Humanism - Overall optimistic or pessimistic?

[Lark]

What do you consider humanism and humanistic creeds to be generally optimistic or pessimistic?

I have read accounts which argue that the old testament is optimistic and the new testament pessimistic in Judeo-Christian tradition, although I've also read accounts which argue exactly the reverse too and heard arguments over individual books and the stories contained in books. So I'm inclined to think that most philosophies and spiritualities are the same.

 

[Avocado]

What do you consider humanism and humanistic creeds to be generally optimistic or pessimistic?

I have read accounts which argue that the old testament is optimistic and the new testament pessimistic in Judeo-Christian tradition, although I've also read accounts which argue exactly the reverse too and heard arguments over individual books and the stories contained in books. So I'm inclined to think that most philosophies and spiritualities are the same.

Humanism--we have the power in each of us to make the world better.

 

[Lark]

Humanism--we have the power in each of us to make the world better.

Or destroy it.

 

[tinker683]

What do you consider humanism and humanistic creeds to be generally optimistic or pessimistic?

I would consider it generally optimistic and would actually find the idea that it could be considered pessimistic a puzzling one, given that it's view of humanity is often idealized.

I have read accounts which argue that the old testament is optimistic and the new testament pessimistic in Judeo-Christian tradition, although I've also read accounts which argue exactly the reverse too and heard arguments over individual books and the stories contained in books. So I'm inclined to think that most philosophies and spiritualities are the same.

My Christians I know hold the Old Testament in regards to the same way one would an curmudgeonly, eccentric uncle: Something they have to tolerate, but seem to be mostly embarrassed about. The new testament on the otherhand is given praise and accolades all day and all night.

 

[Avocado]

I would consider it generally optimistic and would actually find the idea that it could be considered pessimistic a puzzling one, given that it's view of humanity is often idealized.



My Christians I know hold the Old Testament in regards to the same way one would an curmudgeonly, eccentric uncle: Something they have to tolerate, but seem to be mostly embarrassed about. The new testament on the otherhand is given praise and accolades all day and all night.

The golden rule is nice, and it is really all you need to get by with in daily life.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I think the idea of humanism tries very hard to be neither optimistic or pessimistic and focus more on pseudo-realism.

I think it is on the right track. Humanism says 'hold on a minute, let's think about that for a second.' when it comes to existing preconceptions of human society and then looks for the value of the human in the preconception rather than breaking it down and start from scratch.

It gains a particularly large following through this and is one of the most relatable ideals in existance. And regardless of your thoughts on life, there will be great parts of the humanism philosophy that no one can truely refute outright. The only importance however is not wether something feels right or wrong. But how much that something can be given a value.

Why give value to something that can't be given value.

Humanism tries to answer inherently unanswerable questions, but for what reason. Do these questions really need answering in the first place?

If you don't feel good about yourself unless you conform to ideals and beliefs that in turn do make you feel good about yourself, then the result is no doubt quantifiable to some extent and one could say these beliefs and ideals have saved them.

But I would argue that the reason you don't feel good about yourself without your ideals and beliefs is a problem that is merely avoided rather than solved by doing this.

Life is quantifiable. But the answer isn't as phylosophical as one might think. Life merely goes through the motions.

Movement is all that quantifies life, and while I keep on moving, I will remain a happy man.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Doesn't strike me as either. It just strikes me as altogether more reasonable than a lot of alternatives.

It's not perfect, though. I think, in pursuing its main points, adherents can over-emphasize free will, try too hard to define some ephemeral human nature, and make some dubious assertions about intrinsic value in human beings.

EDIT: Oh, and, obviously, they tend to be a bit too anthropocentric.

 

[miss fortune]

as with a hammer, it depends upon who is wielding it

 

[Fluffywolf]

as with a hammer, it depends upon who is wielding it

That in itself is quite interesting.

If an ideal or belief is so malleble that its very meaning differs from one person to the next, then quantifying it seems to be an impossibility indeed.

Perhaps it is better to think about what you want to achieve, rather than what to believe.

 

[Lark]

That in itself is quite interesting.

If an ideal or belief is so malleble that its very meaning differs from one person to the next, then quantifying it seems to be an impossibility indeed.

Perhaps it is better to think about what you want to achieve, rather than what to believe.

I wish I could quote the two posts in this post.

On the one hand I think it is true that ideas can be exploited and are, the underlying character traits and structure of the believers is more important, some people can switch ideologies. Bertrand Russell talked about how he knew protestant and catholic atheists for instance.

Although that said I think there are true and corrupted versions of ideas too, there is malleability and pluralism but they are still right and wrong definitions of words, there has to be, one of the best conservative criticisms of individualism in theory and philosophy, for instance, is that there are no individual languages, it is social in essence, purpose, construction.

There's also the definition and the shadow too, to employ the old Jungian dichotomy too.

 

[miss fortune]

That in itself is quite interesting.

If an ideal or belief is so malleble that its very meaning differs from one person to the next, then quantifying it seems to be an impossibility indeed.

Perhaps it is better to think about what you want to achieve, rather than what to believe.

or whether one's locus of control is internal or external?

people of any belief can be pessimistic, ranging from fatalism to negative nihilism... or they can take the other path

I wish I could quote the two posts in this post.

On the one hand I think it is true that ideas can be exploited and are, the underlying character traits and structure of the believers is more important, some people can switch ideologies. Bertrand Russell talked about how he knew protestant and catholic atheists for instance.

