From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 16:09:14 MST
Reason wrote:
>
> ---> Mike Lorrey
>
> > > Here's a thought:
> > >
> > > Those in the humanism camp see trans-humanism. Those in the
> > > shackling-ubertech-to-favored-existing-failed-political-model camp see
> > > transhuman-ism.
> > >
> > > Funny things, words.
> >
> > Yes, how is it, again, that you can claim that humanism is not an
> > existing failed political model?
>
> I wasn't.
>
> Humanism in the sense of individual creed for dealing with people that leads
> to general sets of prescriptions when filtered through whatever political
> model you're using. But not a political model itself. I wasn't performing a
> left side = right side sort of of paragraph there.
The fact that there is apparently a need for transhumanism, as distinct
from humanism, indicates as obvious the fact that the humanist model
fails to accurately model the hopes, needs, and aspirations of some set
of humanity, therefore it is a failed model. Whether it is a political
model is obviously, also, a matter of subjective interpretation. For
example, humanism preaches tolerance, which is obviously an issue with
broad, widespread political implications (i.e. tolerance of races,
religions, genders, sexual preferences, economic achievement, etc...).
Therefore, the assertion that humanism is not a political model is
false.
Therefore, I conclude that humanism is accurately described as a "failed
political model", because it IS, in fact, political, and it IS, in fact,
failed, in that it fails to fulfill the needs and aspirations of its
adherents.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:11:39 MST