The Name "Brights"...

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on August 7, 2009 at 3:57pm

http://the-brights.net/vision/word.html

In current dictionaries and in usage, "bright" is an adjective (e.g., shining, clear, radiant, luminous, brilliant). As such, it is used to modify a noun.

This new and different "bright" is a term for a person or persons; thus, a noun in and of itself. The defining attribute of the person (a Bright) is not the former adjectival meanings. Rather it is this: possessing a worldview that is naturalistic.

In the vernacular, there really is no suitable noun with which to refer individually or collectively to people having that specific attribute (a naturalistic worldview).

The noun, "naturalist," is not at all helpful since it has other meanings (e.g., a person who studies nature, especially by direct observation of animals and plants). Many such naturalists hold worldviews infused with supernatural and mystical elements, which adds confusing factors.

Other available terms refer to various subsets of persons holding a naturalistic worldview or to narrower interpretations, such as to a specific aspect of the naturalistic worldview regarding deities.

We hope that the newly coined "bright" will serve the purpose of indicating a person or persons whose worldview is naturalistic, no more, no less.

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on August 7, 2009 at 4:00pm

I like it because I think it sounds cute. In fact that's the first thing I thought when I heard the word Bright: "Aww, how cute!" I instantly wanted to know more about it, so I dug for info all over the internet. That stirring up of curiosity and its non-threatening nature is what the choice of word is all about. It makes a person stop and think in a way Naturalist doesn't.

Permalink Reply by MarkFL on August 7, 2009 at 4:42pm

If naturalist is not helpful because it has other meanings, then bright is not helpful for the exact same reason.

Permalink Reply by Joshua Holloway on April 21, 2010 at 4:35am

see "The Pearlist Persuasion"

Permalink Reply by Wonderist on November 22, 2009 at 4:06pm

"In the vernacular, there really is no suitable noun with which to refer individually or collectively to people having that specific attribute (a naturalistic worldview)."

Before I heard of 'bright', I had already chosen the term 'natural', as in, "I'm a natural, I have a naturalistic worldview." I like Dennett's term 'super' for those with supernaturalist worldviews. Naturals and supers. Why not? Works better than brights and supers, in my opinion.

I still use the term 'natural' (though I rarely find the need to these days), but technically I'm also a 'bright', by definition.

Natural also doesn't suffer from the problem of, "So, you're a bright, eh? How arrogant, I guess you think all the rest of us are dims or dulls." When faced with that assumption, it's hard to say, "Well, actually Dennett proposed 'super' ..." It just doesn't fit as the 'opposite' of bright. However, if someone goes "So, you're a natural, I guess you think we're unnatural, or artificial or something." You just reply, "No, just super, as in, you believe in the supernatural. I'm a natural and you're a super." Simple, makes sense.

Permalink Reply by Kara Smith on July 3, 2010 at 1:06am

You know, that does make sense. I like the term Bright but my friends don't seem to care for it. Natural sounds better than Naturalist.

Permalink Reply by John D on August 7, 2009 at 4:04pm

Perhaps the term "bright" will take off, and perhaps not. It reminds me of the word "gay" used for homosexuals. Gay finally did become accepted and has been a perferred option to words like "queer" or "fag."

The current atheist volcubular has not been working all that well as we have had atheist, humanist, secular humanist, agnositc, freethinker, nonbeliever, etc. etc. rolling around for years. It would be great if one word captured most of the movement.

I am happy to call myself a "bright", but I have yet to use it regularly. I am generally calling myself a humanist these days as it at least prevents the knee-jerk reaction to the word atheist. We will see...atheist has been getting some media traction...

Permalink Reply by MarkFL on August 7, 2009 at 5:02pm

I am just opposed to any term that requires explaining away obvious misunderstandings when you say it. If you say I am a bright, you make others confused and defensive. Atheist makes people nervous and angry (even though it is still my preferred term). Naturalist says what it means, it is already an accepted philosophical term, and it does not offend others which will instantly put others off. Just like the term pantheist which they try to define just like bright, it takes too much work trying to make something mean some thing that it does not mean. I guess there is no good word.

Permalink Reply by John "Jack" Kolinski on August 7, 2009 at 7:07pm

Whether brights/atheists/freethinkers/naturalists we are critical thinkers and we don't "herd" well! No one name will satisfy all atheists. I'm personally fond of Freethinkers. What is your suggesation, Mark? "Naturalist" doesn't quite get there. It sounds like someone who studies wildlife in Africa. Humanist sounds like a social worker. Nobody ever said being an atheist was going to be easy.

Permalink Reply by JayBarti on August 7, 2009 at 7:37pm

Whether brights/atheists/freethinkers/naturalists we are critical thinkers and we don't "herd" well! No one name will satisfy all atheists.

Ha, well that explains it, I have always had issues with label's, as I feel they really say nothing but what you think I am.

I hesitated before I joined the group because I didn't know much about what "brights" was intended to represent. I am still not sure I like the word, but it is growing on me. I do like the ideals to which the word is reaching however, and that is enough for me.

Permalink Reply by House on October 27, 2011 at 11:43pm

Agreed. It's counterfeit intellectualism.

 

Anyone with comparable cerebral development doesn't need a $20 logo and an overused noun to feel as though they fit in. True enough, a simplistic label can help like-minded people get together and talk about interesting subjects, and I do enjoy pissing off religious people by wearing my Atheist t-shirt. Challenging a person's world-view isn't going to be made any easier by having a cheesy label.

 

Intellectuals don't spend their time thinking about what they're going to call a social movement of rational people. That just seems, irrational and self-centered.

 

My $.02

 

 

Permalink Reply by Joshua Holloway on April 21, 2010 at 4:36am

see "The Pearlist Persuasion"

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page