Could you define naturalism and humanism the way you see them? From your text it is not really clear what you mean by them and it seems to differ from classical definitions of the terms.
The idea behind naturalism from a political perspective is everything works from natural preset, that all things will remain natural, from markets, to industry, to the running of government. Unfortunately it has a tendency to breed hierarchies, “meritocracy” and dominance as a form of natural selection. It’s the foundational reasoning of nationalists, tankies and the old Catholic church, albeit “under god”, not to mention racists. Us versus them, enemy mentality, it’s all weaponised pack instinct.
I feel Humanism is juxtaposed to this, because it focuses on the possibility of humanity through the individual. It’s not being humanitarian, as that stems from altruism.
Humanism from a political level poses that society and the individual must create environments conducive of bringing out the best in everyone and to generally create humanized environments as a base necessity. Like for instance a prison system that gives prisoners each their rooms and bathrooms, or a schools that meet the needs of students, or even national funding of religious organisations from a cultural perspective, like Mosques and Churches.
To put it bluntly, Martin Luther King Jr is a humanist icon and humanism is the foundational philosophic model of Nordic countries such as Norway. It’s even written into the Norwegian constitution as a foundational tradgional value.
However, naturalism becomes normalised if you’re at war, or when facing a major existential opressor like with CRT in the US, during economic collapse, etc. Then it becomes almost unavoidable and understandable even. But it’s still the core philosophy of authoritarianism and is something people have been trying to get away from for millennia.
Aha I see. The confusion was that what you call political naturalism is akin to Randian objectivism, which is unfortunately adhered to by right politicians in the states, whereas there are more progressive naturalist interpretations such as secular humanism (which is part of naturalistic philosophy)
Hence your juxtaposition of naturalism vs humanism felt weird to me. Be aware that naturalism is more broadly defined and that then aren’t mutually exclusive.
Classically speaking we’d have to wade through centuries of imperialistic mental gymnastics and dogma, wouldn’t we?
Naturalism is inherently anti-secular, not in ideal, but in effect. It’s not a question of what people believe, but actual outcomes.
And it’s not just “the right wing”, it’s all liberals. Neo, centrists, moderates, socially conservative liberals. Yes, I’m saying liberalism is right wing and has always been right wing, but years of propaganda makes it seem like there’s a difference. There isn’t. It’s not an illusion of choice, it’s the delusion of choice.
But I guess that doesn’t match with populare definition either.
Classically speaking we’d have to wade through centuries of imperialistic mental gymnastics and dogma, wouldn’t we?
It’s essential to your message being understood that you use terminology properly. Your central point hinges on a niche definition of naturalism.
I made you aware of that, not because of pedantry, but to help you get your message across better. As currently it’s rambling a bit. So do with that as you see fit.
Could you define naturalism and humanism the way you see them? From your text it is not really clear what you mean by them and it seems to differ from classical definitions of the terms.
The idea behind naturalism from a political perspective is everything works from natural preset, that all things will remain natural, from markets, to industry, to the running of government. Unfortunately it has a tendency to breed hierarchies, “meritocracy” and dominance as a form of natural selection. It’s the foundational reasoning of nationalists, tankies and the old Catholic church, albeit “under god”, not to mention racists. Us versus them, enemy mentality, it’s all weaponised pack instinct.
I feel Humanism is juxtaposed to this, because it focuses on the possibility of humanity through the individual. It’s not being humanitarian, as that stems from altruism.
Humanism from a political level poses that society and the individual must create environments conducive of bringing out the best in everyone and to generally create humanized environments as a base necessity. Like for instance a prison system that gives prisoners each their rooms and bathrooms, or a schools that meet the needs of students, or even national funding of religious organisations from a cultural perspective, like Mosques and Churches.
To put it bluntly, Martin Luther King Jr is a humanist icon and humanism is the foundational philosophic model of Nordic countries such as Norway. It’s even written into the Norwegian constitution as a foundational tradgional value.
However, naturalism becomes normalised if you’re at war, or when facing a major existential opressor like with CRT in the US, during economic collapse, etc. Then it becomes almost unavoidable and understandable even. But it’s still the core philosophy of authoritarianism and is something people have been trying to get away from for millennia.
Aha I see. The confusion was that what you call political naturalism is akin to Randian objectivism, which is unfortunately adhered to by right politicians in the states, whereas there are more progressive naturalist interpretations such as secular humanism (which is part of naturalistic philosophy)
Hence your juxtaposition of naturalism vs humanism felt weird to me. Be aware that naturalism is more broadly defined and that then aren’t mutually exclusive.
Classically speaking we’d have to wade through centuries of imperialistic mental gymnastics and dogma, wouldn’t we?
Naturalism is inherently anti-secular, not in ideal, but in effect. It’s not a question of what people believe, but actual outcomes.
And it’s not just “the right wing”, it’s all liberals. Neo, centrists, moderates, socially conservative liberals. Yes, I’m saying liberalism is right wing and has always been right wing, but years of propaganda makes it seem like there’s a difference. There isn’t. It’s not an illusion of choice, it’s the delusion of choice.
But I guess that doesn’t match with populare definition either.
It’s essential to your message being understood that you use terminology properly. Your central point hinges on a niche definition of naturalism.
I made you aware of that, not because of pedantry, but to help you get your message across better. As currently it’s rambling a bit. So do with that as you see fit.