The Problematic Legacy of Enlightenment Humanism & Why I'm Not a Humanist

[@kman5475]

I want to preface this by saying this is an invitation to further discussion; Sarah did an excellent job presenting a very complex topic! If I understand correctly, Sarah, you're working on your PhD in Religious Studies? You're well-studied and well-spoken--if you're not already considering being a professor, YOU SHOULD. The world needs more minds like yours, especially in the field of Religious Studies! That being said, I do have a disagreement I'd like to address (which you do touch on briefly at the end). It seems to me that your disagreement with Humanism is based on what you see to be its (understandably!) disagreeable history. I feel this is a mistake. Religions change over time; their peripheral tenants and philosophies change to meet the needs of time, place, and circumstance--and ultimately--they are tools of the people and societies that utilize them to their own ends. Humanism appears to be no different. Modern Humanism, as I have observed and personally practice it (although admittedly, my own religio-philosophical positions might be too complex and confused to safely call Humanism...) looks an awful lot like what you are calling Posthumanism. I would point to the American Humanist Association (and its equivalents), as well as the Humanist Manifesto III, as an example of this. The AHA is not, of course, The Official Arbiter of Humanism(TM)--just as the Roman Catholic Church does not have sole right to define Christianity--but they're a pretty influential voice on what Humanism is in terms of modern US law, politics, culture, etc. Their idea of Humanism is undoubtedly focused on human well-being, but this includes points you cited as being distinct to Posthumanism; among other things, there is a focus on environmentalism (albeit more in the sense of "don't sh!t where you sleep"). I stand with the critical suggestion that perhaps we should expand upon the definition of Humanism--especially to both acknowledge and break away from the mistakes of its past--or perhaps embrace a narrower, more inclusive definition at its core, and flesh out its various flanks. What are your thoughts? *Note: edited after I found a video stating you are currently a PhD student.

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

Thanks for your comment, you make a really good point! I totally agree that humanism has changed a lot over time, and I certainly recognize that Humanism today is pretty radically different from the 18th and 19th centuries. Posthumanism specifically sets itself up as a reaction against Enlightenment Humanism, and the continued effect it has in our modern society, where many people still maintain “nature vs. culture,” “human vs. nonhuman” and “self vs. other” mindsets, and value human progress over everything else. I haven’t read the Humanist Manifesto III, but thanks for recommendation, I’ll be sure to check that out! I suppose I don’t entirely disagree with the idea that maybe the definition of Humanism just needs to be expanded... I think that is a valid argument, and the addition of the prefix “post” has its fair share of issues... like the idea that we’ve moved past Humanism, when we haven’t really. My supervisor actually isn’t really a fan of posthumanism, and she’s of the opinion that adding “post” to all these things (like postmodernism, etc.) just makes things unnecessarily complicated. But one thing that does really resonate with me about posthumanism is that it really does try to take a post-anthropometric approach. It aims to decentralize the human, so that we can move away from seeing nonhuman others from a perspective that’s mostly based on our own needs and desires. It tries to show that the nonhuman world doesn’t just exist for us, but rather has its own agency and intrinsic value, beyond what we give it as humans. So, in the case of environmentalism, as you said a humanist perspective would see environmental activism as being important because it’s beneficial for us as humans to take care of the place we live. But a posthumanist perspective is more about caring for the environment for its own sake. Because we’re the ones who have been destroying it, we should look after it better, not just because it’s good for us, but because it’s good for the nonhuman others that make up our world. An ideal posthumanist perspective is one that values humans and nonhumans equally-recognizing that there’s difference between us and other things, but not necessarily prioritizing one over the other. This is “ideal” in the sense that this is rarely (if ever) fully realized (I’m always going to prioritize human life over that of, say, a mosquito), but it’s really about working towards a framework that rejects human exceptionalism... which I don’t think Humanism does (though you can correct me if I’m wrong).

[@kman5475]

@@theskepticalwitch6611 I think you're correct that Humanism does not "[work] toward a framework that rejects human exceptionalism", though I'd certainly invite other Humanists to challenge that! My approach is that I have a strong bias toward the well-being of my own species; not to the detriment or disregard of others, but that my greatest concern (and the cause to which I bend my greatest mental energies and efforts) is for my fellowkind. Human beings are deeply interdependent, and the well-being of other people is ultimately the well-being of oneself. I see this as a noble and worthy philosophy, and one that can certainly serve as the premise to a robust moral philosophy! That said, I definitely see the value in your position that human exceptionalism is not the ideal approach, and there is value to be found in giving concern to non-human "agencies"--be they other sentient animals, the biosphere, or the health of the planet itself. Humans are not special in this regard, we're yet another form of life, acting within another robust, complex system, and that itself part of an even greater whole. Perspective is wisdom! One thing I value about Humanism (and really any non-theological religion/philosophy/life-stance/insert your preferred term here) is that I am 100% free to consider ideas like the ones you're putting forward, examine and test them, and choose to accept or reject them in part or in whole. There is no sacred text I risk violating, no strictly-codified dogma I am committing heresy toward, and no almighty God I could dare to blaspheme against at my own peril. There is just reason, inquiry, and good conscience. Because of that, I see modern Humanism as having evolved past many of the mistakes and flaws of its past (though I doubt ANY system is capable of doing that perfectly!), and see no reason why both positions cannot be syncretized with each other. It is still Humanism by definition, and probably a small step closer to the grand and elusive Truth that any philosophy strives for. Humanism (at least the modern form) is wonderfully loosey-goosey like that!

[@adventurouskashmir7341]

I am so delighted to listen from you. I would really love to listen more on posthumanism and indigenous society please come up with more such contents.

[@user-kv8nx9oj5v]

Love your videos, you have such interesting perspectives to share! I hope you keep making videos, even if only occasionally. ❤️

[@Findaryion]

This is an excellent presentation of some really interesting concepts. Thank you!

[@Elizabeth-ll4tt]

I must've had a different understanding of secular humanism and was under the impression that the secular portion was a rejection of religious influences in politics and policy making, and not strictly the rejection of the supernatural in its entirety. Still watching the video- thank you for making time to do this!!!

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

You might be right about that-secularism is certainly a rejection of religion in politics... but as far as I’m aware, secular humanism is a worldview/moral outlook that generally sees the supernatural as being a human invention. You can be a secularist and still believe in gods/the supernatural, but usually secular humanists reject anything that can’t be explained by modern science.

[@katejudson8907]

My own personal take on secular humanism is that they switched out a religious deity for ' Man ' as a religion. And that we have had a few centuries of different versions of what that looks like.

[@katejudson8907]

I was searching for Rosi Braidotti content and your video came up. Am so glad I watched. Great points and I will subscribe and look forward to more from you.

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

Thanks--and that's awesome you found it by looking for Rosi Braidotti content haha! My next video will be on Posthumanism, so hopefully that's interesting for you! :)

[@WormwoodCrow]

The progress of universal human rights goes back centuries, starting and stopping in different parts of the world at different times. And that process continues, haltingly. Focusing on the West, the Enlightenment was a paradigm shift in who had free agency and the right to control. In Christian Europe, God was the controller. It was to his will we submitted, his rules we adhered to, and his judgment that we capitulated to. The Enlightenment called that all into question, but it was a trickledown effect. Next in line for free thought and agency would be the next in power after God: white, wealthy men. The ideas of equality and rights were percolating, discussed, desired, but the execution was slow. Hundreds of years later, we have trickled down rights for minorities and women after white, wealthy men became more comfortable having wrested control from God. But despite the science behind sentience in other animals, humans continue to eat meat. In another few hundred years, perhaps this will be seen as backward as denying freedom to non-property owners. But the Enlightenment wasn't the beginning of empathy toward the downtrodden. Flashback a thousand years, and the same Christianity that stated that slaves were part of God's plan had the only charity acts in play in Europe. The church looked out for cripples, widows left with nothing, the mentally unfit, injured war victims (both soldiers and civilian survivors), orphans, etc. It was part of God's mercy (and his demand of us) to provide aid to those unable to help themselves in what amounted to a very cruel world hard enough to survive for the fittest. All of these are steps, slowly taking us in a direction we collectively feel better about. When we study history, we have the luxury of seeing progress, slow and stretched over the course of millennia, but progress nonetheless. When we zoom in on a specific period in a specific place, we grimace at the hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and lip service made in the name of ideologies expected to be thriving during that time and in that place. People are flawed, and slotting in the pieces of understanding regarding history reveals the ugly grind humanity takes getting from an one arbitrary point in the timeline to another. We are a work in progress. When studying history, the grey areas between, and within, factions of people are more prevalent than the strict lines of division that our labels of people of the past, and labels of current peoples, would suggest. I appreciate your explanation of Humanists vs Post-Humanists as a point of discussion to compare and contrast and analyze progress, if any. But where is the dividing line in time and space? Can we split all humanists neatly between these two camps? I think the adherence to some of the discussion points of what differentiates Humanists and Post-Humanists is more of a indistinct smear, much like the difference amongst Christians over the centuries. The "Dark Ages" Europe was home to Christians who sacrificed everything to tend to the flock, as well as those who used the same book to destroy thousands by fire and sword. The same group of people, but not really. Despite my own love for categories and labels and organization, all this is to say that sometimes we get more caught up in what the job descriptions of certain labels should or should not be stating rather than doing the job itself. The need for labels, and their pursuant explanations, is helpful academically, but the reality is so much messier than we can ever hope to tidy up. Btw: You necklace is so lovely!

