Yes, it's sort of idealization of human beings, where you take the good without the bad. This article, in my interpretation, challenges that idea by saying you gotta take the bad with the good. Just taking the good by simply being reasonable about it doesn't avoid the traps
-
-
-
Well, yeah. You don't have to do that to be a humanist, do you? There'd be no need to be anything if everyone were already good.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
However, it presupposes that we can be sated, that we know what we want, and that the individual can exist outside of a group.
-
I don't think so. We just have to do the best we can.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Going forward, we need to synthesizes individual rights with group rights, and adjust our concept of the individual.
-
Do we even have to synthesize them? We can just say they both are really important and expand the popularity and legislative reach of group rights.
-
Maybe synthesize isn't the word. My point is that it's an extremely delicate alteration of our public morality and laws.
-
No question, those of us who support group rights are hoping for more robust defenses to be written. Less gobbledygoop phrases more clear writing.
-
On fraught topics like this, the pursuit of clear writing -> gobbledygook. It needs to be clear, but also loud and repetitious.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Satisfaction and fulfillment of the individual", IMO. Liberal humanism, then, is the fulfillment of all different human types.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.