Yes, it is a form of intellectual nihilism, if looked at from a certain angle. In respect of civil liberties; we can regard them as fragile confections, easily disposed of when the going gets tough (as it regularly does). Things like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights are Ogood¹ and its integration into law is a practical plus for us all. However, human rights are only an idea. They are not absolute. We are not born with rights they are conferred upon us. They are a function of a social contract. If the social structure that underpins that contract collapses then the rights are worthless.
That said, as social creatures most of us have a big investment in our relations with others. These bonds are what make society resilient to collapse (but also to change). In this sense Dennett¹s arguments are not nihilist. Regards Simon On 25/11/08 01:51, "marc garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Simon, > >> >Does that make me a post-humanist? I guess to be >> >that you have to be a humanist in the first instance >> >and I know I am not a humanist. I prefer to take a >> >non-anthropocentric view of the universe and where >> >value may be found. > > I have never been keen in accepting humanity as the centre of the > universe, but I do view much of post-humanist thinking as yet another > agency of salvation. What I mean by this is that, for me it seems to > hold similar characteristics of absolutism, as much as any form of > obsessed religion or metaphysical, and untouchable, great theme/scheme > of things. When science becomes a mono-cultural venture in the hands of > those who propose their own Promethean-led, eugenical ideologies. > > Even though I am appreciative in the research of academics such as Sue > Blackmore and Daniel Dennett, in proposing that we are all part of a > mass meme machine. Co-relation via the process of imitation of others, > meaning that we are copying machines. And that the notion of the self, > is an illusion. I still wonder how this can inform us beyond the > trappings of yet another situation of fait accompli? > > Personally, I cannot help but feel that such concepts rely on a > determinism which supports a more pro post-humanist agenda, as in > anti-humanist. Not as in actively anti-humanist, but as in > unintentionally supporting more darker tomes/agendas which could > threaten our civil liberties. It may (accidentally) be a form of > intellectual nihilism, serving to deny human agency by building > mechanistic frameworks arguing the case that we are nothing but, > disposable entities and data-objects, of mass exploration and production > alone. > > It strikes me that it does not necessarily matter whether an agenda > comes from a post-humanist, religious or political proposition, through > all of this, we still submit to uncertainties and swap agency, from an > authority above. > > marc > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