[@kman5475]

I want to echo your thoughts--wonderfully stated!--especially the last couple paragraphs. (And also the part about the lovely necklace.)

[@WormwoodCrow]

@@kman5475 I think of family trees. You zoom in on a few people in a limited time frame and you see a family. As time progresses, perhaps the family adopts, adding new names (labels) to the family. Maybe some marry and change their names (labels). Maybe some move away, taking their names with them to far off places. As time marches on, the children aren't clones of the parents. The grandchildren less so. But shared traits, both personality and genetic, are observable. A family unit becomes a family tree that becomes a family dynasty. Yet with enough branches, how long before a family unit stop really defining itself as part of one tree and associating with another. Or something "new" altogether, though no family is born in a vacuum, no matter how disconnected it feels from its ancestors. The smear of continuity from one person to the next, one generation to the next, makes it hard to say where one family unit ends and another starts. It's all part of the human experience, as are the social constructs, like religion, that we give birth to, raise, watch grow, carry on the labels far away, change the labels, intermingle with other labels. Human experience is a mosaic through time and space.

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

Thanks so much for your excellent comment--you make a great point that these labels can be helpful in an academic sense, but often lose their meaning in real world contexts. I agree that things are generally messier than our categories and labels make them out to be, and that is important to keep in mind.

[@mysoulinbleach7223]

So my practice which is called la practica I pretty much do psychological Magic in my particular practice I start off with Shadow work and I tell people to find their trauma understand it ask questions about it go deep into it. Then figure out what beliefs they have adopted because of it. I believe that our beliefs guide our actions. Will is not free it is Guided by our beliefs so every belief that comes from your trauma decides your actions meaning that those actions are decided by your trauma then I teach people to heal the trauma in various ways and to unwire that belief and replace it with a belief that benefits them in their goals. Then I teach a lot of psychodrama and archetypes to build rituals around certain things. My rituals are very specific to the situation. And then I also talked about botany and how to extract isolate and concentrate particular compounds within plants for specific remedies whether it be medicine or cosmetics. Tumi creating your own medicine or cosmetic is a ritual within itself. Then I also talked about being an empath. I talk about body language facial expressions micro-expressions usage of language and tone of voice. And I also talked about vampirism which is the art of influence and manipulation seduction and Power. There is also illusion magic witches prettymuch the type of stuff that David Blaine does if you become very skilled at it you can have the type of skills of a pickpocket it teaches you misdirection confusion pretty much how to be able to do things right in front of people without them noticing when you're good at this type of magic sometimes it works pretty handy when trying to break ice and talk to someone new and it's always fun at parties you can really astonish people and then you're seen as entertaining which helps you with your ability to influence. There's tons of other ways to use my science back magic but this is what I can fit in one comment. I hope you got to read my message I like what you're doing and would like to keep a dialogue open about how far this particular form of magic can actually go

[@calonstanni]

I'm not a humanist either ...because I give a HUGE UNGODLY shit about animals.

[@fractaled3129]

Excellent video, very well said. :)

[@1980rlquinn]

Tangental to the topic: I wonder if the fall of the New Atheists (and the stain that extends to associated groups, including contemporary Humanists) and the increase in practicing witches is related...

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

Honestly it might be! I feel like we’re at a point where a lot of people are looking for something more than atheism (at least, New Atheism) or humanism, and maybe the rise in Paganism and witchcraft is a response to that.

[@calonstanni]

Is there a fall of New Atheists?

[@gabrielleangelica1977]

@@calonstanni I find the atheists in the Esoteric community to be more 📖 open minded. Sometimes secular atheism had a P.R. problem. There are those who found they were almost as fanatical and intolerant as the Evangelicals. They also have a high suicide rate in the world 🌍.

[@1980rlquinn]

@@calonstanni Less of a boom than a whisper: www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/31/four-horsemen-review-what-happened-to-new-atheism-dawkins-hitchens

[@gabrielleangelica1977]

@@1980rlquinn Thank you, Rye! 🌠

[@slipperydoorknob2173]

31:3 INTERESTING! My intro to English class in community college overarching theme was about Othering. Our main book for the course was Bryan Stevenson's "Just Mercy". We used so much media and sources like Mean Girls, Buck v. Bell, etc.

[@anniesearle6181]

Fascinating topic!

[@fractaled3129]

Just thought of this channel when researching on there. Hope all's great with yourself and that things are going well. :)

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

Thanks! I'm doing okay--I just needed a bit of a break from KZbin and social media to work through a rough mental health patch, but I'm planning to film some more videos soon!

