0.0 Introduction
0.0.1 This treatise will consist of a series of essays on various matters related to a particular worldview which I have deemed Socio-Personal Humanism. Grouped into two sections, these essays will first address epistemology (one's method of determining truth from falsehood) and then ethics (mainly pertaining to personal ethics).
0.0.2 The basic aim of this treatise is to summarize my worldview as a humanist. Humanism as a philosophy and worldview itself is relatively general and, as a result, there are a multitude of differing views concerning many issues - and this is a good thing. While humanism consists of a few general principles, individuals each have their own ideas about how these general principles apply in specific instances. Therefore, this treatise will not be a proper review of humanism, but rather a conglomeration of humanism and my own opinions on applied humanism in several common issues. I am calling this particular form of humanism Socio-Personal Humanism to distinguish it from humanism in general and so as not to speak for my humanist friends, who will most certainly disagree on several issues.
0.0.3 My goal here is not to create a separate branch of humanism or to further fractalize it. Socio-Personal Humanism, as presented here, is so specific on so many issues that it would have no viability as a widespread belief system. I believe that humanists are best off describing themselves as simply "humanists." However, although this treatise is presented as a series of separate essays, they are a single philosophic whole. Each position, argument, and stance taken in each essay builds off of the reasoning outlined in previous ones. Given the interdependency of these views, it seemed fitting to create a naming distinction.
0.0.4 I should also note that, given the broad array of topics covered, it was necessary to be brief in several areas. My goal is to present the positions in as elementary form as possible and move on. I also have endeavored to keep the language style as straightforward and reader-friendly as possible. In this treatise, I have most certainly hit on several philosophic concepts penned by other philosophers before me. With such a wide spectrum of issues, to do otherwise would be impossible. In many cases, this was due to influence, in others it may have been due to indirect influence, and still other similarities may be due to coincidence. Given the general nature of the arguments and the vast number of overlapping concepts from philosophers around the world, remembering (or knowing) where each and every concept was first originated would be like trying to remember where, when, and from whom I first heard that Kangaroos lived in Australia. Although one may easily be able to distinguish that philosopher x was famous for concept y, we could probably find other philosophers separated by thousands of miles or years who also wrote on such matters. Therefore I have simply stated my views plainly and my bibliography is light. I can guarantee that the fluent philosopher will recognize Socrates, Kant, Confucius, etc. Suffice it to say, where I have used specifics, I have tried to note the source in each case. Short of that, let me say here that I owe a great debt of gratitude to all of the philosophers and writers who came before me, but also to all of the non-philosophers (parents, teachers, educational writers, society, etc.) who helped in my access to their writings or who indirectly influenced me. And finally, while many segments may be a rehash of other philosophies, I don’t think they were collected in this manner before. And more importantly, I think the threads that I have used to tie them together offer something quite new.
0.0.5 Many of these viewpoints will be called conservative - many liberal. Humanists will find that some of these views are in contradiction to what most humanists believe. Although my particular opinions on some issues may differ with the majority of humanists, I see no contradiction in the general, core foundations on which humanism lies and I therefore consider Socio-Personal Humanism to be a subset of humanist philosophy. Whether you are a believer, nonbeliever, humanist, or nonhumanist, I hope I have provided something for you to consider, debate with, or appreciate.
Continue to 1.0 Epistemology
0.0.2 The basic aim of this treatise is to summarize my worldview as a humanist. Humanism as a philosophy and worldview itself is relatively general and, as a result, there are a multitude of differing views concerning many issues - and this is a good thing. While humanism consists of a few general principles, individuals each have their own ideas about how these general principles apply in specific instances. Therefore, this treatise will not be a proper review of humanism, but rather a conglomeration of humanism and my own opinions on applied humanism in several common issues. I am calling this particular form of humanism Socio-Personal Humanism to distinguish it from humanism in general and so as not to speak for my humanist friends, who will most certainly disagree on several issues.
0.0.3 My goal here is not to create a separate branch of humanism or to further fractalize it. Socio-Personal Humanism, as presented here, is so specific on so many issues that it would have no viability as a widespread belief system. I believe that humanists are best off describing themselves as simply "humanists." However, although this treatise is presented as a series of separate essays, they are a single philosophic whole. Each position, argument, and stance taken in each essay builds off of the reasoning outlined in previous ones. Given the interdependency of these views, it seemed fitting to create a naming distinction.
0.0.4 I should also note that, given the broad array of topics covered, it was necessary to be brief in several areas. My goal is to present the positions in as elementary form as possible and move on. I also have endeavored to keep the language style as straightforward and reader-friendly as possible. In this treatise, I have most certainly hit on several philosophic concepts penned by other philosophers before me. With such a wide spectrum of issues, to do otherwise would be impossible. In many cases, this was due to influence, in others it may have been due to indirect influence, and still other similarities may be due to coincidence. Given the general nature of the arguments and the vast number of overlapping concepts from philosophers around the world, remembering (or knowing) where each and every concept was first originated would be like trying to remember where, when, and from whom I first heard that Kangaroos lived in Australia. Although one may easily be able to distinguish that philosopher x was famous for concept y, we could probably find other philosophers separated by thousands of miles or years who also wrote on such matters. Therefore I have simply stated my views plainly and my bibliography is light. I can guarantee that the fluent philosopher will recognize Socrates, Kant, Confucius, etc. Suffice it to say, where I have used specifics, I have tried to note the source in each case. Short of that, let me say here that I owe a great debt of gratitude to all of the philosophers and writers who came before me, but also to all of the non-philosophers (parents, teachers, educational writers, society, etc.) who helped in my access to their writings or who indirectly influenced me. And finally, while many segments may be a rehash of other philosophies, I don’t think they were collected in this manner before. And more importantly, I think the threads that I have used to tie them together offer something quite new.
0.0.5 Many of these viewpoints will be called conservative - many liberal. Humanists will find that some of these views are in contradiction to what most humanists believe. Although my particular opinions on some issues may differ with the majority of humanists, I see no contradiction in the general, core foundations on which humanism lies and I therefore consider Socio-Personal Humanism to be a subset of humanist philosophy. Whether you are a believer, nonbeliever, humanist, or nonhumanist, I hope I have provided something for you to consider, debate with, or appreciate.
Continue to 1.0 Epistemology
© Copyright DT Strain
<< Home