From Tribalism to Humanism

Thank God there is someone like you in this world!

I have praised your post at http://www.progressiveislam.org

and at

http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

Re: # 161

No apologies necessary.

My compliments on the proposed increase in prominence of the orotund English language!!

Great definition!

I hadn`t heard the word before either. Sorry, being practically uneducated, one has to rely on making up words to capture ideas. :)

Saintism: Any philosophy or way of life that assumes, or whose nontrivial worldly success rests on the validity of the assumption, that all humans beings are or, with a bit of education, can be turned into, veritable saints - unselfish, loving, truthful, forgiving, nonviolent, and respectful toward and caring for all others.

``Saint``-ism is ``human``-ism with the animal taken out of the human.

Re: # 158
Please explain what you mean when you refer to `saintism`.

I don`t believe I`ve heard the word before.

Are you referring to the Christian belief of honouring one of their dead?

#157 by drsohail

Well ...

....human sufferings at a personal and social level

It does not exist. It is too relative a term to be taken seriously. It can even be a pleasure.

.....how those sufferings can be healed

You can`t heal what is merely a perception. So the answer is you can`t.

Rajneesh was mentioned somewhere on this board. I remember watching a videotape of one of his lectures:

There was a great king, with a great kingdom, a beautiful and virtuous queen, and a handsome and able young prince. The king taught the Prince all that he knew from horsemanship to hurling lances to swordsmanship, and the prince excelled in all of them. He had everything.

Then suddenly one day the prince fell ill. The king tried everything, to no avail. He got the best physicians of his kingdom as well as other kingdoms far and wide. None could cure the prince. The king and the queen were both distraught and beyond themselves in grief, and in his grief, the king fell asleep while crying.

Then he saw he had a great kingdom, bigger than he had now, he had an even more beautiful queen than now, and he had nine princes ... all of them as skillful in archery and swordsmanship as the dying prince. Then he woke up and began to laugh.

When the queen asked him as to why he was laughing when his prince was dying? He replied ``Should I cry for this `one` prince, or the `nine` whom I just lost?``

Hope above answers some questions ...

Cheers!

Dr Sohail

No Sir, humanism is not socialism. Neither is it atheism, secularism, or saintism. It`s just making the human being (or humanity, collectively) the beginning, the middle, and the end of all sociopolitical endeavor...

How can one promote it? LOL...that`s going to be very very hard given that, if Saroya is right, great humanist men and women are still stuck in the barren marshes of saintism. Saintism, by definition, cannot be humanism, since human beings are not saints.

They can be, but they can also be animals. Human beings ARE animals (by rationalists` own admission). So if humanism is to make any sense to most human beings, it MUST present models of BOTH individual transcendence AND ethical society keeping in view man`s reality.

Until then, nonhumanists have it, lock, stock, and barrel.

That`s the hard reality. And it should be the hardest for genuine believers in saintism :)

Re: # 155

dear zeemax...thank you for being honest with your thoughts ragarding my `shallow`

articles and `naive` personality. i have broad shoulders i can take it. can you share with me

what is your philosophy or ideology about

....human sufferings at a personal and social level

and

.....how those sufferings can be healed

i believe in life long learning

sincerely sohail

Re: # 155
dear kaalchakra....am i understanding you correctly that you believe in socialist revolution....and how you would like to bring it? sincerely sohail

#152 by kaalchakra

... uncompromisingly, a sociopolitical system of the humans, created entirely by the humans, for the sole benefits and pleasure of the humans....Nor does it have to do with one individual here or twenty individuals there behaving as humanists.

That pretty much sums it up. Well said.

#153 by Saroya

I can`t get your line of reasoning here ... care to explain?

Hey Zeemax

Hippies helped bring an end to the Vietnam war and Humanists are dreamers.

How profound. I wonder what the members of the 66th North Vietnamese Regiment would think about that comment?

The publicity brought about by the hippie culture was certainly most useful in political circles; they therefore did make an enormous impact, I agree; we appear to continue to pay the price for their activities to this day.

Were it not for dreamers Zeemax, we`d still be riding horses from one county to another!

Drohail, I`ve already been to your website and I thank you for the offer. I`ll be in touch.

