4 ms·

You can find sarcastic discourses about whoever think anthropocentric is a sane point of view that go back as far as we have any philosophical account. Take Xen

You can find sarcastic discourses about whoever think anthropocentric is a sane point of view that go back as far as we have any philosophical account. Take Xenophane’s Satire for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires Copernicus and Darwin didn’t change much things on that side. I wholly disagree with your later point though. Knowing that we are only primate lost in space, that civilizations and even our whole species could totally disappear tomorrow without any deity to help, save, rescue, blame or give congrats is actually a far more appealing scenario in term of being challenged to excel. Compare that with "you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise".

keiferski 2y ago
"you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise". That's really not an accurate description of the role religion has played in human psychology, and is only accurate for a very specific subset of beliefs in a specific time and place. My argument was more that humans thought of themselves as inhabiting a world designed for them, but then learned that this was (likely) not true, and that for many people this is a pessimistic, nihilistic conclusion.
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  Not all religions/belief systems have/had the world (just) designed for humans. People can "cope" with other views.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    Definitely true, but: - I'm talking primarily about the Western world and its legacy of Christianity. The situation is different in India, China, etc. - Even then, in practice, most successful religions tend to have a human-like personal figure in an important place, even if the religion itself is technically non-personal.
    - soco 2y ago
      If the point is about "humanity" and how the world cannot have non-human goals, then rejecting the inconvenient religions (oriental, animistic, whatever) is definitely not a convincing argument. Those are just as humans, and don't explain the world in the convenient western way. So yes, we can very well live in a world not designed for humans.
      - keiferski 2y ago
        The point is about Western society and its progression, not “humans” in general. So yes, one route may to be create a belief system more similar to animist or other religions. But that is itself a tall order. A lot of this has to do with the Enlightenment project and disenchantment so it’s already largely focused on the Western world to begin with. Other places have less a history with this.
    - FearNotDaniel 2y ago
      All I can suggest is, if you really want to take a scientific approach to all this, you may want to start by finding out what Christianity actually teaches, rather than the garbled third-hand nonsense you've quoted above, which bears no resemblance to anything taught by a mainstream Christian denomination at least since the Council of Nicaea. I'll admit it's not easy to figure out, especially when some churches like to continue arguing with others about some of the details, and also when "just read the Bible" really doesn't help because it's hard to make sense of on its own (sorry, Luther, but sola scriptura never really stood up, otherwise all the preachers would be out of a job). It takes time and patience to really understand what claims Christianity makes on your life and on the world. Welcome to theology, it's not science, but it still requires critical thinking, intelligence and a sensitivity to nuance.
em-bee 2y ago
mankind has been created to carry forward an ever advancing civilization that's what i go by. the goal is for each individual and for humanity as a whole to better themselves during their life on earth and how they will experience their eternal existence depends on how well they do on earth. plenty of motivation for me, and better than the idea that after i die there is nothing and therefore what i do in my life doesn't really matter.
- nuancebydefault 2y ago
  > mankind has been created to... That's a narrative from a certain perspective. Let's advocate for different perspectives, like the article does. I'm perfectly fine with the Darwinistic idea that mankind has evolved from something very primitive rather than created for a purpose. The declaration of basic human rights is a narrative that humans deem good. But they are still human inventions, no superior creator needs to be involved to have something deemed good for everyone. We are here, that is a fact. Why or how is a mystery. You can build narratives around that but in fact they are not necessary. I would say, let's just make the best of our existence by trying to not make other beings miserable.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    You can build narratives around that but in fact they are not necessary well, that is the question. that narrative may not be necessary for you, but it is for me and for many others. what do you think will be more successful/sustainable? convincing everyone that we don't need a narrative or adopt a narrative that is beneficial for all? your idea of making the best of our existence by trying to not make other beings miserable is a good one. and it is compatible with advancing civilization. so why don't we focus on working together to achieve those goals (and other related goals like peace, elimination of poverty, justice, clean environment, etc) instead of arguing whether we need a narrative or not?
    - psychoslave 2y ago
      > well, that is the question. that narrative may not be necessary for you, but it is for me and for many others. Being convinced that we need something is not the same as something being necessary for us. There are all sort of human endeavor out there whose main goal is to convince us we need something, be it some consumer commodity, some skill, or some divinity. Most often than not, people who conduct these propaganda campaigns are themselves convince that it's relevant to do it for some of their aspiration to become a reality, be it something they expose in what they communicate openly or some more or less hidden agenda. The topic is not that much about are narratives a necessity, but what they lead to. If they lead to people wanting to give only love and respect to other as much as for themselves, that sounds great, and who would complain, really? If they lead to "we the camp of the good vs the heretics evil others that must be destroyed whatever the means", that's an entirely different concern. When we think "advancing civilization", we are actually stashing the real issue that is that there is not "a single narrative about a single civilization". It makes as much sense to ask whether we need narratives as to ask whether we need tools. Stories can glorify the gun holder or the people who learnt how and when to use first aid kits.

keiferski 2y ago

"you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise". That's really not an accurate description of the role religion has played in human psychology, and is only accurate for a very specific subset of beliefs in a specific time and place. My argument was more that humans thought of themselves as inhabiting a world designed for them, but then learned that this was (likely) not true, and that for many people this is a pessimistic, nihilistic conclusion.

