Russian philosopher “Polundum” explores the interplay of nature and the unnatural, humanity and in the inhuman, Humanism and its polar opposite, fascism.

Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence.  If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: “Have they discovered evolution yet?”

– Richard Dawkins

I guess superior creatures from space are still hiding from humanity, then, because evolution is still ignored or denied by the majority of earthlings.

Intelligent life on earth has not really come of age yet.

The first lesson from evolution is that our origins are in the animal kingdom. The second lesson is that the roots of good and evil for us are also to be found in the animal world. And much of what we see as natural, and which is natural in the animal world, is unnatural and evil in humans. The cat playing with a mice before killing it is natural; sadism in man is, we say, evil and “unnatural”. But ”Nature red in tooth and claw” is, alas, natural.

So what about man’s much redder redness in knife and hand? Also in sword, spear, bow, gun, mine, tank, bomber… Is such redness human and natural or beastly and unnatural? Aha, “beastliness” means cruelty and brutality! The point is that man’s beastliness was inherited without a break from animals and increased and exaggerated immensely by man’s crafty mind and weapons. Cain killed his brother, Abel, not because God respected Abel and his offering and did not respect Cain’s, or because Cain descended from Adam who committed the sin of eating the forbidden fruit, but because mankind descended from beasts.

The jungle law is still a law among many of us  because we humans took it without a break from nature which is ”red in tooth and claw”. Animals are known to have modified and eased the hardness of the struggle for existence by certain behavioural “rituals”, or “fixed action patterns” as they are called by ethnologists who discovered and study them. Humans are known to have devised similar patterns and behaviors for maintaining peace and cooperation, but on the whole, judging by history, Homo sapiens appears to be the most murderous and ferocious mammalian species.

That’s the bad news from the lessons of evolution and history. The good news is that beastliness in man and society is counteracted by man’s humanity. This fact is fixed and reflected by our very language which puts in contrast “humane” and “inhuman”.

Can humanity, like beastliness, be explained in terms of evolution? Humanity is the product of reason which is the product of evolution. Some people are reasonable, but animals are not. We say, “My dog (cat, horse, parrot, etc) is very clever” but never say they are reasonable. Why? Because reason is a double-edged instrument and both edges are far above the animal level. One edge is intellect, the other conscience. Intellect is the creator of innovations; conscience is our moral guide. Intellect is the inventor of the wheel, the alphabet, the atom bomb, etc; conscience is the promoter of justice and defender of the underdog. The intellect of a lonely astronaut stranded on a lifeless planet will have more than enough things to figure out while his conscience will be inactive and jobless. This shows that conscience interacts first and foremost with living things. It knows how it feels in the other person’s shoes.

Intellect is the subjective reflection of the objective reality; conscience is a subjective reflection of sentient reality. It provides the ability for compassion. At the instinctive level this ability is present in animals and the instinct was passed on to our human ancestors. In humans this marvelous ability has risen to a conscious level thus making a difference from its working in animals. A dog or a cat can show great compassion for its owner because the latter is accepted and treated as a relative, a member of the pack. Towards outsiders, even in distress, animals can be aggressive or indifferent. In zoological experiments cats have been known to suckle young rats and treat them like their kittens. Human children are known to have been adopted and fed by wolves, monkeys and other animals. Thus, in animals, compassion depends on the play and interaction of instincts. In humans it depends on the function of the mind which in turn is determined by one’s knowledge, aims and beliefs.

The Christian parable of the good Samaritan is one example of compassion towards those in distress. Historically there prevailed enmity and hatred between Samaritans and Jews, so this parable would teach us to overcome and reject racial, ethnic and sectarian prejudice. In one version of Christian history, it might have seemed that after Jesus came and went humanity would only spread and grow in the Christian world, but then came  the “Dark Ages”, and the Inquisition ruled supreme; hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including scientists and philosophers, were tortured and burnt alive, when inhumanity was the order of the day? British historian Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), who has written volumes on the rise and fall of civilizations, has this to say about the destiny of Christianity in the West in the Middle Ages:

In Western Christendom this monstrous regime of Christian totalitarianism, imposed by force, lasted for 1300 years, reckoning from the closing decades of the fourth century of the Christian Era to the closing decades of the seventeenth. This reign of totalitarian Christianity in the West was thus longer, by three centuries, than the ‘Thousand Years’ Reich’ that Hitler promised for his totalitarian German nationalism. The disintegration of Western Christendom at the Reformation only aggravated the evil. [...] Thus its reign was long, and the last phase of it was the worst. But its reign was not eternal. Just because the last phase of it was so bad, this provoked a moral reaction that brought Western Christian totalitarianism to an end.

