From Tribalism to Humanism

Re: # 129 Tahmed

forget what hamidm says. Mahesh yogi is a crook.

BTW, why do you say ``was``? Is he dead?

Re: # 137

(1) My goodness. I`m not quite sure what you mean. How could one reduce Humanism? If it could be reduced at all, would that not constitute a change from the philosophy that man can, on his own, without resorting to the supernatural, be ethical AND RATIONAL in his thoughts and actions. As I said previously, you either share in the philosophy of Humanism or you don`t. You can`t remove pieces or you`d be left with something totally different.

Rationalism, like Humanism, suggests that `reason` should be valued above religious beliefs or emotion.

It is not impossible to aspire to Humanism and Rationalism AND Individualism, all at the same time.

(2) Modern Man evolved from Prehistoric Man. Prehistoric Man, set side by side with any of our contemporary `non human` animals would not seem as out of place as Modern Man (21st Century) in the same scenario.

You seem intent on removing aspects which in some cases can be a good thing. However, when discussing Humanism, the animal nature has already been removed. The words `Saintly` and `Mythical` have no bearing when discussing Humanism.

Soroya

(1) What do we gain by reducing humanism to rationalism and individualism?

(2) The assumption that mankind has transcended animal nature may not be entirely true. So by removing animal nature from the discussion of humanism, are we not turning humanism into a saintly, silly myth?

Humanism is essentially a rationalist (accepting reason as the ONLY basis for forming one`s opinions or course of action) movement that believes that man (gender neutral) can be ethical and find self-fulfillment without recourse to supernaturalism. It is based on the premise that any living creature, other than a plant, is an animal and that the human animal has transcended using ‘reason’ as its catalyst.

There is no broader or narrower sense to Humanism – this philosophy can be either accepted or rejected. If accepted and aspired to, then the persons visions, actions and reactions to people and situations will be first and foremost `considered` - in other words, they would `think` before acting, and think rationally, using the one thing that separates the human animal from others in the animal kingdom – and that one thing being `REASON`. Opinions would be their own and not governed in any way by virtue of `supernatural powers`, whether they be religious or political!

Humanism, therefore, being pertinent solely `to the human race of animals` that have transcended from their prehistoric ancestors.

Tribalism on the other hand, can be loosely described as any group of animals classified together. The concept of tribalism has not changed since its inception; the concept of `loyalty towards a tribe by its members, often involving hostility towards other tribes`.

Tribalism still exists in the non-human animal kingdom. The Wildebeest or Gnu’s enemy is the Crocodile, or the Lion or the Hyena or the Jackal, each belonging to their own ‘tribe’ they will protect their own and hunt the other, for their survival. These animals do not maim their enemies for pleasure; they slaughter their enemies for their survival and have done so, and will continue to do so until they too can transcend beyond the realms of the primary animal kingdom.

There are no ‘modern tribal wars’ between members of the human animal kingdom. It is an injustice to the non-animal kingdom to suggest such.

Assuming that all mankind (gender neutral) has transcended beyond the realms of the animal kingdom, we could say that there are human beings who don’t aspire to the virtues and philosophies of Humanism who choose to confront human beings that do aspire to the virtues and philosophies of Humanism.

It’s as simple as that.

Your article and your poem are inspiring.

We are the world, we are the universe
We bleat, we croak
We howl, we roar
We cry, we laugh
United in this quest for life
Together we are one

Humanism, in the broadest sense, IMO, means that human life should be lived by human ideas for the benefit and happiness of the human race.

Pure humanism sees absolutely no difference between any humans and any ideas (held by any group of humans), holding that every idea is good for humankind. (All paths lead to human welfare). IMO, this is an inherently unstable approach (that is, it has auto immune deficiency).

Agree with zeemax. What individuals do or don`t do isn`t and shouldn`t be the focus. It`s the ideas, basic assumptions, value and belief systems that we need to look at. And these can be identified without controversy.

#131 When you put on the mask of the frankenstein monster, or mother teresa or whatever, that does not make you the frankenstein monster, or mother teresa, or whatever.

is that too difficult to figure out? if so, do you hide under your bed on holloween because you think that those are real midget monsters running around outside?

hamidm,

If you`re equating Maharishi Mahesh with Hippyism, that`s totally incorrect. Both were seperate movements with nothing in common except perhaps free-love. Hippyism was an alternate value system. Mahesh`s was a religious cult.

Re: # 129

tahmed,

....... who said humanists cannot be crooks ?.......... but they are small fry and relatively benign compared to the popes, presidents and prophets (real ones who actually talk to god) ..............

#128 ``pure humanism``? as opposed to ``impure humanism``?? that makes as much sense as hamidm`s self-contradictory post.

but carry on...dont let me interfere with these profound thoughts. :-)

#126 hamidm: so, per your post, mahesh yogi was a humanist and a crook, at the same time. You get to pick one only.

hamidm2

That is so right. That`s why pure humanism can never defend itself (it suffers from a natural auto-immune deficiency).

Re: # 126

kaal mian,

.......... humanism cannot succeed simply because there is no money or power in it for most people ........... crooks like maharishi mahesh yoga and shri rajneesh managed to convince a few thousand fools to part with their money, but they could never hope to muster the support of millions of people like the mullahs and presidents who beat the drums of religion and patriotism .............

..........humainsm is small business compared to corporate tribalism ........... and besides, it just doesn`t appeal to human nature - it is silly to expect ohio state and university of michigan to have a friendly football game in which everyone wins ............ from early childhood we learn that for you to win, someone has to lose .............

........... and most people, living rather insignificant lives in the shadows, get a perverse pleasure out of belonging to a group and identifying with a `cause` that gives their pathetic lives some meaning ............ religion is the biggest beneficiary of this human weakness .........

Zee ustaad, what a coincidence/good fortune to read that. Woke up this morning thinking something very similar:

Faith, when it goes horribly wrong, will become religious BDSM (Bondage-Domination-Sado-machism) chamber, incapable of any real change or genuine relief. Humanism when it goes horribly wrong, will quickly die on drugs or of auto-immune deficiency.

Aaah, need to brew me some morning coffee...

... contd ...

So let`s ponder upon where the humanism of the Hippies went wrong. Why did it disappear? Was it the drugs or the music or the problems with parenting and responsibility? Can humanism succeed now if these elements are removed but the spirit retained? And how? Another sub-culture perhaps, but can humanism be achieved without sacrificing the family system and value systems? Or is there a universal value system (other than the usual platitudes) which can be adopted as a value system while dispensing with religions` influence?

Another prophet will be needed to answer the above. But haven`t there been hundreds of thousands of those already? Would another one be able to convince mankind of the benefits to be derived from the `asli tey wadda` humanism? Dr. Timothy Leary certainly failed on that count.

Cheers.

In any event, humanism was tried as a sub-culture and did gain tremendous momentum during the 60s with the Hippie movement and their communal marriages and communal offspring, free love, flower power and the rest. I guess that spirit is what the good doctor has discovered somehow without being aware it is nothing new, and that there`re still `gatherings of the tribes` (yes ... that`s what they call it) of the remnants of the Hippie movement all over USA and Europe.

My complaint with the doctor`s articles is that they are routinely shallow and devoid of historical references or present day parallels. Just his opinions on his personal emotional journey in pursuit of `love` (whatever the heck that emotion means if not tribal ...).