RandomLensman 2y ago
Not all religions/belief systems have/had the world (just) designed for humans. People can "cope" with other views.
- keiferski 2y ago
  Definitely true, but: - I'm talking primarily about the Western world and its legacy of Christianity. The situation is different in India, China, etc. - Even then, in practice, most successful religions tend to have a human-like personal figure in an important place, even if the religion itself is technically non-personal.
  - soco 2y ago
    If the point is about "humanity" and how the world cannot have non-human goals, then rejecting the inconvenient religions (oriental, animistic, whatever) is definitely not a convincing argument. Those are just as humans, and don't explain the world in the convenient western way. So yes, we can very well live in a world not designed for humans.
    - keiferski 2y ago
      The point is about Western society and its progression, not “humans” in general. So yes, one route may to be create a belief system more similar to animist or other religions. But that is itself a tall order. A lot of this has to do with the Enlightenment project and disenchantment so it’s already largely focused on the Western world to begin with. Other places have less a history with this.
  - FearNotDaniel 2y ago
    All I can suggest is, if you really want to take a scientific approach to all this, you may want to start by finding out what Christianity actually teaches, rather than the garbled third-hand nonsense you've quoted above, which bears no resemblance to anything taught by a mainstream Christian denomination at least since the Council of Nicaea. I'll admit it's not easy to figure out, especially when some churches like to continue arguing with others about some of the details, and also when "just read the Bible" really doesn't help because it's hard to make sense of on its own (sorry, Luther, but sola scriptura never really stood up, otherwise all the preachers would be out of a job). It takes time and patience to really understand what claims Christianity makes on your life and on the world. Welcome to theology, it's not science, but it still requires critical thinking, intelligence and a sensitivity to nuance.

em-bee 2y ago

mankind has been created to carry forward an ever advancing civilization that's what i go by. the goal is for each individual and for humanity as a whole to better themselves during their life on earth and how they will experience their eternal existence depends on how well they do on earth. plenty of motivation for me, and better than the idea that after i die there is nothing and therefore what i do in my life doesn't really matter.

nuancebydefault 2y ago
> mankind has been created to... That's a narrative from a certain perspective. Let's advocate for different perspectives, like the article does. I'm perfectly fine with the Darwinistic idea that mankind has evolved from something very primitive rather than created for a purpose. The declaration of basic human rights is a narrative that humans deem good. But they are still human inventions, no superior creator needs to be involved to have something deemed good for everyone. We are here, that is a fact. Why or how is a mystery. You can build narratives around that but in fact they are not necessary. I would say, let's just make the best of our existence by trying to not make other beings miserable.
- em-bee 2y ago
  You can build narratives around that but in fact they are not necessary well, that is the question. that narrative may not be necessary for you, but it is for me and for many others. what do you think will be more successful/sustainable? convincing everyone that we don't need a narrative or adopt a narrative that is beneficial for all? your idea of making the best of our existence by trying to not make other beings miserable is a good one. and it is compatible with advancing civilization. so why don't we focus on working together to achieve those goals (and other related goals like peace, elimination of poverty, justice, clean environment, etc) instead of arguing whether we need a narrative or not?
  - psychoslave 2y ago
    > well, that is the question. that narrative may not be necessary for you, but it is for me and for many others. Being convinced that we need something is not the same as something being necessary for us. There are all sort of human endeavor out there whose main goal is to convince us we need something, be it some consumer commodity, some skill, or some divinity. Most often than not, people who conduct these propaganda campaigns are themselves convince that it's relevant to do it for some of their aspiration to become a reality, be it something they expose in what they communicate openly or some more or less hidden agenda. The topic is not that much about are narratives a necessity, but what they lead to. If they lead to people wanting to give only love and respect to other as much as for themselves, that sounds great, and who would complain, really? If they lead to "we the camp of the good vs the heretics evil others that must be destroyed whatever the means", that's an entirely different concern. When we think "advancing civilization", we are actually stashing the real issue that is that there is not "a single narrative about a single civilization". It makes as much sense to ask whether we need narratives as to ask whether we need tools. Stories can glorify the gun holder or the people who learnt how and when to use first aid kits.