The philosophy of humanism originally supported a theological shift that emphasized Jesus as a man as well as divine presence on earth. The church had been exploiting its role as representative of God’s will on earth by priests charging fees to pray for the living and the dead. The average person and their recently deceased relatives could benefit from the prayers of priests on their behalf like a lobbyist who has special access to authorities and knows how to talk to them. But the theologies of the Protestant Reformation asserted that part of the point of Jesus being both human and divine was to allow us to have a personal relationship with God through the persona of Jesus. Being human became an avenue of connection with God on earth, by-passing the authority of the church and undermining the extortionist practices of local priests. Humanism was part of the rebellion against the political and economic dominance of the church, creating a cultural space conducive to the rise of nations based on human agreements such as constitutions rather than divine authority. Humanity took control of its spiritual quest by making God accessible to everyone through the dual nature of Jesus as human and divine.
Today humanism is often associated with atheistic “secular humanism,” a philosophy celebrating humanity’s ability to reason rather than depending on faith, allowing us to decide goals and values rather than accepting a destiny that only God can know and control. It asserts the value of human relationships and communities as well as the individual while recognizing that unbridled human competition and expansion aren’t part of a sustainable plan.
In both its theological and secular versions humanism has been a philosophy of empowerment and resistance to exploitation. What role can non-h philosophy have given this legacy?
We know that the march of science and technology has wrought ecological disasters in the name of human interests over the interests of other living organisms. We know that the pursuit of short-term human benefits threaten our ecosystem. But asserting the rights of plants and animals over the interests of human beings isn’t a viable strategy for correcting our excesses. How can the celebration of the non-human contribute to establishing a new relationship between humanity and the rest of our biosphere while avoiding reactionary dualisms such as the artificial versus the natural? Can a philosophy of the non-human help us see beyond our own interests yet assert our place among other living beings? Has humanist philosophy run its course?