Aha I see. The confusion was that what you call political naturalism is akin to Randian objectivism, which is unfortunately adhered to by right politicians in the states, whereas there are more progressive naturalist interpretations such as secular humanism (which is part of naturalistic philosophy)

Hence your juxtaposition of naturalism vs humanism felt weird to me. Be aware that naturalism is more broadly defined and that then aren't mutually exclusive.

[–] taanegl@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Classically speaking we'd have to wade through centuries of imperialistic mental gymnastics and dogma, wouldn't we?

Naturalism is inherently anti-secular, not in ideal, but in effect. It's not a question of what people believe, but actual outcomes.

And it's not just "the right wing", it's all liberals. Neo, centrists, moderates, socially conservative liberals. Yes, I'm saying liberalism is right wing and has always been right wing, but years of propaganda makes it seem like there's a difference. There isn't. It's not an illusion of choice, it's the delusion of choice.

But I guess that doesn't match with populare definition either.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 2 points 4 months ago

Classically speaking we'd have to wade through centuries of imperialistic mental gymnastics and dogma, wouldn't we?

It's essential to your message being understood that you use terminology properly. Your central point hinges on a niche definition of naturalism.

I made you aware of that, not because of pedantry, but to help you get your message across better. As currently it's rambling a bit. So do with that as you see fit.