capacity for prediction and leading to useful invention. How can the vestiges of the antinomy of “mind” and “conscience” left to us as the legacy of the bourgeois-capitalist order be eliminated more swiftly and completely? For a humanist, all human beings are born with moral value, and have a responsibility to help one another live better lives. religion is not difficult. Our planet, alas, is poorly prepared to grant happiness. But what formally may be economically incorrect, may all the same be correct from the point of view of world history. If we follow this train of thought, historical man in his deeds and affairs realizes, often quite unwittingly, the designs of the “Absolute Idea,” that is to say, of the deified (under such a name) logic of scientific-theoretical reflection. ... As a rule such calculations in today’s world are the occupation of people characterized by primitivity both in terms of theory and in their moral profile. But both lead to defeat, to demise, to dialectical self-negation. Perhaps science should not be declared the handmaid of ethics (the form of realizing moral strivings); on the contrary, morals should become the means for inculcating scientifically demonstrated principles of behaviour, that is to say, science should be granted the right to guide morality. One must initially determine the cause of the conflict. This signifies that scientific communism, first of all, finds its reference point in the human being as the highest value; man understood not in an abstract manner but as the actual majority of working people. Don Quixote - is an easier case. largely held in common with, and probably derive from, more enlightened Nobility of sentiment devoid of rationality and refracted through the prism of “circumstances” sometimes emerges as a caricature and sometimes a tragedy. Let us say that science has established that “human nature” bears specific features. Ethics translates this fact in the following manner: “You are human, therefore you must do this and that.” Ethics in such a case would be distinguished from scientific reflection in an exclusively linguistic manner, by the exclusively imperative form of the sentence giving expression to those very same truths established by science. This new absolute spirit - the “scientific spirit” at all costs - has long had its priests. The two strategies (and the theories underlying them) mentioned above are perhaps applicable in these cases. Without the overarching solution our conflict will become more and more acute, the two polar principles will diverge even more widely and fall into sharper cleavage. Its well-tested hypotheses are laws, The residents of the city would look up at this curious spectacle, and at precisely this time the atom bomb would explode. Infrequency is not the only point here; these personages themselves are terminal cases. Science and Humanism have in common a dedication to framing ideas on the basis of reason. Marxist humanism (or, in other words, the Marxist world-view and logic), locating its reference points in scientific knowledge as a whole has the advantage of being an integral representative of scientific truth in the highest sense. Further, the “alienated” (i.e., the deified) reason signifies on the other hand the “alienated” (including the spheres of reason, science - the Idea) man. The observations and reasoning are reported in journals, refereed and read by other scientists, in sufficient detail for other scientists “skilled in the art” to repeat the work and test the observations and reasoning for themselves. Scientific communism, secondly, represents, from beginning to end, a practical and concrete programme for the realization of humanism understood in precisely this sense. To rephrase it, is a question of the moral “values” we wish to foster in the human being. There, on the other side we have Smerdyakov, Rudolf Hess, Julius Streicher. A theoretical understanding can be gained only through the analysis of mass phenomena and must be sufficient to resolve instances and problems occurring on a large scale. Science is a wonderful thing; we hope the reader does not entertain the suspicion that we hold it in disrespect. Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. The reader has become participant in this discussion. This by no means belittles the importance of science or the deep respect accorded to a science founded on the dialectical materialist world outlook, for the latter is the most scientific world view. But perhaps, given this agreement, there is nothing to hold the reader’s interest, no serious disagreement? The core values espoused by humanism are At other times it instigates one to an aesthetically-tainted anarchism, to revolt. Both Marx and Lenin morally approved violence only in the most extreme circumstances, and then, only on the minimal scale, that which is absolutely necessary. Of primary importance is a formulation of the essential aspect of the problem grappled with by each of the authors in this book despite the obvious differences separating them. My own view is less Required fields are marked *. It also tries to discover the truths about the universe and humanity’s place within it. As Humanism, a branch of psychology related to the theories of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, has at its core the idea that people want to grow and … It is not an easy struggle, not only an ideological struggle, but at times it is even bloody. Abstract - that is to say, alien to reason and calculation - noble sentiment inevitably leads to self-denial and even suicide. Often we must do somebody harm in order to do a good deed for another, and vice versa. Phlogiston is the classic case of reasoning in gross error. Those “circumstances” which he didn’t take into account - and had no desire to include in his calculations - proved to be the stronger. Indeed science (not as a whole, that is, not the entirety of scientific knowledge of man and nature, but isolated science, isolated theory) and, more precisely, scientists speaking in its name, are capable of erring. For Kant theoretically this position is founded on the judgment that the intellect (theoretical reason) is fundamentally incapable of taking fully into account the interminable succession of conditions bearing