Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

_caspar_ wrote

I understand Humanism as idealizing and prioritizing a transcendent Human over actually existing human animals. like other transcendental ideologies, an external ideal is granted the freedom to exist and rule at the expense of its adherents: in other words, living human animals act not in their own interest, but instead for the external ideal or spirit. this distinction is what has to a large degree motivated domination the world over: that there are inhuman monsters out there that should be forcibly oppressed and should voluntarily repress themselves in the name of a higher order, the order of the ideal Human. in modernity, God's moral authority has been exchanged for the moral authority of the Human and/or the logic of science.

"I am maintaining that law is constitutive of a pseudo civilization; of civilization not yet grown to maturity, due to law being merely a pre-reflectively free attempt to mediate civilization by the mistaken construct law..."

this is why in the other thread I gave the example that free market capitalists use in defense of capitalism itself: that it is state interference that prevents capital from realizing its full maturity, which to them would lead to a more liberatory society. Im not saying it is exactly the same argument you are making, but there seems to be a similar logic behind it.

civilization is such a broad and muddy term (and Im probably shooting myself in the foot throwing it out there) but to me its primarily a set of (so-called) solutions becoming habits becoming doctrine that claim to address the problems of sustainability, scale, and domination. its kind of a chicken and egg dilemma that is an ongoing investigation for me. anyhow, there are quite a bit of resources on the reading list that delve into critiques of both humanism and civilization. An Invitation to Desertion is a good intro for that.

1

nega OP wrote (edited )

So, in so far as I follow your position thus far, you are maintaining that Humanism, which centrally focuses upon a transcendent human ideal ideality, in preference to engaging and edifying existing flesh and blood human persons, and, that flesh and blood persons, via adopting the Humanistic pursuit of that ideality, are precipitating their own in-edifying loss/expense; and, that the practitioners of Humanism are, in fact, inhuman monsters to be oppressed/repressed, as godless, scientistic, inauthoritative authorities... However, I still do not follow why it is inappropriate to characterize police as criminal and inhuman...???...oh, you mean because the police are the manufacture of Humanism? Provide more distinction between trancendent human and ideal human, which you posit as antipodal idealisms, nonetheless, dubbing them with essentially the selfsame name... As a reflective, living being, concerned with well-being, I too incessantly focus on transcendent ideal states of affairs, which are present absences which I intend to usher into the world...so, yes, you are saying Humanists are damaging our sociosphere by living in pursuit of an inappropriate ideal...

2

_caspar_ wrote

I dont mean to say inhuman monsters (terminology coming from Stirner) is a negative attribute. Humanists would claim so, because they need the other side of the binary in order to think of themselves as Human. Humanity needs inhuman monsters to exist, as policy/policing needs criminality to exist. by attributing the police as criminals or inhuman (negatively), one is appealing to legality and Humanity as the given good. if legality is the problem, why appeal to it?

I just see transcendence as an attribute of idealism, I dont see them as antipodal. in fact Im not sure of an idealist philosophy that doesnt have transcendent goals, maybe certain Chan/Zen Buddhisms? but I dont know enough about it to say one way or the other. since I consider mind (ideal) and matter (material) to be one-and-the-same, I would say the pursuit of any ideal that does not factor in the lived embodied experience (flesh and all) is not worth pursuing and ends up denying that experience in the hopes of an external one. heaven, enlightenment, or transhumanism are just some examples.

Im also not a philosophy specialist,, so take it as you will.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

_caspar_ wrote

spiritual or secular, they operate similarly. the underlying principle is there. this is what Stirner pointed out in their argument against Feuerbach's secular humanism: swapping out God with the Human.

2

nega OP wrote

Flesh this out please: doesn't civilization/civility impose over humanity as it does other animalities?

1

[deleted] wrote

1

nega OP wrote

How does civilization impose upon other animals?

−2