– Arnold Toynbee, Change and Habit: The Challenge of Our Time, 1966, pp.51,52

The force and tendency that from ancient civilizations to the present have inhibited and counteracted inhumanity in man and society is called humanism. The word has various definitions and shades of meaning but what I want to stress here is the aspect of becoming humane. Humanism for me is the criterion of historical progress and of value judgments regarding civilizations, states and statesmen, historic events and historic figures. Here’s the definition of humanism by the Soviet philosopher V. Kelle:

A historically changing system of views, recognizing the worth of man as a personality, his right to freedom, happiness, development and display of talents, taking the welfare of man for a criterion of evaluating social institutions, and for principles of equality, justice, and humanity as a desirable norm of relations among people.

– V. Kelle, Greater Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, Vol. 7, 1972, my translation

Humanism as defined on its website by the British Humanist Association: “Humanism is the view that we can make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values and that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. Humanists seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves. We choose to take responsibility for our actions and work with others for the common good. Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason – humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone and that the aims of morality should be human welfare, happiness and fulfillment. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text.”

And this is from the website of The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), embracing more than one hundred humanist, rationalist, secular, ethical, cultural, and freethought organizations in more than 40 countries: “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.”

Note the like-mindedness and complementarity of these definitions. It is also significant and noteworthy that humanism as defined by a Marxist philosopher in the Soviet Union is not contradicted by definitions offered by scholars in the West.

Though origins of humanism are in the hoary past, I see the shaping of its scientific basis with the advent of the Darwinian theory of evolution. Darwin enabled humanists to start exploring scientifically what is unique in man and what is common with other animals, for humanism is about human uniqueness. Darwin was concerned with man’s origins, not future, but his words in the conclusion of The Descent of Man are significant for our topic:

“Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertion, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future”.

In a lecture, called “Evolution and Ethics”, delivered on May 18, 1893, Thomas Huxley defined evolution as “the cosmic process” that is “full of wonder, full of beauty, and, at the same time, full of pain”. And he said that “The conscience of man revolted against the moral indifference of nature”. But the most significant thoughts came in the end:

“Men in society are undoubtedly subject to the cosmic process. As among other animals, multiplication goes on without cessation and involves severe competition for the means of support. The struggle for existence tends to eliminate those less fitted to adapt themselves to the circumstances of their existence. (…) But the influence of the cosmic process on the evolution of society is the greater the more rudimentary its civilization. Social progress means a checking of the cosmic process at every step and the substitution for it of another, which may be called the ethical process; the end of which is not the survival of those who may happen to be the fittest, in respect of the whole of the conditions which exist, but of those that are ethically the best. As I have already urged, the practice of that which is ethically best — what we call goodness or virtue — involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellow; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive.”

– Thomas H. Huxley, The Romanes Lecture Evolution and Ethics.

This great philosophical vision sounds pretty abstract and theoretical but its practical significance becomes apparent when compared with the opposite views and theory whose practical application is responsible for nothing less than the Second World War and heinous crimes of genocide, committed in the 20th century. To wit:

“The idea of struggle is as old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the weak, lose. (…) It is not by the principle of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle”; “The whole work of Nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness — an eternal victory of the strong over the weak. There would be nothing but decay in the whole of Nature if this were not so. States which offend against this elementary law fall into decay”. ”Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills.”

– Adolf Hitler. In: Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study In Tyrany, 1962, pp. 36, 398, 399).

Fascism is the quintessence of anti-humanism, with Hitler its paragon. Hegel complained that history teaches us that people and governments have never learnt anything from history. Well, the history of the 20th century hasn’t failed to shove some telling lessons down our throats. By the rule of the contraries, the history and performance of fascism give us a clearer idea what humanism is and should be. What caused fascism politically and economically is more or less clear, but more light  needs to be shed on the role of  “human nature” in its origins and doings.

It’s agreed that humans are made by nature and nurture. This is because reason is made that way. Nature, i.e. the human brain, provides the potential for learning and education; learning and education provide the potential and means for the work of the intellect and conscience. Humans are greatly varied as regards the brain and education, and consequently the performance of reason. As a useful simplification and generalization I propose three main psychological types of humans depending on the performance of their intellect and conscience as the mainstays of reason.

