Re: so what?

The problem, in my opinion, in formulating the question in the manner in
which Dr. Wagar does, is to present it in the form of an 'either-or', that
is to say in asking about scientific humanism there appears to be a
supposition, implicitly or otherwise, on a generally agreed preference for
humanism in particular.  But what is humanism?  After the death of God -
already announced in the West in the 19th century by different writers
(Dostoevsky, Nietzsche)-  are we not living in an epoch that bears witness
to the death of 'man'?  A death of 'man' in different inter-related senses
of the term - one sense is that in which we have been introduced to the
death of the subject from very different theoretical perspectives, another
is the sense in which 'man' is a contested agent resistances against whom
opens up a whole new world of the possible, a third is the sense in which
one may elaborate non-reductively on 'the ensemble of social relations'
(Marx) as well as the possibility of transforming those social relations in
differently productive spaces of interrogation and possibilities, a fourth
is the sense in which students of 'deep ecology' (Naess) have questioned
the centrality of the human in different ecosystems....  Emerson's concept
of the 'overman' is another useful critique of the model of 'human-ness' or
'humanism' that informs so much of our thinking.  As is Nietzsche's
formulation of the problem in his critical references to the 'human,
all-too human'.  Humanism appears everywhere, in everyone's tongue today as
in the past, in such reified manner. Perhaps it is as empty a concept as
'culture' and 'excellence'.  I am tempted to say that perhaps the 21st
century will put an end to this discourse on humanism, scientific or
otherwise.  The means by which that may happen will perhaps be more violent
than we care for, but then humanism itself has always carried with it both
reason and violence.  We like to speak about humanism, and yet we are
surely aware how in different geographical spaces random and 'senseless'
acts of violence are constantly being inflicted on 'humans' in the name of
some form or the other of humanism itself, whether it be liberal humanism,
Soviet-style humanism, or religious humanism.  Where lies the difference
between humanism and fundamentalism?  Are not fundamentalists very
fundamental precisely about their particular claim to humanity and the
non-human character of some remainder of humanity?  In our epoch and in the
terrible tensions of the coming days and weeks and months, is not war
itself being waged in the name of a military humanism?  Are not its
champions using 'liberation', and calling themselves 'liberators' even as
they seek to inflict utter violence on the perceived un-humanness of other
humans?
And what about art and the realm of the beautiful and the sublime?  Can
that be so faciley subsumed under the rubric of the 'human'?  I doubt it.
Some of my doubts were a long time back aroused in the context of what
Benjamin referred to 'mechanical reproduction'.  Art was then already
embedded in an age of mechanical reproduction, along with its experience of
the loss of the auratic.  More on this later.  I have a student waiting for
me.  Ganesh.

Respectfully, Ganesh.

Boris Stremlin wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
> "Since scientific humanism produced virtually
> everything bad associated with
> religion (intolerance, conformity,  inquisitions, etc)
> and left out the good
> (spiritual ectasy, art, communal rituals) why exactly
> are we supposed to
> believe it is THE path for the twenty-first century?"
>
> I don't think that's right, actually.  There is plenty
> of evidence that "scientific humanism" (if by that we
> mean the state religion of the Socialist Bloc
> countries, or something very close to it) included the
> "good" elements of religion - there were certainly
> communal rituals (the popularity of which is often
> understated or ignored in the West and among Soviet
> emigres), there was a large amount of world-class art
> (either in the early stages, or, in the case of the
> later periods, usually in more traditional pursuits
> such as ballet, opera, symphonic music).  As for
> spiritual ecstasy, we must understand under this
> rubric not only sex, drugs and rock n' roll, but also
> that which is sometimes called "the pursuit of Truth"
> - in other words, all scientific research.  The
> categorization of such as a merely practical, material
> pursuit is a legacy of orthodox Christian theology,
> though because they accepted it and propagated it,
> proponents of "scientific humanism" bear a share of
> the blame as well.
>
> On the larger point - that there is no reason to
> accept "scientific humanism" as THE path for the 21st
> (or any other) century, Steve is, however, absolutely
> correct.
>
> Warren Wagar wrote:
>
> "The
> point is, to follow up on Steven Sherman's question,
> what should our
> world-view be in the 21st Century?  If not scientific
> humanism, then what?
> If anyone has a better idea, let's hear it.  I think
> the question is
> important precisely because I believe that religion in
> the sense of shared
> beliefs about the good and the real and the ground of
> knowledge is vital
> to our mental health.  But reversion to Christianity,
> Islam, Hinduism,
> and the rest violates reason and promotes human
> divisiveness.  Is there an
> alternative?  People like Marx and T.H. Huxley and
> Bertrand Russell and
> Sigmund Freud thought so.  Were they so wrong?"
>
> Why should there be a 21st century worldview which is
> "ours" (who are WE, anyway?)?  Who will be in charge
> of enforcing that this view will remain "ours"?  The
> problem with "scientific humanism" as described above
> is not that it fails to incorporate genuine religious
> experience.  It is that it sees only certain, and very
> limited types of such experience as legitimate,
> specifically those types which are generally
> associated with the 19th century.  This 19th century
> religion is then counterposed to equally hypostasized
> religions like Islam, which is assigned a century of
> its own, the experiences of which it supposedly
> fossilizes and carries into the present day.  But
> Islam is very diverse, and as a living religion, it
> incorporates a variety of religious experiences
> through the ages - there is nothing "7th century"
> about "Islamic" art, "Islamic" science, or Sufism.  It
> is only when certain Muslims begin to prattle about
> restoring the Medina Caliphate that Islam becomes
> truncated (and not particularly religious).  The same
> is true about a religion that exists on sacralizing
> the experiences of Marx or Freud at the expense of all
> others.  If that is what the legacy of Marx, Freud,
> Russell and Huxley is, then one can only say that they
> were, indeed, wrong, irrational, and divisive.  If
> they are to have a legacy, it is as proponents of
> democratizing religious experience - in undermining
> the clergies which claimed a monopoly on it, rather
> than in building up a new scientistic orthodoxy.  Can "scientific
> humanism" become a living tradition and come to terms with other
> traditions, instead of offering us a "humanistic civilization" obsessed
> with 1848 or 1917?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com