normally act in a selfish way, looking only for their interests, benefits like money, self-satisfaction, cheating, injustice and betray you when you have given a hand to help because you want to do the things better

Can we really follow the humanism as a philosophy?

 

Can we really take the option for human power to change the things to make a better world instead of a god?

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
I think the only philosophy

I think the only philosophy that makes any sense is to treat individuals as individuals. Once a movement starts demanding party members to tow the line you get lemmings. While some good ideas like equality, end to slavery, sexism, homophobia, all need a collective effort, ultimately in all those cases you still have a collection of individuals.

In all cases there is always the potential for a movement, political, religious, or social, to gain a monopoly of power. We see this time after time in human history. An existing power abuses the rest of that society, they get tired of it, start a movement, overthrow the abusers only to gain a monopoly themselves.

Which is why a label is not a good definition for an individual. It can only describe one aspect of an individual. I am an atheist, but that does not mean I speak for all atheists on all issues all the time.

Labels will always exist, the only thing our species can practically do to reduce the conflict and find overlap is to make the human condition the priority and not the label.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote: Can we

ManuAndres44 wrote:

 

Can we really take the option for human power to change the things to make a better world instead of a god?

Well ManuAndres44, religion and god have been a pretty dominant theme in the human race, for the past few thousand years and all of those things that you mentioned above still exist.

So, I would have to say that god belief and religion has done very little to solve any moral dilemmas. Indeed, if anything, it has probably made matters much worse.

Of course, I can not lay the problems that plague our species solely at the door of religion, but I can say that theism as an institution has certainly not given us any viable solutions.

As a matter of fact, I think that an emphasis on personal responsibility and  holding people accountable for their actions would go a long way towards solving the problem.

Remove the cop-out pleas of "the devil made me do it" and people who do bad things have no one to blame but themselves.

So, in my opinion, I would say yes, humanity can get along just fine without the god belief. Of course, all of our problems would not vanish, if god belief were to vanish, but I do not think that they would get any worse, either.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:In all cases

Brian37 wrote:

In all cases there is always the potential for a movement, political, religious, or social, to gain a monopoly of power. We see this time after time in human history. An existing power abuses the rest of that society, they get tired of it, start a movement, overthrow the abusers only to gain a monopoly themselves.

Of course it's always the same scenario. Just the ruler changes but the people are always dominated. The true is that we cannot follow those movements that you have written about because it's against using your own rational processes and denying your own criteria. In this way, humanism could be used to control us as well as the rest of politic ideas.

Quote:

Labels will always exist, the only thing our species can practically do to reduce the conflict and find overlap is to make the human condition the priority and not the label. 

I think you're right but my point is that the human condition always seems to tend to do bad things rather than good ones. We can focus on the human nature instead of the "humanism" as a label as you wrote but if there's no good god and there's only evil people it seems that those that would like to do things better have a big challenge.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:As a

harleysportster wrote:

As a matter of fact, I think that an emphasis on personal responsibility and  holding people accountable for their actions would go a long way towards solving the problem.

Remove the cop-out pleas of "the devil made me do it" and people who do bad things have no one to blame but themselves.

So, in my opinion, I would say yes, humanity can get along just fine without the god belief. Of course, all of our problems would not vanish, if god belief were to vanish, but I do not think that they would get any worse, either.

 

Yes the challenge is that people must take care of their own lives without blaming any god or devil. The problem is that religion will always claim that you cannot do anything without the power of a god. Here in my country -as well as the rest of the world- this idea is very strong and believe or not, people who used to be gangs are converted through religious methods (preaches, prayings, bibles) where I live, hence they show this as an evidence of a divine power. But the true is that the people by themselves decide to change their lifestyle. 

Now the problem is within the dilemma that we want to live in a better world but we don't make a commitment to build it every day. Humanity can do it, but it doesn't want to do it. It'd be good togather positive individual ideas looking forward changing the things without creating a mass movement. 

P.S. Sorry for my bad spelling and grammar lol.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Considering that according

Considering that according to Stephen Pinker violence has considerably declined from Biblical times to the present, when assessed per capita, I think we are actually doing pretty well, especially in the more humanistically oriented societies.

So sure, humanism has a far better track record than superstitious belief systems. We cannot afford to slip back into the horrors of God-driven societies.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Considering

BobSpence wrote:

Considering that according to Stephen Pinker violence has considerably declined from Biblical times to the present, when assessed per capita, I think we are actually doing pretty well, especially in the more humanistically oriented societies.

