More lame travel blog
You’ve been clamoring and longing for more news from Amherst New York (except for the one of you who has been clamoring and longing for less, of course), so here is some. (Anyone who finds the whole idea lame: here’s a bit of advice: don’t read it.)
I’m in the back hall of the Center for Inquiry (or Centre for Enquiry, if you prefer – Jeremy remarked as we passed the sign outside that it was odd for such a place to spell its own name wrong not once but twice), surrounded by Russian students talking to each other, typing on one of the Center’s spare computers that are available for guests. There is no internet in the guesthouse (no broadband, no WiFi, no anything) which is not always absolutely convenient, such as when Jeremy is working on his next lecture and wants to look things up and find useful video clips, or when he wants me to find and print some relevant quotations from B&W’s Quotations. Dear CfI could do a little better in the, um, organization and equipment department; but never mind.
Jeremy’s lectures are going down very well on the whole, despite the fact that what he is basically doing is undermining or challenging pretty much everything Paul Kurtz has ever said. Well it’s this humanist thing you see – we’re atheists, we’re secularists, but we’re not humanists. People got quite uneasy with determinism yesterday – but that’s how these things fall out.
Joe Hoffmann gave a lovely opening address this morning, which I asked if I could publish here the moment he’d finished saying it, and he said I could, so you have that to look forward to. He’s a very amusing guy, Joe is.
There are a lot of groundhogs here. I’m not used to larger mammals – larger than squirrels. Well I’m used to dogs and cats, but I mean running around on their own authority. It’s fun to see groundhogs. I saw a snake yesterday – I followed it through the grass for awhile, until it vanished under a shrub. I like seeing snakes, and would like to see them more often. I don’t get out much, you know – out in the sense of traveling – so I like to be in a new place, even if it is a slightly Martian one with a bad case of suburban hyperexpansion.
You remember I said about Jeremy the fashion icon? It’s even worse than that – he struts, and he shows off his biceps while lecturing. It’s really quite shockingly immature and embarrassing. He also kept smelling the T shirt he’d worn when lecturing on Saturday – he couldn’t believe what it smelled like and kept going back to confirm; he went on doing that for two days. He wanted me to say that here. Yes I know all this is lame, but I don’t have time to do real posts while I’m here, so I do absurd ones instead. I haven’t posted half the ridiculous things about Jeremy that he’s suggested I should.
Julian’s not as absurd – but he’s quite absurd. He does a broad American accent, and he sings little snatches of song complete with sound effects and similar. He keeps trying to do a Joe Hoffmann imitation which is entirely hopeless, it sounds nothing like him, but he does a good Tony Blair. He went to Toronto then came back here then went back to the UK. I saw Toronto far far far in the distance on Sunday, across Lake Ontario from a town called Niagara-on-the-Lake. It voss pretty.
I gotta go. The building is locking up.
Absurd, is it now?
Did he address his audience from inside a rubbish-bin?
Well, the facilities may be lousy, but it sounds like the psychotropics are great. Keep sniffing the T-shirts…
This site is getting like Facebook.
Nah, at Facebook you get *pictures* of the T-shirt sniffing. And waaay more people interested…
“we’re atheists, we’re secularists, but we’re not humanists”
Being an (as it were) ‘broad-church’ humanist, I’m interested in why you are not a humanist.
I tend to use the term to cover atheists and agnostics who are not merely passive, but have some moral outlook that is, further, not too restrictive, as, for example, yourself or JS Mill.
This is probably just either misuse of a definition on my part (but I thought this was the working definition). Could I have you defintion.
I have also described my self as an atheist, but this classifies me with the local drug dealer, who sells to children (and who is ignored by our local police – maybe because he sells to their kids, who knows?) and others who think the term allows them to harm others. There are enough religious people who think that their beliefs licence them to cause harm.
Byw, nice to have change of pace from the serious stuff and read you “weather nice, wish you were here” postcards. Looking forward to the real stuff from you soon.
