September 9th, 2002, 08:12 PM
I need some evidence on why this is bad, if any of you search engine jockeys get bored, could you all maybe try and find articles on how anthropocentrism works in society etc... plez, ive been looking as well, but i need more than a few crappy articles. tanx
September 9th, 2002, 08:23 PM
er0k: It looks like there could be some good information buried in these results. I hope this helps. I found this on the mighty Google engine. Good luck.
September 9th, 2002, 09:05 PM
that's what I get
the rest.. I don't realy get nor care..
http://www.pantheist.net/society/anthropocentrism.html (got it from google ofcourse)
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI.
When in Russia, pet a PETSCII.
Get your ass over to SLAYRadio
the best station for C64 Remixes !
September 9th, 2002, 09:33 PM
Anthropocentrism has it roots in Enlightenment: here's a quick intro. Here's a more extended resource.
If you're looking for something to criticize Enlightenment/anthropocentrism to death, I suggest you check out Nietzsche's views on it. I found this pretty ok dissertation explaining Nietzsche's views on it.
What you should focus on though imo, is the elitist character of anthropocentrism: there's no place for 'dumb' people...
September 9th, 2002, 09:42 PM
no no i know all about anthro, thanx neg, i just need recent information on how anthropocentrism is good. NO i dont support it. i just need some cards for debate, thanx for the help ppl.
September 10th, 2002, 12:25 AM
Ways it can be good
Negative pointed you to some deep water. What I mean by that is in your search for the answer to your exact question delving into said info will just leave you with more questions.
A too rich supply of information will always breed more questions. But to the point "How can it be good"?
The first and foremost reason is it puts great value on human life and it's condition.Without it you could reason that a germ,maggot,buzzard or bear is equal with a man in terms of "right of existence". There are poeple who reject such a position and they are the ones who hug trees and kill unborn babies in the womb.
Secondly it also stands in stark contrast to primitive man and his worshiping of the forces of nature. Primitive man didn't understand forces like earthquakes,volcanos.hurricanes and tidal waves.Therefore he personified them in a attempt to negotiate with said forces. Hence we had sacrifices and self-scarification and such.When "enlightenment" surfaced we began to understand the forces we used to worship and we began to worship ourselves.
The exitentailistic statement "God is dead" was the peak of man's self- proclaimed diety.
Biblical absolutes were overthrown in favor of relativism.It is the culmination of what the serpent told eve in the garden"when you eat of the tree of knowledge you shall be as God"
Christian's view the moment as an evil one but some see it as man(heh or WOman) breaking the shackles of a despotic diety who wanted to keep man in an ignorant state so he(God) could be worshiped.
September 10th, 2002, 05:45 AM
i c your point, but there is always the issue of the right to own pets, which is basically what is argued in my anthro kritik. i dont believe in pet ownership, i understand anthro, but in debate you dont argue that whole scenario, you pick apart things. sure you could argue that maggots and germs and stuff are equal in existence. but we have a thing called a resolution. and in that resolution there are specific points to hit, argue, etc. anyway, thanks for the help. i still have a few days to put together some answers.