So sure, humanism has a far better track record than superstitious belief systems. We cannot afford to slip back into the horrors of God-driven societies.

 

 

Considering the fact that the more secular countries tend to have lower crime rates and less problems, I would say that you are on to something there, Bob.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10354
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
If you aren't happy with a

If you aren't happy with a philosophy, choose another one. Or make up your own.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
BobSpence wrote:Considering

BobSpence wrote:

Considering that according to Stephen Pinker violence has considerably declined from Biblical times to the present, when assessed per capita, I think we are actually doing pretty well, especially in the more humanistically oriented societies.

So sure, humanism has a far better track record than superstitious belief systems. We cannot afford to slip back into the horrors of God-driven societies.

 

 

Gods don't exist but neither should the state be the god. What drives a society is what is popularly marketed to the point of infecting politics. So again, labels don't matter when we are talking about a species that has had power come and go. Civil society allows the differences while also allowing challenge to the claims of the individual and to collective authority, no matter what the label is. Questioning can be the only filter humanity can use. The guise of "respect" is the call to coddle insecurity to one's position.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote: After

ManuAndres44 wrote:

 After realizing that most of the time human beings normally act in a selfish way, looking only for their interests, benefits like money, self-satisfaction, cheating, injustice and betray you when you have given a hand to help because you want to do the things better

Can we really follow the humanism as a philosophy?

 

Can we really take the option for human power to change the things to make a better world instead of a god?

Humanity has the power in our grasp to solve our problems. The biggest obstacle at present is the resistence to using science and scientific methods. People take religious and political views based on fear, anger and jelousy. We're all afraid of getting the "selfish" or 'immoral' label so we have to continually put on the act of not being self interested. Self interest does not mean cooperation is not possible.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
 Considering the fact that

Quote:

Considering the fact that the more secular countries tend to have lower crime rates and less problems, I would say that you are on to something there, Bob.

Absolutely, secular societies offer a lot of social safety while the religious ones don't because in religious societies the governments give to the churches the chance to give consolation to social problems, but no real solutions.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If you aren't

Vastet wrote:
If you aren't happy with a philosophy, choose another one. Or make up your own.

 

Of course. It's a big challenge too if we consider that you must follow your own philosophy no matter your detractors. No matter if you die alone with it.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ManuAndres44

EXC wrote:

ManuAndres44 wrote:

 After realizing that most of the time human beings normally act in a selfish way, looking only for their interests, benefits like money, self-satisfaction, cheating, injustice and betray you when you have given a hand to help because you want to do the things better

Can we really follow the humanism as a philosophy?

 

Can we really take the option for human power to change the things to make a better world instead of a god?

Humanity has the power in our grasp to solve our problems. The biggest obstacle at present is the resistence to using science and scientific methods. People take religious and political views based on fear, anger and jelousy. We're all afraid of getting the "selfish" or 'immoral' label so we have to continually put on the act of not being self interested. Self interest does not mean cooperation is not possible.

Yes. Most of people look for the easiest way to solve the problems or to get explanations for phenomena. The scientific and rational thinking implies much more effort and that's why religious and political views are ruling most of the time, because allow the people to avoid thinking rationally. Besides it's probable that  ruling systems are interested to tell you that you're selfish in a negative sense so you can't join with others to look for a common benefit, because that would beat the structure. Actually, self interest has helped mankind to evolve and create communities.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Precisely

 

Vastet wrote:
If you aren't happy with a philosophy, choose another one. Or make up your own.

 

I recommend stoicism...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I

Atheistextremist wrote:

I recommend stoicism...

 

I'd like to study general philosophy first. I know a bit but not exactly which are the ideas of each philosophy school. Thinking to solve your problems with the guide of an ancient philosopher sounds good.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote: After

ManuAndres44 wrote:

 After realizing that most of the time human beings normally act in a selfish way, looking only for their interests, benefits like money, self-satisfaction, cheating, injustice and betray you when you have given a hand to help because you want to do the things better

Can we really follow the humanism as a philosophy?

I haven't read the thread yet but I want to comment.  This is an issue that I've pondered for many hours over the years.  I don't like that once you affix a set of principles as to how you should live it inevitably ends up that the person can be seen as a hypocrite.  I have met many a humanist who were jerks to me, or jerks to someone else.  I have seen humanists embrace dishonesty to promote their agenda.  I just always seem to spot some sort of hypocrisy in someone who uses the word humanist.  Even the head of the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy Greg Epstein turned out to be quite slimy.  He acted completely for self and trashed most of the atheist movement to try and reach the top.  