Well, Jeremy has an article here about what is wrong with humanism (in his view). It depends on how it’s defined and who defines it and so on, but it does generally seem to rely on a good deal of wishful thinking for its positive or affirmative or assertive content. There is a tension between some of its truth claims and a declared commitment to free inquiry. I can go into more detail in a proper post when I have more time – or Jeremy might do it at Talking Philosophy.
Yeah, the psychotropics are just…mmmm….
[irony alert]
I for one prefer the LTB (or the proto-facebook) to hearing nothing from OB while she is lost in the primative non- connected wilds of Massachusetts for the best part of a month.
Keep it up, OB!
And as for humanism, there is a difference between “humanism” – a generic world view in which compassion and tolerance are valued and “Humanism” – a wishy-washy religion-lite belief system (with chaplains!). One can be the first without condoning the second.
(ps Any chance of putting that T-shirt on ebay?)
Some atheists are in a big rush to declare that they’re humanists, I think to reassure religious people they actually believe in something, instead of just rejecting the existence of God. I think it’s much more fun just declaring oneself an atheist, and letting other people worry about whether you torture puppies in your spare time.
If “humanism” is defined as a position with any substance, it says something to the effect that humanity is a really good thing and we should develop it in ourselves and respect it in others…which sounds all well and good, but might not be the best underpinning for ethics (and isn’t, in my humble opinion). Yes, there’s ethics without God, but no, it’s probably not centered on the concept of “humanity.”
Anyhow. Go groundhogs.
R.W. — I like “eupraxsophy.” What’s wrong with good practice and wisdom? Works for me. For that matter, what’s so funny about peace, love and understanding?
I think I got this quote from reading something or other on B&W:
“Humanism is the belief that humanity need not be ashamed of itself.”
There’s a lot to that simple idea.
Here’s a far-from-lame travel blog — an excellent article by Johann Hari:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2766040.ece
Or: http://tinyurl.com/28so2q
A couple of choice bits:
‘Egg Man pounds his fist on the table: ” Treating Pinochet like that is disgusting. Pinochet is a hero. He saved Chile.”‘
‘[A] panelist says anti-Americanism comes from both directions in a grasping pincer movement – “The Muslims condemn us for being decadent; the Europeans condemn us for not being decadent enough.”‘
Be very afraid.
Although I like the word for its euphony, I’ve always considered ‘humanist’ to be just another in the long line of lily-livered euphemisms for atheist. Though we could rescue it and put it to good use: ideal for describing those of us who are not racist.
_
Okay, if he keeps up with that shirt-sniffing thing, what you do is this. You walk up, say, “What’s on that shirt that smells so darn good?”, grab a handful of it yourself, take a big nose hit off it, and then you let your eyes roll up in your head, and collapse in a phony faint. That at least might make some of the other viewers laugh… Not knowing the whole situation better, I’ll quit with this, but the fake faint done by me actually cured my dad of farting at the dinner table, back when I was in middle school, so it might come in handy sometime.
“it seems mostly to be a kind of non-religious religion”
Ya – that’s just it. I’ve said several hundred times in the past couple of weeks (in reply to Jeremy’s several hundred exclamations of dissent and exasperation) that I didn’t realize CfI was humanist, I thought it was just atheist and in favour of free inquiry.
‘This is why I am little more than irritated by CFI founder Paul Kurtz’s term “eupraxsophy.”‘
I know…me too. It’s like ‘Brights.’
(We had lunch with Paul Kurtz today [Jeremy and I], along with Joe and several other CfI people. At Olive Garden – one of the many chain restaurants on the giant freeway-like street a mile or so from here. I went with Paul in his car; we chatted about CfI in China and about B&W.)
Sorry to hear that; Olive Garden sucks. Pleasant to see you agree with what I said about humanism. I think more emphasis has been placed on humanism at CFI lately (I could be wrong) in an effort to attract more people to the place. For all I know, it may be working. But I mostly find it too clubby. There’s been too much focus on hokey group activities at CFI for my taste. My atheism does not motivate me to want to take a group vacation to the Galapagos with other secularists, so I am sort of losing interest in the organization.
