This, of course, is not the only argument against the idea of a rule of love. Loving a person means wishing to make him happy. (This, by the way, was Thomas Aquinas’ definition of love). But of all political ideals, that of making the people happy is perhaps the most dangerous one. It leads invariably to the attempt to impose our scale of ‘higher’ values upon others, in order to make them realize what seems to us of greatest importance for their happiness; in order, as it were, to save their souls. It leads Utopianism and Romanticism. We all feel certain that everybody would be happy in the beautiful perfect community of our dreams. And no doubt, there would be heave on earth if we could all love one another. But, as I have said before, the attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell. It leads to intolerance. It leads to religious wars, and to the saving of souls through inquisition. And it is, I believe, based on a complete misunderstanding of our moral duties. It is our duty to help those that need our help; but it cannot be our duty to make others happy, since this does not depend on us, and since it would only too often mean intruding on the privacy of those towards whom we have such amiable intentions. The political demand for piecemeal as opposed to Utopian methods corresponds to the decision that the fight against suffering must be considered a duty, while the fight to care for the happiness of others must be considered a privilege confined to the close circle of friends. In their case, we may perhaps have a certain right to try to impose our scale of values—our preferences regarding music, for example (And we may even feel it our duty to open to them a world of values which, we trust, can so much contribute to their happiness.) This right of ours exists only if, and because, they can get rid of us; because our friendships can be ended. But the use of political means for imposing our scale of values upon others is a very different matter. Pain, suffering, injustice, and their prevention, these are the eternal problems of public morals, and ‘agenda’ of public policy (As Bentham would have said). The ‘higher’ values should very largely be considered as ‘non-agenda’ and should be left to the realm of laissez-faire. Thus we might say: help your enemies; assist those in distress, even if they hate you; but love only your friends.
‘Political systems, as much as practically possible, should allow human beings to develop their potential’. -Lyndon Storey
This statement is hardly controversial. You would struggle to find anyone who wanted to live in a world that was not, in principle, consistent with such an idea. Nonetheless, what follows from the acceptance of this proposition is a far cry from the political world we currently inhabit. The logical consequences of acknowledging human potential or Potentialism are carefully laid out in Lyndon Storey’s ‘Humanity or Sovereignty- A political roadmap for the 21st Century’. Storey is currently president of the Council of Australian Humanist Societies Australia and has a colorful bio that includes Bachelor’s Degrees in Arts and Law and a PhD thesis on the Chinese philosopher Mencius. He has worked as a barrister and a public servant, as well as teaching ‘Western Civilization’ at Liaoning University in China.
There are a few points of departure when starting an argument in political philosophy and the most common approaches throughout Western thought have been as follows;
- We are basically good- sometimes referred to as the noble savage –an original nature uncorrupted by civilization. This view is often associated with Jean Jacques Rousseau.
- We are basically bad- theologically referred to as original sin. This view was put forward by Thomas Hobbes in his landmark book ‘Leviathan’. Hobbes believed that people could only escape this hellish existence by surrendering their autonomy to a sovereign person or state.
- The blank slate or tabula rasa – this position is generally associated with John Locke and claims that the mixing bowl of nature arrives empty and society can freely add whichever ingredients it likes. If parents only adopted the right attitude and provided the right education, then a child, and thus society, could be moulded indefinitely.
Potentialism rejects all three of these approaches. It puts forward the case that instead of having no nature, or a fixed nature, we are, in fact, a mass of potentials. Each of us has the potential to be lazy or indifferent, the potential to eat too much or too little. The potential to let fear guide us or take a fearless approach, the potential to do good or the potential to do ill. As we go through life we seek to actualize many of these potentials whilst others remain unrealized. We now know that people vary in respect to their genes and vary in respect to their cultures. So, too, people vary in terms of their potentials, “We are not intrinsically anything, but potentially many things”.
