Mindscape 231 | Sarah Bakewell on the History of Humanism

[@martifingers]

Immediately bought the book! What a great place this channel is to hang out. Sean is a great interviewer as well as a gifted intellectual, Sarah was a fine guest.

[@peterz53]

A great guest. Thank you Sarah Bakewell. Could listen for hours more. Time to buy another book! And thank you Sean.

[@bjpafa2293]

There's not much to add except a lot, so, we should hear a conversation and say: thank you, congratulations. One's appreciation included💡✨

[@HarryNicNicholas]

1:19:00 i have a theory that the reason we don't see aliens is that they tried to overcome colonising and the way to do it - terraforming takes too long - interstellar travel involves warping space and manipulating dimensions - i think they gave up on physical bodies, and although i like my physical body (well, twenty years ago) that if we go in that direction, it will seem perfectly natural, we already have robotics, prosthetics, AI is on the way, we can still keep earth as a nature preserve, but i don't see why we would miss "being different". it's like the film "i am legend" where will smith says to the zombie "i can cure you" - why would the zombie want a cure? it's the human that is the problem....when we become robots or "spirits" it will be the "old humans" that are the weird.

[@aaronclarke1434]

The major problem with that is the threshold problem. How can we “cross” into a robot? It’s like the ship of Theseus. If you had a cyborg augmented arm you’d still feel human. Same for a memory boost. Eventually, though whatever is the self would have to cross over somehow and I don’t think it’s obvious that it’s possible to do that, i.e. that consciousness is substrate independent.

[@desgreene2243]

Can one be a humanist without a certain level of education? Great podcast on an important topic.

[@zack_120]

7:50- This is a widespread defect in human thinking: A or B are exclusive whereas really it should be inclusive A And B - the age-old blind-elephant mentality.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it makes a change for a definition to be vague, and that vagueness be a good thing.

[@trevorcrowley5748]

This helped me. "I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without rewards or punishment after I am dead." -Kurt Vonnegut

[@HarryNicNicholas]

1:00:00 i used to do layouts for "whitehouse" magazine in the 70's. naughty.

[@Locrian08]

@1:18:00 I agree with much of what is said about transhumanism. But Sean, if that's how you feel about transhumanism, surely you must feel the same way about accepting the many worlds (MW) interpretation of quantum physics without overwhelming evidence.

[@bjpafa2293]

Marcus Aurelius, Petrach, De Profundis... But also The importance of Being Ernest✨😀💐

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

Cool

[@MR.artisthere]

In string theory, all the elements and "things" we have on earth and in the universe are what they are due to incomprehensibly small vibrating strings, and the nature of all elements are due to these strings vibrating at discreet frequencies. So, iron is iron because the strings vibrate at the frequency that IS iron. My question is: what keeps these strings "vibrating?" It would seem that they need some power source to keep them vibrating...

[@sonnysimmons528]

its just odd how one can say 'laws' and then claim something to be 'natural' in the same phrase or concept. seems to me just a matter of selective bias and dogmatic thinking

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i don't get why people think hell will be bad. if satan rejected god and i reject god, even if i'm not a satanist me and him are buddies surely? satan would enjoy tormenting christians sure, who wouldn't, but why torment me, his faithful servant, he'll reward me surely? i think hell is going to be a cross between disneyland (for the nice sinners) and the playboy mansion (for the perverts like myself), why would it be the least uncomfortable?

[@kencreten7308]

Interesting I hadn't heard that. How is the philosophy of "humanism" about "bandaging animals?" I think that is a confusion with the word, "humane?" The great Google says "humane" means, "having or showing compassion or benevolence. 'regulations ensuring the humane treatment of animals.'" That would then not be "humanism," but "humane-ism." Am I correct? I have no problem with humane-ism, but that is not humanism.

[@musictheorytree]

Perhaps there is an argument for the capacity to be humane being exclusively human. Could one imagine an animal besides a humane being humane? Could they even conceive of such things?

[@dj098]

Being humane is central to being human, and as our scientific understanding of the human nature keeps evolving, there is a compatible tendency - or perhaps even necessity - to extend and enrich our moral powers in order for us to be able to cover all, not just human varities of life on Earth. Of course, as mentioned on the podcast, the issue is a complex one, but the ability to recognize and value elements of the human soul in living beings that were previously considered far removed from anything even vaguely resembling human is certainly something that can be understood perfectly well from the perspective of humanism and the difference between being human and acting in a humane way.

[@clearskybluewaters]

us humanist want to bandage people and we love humans and we love science

[@JackieElizabeth-oe6ci]

Don't anthropomorphise the universe and this podcast turns into why life is optimised for general non malevolence and non dismissiveness, even amongst most predatory species, therefore if life is of the universe and life cares for not inflicting unnecessary suffering then the universe cares; your argument is invalid even without mentioning creationism

[@HarryNicNicholas]

yes, of course. 😅

[@deletefacebook8419]

Thumbnails suck. No offense. Just being honest. Looks like a PowerPoint.