Yfw Hitler started with the Greeks

Not humanist in the classical or christian sense, which is what he said. Sure it has to do with humans, but that would be to resort to the stupidest nominalism imaginable. Plus they have nothing in common anyways.

Wasn't it Sartre who literally said 'Existentialism is a humanism'?

>anti humanist current pressing on now for like hundreds of years in philosophy
yes
>and it's been dominant for most of that time.
no

>That's a load of bull.
no
>Humanism in christian scripture is depicted as the Tower of Babel.
yes

Veeky Forums is such a bore

>Humanism was born out the principles of Christianity

Fuck off Land.

>Sartre

You can spell 'satire' without 'Sartre', but it would be pretty difficult.

>Interpretation of scripture never veered towards topics of human agency, rationalism, and empiricism.

Yep. His starting point is because we exist before we acquire our own values or styles or whatever, it is through the exercise of our will in defining ourselves that we create essence, or meaning for ourselves in an otherwise meaningless world.

Humanism as the movement that came from Christian scholasticism and was practiced by Renaissance philosophers was grounded in a revival of the classical texts. This spurred a new era of letters, science, political thought, education, etc.

That's not what you said is it faggot.

It's like he doesn't even know what essence is.

Humanism is for the weak

well I guess he read Aristotle, who found the form cause to be the essence, being the first to call the most basic thing you cannot abstract from something essence.

So going by Aristotle, those two things are what's essence, and Sartre purposefully ignored one of them, the more essential one, to give more weight to his statement about the other.

Human agency as in salvation, reunion with God, not so much in life condition and human achievement.

Careful with those edges bro.

SJWs would call him racist today, and ruin his life.

yes because if he said those things today, he would in fact be a racist

For you

>barbarians
>a race

Pick one.

>Humanism was born out the principles of Christianity
I thought this board didnt allow bullshit

>yfw Alexander ignored his shit advice and lived like a fucking boss until the day he died

What are you talking about, he beat and subjugated the living snot out of the Persians.

Beat them sure, but he never enslaved them. In fact, he made himself their King by legitimate means, and was much beloved for admiring their noble culture. He modeled his kingcraft on Cyrus the Great, after all.

Nor did Aristotle ask him to enslave them, just to rule them as a despot.

He ruled them as a Great King, not as a despot.

>Rousseau

A literal romanticist Last Man.

Society is not a contract, but a trial. Read Nietzsche.

He had no time to rule them as a great king, he was barely their conqueror when he died, still putting down rebellions left and right, and burning their places of worship and libraries.

We can't forget how different Aristotle's time was from ours.

The religious views were vastly different.

The rule of law was far weaker.

The potential devastation which could be wrought by war was vastly different.

The world was far less connected, and cultures impacted one another much more slowly as a result.

We are dealing with the birth of global cultures for the first time in man's history.

This doesn't mean national cultures, and so forth, no longer exist, but that humanity is beginning to find what it considers acceptable as "human" on an Earth-scale.

We are still a century or two off from a developed world, but we are at the infancy of this.

We are also entering the infancy of colonization of other worlds.

It is no longer appropriate for man to think solely in terms of their own nations. Nations are not cut off from one another the way they were in Aristotle's time.

We must think in national terms, yes, but also in global, humanistic views with our eyes set on the future of man as a whole.

It's interesting how Christ-like leftists are, despite their distaste for Christianity. Love thine enemy, feed the poor, turn the other cheek. Every time we're getting ready to beat the tar out of a bunch of dumb middle eastern savages some leftie says we're not allowed and that bombs and war are bad. For example a former elementary school teacher got into office in my country and did just that. We were all set to drop some perfectly useful bombs on some perfectly despicable Saracens and then it all got called off. The leftist is is programmed from birth to be compassionate and tolerant. It's bizarre. I'm not a military expert by any means but I'm pretty sure that 500lb bombs have a best-by date on them. They must be getting old and rusted. I mean, we bought these to use on somebody, so what's the problem?