There is one key potential that is universally shared by all of us, the potential to feel empathy towards others. This can be referred to as the moral potential. It excludes forms of psychopathy where a sense of empathy is damaged and the human being is rendered abnormal. This moral potential has often been referred to by other thinkers as a moral sense. It relates to a potential concern we naturally have for the wellbeing of other conscious creatures, and the subsequent moral acts involved with those concerns. It has nothing to do with morality as a series of fixed rules of conduct- like obligations to wear certain clothes, to eat certain foods, or to marry certain partners, as many religions commonly present morality. This sense of sympathy and justice can seek to maximize the wellbeing of others and to minimize their pain. Appeals to this potential have already extended beyond our own species as many now consider the 56 billion sentient farm animals sacrificed each year as simply unacceptable. Peter Singer, the Australian Philosopher of Ethics, refers to this as ‘extending the moral circle’. The moral potential contrasts with the moral sense insofar as it acknowledges the fact that this potential is very often neglected.
The strength of the moral potential idea, as distinct from the moral sense idea, is in its being both a more modest claim, and a more evidence based one. It is more modest in that the claim is not that we have a functioning moral sense, but through empathy, sympathy etc. we have the potential to develop ethical behaviors, such as care for those who are suffering; more evidence based in that all that is needed to support the claim is evidence of this potential, evidence of some degree of empathy and sympathy. Evidence of human cruelty and sadism may be evidence that we are not naturally good, and that we don’t have a moral sense, but it is not evidence that we don’t have this moral potential, just that it was not realized in a particular case. Our ethical framework does not need to be dependent on Jesus, or the dollar, in order for us to make moral sense of the world.
These differences make the position both intellectually stronger, and more inspiring. There is a possibility of ethical theory that does not need the supernatural to support it. There is no need to believe anything on insufficient evidence. One or more instances of bad behavior is not grounds for abandoning the theory. There is still hope based on our potential. The non-religious paths to ethics need to offer not just an assertion of the possibility of ethics, but a path to hope in the face of difficulties.
Cultivation of the moral potential is needed but there are no guarantees that such an undertaking will be instantly achievable. Even though there is strong evidence to suggest that societies improve once they develop the moral potential rather than when they do not, this development can never be a political demand. The best we can ask for is a political system in which as many people as possible are given enough opportunity to develop the moral potential. Social frameworks based on democracy and human rights offer people a better chance to develop their potential than political frameworks based on dictatorship and domination. All individual human beings need to be treated with basic respect and dignity as part of respecting their potential. State demands that people realize their potential is another, and less desirable thing, altogether. Perfection can be the enemy of the good.
We also need to consider epistemology (the study of knowledge). When it comes to knowledge the possibility of attaining absolute truth is a mirage. This does not mean we should abandon objective reality as some might claim. Far from it. Instead it means the formulation of our beliefs, hypotheses, theories and conjectures. Only in the sober light of day amidst public scrutiny does objectivity actually emerge and through this critical method we attempt to root out prejudice and error. When we find empirical evidence and reasons for supporting one view over another all we can really say is that we have the best approximation of the truth so far attained. If the evidence in favour of a moral potential is overwhelmingly strong we can therefore give reasonable support to the idea without saying anything absolutely. There is an abundance of evidence for the moral potential that can be found in a variety of fields, including social studies, anthropology, evolutionary biology and even economics, as well the spontaneous and natural sense of sympathy that we encounter within ourselves.
Befitting a thesis claiming applicability to humans, and not just people of one civilisation, Potentialism also goes outside western culture to find supporting evidence and sources. For instance, the Chinese philosopher Mencius, who more than two thousand years ago said:
“My reason for saying no man is devoid of a heart sensitive to the suffering of others is this. Suppose a man were, all of a sudden, to see a young child on the verge of falling into a well. He would certainly be moved to compassion, not because he wanted to get in the good graces of the parents, not because he wished to win the praise of his fellow villagers and friends, nor yet because he disliked the cry of the child. From this it can be seen that whoever is devoid of the heart of compassion is not human…”
Mencius’ “heart of compassion” is clearly a very similar concept to the moral potential. The concept is not a unique one, but has been pushed into the background by reliance on religion and/or “pure” reason. Potentialism makes a welcome call for us to also focus on the humanistic sources of ethics, our own potential for love and compassion. If these are not part of our own humanity why should we pursue them?
As we start to think about potential in terms of nation states other ideas soon begin to emerge. With the political landscape today divided into around two hundred and six sovereign states, citizens of these states usually identify with the nationality into which they were born. We possess a range of identities including; ethnicity, religion and nationality which tend to overlap. In principle, these identities need not be problematic, however, in practice they routinely are. Loyalty and obedience to strict identities above and beyond our common humanity have been the cause of much needless harm and suffering throughout the course of history. A country cannot claim to respect human potential while denying the rights of a certain class of people. What we often find is greater respect for the potential of a certain group, be it based on nationality, religion, ethnicity, or sex. However, according to Potentialism, respect for our human potential means, first and foremost, respect for our common humanity. If the potential of all human beings is not considered paramount then the political system is rendered illegitimate. This is the human legitimacy principle.
The logic of human Potentialism makes clear that a key remaining political challenge for the world is to develop a political system that respects the dignity of all human beings, not just those of fellow citizens or fellow believers. The uncompromising attack on the legitimacy of the current system of sovereign states is the most striking political reform program to emerge from this argument: the need to develop a political framework that respects our most important, and shared identity, our human identity, rather than deferring it to our national or religious identity, as so often happens in times of war and economic conflict, and more recently in terms of the failure to establish global co-operative action to address climate change.
Since the story of nation states developed in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, political nationalism has been adopted by almost all countries in the world. It is easy to forget that the idea of nation is a story and that the ability to create better or worse stories depends on our collective imagination or lack thereof. As Noah Harrari writes in his blockbuster book Sapiens,
“Ever since the Cognitive Revolution (approx. seventy thousand years ago), Sapiens have thus been living in a dual reality. On the one hand, the objective reality of rivers, trees and lions; and on the other hand, the imagined reality of gods, nations and corporations. As time went by, the imagined reality became ever more powerful, so that today the very survival of rivers, trees and lions depends on the grace of imagined entities such as the United States and Google.”
This point cannot be overstated. The ‘imagined realities’ that continue to disrupt humanity and shape our thinking include; religiously inspired intolerance, nationally inspired conflict and corporate inspired consumption/automation putting material wealth acquisition above all other values. These competing value systems have been gradually tearing apart the social and environmental fabric of society and no one country can be expected to address them on its own. The positive side to this conundrum is that it presents us with a unique opportunity to create international institutions and agreements that allow us to confront the dangers in unison. The Paris Climate accord is an example that serves to illustrate the point.
We can lay out some possible forms a legitimate international political system could take in practice. There is no insistence that it has to take any precise form, but must at least see a degree of commonality in human development policies; freedom of conscience and thought, government by consent, economic development etc. In other words, we might see a system with some overarching core principles, such as democracy and environmental protection, that would hold the international political system together. However, members would not necessarily have identical political systems and might realize those core foundations differently.
Instead of retreating to nationalism as a means of dealing with social and economic insecurity, now is the time to consider political systems that might appropriately scale to deal with the larger problems we face. What follows from accepting the idea of human potential is the possibility of developing a Human Union (HU). To find a concrete example of how this might work we can look to the European Union (EU), a political system that has moved beyond the power of sovereign states through gradual and steady progress. Although there are many faults to be found within the EU including an overemphasis on neoliberal politics and excessive protections for financial institutions, there is also much we can learn. Some have argued that the EU can only work because of the shared culture and history in Europe. Nevertheless, this is the very Europe that produced centuries of sectarian bloodshed culminating in mass genocide.
The EU currently requires a basic level of democracy and respect for human rights among its members and only allows membership status to countries within Europe. If the EU were to change its name to the Human Union at some stage it could allow any country that shared its respect for democracy and human rights to join. This may even have some flow on effects that encourage countries formerly in crisis to adopt new political principles and allow large numbers of refugees to return to their original homes under a Human Union. Potentialism provides a road map to another political future. A Human Union that is grounded on empirically universal characteristics that we all share, our common humanity and our human potentials.
Another universal that I think could further Potentialism is what I would call the objective potential— moral potential’s younger sibling. There are two worlds in which we exist. The way the world is and the way the world ought to be. The moral potential explains what exactly it is we appeal to when we reason about what matters, what is better, and what ought to be. In contrast, the objective potential relates to our potential to see the world as it is, to gain insight into the universe through curiosity and introspection. Science is more about a process of getting at facts than the facts themselves, and such a process can often be confronting at first. It expects us to discard previous ways of thinking after a collision with new reasons and facts. It took many centuries for people to warm to the idea that the sun doesn’t move around the earth and it may take even longer for others to accept that all forms of life, in fact, evolved. This power of orthodoxy to resist facts and counter-arguments is unfortunately much stronger than the potential for doubt and uncertainty.
The objective potential would include introspection because, like science with its objects within the cosmos, the art of meditation concentrates on one or more objects within the mind- the breath, sensations, thoughts, sounds or images, allowing adequate space for them to come and go. The idea of ‘beginners mind’ is emphasized in the Japanese tradition known as Zen and is a familiar spirit advocated by many great thinkers throughout the ages. To see objects in novel ways with an open mind. To seek out criticism and see trial and error as life’s humbling gift. This objective potential to know thyself and the cosmos is one other potential among many. If we throw off the weight of our current zeitgeist and see the world with an open mind many of the recommendations in this argument appear no more than the rational next steps we should take, if we want to base our decisions on evidence, reason, and supporting the best of the human potential.
The theory of Potentialism and its political consequences should give us much pause for thought. This rational and empirical moral framework is a very strong contender in what must be considered the 21st Century contest of values. It offers a program based on hope and empirical evidence to develop a path to political justice in the 21st century. Far from being at the End of History it appears we are still somewhat closer to the beginning.
The striking achievements of science and philosophy over the last half-millennium are marked by the continuous revision of humanity’s place in the cosmos. Heliocentrism was first conceived by the Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus, suggesting that the earth was not the centre of the universe. Almost two thousand years later this theory became grounded in empirical evidence thanks to astronomers such as Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. Three centuries later in 1859 came the theory of evolution. Darwin discovered that we were not the product of design but the result of millions of years of natural selection. In the 20th Century, psychology and modern cognitive science revealed that unconscious influences and automatic biological mechanisms play a far greater role in behaviour than imagined.
Fast forward to the 21st Century, and a new picture is beginning to emerge that echoes an idea first formulated by Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza. The original idea was known as conatus, which loosely translates as a thing’s innate striving/tendency to exist, and to optimize. Today, this notion is broadly referred to in biology as homeostasis. The general understanding of the term homeostasis relates to some optimal biological level—ideal body temperature, ideal levels of glucose in the bloodstream, ideal heart rate etc. When we encounter some severe physical stressor and must run for our lives, the body rapidly mobilizes energy, commonly known as the stress response. This is an attempt to re-establish homeostatic balance. Adrenaline and cortisol hormones are released, sympathetic (fight or flight) nervous system is activated, digestion and sex drive are supressed, and cognition is dramatically enhanced. This highly adaptive system works perfectly well for zebras running away from lions, but not so well for the frustrated human being stuck in a traffic jam on the way to an important meeting. Such seemingly harmless events often result in chronic hypertension. The curse of a modern life is no longer Spanish flu or the bubonic plague, but stress-related diseases such as diabetes, obesity, anxiety, and carotid heart disease.
Antonio Damasio, a Portuguese-American neuroscientist and currently David Dornsife Professor of Neuroscience, Psychology and Philosophy at the University of Southern California, advances a fundamental revision of the homeostatic concept in his new book, “The Strange Order of Things”. In this breathtaking journey he bravely attempts to unite the organic and cultural spheres. The ‘homeostatic imperative’, a term Damasio uses frequently, is a function that regulates the life processes of all organisms and expresses itself in the form of feelings and consciousness. As Damasio admits, these two terms are in fact inseparable. Human affect- the world of motivations, drives, emotions and feelings, advertise the homeostatic states within the organism, and can motivate, monitor, and negotiate life. Damasio speculates that these feeling states only occur in organisms with an intricate nervous system, and that nervous systems, especially the enteric nervous system (our guts) dates back to around five-hundred million years ago. There is compelling evidence that guts were in fact the original brain- enteric nervous systems have been found in animals such as hydra and echinoderms that do not have a central nervous system at all.
As Damasio questions the unique status we assume as a cultural and feeling species, we are given radical insight into just how prevalent moral and social characteristics are throughout the biological world. The human culture-making strategy is not original and borrows liberally from the life regulation of other creatures such as bacteria, as well as social insects- ants, wasps, bees, and termites. These organisms exhibit characteristics that foreshadow human culture and are also mediated by the homeostatic mechanism. This thrust, given enough time and complexity, allowed for conscious feelings and reasoning minds to emerge—the very distinctive human partnership that enables us to flourish.
Bacteria, the oldest known organism on earth, operate according to a four-billion year old algorithm able to ‘sense and respond’ to the world they inhabit. Work by Bonnie Basler and her team at Princeton University recently shed light on this ability of bacteria known as, ‘quorum sensing’. This is a striking capacity to organize and communicate chemically. We now know that bacteria can calculate group numbers when mounting a defence, join forces with non-kin, and even exclude selfish actors looking for a free-ride. These mindless automatic processes are achieved by the detection of certain molecular signatures and this ancient social and moral precursor is undoubtedly, as Damasio puts it, “magnificently strange.”
“One would be very foolish to reduce the sophistication of humanly developed moral rules and application of justice to the spontaneous behaviour of bacteria. We should not confuse the formulation and thoughtful application of a rule of law with the strategy schema used by bacteria when they end up joining forces with cooperative non-kin, the usual enemy, instead of kin, their usual friend….one would be equally foolish, however, not to recognize that simple bacteria have governed their lives for billions of years according to automatic schema that foreshadows several behaviours and ideas that humans have used in the construction of cultures.”
Damasio asserts that feelings contribute to the cultural process in three ways;
- As motives for intellectual creation– evaluating the homeostatic balance and identifying states of mind that are worth pursuing.
- As monitors to the success, or failure, of the solutions that cultural instruments and practices provide
- As negotiators, actively participating in the cultural process over time.
Over recent decades, pathways in the nervous system have been found to integrate the configuration of bodily states and subsequently announce those conditions in terms of feeling via the anterior insular cortex. This ever-present symphony of bodily-signals manifests itself sometimes subtly, sometimes abruptly, throughout an entire lifespan. This homeostatic imperative generates feelings that can move individuals to undertake projects that seek to minimize pain and suffering. The entire history of medicine, and the consolation of religious narratives, demonstrates this motive at work.
While mind can clearly influence the body, the body can likewise influence the mind because “they are merely two aspects of the very same being. If there is no distance between body and brain, if body and brain interact and form an organismic single unit, then feeling is not a perception of the body state in the conventional sense of the term. Here the duality of subject-object, of perceiver-perceived, breaks down. Relative to this part of the process, there is unity instead. Feeling is the mental aspect of that unity.”
Feelings and reason are in constant negotiation monitoring the effectiveness of strategies used to increase the pleasantness of life. There is a natural intelligence to this process that continually seeks to optimize itself. However, as Damasio makes abundantly clear, life cannot be moderated by routinely irrational and unreasonable feelings alone. History is rife with accounts of motivations, drives, and urges, that have caused incalculable and needless suffering for so much of humanity. Societies, where possible, continue to harness doubt and rational inquiry as tools that help guide evidence-based policy in contrast to leaders that appeal to authority or passion. The interplay between feelings and reason are quite apparent when we look to the U.N Declaration of Human Rights. Its universal commitment to the dignity and worth of each human being ultimately serves to secure something quite extraordinary- the possibility of maximizing the welfare of sentient beings, in the “moment-to-moment report on the state of life in the interior of an organism..”
“Feelings are not an independent fabrication of the brain. They are the result of a cooperative partnership of body and brain, interacting by way of free-ranging chemical molecules and nerve pathways. This particular and overlooked arrangement guarantees that feelings disturb what might otherwise be an indifferent mental flow. The source of feeling is life on the wire, balancing its act between flourishing and death. As a result, feelings are mental stirrings, troubling or glorious, gentle or intense.”
This moment to moment reporting shapes our thinking and shapes our culture at large. These reports are not predicated on material wealth alone and one can see states of contentment, and happiness, even in the most tragic of circumstances. Nevertheless, it is hardly surprising that the more open and prosperous a society is, the more scope and opportunity there are for exploring various feeling states and harnessing knowledge through education. The prodigious intellect of man, that is often held up with very little mention to the underlying feelings that made it possible, is a far cry from what the evidence now suggests. We did not descend directly from bacteria or social insects but it should be instructive to think that bacteria, devoid of brains or minds, can defend their territory, wage microscopic wars and even expel violators; industrious social insects can produce mega-cities, governments and a form of economy; and humans create universal moral injunctions like the golden rule, public squares for political and philosophical inquiry, indiscriminately murder other humans for their own nefarious gain, write poetry, and believe in all-seeing gods. The homeostatic imperative that is the glue and driving force behind all known lifeforms provides an elegant piece of a much larger puzzle. The contemplation of this imperative is just as awe-inspiring today as I’m sure it was to Spinoza many centuries ago.
Antonio Damasio- The Strange Order of Things: Life, Feeling, and the Making of Cultures
Furness, J. and Stebbing, M. (2017). The first brain: Species comparisons and evolutionary implications for the enteric and central nervous systems. Neurogastroenterology & Motility, 30(2), p.e13234.
(Bud) Craig, A. (2009). How do you feel — now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(1), pp.59-70.
Antonio Damasio- Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain
“Ultimately, happiness comes down to choosing between the discomfort of becoming aware of your mental afflictions and the discomfort of being ruled by them.”
― Robert Wright
In fortunate circumstances, one can find the capacity to reach beyond the confines of a narrowly defined identity and unleash the seed of intellectual enlightenment after years, even decades, in darkness. That this seed can grow at any point in time, with no prior interest in the sciences, history, art, philosophy, introspection and discourse, is a remarkable aspect of the human condition.
Humanism as a lifestyle, and community, offers people a unique opportunity to explore these realms and develop their potential. There is no need to set boundaries when considering meaningful ways to extend the Humanist community outreach. If we only focus on critiquing others attempts at social engagement (like humanist chaplaincy), then we miss the real point; what can humanists bring to the social table? We need to embrace those who seek ways to spark interest and invent spaces for building connection in the world, not discourage them. There are infinitely more pleasant ways to discharge such energy.
My main pre-occupations as a humanist revolve around mental health and biology, free thought-speech, and exploring the dimensions of human identity. When the private sphere can be safely navigated through meditation and education- then the chamber of one’s mind can gradually be understood. This understanding can open many doors and bolster confidence for those who wish to go on and explore the public sphere; with the voice of Pericles echoing down the ages, ‘Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics will not take an interest in you’.
Humanism has manifested its spirit in many quarters. In the East, a ninth-century Zen teacher by the name of Lin Chi is said to have once uttered the words, “If you meet the Buddha on the road—kill him”. In the West, The Royal Society used a comparably wise motto since the founding of the academy of science in 1660, ‘Nullius in verba’, roughly translated as- “take nobody’s word for it”. While the latter encourages us to falsify and test the diversity of facts we are drawn too, the former asks us to examine our moment to moment experience and discard our sectarian idols.
Take nullius in verba too far, however, and we arrive at Malcolm Robert’s recent misunderstanding of the empirical method. According to him, critical thinking means rejecting the evidence of NASA, and most other leading authorities on climate change. In contrast to this muddled thinking, the maxim in fact challenges us to seek evidence, adopt a healthy and rational scepticism, and most importantly, cultivate reasonableness in both the private and public spheres. Reasonableness, as defined by Karl Popper, is the spirit of, “I may be wrong, and you may be right, but by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth”.
Eastern meditative traditions also have their excesses. Examining the concepts such as the Japanese, ‘mushin no shin’ (Mind without mind), and the Chinese ‘Wu wei’ (Action without action), are intellectual points of departure that often lead to a journey of self-discovery. However, hard-nosed types often feel disappointed when representatives of the various spiritual camps stubbornly distinguish themselves based on the grandiose concepts they promote. The intended point frequently loses its flavour and instead we are served a bland and rotten excuse for a banquet. The actual intended recipe, as with most things of value, requires the ingredients of discipline and audacity – ‘Kill the Buddha -and find out for yourself’. This strategy of introspection and free thinking as a means of improving mental health, has serious merit, and can provide an effective method for understanding the universal experience of suffering. As Robert Wright says in his recent book ‘Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment’, “natural selection didn’t design your mind to see the world clearly; it designed your mind to have perceptions and beliefs that would help take care of your genes.”.
Seeing clearly sparks new interest in the world and new interest in the world makes us see clearly; the effect becomes the cause. Humanist volunteers and community support groups have a unique opportunity to spark such interest, and so I was delighted to recently take on the role of assistant editor of the Humanist Society. To join the ‘second wave’ of Humanism that Australia is currently undergoing and incorporate my own vision of a movement that helps empower those wrestling with mental and spiritual afflictions.
Providing environments to listen and argue reasonably, help develop social connections that bind us to a shared vision of humanity, based on freedom and compassion. Providing guidance for spiritual development and truth seeking, is the blueprint for a thriving community. So long as dogma and irrationality are not permitted to imprison our minds, and superstition rejected, then, evidence, reason, and understanding, still have the power to open hearts and minds and as Kant petitioned, ‘sapere aude’ – “dare us to know”.
Karl Popper’s recipe for the humanist is still unsurpassed and a new wave of humanism with these sentiments in mind, can only succeed.
‘The emphasis upon the dualism of facts and decisions determines also our attitude towards such ideas as ‘progress’. If we think that history progresses, or that we are bound to progress, then we commit the same mistake as those who believe that history has a meaning that can be discovered in it and need not be given to it. For to progress is to move towards some kind of end, towards an end which exists for us as human beings.
‘History’ cannot do that; only we, the human individuals, can do it; we can do it by defending and strengthening those democratic institutions upon which freedom, and with it progress, depends. And we shall do it much better as we become more fully aware of the fact that progress rests with us, with our watchfulness, with our efforts, with the clarity of our conception of our ends, and with the realism of their choice. Instead of posing as prophets we must become the makers of our fate. We must learn to do things as well as we can, and to look out for our mistakes. And when we have dropped the idea that the history of power will be our judge, when we have given up worrying whether or not history will justify us, then one day perhaps we may succeed in getting power under control.’
Heterodox Academy has produced a new book based on John Stuart Mill’s famous essay On Liberty to make it accessible for the 21st century. Here’s what makes the edition special:
1) It’s just the second chapter (out of 5), because that chapter gives the best arguments ever made for the importance of free speech and viewpoint diversity;
2) We have reduced that chapter by 50% to remove repetitions and historical references that would be obscure today, producing a very readable 7000 word essay;
3) Editors Richard Reeves (a biographer of Mill) and Jon Haidt (a social psychologist) have written a brief introduction to link Mill and his time to the issues of our time, and
4) Artist Dave Cicirelli has created 16 gorgeous original illustrations that amplify the power of Mill’s metaphors and arguments.
All Minus One is ideal for use in college courses, advanced high school classes, or in any organization in which people would benefit from productive disagreement.