[@fractaled3129]

@@theskepticalwitch6611 Ah okay! We all have patches like that. You're extremely intelligent and thoughtful, as well as a good soul. Your videos are always very thought-provoking and interesting so looking forward to more content in the future. All the best, rock on! :)

[@suzanneweismann3706]

I have a couple questions for you about my own practice and you're very educated, so is using the pysch model of magick in anyway contradictory to free will/ is the psychology and neurology of the placebo effect in anyway deterministic? Another thing I do not believe in the supernatural so my goal in my practice is to experience different perceptions of PEOPLE'S realities rather than different metaphysical realities, any suggestion on what part of the occult to look into based off what im trying to achieve?

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

I don't think the placebo/psychological model is necessarily deterministic... You certainly could practice it from a deterministic perspective, but it doesn't have to be. I'm not really sure what you mean by experiencing other people's realities though...

[@TheAtheopaganismChannel]

Another truly great video. Thanks so much.

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[@sandyblack9698]

Yule blessings from Devon England.?🖤🔮💎

[@edgyintellect177]

Are you familiar with Patricia McCormack's ahumanism?

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

I am, yeah! It's been a while since I read her work though--I should return to it!

[@GaiatheSage]

she may be, but I am not. thanks for the enlightening comment. I just added her book to my wishlist.

[@chaotic_enby2625]

This was a really good video, thank you for making it. I agree with a lot of what you said. One thing that would interest me... I wonder if you’re vegan? Cause it sounds like that would probably be pretty consistent with your values.

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

I'm like 95% vegan... I still eat bivalves, because giving up seafood entirely would be difficult haha

[@kman5475]

Excellently done video! I am quite tempted to respond to some of the points you made when I'm not on my lunch break. :-D However, I too have an education in Religious Studies, and sincerely fear I will end up writing an 8-page essay in my attempt to further engage in the conversation, lol!

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

Thank you, and I’d love to read what you have to say on the topic! This is something I’m forever learning about, so I’d definitely appreciate your contributions! :)

[@TheAtheopaganismChannel]

Hey, Sarah--I couldn't figure out another way to message you, so here goes. As you know, Yucca and I host THE WONDER podcast. We'd love to interview you about your channel, your doctoral project, etc. Please reply to let me know if you'd like to do that!

[@theskepticalwitch6611]

Oh wow thank you Mark! That would be amazing, I really appreciate you wanting to chat with me! (And sorry for taking so long to reply, I've been on a bit of a KZbin/social media mental health hiatus). I can send you a message on Facebook! :)

[@TheAtheopaganismChannel]

@@theskepticalwitch6611 Great! I look forward to hearing from you!

[@GODemon13]

Humanism was the only hope for mankind. Now we are all doomed.

[@1015SaturdayNight]

I'd never have followed this without my liberal arts degree LOL - anyway, thanks for this video!

[@buddypalomo]

Awesome description …love the non-anthropocentric view!!!

[@GaiatheSage]

lol languages and labels. reminds me of the chomsky-foucault debate and david foster wallace's this is water. posthumanism is to humanism as atheism is to theism. even if it's different it's really the same. why not relativism. you can totally be an agapic posthumanist misanthrope. omg language is so hilarious.

[@politiconvict3874]

I loved your video , however I see that you reduce everything to the view of it's not equal , it's racist , it's not considering the non human world , etc etc , therefore I can't follow it But are you consistent with that outlook ? Do you apply that same reasoning with everything? The problem with this view is that because of the nature of Antiquity and that framework in itself is : if we go to the core of any thought or belief there will be atrocities because the very nature of Human History is a nightmare , antiquity is a bloodbath and our oldest accounts in history are nightmarish wars It's a very negative and unhealthy way to view any subject and can be used to pretty much dismiss everything ever invented and I'm not being sarcastic Everything in this world if we go to the root we will find horror Here's an example , Gandi pretty much popularized peaceful protest , but he was a racist . Gandi did not like black people and never fought for their freedom, therefore peaceful protest is something I can't get behind Cars use gas which is destroying the planet and polluting the air and puts people before the non humn world so I can't get in a car The computer you made this video with , it's also adding to the destruction of the planet through energy companies destroying the planet and giving massive profits to corporations that buy the politicians and makes people suffer And so on and so on And as for Equality, it's a dystopian nightmare It doesn't exist anywhere for good reason I recommend reading Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. If you have read it that's great , if not , it's about a 15 minute audiobook or a very quick read I personally am a Theist but I usually don't discuss worldviews as it usually ends up a argument and can cost a lot of friendships and opportunities I still enjoyed the video though and I appreciate your perspective, it was interesting