Category Archives: Rationalism

Reading Sir Sayyids Stance on Islams Conformity with Rationalism and Science

ByDr Tauseef Ahmad Parray

SIR Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) was undoubtedly a multi-dimensional personality: a pioneer of Islamic modernism, educational and political activist, theologian, journalist, and the chief organizer of 19th century Islamic reformist thought in the Sub-Continent. Recognized as the first Indian Muslim to felt the need, and working, for a fresh orientation of Islam, Sir Sayyid called for a bold new theology (jadid ilm al-kalam) or reinterpretation of Islam. His contribution mainly falls in the educational and socio-religious reformation.

Back in 1960s, Aziz Ahmad (in his Islamic Modernism in India and Pakistan) argued that Sir Sayyids achievements as a religious thinker in the context of Islamic modernism can be recognized as tackling with two broadly distinct problems: (i) the rationalization of the minutiae of non-essential dogma and (ii) the liberalization of Islamic law. Regarding latter, Sir Sayyids work is so dynamic and constructive that it made tremendous impression on modern Islam in general and on Indian Islam in particular. Similarly, Wilfred Cantwell Smith (in his Modern Islam in India) remarked that the ideas which Sir Sayyid was putting forth, and the religion he fashioned, was explicitly and in fact an Islam thoroughly compatible with progress, liberal and humanitarian morality, and its scientific rationalism. This is how Sir Sayyids thought and contribution, as a socio-religious reformer, was perceived in the 20th century.

Coming straight to the 21st century, Dr Farhan Ahmad Nizami (in his lengthy Forward to Prof. A. R. Kidwais edited volume, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Muslim Renaissance Man of India) states that Sir Sayyid was, one of the architects of a Muslim intellectual renaissance in India hardly imaginable in the mid-nineteenth century, for his efforts and contribution as a scholar, social reformer, theologian, political thinker, journalist, legislator, cultural historian, pioneer in comparative religious studies, advocate for mass education, and in many other fields. He, and his legacy, remains relevant even today for many reasons, and one of the major reasons, for Nizami, is that the issues he faced 150 years ago are, for Muslim communities everywhere, as current as they were then, and perhaps even more intractable.

These statements are self-evident regarding the impact, influence and relevance of Sir Sayyids scientific and rational thought, both in past and present. In this context and keeping in view the birth anniversay of this great reformer, this article presents an assessment of Sir Sayyids scientific thought, by highlighting his stance on Islams conformity with Rationality and Rationalism nd his views on Religion-Science compatibility and how his scholarship has been received by the Mulsim and non-Muslims.

Sir Sayyids Stance on the Religion-Science Compatibility: Is Islam compatible with science? Or is there conformity between reason and revelation? This was one of the fundamental issues faced, and addressed, by the Muslim modernists of 19th century, including Sir Sayyid. Besides demythologizing the Quranic interpretation and calls for renewed ijtihad, one of the crucial and significant themes in the writings of Sir Sayyid was to characterize congruence in between the Sacred Text and science and reason. A staunch believer of Religion-Science compatibility, he considered natural law and divine law to be the same, because, he believed, revelation cannot be opposed to scientific actuality and that an agreement between Gods word and work is essential. His object was to remove apparent contradictions between Islamic teachings and sciencehence his oft-repeated thesis: Islam is nature and nature is Islam. He, thus, proposed a rule in case of perceived conict between a law of nature and the Quranic verse: the Work (nature) qualies the Word (verse) of God; i.e., the Quran as the word of God cannot be in conict and contradiction with Nature as the Work of God: There is no matter in the Quran disagreeing with the laws of nature.

He puts forth this thesis as: it would be highly irrational to maintain that Gods work and Gods word are different and unrelated to one another. All beings, including humans, are Gods work, and religion is His word; the two cannot be in conflict. Thus, he concluded that Islam is in full accordance with nature because Islam is nature and nature is Islam

Furthermore, Sir Sayyid argued that if we keep in view the principles deducible from the Quran itself, we shall find that there is no contradiction between the modern sciences, on the one hand, and the Quran and Islam, on the other.

He also believed that in secular matters where Islam is silent, Muslims should imitate the western practices. He believed in religious pluralism and considered it absurd to believe that Gods prophets appeared only in Arabia and Palestine to reform a handful of Arabs and Jews, and that other peoples were denied knowledge of the divine. He may be considered, as Riffat Hassan argues (in her chapter on South Asia in Shireen T. Hunters Reformist Voices in Islam) as a pioneer in Inter-faith Dialogue as he worked for greater understanding and goodwill and harmony among Muslim sects and between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Thus, the ideas put forth by him, and the religion fashioned by him, was, to use Smiths terminology, in fact an Islam thoroughly compatible with progress and the [Western] scientific rationalism. It will not be an exaggeration to call Sir Sayyid as being, undoubtedly, the most rational in his approach and ideas.

Sir Sayyids Rational Interpretation of Islam and its Scholarly Reception: Various writings, both in past and present, have emphasized and appreciated different areas of Sir Sayyids thought and activity, social, political, religious, educational and culturalin which he made reforms. But almost all agree that his prime achievement was a revival of Muslim morale and prestige in British India, and that to him goes the credit for having re-established the dynamism of the Muslims in India as a socio-political force. Sir Sayyids socio-religious reforms, of various sorts, which he initiated and introduced, have been highly appreciated, though sometimes criticized (especially by some Ulama) as well. In this context, below is presented a brief summary of the views, praise and appreciation of some of the scholars and writers (both Muslims and non-Muslims), revealing both the importance as well as relevance of Sir Sayyids rational interpretation of Islam and his reformist thought.

For example, Aziz Ahmad regards his efforts as a dynamic and constructive achievement that made a tremendous impression on modern Islam. In the words of Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, Sir Sayyid was one of the towering personalities in the galaxy of the 19th century Muslims reformers, who zealously worked to bring about a change in the Muslim thought and behavior and in fact contributed many essential elements to the development of modern Indian society. For Trara Chand, he brought a revolution in Muslim thought and Bashir Ahmad Dar (in his Religious Thought of Sayyid Ahmad Khan) considers Sir Sayyid as the first man in modern India to realize the necessity for a new interpretation of Islam that was liberal, modern, and progressive.

Similarly, Sir Sayyids reformist efforts, as summarized by FrancisnRobinson (in his chapter on South Asia in 5th volume of The New Cambridge History of Islam), were aimed to fashion Muslims who were able to operate with success in the world of Western knowledge and British power. In his opinion, Sayyid Ahmads achievement was more than just the fashioning of Islamic modernism and creating the key institution of Muslim higher education; he inspired innovation across a broad front designed to help Muslims embrace modernity, which came to be called the Aligarh movement.

It is an undeniable fact that a significant and systematic activity introduced by modernists like Sir Sayyid was an emphasis on the need to reinterpret Islamic law through dynamic legal tools (like Ijtihad) and through rational approach.

To cut a long story short, it is not an exaggeration to say that Sir Sayyid was a true heir of Shah Waliullahs reformist legacy and one of the pioneers of Islamic modernism. He emphasised, in high terms, the socio-religious and intellectual reform and is truly recognized as the initiator of a revolution in Muslim thought, who called for a new theology to respond to the modern challenges and change. Emphasizing a rationalist approach to Islam and to religious matters, Sir Sayyid held the view that there is no contradiction between Word of God (Quran) and Work of God (Nature). In keeping with his rationalist attitude, he underscored the importance of Ijtihad and a rational interpretation of Islamic religious sources and thought, for he believed that both of these were necessary to make Islam acceptable to the new age, and that Muslims would not understand Islam and others would not appreciate it unless it was presented rationally. He, thus, proved as the pioneering representative of Islamic modernism in South Asia who presented a new orientation of Islam and reacted to the modern age.

Note: Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khans birth anniversary is on the 17th of October, Monday

Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now

Be Part of Quality Journalism

Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast.

CLICK FOR DETAILS

Originally posted here:

Word of God and Work of God - Kashmir Observer

Philosophical school of thought

Humanism is a life stance and worldview, that emphasizes a secular way of life and is centered on human flourishing. It prioritizes rationalism and considers human beings as the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry.

Historically, traces of humanism can be spotted since the ancient times. In ancient Greece and the roman world, philosophers made the first steps to comprehend and explain the world without divine intervention, and introduced novel thoughts relevant to modern humanism such as rationalism. Their ideas were translated and worked upon by Muslim scholars while Europe was at its Middle Ages. During Italian Renaissance, ancient works inspired scholars in various Italian cities, giving rise to a movement now called Renaissance humanism. With Enlightenment, humanistic values were re-enforced by the advances in science and technology, giving confidence to humans in their exploration of the world. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in the late 19th century offed a new blow to the religious explanation of the world boosting humanistic tendencies even more. By the early 20th century, organizations solely dedicated to humanism flourished in Europe and the United States, and have since expanded all over the globe.

Modern day humanism stands for human freedom, autonomy, and progress. It views humanity as responsible for the promotion and development of individuals, espouses the equal and inherent dignity of all human beings, and emphasizes a concern for humans in relation to the world. Starting in the 20th century, humanist movements have typically been non-religious and aligned with secularism. Most frequently, humanism refers to a nontheistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. Humanists tend to advocate for human rights, free speech, progressive policies, and democracy. Those with a humanist worldview maintain religion is not a precondition of morality, and object to excessive religious entanglement with education and the state. Humans, according to humanists, can shape their own values, and live good and meaningful lives.

Contemporary humanist organizations work under the umbrella of Humanist International. Well know humanist associations are the Humanists UK and the American Humanist Association. While very few people identify as humanists, many more rely on logic and science, not holy scriptures, to build up their worldview and make daily decisions about their lives, indicating the extent of penetration of humanistic ideas to society.

The word "humanism" derives from the Latin concept humanitas, which was first used by Cicero to describe values related to liberal education, a sense which survives in the modern university concept of the "humanities": the arts, philosophy, history, literature, and related disciplines. The word reappeared during the Italian Renaissance as umanista and entered the English language in the 16th century. The word "humanist" was used to describe a group of students of classical literature and those advocating for education based on it. In the early 19th century, the term Humanismus was used in Germany with several meanings and from there, it re-entered the English language with two distinct denotations; one an academic term linked to the study of classic literature while the other, more popular use signified a non-religious approach to life, implying an antithesis to theism.

It is probable Bavarian theologian Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer coined the term humanismus to describe the new classical curriculum he planned to offer in German secondary schools. Soon, other scholars such as Georg Voigt and Jacob Burckhardt adopted the term. In the 20th century, the word was further refined, acquiring its contemporary meaning of a naturalistic approach to life, focusing on the well-being and freedom of humans.

