From Tribalism to Humanism

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

#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. :-)

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) ..............

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.

#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?

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.

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).

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

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.

Re: # 129 Tahmed

forget what hamidm says. Mahesh yogi is a crook.

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

saroya

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

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: # 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

The questions and comments are merely to strengthen your case, Sir, so we can all follow your lead - and that`s meant with all sincerity.

The next step on which we need the guidance of thinkers like you and Saroya is to figure out how we are going to convince people who we might call, for lack of another term - Goddies - believers holding that all worthwhile virtue comes from and is justified in the ultimate happiness of their God alone.

And in understanding whether political power, in any way, matters. Can humanism still blossom healthy in hearts of the masses when political and coercive power (and hence the ability to set limits on everything from school syllabii to editorials in daily newspapers) lies in the hands of confirmed Goddies?