I suppose if some people need to tell themselves to be good people in order to be good people then they can use the label.  I just don't get it or need it. 

 

ok... now on to read the thread....

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote: After

ManuAndres44 wrote:

 After realizing that most of the time human beings normally act in a selfish way, looking only for their interests, benefits like money, self-satisfaction, cheating, injustice and betray you when you have given a hand to help because you want to do the things better

Can we really follow the humanism as a philosophy?

So you're saying that it would be in everyone's self interest to be humanistic. So it's really an ego-centric hedonistic value system, right? Just with cooperation and and long term planning.

I think the fact that we don't have any free-will rules out the possibility of humans being anything but self interested hedonists. The only decision is how much cooperation with others and how much is long term strategy. But the name of the game is always one's own pleasure and we don't have free will to play a different game.

The question I have for you is this: Is one's philosophy a question of what game to play or a question how to play the only game in town?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:I haven't read

Sapient wrote:

I haven't read the thread yet but I want to comment.  This is an issue that I've pondered for many hours over the years.  I don't like that once you affix a set of principles as to how you should live it inevitably ends up that the person can be seen as a hypocrite.  I have met many a humanist who were jerks to me, or jerks to someone else.  I have seen humanists embrace dishonesty to promote their agenda.  I just always seem to spot some sort of hypocrisy in someone who uses the word humanist.  Even the head of the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy Greg Epstein turned out to be quite slimy.  He acted completely for self and trashed most of the atheist movement to try and reach the top.  

I suppose if some people need to tell themselves to be good people in order to be good people then they can use the label.  I just don't get it or need it.  

ok... now on to read the thread....

I haven't had the chance to meet a militant humanist yet. I wrote the word "humanism" thinking about a commitment to help other people and to change the bad things in our world based on the idea that no god or gods will do it so. It's a pity to read that there are a lot of humanists-atheists out there taking advantage of these ideas to reach the top for themselves. Nevertheless this always happens everywhere.

I think in "humanism" according to the works of Abraham Maslow. He considered that we the human beings have a great positive potential to improve ourselves as well as to make a better world. But apparently Maslow's theories and the reality are divorced. So I thought in two paths: to be a commited humanist -and not a hypocrite- or just to think about myself and ignore that the rest is suffering.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So you're saying

EXC wrote:

So you're saying that it would be in everyone's self interest to be humanistic. So it's really an ego-centric hedonistic value system, right? Just with cooperation and and long term planning.

As a matter of fact I was reading in another forum that altruist and cooperative behaviors were adaptations that helped the whole mankind to evolve. Although thinking about altruism-humanism as a selfish behavior seems to be negative, the truth is we followed those adaptations to survive. However, nowadays our rational processes make us to think about  that we might help not for evolving but for cooperating and solving common problems. Humanism can be turned into a selfish idea when you become an hypocrite as Sapient wrote above.

Quote:

I think the fact that we don't have any free-will rules out the possibility of humans being anything but self interested hedonists. The only decision is how much cooperation with others and how much is long term strategy. But the name of the game is always one's own pleasure and we don't have free will to play a different game.

The question I have for you is this: Is one's philosophy a question of what game to play or a question how to play the only game in town?

Gee! What a good question! Well, you can get self-pleasure when you help somebody else. The satisfaction that you feel after helping somebody else is nice. On the other hand you also feel pleasure when you do things just for you. I think the problem is when you start harming others when you want to get pleasure just for you. And yeah, it's supposed that we're not really free. Freedom is a delusion.

Answering your question I think that the important thing is to gather different opinions, contrast them with the yours and then create your own perspective which will be enriched with your previous studies and researches. Then you can start to play your game. How to play the only game in town? I think that's when you feel defeated by a situation or system that you tried to change but at then end never changed.

But for now I'm playing my game.

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote: Although

ManuAndres44 wrote:

Although thinking about altruism-humanism as a selfish behavior seems to be negative, the truth is we followed those adaptations to survive.

We evolved a reward process so we feel good when we behave in socially beneficial ways. Just as we evolved reward processes for food, sex, sleep, etc... We're 100% about pleasure and avoiding pain. Science tells us that our reward centers are activated when we believe we are acting in altruistic way(unless one is a sociopath). So the question is given this, how is one behavior selfish and other altruistic. Isn't it all just too feel good. Shouldn't it just be cooperation vs. non-cooperation, not unselfish vs. selfish?