Defining humanism reveals the controversy surrounding humanism. Humanism champions human freedom and dignity but it has been linked to oppression through it being a byproduct of modernity. In 1974, philosopher Sidney Hook defined humanism and humanists by negative characteristics. According to Hook, humanists are opposed to the imposition of one culture in some civilizations, do not belong to a church or established religion, do not support dictatorships, do not justify violence for social reforms or are more loyal to an organization than their abstract values. Hook also said humanists support the elimination of hunger and improvements to health, housing, and education. Also writing in 1974, humanist philosopher H. J. Blackham said humanism is a concept that focuses on improving the social conditions of humanity, increasing the autonomy and dignity of all humans. In 1999, Jeaneane D. Fowler said the definition of humanism should include a rejection of divinity, and an emphasis on human well-being and freedom. She also comments there is a lack of a shared belief system or doctrine but, in general, humanists are aiming for happiness and self-fulfillment.

In 2015, prominent humanist Andrew Copson attempted to define humanism as follows:

According to the International Humanist and Ethical Union:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

Dictionaries define humanism as a worldview or life stance. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, humanism is "... a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason".

Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers were the first Western philosophers to attempt to explain the world in terms of human reason and natural law without relying on myth, tradition, or religion. Thales of Miletus led this demythologization in the 6th century BCE along with the rest of the Milesian school. Thales' pupils Anaximander and Anaximenes said nature is available to be studied separately from the supernatural realm. Another pre-Socratic philosopher, Protagoras, who lived in Athens c.440 BCE, put forward some fundamental humanist ideas. Only some fragments of his work survive. He made one of the first agnostic statements; according to one fragment: "About the gods I am able to know neither that they exist nor that they do not exist nor of what kind they are in form: for many things prevent me for knowing this, its obscurity and the brevity of man's life". (80B4 DK) According to scholar Mauro Bonazzi, this was an attempt by Protagoras to distance religion from politics, and a key concept in his radical humanism. Protagoras also said: "man is the measure of all things". Philosopher Friedrich Schiller defended Protagoras against charges of relativism, noting he used the word "man" to refer to humankind rather than separate individuals. Contemporary humanism does not endorse moral relativism.

Socrates spoke of the need to "know thyself"; his thought changed the focus of the contemporary philosophy from nature to humans and their well-being. Socrates, a theist who was executed for atheism, investigated the nature of morality by reasoning. Aristotle (384322 BCE) taught rationalism and a system of ethics based on human nature that also parallels humanist thought. In the 3rd century BCE, Epicurus formed an influential human-centered philosophy that focused on achieving eudaimonia. Epicureans continued Democritus' atomist theorya materialistic theory that suggests the fundamental unit of the universe was an indivisible atom. Human happiness, living well, friendship, and the avoidance of excesses were the key ingredients of Epicurean philosophy that flourished in and beyond the post-Hellenic world.

Ancient Greek literature, which was translated into Arabic during the Abbasid Caliphate during the 8th and 9th centuries, influenced Islamic currents with rationalism. Many medieval Muslim thinkers pursued humanistic, rational, and scientific discourses in their search for knowledge, meaning, and values. A wide range of Islamic writings on love, poetry, history, and philosophical theology show medieval Islamic thought was open to the humanistic ideas of individualism, occasional secularism, skepticism, liberalism, and free speech; schools were established at Baghdad, Basra and Isfahan. A prominent example is philosopher Al-Jubba'i, whose support of individual freedom is highlighted by his quote: "God created humans as free. The one who can make good decisions about his faith is the person himself. Nobody is allowed to decide for you how to think. It depends on your human beliefs". Other philosophers also advanced rational discourse in Islamic literature; among them were Ahmad Miskawayh (9401030), Ibn Sina (Avicenna) (9801037), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (11261198). Some, including Nasr Abu Zayd and AnNaim, supported the separation of religious and state instructions.

The intellectual movement that was later known as "renaissance humanism" first appeared in Italy. This movement has greatly influenced western culture up until the modern day. Italian scholars discovered Ancient Greek thought, particularly that of Aristotle, through Arabic translations from Africa and Spain. Renaissance humanism emerged in Italy along with the flourishment of literature and the arts in the thirteenth century Italy. One of the first centers of the Greek literature revival was Padua, where Lovato Lovati and others studied ancient texts and wrote new literary works. Other centers were Verona, Naples, and Avignon. Petrarch, who is often referred to as the father of humanism, is a significant figure. Petrarch was raised in Avignon; he was inclined toward education at a very early age and studied alongside his father, who was also well educated. Petrarch's enthusiasm for ancient texts led him to discover manuscripts that were influential for the history of the Renaissance, such as Cicero's Pro Archia and Pomponius Mela's De chorographia. Petrarch wrote poems such as Canzoniere and De viris illustribus in Latin, in which he described humanist ideas; his love for antiquity was evident. His most significant contribution was a list of books he created outlining the four major categories or disciplines (rhetoric, moral philosophy, poetry, and grammar), that would be the base of humanistic studies (studia humanitatis) that were widely adopted for educational purposes. His list relied heavily on ancient writers, especially Cicero.

Revival of classicist authors continued after Petrarch's death. Florence chancellor and humanist Coluccio Salutati made his city a prominent bastion of humanist values. Members of his circle were other notable humanists such as Poggio Bracciolini, Niccol Niccoli and Leonardo Bruni, who rediscovered, translated and popularized ancient texts. Humanists succeeded in setting the principles of education. Vittorino da Feltre and Guarino Veronese created schools based on humanistic principles, their curriculum was widely adopted and by the sixteenth century, humanistic paideia was the dominant outlook of pre-university education. Parallel with advances in education, humanists in renaissance made progress in other fields, as in philosophy, mathematics and religion. In philosophy, Angelo Poliziano, Nicholas of Cusa , Marsilio Ficino contributed furthering the understanding of ancient classical philosophers and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola undermined the dominance of Aristotelian philosophy with revitalizing Sextus Empiricus skepticism. Religion was not untouched with the increased interest of humanistic paideia, Pope Nicholas V initiated the translation of Hebrew and Greek biblical and other texts to Latin.

Humanist values spread outside of Italy through of books and people. Individuals moving to Italy to study, returned to their homelands and spread humanistic messages. Printing houses dedicated in ancient text established in Venice, Basel and Paris. By the end of fifteenth century, the center of humanism had shifted from Italy to northern Europe, with Erasmus of Rotterdam being the leading humanist scholar. The most profound and longest-lasting effect of Renaissance humanism was their education curriculum and methods. Humanists insisted on the importance of classical literature in providing intellectual discipline, moral standards, and a civilized taste for the elitean educational approach that reached the contemporary era.

During the Age of Enlightenment, humanistic ideas resurfaced, this time further from religion and classical literature. Science, reason, and intellectualism advanced, and the mind replaced God as the means with which to understand the world. Divinity was no longer dictating human morals, and humanistic values (such as tolerance and opposition to slavery) started to take shape. Life-changing technological discoveries allowed ordinary people to face religion with a new morality and greater confidence about humankind and its abilities. New philosophical, social, and political ideas appeared. Some thinkers rejected theism outright and various currents were formed; atheism, deism, and hostility to organized religion. Notably during the Enlightenment, Baruch Spinoza redefined God as signifying the totality of nature; Spinoza was accused of atheism but remained silent on the matter. Naturalism was also advanced by prominent Encyclopdistes. Baron d'Holbach wrote the polemic System of Nature, claiming religion is built on fear and helped tyrants through the ages. Diderot and Helvetius also combined their materialism with sharp, political critique.

Also during the Enlightenment, the abstract conception of humankind started forminga critical juncture for the construction of humanist philosophy. Previous appeals to "Men" now shifted towards "Man"; this is evident in political documents like The Social Contract (1762) of Rousseau, in which he says "Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains". Likewise, Thomas Paine's Rights of Man uses the singular form of the word, revealing a universal conception of Man. In parallel, Baconian empiricismthough not humanism per sepaved the way for Thomas Hobbes's materialism.

Scholar J. Brent Crosson notes that, while it is a wide held belief that the birth of humanism was solely a European affair, the fact was that intellectual thought from other continents such as Africa and Asia contributed significantly as well. He also notes that during enlightenment, the universal Man did not encompass all humans but was shaped by gender and race. He thinks that the shift from man to human is a process that started during enlightenment and is still ongoing.Also, Crosson noted that enlightenment, especially in Britain during scientific revolution, produce not only the notion of universal man and an optimism that reason will prevail over religious superstitions, but also gave birth to pseudoscientific ideas such as race that shaped European history. He gives the paradigm of Africa; Africa was a contribution to knowledge until renaissance, but was disregarded afterwards.

French philosopher Auguste Comte (17981857) introduced the idea of a "religion of humanity"which is sometimes attributed to Thomas Painean atheist cult based on some humanistic tenets that had some prominent members but soon declined. It was nonetheless influential during the 19th century, and its humanism and rejection of supernaturalism are echoed in the works of later authors such as Oscar Wilde, George Holyoakewho coined the word secularismGeorge Eliot, mile Zola, and E. S. Beesly, further re-enforcing and popularizing the concept of humankind. Paine's The Age of Reason along with the 19th-century Biblical criticism of the German Hegelians David Strauss and Ludwig Feuerbachboth of whom discuss the importance of freedomcreated forms of humanism.

Advances in science and philosophy further eroded religious belief. Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection offered naturalists an explanation for the plurality of species, weakening the previously convincing teleological argument for the existence of God. Darwin's theory also implied that humans are just another species, contradicting the traditional theological view of humans as something more than just animals. Philosophers Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Karl Marx attacked religion on several grounds, and theologians David Strauss and Julius Wellhausen questioned the Bible. In parallel, utilitarianism was developed in Britain through the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism, a moral philosophy, centers its attention on human happiness, aiming to eliminate human and animal pain and, in doing so, giving no attention to supernatural phenomena. In Europe and the US, along with philosophical critique of theistic beliefs, large parts of society abandoned or distanced themselves from religion. Ethical societies were formed, leading to the contemporary humanist movement. Advances of previous centuries made it easy for humanism and other non-religious attitudes to flourish in the Western world. Even in liberal countries, however, discrimination against non-believers still exists. In the ongoing social debate, humanists are constant supporters of civil liberties. In many parts of the world, not practicing the faith of the region can result in persecution, prosecution, and death.

The rise of rationalism and the scientific method was followed in the late 19th century in Britain by the birth of many rationalist and ethical associations such as the National Secular Society, the Ethical Union, and the Rationalist Press Association. In the 20th century, humanism was further promoted by the work of philosophers such as A. J. Ayer, Antony Flew, and Bertrand Russell, whose advocacy of atheism in Why I Am Not a Christian further popularized humanist ideas. In 1963, the British Humanist Association evolved out of the Ethical Union and merged with many smaller ethical and rationalist groups. Elsewhere in Europe, humanist organizations also flourished. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Humanist Alliance gained a wide base of support after World War II. In Norway, the Norwegian Humanist Association also gained popular support.