Your delightful description of the local animal life countervails the description of Amherst as a suburb of hell ……
Interesting.
I’m reminded of the passsage in LotR where Frodo & Sam see the crown of flowers on the decapitated statue-head by the crossroads in Emyn Arnen.
I’ll admit that Buckley looks pretty good in Hari’s Independent article, but
that’s only because he’s standing next to Norman Podhoretz. As far as
Buckley’s being “urbane” in an absolute sense is concerned, I always think
how suave WFB was in his heyday during the 1968 Democratic National
Convention, when he delivered this subtle, witty riposte to Gore Vidal on
ABC-TV: “Now listen, you queer stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock
you in you goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.” Ah, there’s nothing
like those “eternal top-down certainties of Catholicism.”
Btw, Doug, this Hari travel piece has to be the best and most accurate portrayal of just how eccentric and dissociated the ultracons truly are. It’s also hilarious.
“And one morning on the deck I discover Kenneth Starr, looking like he has stepped out of a long-forgotten 1990s news bulletin waving Monica’s stained blue dress. His face is round and unlined, like an immense, contented baby.”
Johann needs to devote a piece entirely to the descriptions of oddball political has-beens.
The trouble with humanism is that it doesn’t extend to Klingons. Or indeed small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. And ‘eupraxsophy’ may be be euphonious but it’ll never catch on. We’ve all learnt to distrust people defining themselves in terms of ‘the good’ and we aint going to unlearn it anytime soon (Well, here’s hoping anyway). Isn’t there a term for just trying to treat others decently?
Eupraxsophy euphonious?!!
I was referring to ‘humanist’.
_
R.W. — That Johann Hari piece really does have a lot of little gems in it. I didn’t realize he was such a good writer.
My idea of hell would be to be stuck on that ship with those freaks for eternity.
While you are waiting for Ophelia, why not listen to her:
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=119
Adam – I stand corrected. ‘Eupraxsophy’ certainly isn’t euphonious to my ear but there’s no accounting for taste and I did rather liked the pun . . .
Nice interview. Interesting stuff about unpalatable truths – although I’m not entirely sure I agree.
No, I’m not entirely sure I agree either. But that was it – we both think truth is better on the whole, but we didn’t have a knockdown argument for that; we’re not sure there is one (if only because it’s so easy to think of exceptions – I suppose in much the same way as it is with Kant’s view of lying).
My problem with it was mainly just about when to invoke the harm principle. I can’t think of any obvious harms to not wanting to know if you were genetically predisposed to get an illness (unless it was something really dramatic which you could pass onto children, like Huntington’s chorea or something), so I have no major problems with that. When it’s a big falsehood which could pervert your overall worldview (like most religious belief), then I’m less likely to think it was morally ok, mainly due to the way it would affect your interactions with others, and the way it would affect your voting preferences. I think what counts as a ‘big falsehood’ is unclear but I reckon it might be quite a large category (probably larger than self-regarding falsehoods in any case). I’m not sure how much of a disagreement this is though.
I should probably get WTM, I’ve been meaning to for a while.
And now it’s in paperback for only £6.99. Bargain.
“When it’s a big falsehood which could pervert your overall worldview (like most religious belief), then I’m less likely to think it was morally ok, mainly due to the way it would affect your interactions with others, and the way it would affect your voting preferences.”
Sure. That was what I meant about (something like) ‘as long as it’s purely a belief in the depths of your own head’ – I meant really purely and really in the depths and really your own. As soon as it does influence matters outside your own head, then that’s a different matter.
OK, that clears that one up. I think the discussion about creationism confused me a little bit on that front.
Yeah – what I said there is that I don’t think people should teach their children things that are not true, though I also would have no idea how to enforce that and wouldn’t want to; but, as DJ said, one can of course argue against it.
Arguably Santa Claus and the tooth fairy both serve a useful purpose in undermining faith in children; much as in the same way gerbils and Guinea Pigs give children a insight into mortality.
So children don’t exist then? How credulous I’ve been…
hahahahaha