Humanism and the Ideal Perfected Human

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Categorically sexist whether women members agree or not.

Time to crush the advenurists for moral incorrectness.

I will not respond further to this derail and I encourage others not to do so as well.

She apparently has you up against a wall.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

On an ontological level I think that correct. Epistemologically though I think there is a vast difference since knowledge of what gets called miracles is throughout Mormon thought. However secular humanism sees that not just as an ontological error if called supernatural but an epistemological error if people believe in the event. Put an other way the question isn't the nature of the event but it's reality. A secular humanist sees all "real" religious claims to simply be either deception by religion biasing judgments or basic errors in judgment.

Ordinary folk regularly misinterpret what they see, be they Mormon or Humanist.  Brigham Yong understood it well:

Quote

". . . the repository of the intelligence that comes from another state of existence invisible to the natural eye; of the influence that produces an effect without revealing the cause, and is therefore called a miracle. You are already acquainted with my views upon the doctrine of miracles. In reality there can be no miracle, only to the ignorant. There are spiritual agents, invisible to the natural eye, not only in us, but in the elements, in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, who are continually producing effects, the cause of which we cannot comprehend." JD, I:88-94, Salt Lake City, June 13, 1852, https://jod.mrm.org/1/88 .  

As did James Talmage:

Quote

“Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized”  https://ldschurchquotes.com/talmage-on-miracles/ .

 

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As a practical matter for Mormons while we retain the older rhetoric the practical political stance within homes has become a kind of democratic consensus between husband and wife. There's really no "leadership" in the sense of one figure with a trump over the other the way there once was. Indeed men who "lead" that way rather than by persuasion are seen as deeply dysfunctional and out of tune spiritually. However you don't have to go back many decades to see the shift in practice. 

The problem with the ideal. you outline is that even when women lead they lead at the suffering of the male leader. They always have trump power and can thus always undermine the woman's leadership. That's in terms of formal power. Again, that might not be true in home leadership where there's really no formal power relationship. Within Church leadership though it most certainly is. Now where I differ somewhat with feminists is that they privilege formal power over informal and tend to neglect the latter. So I'd agree with you that in many cases you have informal power by women that let them accomplish a great deal. However it's also the case that with the rise of correlation and the transition from 19th century Mormon practice that informal lines of power for women became significantly constrained. Part of that was inevitable due to large societal sexist structures. So with the professionalizing of many practices such as building, fund raising and so forth, women without professional backgrounds couldn't do the necessary jobs. However that in turn was parasitic on the place of women in academia and related professional training. That really only shifted in the 70's and 80's. However by and large the changes instituted from around 1910 - 1950 in the Church haven't adjusted to the change in women's role and professional skills. That understandably is a thorn for many women.

...... A lot of Church structure is "arbitrary" in various strong ways. ..............

However the days when men hunted and fought regularly are far behind us. .....................

That's the problem in keeping the structures of the past. Again though, it's up to God to change things if he desires.

My main point, contra feminist accusations of toxic masculinity and evil patriarchy, is that we arrived here innocently as a result of thousands of years of natural anthropological history.  It wasn't planned, and no one was victimized.  As Jordan Peterson points out, there has always been cooperation and negotiation between men and women.  It is very unclear who has the most power.

Moreover, our frame of reference is too shallow.  The Bible has actual female prophets and judges of great power commanding troops.  Biblical women have carried out executions, and have operated as spies, and have shown tremendous initiatives in other cases.   Pervasive ignorance of the Bible is no excuse.  A Mormon focus on the 19th and 20th centuries is absurd.  This is supposed to be a Restoration.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

No. I think it’s just naive about the tensions inherent to its stated principles. In practice what they want is clearly a parliamentary style rule by elite where democracy is just choosing between competing elites perceiving themselves as a meritocracy. The problem with that is when populism comes up against this self perceived meritocracy as we saw with Trump and Brexit.

They don’t perceive this as authoritarian. It’s just that they can’t fathom people thinking differently from what the elite want. I think the last 20 years shows the problem with secularism of the humanist sort. The Middle East, much to their surprise, didn’t choose what was to them obvious. Ditto post recession rise of populism. And I think in practice it leads to new social norms with a quasi-authoritarian nature not that different from the Puritan religious standards they decry.

There is potential for better humanist frameworks than what you reference, right? Wouldn't it be true that, like all religions and governments, humanism can undergo a transformative, evolving, potentially refining process?

