HUMANISM-A BRIEF STUDY
A. S. RAMA RAJU
It
is an almost established fact that with the shrinking of the world, Man is
gradually becoming a world-citizen. He is in continuous shaping. The religions
of the world are in the process of a
great alchemisation to serve this new citizen. This
becoming religion has the mission of man-making but not god-creating. The
potentialities that lie latent in man and the efficacy of his reason are to
become the material in building a new humanity where tradition-bound religion
is no more a separate force to reckon with. Since the basic element taken is
human being, the Philosophy becomes man-centered: Humanism.
Humanism
emerges as a monumental testimony to the man’s innate drive to survive the
threat to his existence. The moment of existence is not to be mortgaged at the
altar of empty promises. The subject matter of Humanism is a long story of
rebellion with man as the hero. The rebellion, against scholasticism, religious
fanaticism, narrow nationalism and alienation speaks of the essence and scope
of Humanism. Man addresses himself to live with human dignity and solidarity.
Robert
G. Ingersoll says, “Man must be the providence of
man.”1 This revolt against the loss of solid individuality is not
the speculative effervescence of human imagination, but a truth, a truth of
positive bent for reverence for life.
The
soul of Humanism is Man in toto. It can be
dated back to the auspicious moment when Man is made the measure of all things
by Protagoras. In his own words “Man is the measure
of all things, of those that are that they are, of those that are not that they
are not.” 2 This practical statement of man-measure principle
rejects all abstract hypothesizing. Whatever be the criticism of Bertrand Russel as to its rejection of objective judgment and to the
extreme scepticism, a profound down-to-earth approach
is seen in Protagoras when he is convinced of
relativism. His sane analysis of man’s condition seems surprisingly realistic
as it is evident in his words, “Concerning the gods I cannot know either that
they are or that they are not; for there are many obstacles to knowledge; the
obscurity of the subject and the shortness of man’s life.” 3 This
man-centred approach had impressed F. C. S. Schiller
to say, “Modern Humanism is so largely and avowedly a conscious revival of the
critical relativism of Protagoras.”4
So
the Greek enlightenment is, in a way responsible for the initiation of
Individualism and Humanism, as it reflects in Sophists. On the principles of
subjectivism and relativism they propound ethics and theory of knowledge. By
doing so, Sophists failed to do justice to the objective truths which are
accepted by all.
Socrates
who continued the intellectual movement of
Though
Humanism was in eclipse during the Middle Ages, it had
a rebirth in the Renaissance Movement of the 15th century, with some
exceptions. The Italian Humanist, Petrarch, the first
great representative of Renaissance Humanism asserted “that man and his
problems should be the main object and concern of thought and philosophy.”
6
Erasmus,
Desiderius (1466-1536) of
This
movement of Renaissance Humanism, which liberated education from Scholastic
limits and clerical monopoly, and declared that “Culture was for the citizen as
well as for the clerk” had a broad sweeping over the
minds of people of
The
18th century French Encyclopediasts, too, worked for
the task of self-preservation by empirical approach to our problems. They had
championed the cause of free enquiry in religion. Reason was recognised as the pilot of human destiny. Morality was to
be based not on theology but on sociology; the changing needs of society, and
not revelation should determine the good. Diderot and
d’Alembert, two of the great Encyclopediasts
of the age of reason, established the intellect as the ultimate test of all
truth and all good. Voltaire joined them and raised his voice for the freedom
of reason. Jean Jacques Rousseau carried with him a revolution against all
efforts that tried to enthrone reason.
Terence,
the Roman Poet, wrote, “I am a man, nothing human is alien to me.”8
The same Humanistic spirit in Goethe had inspired him to state that “Man
carries within himself not only his individuality, but all of humanity with all
its potentialities.”9 Man is the centre and the circumference of
Humanism.
It
is but true that “the proper study of man is man” as was sung by Alexander
Pope. Man became an indispensable unit of study for the political and
scientific philosophers of nineteenth century. Their ultimate concern was man’s
psycho-socio-economic salvation. So Humanism was also being used to designate
the doctrines such as Communism, Pragmatism, Existentialism, Spiritualism, etc.