In the US, humanism evolved with the aid of significant figures of the Unitarian Church. Humanist magazines such as The New Humanist, which published the Humanist Manifesto I in 1933, appeared. The American Ethical Union emerged from newly founded, small, ethicist societies. The American Humanist Association (AHA) was established in 1941 and became as popular as some of its European counterparts. The AHA spread to all states, and some prominent public figures such as Isaac Asimov, John Dewey, Erich Fromm, Paul Kurtz, Carl Sagan, and Gene Roddenberry became members. Humanist organizations from all continents have created the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), which is now known as Humanists International and promotes the humanist agenda via the United Nations organizations UNESCO and UNICEF.

Early 20th century naturalists, who viewed their humanism as a religion and participated in church-like congregations, used the term "religious humanism". Religious humanism appeared mostly in the US and is now rarely practiced. The American Humanist Association arose from religious humanism. The same term has also been used by religious groups such as the Quakers to describe themselves but the term is misapplied in those cases.

The term "Renaissance humanism" was later given to a tradition of cultural and educational reform engaged in by civic and ecclesiastical chancellors, book collectors, educators, and writers who, by the late 15th century, began to be referred to as umanisti ("humanists"). It developed during the 14th and early 15th centuries. While modern humanism's roots can be traced to the Renaissance, "Renaissance humanism" differs from it vastly.

Other terms using "humanism" in their name include:

The core elements of humanistic thought are education, reason, individualism, and a strong belief in the universal human nature. Atheism, which is common among humanists, is a byproduct. Immanuel Kant provided the underpinning of the humanist narrative. His theory of critical philosophy laid down the foundations the world of knowledge, defending rationalism and grounding it, along with his anthropology (his study of psychology, ethics, and human nature) to the empirical world. He also supported the idea of moral autonomy of the individual, which was fundamental to his philosophy, deducing that morality is the product of the way we live, it is not a preset of fixed values. Instead of a universalistic ethic code, Kant suggested a universalistic procedure that shapes the various ethics that differ among various group of people.[63]

Humanists believe education plays a fundamental role in forming human nature. Traditional ideas in Western countries have given the mind priority over the body; humanists see this as a false dichotomy and emphasize the unity of brain and body. Humanists support sex education to help people to understand and express their feelings; physical education to promote health, and moral education by sympathy and tolerance. Some consider the culture of examinations, which does not let children focus on their passions and does not promote deeper thinking, unhelpful. Humanists are opposed to religious education in schools, mostly because they are opposed to indoctrination. A common counter-argument is that parents have the right to bring up their children in the way they want; humanists reply parents do not own their children and hence do not have such a right. They argue children should be raised to make their own choices, respecting their autonomy.

Humanism is strongly based on reason. For humanists, humans are reasonable beings but reasoning and the scientific method are the means of finding truth. Science and reason have gained widespread approval due to their tremendous successes in various fields. Appeals to irrationality and invocation of supernatural phenomena have failed to coherently explain the world. One form of irrational thinking is adducing hidden agencies to explain natural phenomena or diseases; humanists are skeptical of these kinds of explanations.

The hallmark of humanist philosophy is human autonomy. For people to be autonomous, their beliefs and actions must be the result of their own reasoning. For humanists, autonomy dignifies each individualwithout autonomy, people are reduced to being less than humans. They also consider human essence to be universal, irrespective of race or social status, diminishing the importance of collective identities and signifying the importance of individuals.

Humanism has a secular approach to morality. Humanism rejects supernatural sources of morality, because of their inconsistencies and because it rejects extra-natural phenomena in general. The popular belief religion is linked to morality is highlighted by Dostoevsky's axiom in The Brothers Karamazov; "if God does not exist, then everything is permitted" and its suggestion chaos will ensue if religious belief disappears. According to humanists, if people act only out of fear, blind adherence to a dogma, or expectation of a reward, it is a selfish motivation rather than morality.

For humanists, theism is an obstacle to morality rather than a precondition for it. Humanists point to the subjectivity of the supposed objective divine commands by referring to the Euthyphro dilemma; does God command something because it is good or is something good because God commands it? If goodness is independent from God, humans can reach goodness without religion but relativism is invited if God creates goodness. The interpretation of holy scriptures almost always includes human reasoning; interpreters reach contradictory theories, indicating morality is based on human reasoning.

The humanist attitude towards morality has changed through the centuries. During the modern era, starting in the 18th century, humanists were oriented towards an objective and universalist stance on ethics. Utilitarian philosophy, which aims to increase human happiness and decrease human suffering, and Kantian ethicsacting only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal lawshaped the humanist moral narrative until the early 20th century. Because the concepts of free will and reason are not based on scientific naturalism, their influence on humanists remained in the early 20th century but was reduced by social progressiveness and egalitarianism.

Contemporary humanism considers morality a natural phenomenon that evolves with and around society. Morality is seen as a tool aiming for the flourishing of human rather than a set of doctrines. John R. Shook wrote;

Humanism is that ethical philosophy which regards humans and their moralities naturalistically; understands the proper functioning of morality and culture for their contributions to human flourishing in this life; regards every human being as equally worthy of moral treatment and protection; respects how people are highly social and need communal encouragement and support; promotes the capacity of intelligence for evaluating and modifying morality and wider cultural ways; privileges individual dignity and autonomy over the necessary but subordinate goals of cultural or political groups; and encourages ethical ideals promoting human intelligence and flourishing that all cultures can reasonably support.

Along with the social changes nations faced in the late 20th century, humanist ethics evolved to be a constant voice supporting secularism, civil rights, personal autonomy, religious toleration, multiculturalism, and cosmopolitanism.

Humanist philosopher Brian Ellis argues for a social humanist theory of morality called "social contractual utilitarianism", which is built on Hume's naturalism and empathy, Aristotelian virtue theory, and Kant's idealism. According to Ellis, morality should aim for eudaimonia, an Aristotelian concept that combines a satisfying life with virtue and happiness by improving societies on a global scale. Humanist Andrew Copson takes a consequentialist and utilitarian approach to morality. According to Copson, humanist ethical traits all aim at human welfare. Philosopher Stephen Law emphasizes certain principles of humanist ethics; respect for personal moral autonomy, rejection of god-given moral commands, an aim for human well-being, and "emphasiz[ing] the role of reason in making moral judgements".[84]

Humanism is a naturalistic philosophyit rejects gods, angels, immortal souls, and all supernatural phenomena. The universe is natural and can be studied by science. While opposition to the various forms of theism might come from many philosophical or historical domains, the most convincing argument in terms of public opinion is naturalism. Historical arguments fail to convince the public because historical research is often open to interpretation. For similar reasons, large parts of the population are unconvinced by arguments based on aesthetics (classical literature touches human souls more than holy scriptures) or ethics (religion's history on slavery, gay rights, racism). Driven by the successes of science and technology, naturalistic arguments gain prominence in public opinion.

On the other hand, traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short. The ontological argument (roughly, that God exists because we can think of him) lacks empirical evidence, and seemingly lacks understanding of reality. The cosmological argument (God as the necessary first cause) also doesn't prove God's existence since other causes, or prime movers (physical entities, mass, energy, or something else) might have been the cause of the universe. The teleological argument (or argument from design) has been eliminated by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. However, the failure of rational arguments to prove God's existence does not prove God's non-existence. A more popular cause of religious belief is personal experiencewhich is also problematic, because personal experiences are vague and subject to interpretation, and wishful thinking might also lead the way to desired conclusions.

While humanism was founded as antithetic to religious establishments, religious views are not totally incompatible with humanism. Many deists, for example (such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltaire, Thomas Paine), had views resonating with a humanistic approach to lifesince (for deists) God does not interfere with our daily life or give commands, they can espouse a humanistic perspective. Also, many humanists have an anthropological interest in religionshow they evolved, matured, affect morality, and other features of the human condition.

In the 19th century, the problem of the meaning of life arose, along with the decline of religion and its accompanied teleology, puzzling both society and philosophers. Unlike religions, humanism does not have a definite view on the meaning of life. Humanists commonly say people create rather than discover meaning. While many philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche wrote on the meaning of life in a godless world, the work of Albert Camus has echoed and shaped humanism. In The Myth of Sisyphus, the absurd hero Sisyphus is destined to push a heavy rock up to a hill; the rock slips back and he must repeat the task.

Personal humanist interpretations of the meaning of life vary from the pursuit of happiness without recklessness and excesses to participation in human history and connection with loved ones, living animals, and plants.[a] Some answers are not far from those of religious discourse if the appeal to divinity is overlooked.[96] According to humanist professor Peter Derks, the features that contribute to the meaning of life are: having a purpose in life that is morally worthy, positively evaluating oneself, having an understanding of one's environment, being seen and understood by others, the ability to connect emotionally with others, and a desire to have a meaning in life. Humanist professor Anthony B. Pinn places the meaning of life in the quest of what he calls "complex subjectivity". Pinn, who is advocating for a non-theistic, humanistic religion inspired by African cultures, says seeking the never-reaching meaning of life contributes to well-being. Pinn argues rituals and ceremonies, which are times for reflection, provide an opportunity to assess the meaning of life, improving well-being.

Well-being and the living of a good life have been at the center of humanist reflection. For humanists, well-being is intertwined with values that arise from the meaning of life that each human sets for him or herself. Humanist philosopher Bertrand Russell described the good life as one "inspired by love, guided by knowledge". A.C. Grayling noted a good life "is the life that feels meaningful and fulfilling to the one living it". Despite the platitudes, humanism does not have a doctrine of good life nor offers any certainties; each person should decide for herself what constitutes a good life. For humanists, it is vital the option for a meaningful and fulfilling life is open to all members of society.

Practically, humanism advocates for democracy, and champions human rights and progressive policies. Humanism emphasizes individual freedom, the open society, and secularism. For humanism, freedom of the individual is a priority and any restriction placed upon it due to communal living should be well justified; as a result, humanism leans towards liberalism. Humanists believe society should include everyone, independent of race, religion, and sexual orientation. Humanism defends secularism, which they deem fairer in comparison with theocracy; they argue secularism prevents discrimination, protects the plurality of modern societies, and preserves personal autonomy. Humanism is at odds with conservatism, which relies on longstanding traditions, and tries to preserve Christian values: elements such as xenophobia, bigotry, and animal cruelty are sometimes also part of Christian values. Humanism also opposes the irrationality of nationalism and totalitarianism, whether these be part of fascism or MarxistLeninist communism.