[mfbukowski]

On 9/2/2019 at 2:05 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

MiserereNobis,

I cannot speak for my brother, Mark, nor would I presume to do so.  While I agree that one should not reach too far in an effort to draw parallels that are entirely too strained, and while Mark is free to correct me on any point if he wishes, at one time, essentially, I believe he was the sort of humanist he has in mind here, and that is why the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as promulgated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appealed to him.

Is anyone expecting that humanists will, en masse, see the light and join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a mass-baptismal event much like what occurred with Alma's people at the Waters of Mormon in the Book of Mormon?  Plainly, such an expectation would be unrealistic (to put it mildly)!  On the other hand, if the odd humanist sees the parallels (or at least the lack of contradiction) between what he already believes and the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that cannot, from the perspective of the Church, its leaders, and its members, be a bad thing.

I wish you well.  

Yes thanks, this is it exactly. 

They will of course see our doctrines as metaphors for the human condition, and in that there is much food for thought, or thus have I found over the years.

LDS people really don't know what they have and I suppose are bound to leave it that way worrying about Book of Mormon geography.

It's such a shame.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

On an ontological level I think that correct. Epistemologically though I think there is a vast difference since knowledge of what gets called miracles is throughout Mormon thought. However secular humanism sees that not just as an ontological error if called supernatural but an epistemological error if people believe in the event. Put an other way the question isn't the nature of the event but it's reality. A secular humanist sees all "real" religious claims to simply be either deception by religion biasing judgments or basic errors in judgment.

The epistemological difference in Mormonism is critical. Regular individuals are to seek their own revelation, but it is expected to be divine confirmation, not a radical departure from authority. And the authority is expected to issue divine guidance which cannot be contradicted by s believer. 

I suppose this is core: one is a true believer in the church only if they affirm the authorities. The Truth in Mormonism is determined esoterically in a way that cannot be challenged within the system.

What about, instead of an esoteric epistemology, a more accessible one? Suppose we all engage in this process, after an agreement on some core axioms that essentially value the individual: "I make a proposition based on something that others can either reject or accept as the common will, or demonstrably refute or affirm. And I know I can do so with others' propositions." This would build over time to develop an organisation with a foundation of core constitutional values but also some flexibility to continue to adapt and refine.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As a practical matter for Mormons while we retain the older rhetoric the practical political stance within homes has become a kind of democratic consensus between husband and wife. There's really no "leadership" in the sense of one figure with a trump over the other the way there once was. Indeed men who "lead" that way rather than by persuasion are seen as deeply dysfunctional and out of tune spiritually. However you don't have to go back many decades to see the shift in practice. 

Women and men are still in an adjustment phase to these formal power shifts. It's still within living memory that women couldn't have credit cards in their own name, couldn't serve jury duty, couldn't decide on birth control for themselves, could be legally raped by their husbands and could be fired just for being pregnant.

The generational attitudes and habits are still in adjustment to the formal freedoms which disrupt those old power structures.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem with the ideal. you outline is that even when women lead they lead at the suffering of the male leader. They always have trump power and can thus always undermine the woman's leadership. That's in terms of formal power. Again, that might not be true in home leadership where there's really no formal power relationship. Within Church leadership though it most certainly is. Now where I differ somewhat with feminists is that they privilege formal power over informal and tend to neglect the latter. So I'd agree with you that in many cases you have informal power by women that let them accomplish a great deal. However it's also the case that with the rise of correlation and the transition from 19th century Mormon practice that informal lines of power for women became significantly constrained. Part of that was inevitable due to large societal sexist structures. So with the professionalizing of many practices such as building, fund raising and so forth, women without professional backgrounds couldn't do the necessary jobs. However that in turn was parasitic on the place of women in academia and related professional training. That really only shifted in the 70's and 80's. However by and large the changes instituted from around 1910 - 1950 in the Church haven't adjusted to the change in women's role and professional skills. That understandably is a thorn for many women.

I think that'll change and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Nelson and Oaks be the ones to change it. I think it's inevitably coming although exactly what the shape will be is unclear. A lot of Church structure is "arbitrary" in various strong ways. (Say Sunday School and Primary structure) It's not hard to see those changing. Likewise a lot of meeting structure is arbitrary. However judgement is the key power relation that many feminists understandably focus on. Even with Joseph's progressive treatment of the Nauvoo Relief Society it's hard to see those issues of judgement changing without a pretty major revelation. It's that power of judgment and command that ultimately is the focus and it's unarguable I think that the lack of equivalency entails a sexist structure. A divine mandated sexism but a sexism nonetheless.