Karl
Marx, the Pioneer of Socialist Humanism makes it fundamental that “Man is the
root of all mankind.”10 In this the essential “inner unity of
mankind” is emphasised. His programme
practical disalienation. Distinctions between
theory and practice, knowledge and action, and spiritual aims and social system
are to be annulled. Dehumanising factors of
capitalistic socio-economic order are to be eliminated in order to establish a
classless society free from exploitation in which a free and independent man
could exist. But it is also alleged by Erich Fromm
that Marx is not aware of “that affluent alienation which can be as dehumanising as impoverished alienation.” Pure Humanism
remains mere verbal declaration if it is not realised
that without radical change of the whole social structure there would be no
true individual emancipation.
Schiller
equates Humanism with Pragmatism when he says “non-anthropomorphic thought is
sheer absurdity.”11 He believes that human experience is the clue to
the world of human experience. William James calls Humanism “a ferment that had
come to stay” and a “shifting in the philosophic perspective, making things
appear as from a new centre of interest.”12 This anthropocentric
view has brought Pragmatism nearer to Humanism. Man is honoured
as the maker of his truths. Logic we use is not eternally fixed and absolute
but dynamic and changing. Axioms are not god-given, but man-made,
they are not a priori verities, but postulates whose truth varies according
to the change in our experience. Schiller seems to adopt the humanistic view
when he says that Pragmatism is the application of Humanism to the theory of
knowledge. And he further says, “Humanism will pursue the middle-path, it will
neither reject ideals because they are not realised,
nor yet despise the actual because it can conceive ideals.” 13
Existentialism
is Humanism, in the sense that it affirms that “there is no other universe than
the human universe, the universe of human subjectivity.”14 It is man’s
existence that precedes essence. He exists first and defines himself later. “Man
is nothing else but what he makes of himself.”15 Sartre believes
that the seeds of Humanism lie in Cartesian principle Cogito ergo sum. It
obviously leads not to exclusive subjectivity but to intersubjectivity.
Humanism depends upon the realisation of Universal Man. In Sartre’s words “in
discovering my inner being, I discover the other person at the same time” the
foundation of Existentialism appears basically identical to that of Humanism.
In this respect all existentialists have no difference of opinion. “They never
consider man as an end because he is always in the making.”16 To
quote Sartre further, “The connection between transcendency,
as a constituent element of man–not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in
the sense of passing beyond–and subjectivity, in the sense that man is not
closed in himself but is always present in a human universe, is what is called
existentialism humanism.” 17
In
his awareness of transcendental reality, the individual realises
the basic identity of the whole human race. It assures bliss and escape from
forlornness and desperation. Spiritualism starts from the assumption that “Man,
as he is, is incomplete” 18 and has to grow beyond himself. Again
the inner discipline of Spiritualism is in no way different from the shifting
of control from supernatural power into
Elements
of Humanism are also to be found in schools like Rationalism, Realism and
Liberalism. Though all these schools are different from each other they cannot
contradict the significance of man as indivisible and indispensable unit of
society. It seems that at various levels of human experience all these
approaches and viewpoints are correct and survive the contradictions.
Besides
these variations, there is one fundamental issue on which Humanists have been
differing and by which all other branches of knowledge are differentiated and
determined. The bone of contention is over the centre of orientation of
Humanism. Consequently, we have Theocentric Humanism
and Anthropocentric Humanism, irrespective of their deep common concern for “the
human reality behind the concepts.” The radical difference between the two
approaches mentioned above is best illustrated from a conversation between
Socrates and an Indian Philosopher. “Socrates told the Indian stranger that his
work consisted in enquiring about the life of man, and the Indian smiled and said that none could
understand things human who did not understand things divine.”19
This difference of opinion is
being perpetuated through Ethics, Epistemology and Psychology and they are also
influencing social systems and political patterns.
If
Theistic Humanism promises salvation to man by transcending himself, Atheistic
Humanism requires man to be himself. If revelation is also a vehicle for
knowledge according to Jacques Maritan, an integral
humanist, it is reason alone that can be dependable for valid knowledge for
others. Sir Julian Huxley says that Humanism is a religion without revelation.