In political theory, contemporary humanism is sculptured by two main axons. The first is more individualistic, and the second inclines to collectivism. The trajectory of these two axons leads to libertarianism and socialism respectively, but a whole range of various combinations exist. Individualistic humanists often have a philosophical perspective of humanism, in the political arena are inclined to libertarianism and in ethics tend to follow a scientistic approach. Those who lean to collectivism, have a more applied view of humanism, they lean towards socialism and have a humanitarian approach in ethics. The second group has some connections with the thought of young Marx, especially his anthropological views rejecting his political practices. A factor that holds many humanists away from the libertarian view, is the consequences they feel it bears. Libertarianism is tied to neoliberalism and capitalistic society that is conceived to be inhumane.

Historically, humanism has been a part of both major 20th-century ideological currentsliberalism and Marxism. Early 19th-century socialism was connected to humanism. In the twentieth century, a humanistic interpretation of Marxism focused on Marx's early writings, viewing Marxism not as a "scientific socialism" but as a philosophical critique aimed at the overcoming of "alienation". In the US, liberalism is associated mostly with humanistic principles, which is distinct from the European use of the same word, which has economical connotations. In the Post-War era, Jean-Paul Sartre and other French existentialists advocated for humanism, tying it to socialism while trying to stay neutral during the Cold War.

Humanist counseling is the applied psychology inspired by humanism, which is one of the major currents of counseling. There are various approaches such as discussion and critical thinking, replying to existential anxiety, and focusing on social and political dimensions of problems. Humanist counseling focuses on respecting the worldview of clients and placing it in the correct cultural context. The approach emphasizes an individual's inherent drive towards self-actualization and creativity. It also recognizes the importance of moral questions about the way one should interact with people according to one's worldview. This is examined using a process of dialogue. Generally, humanist counseling aspires to help people to live a good, fulfilling, and meaningful life by continual interpretation and reflection. Humanist counseling originated in the post-World War II Netherlands.

Humanistic counseling, a different term from humanist counseling, is based on the works of psychologists Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. It introduced a positive, humanistic psychology in response to what they viewed as the over-pessimistic view of psychoanalysis in the early 1960s. Other sources include the philosophies of existentialism and phenomenology.

Some modern counselling organisations have humanist origins, like the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy in the UK, which was founded by Harold Blackham, which he developed alongside the British Humanist Association's Humanist Counselling Service.[118] Modern-day humanist pastoral care in the UK and the Netherlands also draws on elements of humanistic psychology.

In Africa, contemporary humanism has been shaped from its colonial history and the introduction of Christianity and Islam. African philosophers focused on the interdependency among humans and among humans and nature. Pre-colonial oral traditions reflecting African views on human and human good, were eliminated by the conquer of European powers. Christianity and Islam advanced and many intra-African atrocities took place. Even so, Africans never abandoned the ideas of human value and the mutual interdependence of humans, which are core features of African humanism. This idea was advanced by philosophers such as Kwasi Wiredu and Jean-Godefroy Bidima. Wiredu emphased the need of human interaction for human to become what he is, and projected his thought to the need for democracy. Bidima added that the interaction should be enduringly since history and humans are constantly evolving. Socialist philosopher Lopold Sdar Senghor, Africans were naturally leaning towards humanism (and socialism), not because of its scientific or epistemological basis, but because of their intuition.

It is a wide-held view, that in middle East, due to the dominance of Islam, humanistic values found a hostile environment and were unable to flourish. Even though, scholar Khurram Hussain identifies some traits among early Islam world which he thinks they resonate with humanism. He notes that Islam unified a diverse population and provided political, epistemological and social solutions to the then fragmented Arab world. Also, Hussain argues that there is a form of humanism within the Islamic anthropology. To support his argument, he notes various examples (i.e. the lack of "original sin") indicating that in Islamic theology, human is a free moral agent. He also points to the thought of Islamic scholars as Ibn al-Arab and al-Jl that placed human in the centre of the universe, a place held for God in Christian traditions. Khurram Hussain also notes the Arab Spring of 2011 reviled that humanistic values (as democracy, freedom, fairness) are popular in Middle East and are not inheritable incompatible from Islam.

In East Asia, Confucianism's core ideas are humanistic. The philosophy of Confucius (551479 BCE), which eventually became the basis of the state ideology of successive Chinese dynasties and nearby polities in East Asia, contains several humanistic traits, placing a high value on human life, and discounting mysticism and superstition, including speculations on ghosts and an afterlife. Confucianism is considered a religious form of humanism because supernatural phenomena such as Heaven (tian)which supposedly guides the worldhave a place in it. In the Analects of Confucius, humanist features are apparent; respectfulness, reasonableness, kindness, and enthusiasm for learning. A fundamental teaching of Confucius was that a person could achieve chntzu (the quality of being noble, just, or kind) through education. Without religious appeals, Confucius advised people to act according to an axiom that is the negative mirror of the Western golden rule: "Is there one word that one can act upon throughout the course of one's life?" According to Confucius; "Reciprocity [shu]what you would not want for yourself, do not do to others". (Analects 15:23) After Confucius' death, his disciple Mencius (371289 BCE) centered his philosophies on secular, humanistic concerns like the nature of good governance and the role of education rather than ideas founded on the state or folk religions of the time. Early Taoism and Buddhism also include humanistic characteristics.

Societies in China, Japan and Korea were shaped by the prevalence of humanistic Confucianism. Other humanistic currents of thought in East Asia, reflecting humanistic ideas are Daoism and Buddhism.

In the United States, constitution was shaped by humanistic ideas endorsed as part of the Enlightenment of the first presidents of the United States, but did not go far enough to tackle gender and race inequality issues. Black communities experiencing injustice leaned towards atheism in the 20th Century. Lately, many black organizations rejecting theism or having a humanistic related agenda are loosely connected within the Black Lives Matter movement. Black literature reveals the quest for freedom and justice in a community often subordinated to white dominance.

Humanism in Latin America is hard to detect mainly because of the dominance of Catholicism and Protestantism. European positivism had influenced the thought of scholars and political leaders in Latin America during the 19th century but its influences waved at the next century. In recent years, humanist organizations have multiplied in Latin America.

In Europe, various currents of 19th century though as freethinkers, ethicists, atheists and rationalists have merged to form the contemporary humanist movement. Various national organizations founded the European Humanist Federation (EHF) in 1991, affirming their strong support of secularism. All humanistic organizations strongly promote a naturalistic world view, scientific approach, individualism and solidarity but they vary in terms of their practice. One line is that they should focus to meet the needs of nonreligious peoples or their members, the other one is pursuing activism in order to bring social change. These two main patterns in European humanism, that coexist within humanist organizations often collude with each other.

Humanists demographic data are sparse. Scholar Yasmin Trejo examined the results of a Pew Research Center's Religious Landscape Study, that was released in 2014. Trejo did not use self-identification as a method to measure humanists, but combined the answers of 2 particular questions: "Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?" (she picked those answering "no") and "when it comes to questions of right or wrong, which of the following do you look to most for guidance?" (picking answers "scientific information" and "philosophy and reason"). Trejo finds that most humanists identify as atheist or agnostics (37% and 18%), 29% as "nothing in particular", while 16% of humanists identify as religious (following religious traditions). She also found that most humanists (80%) were raised having a religious background. 6 out of 10 humanists are married to non-religious spouses, while one in four humanists are married to a Christian. There is a gender divide among Humanists, most of them being males (67%) Trejo suggests that this can be explained by the fact that more atheists are males, while women are not easily drifted away from religion because of socialization, community influence and stereotypes. Other findings is the high education level of most humanists (higher than general population) that indicates a higher socioeconomic status. Finally, the overwhelming population of humanists is non-Hispanic Whites; Trejo's explanations is that minority groups are usually very religious.

Humanist organizations exist in several countries. Humanists International is a global organization.Humanists UK (formerly the British Humanist Association) and the American Humanist Association are two of the oldest humanist organizations.

London-based Humanists UK has around 28,000 members and a budget of over 1 million (2015 figures) to cover operational costs. Its membership includes some high-profile people such as Richard Dawkins, Brian Cox, Salman Rushdie, Polly Toynbee, and Stephen Fry, who are mostly known for their participation in public debate, promoting reason, science and secularism, and objecting to state funding for faith-based events or institutes. Humanists UK organizes and conducts non-religious ceremonies for weddings, namings, coming of age, and funerals. According to Stephen Law, ceremonies and rituals exist in our culture because they help humans express emotions rather than having a magical effect on the participants.

The American Humanist Association was formed in 1941 from previous humanist associations. Its journal The Humanist is the continuation of a previous publication The Humanist Bulletin. In 1953, the AHA established the "Humanist of the Year" award to honor individuals who promote science. A few decades later, it became a well-recognized organization, initiating progressive campaigns for abortion rights and opposing discriminatory policies, resulted in it becoming a target of the religious right by the 1980s. High-profile members of academia and public figures have published work in The Humanist, and joined and lead the AHA.

Criticism of humanism focuses on its adherence to human rights, which some critics have further claimed are "Western". Critics claim humanist values are becoming a tool of Western moral dominance, which is a form of neo-colonialism leading to oppression and a lack of ethical diversity. Other critics argue humanism is an oppressive philosophy because it is not free from the biases of the white, heterosexual males who shaped it.

Anthropology professor Talal Asad sees humanism as a project of modernity and a secularized continuation of Western Christian theology. In Asad's view, just as the Catholic Church passed the Christian doctrine of love to Africa and Asia while assisting in the enslavement of large parts of their population, humanist values have at times been a pretext for Western countries to expand their influence to other parts of the world to humanize "barbarians". Asad has also argued humanism is not a purely secular phenomenon but takes from Christianity the idea of the essence of humanity. Asad is not optimistic Western humanisms can incorporate other humanistic traditions such as those from India and China without subsuming and ultimately eliminating them.

Sociology professor Didier Fassin sees humanism's focus on empathy and compassion rather than goodness and justice as a problem. According to Fassin, humanism originated in the Christian tradition, particularly the Parable of the Good Samaritan, in which empathy is universalized. Fassin also claims humanism's central essence, the sanctity of human life, is a religious victory hidden in a secular wrapper.

History professor Samuel Moyn attacks humanism for its advocacy of human rights. According to Moyn, in the 1960s, human rights were a declaration of anti-colonial struggle but during the 1970s, they were transformed into a utopian vision, replacing the failing utopias of the 20th century. The humanist underpinning of human rights transforms them into a moral tool that is impractical and ultimately non-political. He also finds a commonality between humanism and the Catholic discourse on human dignity.

