From Tribalism to Humanism

Re: # 144
dear kaalchakra....i have no idea how saroya will answer your question. i am a poet, a

humanist and a psychotherapist. i believe in education and evolution. i do not see myself as

revolutionary who has to convert others and change the world. i feel that if i try to live my

life according to my philosophy and help all those human beings that i come in touch with

everyday whether through education or in therapy, then my conscience is clear that i am

playing my role in human evolution. i like to have a dialogue the way i am having with you

and learn from you. that is all i am after. for me humanism is an attitude the way sincerity,

honesty and integrity and rational thinking is. if humanists tried to convert all religious

people by force and coercion, then i will dissociate from that process. for me respecting

others even when i disagree with them is the fundamental aspect of humanism. if

humanists have a responsible position in life then i hope they try to serve rather than rule

humanity. i think life is simple. some of us make it very complicated. my dear friend

zeemax called me `naive` on another discussion. i smiled when i read that. i rather

be `naive` and have trust and faith in humanity rather than believe all human beings are

animals and cruel and evil. i rather connect with the kind and gentle and bright side of

people rather that their cruel and dark sides. i am aware we as human beings have both

sides to our personality at a personal and collective level. at the time of war some join the

red cross and save people while others steal and loot. i hope i join the red cross and serve

others.

dear kaalchakra....of all the books that i read to understand the human evolution and

evolution of the qualities that transformed animals into humans two books i liked the most

and i suggest them to my friends. they are

DESCENT OF MAN BY CHARLES DARWIN

COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS BY RICHARD BUCKE

these books capture the journey of becoming fully human and it has taken a long long

time to get half way...and we have a to go a long way to create those communities that you

are wishing for. i am a patient man. now that i have honestly shared my position please

feel free to share your philosophy and ideology and how that can be put into practice....all

the best....sohail

Dear Dr. Sohail,
Absolutely beautiful, as usual. Why can`t we have some more people to pen such thoughts.

Choicest of my wishes

Najeeb Kazmi

Re: # 141
dear dana-e-raaz...thank you for your kind words. it is hard for all of us to undo and

unlearn the conditioning of hundreds of years but not impossible. one of my sheyrs

sadion ki zangjeerain khainchain peechay ki jaanib

phir bhi aagay barthay rehna kitna mushkil hay

all the best...sohail

Re: # 142

drsohail

Excuse me dear. Mera aapko mukhlisana mashwarah he kih aap shaairi ko to muaaf hi rakhen to behtar he.

Yih aapka shehr:

``sadion ki zangjeerain khainchain peechay ki jaanib

phir bhi aagay barthay rehna kitna mushkil hay``

to mujhe kuchh, narm lafzon mein, illogical sa laga. Mera khayaal he kih doosri line mein jo `Kitna mushkil hay` ki jagah `chahie ham ko` rakh den to `shehr` kam az kam logical to ho jaega.

regards

Re: # 145

ustaad-e-mukarram....islaah ka shukrya....kabhi waqt ho to meri website www.drsohail.com

par meri shairi dekhiay aur apna qeemati mashwara deejiay...sohail

saroya

Is that the ``official`` view of humanism? How is it supposed to be put in practice by any society?

Re: # 140

dear kaalchakra....i thought saroya would share his wisdom in responding to your question.

in my humble opinion philosophy of humanisn is put in practice when

...a parent does not tell his children that they are sinning and would burn in hell

...a teacher teaches the students all religious and secular traditions as part of history and

not as faith

...a leader of the community does not hate another leader because he is of a different sect

or religion

...human beings welcome and embrace other human beings because of their character and

service to community

...people try to solve personal and social problems with rationality and wisdom learning

from modern science and psychology and sociology rather than relying on hundreds of

years old scriptures.

....communities look toward the future rather than being preoccupied with the past

thank you for your thought provoking comments and questions. sincerely sohail

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?

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.

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.

#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.