Theism maintains that God is the author of morals and values which are eternal
and unchanging, whereas others including atheistic existentialists say that it
is man who writes his own values which are grounded in earthly experiences.
Margaret Knight has stated “Humanism is morals without religion.”20
Theists believe that the cosmos cannot exist independently of supernatural mind
or consciousness, while the Atheistic Humanists differ and uphold naturalistic
Cosmology as Corliss Lament did. If a Theist is
inspired by unknown and unknowable, the Atheist’s source of inspiration lies in
known and knowable.
But
both versions of humanism considered so far–Theistic and Atheistic–are
pretentious in the sense that they failed to achieve the purpose for which Humanism emerged. It would be
easier to neglect the conflict, if it had no affect on man’s condition and his
programme. But the crisis in Philosophy has an indirect bearing upon
socio-political set-up. The incomplete understanding of man, it seems, is responsible for this dilemma. About the
phenomenon of man A. J. Heschel says, “As a natural
being he is determined by natural laws. As a human being he must frequently
choose, confined in his existence; he is unrestrained in his will.” 21
If
the purpose of Humanism is “to do justice to the incompleteness of man”22
as viewed by Sir Julian Huxley, it would be apt to come to conclusion that the
role of Humanism has not come to an end. It’s message
is still unheard of. Teilhard de Chardian
says that psychologically man has not yet said his final word. There are many
latent dimensions yet to blossom out. Radhakamal Mukerjee believes that Man lives in several dimensions or
orders of environment: biological, social and ideal or transcendent. Humanism
is neither deterministic nor indeterministic, but is
supremely critical.
The
adequacy of Humanism depends on man’s
increasing awareness regarding the importance of development of inner
personality as it was contended by Philosophers like Gurdjieff.
Without acquiring subjective qualitative experience man cannot flourish into
total personality. Here the growth of the inner man means the attainment of
perfection and the realisation of inner unity of mankind which are nothing but
the objectives of Humanism.
If
Humanism fails in its purpose of “Man-making”, it withers away into history in
the way the once-praised-isms did. If it is tired of its mission, its
reflections–social and political–die pre-mature. But man has no reason to go
against the Law of Life. “Psychological evolution is irreversible in its main
tendency.” 23
1 Quoted in the Radical Humanist 14-2-’65, p. 79. by Eva Ingersoll
2 Quoted in A History of Philosophy (1872), by Dr.
F. Ueberweg. p. 74; vol. 1.
3 Quoted in Socratic Humanism (1963) by Laszlo Versenvi. p. 13.
4 F. C. S. Schiller’s
article on ‘Humanism’ in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. (1959)
5 A History of Philosophy (1872) by Dr. Friedrich Ueberweg. P.80.
6 Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (1967) p. 127. Vol. 6.
7 Erasmus of
8 Quoted in The Radical
Humanist, 14-2-1965, p. 79.
9 Socialist Humanism (1966) Edited by Erich Fromm. p. VII.
10 Socialist Humanism, page
3.
11 Quoted in the Pragmatic Humanism of F. C. S.
Schiller (1955) by Reuben Abel. p. 8.
12 The Meaning of Truth (1914) by William
James. p. 211.
13 Humanism (1912) by Schiller. p. XXVIII.
14 Existentialism and Human Emotions (1957)
by J. P. Satre, Translated by Bernard Frechtman. p. 50.
15 Ibid., p. 15.
16 Ibid., p.50.
17 Ibid., p. 50.
18 Religion in a Changing World
(1967) by S. Radhakrishnan p. 60.
19 S. Radhakrishnan
writes in his book East and West in Religion (1967) on the basis of a story from Aristoxenes
of the third century. p. 133.
20 Quoted in The Radical Humanist by Hector Hawton. p. 461, 26-9-1965.
21 The Concept of
22 What date I think? by
Julian Huxley. p. 161.
23 Recovery of Faith (1955) by S. Radhakrishnan. p. 43.