Although that said I think there are true and corrupted versions of ideas too, there is malleability and pluralism but they are still right and wrong definitions of words, there has to be, one of the best conservative criticisms of individualism in theory and philosophy, for instance, is that there are no individual languages, it is social in essence, purpose, construction.

There's also the definition and the shadow too, to employ the old Jungian dichotomy too.

it's easy to quote two posts at once

a secular humanist can be just as optimistic as the most happily religious person... and a fatalistic believer can be just as bad as the most pessimistic atheist... it's the person, not the belief

 

[Lark]

or whether one's locus of control is internal or external?

people of any belief can be pessimistic, ranging from fatalism to negative nihilism... or they can take the other path



it's easy to quote two posts at once

a secular humanist can be just as optimistic as the most happily religious person... and a fatalistic believer can be just as bad as the most pessimistic atheist... it's the person, not the belief

Easy for you.

I agree character has a lot to do with it, ideas can be intrinsically or essentially one or the other too though.

I've encountered both optimism and pessimism in humanism.

 

[Mademoiselle]

Actually it is neutral.
It always have been.

 

[Kullervo]

Humanism to me is very idealistic in nature. It has a messianic element (the vision of utopia) which is present in most traditional religions.

I actually feel like a disillusioned Humanist. It isn't that I loathe the movement's ideals, but feel it has been hijacked by the far left (like atheism itself has been). This is the original Humanist Manifesto: Humanist Manifesto I. Assuming you're non-religious, it is hard to object to any of the summit points.

Compare that to the latest: Humanist Manifesto III. The politically loaded language is quite obvious. The ideas of a "global community" and "supporting diversity", for example. These were not in the original manifesto. I no longer participate in any groups because of a big schism that opened up around five years ago between hard atheists and atheistic Leftists over this issue.

 

[miss fortune]

Easy for you.

I agree character has a lot to do with it, ideas can be intrinsically or essentially one or the other too though.

I've encountered both optimism and pessimism in humanism.

click the little speech bubble with the plus beside it (beside the reply with quote on the bottom right) on the first post you want to quote and then click the reply with quote for the second... both will show up

of course an individual can swing between the two sides of the idea on their own...

at times I consider exactly how insignificant I am in the grand scheme of things, that the fact that I'm a tiny living thing on a tiny planet around a small star in a vast galaxy doesn't matter at all... that whatever meaning my actions have is just assigned by years of human behavior and that we've just overcomplicated things to the point where we think that we can buy a meaning and we work tirelessly and wear ourselves out for a lifetime just to try and buy some meaning to our lives because of what?

but then there's the empowering side... there may not be a meaning to our existence, but we can make one... life is what you make of it and the universe is AWESOME!

 

[Lark]

click the little speech bubble with the plus beside it (beside the reply with quote on the bottom right) on the first post you want to quote and then click the reply with quote for the second... both will show up

of course an individual can swing between the two sides of the idea on their own...

at times I consider exactly how insignificant I am in the grand scheme of things, that the fact that I'm a tiny living thing on a tiny planet around a small star in a vast galaxy doesn't matter at all... that whatever meaning my actions have is just assigned by years of human behavior and that we've just overcomplicated things to the point where we think that we can buy a meaning and we work tirelessly and wear ourselves out for a lifetime just to try and buy some meaning to our lives because of what?

but then there's the empowering side... there may not be a meaning to our existence, but we can make one... life is what you make of it and the universe is AWESOME!

Keep me searching for a heart of Gold.

 

[Bush]

It's optimistic for me. I prefer a philosophy that highlights our own agency, control, power, and ability to influence.

 

[Lark]

It's optimistic for me. I prefer a philosophy that highlights our own agency, control, power, and ability to influence.

It can be pessimistic in so far that it recognises our faults, failings and limitations just as much, at least any honest humanism would, realising the "human, all too human" nature of most decisions and motivations.

Like in the post Freud, Marx and Nietzsche world you've got to be skeptical about most things.

 

[Pionart]

I'm finding it difficult to find explanations of what humanism is exactly, but I don't like the sound of it. It seems to place humans at the centre of the universe, ignoring that we are a small part of what happens. It seems to view things in a very restrictive manner, so that only a particular way of seeing things is correct - that we should focus on humanity in a literal sense, and for some reason perhaps also scientific evidence.

Opposed to this, I think it is wise to realise how small we are in everything, and to understand that wisdom and knowledge can take many different forms, that don't necessarily focus on things such as pictures of humans or of scientific methodology.

I think to the humanist, humanism would seem optimistic. Breaking from the chains of oppression and realising human freedom and the cultivation of what is seen as proper understanding. To the non-humanist the doctrine would perhaps seem very limiting, and ignorant of the range of what is out there.

 

[Bush]

It can be pessimistic in so far that it recognises our faults, failings and limitations just as much, at least any honest humanism would, realising the "human, all too human" nature of most decisions and motivations.

For this, I go by the old adage that "The truth shall set you free -- but, at first, it'll piss you off." Something like that. Perhaps, here, I'd replace 'truth' with 'idea' and 'piss you off' with 'make you question everything.'

I can see some pessimism in it, too. Humanism allows us to be free agents, for sure; but exactly how much freedom and control do we have? In that way, it's more optimistic to believe that we have a higher power on our side that will help our environment give it the nudge it needs for us to press it forward.