The New Humanism

Thank you for this piece. Having lost a friend of the family only days ago, this has given me a whole new outlook to consider as her friends and family move through the grieving process. While a peak experience is by no means easy to put into words, I think you've articulated it well. Personally I can understand how easily one may be swayed toward a religious belief system after having participated in any number of public events wherein I am able to feel connected to humanity (e.g. concerts, memorial services, even New Year's celebrations). However, instead of following that path, I've opened myself up to the possibilities you've described herein and find them to be much more fulfilling. Thank you for putting that sensation and understanding into words.

I'm intrigued by one of the final suggestions -that we should "experience new music, art, stargazing, and other awe-inspiring things." I wonder what it is about awe-inspiring experiences that makes them awe-inspiring. Can we isolate the qualities of awe, so that we can more reliably reproduce such feelings in participants and observers? I once conduced a study of planetarium professionals and it certainly seemed to me that this was something they were attempting, but it was hard for them to explain how they went about it. Fascinating.

"I've been dead before. I was dead from about 13 billion years ago until 1971, and I don't recall it being all that bad." - Great quote. Hadn't thought about it that way before. I will pass that one along.

Death, like life is necessary for humanity to progress by evolution. To understand that each organism, ones self included, by mutation may contribute to the improvement of life, humans to the betterment of humanity, even to the evolution to a higher, more intelligent species, makes us content with our mortality, and inspires us to live so that we we shall be remembered well. While I, like all, have emotions resulting from comntemplation of the magnificence and beauty of nature, I do not think that they are necessary or assist in diminishing our instinct to survive.

Thanks for the wonderful comments everyone. Chessmans2000: I'm touched and flattered that the article may have been in some way helpful to you. My condolences on your loss. James Croft: I think that kind of endeavor is an exciting possibility. Dr. Daily: Marcus Aurelius reminded himself, "One day you will have forgotten all things, and all things will have forgotten you". Forever is a long time and it's a good bet none of us will be remembered eventually. Therefore, I'm not sure being remembered is a sound basis for meaning.

You've added to the understanding and discussion of humanism as practice in your article, Mr. Strain. I particularly appreciate the concept of welcoming the great historic ideas and perspectives inside our own consciousness and putting them to use or discarding them, if found to be lacking. I know your focus here was on the interior, individual humanist experience, but I would like to know more about how this then extends to the experience of the humanist in society, in community. How does coming to a deeper understanding and acceptance of personal mortality apply to our relationships with other human beings in our lives and in our greater society? Does Christ's 'Sermon on the Mount' survive the test of secular humanism, as one example?

Readers of Mr. Strain's essay may also want to read Tom Clark's essay, "Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity," at: http://www.naturalism.org/death.htm Personally, I go with Woody Allen's idea of achieving immortality by not dying. Mr Strain wrote: "I've been dead before. I was dead from about 13 billion years ago until 1971, and I don't recall it being all that bad." To Mark Twain is attributed the following quote: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." And that in turn seems a paraphrase of statements from Hume and Epicurus. Well, I guess nothing really new under the sun.

I would disagree with your assertion though that death is a necessary aspect of the universal condition. While death was once necessary to selectively direct life it now only serves the purpose of reducing diversity. It would be impractical to have infinite reproduction, we would need to colonize beyond our current limitations to experience a continued expansion through reproduction but that's a practical not a philosophical problem. While evolution was once based on the life and death of organisms it's now mostly an inconvenience and suppression of progress.

There is a different kind of immortality, one that does not require the indefinite continuance of the individual. In line with the Buddhist concept of mutual causality (found also in general systems theory) I believe that we cannot help but influence and be influenced by those with whom we interact. We are actually changed as a result of the interactions we have with others. The closer the relationship the greater will be the mutual influence. Because of this the way we interact with others and the world becomes our legacy and our legacy outlives us.