People in whom both intellect and conscience are well developed, I call  the Hamlet type. Is a poor development of intellect the opposite of its high development? No, it’s just want of intelligence. The opposite is insanity. Do we know characters with insane intellect and well functioning conscience? Yes, first of all as a hero of literature, namely, Don Quixote. This hero and the novel about him could not be so famous and popular if they did not relate to the facts of real life known from history and experience. So this is the Don Quixote type. Is the conscience of an impolite and inconsiderate person the opposite to that of a polite and considerate? No, the difference is in quantity, not in kind. The opposite is the “conscience” of a willful evil-doer which I call anti-conscience. Note that many an evil-doer has quick and sharp intellect. So this is the Iago type. We can ignore here people with insane intellect and anti-conscience because they are usually isolated in mental institutions and not taking part in public life.

So the three main types are those of Hamlet, Don Quixote and Iago. These are theoretical and “ideal” types, like “ideal gas” in physics which is a reflection and generalization of different real gases. Real people embody and approach in different degrees the traits of these theoretical types which can help our thinking on and understanding of “human nature” just as the concept of ideal gas helps in the study of gases. The most paradoxical and mysterious of these traits is anti-conscience.

The 19th century British ethnologist and physician James Prichard coined the term “moral insanity”. This subject deserves serious discussion and analysis but here it suffices to point out that anti-conscience is fed and energized by negative emotions, such as envy, hatred, the inferiority complex. Like animals, all people are capable of positive and negative emotions, but the difference is what emotions are dominant and decisive in one’s character and behavior. Iago in this respect is not on par with Hamlet and Don Quixote. And this is what we read about the notorious history maker before he began making it: “He started a score of jobs, but failed to make anything of them and relapsed into the old hand-to-mouth existence, living by expedients and little spurts of activity, but never settling down to anything for long. As time passed these habits became ingrained, and he became more eccentric, more turned in on himself. He struck people as ‘queer’, unbalanced. He gave rein to his hatreds — against the Jews, the priests, the Social Democrats, the Hapsburgs – without restraint” (Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyrany, p.36 , my italics).

It would not be far from the truth to say that Hitler did by the German nation what Iago did by Othello. At least the methods were the same. Othello called his ruiner “My honest Iago”. The German people elected Hitler to power and worshipped him. Here however the difference between life and literature is significant. Spectators of the theatrical tragedy know from the beginning the nature of Iago, while the German people did not know during the tragedy of their life the nature of Hitler.This concerns directly the nature of humanism and anti-humanism. Humanism demands conditions of truth and justice; anti-humanism needs lies and mythology. It is also instructive how people react to Hamlet and Iago. The doings of the latter arouse such indignation and protest among the spectators that there have been cases when the actor playing Iago was shot at during the performance. All reasonable people agree that Hamlet is a positive character and Iago negative. Why? Because Shakespeare made them so? Yes, but why should people believe and follow Shakespeare on this? Because people are like-minded when they see good and evil in a true light. Such is their common human nature. I find this of cardinal importance for the destiny of humanism. Hamlet says: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. If human nature were different, people could deem Iago good and Hamlet bad.

In the 20th century there were two unprecedentedly gigantic eruptions of inhumanity on our planet: the two World Wars. As a result of the first calamity, radical Socialists (bolsheviks) came to power in Russia, and Nazis came to power in Germany. As a result of the second, humanism gained a foothold on the world arena with the creation of the United Nations Organization. But followed was the Cold War between West and East, with a threat of global nuclear holocaust. In 1955, two famous humanists, philosopher Bertrand Russell and physicist Albert Einstein, appealed to world leaders to seek peaceful resolution of conflicts. They said in part:

“In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft. We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism. (…) Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West. There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

– Russell-Einstein Manifesto, my italics.

This document, endorsed by thousands of scientists, makes one feel vital need for the progress of humanism in the world. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Cold War ended, but instead of  ”a new Paradise” humankind is faced with new great threats and problems on many sides. It needs all the wisdom of science to cope with world ecological problems, and all conscience of culture and humanism to counter the global terrorist danger. There’s talk of the conflict of  civilizations, such as the Christian West and Islamic East. I think this conclusion is wrong. There are more or less civilized countries, i.e., with more or less humane conditions of life. People vote in great numbers with their feet, trying to migrate to countries where conditions are more civilized than in their homeland. Terrorists are killing people with modern weapons (not swords and spears), they are using cell phones, cars, planes, the Internet, and all other hi-tech of modern global civilization. What they are not using but opposing and fighting are the ideas of humanism. So it’s a conflict of mentalities, a clash of modern humanist ideas and anti-humanist ideas of the Middle Ages still surviving and being dominant in many regions of the world. A stark example of such ideas and their baneful effect is the 1989 fatwa (religious edict) by Ayatollah Khomeini, then Supreme Leader of Iran, pronouncing a death sentence on the British writer Salman Rushdie for his alleged blasphemy in the novel The Satanic Verses. Quite a throwback to the Dark Ages.