Antihumanism is the rejection of humanism on the ground it is a pre-scientific ideology. This argument developed during the 19th and 20th centuries in parallel with the advancement of humanism. Prominent thinkers questioned the metaphysics of humanism and the human nature of its concept of freedom. Nietzsche, while departing from a humanistic, pro-Enlightenment viewpoint, criticized humanism for illusions on a number of topics, especially the nature of truth. For him, objective truth is an anthropomorphic illusion and humanism is meaningless. Nietzsche also argued replacing theism with reason, science, and truth is nothing but replacing one religion with another.

According to Karl Marx, humanism is a bourgeois project that attempts to present itself as radical but is not. After the atrocities of World War II, questions about human nature and the concept of humanity were renewed. During the Cold War, influential Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser introduced the term "theoretical antihumanism" to attack both humanism and socialist currents that leaned towards humanism, eschewing more structural and formal interpretations of Marx. According to Althusser, Marx's early writings resonate with the humanistic idealism of Hegel, Kant, and Feuerbach but Marx took a radical turn towards scientific socialism in 1845, rejecting concepts such as the essence of man. Other antihumanists such as Martin Heidegger and Michel Foucault attacked the notion of humanity using psychoanalysis, Marxism, and linguistic theory.

See original here:

Humanism - Wikipedia

This write-up is in continuation to what has previously been written about the post-renaissance humanistic-individualism. I intend to base this writeup on what has been argued in The Crisis of the Modern World, a book written by Rene Guenon wherein the author states that the modern Western civilisation, due to its exclusive materialistic-rationalism, is bound to fall.

He argues that the Western civilisation is based upon so many faulty foundations of which individualism is the most prominent and dangerous one. Individualism, which we have tried to understand in one of the previous issues of this series is the characteristic feature of the materialistic renaissance humanism.

Actually, humanism and individualism are merely different names of the same thing with an anti-traditional outlook which lies at the root of modernism which has now overrun the whole world through the profane outlook of the Western education.

This writeup constitutes the sum and substance of what Rene Guenons has argued in great detail. While only the articulation and presentation are mine, some notes have also been added from various other sources.

The modern world is abnormal in character as it is founded on a purely negative principle absence of principle that there is no superhuman principle. Hence it is the individualism which is becoming the decisive cause of the present decline of the West because it is the mainspring for the development of only the lowest possibilities of mankind which develop only when it is assumed that there is no God, and which can only expand freely if every superhuman element be absent, since they, as a matter of fact, stand at the opposite sides of all spirituality and genuine intellectuality. This view makes the modern world a sort of a huge ugly building.

Individualism in the first place is the negation of intellectual intuition which is essentially a very important source of knowledge. Intellectual intuition is metaphysical knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception, and individualism essentially negates metaphysic things.

Due to its aversion to anything superhuman, what individualism understands as metaphysic is nothing but rational structures or imaginative hypotheses, purely individual conceptions, most of which, belong to physics or nature.

The problems of individualism in research and scholarship can be gauged by the fact that individuality by its nature demands originality which means fame and renown lie in putting your name to a thing i.e., it is exclusively your own creation.

Hence the desire to be original, even if truth should have to be sacrificed to this originality, means to invent a new error than by repeating a truth which has already been expressed by others for in fact, a true idea cannot be new, because truth is not the product of human mind; it exists independently of us and all we have to do is to get to know it. therefore, whatever is out of it is mere error. Although this form of individualism is most apparent in philosophers, it is to be found also in modern scholars and artists.

If seen deeply, even Protestantism was a form of individualism against the Catholic tradition. Although this general statement needs some explanation which may be made in some other writeup, lets understand here one important thing about Protestantism, as this is what the modernist hermeneutics intend to do even with the traditional understanding of the Qurn.

In one way Protestantism denied the authority of the organisation of the qualified to interpret legitimately the religious tradition of the West and in its place claimed to set up free criticism, that is to say interpretations resulting from private judgement, even of the ignorant and the incompetent, and based exclusively on the exercise of human reason.

View post:

[Renaissance, Science and God: Paradox of Modern Western EducationVII] Individualism and Decline of the West - Greater Kashmir

Exciting Puranic and Siddhantic Cosmology Conference By Brahmatirtha Das, Executive Director-Bhaktivedanta Institute for Higher Studies | Oct 17, 2022

ISKCON, Chowpatty, in academic collaboration with the Bhaktivedanta Institute for Higher Studies in Gainesville, Florida (BIHS) and the Bhaktivedanta Research Center in Mumbai (BRC), will be hosting an international hybrid conference at the Govardhan EcoVillage (GEV) just north of Mumbai, November 4 6, 2022, entitled, Puranic and Siddhantic Cosmology: Within an Experiential Mathematical Framework.

For people trained in the modern sciences, Vedic knowledge offers many concepts that may appear incomprehensible, or even contradictory. Partly in response, this conference aims to examine cosmological descriptions offered in time-honored Puric and Jyoti texts (Siddhntas) identified with the Vedic tradition, as more than a collection of seemingly esoteric metaphysical perspectives. This conference also aims to be the first in a series of seminars fostering a continuous dialogue that proactively engages Vedic considerations of natural philosophy while avoiding indulgence in either excessive religious dogma or scientific rationalism. Such discourse aims to encourage an appreciation of how the cosmological descriptions found in the Puric and Jyoti traditions can help enhance a grander sense of reality underlying ordinary conditional experience.

The conference details and updates are available at http://bihsmumbai.com/ and registration is open for all interested participants.

Note: Registrations will be confirmed on payment of Rs.1500/-. For an overnight stay, one may book his own accommodations at fom@ecovillage.org.in, Contact numbers: +91 9653458578, 9699373724, Office timings: 8:00 am to 7:00 pm OR drop a mail to bihs@iskconchowpatty.com

Visit link:

Exciting Puranic and Siddhantic Cosmology Conference | ISKCON News - ISKCON News

The red revolution which fought against the dynasties and dictatorship now has the same visage.

In todays world where people want more freedom and happiness in their lives, communism has its fence before them. It is communist China that has shown the world how much it can be cruel. China imposed an over-strict lockdown at the time of COVID leaving Chinese people inaccessible to basic human rights. The irresponsible attack on the pro-democracy people of Hong Kong by the communist police is another example of limitless others.

Communism means social disconnection: The new age popular social media are banned in China. Chinese people are forcefully barred from expressing their lives to the world under the communist regime. In the name of communism, China has only one-party rule and the same choice to its people. A lighted dark of the 21st century. A huge 1.4 billion people are in a choiceless oppressive State. There is no happiness index, no criminal records, and no poverty data- all are scripted by the communist party. The error is its economy works as per capitalism. The party needs money with unlimited power. Expansionism comes lastly and vastly in its rule book to downplay rationalism over a narrow nationalism. It is the only way to divert its peoples attention from oppression.

Interesting, Russia is in a hybrid communist state. It counts itself as a democracy but Putin is the only ruler. Moreover, Russia is in a transition to become a strong eastern democracy in future.

Communism in West: West the selfish mad guy. The West never gives a permanent platform to anybody with different interests. West means self-interest, and self-interest means West. The only good thing is they truly want a free and happy society. Undoubtedly, the USA in the chair and Europe is its blind follower. So, they simply promote democracy as its soft power to influence the whole world. They want to shape the world as per their comfort zone. It will help people all over the world, because, again, it has freedom and happiness in its core.

The West has the biggest media and its reach all over the world. Communist people are using the very same means to secretly spread communist propaganda. The Communist community uses democracy to propagate but bars it for others in its own land. In India, Chinese government officials publish pro-communism articles in leading newspapers. But, on the other hand, the communist party put a ban on Indian and western news media in China.

West, the big boss USA know all of these. Then why is the West allowing it? It goes against the spirit of democracy?

USA, the clever power is using these communist people just to control the rising power like India as its internal politics is very much vulnerable. Western media influences Indian politics and the USA controls India with Pakistan.

Basically, USA; west using anti-India forces to manage India and allowing communist people to write against India. The West, the USA never allow communism in its land. Once the USAs need is over, the communist ideology will shrink in the West. It will be a Communism of Errors in West.

India needs to maintain its non-alignment policy. The success of self-reliant movement can give India an extra mileage to stand strong and take unbiased decisions.All the pro-democracy people ought to stand by India in this changing world order. Indias rise is the rise of Democracy. Indias emergence is the emersion of International Equality.

See the rest here:

How red voracity will be used and thrown in West: The Communism of errors - MyVoice

In Words Mean Things, we unpack weighty words whose meanings have been sacrificed to hot takes.

In the few weeks since the Queen of England died, discourse around the British monarchy has included calling her the queen of decolonization because her reign happened to oversee former colonies decolonizing. Holding Queen Elizabeth personally responsible for colonialism when her reign oversaw basically the entirety of decolonization is certainly a take, as one Twitter user said.

Almost at the same time, the newly christened Kartavyapath (formerly Rajpath in the national capital) was hailed as a sign of India decolonizing from the legacy of British rulers.

Take another Tweet in response to someone asking why younger feminists have begun to believe in astrology and tarot: Science is a colonial construct. Astrology, tarot, voodoo were outlawed, feminized and ridiculed as unreal and unnatural by the Christian church during the middle ages, along with divorce and homosexuality. Decolonize your minds. Believe in the stars again.

We seem to have reached a stage of decolonization discourse where the word is being used to defend a colonizer, which begs the question: does this word even mean anything anymore?

The short answer: it should. Decolonization is important for sociology without any import to its name, theres no way to succinctly describe the political and cultural upheavals that formerly colonized societies go through to heal from the violence of colonialism.

Some reports suggest that the word was first coined by a German economist Moritz Julius Bonn in the early 1900s, describing newly independent territories achieving self-governance. Over time, the word gained powerful currency in anti-colonial struggles. Frantz Fanon, an Algerian revolutionary and psychiatrist, looked at decolonization as a way of dismantling hierarchical ways of thinking and (violently) ousting settlers from places they hold dominion over. In India, decolonization has had a complicated history, with nationalist leaders using it to perpetuate homogenizing narratives of who and what India is, while anti-caste revolutionaries saw decolonization as intertwined with de-Brahminization.

Related on The Swaddle:

Why We Need to ReExamine Brownness as an Identity Marker

Decolonization can mean a variety of things to a variety of people. In common vocabulary, it marks the end of colonial rule. To postcolonialist academics, it is a process of challenging (Western) colonialist discourses. When taken simplistically, it can mean the rejection of Western approaches and/or methodologies of scholarship, science, history and politics, notes one anti-caste critic of the terms loosely defined meaning today.

The word picking up steam on social media especially on Twitter in the wake of social justice movements has made it a compelling buzzword. It has just the right amount of revolutionary oomph and, at the same time, an uncomplicated call to action. Its appeal is undeniable, and it certainly is freeing to reclaim identity and culture by rejecting another. But here is where things get complicated. Take for instance when a travel blogger began using the word to support the Citizen Amendment Act (2019), calling it an act of decolonization. Her argument was that it is a legislation thats fundamentally decolonial in nature as it restores India back to its rightful inhabitants a dogwhistle to imply that Muslims dont belong to India. Slowly, the words malleability allowed right-wing ideologues to use it to justify defining who an insider is, and who is outside.

