Secular humanism is a philosophical and ethical worldview that places a strong emphasis on human dignity and worth without relying on theistic beliefs or supernatural concepts.
Secular humanism asserts that every individual possesses inherent value and worth simply by virtue of being a human being. This value is not contingent upon religious affiliation, social status, arbitrary identity categories, or any other external factors. Humanists argue that all humans have a fundamental dignity that should be respected and protected.
This articulation runs contrary to the popular practices of labeling one's political opponents as literal Nazis or canceling someone for expressing scientific facts of human biology, let alone the outpouring of self proclaimed hatred for all things Trump related. The sheer fact of the matter is that many a self righteous humanist have been struggling to reconcile their worldview with the seething hatred that often boils inside of themselves. The humanist values empathy, in many cases above anything else, so the problem of just how to empathize with someone you passionately hate, becomes quite the dilemma. Of course there will be secular humanists that insist that they themselves have transcended beyond feelings of hatred; that hatred is somehow categorically wrong in and of itself. This ironic tendency to deny integral parts of humanity only underscores the degree of self righteous delusion and hypocrisy among so called humanists. The point isn't to demonize hatred to the extant that it colors one's own attitude with negativity. Part of the solution to hatred is resisting the appeal to pretend it is something only "the others" do. The other side to the solution is to indeed see hatred as a problem to be solved rather than a reflection of some imagined essence. The humanistic principle of empathy just doesn't do much work here; and it isn't working, judging by the increasing degree of political polarization characterizing Western society. Secular humanism can gain some much needed insight here by reflecting back to perhaps its most primary influence, early American pragmatism. Paul Kurtz, co-author of the Secular Humanist Manifesto and the figure most closely associated with secular humanism, was largely inspired by the pragmatic philosophy of John Dewey during his time at Columbia University. Kurtz, having been influenced heavily by Dewey's theory of inquiry known as instrumentalism, established the Center for Inquiry in 1991 to promote critical scientific thinking. Adopting a pragmatic perspective, and treating empathy as an epistemic instrument, begs us to reach back into our cognitive toolkits and seek out a more suitable tool. We need a pragmatic account of hatred and a means to reconcile these most negative of feelings with our commitment to human dignity and worth. In other words, we need an account of hatred that reflects what occurs in actual everyday practice and isn't obscured by overly dramatized language.. According to pragmatism, concepts are based on future projection and idealization. We have an ideal concept of "chair" which encompasses ideal traits. When these ideals are reflected in actual reality, particularly when these traits are pro-social in nature, they are accompanied by positive qualitative feels. Love is merely the feeling of awareness when the ideal meets the real; beauty, the perception thereof. In this light, we see that hatred is merely the recognition of the absence of ideal traits, or more often, the recognition of what are taken to be the worst traits. Love and hate, then, depend on one's imagination, in one's ability to imagine what is worst and what is best, and their ability to manage their attitudes concerning those traits.
It is instructive to consider here that we can distinguish two different factors relevant to hatred. On the one hand, hatred is felt and perceived as ugliness, while on the other hand it is merely an epistemic appraisal of relevant traits. The quality of anger, resentment, and other negative feelings are not necessary for this appraisal. In other words, if one can stoically manage their own emotions, they can recognize the worst traits in others without allowing this recognition to flavor their overall attitude with negativity, bringing out the worst in themselves. It is advantageous to take the power away from hatred and recognize that it isn't necessarily associated with extreme emotionality or violence. People who hate you are not necessarily a threat to you; they just don't like you, and that's their prerogative. We tend to treat hatred as a boogeyman when in reality the actual danger is, well... actual danger. The danger of course is not that others may appraise you poorly, the danger lies in people who cannot control their emotions or actions and engage in anti-social behaviors like bullying or committing acts of violence.
A little old lady in a parking lot shouting at people to go back to their own country is not a threat, nor does this problematic situation call for an emotional outburst of one's own in response. It certainly doesn't serve as a good excuse for reveling in one's own hateful feelings. At this point we've cleared away some brush and laid a solid foundation but we still haven't reconciled this hatred with our commitment to human dignity and worth. Here again, we find our solution in pragmatism. Another epistemic tool worth pulling out of our cognitive tool kits is the concept of continuity and growth. Pragmatism, being future oriented, recognizes the potential for human growth and excellence. This concept of continuity and growth allows us to at once judge our political rivals harshly, even to the point where we recognize the very worst in them, while preserving our dedication to human dignity and worth by recognizing that what is best in others may very well lie in their potential. This perspective requires a good faith expectation of others to overcome what is worst in them, but more importantly, it requires a good faith expectation of ourselves in helping facilitate that outcome for the betterment of all stakeholders. As one accepts the responsibility of helping others reach their potential, feelings of hatred become increasingly unnecessary. As secular humanists, we solve the dilemma of how to reconcile our hateful feelings, what is worst in us, with our commitment to human dignity and worth, by exercising an intrapersonal competency in managing our emotions in the short term while recognizing our role and ability in affecting pro-social outcomes over the long run.
This approach ultimately entails the patience to allow ideal traits to develop or reveal themselves over time. By focusing on the development of ideal traits as opposed to fixating on the worst traits, dealing with hatred and negativity becomes a process for developing love, or recognizing what is best in others, as they develop their potential. By first being receptive to changing, or at least managing one's attitude, one can create a self fulfilling prophecy in which people that you might not like so well begin to warm up to you. This approach begs us to keep an open mind when dealing with our most negative of thoughts and feelings and when encountering the worst among us. To the ordinary everyday person this may seem too fantastical to provide any plausible solutions, but those employed in the human services industry have long adopted an ethic of compassionate care that requires them to accept stewardship over those they may not like or even dislike (note this ethic does not require empathy). It is not impossible to adjust your thinking in order to affect more practically beneficial outcomes. It is not at all a leap to presume that those who express hateful attitudes are themselves experiencing psychological disharmony and disintegration and could benefit from responses more in line with concepts of cognitive behavioral therapy. We may even assume a perspective of trauma informed care where we recognize the most hateful among us as psychologically vulnerable and in need of stewardship. When we recognize what is best in others, in their potential for change and growth, we create expectations by which others must respond. When you expect the best out of others, when you show them this sort of love, you create moral obligations they feel compelled to uphold. In this way seeing what is best in others; loving them, facilitates human excellence. By recognizing the dignity and worth of each individual, even if their value lie mostly in their potential, we preserve our own dignity by resisting the pull of unchecked negativity and polarization. We understand that, while we are not to blame for other's hatred, we are in a position to accept some responsibility in ameliorating this problem for the benefit of all. As secular humanists we strive to be empathetic and display a generally positive affect but our blood will surely boil. We shouldn't ignore this fact in preference of some self righteous deluded fever dream. And even though we may sometimes feel like our political rivals are less than human, we must in turn come to the more sober conclusion that there indeed exists some dignity and worth in all human beings.
This perspective aligns with the concept of agape and helps to demystify it a great deal. We see now that the love of humankind is not some overly dramatized perspective or state in which each and every individual is seen as super awesome and really quite wonderful. Rather, agape involves recognizing that there are elements worth loving in each and every individual and the presumption that healthy societies are to be built upon this recognition.
Produced by Clint Warren - Aided by ChatGPT
Comments