ManuAndres44 wrote:

However, nowadays our rational processes make us to think about that we might help not for evolving but for cooperating and solving common problems. Humanism can be turned into a selfish idea when you become an hypocrite as Sapient wrote above.

OK. But if we apply science to solving our common problems, then I think the starting point must be that behaviors are ego-centric and hedonistic, we have no free will for anything else. Then decide how we can cooperate. Charity, unselfishness and altruism are not solving our deeply rooted problems like poverty and war. In fact, charity often makes problems worse by creating all kinds of moral hazards and often being a scam. The only answer to reducing human misery and increasing pleasure is the application of objective science and technology.

ManuAndres44 wrote:

I think the problem is when you start harming others when you want to get pleasure just for you.

What humans always do is believe what we want to believe. So we believe we are helping when we're harming. A theist can believe he helps people just by praying for them. A socialist believes he helps the poor just by supporting higher taxes on the rich. So called humanists delude themselves that they care just by adopting their philosophy. But their is no science or reason in all of these. It's just the drug of making yourself feel you are good and moral(aka oxytocin).

Science can now measure levels of pain and pleasure. It is possible to apply science to solve human our problems. So shouldn't a humanistic philosophy be an adherence to logic, reason and science rather than political dogma or just the warm feelings of so-called unselfishness?

ManuAndres44 wrote:

But for now I'm playing my game.

Make your own rules and you never lose.

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10354
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
A minor nit pick.. " But

A minor nit pick..

" But the name of the game is always one's own pleasure and we don't have free will to play a different game."

Survival, not pleasure. Pleasure is secondary, at best, to survival. One won't generally pursue pleasure when survival is at stake and the chances of it can be modified in his/her favour by his/her actions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Violence has declined since the bible was written?

BobSpence wrote:

Considering that according to Stephen Pinker violence has considerably declined from Biblical times to the present, when assessed per capita, I think we are actually doing pretty well, especially in the more humanistically oriented societies...  

 

WOW! LOL. ETC.

Thats the Ten Commandments you're referring to pal.

 

Cain kills Abel. Murder rate per capita? Gimme a break.

 


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ManuAndres44

EXC wrote:

We evolved a reward process so we feel good when we behave in socially beneficial ways. Just as we evolved reward processes for food, sex, sleep, etc... We're 100% about pleasure and avoiding pain. Science tells us that our reward centers are activated when we believe we are acting in altruistic way(unless one is a sociopath). So the question is given this, how is one behavior selfish and other altruistic. Isn't it all just too feel good. Shouldn't it just be cooperation vs. non-cooperation, not unselfish vs. selfish?

So should there are always selfish behaviours whether you help somebody else or not I think it's a bit better to help others since this help mankind to survive considering only social darwinism. We look for 100% pleasure indeed since it's a resource that supports evolution but personally I don't think that we must only be focused on looking for pleasure since life's daily problems show you that you cannot live with perfection. There must be always something out there that's making you suffering no matter if it's a lot suffering or just a bit.

It's true that science can look for improve our technology and offer new cures for diseases and those things but I think that our world must look for tech development as well as human development.

Besides I'm considering those statements about to do what I think I should do without paying attention to what does say Humanism, Socialism, Science or something else.... 

 

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:BobSpence

Lion IRC wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Considering that according to Stephen Pinker violence has considerably declined from Biblical times to the present, when assessed per capita, I think we are actually doing pretty well, especially in the more humanistically oriented societies...  

 

WOW! LOL. ETC.

Thats the Ten Commandments you're referring to pal.

 

Cain kills Abel. Murder rate per capita? Gimme a break.

 

WTF has a the Cain/Abel thing got to do with reality? Do you actually consider that a real story??? You meant it as a joke, right?

And we are including rape, torture and assault and other non-fatal abuse, and slavery, none of which are covered by that half-baked set of rules.

"Covetting" your neighbours' possessions is not a crime, nor are thought crimes like imagining sex with a woman you are not married to. They are harming anyone so not relevant to my comment.

And not demanding worship of any God seems to be a positive for a society.

And women are no longer considered part of a man's property.

Theft and 'bearing false witness' are the only other items we still pretty much agree with, but they are not inherently violent, and not wrong in all circumstances.

So apart from murder, the only reference to personal violence in the TC, they are irrelevant to what Pinker is talking about.