A strange confluence of academic gatekeeping, Internet social justice culture, and nationalism has led to the words distortion. Take another example of nationalist figures reclaiming Indian culture by extolling indic science: making claims like the Hindu god Ganesha undergoing the first head transplant or Ravanas flying chariot being the first example of aerodynamics in ancient India. Its a rhetoric that, in trying to inculcate a Hindu nationalist pride, denounces science as Western and, importantly, colonial.

Decolonization, then, became a way to uncritically dismiss rationality as a western or colonial construct even as rationalism remains one of the most important tenets of anti-caste philosophy, as espoused by the Phules. It signals how the word can mask oppression within a nation, even championing said oppression in the name of reclaiming a culture.

In blandly celebrating the renaming of colonial signifiers and simultaneously upholding pseudoscience, superstition, and religious dogma as indigenous we might be doing the opposite of decolonizing. Were orientalizing. Thats another word for another day, but the TL;DR of it is that (according to scholar Edward Said) knowledge of the East isnt based on fact but one thats made up by a Eurocentric gaze. In this context, it essentially means that we still see ourselves how the West may see us, but we mistake it for our own, authentic identity. Actually decolonizing, then, would require pausing to ask the more fundamental questions: who, from whom, and why?

If we dont, we stand to lose an essential word to articulate not just a past, but a future itself for people for whom colonization still dictates the course of their lives which is to say, almost everyone. If decolonizing is a rhetorical tool to bring sarees back into vogue or glorify an ancient past that was violent and oppressive to many, it stops being a tool to undo structures of power, hierarchy, and a psychological inferiority complex.

See the rest here:

Words Mean Things: 'Decolonization' - The Swaddle

Political chaos, the skyrocketing cost of living - and now the fracking row in Lancashire is the latest addition to an increasingly long list of issues rocking the country.

It was thrust back into the spotlight last month in a U-turn on former government policy which had overturned a ban ont he controversial technology within days of new Prime Minister Liz Truss stepping through the doors of No. 10. The temporary 2019 rulling followed quakes in the area close to shale gas wells in Preston New Road, near Blackpool.

Now Liz Truss has pledged to put spades in the ground to boost the UKs energy security, many in West Lancs and on the Fylde Coast are fearful of the repercussions.

READ MORE: Dad's horror as autistic son, 3, escapes Blackburn nursery before crossing busy road

The government has cited Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine and the need for energy security as reasons behind the move. Business and energy secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg dismissed concerns around fracking as hysteria'.

He has claimed current rules that fracking should stop for tremors over 0.5 in magnitude are too strict.

So with all this in mind, LancsLive has turned the clock back to take a look at fracking, and why it's so controversial in Lancashire.

The first tremors to be felt in Lancashire were quakes near Blackpool with magnitudes of 1.5 and 2.3 in 2011. The first, a 2.3 magnitude quake centred on Poulton-le-Fylde in April 2011, and was not conclusively linked by the British Geological Survey at the time to fracking. The BGS said at the time: "Any process that injects pressurised water into rocks at depth will cause the rock to fracture and possibly produce earthquakes. It is well known that injection of water or other fluids during the oil extraction and geothermal engineering, such as shale gas, processes can result in earthquake activity."

A 1.5 magnitude earthquake followed in May 2011. Cuadrilla Resources, which was carrying out fracking at Preese Hall, Weeton, said at the time it had suspended operations while it looked at information from the British Geological Survey before deciding whether it was safe to continue. The then-Cuadrilla Resources chief executive Mark Miller said, after the May tremor: "We take our responsibilities very seriously and that is why we have stopped fracking operations to share information and consult with the relevant authorities and other experts. We expect that this analysis and subsequent consultation will take a number of weeks to conclude and we will decide on appropriate actions after that."

Lancashire County Council refused permission for Cuadrilla to drill for shale gas at two sites in Lancashire in June 2015, Preston New Road in Little Plumpton near Blackpool and Roseacre Wood, a village 15 kilometres east of Blackpool. But their decision over the Preston New Road site was overturned by the then Communities Secretary Sajid Javid on appeal from Cuadrilla in 2016.

Cuadrilla repeatedly had to stop operations in 2018, under Britain's traffic light regulation system, which immediately suspends work if seismic activity of magnitude 0.5 or above is detected, according to The Express newspaper in 2019.

Do you think fracking is a good idea? Let us know what you think in the comments below

In 2019, Blackpool had the dubious accolade of becoming the UKs earthquake hotspot. The area was said to have experienced 135 earthquakes that year, according to information from the British Geological Survey, which was was more than anywhere else in the UK, and in addition to 57 more in 2018.

One of the earth tremors measured 2.9 on the Richter scale, causing property damage and prompting an investigation by regulators. The tremor was recorded at around 08:30 BST on August 26, with Cuadrilla saying it was investigating but no fracking was being carried out at the time. One resident said: Just felt serious earthquake in Marton, Blackpool, about 08.30 hrs.. The bed and house shook for a couple of seconds. Never experienced anything like that before. Another added: 8:31 this morning. Bed and wardrobe literally shaking."

It was the third in less than a week, with another earthquake two days previously, with a magnitude of 2.1 at the Little Plumpton well, and another one measuring 1.6 magnitude three days prior to that. Tremors were reportedly felt in Blackpool, Lytham, St Annes, Wesham and surrounding rural areas during the August 24 one, with claims that residents witnessed houses shaking, books falling off shelves, widespread property damage and people being awoken from sleep from the noise and impact.

Cuadrilla, which operated the Preston New Road site, said after the earthquake on August 24 that 'minor ground movements of this level are expected'. A spokesperson for Cuadrilla said: We can confirm that a micro seismic event measuring 2.1ML (local magnitude) on the Richter scale occured at Preston New Road. This lasted for around one second and resulted in ground motion less than 1.5 mm/s. Hydraulic fracturing was not taking place at the time. Minor ground movements of this level are to be expected. Whilst this event has been felt by people on our site and some local households, it is well below anything that can cause harm or damage to anyone or their property.

Resident Carol Kerr moved to Little Plumpton 18 years ago and wanted a comfortable, semi-rural life. When the fracking started, she said she felt earth shake whilst walking around her estate, something which she described as terrifying. She told Lancs Live last month: "You move to an area like this to retire. I mean, I've lived in St. Annes for years, I had a business there, and you move here to retire, and have it comfortable. But now, nobody's gonna want to buy your property. I'm getting to an age where I'd really like to downsize now and nobody's going to want to move here."

Frack Free Lancashire said after the largest earthquake: This morning, there was an earthquake measuring 2.9ML. This is the largest ever recorded in the area and human-induced from fracking operations. It was felt in Wesham, Kirkham, Lytham, Wrea Green, Blackpool and as far away as Chorley. " They continued: "We call upon the government to halt fracking operations immediately. Lancashire voted against this at every level of local government but national government over-ruled and have repeatedly given us bland re-assurances about gold standard regulations. Enough is enough. People are cowering in their homes and just waiting and wondering when the next quake will be and how much damage it will cause. We call upon our local MPs to come off the fence and press for an immediate ban on fracking. We are sick of being treated as human guinea pigs.

Emeritus Professor Peter Styles, one of the co-authors of the seismic Traffic Light System (TLS) that Cuadrilla have to operate under, and a former advisor to Downing Street, said at the time: "The earth's response to the fracking event is not instantaneous and to somehow pretend that they are not a consequence of the fracking process is derisory."

After the quake in August 2019, the UKs Oil and Gas Authority said it was not possible to predict the magnitude or timing of earthquakes that could be caused by fracking. And protests by green groups, anti fracking organisations and environmentalists ramped up, with some protestors chaining themselves to fracking equipment, forcing local authorities to raise the policing activity in the areas.

Fast forward to March 2022, and Lancashire's two shale gas wells were to be plugged, at the site near Preston New Road close to Blackpool. This was widely seen as ending more than a decade of controversy over fracking for gas in the UK, and was hailed by the antifracking lobby, local campaigners and environmentalists.

The then Business and Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said in April: "In light of Putins criminal invasion of Ukraine, it is absolutely right that we explore all possible domestic energy sources. However, unless the latest scientific evidence demonstrates that shale gas extraction is safe, sustainable and of minimal disturbance to those living and working nearby, the pause in England will remain in place.

But the then PM Boris Johnson was still sitting on the fence in April, telling Lancs Live that fracking would only be resurrected if safe and the country wasnt there yet. He said: If the science supports it, if it can be done safely - I dont think were there yet, it doesnt mean were not willing to have another look - but we want to prioritise the offshore potential because thats where I think we can make a change fastest."

Liz Truss reversed the temporary fracking ban last month. This has thrust the shale gas reserves in Lancashire and across the country back into the spotlight, prompting fresh outrage from local groups, environmentalists and anti frackers and dividing communities across the region.

A glimmer of rationalism appeared this week in Preston, when Lancashire County Council stepped in and called on the government to clarify how local people will give their consent on any proposed fracking in their area. LLC also wants any decision to grant planning permission to be made solely by the county council and not Westminster.

At a Lancashire County Council meeting on Thursday, October 13, councillors approved a motion for LCC to write to No 10 to ask for clarity on fracking consent and to commit to any decision to permit planning permission for fracking to be made solely by the county council. County Councillor Aidy Riggott, cabinet member for economic development and growth, said: "When the moratorium on fracking was introduced in 2019 it was welcomed by Lancashire people because local residents had seen years of disruption to their lives, and there was considerable cost to the public purse to manage the protests. The new prime minister has lifted the moratorium but has given a clear commitment that fracking will only happen in areas where there is local community support.

"We welcome this, as it is right that local people should have the final say about whether fracking happens in their area or not. We now need clarity on what local consent means in practice which is why we're writing to the government to ask them. As the body responsible for planning applications for fracking, we need this information so that we can update our policies on how any proposals that come forward will be assessed. We also believe that any planning decisions on fracking should lie with the county council as local representatives are best-placed to understand the needs and wishes of their local communities."

Any plans to frack in Lancashire following the lifting of the moratorium will be subject to planning approval from Lancashire County Council. The council said it has a legal duty to prepare a local plan on how these applications will be assessed and they have to take into account government guidance and policy. A Lancashire County Council spokesperson added: "Because it is the planning body for fracking, the council should remain neutral on whether it is right or wrong that the moratorium has been lifted. This is so that any application that may come in can be considered in an unbiased way and avoids "predetermination", which can leave decisions open to legal challenge."