That judgment gap is a critical one, the exclusion of females from that leadership capacity represents lost value of female perspective, especially when personal perspectives are highly influenced by gender-dictated roles. Thus with the division of labor on gender lines, the female wisdom largely retained from those roles means that the judging is done without equivalent understanding of those roles and labor.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

However the days when men hunted and fought regularly are far behind us. The number of children has significantly reduced. Even a "large" Mormon family relative to our secular neighbors is 3-4 vs 0-2. Contrast this to the days when much of a woman's work was taking care of children when men (and often women too) had to do hard labor to produce food or money to eat. Again those days are alien to much of the world. (Even in much of the third world thankfully due to changes over the last 20 years) The problem is that structures that may have made sense in a lower technological survival economy don't make sense in today's economy of plenty. 

In addition to relative prosperity, which means that labor can be divided more adaptively, connectedness has changed drastically. 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The epistemological difference in Mormonism is critical. Regular individuals are to seek their own revelation, but it is expected to be divine confirmation, not a radical departure from authority. And the authority is expected to issue divine guidance which cannot be contradicted by s believer. 

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. There's no reason you can't get a revelation that a leader is wrong, but of course the burden of proof is much higher. What you can do on the basis of that information is constrained though.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I suppose this is core: one is a true believer in the church only if they affirm the authorities. The Truth in Mormonism is determined esoterically in a way that cannot be challenged within the system.

I fundamentally disagree with that, although the individual can't receive revelation for others particularly in a doctrinal way. So there's a relationship to incorrect belief by leaders which prevents one from challenging. If that's all you mean then I'd agree. But I don't think that's a particular esoteric conception of truth but a rather straightforward conception of leadership typical in most organizations. So I think you're conflating epistemological issues with authority issues.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What about, instead of an esoteric epistemology, a more accessible one? Suppose we all engage in this process, after an agreement on some core axioms that essentially value the individual: "I make a proposition based on something that others can either reject or accept as the common will, or demonstrably refute or affirm. And I know I can do so with others' propositions." This would build over time to develop an organisation with a foundation of core constitutional values but also some flexibility to continue to adapt and refine.

I think it practice that's what happens outside of key emphasized issues. But honestly there aren't many of those. The difference is of course claims to revelation so there's an authority issue there. But in terms of teaching there's lots of things deemphasized or new ideas that arise bottom up. (Limited geography for the Book of Mormon being the best example) 

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Women and men are still in an adjustment phase to these formal power shifts. It's still within living memory that women couldn't have credit cards in their own name, couldn't serve jury duty, couldn't decide on birth control for themselves, could be legally raped by their husbands and could be fired just for being pregnant.

I think there's a lot of truth to that. Part of the issue is the ridiculously rapid social change. Those periods come every few decades. The last time was around 1965-1975. We're right in the middle of an other rapid social change. People expect others to keep up - particularly the young. However I agree with you that expecting everyone to adapt when things can change 180° in just two or three years is asking a bit much socially. But since people do ask it causes significant intergenerational tensions. (Again like the late 60's)

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That judgment gap is a critical one, the exclusion of females from that leadership capacity represents lost value of female perspective, especially when personal perspectives are highly influenced by gender-dictated roles. Thus with the division of labor on gender lines, the female wisdom largely retained from those roles means that the judging is done without equivalent understanding of those roles and labor.

Yes although having more female voices involved in the judgment process even if not the actual judgment can alleviate many of those issues. (If they are listened to) So I don't think that's the major issue. However even if women were involved and listened to that wouldn't resolve the fundamental structural issue feminists are angered by.

Edited September 4, 2019 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where did I indicate that we don't need God?  He is our father and we can grow up to be like Him.  Caterpillars turn into butterflies

I'm not suggesting you said anything of the sort.  I'm saying humanism rejects the notion of needing a god to solve our problems.  Mormonism on the other hand is precisely the opposite on that--we need a god to solve our problems so much so that without him we'd be completely lost.  That will be your primary problem in convincing your fellow Mormons, I think.  

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My main point, contra feminist accusations of toxic masculinity and evil patriarchy, is that we arrived here innocently as a result of thousands of years of natural anthropological history.  It wasn't planned, and no one was victimized.  As Jordan Peterson points out, there has always been cooperation and negotiation between men and women.  It is very unclear who has the most power.