The further we get away from that crap, the better things are.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:A minor nit

Vastet wrote:
A minor nit pick.. " But the name of the game is always one's own pleasure and we don't have free will to play a different game." Survival, not pleasure. Pleasure is secondary, at best, to survival. One won't generally pursue pleasure when survival is at stake and the chances of it can be modified in his/her favour by his/her actions.

Then how do you explain things like overeating, addiction to tobacco and other drugs that work against our health and survival? It's because there is a correlation between pleasure and these activities.

In the past, it was advantageous for our ancestors to consume a lot fat and sweet foods when ever the encountered them. Because their would often not be food available and they had to survive long periods without high calorie foods. So we evolved pleasure for these kinds of foods. But today, marketers of food have figured out how to active our pleasure centers and get us addicted to 'junk' foods. But we can't easily decide, hey this isn't good for my survival.

We follow what we believe gives us pleasure and avoids pain. The reason why some people then say no to junk food is that being overweight is unpleasant and thought of their death is unpleasant.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote: So

ManuAndres44 wrote:
 

So should there are always selfish behaviours whether you help somebody else or not I think it's a bit better to help others since this help mankind to survive considering only social darwinism.

The reason we have empathy and altruism is because we find them pleasant. We find approval of others pleasant and disapproval unpleasant. The exception is sociopaths. Science can now see that they aren't getting any pleasure out of empathy or altruism as non-sociopaths do.

ManuAndres44 wrote:
 

We look for 100% pleasure indeed since it's a resource that supports evolution but personally I don't think that we must only be focused on looking for pleasure since life's daily problems show you that you cannot live with perfection.

But if we have no free will, we can not focus on anything but pleasure and pain. There are many different sources of pleasure, and we follow complex strategies. It sounds like you've adopted this "you cannot live with perfection" as a strategy to avoid pain.

If you pursue intellectual or altruistic causes, you're still pursuing your own pleasure, right? If you willingly endure suffering it's just for long term net gain, right?

ManuAndres44 wrote:

There must be always something out there that's making you suffering no matter if it's a lot suffering or just a bit.

I think science is on the verge of being able to hack into our pleasure and pain centers and it would be possible to experience nothing but ecstasy. May not be good for survival, but with technology anything is possible.

So your strategy is to minimize suffering and help others when you can. Sounds pretty egocentric and hedonistic to me.

 

ManuAndres44 wrote:

Besides I'm considering those statements about to do what I think I should do without paying attention to what does say Humanism, Socialism, Science or something else....  

I think science has shown we can only be ego-centric hedonists without free will. So life is no longer a question of philosophy but of game strategy to increase one's pleasure.

Philosopy exists for the same reason religion does: because shit happens. You've seen the shit list:

http://www.bytebrothers.org/shitlist.htm

I'm not really sure what is the proper definition of humanism. A lot the people that call themselves humanist adopt these wacky far left political ideas about let's punish economic success and make a welfare state with tons of free stuff for doing nothing, then all our problems will go away. Their non-scientific approach to things just causes massive human suffering.

I'm for using science and reason to create societies that maximize pleasure and eliminate suffering. I think you should 'pay attention' more to neuroscience, game theory, behavioral studies. Philosophy is mostly dead, just embrace being an ego-centric hedonist without any real morals. Everything else is just a big act of self-delusion.

What do you think about this as a 'personal philosophy':

http://www.hedweb.com/

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10354
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Then how do you

Quote:
Then how do you explain things like overeating, addiction to tobacco and other drugs that work against our health and survival?

The majority of those things aren't significantly unhealthy. It takes decades to die from overeating or smoking. Statistically you're more likely to die in a car.
The remainder are highly addictive, and have altering effects on the brain which puts users out of the discussion on risky behaviour.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
 Ok. So all of our

 Ok. So all of our cooperative behaviors are conditioned by hedonism because we look only for pleasure and avoid pain. This is inevitable since free will doesn't exist. We're on the same page on these points. 

To help others to get a self-satisfaction, even is selfish, isn't so bad like take advantage of others. A practic example is when you cheat your girlfriend or when you have a relationship just thingking about pleasure for yourself without thinking about the other person's feelings. 

I personally think that even though science can help us to overcome suffering it's necessary to have a philosophy, a persona one. You can learn from the famous philosopher's but you can construct the yours. 

I checked a bit the link you posted and yes, you can look for your self-satisfaction. But I got a question what about if I would really like to get pleasure by killing people? Can't nobody stop me since I must look for my own satisfaction? And what about those people who look for pleasure through pain? Or that's just another option?

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge