You're certainly thorough.
But what is the main aim of humanism, if not "identifying and achieving the purpose of humankind?"
"Improving individual humans lives, in such a way that they are likely to also improve other humans lives". That, at least, seems reasonably clear.
Well, my personal opinion is that value must be objective and independent on human beliefs.
I'd call this a disagreement on axioms. As far as I'm concerned, moral realism is false
(that is, values don't exist in the world, only in minds)
IOW I believe value can't be objective (although it could be independent of human beliefs, if considered by non-human minds).
which leads to my reply just below..
I cannot just state that something has value if I, or whatever person, of some sort of weighed average of all human beings' personal preferences, consider(s) it desirable; if I did that, then one could immediately raise the question as to why these opinions about what is and isn't valuable should even matter.
To which I would reply "if you can assign yourself a purpose
, then they matter. If you can't or won't, then they don't matter."
.. I feel tempted to say "See also: Existentialism" at this point.
as to the other comment you made
And this is the main point in which integral humanism and, I think, transhumanism disagree with secular forms of humanism. Being fully human entails aspiring to become more than merely human. Remove this aspiration, and what you get is something, well, less than human.
The difference between transhumanism and integral humanism, then, lies in the different opinion as to whether, in order to achieve something that truly surpasses the "merely human", merely human abilities suffice — many transhumanists apparently think that this is the case, while integral humanists believe that really doing this would require some sort of supernatural intervention.
.. I'll have to get back to it later. My brain is parsefailing repeatedly on it right now.
edited 28th Oct '11 7:17:40 AM by SavageOrange