Although I think Justin actually belongs to some cafeteria Christian denomination and maybe shows up a few times a year for a photo op.

You only need to look at the current Muslim bullshit to know that many cultures and ethnicities are still very incompatible.
And just like then, mixing them causes their destruction.

>using "impacted" as a verb

It is disgusting how devolved both Liberalism and Conservatism are these days.

Conservatism is about preserving values which are critical to a culture, or a way of life.

It is about respecting your countrymen, civic duty, honoring your elders and ancestry, and carefully considering what must be held on to so the best of our forefathers' efforts live on in our time.

It is not about warmongering, xenophobia, and guns.

When did a Redneck become the Republican symbol?

>It is no longer appropriate for man to think solely in terms of their own nations. Nations are not cut off from one another the way they were in Aristotle's time.

A lotta spooks here, kid.

>appropriate
>must

I agree with you to an extent.

I do agree our cultures are incompatible - not our ethnicities.

I also agree, when mixing cultures and ethnic groups, you need wise leadership - you may threaten the loss of both cultures otherwise.

The Islamic threat is very unique though, I'll admit that.

That it is tied to a major religion, that the enemies are guerilla terrorists targeting virtually any non-Muslim (and even non-militant Muslims) - it is complicated.

I am all for a humanistic approach to things, but I am not advocating a divorce from reality either.

I simply mean, as much as possible, we should strive to keep a humanistic perspective.

Sometimes, yes, evil forces our hand and we must do the hard thing (like not taking in refugees because the risk is too high).

Well, it is a complicated topic. We could take a very long time talking about it.

>our cultures are incompatible - not our ethnicities
But culture is a major part of ethnicity.

>I am all for a humanistic approach to things, but I am not advocating a divorce from reality either.
What you said about modern connectedness pretty much only applies to Western(izing) nations.

It is true culture and ethnicity are often very closely linked, but it is not always true.

The distinction I am making is not always relevant, but it is important.

>What you said about modern connectedness pretty much only applies to Western(izing) nations.

That was why I said we're still probably a few centuries from a developed world.

Make no mistake, however, bit by bit the world will modernize.

By the end of this century, China and Russia will likely be the global powers (Russia will largely be helped by it's proximity to China).

China is already developing strong connections to the African continent (they have literally had every African leader to China already), and will be assisting in the development of those nations for their vested interests.

Brazil is, economically, becoming the new China for the US. As China continues to vie for political power and to bring down the dollar, the feasibility of US and Chinese business relations declines.

The EM markets of China and Brazil will be developed markets by the end of this century.

The African continent (or portions of it - it is very large and culturally diverse) will be developed by Chinese and African efforts and will become new EM nations.

First world Western nations are in perpetual economic crisis and need more EM markets to emerge to keep the party going, so it will be in everyone's interests.

Honestly, this is one of the biggest ways Obama dropped the ball. He let China acquire more influence in the African continent than us.

It isn't too late, of course, but you never know how much a slight head start might be worth in the end.

Anyway, these are obviously only my speculations - extrapolating current trends.

Whether it happens precisely like this or not, it will happen. However, at this point in time, you are right - it only applies to modernizing nations.

And, of course, the Islamic issues of Southwest Asia are inhibiting this process and complicating things in general.

google.com/search?q=impact&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

1. Noun
2. Verb

Aristotle must have really looked up to Thrasymachus.

Hitler wasn't around then.

he started with schopenhauer actually

And I can show you a dictionary that says "literally" is an exclamatory particle.

The only people who use "impact" that way are "managers", small town journalists, and people with MAs in Education Administration.

if he was alive today he'd be a PoC and therefore not racist

>When did a Redneck become the Republican symbol?

November 3, 1964. If you believe the past is good in any way then you are a huge sexist racist shitlord. The only exception to this is pre-modern environmentalism or a reference to the peaceful utopia enjoyed by the aboriginal peoples before devastating contact with Europeans.