Steve Brockbank of Hertfordshire booksellers Krokodile Rare Books was so inspired by one of Infinite Thought’s recent essays that he single-handedly paraphrased 395 consecutive words within twenty four hours of its original publication. Sphaleotas investigates:
— Infinite Thought:
Is the question of ‘humanism’ badly posed?
– Steve Brockbank:
Is the spectre of humanism badly raised?
— Infinite Thought:
Current philosophical literature on humanism and antihumanism, not to mention constant casual and vague use of terms such as ‘human rights’, anthropocentrism, ‘humanitarianism’, entails confusion about the status of the ‘human’ relative to other disciplines.
– Steve Brockbank:
I think that we could understand the interesting philosophical perspectives on humanism and antihumanism, which is not to forget to mention the casual and frequently confused use of terms such as rights, anthropocentrism, humanitarianism and so on which guarantees confusion about the status of the human and the non-human relative to other discourses and disciplines.
— Infinite Thought:
How does humanism relate to science, for example? Is science just what ‘humans’ do, or do its results continually demonstrate how unimportant humanity is at the cosmic level?
– Steve Brockbank:
For example how contemporary humanism relate to the various sciences ? Is science merely what modern and post-modern humans do, or is it instead a demonstration of difference which shows how unimportant humanity is at the level of the cosmos ?
— Infinite Thought:
What is its status vis-à-vis politics? Can we still speak of progressive emancipation in politics, or does this imply an illegitimate quasi-religious belief in some kind of anthropocentric historical destiny?
– Steve Brockbank:
What might be it’s status in relation to the political ? We obviously can still speak of progressive emancipation in politics just as we can talk of the reverse, but at the same time this is haunted by the ludicrous neo-religious belief in an anthropocentric destiny?
— Infinite Thought:
Even engaging in a rough separation of contemporary humanisms and antihumanisms is no easy task. We can perhaps point to three broad moments of contemporary humanism:
– Steve Brockbank:
It’s difficult to produce a clear separation of contemporary humanisms and antihumanisms but it’s feasible to suggest some important moments of contemporary humanism:
— Infinite Thought:
1. A juridical, moral and universalist commitment to ‘human rights’, whereby each individual is endowed with certain negative and positive freedoms.
– Steve Brockbank:
• A universalist commitment to human rights, whereby each individual is endowed with certain negative and positive freedoms, both legalistic and ethical.
— Infinite Thought:
2. An existentialist belief (either religious or secular) in the ‘inescapable’ nature of human choice that is possessed by us alone among species.
– Steve Brockbank:
• The existentialist belief in the nature of human choice that is often falsely presented as being a unique human possession.
— Infinite Thought:
3. A scientific, or at least scientistic, commitment to the capacities of technology and scientific research to provide benefits to humanity (medical, technical, hygienic, alimentary etc.)
– Steve Brockbank:
• The scientific commitment to the capacities of technology and scientific research to provide benefits to humans and non-humans alike.
— Infinite Thought:
We can at the same time point to several contemporaneous manifestations of antihumanism:
– Steve Brockbank:
Antihumanism can perhaps be thought of as containing the following key concepts and results
— Infinite Thought:
1. The idea that all attempts to separate out man from animal are a post-religious hangover that neglect to point out that there is very little that differentiates us, either genetically or practically, from other animals, particularly other primates (none of the following are specific to humans: bipedalism, tool-use, war, sexual prohibition, sociality, politics, morality, aggression, symbolic communication, laughing, crying, etc.).
– Steve Brockbank:
• Attempts to differentiate the human from the non-human are a sign of the post-religious remains haunting our understanding of the human, and which usually fail to point out that there is very little that differentiates one species (assuming you accept that species exist as meaningful concepts and differences); genetically and pragmatically from other non-human-animals (remember that none of the following are human specific: tool-use, war, sexual difference, sociality, politics, morality, aggression, symbolic communication, laughing, crying, language and so on).
— Infinite Thought:
2. Any thinking that makes human needs and concerns central is either a form of speciesism, or a supreme arrogance that pays no heed to the contingency of emergence of the human as a species, and the indifference that nature/the cosmos surely has towards us.
– Steve Brockbank:
• Any human thinking that poses the centrality of human needs and concerns is either a speciesism or it pays no heed to the contingency of the human as a species. Most importantly it neglects the indifference that nature and the cosmos has towards us.
— Infinite Thought:
3. A continued belief in a teleological idea of history and progress (such that humanity would be the ‘subject’ of such a history) fails to account for the sheer senselessness of either man-made disasters (war, famines) or natural events (floods, diseases).
– Steve Brockbank:
• The concept that links the idea of history and progress which implies in some way that human subjects or humanity might be in some way the subject of history cannot account for the randomness of man-made disasters and natural events.
Posted by sphaleotas at September 4, 2005 08:24 PM