Historicism and Humanism inhibit our understanding of crises. The situation in Ukraine and Palestine are qualitatively new and discontinuous political events understandable only according to an inconsistent political economy. This political-economic frame is obscured by conditional and indifferent humanistic and historicist narratives.
Thank you for your comments! Ultimately, my argument returns to the problem of imposing pre-furnished forms on new political events. In this sense, I argue that one of rhetorical failures of humanism is its historicism (its attempt to see history reproduced). An example is my argument that (whilst Hitler-Putin comparisons are frequent), the uncanny and even more vulgar aspect of Putin is that Hitler wouldn’t have relied on postmodernism to justify his actions, whereas Putin draws on justification wherever he finds it.
I nevertheless completely agree with your additional comments - especially that difference is necessary, and that in order to reconsider humanism, we need to reconsider the modern understanding of the category “human”.
If I understood you, your critique of humanism focuses on its conditional and inconsistent use, shifting from serious political issues to trivial matters, showing what is really a superficial commitment to caring for others. The humanism you critique relies on historical comparisons and universalist appeals, and ultimately fails to address the root causes of crises. Did I get that right?
I would add to this two things:
1. "We" are inconsistent in how we apply our humanist ideals, specifically in who we thing counts as human enough to be worthy of dignity and life. Our actions on the global stage show that "we" consider some humans are more worthy than others, that is why we care more about some situations than others. Western ethics embodies the belief that those who are closer to us (socially, for example our family) are more worthy of our help and attention than those who are futher away, and that makes it hard to see how all human suffering is ours as well.
2. The second thing that I would add is that humanism relies on an assumption (be it an ideal and/or a false premise) that underneath all of our differences we are all the same. That which makes us all the same is what makes all of us equally worthy of all the civil rights and responsibilities. This imposition of sameness doesn't let us discuss or entertain our differences as significant or relevant, and I think they are. We are categorically unable to deal with our differences either in positive, negative, or neutral effects.
And yet, to take a stand against humanism seems like writing off your family because you don't like them because they remind you of someone you know (you yourself). We are mirrors for each other, and we need each other to really see ourselves, should we be brave enough to look at ourselves in this way. I bet the meaning of humanism has shifted along with the meaning of "human", so maybe we can work to change it in ways that put into question the assumption of sameness that lies at its heart.
My thoughts and recent writing on US-American individualism seems to me a different matter. I am concerned with how our aspirations to individual freedom and autonomy clashes with the collectives that we will need to form if we want to survive the coming challenges.
Thank you for your comments! Ultimately, my argument returns to the problem of imposing pre-furnished forms on new political events. In this sense, I argue that one of rhetorical failures of humanism is its historicism (its attempt to see history reproduced). An example is my argument that (whilst Hitler-Putin comparisons are frequent), the uncanny and even more vulgar aspect of Putin is that Hitler wouldn’t have relied on postmodernism to justify his actions, whereas Putin draws on justification wherever he finds it.
I nevertheless completely agree with your additional comments - especially that difference is necessary, and that in order to reconsider humanism, we need to reconsider the modern understanding of the category “human”.
If I understood you, your critique of humanism focuses on its conditional and inconsistent use, shifting from serious political issues to trivial matters, showing what is really a superficial commitment to caring for others. The humanism you critique relies on historical comparisons and universalist appeals, and ultimately fails to address the root causes of crises. Did I get that right?
I would add to this two things:
1. "We" are inconsistent in how we apply our humanist ideals, specifically in who we thing counts as human enough to be worthy of dignity and life. Our actions on the global stage show that "we" consider some humans are more worthy than others, that is why we care more about some situations than others. Western ethics embodies the belief that those who are closer to us (socially, for example our family) are more worthy of our help and attention than those who are futher away, and that makes it hard to see how all human suffering is ours as well.
2. The second thing that I would add is that humanism relies on an assumption (be it an ideal and/or a false premise) that underneath all of our differences we are all the same. That which makes us all the same is what makes all of us equally worthy of all the civil rights and responsibilities. This imposition of sameness doesn't let us discuss or entertain our differences as significant or relevant, and I think they are. We are categorically unable to deal with our differences either in positive, negative, or neutral effects.
And yet, to take a stand against humanism seems like writing off your family because you don't like them because they remind you of someone you know (you yourself). We are mirrors for each other, and we need each other to really see ourselves, should we be brave enough to look at ourselves in this way. I bet the meaning of humanism has shifted along with the meaning of "human", so maybe we can work to change it in ways that put into question the assumption of sameness that lies at its heart.
My thoughts and recent writing on US-American individualism seems to me a different matter. I am concerned with how our aspirations to individual freedom and autonomy clashes with the collectives that we will need to form if we want to survive the coming challenges.