What ideal do you consider most romantic?

What she said.

One aspect of this ideal which I find to be especially romantic is its... well, I do not know which name may be more appropriate, if "hyperhumanism" or - using Maritain's neologism - "integral humanism".

Transhumanism aspires to twist the very nature of humankind through some (purely hypothetical, for now) technological means, heralding a vaguely defined, incomprehensible-by-definition but allegedly utopian technological golden age in which nothing recognizable as human would be preserved*

, whereas Nietzschean superhumanism rejects all than is transcendent in the human experience in favour of a "this-worldliness" which would make the whole enterprise of pursuing human excellence utterly pointless.

Integral humanism, on the other hand, begins with the recognition of the excellence of humankind (which, even in its imperfect state, is after all shaped in the image of Big G, to say nothing of such matters as the Incarnation or the Immaculate Conception) and takes as its objectives the perfection of its material, mental and spiritual gifts and the healing of its defects.

If humankind was an apple tree, transhumanism would aspire to make it into some sort of wi-fi router, or perhaps into a space whale; and superhumanism would attempt to make a beautiful desk out of it - recognizing the quality of the wood, so to say, but disregarding all other aspects which make up the nature of an apple tree. But as I see it, only religion-based "integral humanism" accepts the apple tree for what it is, with all its diseases and flowers and broken branches, and attempts to help it grow into the best apple tree it can be.

edited 2nd May '11 6:47:57 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

- The final lines of Blade Of Tyshalle, roughly quoted. (I'm going by memory here)

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I thought time is an ocean in a storm.

I fail to see the distinction. Extrapolating the excellent qualities of humans beyond the point where any human can practically accomplish them will produce something completely unpredictable. For instance, if you enhance intelligence and reasoning ability, you end up with a Mary Tzu*

^{As much as that term makes sense in non-fiction scenarios}

who leaves any unmodified human behind in the dust. When you start trying to "perfect" human qualities, you automatically end up with something completely incomprehensible to humans, and "integral humanism" just seems to be a different way of phrasing the goal of some transhumanists. (Not all of them, incidentally.)

edited 2nd May '11 11:42:58 AM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

Uh... sounds heavenly, if you get my drift? :/

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Yeah, from a practical point of view there may not be much difference: in fact, I think that many transhumanist aspirations, like for example intelligence augmentation, or life extension, or cyborgization, are definitely worth pursuing.

It's more a matter of attitude. Transhumanism, starting from the name itself, seems to be all about throwing away the human condition, and about evolving into (or creating) some sort of superior entities — comparisons with the development of humans from earlier primates, or of multicellular life from unicellular one, abound, and the implication seems to be that these fantastic, hypothetical beings would be far, far more worthy and important than humans, in the same sense in which a human being is more worthy and important than, say, a paramecium.

From my point of view, this is lunacy. Sure, the super-genius of your example could think circles around me with no effort; but I could probably do the same with respect to some heavily brain-damaged kid, and I am certainly not more valuable than this hypothetical kid. I am not a different kind of being. I am just healthier than him, that's all.

Furthermore, I could comprehend such a being. I could not follow him or her, obviously; but his or her basic aspirations and desires would be as close to mine as yours or any other human being's. He or she would just be a fellow human — a healthier human than me, in the same measure to which I am healthier than the kid of my example, but not some sort of inscrutable alien "god".

@Tzetze:

Touché

But while I cannot really understand the nature of Heaven, I can at least define it as the state of things in which my nature of human being would reach its fulfillment — in which all my true aspirations and desires would be met in their perfect and most appropriate way, and in which I would be the human being I am meant to be, in the strongest possible sense of the word. By the way, this neatly implies immortality — at least, if we assume that the desire for immortality is not inherently sinful (I guess that some Buddhists would disagree with that, but I do not really understand Buddhism enough to be sure...).