Thanks, Saroya, for adding to Dr. Sohail`s truly inspirational vision. Particularly since you are also familiar with what great men and women of the past have said of humanism. My personal conceptualization of humanism is only partly related to the categories of ideas described in your #148 - in the congruence of objectives. In most other ways, it differs significantly. So apologies for the confusion.

The humanism of my interest (dreams, really) is, uncompromisingly, a sociopolitical system of the humans, created entirely by the humans, for the sole benefits and pleasure of the humans.

Nothing more, nothing less. So it cannot be just a mindset, a life-style, an ideology, a philosophy, or a movement, although a humanistic sociopolitical system would actively encompass, encourage, and privilege them. Nor does it have to do with one individual here or twenty individuals there behaving as humanists. To be of any real use, or be counted as signficant player of the competitive game, humanism must - at the very least - imagine (the possibility of) viable, functioning, durable societies.

Saroya, do any existing bodies of ideas resonate with such concerns? A thumbnail sketch of anything that you might know would be most appreciated. Thanks.

#149 by Saroya

I dunno if the hippies were rational or not, but they sure did change public opinion and help bring an end to the vietnam war merely through that Peace symbol of theirs ...

As for being humanists? Not according to your defintions. They transcended all this sickly sweet Reader`s Digest kind of stuff you guys dream about.

Re: # 148
Dear Saroya...I thoroughly enjoy your letters. I will try to get the book you suggested. I would like to send you two of my books
From Islam to Secular Humanism...published in 2001
and
Freedom of Religion...Freedom from Religion (hoping to be out next week...hot from the press)
if you wish to read please send me your postal address and I will send you as gifts.
where do you live?
you can see my other writings on
www.drsohail.com
sincerely sohail

Re: # 124

Have often wondered what people`s thoughts were on the hippies.

Could the hippies of the 60`s be considered rational in their behaviour?

They preached `human rights` and in so doing, could they be considered humanists?

Hello dear friends

I have been away for a couple of days, hence the delay in responding, however I did read your post Kaalchakra before I left and I did think about your questions while I was away.

The delight I felt at coming back to my computer and finding so much activity and interaction since I left! It`s yet another example of the world turning irrespective of where we are and what we do!!!

So, how do I answer your first question, Kaalchakra? IS there an official view of `humanism`? I too wonder.

Here is another possibility though:- http://www.humanism.org/project.html

Quote: The humanist movement is an international organization formed by people of different ages, origins, culture and religion, united by the project to build a truly human society. A society in which the human being, with his needs and aspirations, is the central value. A society in which human rights are completely realized: the right to health, instruction, freedom, spirituality, search for the meaning of life, and an existence with dignity. Unquote

Could this be considered an `official view` of Humanism?

`People UNITED by a (project?) to BUILD a truly `human society` in which the human being is the central value with the `RIGHT` to be healthy, be free, be spiritual etc etc. etc.

And yet another possibility:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Quote: Humanism, as a philosophical term, is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. Humanism is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems, and is also incorporated into some religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial. Unquote

Could this be considered an `official view`?

It`s worthwhile having a look at the sections of `humanism` incorporated at the aforementioned set of principles of that view of humanism - very interesting indeed, it speaks about `Secular Humanism`, `Religious Humanism` and just for good measure, there`s an `Educational Humanism` as well!

There are probably as many views on humanism as there are stars in the sky or people on earth prepared to think on the subject.

From the early 14th century man has pondered and theorized on the word `humanism` and will, hopefully, continue to do so for many centuries to come.

I, for one, would not consider the definition in my earlier post `an official view`, nor would I want to as, in doing so, it would immediately narrow my perspective to any future explanation which could possibly be better. Having said that, the earlier definition is perhaps closest to my philosophy as it can be, AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

Now to your second question, which had me thinking quite a lot!!

Firstly; to man, anything and everything is possible.

Assuming humanism to be, ESSENTIALLY, a rationalist movement that believes that man CAN be ethical and find self-fulfillment, WITHOUT recourse to supernaturalism; it is possible for a society to put it into practice.

Drsohail, see if you can find a copy of `Humanism - What`s in a Word` by Nicolas Walter - I think you`d enjoy it very much.