Re: so what?

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Trichur Ganesh wrote:

> 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

        In my original post, I asked what "our" world-view should be in
the 21st Century.  I was referring to those of us attracted to
world-system analysis and especially to Wallerstein's vision of a
democratic "socialist world-government" as the next stage of human
history--a stage not inevitable but much to be desired and sought after.
If such a stage is ever reached, I think it will need the sustaining power
of a very widely shared world-view, so in a larger sense when I write "our",
I am also thinking of a substantial number of human beings, not only the
few hundred of us, or the millions of people with a Left orientation now
scattered around the globe, but millions more, most of them still unborn.
I wouldn't call this an "either/or" situation.  There must be plenty of
room for dissent and freedom of conscience in any world order that seeks
to be democratic.  Yet I find it hard to believe that a democratic and
socialist world-government can even come into existence, much less thrive
and prosper, unless vast numbers of people everywhere on Earth reach some
sort of rough consensus on fundamental values, goals, and priorities.  So,
yes, it's either that or multiplying chaos and division.  But not, "either
you become a scientific humanist or you'll lose your job and maybe we'll
torture you to death in Room 101."

> 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 -

        Let's not turn this into a metaphysical conundrum.  Feminism is a
belief in the dignity of womanhood and in whatever advances the well-being
of women.  Humanism is a belief in the supreme value of our species, Homo
sapiens, and in whatever advances the well-being of humankind.  It teaches
ultimate and highest loyalty to the species, rather than to separate
nations or tribes or Fuhrers or corporations or sects alleging direct
private communication with omnipotent supernatural entities.  Do humanists
disagree on practically everything else?  Of course.  Do they have
different ideas of what's good for humankind?  Of course.  But is there
anything mysterious about pledging allegiance to humankind?  Not a bit.

> 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....

        Humankind is not dead.  There are now 6.3 billion of us, all with
beating hearts and teeming brains.  We have behaved atrociously to one
another, there are many ways of imagining how we could get along better,
and we have learned a lot more about our dependence on the terrestrial
biosphere and how vital it is to preserve that wondrous envelope of air
and water and soil that supports our existence, but humankind is not dead.

> 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

        Really?  Then we will put an end to our discourse on ourselves.  I
think not.

> 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

        Violence is committed every day, sometimes senselessly,
sometimes for pleasure, or in the "name" of everything from Almighty God
to humanism, none of which proves a blessed thing about the validity or
utility of humanism as the basis of a world-view.  Same with socialism.
"Stalin was a socialist.  Stalin killed millions of innocent people.
Therefore, socialism kills millions of innocent people."  Bad syllogism.

> 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

        The difference is quite simple.  Humanism says that all human
beings are human.  Even George W. Bush.  If he impregnated Aung San Suu
Kyi, the child of their union would be a full-fledged human being.  I
apologize for the incongruity, and especially to Aung San Suu Kyi, one of
the finest people on Earth, just as W. is among its most nauseating, but
the fact remains.  Humanism believes in the dignity and sanctity and
humanity of all members of the species.  Fundamentalists demonize.

> 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?

        Military humanism?  That's new to me.  The last time I checked
with W. (State of the Union) he claimed to be an agent of Almighty God.

> 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.

        Please let me know any definition or identification of what is
beautiful and sublime not provided by human beings.

> 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.

Respectfully,

Warren


> 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
>
>
>
>