The history of establishment of different religions and relations between them is replete with violence and war. True to its nature, Humanism can offer its creed and spread its ideas only by peaceful and humane means, by good example, not coercion, by education in the first place. This calls for more discussion on what a modern Humanist can or should be and what education is needed for his or her formation. Three sacred Christian notions and symbols are Faith, Hope, Love. Love is a hackneyed and overexploited word, but as the opposite of hatred, as a symbol of affection, of warm and positive feelings, such as respect and empathy, it is still a useful word and concept in philosophy and sociology. In this sense Love is a must for the mind and making of the modern Humanist. Hope is natural and indispensable for all humans. To my mind, a Humanist is free to hope for anything the person is inclined to. It can be hope for an afterlife, or for God, i.e., Cosmic Intelligence, or whatever. The only condition is that a Humanist must always be conscious that his Hope is a hope, not Faith or Knowledge. Someone said that when you talk to God, it’s a prayer, but when God talks to you, it’s schizophrenia. This means that all people, both believers and atheists, are agnostics, only some are aware of this, but most are not. So far Cosmic Intelligence, if real, is beyond human knowledge. If and when such knowledge is gained, the situation will change dramatically.

So as regards Hope and Love, that is on two-thirds, the Humanist is in agreement with the Christian. The difference is that, instead of Faith, the Humanist must cherish Knowledge. That is scientific knowledge in the first place. Scientific knowledge is the product of human intellect and foundation of modern civilization, with its potential for humanizing humankind. So the three spiritual, mental and cultural ingredients for the Humanist are Knowledge, Hope, Love.

Knowledge is the business of education, and here are my thoughts on Humanist Education. As its first condition, it must be universal, i.e., the same for all of mankind. Only in this way will the earthlings acquire common notions and common moral values necessary for their peaceful life on earth. International Law, providing for peaceful relations of sovereign states, is universal. The main, if not the sole, reason why International Law fails to provide stable peace and security on the planet is that Humanist Education is NOT international and universal. Laws are implemented, enforced  and abided by people, not gods. And for these actions to be effective, their executors must have corresponding characters and mentality. Let us recall that Socrates was sentenced to death in democratic (in terms of the time) Athens and that the Nazis in Germany came to power through general elections. Demagogue means in Greek “popular leader”, and throughout history demagoguery has been used by the scum to stir up popular prejudice and rise to the top.

So to resist and diminish popular prejudice Universal Humanist Education should include, first of all, scientific knowledge of evolution, man’s origins in particular,  therefore scientific views on human nature; second, history of Humanism from ancient times to the present, so that students of schools and colleges all over the world should read and know, for example, Plato’s Apology, the biographies and teachings of Nicholas Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin; they should read and know what Jonathan Swift said about humans in Gulliver’s Travels; they should know how history moved from inhumanity to humanity, as recorded in the Bible and other sacred books (I call this pursuit ”mental archaeology”); they must know how the road to hell was paved with good intentions by the Inquisition in the Middle Ages and by communists in the 20th century.The latter called themselves Marxists, though Marx once said he was not a Marxist. His teaching and ideas are humanist and he contributed significantly to a scientific understanding of history and capitalism. But the humanism of his teaching was scientifically immature and insufficient, being not yet connected with the theory of biological evolution, therefore silent on “human nature”, on human types, etc.These are just a few examples. Since no education can be effective on an empty stomach, famine and ignorance in the world have to be dealt with simultaneously. Marx, by the way, called ignorance “a demonic force” and predicted great woes coming from it.

As stressed by Socrates, ignorance is especially dangerous and harmful when we think we know something while in fact we don’t. In education students must always be told and reminded that the unknown is infinitely greater than the known, thus encouraging their striving for research and discovery.

Polondum is a Russian humanist with interests in science, history, and philosophy.

Is humanity red in knife and hand?, 7.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings