Humans for Humanism

In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.”

There’s nothing wrong with an opinion. I do, however, believe that some opinions are more substantiated than others and those are the opinions that should be considered. There is a higher morality to be sought after, based on objectivity and reason and those who believe otherwise are post-modern assholes who do nothing except say that everything is subjective and that there is no truth or common humanity. I say that there is a truth and the search for which is the only thing that keeps humanity alive.

There are several takes on “post-modernism”:

1. The Right-Wing Version: Justice and progress are impossible to achieve.
2. The Liberal Left: There is no truth and all is mere opinion. Everything is equal, and therefore limitless tolerance is needed.
3. Passivity: Focus on own immediate interests and nothing else. Indifference and submission.

The bottom line is that, whether or not the idea of post-modernism has been perverted, our environment today does in fact advocate at least a mixture of the versions listed above. No matter what label we put on it, the reality still exists — that, ultimately, society is slanted towards the following:

1. The idea that there is no truth
2. No ultimate understanding is possible
3. Only important realities are imposed
4. Acceptance and adaptation to a chaotic world
5. Politicians manage the decline in morality

What shapes human behavior? The right-wingers say that it’s all in one’s genes. The left-wingers say that it’s all about the environment. Both of these wings ignore the human capacity to understand, act, and change things…which leads to the idea of multi-culturalism.

Multi-culturalism holds that:

1.  People think, feel, act in systematically different ways reflecting race, gender class, sexual preference, age, handicap, etc.
2. Behavior and thoughts also reflect differences in social environment. And last but not least….
3. There is no common human experience.
4. (The fourth multi-cultural pitch will be discussed after the following explanation of common human experience)

Is there a common human nature? Yes.

• We, as humans, are aware of the idea of a universe.
• We can think about systems such as the nation-state, an engine, a solar system, and the idea of a supreme, supernatural being …a.k.a. God. (And yes, this includes athiests, since one has to first be aware of an idea before he can oppose it)
• For all other species, the universe is only what they experience through their senses
• We can think about the past and a future
• Humans are also capable of thinking about the “self” as an object.

The last two examples of why there is a common human nature then lead to the idea that life can become an object of thought. “What’s its purpose?” we ask, and “What does it mean?” This, then, leads to yet another exclusive “human” capacity: the concept of religion.

(and the final focal point of multi-culturalism…)
4. No real understanding is possible between different kinds of people.

The primary goal of multi-culturalism is tolerance and respect for diversity is regarded as having the highest value. But what should we tolerate? Supposedly, people are to accept and respect every group’s values, attitudes, and beliefs.

The problem with this…

The dominant culture in the west reflects the following: white, male, affluent, heterosexual. This reflection can lead to a loss of the country’s history and meaningful ideas. How? Here’s how…

Let’s use an example of two people that meet the criterion of “western culture.”

Jefferson Davis versus Abraham Lincoln

Using the dominant view of western culture, one can compare someone like Jefferson Davis to Abraham Lincoln. Both individuals fit the description of the “western culture.” Jefferson Davis was a plantation owner and promoted slavery. He was a ruralist, not interested in the progress of mankind. Davis also held extreme racist beliefs. And then there is Lincoln, who still meets the dominant description of the westerner.

Lincoln, unlike Davis, promoted modern agriculture and an urban society. Lincoln was also very different in that he was flexible and tolerant of more superficial human traits. Lincoln also believed that, instead of reinventing the wheel, we should try to improve life by creating something new. He pushed for free labor, rather than slavery, thus allowing for a better life (both economic and social) for those of every race.

Based on this example, multi-culturalism would regard these two individuals as being “equals” because of their “cultural likeness.” They’re obviously not equals, except for on the most superficial level. Shouldn’t “culture” be determined by something more meaningful such as the its ideas and beliefs, rather than kinds of food and dance?

“I’ve had enough of someone else’s propaganda,” I had written to these friends. “I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” Malcolm X