I'd strongly disagree over the claim of "no one was victimized." The fact that something evolves either due to biological instincts or social evolution doesn't mean no one gets victimized either by the structures themselves or are allowed by the structures. It's not terribly hard to compare primitive societies and see some engage in a lot of victimization while others don't. The fact that it's natural doesn't entail it is good. I think Peterson is just fundamentally wrong here.

I'd also add, that while I have many issues with feminists, the main issue is the terminology. Once you figure out how they're using the terms they're far less objectionable. I'll not get into a discussion of how terminology, particularly in the last 25 years arose and how it fundamentally miscommunicates to those not exposed to it academically. But toxic masculinity, as used, just means those stereotypical masculine characteristics that are anti-social. It doesn't mean masculinity is itself is bad. (Although that's how it's often portrayed particularly in conservative polemics) Most of the characteristics that get called toxic masculinity are considered evil "natural man" within our own religion. So in practice there's less problem here than some portray. Likewise while I hate the term "patriarchy" it actually just means structural inequities that no particular person has responsibility over.

I think the idea that our current structures are due to cooperation and negotiation rather than sometimes unfortunate accidents of history is just difficult to accept. I'm enough of a Burkean styled conservative to think we should be careful with revolution without first asking if there are good reasons for a structure. Something that typically is not worried about enough in feminist critiques from the days of Simone de Beauvoir to the present. (The place of motherhood being the classic example)

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, our frame of reference is too shallow.  The Bible has actual female prophets and judges of great power commanding troops.  Biblical women have carried out executions, and have operated as spies, and have shown tremendous initiatives in other cases.   Pervasive ignorance of the Bible is no excuse.  A Mormon focus on the 19th and 20th centuries is absurd.  This is supposed to be a Restoration.

I think a common problem we have historically is assuming conservative Protestantism when we don't have explicit revelation. Most of the time that has not turned out well.

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

At the surface level (epiphenomena), there are apparent differences between Mormonism and Humanism.  At a deeper lever, however, they jibe rather well.  Both are entirely foreign to normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology/philosophy.  Both Mormonism & Humanism are materialistic and naturalistic.  Each sees the miraculous and magical as an artifact of ignorance of the natural world and technology.  Richard Dawkins saw very advanced, natural beings on other worlds as "godlike.

I agree, but that is my only point--the apparent differences will make mfbukowski's attempt to convince other Mormons near impossible.  At the outset there is too much in conflict between the two philosophies.  But hey, have at it.  Maybe he'll win out.  

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm saying humanism rejects the notion of needing a god to solve our problems.  Mormonism on the other hand is precisely the opposite on that--we need a god to solve our problems so much so that without him we'd be completely lost.  That will be your primary problem in convincing your fellow Mormons, I think.  

I agree with you. There are some key points of conflict that make secular humanism fundamentally incompatible with the gospel. Ideas of sin and salvation is alien to that conception. (Which I think we're seeing nationally as the very idea of sin become incomprehensible even to many raised in a Christian family) 

That said, I also think there's a lot of overlap which is what I suspect Mark is getting at. While we must turn to God, we're also taught that we should be about good on our own. We should be solving our own problems. Fundamentally I think too many of us wait for God to say something but think we should do nothing until then. That, to me, is completely opposed to the gospel in which we should constantly be anxiously engaged in good causes. So the idea that we need God to solve all our problems seems wrong. Often our religion places us into a place of responsibility where we act much as secular humanists claim we do.

Of course I do think the differing beliefs over how the universe works changes what we see as problems and how we solve them. At minimum secular humanism generally sees religion as intrinsically a problem to be eliminated.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree with you. There are some key points of conflict that make secular humanism fundamentally incompatible with the gospel. Ideas of sin and salvation is alien to that conception. (Which I think we're seeing nationally as the very idea of sin become incomprehensible even to many raised in a Christian family) 

That said, I also think there's a lot of overlap which is what I suspect Mark is getting at. While we must turn to God, we're also taught that we should be about good on our own. We should be solving our own problems. Fundamentally I think too many of us wait for God to say something but think we should do nothing until then. That, to me, is completely opposed to the gospel in which we should constantly be anxiously engaged in good causes. So the idea that we need God to solve all our problems seems wrong. Often our religion places us into a place of responsibility where we act much as secular humanists claim we do.

Of course I do think the differing beliefs over how the universe works changes what we see as problems and how we solve them. At minimum secular humanism generally sees religion as intrinsically a problem to be eliminated.

I do think there is a way to frame an equivalence of "sin" in a secular framework, especially one that regards some things as sacrosanct. "Sin" could be defines as a betrayal of one's agreed-upon values. I do think this converges nicely with many religions, especially Mormonism, since those who sin without the knowledge are less rebellious. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree with you. There are some key points of conflict that make secular humanism fundamentally incompatible with the gospel. Ideas of sin and salvation is alien to that conception. (Which I think we're seeing nationally as the very idea of sin become incomprehensible even to many raised in a Christian family) 

That said, I also think there's a lot of overlap which is what I suspect Mark is getting at. While we must turn to God, we're also taught that we should be about good on our own. We should be solving our own problems. Fundamentally I think too many of us wait for God to say something but think we should do nothing until then. That, to me, is completely opposed to the gospel in which we should constantly be anxiously engaged in good causes. So the idea that we need God to solve all our problems seems wrong. Often our religion places us into a place of responsibility where we act much as secular humanists claim we do.

Of course I do think the differing beliefs over how the universe works changes what we see as problems and how we solve them. At minimum secular humanism generally sees religion as intrinsically a problem to be eliminated.

I agree there is overlap.  But taking any two philosophies and comparing them?  You'll see overlap no matter what they are.  He is exactly right in that Mormons typically don't understand humanism enough and would only criticize it from a very surface level and if they gave it a deeper look they'd see more value and purpose and find more commonality. And perhaps the opposite is true too, humanists often criticize Mormonism or religion superficially.  Great.  I'm all for such discussion.  But his OP wherein he tries to harmonize humanisms ideals to match what might be comparable to Mormon ideals just feels funny to me.  It's almost as if on each and every point he makes he's missing the underlying message of the humanist position, or ignoring it, and then saying "well that's pretty much Mormonism".  Doesn't really work in my mind, and I dont' think it'll be all that appealing set of points in the average Mormon mind.  

[Meadowchik]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd strongly disagree over the claim of "no one was victimized." The fact that something evolves either due to biological instincts or social evolution doesn't mean no one gets victimized either by the structures themselves or are allowed by the structures. It's not terribly hard to compare primitive societies and see some engage in a lot of victimization while others don't. The fact that it's natural doesn't entail it is good. I think Peterson is just fundamentally wrong here.

I'd also add, that while I have many issues with feminists, the main issue is the terminology. Once you figure out how they're using the terms they're far less objectionable. I'll not get into a discussion of how terminology, particularly in the last 25 years arose and how it fundamentally miscommunicates to those not exposed to it academically. But toxic masculinity, as used, just means those stereotypical masculine characteristics that are anti-social. It doesn't mean masculinity is itself is bad. (Although that's how it's often portrayed particularly in conservative polemics) Most of the characteristics that get called toxic masculinity are considered evil "natural man" within our own religion. So in practice there's less problem here than some portray. Likewise while I hate the term "patriarchy" it actually just means structural inequities that no particular person has responsibility over.

I think the idea that our current structures are due to cooperation and negotiation rather than sometimes unfortunate accidents of history is just difficult to accept. I'm enough of a Burkean styled conservative to think we should be careful with revolution without first asking if there are good reasons for a structure. Something that typically is not worried about enough in feminist critiques from the days of Simone de Beauvoir to the present. (The place of motherhood being the classic example)

I think a common problem we have historically is assuming conservative Protestantism when we don't have explicit revelation. Most of the time that has not turned out well.

There are some pretty interesting Mormon feminist spaces that work very hard to creat productive dialogue and listen to those who have been more excluded. The one run by Exponent II magazine is imo pretty fantastic.

Anyways, I think existing structures are a combination of accident and deliberation. Mostly, they have survived so far. Whether a given thing is right or wrong, I think it behooves us to not take a structure for granted as destined to fall or stand. To me, that's the most salient point of consideration for us, the actors in the now.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I do think there is a way to frame an equivalence of "sin" in a secular framework, especially one that regards some things as sacrosanct. "Sin" could be defines as a betrayal of one's agreed-upon values. I do think this converges nicely with many religions, especially Mormonism, since those who sin without the knowledge are less rebellious. 

I think there's "sins" but not sin in the sense of a breaking of a fundamental relationship with God. The closest in various humanisms like marxism is breaking with the community as a whole. However secular humanism of the sort we're discussing had that Lockean element that made such group relations difficult. Now that may well be an element newer formulations of humanism change. I've not kept up - but I think formal secular humanism is itself a much more marginal movement these days.

So I don't deny that you see, particularly in "social justice" a kind of sin just as you do Marxism. I just don't think that's secular humanism due to the fairly libertarian strain within it.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I agree, but that is my only point--the apparent differences will make mfbukowski's attempt to convince other Mormons near impossible.  At the outset there is too much in conflict between the two philosophies.  But hey, have at it.  Maybe he'll win out.  

Of course you are correct.  As a practical matter, the hoi polloi know nothing of theology or philosophy.  Most Mormons believe in miracles, and many of them hold to a mainstream Judeo-Christian religious view -- even though it is heresy from the POV of actual LDS theology.  They live their lives as ordinary people who have jobs and families, and no time to consider the ethereal nonsense of the fundamental basis of their religion.  In the long view, it doesn't really matter much.  For them, Mormonism is a way of life, not an abstract religious concept.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd strongly disagree over the claim of "no one was victimized." The fact that something evolves either due to biological instincts or social evolution doesn't mean no one gets victimized either by the structures themselves or are allowed by the structures. It's not terribly hard to compare primitive societies and see some engage in a lot of victimization while others don't. The fact that it's natural doesn't entail it is good. I think Peterson is just fundamentally wrong here.

Peterson does not say that there are no male leaders exerting tight control over society (Patriarchy).  What he points out is that then and now those were the exceptions.  The common folk could barely get by and cooperated out of necessity.  It is simply wrong to blame all males -- most of them are victimized by the alpha-male syndrome  which is a mammalian norm anyhow.  We are as likely to see it among a pride of lions as we are in a family of wolves.  And the point is that it has survival value.  We need to look at this question as social anthropologists.  The blame game explains nothing.

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd also add, that while I have many issues with feminists, the main issue is the terminology. Once you figure out how they're using the terms they're far less objectionable. I'll not get into a discussion of how terminology, particularly in the last 25 years arose and how it fundamentally miscommunicates to those not exposed to it academically. But toxic masculinity, as used, just means those stereotypical masculine characteristics that are anti-social. It doesn't mean masculinity is itself is bad. (Although that's how it's often portrayed particularly in conservative polemics) Most of the characteristics that get called toxic masculinity are considered evil "natural man" within our own religion. So in practice there's less problem here than some portray. Likewise while I hate the term "patriarchy" it actually just means structural inequities that no particular person has responsibility over....................................

Modern feminism is highly ideological and destructive.  I was a card-carrying NOW member and activist for over 30 years and I know the territory well.  Simone de Beauvoir would not recognize the sad metamorphoses the second sex has gone through, and she would not approve.  She understood the special magic of love between a man and a woman.  Left wing Marxist feminism today spells the death knell for viable relationships between men and women.  No wonder the suicide rate for single men is skyrocketing to an all time high.  Peterson has taken these men under his wing and advised them to clean up their rooms and get a job, as a first step to taking responsibility -- a supposed male trait.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, stemelbow said:

You'll have quite a mountain still to climb to convince members of humanism.  Mormons typically eschew the very value of humanism--that humans can reason their way to solutions in life.  Mormonism suggest the ultimate solution will not be found in human reasoning, but will only be found in divine help.  Indeed humans who think they can rely on humanism for their ultimate best and betterment will be those who are too proud for redemption.   

I think you have some hefty barriers to defeat to defeat the position of your co-religionists on this.  I see how you're trying to add a slight twist here or there in order to make the two sound cooperative, but I don't know it really works.  

Well I appreciate the post coming from you, because I think I understand your views on the gospel. I am not really trying to convert humanists to Mormonism nor am I trying to convert Mormons to humanism

Pardon the use of wrong terminology but it's just too long the other way.

It's just a way for people between both camps to see things that don't make sense for them any other way. It is a way of mixing metaphors and seeing two metaphors at the same time describing the same thing. You can see it the traditional way or you can see it the it the humanists way. Take your pick. Or both simultaneously as I do.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is simply wrong to blame all males -- most of them are victimized by the alpha-male syndrome  which is a mammalian norm anyhow.  We are as likely to see it among a pride of lions as we are in a family of wolves.  And the point is that it has survival value.  We need to look at this question as social anthropologists.  The blame game explains nothing.

This is exactly the problem I think in balancing biology with rhetoric.  

Can you recommend some social Anthropologists who have taken this on?

They must be brave individuals indeed.

Fighting millions of years of evolution can't be easy.

And we are always one catastrophe away from going back.

Edited September 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Peterson does not say that there are no male leaders exerting tight control over society (Patriarchy). 

I think my point is that this is not how contemporary feminism defines patriarchy. Rather it's the system itself (not individuals) to the degree it treats women differently than men. So any system in which men primarily have power or predominate in leadership roles is patriarchy in that usage. We can disagree over nuance, but the issue isn't how tight of control leaders hold but the inequity in the roles. Some might make further arguments about more equal access to power, but at least as I understand it that's somewhat separate. Although I've certainly heard a few using the term patriarchy for that. (A big complaint I have is inconsistent use of terms by feminists at time - particularly as a way for bait and switch arguments)

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is simply wrong to blame all males -- most of them are victimized by the alpha-male syndrome  which is a mammalian norm anyhow.  We are as likely to see it among a pride of lions as we are in a family of wolves.  And the point is that it has survival value.

I don't want to say no one blames all males. There's silly reactionaries everywhere. But in the more formal arguments (recognizing the ridiculous levels of diversity in the self-described feminist movement) I'm not sure blaming males is the point. If anything they blame the structure and then secondarily blame men and women who maintain the structures.

Now in the particulars I'll certainly disagree with them over structural analysis. I think many tend to elevate formal lines of power and repress analysis of informal lines of power. I also think they tend to privilege the types of power educated upper middle class women desire. So there's no shortage of criticisms one can make. Even if this is due to evolutionary psychology though that doesn't mean it's not a system that shouldn't be critiqued and repaired. After all we're not passive victims of our psychological instincts. Indeed much of society's development is managing such biological drives.

But most feminists, at least that I've read, tend to see the origin of patriarchy in biology. But they're attempted through our freedom and reason to create a different system than unthinking brutes follow.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Modern feminism is highly ideological and destructive.  I was a card-carrying NOW member and activist for over 30 years and I know the territory well.  Simone de Beauvoir would not recognize the sad metamorphoses the second sex has gone through, and she would not approve.  She understood the special magic of love between a man and a woman. 

Well de Beauvoir had her own egregious errors - she wasn't exactly enamored of motherhood and marriage. And the way she and Sartre treated boys and girls is disgusting - a clear example of s#### abuse IMO.  She just didn't pay enough attention to power relations and that contaminated much of her analysis. I don't think she really did understand love between a man and a woman as I think her life exemplified.

I do agree things have changed. However to me the biggest problem is one big label for so many different views with a lot of bait and switch going on.

Edited September 4, 2019 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I appreciate the post coming from you, because I think I understand your views on the gospel. I am not really trying to convert humanists to Mormonism nor am I trying to convert Mormons to humanism

Pardon the use of wrong terminology but it's just too long the other way.

It's just a way for people between both camps to see things that don't make sense for them any other way. It is a way of mixing metaphors and seeing two metaphors at the same time describing the same thing. You can see it the traditional way or you can see it the it the humanists way. Take your pick. Or both simultaneously as I do.

I liked your OP because I thought it a valiant attempt to build bridges between a religious ideology and a secular one, and it has brought about some interesting discussion. Again I see a lot of commonality in the goals, but not so much in the means of achieving those goals. You are an unusual fellow though, and I don't know that most humanists are going to see a lot of value in the road you have taken, but hey, some people like the road less traveled....

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Peterson does not say that there are no male leaders exerting tight control over society (Patriarchy).  What he points out is that then and now those were the exceptions.  The common folk could barely get by and cooperated out of necessity.  It is simply wrong to blame all males -- most of them are victimized by the alpha-male syndrome  which is a mammalian norm anyhow.  We are as likely to see it among a pride of lions as we are in a family of wolves.  And the point is that it has survival value.  We need to look at this question as social anthropologists.  The blame game explains nothing.

Modern feminism is highly ideological and destructive.  I was a card-carrying NOW member and activist for over 30 years and I know the territory well.  Simone de Beauvoir would not recognize the sad metamorphoses the second sex has gone through, and she would not approve.  She understood the special magic of love between a man and a woman.  Left wing Marxist feminism today spells the death knell for viable relationships between men and women.  No wonder the suicide rate for single men is skyrocketing to an all time high.  Peterson has taken these men under his wing and advised them to clean up their rooms and get a job, as a first step to taking responsibility -- a supposed male trait.