The North Sea Transition Authority, which awards petroleum exploration and development licences (PEDLS) has said that there are 151 nationwide. A spokesperson told Lancs Live last week that that the licences don't give direct permission to companies, as permits and consents are needed, adding: A petroleum exploration and development licence (PEDL) does not itself give any direct permission for operations to begin. A petroleum exploration and development licence (PEDL) grants the licensee exclusivity over an area of land for onshore hydrocarbon exploration, appraisal and extraction.

Before a petroleum exploration and development licence (PEDL) licensee can begin operations, they must be granted a number of further permissions and consents, including, for example, planning permission, environmental permits from the Environment Agency, scrutiny of well design by the Health and Safety Executive, and North Sea Transition Authority consents under the terms of the petroleum exploration and development licence (PEDL).

Any licensee may apply for permission to hydraulically fracture a well in parallel with the necessary planning permission and other regulatory consents, including a Hydraulic Fracture Consent from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). In doing so they would need to prepare a Hydraulic Fracture Plan (HFP) setting out how the risks of seismicity will be managed. The North Sea Transition Authoritys requirements will be developed in the light of the governments new policy.

Charles McAllister, director at UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), which represents the oil and gas industry said: "There is an evident need to boost UK natural gas production for economic, environmental and geopolitical reasons. Every single net zero compliant scenario from the Climate Change Committee shows that there is a gap between what can be produced in the North Sea and what the UK will demand out to 2050. It is a simple choice between natural gas imports and UK shale gas. Imports do not offer the benefits that a domestic shale gas industry offers, be that employment opportunities, tax revenue, community benefits, a lower carbon gas supply or energy security

The regulatory framework for shale gas development is very strict. For example, operators cannot use hydraulic fracturing shallower than 1 km in depth, must conduct groundwater monitoring before, during and after operations and can only use chemicals designated non-hazardous to groundwater

"A report from the Institute of Directors concluded that at maximum levels of shale gas development, water use would be less than 1% of what is consumed in any one year by households, agriculture and industry. Wastewater produced from shale gas development will be treated at facilities licensed by the Environment Agency. These facilities across the UK are already treating wastewater from offshore oil and gas production as well as from other industrial activities

"On seismicity, had the regulations applied to shale gas development been applied to the construction, quarrying or geothermal industries, none of them would be able to operate in the UK. The largest seismic event from the Preston New Road site in Lancashire lasted 2 seconds and the surface vibration was one half of the maximum permitted at construction sites

Traffic movements are not exclusive to the onshore oil and gas industry. Operators carefully prepare traffic management plans to minimise the impact on local communities. It is not an either or between shale gas and renewables, we need to maximise UK energy in all forms, however, UK shale gas can deliver more energy per acre per year than most other energy technologies. For example, to produce the same amount of energy as a 10 well 2 hectare shale gas site over 2 decades, you would need a wind farm 725 times the size.

Cuadrilla CEO Francis Egan said last month that the reversal of the fracking ban was 'the right call', pointing to the financial benefits for local communities and job creation across the North Of England, stating: I am very pleased that the Government has quickly and decisively followed up the Prime Ministers announcement of two weeks ago with todays WMS.

Communities across the North of England stand to benefit most.. Cuadrilla is determined that a portion of all shale gas revenue should be delivered to local residents as a community dividend. This would mean each producing shale gas site could generate potentially hundreds of millions of pounds for local households, families, and communities.

On top of this, a thriving shale gas industry will drive job creation across the North of England, generate much needed tax revenues for central and local government, and help tackle spiralling gas prices. Lifting the moratorium will help the shale industry unlock UK onshore natural gas in quantities sufficient to meet the UKs needs for decades to come.

"The last few months have highlighted the risks associated with ever increasing reliance on expensive, uncertain, and higher emission gas imports. The Written Ministerial Statement sets the foundation for us to move towards gas self-sufficiency, and not be reliant on the whims of dictators, or the vagaries of international supply lines and prices. The Government has made the right call, and we look forward to working with them to ensure this industry can start delivering for local communities, and the entire country, as soon as possible.

READ NEXT:

Get the latest news here in one click

View post:

When Lancashire was rocked by a 2.9 magnitude earthquake the last time fracking came to town - Lancs Live

Overview:

As Russia's invasion of Ukraine takes another brutal turn, the long history of human fears on the brink offers a source of clarity for our current crises. Maybe even strength.

In 1919, a poet started drafting what would eventually become one of our most oft-quoted poems, especially in times of struggle and disaster. In its earlier forms, it referenced tensions on the Russian border, before being scrubbed of precise details and left with a more all-encompassing sense of dread. As the poet was writing it, too, his pregnant wife was deathly ill from influenza: part of the brutal and ongoing pandemic of their time. Years later, first during the Great Depression and then as World War II mounted, the poet would refer to this poem as something prophetic, as if its lines had foretold all the ruin about to unfold.

But did they?

Or is it just that humanity often finds itself in times of total disarray?

The Second Coming by W.B. Yeats is filled with phrases that have informed Western culture ever since. Things fall apart, the widening gyre, the centre cannot hold, the rough beast, the idea of slouch[ing] towards Bethlehem: Yeats poem is considered peak Modernism, filled with the dread realization that all our affectations of social order have come undone, and that while something monumental might be on the horizon, we can no longer hope it is salvation. We now stand estranged from everything we thought we could rely upon, to signal for truth and hope.

When the Great Depression hit, it came with no small challenge to democracies that had only recently moved toward more universal suffrage. Nationalist tyrannies rose easily in the wake of economic uncertainty. And yes, with the atomic age at the close of World War II, we then renewed in horror at our capacity for self-destruction. But it was also a horror that the trenches of World War I had given to prior generations. And its one that recent events, especially around the Russian invasion of Ukraine and related threats of nuclear war, have brought to us again.

Yeats used the image of a falcon flying higher and higher, increasingly disconnected from a falconer who might have provided order, to portray his sense of coming societal ruin. In the widening gyre of this falcons upward flight, were called upon to imagine the world becoming increasingly unstable, with no recourse to be found because The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity. But when one rises far enough above the specific, when one soars over history at a greater remove, another possibility emerges:

That we have always been this precariously situated.

That some rough beast has always been slouch[ing] towards Bethlehem, on the verge of bringing us all to total ruin.

And that, far from dismissing the value of present crises because of their historical similarity, we can draw strength from the knowledge that other human beings have had these doubts, these fears, these struggles in eras long before our own.

Things may well fall apart, but symbolism persists amid the rubble. At least, thats the interpretation one has to take from how the West often writes about Russias 2022 invasion of Ukraine: full of signs and portents, every action infused with greater meanings that you too will better understand if you click through on that next link.

Early in the morning of October 8, for instance, an explosion tore across the Kerch Bridge, damaging sections of its roadway and killing three. The longest in Europe, and the longest built by Russia, this part-roadway, part-railway connects Russias mainland to the Crimean Peninsula, and represents a significant supply route for the war. The bridges construction came in the wake of the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian War, when Russia annexed Crimea. An explosion on it was therefore reported as a devastating symbolic blow.

That same day, though, Russia was busy making its own symbolic gesturessome with more immediate and real-world consequences than others.

For one, it escalated strikes on civilian holdings in Ukraine, including areas officially annexed on September 30 (though fighting remains fierce therein). You might recall Zaporizhzhia from international concerns over its nuclear power plant. Although the plant had finally powered down the last of its reactors, even in a resting state it relies on the surrounding energy grid to avoid a meltdown. Shelling on October 8 saw at least 13 people killed, some 50 multi-storey residential buildings damaged, and the plant cut off from the main power system, forcing a switch to emergency generators. Power was later restored, but the situation continues to alarm international watchers, who have been asking for a dedicated DMZ around the plant for months, even as Russian forces kidnapped the plant director.

Then came the attacks on other urban centres: an express message being sent with many choices of target. Ukraines capital, Kyiv, remains on alert after a strike on October 10 hit a childrens playground, a university, and tourism features. Around the country, at least 19 were reported dead, and over a hundred injured, with around 300 sectors losing power. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called upon the West to step up support, including through an air shield, and G7 leaders gathered to discuss their ongoing commitment to Ukraine, and to holding Putin accountable.

These are delicate times for media reporting. The usual approach is to talk of the whole brutal conflict in terms of wins and losses.

But there are no wins here.

Only losses, and our attempts to prevent more of the same.

Also on October 8, Russias Defense Ministry announced the appointment of an overall field commander for its special military operation: the first such appointment since the invasion of Ukraine began in late February. This move comes at a time when the Kremlin has faced significant internal criticism for its mismanagement of the war. It clearly serves as a political effort to show a stronger, more cohesive, and more merciless presence on the battlefield: both internally, and to the world.

Merciless, that is, because they appointed General Sergey Surovikin. Surovikin is a veteran of Afghanistan and the Second Chechen war, but his reputation better precedes him both as an officer who improved Russian combat effectiveness in Eastern Ukraine, and as a leader comfortable with brutal tactics. He directed military attacks against protesters during the 1991 coup, orchestrated bombing campaigns of Ghouta and Aleppo in Syria, and was in charge of local operations when Syrian forces used chemical weapons against civilian targets. For helping to stabilize Bashar al-Assads regime, he gained the moniker General Armageddon.

But the symbolism hardly stops there. The term Armageddon was also used last week by US President Joe Biden, when he expressed concern over the possibility of nuclear war through a Russian-led descent into more extreme military tactics. Fears of escalation are well-founded, too, as Belarus recently entered into a joint-deployment of its forces with Russias. President Alexander Lukashenko claims that the move is a security measure to defend Belarus from supposed threats by Ukraine and its allies. Either way, this move marks an intensification of regional commitmentsand with it, a further escalation of a European war that in February most international commenters, overestimating Russias military might and underestimating Ukraines resilience, assumed would be over in weeks.

As has happened for us, when faced with European war, many times before.

These are delicate times for media reporting. The usual approach, which weve seen in abundance in news articles since February, is to lean into comparative body counts, to analyze and speculate around the psychology of prominent leaders and movements, and otherwise to gamify so much loss of human lives. To talk of the whole brutal conflict in terms of wins and losses.

But there are no wins here. Lets be absolutely clear on that accord.

Only losses, and our attempts to prevent more of the same.

And so, we enter a tangled period of this war. After the shock of initial invasion, after the counter-shock of robust Ukrainian response; after the long, bitter push-and-pull of summer hostilities, economic sanctions, and energy-grid power plays; after the recent triumphs of Ukrainian counteroffensive forces; and after the mad scramble of Russian political and military reactions (conscription, formal annexation, the appointment of a new general commander, and above all else the increased targeting of civilian infrastructure) we find ourselves at a deeply uncertain precipice.

Again.

