The critique of modern humanism.
Nowadays there are a lot of anti-humanist relations in the world. Every self-respecting humanist should recognize his responsibility for what is happening not only around himself, but in the whole world. Moreover, to apply efforts to change the situation - is his primary duty.
What does modern humanism lack to assert itself as the most promising life stance?! Perhaps everyone can give their own answer. Нowever, there are a number of objective reasons hampering the development of humanistic attitudes.
There is a wide variety of humanist organizations, united in the International Humanist Union, as well as a number of eminent personalities, which position themselves as humanists. General principles of modern humanism are approved in program documents. It seems, that the degree of consolidation allows to speak about humanism as a real force. In practice, humanistic principles are openly ignored by almost all participants of the world process. At the highest level, it is expressed in defiance of UN position on certain issues. Although, this organization is designed to keep the world process in the humanistic framework.
On the one hand, the main reason seems to lie on the surface:
- Not every society is ready to accept humanistic principles.
On the other hand, if we believe that the humanistic principles are inherent in human nature, why this or that society is not ready to accept them ?!
The answer also seems to lie on the surface:
- This society is bound by the totalitarian framework!
Conclusion:
" We should remove the ideological framework by force, to acquaint the society with the humanistic principles."
"Force" is meant not so much an armed overthrow of the regime, as any influence, aimed at destroying the traditional framework of society. But, this is a wrong way, and world practice clearly shows it.
Let's try to approach the problem from the other side and think about the question: "What actually we suggest to the society, where there are anti-humanist relations? What are our real principles of equal rights and freedoms?"
To answer this question let's look at the history of humanism:
Humanistic attitude existed throughout the existence of human civilization. But only with the Reformation period, it becomes an independent force as means to resist against all distorted religion.
Since the period of establishment of a democratic society in the United States, humanism is an ideological tool
(first defense and then attack)of the Western democratic society, still in opposition to religious ideology of traditional Eastern society.
Thus far in the process of opposing East and West, traditional and democratic society, there are two opposite ideological tools: humanism and religion. The question if whether it is good or bad lies out of the framework of this article. It is a fact that this is balanced system, and has its own advantages and disadvantages.
The main disadvantage is that the humanistic principles in practice became minor for both sides, while ideological self-strengthening stands in the foreground. That is why the powerful financial and intellectual resources are not directed to the specific problem of society. On the one hand it is justified in terms of mutual competition, and on the other hand there is not enough strength, consolidation, and interest in solving urgent global problems.
A secondary consequence of this process is the substitution of concepts in the public consciousness:
"Humanism" for "secular humanism," "belief in God" for "service to cult".
Answer to the basic question, outlined above, is rooted in the main drawback of the existing system.
- What exactly do we offer to traditional society with the concept of human values?
- We offer these values, wrapped in an ideological wrapper, flavored with a long list of additions that are not related to the nature of these very values.
It is clear, that such proposal would be rejected by traditional society, and situation once again comes to a standstill.
As alternative approach may become a constructive dialogue aimed at finding and strengthening humanistic grains embedded in most traditional societies, without destroying it with help of cultural and, especially, military influence from the outside. In order for such a dialogue had taken place, there must be a neutral point of view, which can effectively and quickly deal with the specific urgent tasks. The only purpose of this position should be to ensure the application of humanistic principles to all people, no matter on whose side they are, whatever point of view they have.
The independence from outside influences, is necessary for humanistic association. Most humanists see themselves as completely independent, but due to circumstances, the majority of their efforts are directed to ideological struggle, but not to the solution of urgent and fundamental problems.
What does modern humanism lack to assert itself as the most promising life stance?! Perhaps everyone can give their own answer. Нowever, there are a number of objective reasons hampering the development of humanistic attitudes.
There is a wide variety of humanist organizations, united in the International Humanist Union, as well as a number of eminent personalities, which position themselves as humanists. General principles of modern humanism are approved in program documents. It seems, that the degree of consolidation allows to speak about humanism as a real force. In practice, humanistic principles are openly ignored by almost all participants of the world process. At the highest level, it is expressed in defiance of UN position on certain issues. Although, this organization is designed to keep the world process in the humanistic framework.
On the one hand, the main reason seems to lie on the surface:
- Not every society is ready to accept humanistic principles.
On the other hand, if we believe that the humanistic principles are inherent in human nature, why this or that society is not ready to accept them ?!
The answer also seems to lie on the surface:
- This society is bound by the totalitarian framework!
Conclusion:
" We should remove the ideological framework by force, to acquaint the society with the humanistic principles."
"Force" is meant not so much an armed overthrow of the regime, as any influence, aimed at destroying the traditional framework of society. But, this is a wrong way, and world practice clearly shows it.
Let's try to approach the problem from the other side and think about the question: "What actually we suggest to the society, where there are anti-humanist relations? What are our real principles of equal rights and freedoms?"
To answer this question let's look at the history of humanism:
Humanistic attitude existed throughout the existence of human civilization. But only with the Reformation period, it becomes an independent force as means to resist against all distorted religion.
Since the period of establishment of a democratic society in the United States, humanism is an ideological tool
(first defense and then attack)of the Western democratic society, still in opposition to religious ideology of traditional Eastern society.
Thus far in the process of opposing East and West, traditional and democratic society, there are two opposite ideological tools: humanism and religion. The question if whether it is good or bad lies out of the framework of this article. It is a fact that this is balanced system, and has its own advantages and disadvantages.
The main disadvantage is that the humanistic principles in practice became minor for both sides, while ideological self-strengthening stands in the foreground. That is why the powerful financial and intellectual resources are not directed to the specific problem of society. On the one hand it is justified in terms of mutual competition, and on the other hand there is not enough strength, consolidation, and interest in solving urgent global problems.
A secondary consequence of this process is the substitution of concepts in the public consciousness:
"Humanism" for "secular humanism," "belief in God" for "service to cult".
Answer to the basic question, outlined above, is rooted in the main drawback of the existing system.
- What exactly do we offer to traditional society with the concept of human values?
- We offer these values, wrapped in an ideological wrapper, flavored with a long list of additions that are not related to the nature of these very values.
It is clear, that such proposal would be rejected by traditional society, and situation once again comes to a standstill.
As alternative approach may become a constructive dialogue aimed at finding and strengthening humanistic grains embedded in most traditional societies, without destroying it with help of cultural and, especially, military influence from the outside. In order for such a dialogue had taken place, there must be a neutral point of view, which can effectively and quickly deal with the specific urgent tasks. The only purpose of this position should be to ensure the application of humanistic principles to all people, no matter on whose side they are, whatever point of view they have.
The independence from outside influences, is necessary for humanistic association. Most humanists see themselves as completely independent, but due to circumstances, the majority of their efforts are directed to ideological struggle, but not to the solution of urgent and fundamental problems.