Sure, I cannot describe it in detail; but still, this strikes me as more appealing and less fuzzy than transhumanism's "there will be some very intelligent artificial beings, which will manipulate the physical universe in ways that we cannot really understand now and will be driven by motivations which we also cannot really understand and which may have no relation with our own. Oh, and we will be these entities. Or we won't, but these entities will want us to be happy, so we will be happy."

edited 2nd May '11 1:20:13 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The brain-damaged kid wouldn't comprehend your aspirations except in the very simplest of terms.

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

True. But still.

edited 2nd May '11 1:36:58 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

^^^ People keep telling me that we'll never live in peace so long as human nature is what it is. I haven't seen any evidence to disprove that. Changing human nature seems to be the only option we have left.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Buddhism and thoughts on immortality...The desire is not inherently sinful. In fact Buddhism lacks the idea of Divine Sin. Kamma just works like the law of gravity. It is not a god dishing out punishment. The gods themselves are subject to it. It's just a law inherent to the system. It is however inherently foolish as is the desire to never change. Everything changes. Everything suffers. Everything feels some form of satisfaction. Everything dies or is some how destroyed. And then it all repeats. The world is a big ever changing, interdependent, recycling thing of madness that will likely end at some point. Maybe to itself be reborn as a new world and a new system. It's just how life works. Learning that, understanding that, and coming to terms with this is a very big part of Buddhism. So while it is not sinful to cling to the idea Buddhists tend to think that clinging to this idea is harmful. It is a desire for something that cannot be. The fact that it is a desire and that it cannot be satisfied in any form breeds Dukkha. Dukkha is what Buddhists live to minimize both for themselves and other living beings.

The ultimate goal for the Theravadan is to get out of this cycle which we call Samsara. Samsara is marked by three things. Dukkha, impermanence, and Anatta. Dukkha is any feeling of unease, pain, suffering and such. Anatta is the idea that there is no such thing as an immortal and never changing soul though the soul may exist as an ever changing thing that too will end.

Mahayana wants to get EVERYTHING out. Every last man, woman, child, dog, cat, elephant, plant, bacteria, and so on. Absolutely everything will be brought out of Samsara. The Bodhisatta take it upon themselves to continuously reincarnate until this goal is completed. Theravada either has the same definition of Bodhisatta and praises the ideal, but does not focus on it or uses a different definition. Said different definition is "A being who is bound for Enlightenment". Or they use both.

I cannot sadly speak of the Vajrayana as I know nothing about it...

EDIT: And three hours later my post in complete...

edited 2nd May '11 4:52:22 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

The ideal of universal, unconditional love is extremely appealing to me. Plus the the ideal of hedonism!

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Now other ideals...I would not say I find the ideals of Karuna and Metta to be romantic really...I do find them to be wonderful concepts though. Karuna is a compassion and pity. Metta is a compassion for all living beings. Those you love, those you respect, those you do not know, those you hate, and those that are not human. It is a wish for happiness and Enlightenment for everything. Even if the living being in question is wronging you. A desire to help. It is also love free from attachment. A love free from favorites and the like. It is spread to everything.

I hope to and try to cultivate that.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I don't know about romantic ideals. I think that having a set of ideals and sticking to them even when it seems almost futile is itself romantic.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

It really is, Bobby.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

You would have to change human nature to outright unlife, seeing how a lack of peace is inherent to pretty much every living being ever known to man.

Huh? [1] See, it's possible. Not mention the outlier humans who are profoundly nice.

They are vastly less aggressive and fearful, and vastly more affectionate than their wild counterparts.

edited 2nd May '11 5:18:24 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

There's a distinct difference between peaceful and somewhat more domesticated than wild wolves.

I'd say the idea I find most romantic as a notion is the idea that nobody out there, no matter who or where, is as truly alone and unloved as thery might think they are sometimes.

That would be nice if it were true... _{No, I don't want to argue whether it is. At least not on this thread}

something

The idea that everyone's got a purpose they were born for.