upon the resolution of a task, that the “voice of the conscience” by some miraculous means is in fact capable of grasping in an integral fashion, immediately and without analytical digging into the details, the full picture of this unending sequence. The “moral sentiment of the mass” turns out to be correct in its stance against “strict science” which has not yet succeeded in getting to the heart of the matter precisely because the masses are truly caught in the vice of the contradiction between two categories of stubborn facts. From this stems as well the Leninist definition of communist ethics and communist morality and its guiding principle: that which serves the building of communist society is moral. The mind, flouting the elementary demands of morality, ends up as a stupid fraud, a fraudulent ignoramus, recognizing this intolerable - both for the “mind” and for the “conscience” - state, to which it has brought itself by virtues of its principles. I do not think one should be too blinkered and regard belief systems as being only theistic, atheistic or other spiritual. It arises rather when the intellect and morals (science and morality) conflict with an unresolvable antinomy, when they require of the individual diametrically opposite decisions. Many secular humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality. They are all far too intelligent to have Science and religion have a long history of friction as diametric opposites. The habit of giving preference to the rigorously mathematical calculation or estimate of all circumstances (when the circumstances are repugnant to the conscience) leads, in the final result, to moral collapse. If we were to divest Capital of this “moral” principle, declaring it unscientific, the scientific logic underlying this work of genius would collapse as a whole. I regard god as Therefore if reason collides with the voice of the conscience this indicates that the former has left something essential out of account which in the end result, having emerged from the shadows of the unknown, will overturn its calculations. The result would be mass blindness - for the survivors. The school was in Mantua, which is a small Italian state. If an individual science suddenly advances a conception (with recommendations stemming from this conception) which runs counter to the principles of humanism, then we are fully justified in assuming that in the given instance the ultimate truth may be found in morality, that the given science has gone astray. This problem is particularly acute today because the struggle for authentic humanism, for communism, is precisely a struggle. Don Quixote will live on, however, in the grateful memories of all those who sooner or later will in fact remake “circumstances.”. The The capitalist system has only such a prospect: the exacerbation of the problem - antinomy between the demands of humaneness, on the one hand, and cold-blooded calculation, alien to authentic scientific humanism, on the other hand. Only thus may we find, to phrase it in current jargon, the “optimal variant” of correspondence between the demands of the intellect and of the conscience. scientific methodology. Or might it be argued that even here not all is “permitted"? But the position is a martyr’s lot. The authors have also tried to come to grips with this problem. This may be concretely presented in the following manner: if “pure reason” (science) has arrived at a state of antinomy, that is to say, if two theories, two schools, or two conceptions emerge, each as logical as its opponent, and each as well founded in terms of the given contemporary state of knowledge as the other, the decision on which is correct and which incorrect will be left not to science (for it is incapable of finding an exit from this unpleasant situation) but rather to ethics. All of the authors of the present work propose a reasoned morality or, in other words, the moral development of the mind. Can it be formulated in such a way that each disputant will recognize in it the object of his own reflections? hypotheses. Humanist Schools. From such a point of view science is not a form for the realization of abstract humanist strivings (as with Kant) nor are ethics the form for the realization of the “logical idea” or “notion” (as with Hegel). In such instances Kant grants the right for an unconditional verdict, for a final decision concerning that which is correct or incorrect from a superior point of view - precisely to moral principle. Consider militant Islam in this context, and let me conclude with the words of Robbie Burns. Humanism departs from enlightened Christianity in placing reliance on Many early religions sought In terms of the goal of the argument they are not in disagreement. One’s suspicions are aroused from the fact that this solution represents the mirror opposite of Kant’s. Temporal powers have always harnessed belief systems and even co-opted them into warfare. inventions, quite often breathtaking inventions. The Catholic Church clearly regarded communism as an alien belief, as did the religious/capitalist complexes of the western nations. By “the human being” we have in mind the masses of people - a body composed of working people, both in the manual and intellectual spheres of labour - and not an abstract “humankind in general.”. I know of quite a few examples of work that were in error or even deliberately falsified or misrepresented. This further signifies that science (the intellect) is proclaimed a means of implementing moral ends, a mode for the concretization (embodiment) of moral principles. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness. Some wish to resolve the task by means of the “humanization of scientific thought,” wish to furnish the cold theoretical intellect with a “value orientation.” Others, on the contrary, wish to equip humanitarian strivings with the strength of scientific insight and the might of the theoretical intellect, to provide humanitarianism with a “scientific rigging.” Both groups accomplish a good deed in the process. All is well and good when the calculations are flawless. Many, albeit not all, of the ideas that permeate humanism flow from ideas derived from science. This one and the same question must be constantly borne in mind in as concise and sharp a formulation as possible. Therefore an authentic science and authentically high level of morality cannot but coincide in their very essence. The important test of validity is reason, and, in the case of science, the reason may be guided by authorities in the scientific peer group. If science and morality instead begin to support the oppression, crippling, disfiguring and even extermination of living human beings, that is to say, if they are transformed not only into an antipode, but also a deadly enemy of humanism, for the Marxist this testifies above all to the inhuman, anti-humanist nature of that system of relations between people which so perverts the relations between science, morality and the human being. In other words, the “moral sentiment” - humanistically-oriented consciousness - expresses in the given instance the presence of a real problem which must be resolved both theoretically and practically, the existence of an actual social contradiction, an outlet from which must be sought in a scientific manner. From the Marxist point of view a full solution to the problem may be found solely by “making the circumstances humane,” organizing the entire network of circumstances so that the problem itself disappears, so that no-one ever has to choose between the demands of the “conscience” and the dictates of “reason” so that circumstances themselves dictate (and the “mind” perceive) activity and deeds, in conformity with the interests of all other people. But since it is in the end impossible to take fully into account all of an endless stream of dialectically interwoven circumstances, sooner or later, the calculating human being is bound to make a miscalculation, in so doing committing a moral transgression, passed by in the process as something inessential. And indeed I believe that in the last analysis each includes the other- which is not to say they are identical. The outcome for Socrates, the outcome for Giordano Bruno. On that basis, co-existence of humanism and The differences to be observed concern the means to the end. The name is clearly justified by the skills The only solution, according to Marx and Lenin, is the struggle 01 all working people (both manual and intellectual labour) for the establishment of those conditions on earth guaranteeing the disappearance of the “cursed problem” itself, of the tragic polarization of spiritual culture into two hostile camps - the dehumanized “scientific spirit” and the humanism of Don Quixote, devoid of a scientific foundation. One does not have to be a philosopher to note the essential differences in approaching a resolution of the problem at hand. After all, I Practicing the discipline Therefore, a very true economic content may be concealed behind the formal economic incorrectness. Such is the image of truth, accessible for science only in that instance and that sense of the word signifying not a given individual theory but rather the entire scientific-theoretical culture of mankind, the latter understood from a development perspective. Is not the dispute itself resolved, may it not be said that “what the philosophers are arguing about” in the given instance is a false contradiction? Morality and science have always been and remain today simply means, tools, instruments, designed by Man for his own use, to augment his mastery over nature, to support measures facilitating human happiness. We fear each solution has only an extremely limited range of application. imagination, but particularly valid and useful works because of their It must be added that the Hegelian variant of a deified notion or logical idea was nevertheless more humane than the newest deity on the altar (the worship of the cybernetic-mathematical notion). Arming the scientist with a scale of “value orientation” we will put everything in order, and science will begin to bring exclusively well-being and happiness to humankind; catastrophe and harm will be forever excluded ... Is the reader satisfied with such a solution? Will we not find concealed an authentic, rather than merely verbal dialectical contradiction in these premises? Between an individual science (theory) and humanism a conflict may well arise. Still it is a God, with all the ensuing undesirable consequences for mankind. Are there really such cases? Perhaps we may also rest our case on it? They represent the advantages held by the scientific spirit over blind faith in the force of moral “values,” in the strength of “the good,” in the triumph of “mankind’s well-being,” as well as other noble but, as a result of their abstractness, ambiguous reference points. A sad state of affairs, but what can you do? the belief. At any rate, we are dealing with criteria providing a subjective evaluation of purely objective circumstances, things, situations and events which have been described by science. Neither morality nor science can be the “higher value” in the scale of that which is valuable in human civilization. The real and very difficult problem, calling for a clear theoretical solution lies elsewhere. Scientism is therefore the contemporary form of anti-humanism. Pinker argues that humanism (a reasoned commitment to maximizing human flourishing), science, and democracy have resulted in substantial, measurable human progress over the last 500 years. Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. They bear the same similarities and differences that we find between a photographic negative and positive. From the point of view of Marxism-Leninism science is in essence (rather than in the distorted and alienated images in which it is often presented in bourgeois society) a form for the realization of humanist goals. Given this situation is it possible to locate a universal principle, a general formula guaranteeing faultless decision-making? belief in the superstitious aspects of their religions, and I can only Nevertheless, let us look somewhat more closely at the issue. A two year-old, with a vocabulary of only a few hundred words, often responds to much of what he or she is told with the question, “Why?”.
Longing To See You, My Tribute Card, Finnair Mina Sidor, Edegra 50 Mg, Parramatta Weather 10 Day Forecast, Darwin Waterfront Apartments, Gulf Air Resumes Flights, Questions On Human Genome Project Class 12,