Which is why, when struggling with whats next, wed do well to look to our history.

And also, into what our teaching of history so often overlooks.

Now, if you were bored in school by talk of literary movements: fair enough. The difference between Modernism and Postmodernism has always been a bit of a cheat, the same way physics professors will reduce a hypothetical cow to a circle with vectors on the chalkboard, and let first-year students believe that electrons are discrete planetoids in orbit around tight little suns of protons and neutrons.

Unfortunately, this insistence on a grand difference between Modernism and Postmodernism is sometimes taken too seriously by the scholars themselves. And when it is, that rigidity only illustrates how little those same scholars have learned about humanity from both. There is, after all, something quaintly teleological about the idea of our species progressing from one era to the next: of moving on completely from the shock of old institutions falling apart, to fully embracing the idea of everything having already come undone. Yes, some movements reacted to preceding movements because they had clear differences in perspective. But no single outlook fully represents either period. And its in that deeper complexity, that sheer mess of competing perspectives around Western struggles in each era, that we find the most important lessons for bearing up to the crises we face today.

READ: On tomorrow sorrow: How we grieve the future today

In the Modernist period, for instance, you had technological triumphalism, people thrilled with the promise of technology and urbanity as guarantees of a better world ahead. Sound familiar? We were finally beyond the stuffy superstitions and religious practices of prior generations! Secularism was on the rise! Now we could build new narratives to replace the old, and we would be the dreamers of better dreams!

But at the same time, you also had people like Yeats, who saw the dehumanization of progress, the grim fragmentation of human experience under automation and populisms rise. In the main Modernist period, plenty of prominent thinkers either dove deeper into more ritualized faith (High Anglicanism and Catholicism in particular) as an escape from the horror of progress, or into forms of surrealist expression that served as a reminder of realisms failure to depict the world in full.

And then, in Postmodernism? You supposedly had a full breakdown of meaning, a belief in the impossibility of any one narrative reflecting the entire world, which had been shaped in part by the Holocaust and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plenty of philosophy, art, and politics in the wake of World War II, deep in the Cold War, served to stress that objective meaning, and belief in some deeper, collective consciousness and trajectory toward some better end, had been constructs all along. (And not just among leftists and liberals, for all that some conservative pundits today like to pretend as much: Margaret Thatcher belonged to a strong right-wing school of neoliberalist thought that believed society was an illusion, too.)

In this framing of reality, everything was relative, and all our experiences (and language for them) were mediated through our initial subject-positions. But if you think for a second that there can ever be just one Postmodernism, youve missed the point even of that version of the eras dominant ideologies. There are many Postmodernisms, including ones that fixate on a return to nature, or a doubling down on scientific rationalism, or the supremacy of Western civilization, as solutions to the prior dissolution of (belief in) objective truth.

In short, many Postmodernist movements, just like many Modernist movements, were attempting to establish new and better systems to replace the old.

Just as we today are steeped in all sorts of competing movements: some driven by despair at the decline of old institutions (and a general state of impending ruin); some, by a belief that more rigid traditions of nationalism and faith will save us from the chaos of the masses; and some, banking on the hope that science and technology can emancipate us from all our current crises.

Just as inflation is worsened by fear of inflation, so too does the fear of escalation to nuclear war have the effect of lending more power to that potential reality.

So what lessons can history give us, when we knock off thinking about periodization in fixed terms, and just let ourselves remember that other generations also grappled complexly with being on the brink?

Well, for one, we can pay attention to how over-determining certain outcomes does us no favors. Just as inflation is worsened by fear of inflation, so too does the fear of escalation to nuclear war have the effect of lending more power to that potential reality. Fear of nuclear war is a weapon unto itself, readily and frequently leveragedas is the ability to drive ones opponents into all-or-nothing political binaries.

This kind of rigid, on the brink thinking is difficult to avoid, though. In the throes of a brutal invasion that has already driven millions from their homes and killed thousands, one certainly does not want to be accused of equivocating between forms of violence, or fence-sitting until the fence is completely overrun. There are many who swear by a strong first blow against the bullies of the world. And yet, in our history of global conflict, this has repeatedly proven a misguided strategy at best.

The underlying theory, though, is sound. Strength does matter. The question iswhat kind of strength? What would the most courageous and forceful response to Putins mess of a brutal and entirely unnecessary war look like? How can the West make its resilience known in a way that will drive the Kremlin back to the negotiations table, to seek peace in earnest, as soon as possible? Military and economic analysts already predict that this war will roll on well into 2023. What better end can we hope for, and build towards, when its clear that nothing less than Putin delivered unto the International Criminal Court to face charges will even begin to help the world reckon with these daily, vindictive traumas on the ground?

World War I. World War II. The Cold War. The US Conflict in Vietnam. The War in Afghanistan. Time and again weve leaned on shows of force (whether by necessity, or by choice) that only drove us deeper into the fog of protracted war. Deeper, into more sustained periods of societal uncertainty writ large.

And maybe we cant avoid the same this time. Maybe Yeats widening gyre does still serve as a good metaphor for the escalating and increasingly uncontrollable consequences of having first allowed so much violence to be set in motion.

But if this is an unavoidable brink, we are at least not alone upon it. Long before us, and long after us, stands a line of human lives also spent grappling with the fall either of stable constructsor of the lie that they were ever stable at all.

What will our legacy of response be for those who come after us? For those who will one day stand on such a terrible brink in turn?

How will we carry forward the very best of human hope, despair, and striving, from all our equally uncertain ancestors come before?

Related

Read the original here:

On the brink: How yesterday's fears can help us move through today's war - OnlySky

Rationalism is a philosophical current that defends that reason is the main way of acquiring knowledge. Learn all about it in this article.

Last update: 27 May, 2022

Rationalism is a philosophical current that defends that reason is the main way of acquiring knowledge. This position emerged in continental Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries and its founder is considered to be Ren Descartes.

The claim that true knowledge comes from the ability to reason marked a substantial change in the history of thought. Until then, the belief that religious faith and the word of God were the only sources prevailed.

In todays article, well tell you what rationalism consists of and how it can be applied to everyday life.

The origin of rationalism took place during the scientific revolution of the 17th century. Within this context, the problem of knowledge (its origin and foundation) was introduced into the philosophical debates of the time. From there, two great philosophical currents emerged: rationalism and empiricism. Both share confidence in the scientific revolution that was occurring at the time, but they also have marked differences.

While rationalism emphasizes the role of reason in the acquisition of knowledge, empiricism stresses the role of experience and evidence as the main sources of knowledge..

The founder of rationalism was the French philosopher Ren Descartes, who aspired to turn philosophy into a scientific discipline and provided it with a method in which the role of reason would dominate. Thus, in his work The Discourse of Method, Descartes proposed a procedure (popularly known as the Cartesian method) to reach true knowledge through doubt.

This method consisted of 4 rules:

Later, philosophers such as Nicolas Malebranche, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottlieb Leibniz formulated their rationalist positions on the origin of knowledge. Therefore, theyre also recognized as some of the main drivers of this movement.

We think you may also enjoy reading this article: Important Teachings of Confucius Regarding Psychology and Philosophy

Within rationalism, there are different positions on knowledge. For example, Descartes rationalism is not the same as Leibnizs or Spinozas.

However, they all share essential characteristics. These are the following:

As weve already said, there are many different positions within this philosophical current. Among them, the following stand out:

Like this article? You may also like to read: Philosophy of Mind: The Relationship Between the Mind and the Brain

Believe it or not, we usually apply reason as the main source of knowledge in the following scenarios:

As you can see, in order to attain such knowledge, the exercise of reason was necessary. After all, with evidence alone, we would have remained captivated by the phenomena without delving into or analyzing their ultimate causes.

Rationalism was a philosophical movement that not only placed the problem of knowledge among the main topics of discussion, but also brought up topics such as the relationship between the body and the mind as well as the nature of passion and freedom. In fact, these debates continue to be the subject of interesting philosophical reflections.

Moreover, by defending the self-sufficiency of human reason to explain reality, rationalismcontributed to placing the subject in a privileged position vis--vis religious authority. This marked a very important and interesting shift from the dominant thinking throughout the Middle Ages.

View original post here:

Rationalism: What Is It and How to Apply It To Everyday Life?

Along with Empiricism, which stresses the use of sense perception rather than pure reason, Rationalism was one of the primary streams of intellectual thought during the Enlightenment period a cultural movement spanning the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A focal debate of the Enlightenment was its controversy around the power of reason; most philosophers at the time praised the power of reason, but argued that the source of knowledge must be sensory experience.11

Rene Descartes ideology challenged this proposition; he argued that the knowledge of eternal truths could actually be attained by reason alone, without the need for any sensory experience. His famed proclamation of existenceI think, therefore I am defines this very reasoning; it is a conclusion reached by reasoning alone and not inferred through experience.12

The rationalist position was that knowledge isa priori(from earlier something you already have when you think about it). It is something that is reasoned out, for example, through the processes of mathematics or logic. The human mind is equipped with rational faculties, and if we utilize them, we can reach the truth. Reason, operating within the laws of logic, can attain knowledge of truths that owe nothing to sense experience.13

Descartes methodology was later adopted by Wilhelm Leibniz and Benedict Espinoza, two important figures in the development of Rationalist thought. Both agreed that the framework of knowledge could be known bya priorithinking. But the difference was their point of origin: Spinozas point of origin was not the self, but with that of the universe or God which he named Substancean independent entity that needs nothing else to be conceived or exist. From the idea of Substance, Spinoza derived his entire system, contending that all aspects of the natural world and humanity were modes of this eternal Substance, and can therefore only be known through pure reason.14

Meanwhile, Leibniz expanded on the idea that principles can be accessed by reason alone with his idea of innate knowledge. He proposed that something like mathematical truths are not revealed by the senses, but rather, it isreasonthat allows us to procure universal truths from individual instances. Therefore, the mind is the source, which means such truths exist innately.15

While Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz are championed as the groundwork-layers of the 18th-century Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant, another prominent Rationalist thinker, came into the foreground during this period of intellectual excellence. Kant emerged to synthesize the relationships between human experience and reason, and attempted to put an end to an era of speculative theories of human experience. He did so by pointing out the flaws in both the Empiricist and Rationalist schools of thought.

Kant argued there were deep-seated problems with Rationalism. Pure reason, asserted Kant, is flawed when it goes beyond its limits and makes assertions on things that are beyond the realm of all possible experiencethings like the existence of God, or the idea of free will. Regarding empiricism, Kant affirmed the necessity of experience for human knowledge, but suggested that reason is equally necessary for processing that experience into coherent thought. He concluded that both reason and experience are necessary for human knowledge, and called his framework Transcendental Idealism.16

More here:

Rationalism - The Decision Lab