Feminism, atleast the one to which I and others ascribe, does not blame males for patriarchy. It is a system that no individual created. Modern feminism also does things like advocate for access to birth control and education, which is closely associated with major global shifts out of poverty and extreme poverty.

I would say that adjustment to more equal treatment of women is difficult, and to be expected. Overall social conditions seem to be changing faster than they've done and perhaps we're not quite biologically equipped to deal with it easily. The Common Person is facing uncommon changes. 

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not suggesting you said anything of the sort.  I'm saying humanism rejects the notion of needing a god to solve our problems.  Mormonism on the other hand is precisely the opposite on that--we need a god to solve our problems so much so that without him we'd be completely lost.  That will be your primary problem in convincing your fellow Mormons, I think.  

 That is not the case.

And we blatantly do not believe in God solve all our problems. Unfortunately he leaves those up to us. I mean that is in the most fundamental story of all the Garden of Eden.

What they reject is the traditional God, the same god Nietzsche rejected as a supernatural entity

They do not reject the IDEAL HUMAN as a concept, in fact every statement they make about what humans ought to be reflects such a model as an ideal

 We do not believe that God is Supernatural either, but a natural being

Pragmatically in one's life both Concepts FUNCTION the same way to give one an image of a higher being upon which to model one's life practices.

The Kingdom of Heaven is within.

Every culture on Earth has its concept of an ideal being upon which it constructs its image of God, or no need for a god. Buddhism for example encourages the individual to become enlightened through the process of meditation. The ideal human is a person who has achieved that status.

For what it's worth humanists also encourage mindfulness meditation.

For Catholics the ideal is to be a person who has emulated Christ perfectly.

Similarly for us we can become exalted, or an ideal person by following the gospel.

Philosophically every concept of "good" is based upon a scale of behaviors thought to be virtuous.

Humanists are no different and have their scale of what is thought to be virtuous.

I am seeing humanism as a religion just like any other regardless of what they call it.

Fundamentalist humanists will see it in an immature way without even recognizing that they have created their own god.

It was my personal recognition that marxists had created their own God that caused me to understand religion.

Creating a system of Ethics automatically creates a system of what is regarded as good which has a maximum good built into the system.

You have to take it up a level of abstraction instead of Simply listening to the words. You have to go to the function and meaning of the words and how the words create a belief.

Look at the FUNCTIONS of belief in one's life, not just the beliefs.

Seeing that way for example Buddhism is a religion that brings one exaltation, yet without a conception of God.

All religions always end in a concept of peace, where human strife has ended, one way or another.

Even atheists believe in Oblivion, and have as much evidence for that as we do exaltation. 

Edited September 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I liked your OP because I thought it a valiant attempt to build bridges between a religious ideology and a secular one, and it has brought about some interesting discussion. Again I see a lot of commonality in the goals, but not so much in the means of achieving those goals. You are an unusual fellow though, and I don't know that most humanists are going to see a lot of value in the road you have taken, but hey, some people like the road less traveled....

On the other hand we have theists on their way out due to what they find to be superstition.

I want to suggest it's not Superstition it's just another way of understanding the same Concepts that humanism portrays.

I don't know why this voice to text program capitalizes so many things. I can't figure it out. 

[mfbukowski]

I was talking to someone the other day about these concepts and I described the various humanist manifestos as humanist articles of faith.

He had trouble before that but got the concept explained that way instantly.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Look at the FUNCTIONS of belief in one's life, not just the beliefs.

Seeing that way for example Buddhism is a religion that brings one exaltation, yet without a conception of God.

All religions always end in a concept of peace, where human strife has ended, one way or another.

Even atheists believe in Oblivion, and have as much evidence for that as we do exaltation. 

I was reading the other day about the differences between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. In the Millennium people of all stripes will work together in harmony and live in peace (or else :) !) under the political, if not ecclesiastical, kingdom of God. I suppose we can expand that to philosophies and ideologies. In this instance, the concept of peace is interpreted in different ways, even when human life has not yet ended. Is non-religious humanism open to such diversity in its interpretation and practice of peace? Does it function as a harmonizer of diverse thinking, or a homogenization?