Spiritual Humanism- A New Philosophy

 

This essay is presenting a new philosophy, one that might provide us the means to work our way out of the mind numbing, soul sapping dysfunctional corner that our current philosophy of government has painted us into. This new philosophy is called Spiritual Humanism. It is not, as some might fear, a religious philosophy, but carries the title of “Spiritual” to distinguish it from the “Material Humanism,” that we have now. It employees the term “spiritual” in a secular, or psychological sense, as will be explained in a bit..

While this is a philosophy, for the most part the terms and language of formal philosophy are not going to be used while explaining it. That is because this concept is about the people, all the people, and especially the common people, so it is best if it is presented in language that the common people can understand.

First, we must examine how we got to where we are. The philosopher Karl Marx borrowed from the philosopher Hegel and along with Engels developed what is called the dialectical materialism. This is a way of analyzing the status of the people by looking at the material conditions within which the people exist. Here they used the idea of thesis= stating the way something is, antithesis= stating some other idea of how the thing could be, and out of the resulting conflict developing some new synthesis, some new, and hopefully better, way of doing things. That synthesis then becomes the new thesis in a never ending process of development. The thing is, the only evidence admitted into this dialectical process is material evidence, that is, evidence that can be weighed and measured in the material world. Hence the name, dialectical materialism.

The Marxist thinking that followed has largely swept the world. That mode of thinking, that dialectical materialism, has, since coming into power with the rise of secular humanism, must, for lack of a better term, accurately be called Material Humanism. That is, when thinking about what is good for humanity, what is good for the people, Marx and those adherents who came after him, all focused on the material world which surrounds the people, as individuals and groups. The later adherents include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and actually even Hitler, Mussolini and Franklin Roosevelt. They all used that dialectical process, and confined it to material factors.

FDR is mentioned in this company because the welfare state he brought into being is focused like a laser beam on material factors. America since his time has paid empty lip service to things like freedom and religion. The real benchmark of our civilization, the thing which most of us think marks us as a superior nation, has long been our standard of living. In other words, our material well being.

With Material Humanism, governmental decisions, usually made at the federal level in America, are based almost exclusively on material factors. Following the guidelines of this philosophy, officials concentrate on ensuring the people have enough food, clean water, medical care, housing and clothing to have an adequate life, materially. While these policies do generally satisfy the requirements of Material Humanism, they are inadequate to deal with non material problems.

If any non material issues come up, such as mental illness, they are either dealt with in some material way, such as with some medications or by providing “professional” care, or they are largely ignored. This is just the way it is, because non material problems are difficult to measure, in a material way, and therefore defy the ability of Material Humanism to solve.

More disturbingly, with the officials in power guided by these standards, policies can become inadequate at dealing with real human problems, or they can become worse than inadequate. If the bureaucrats, sitting in front of their computers, and making all the decisions for everyone, think that their only obligation is to make sure everyone receives X amount of food (calories and protein), X amount of heat, clothing, water, and medical care, then the living situation could become bleak, hollow and desperate.

Issues like happiness, freedom, meaning, purpose of life, emotional and cultural well being are easily ignored. Such things can be hard to measure, and therefore, they almost never enter into the deliberations of Material Humanism. What's worse is the way Material Humanism HAS dealt with the non material aspects of culture. It usually comes to the dubious conclusion that such things are merely social constructs.

Things like, family, love of place, religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and other forms of self identity are, according to Material Humanism, merely social constructs. What's more, if such social constructs are interfering with the optimal system of Material Humanism, they can and should be reconstructed, by the elite authorities, to render humanity itself more conducive to efficient management. Thus the true threat of the Marxist so called “dictatorship of the proletariat”, the long hidden real agenda of Material Humanism, becomes clear. Material Humanism allows distant officials to decide what we should feel and think, and then empowers officials to change us, leveraging their control of material resources, according to their designs. We are to be remade and controlled, according to the dictates of distant, anonymous officials, to render us more easily controllable economic units.

Most disturbingly, the flaws of Material Humanism should be considered alongside the growth of centralized government. It is easy to then foresee a central world government using this flawed philosophy to enact its policies. Then we could find ourselves under the thumbs of distant bureaucrats, self satisfied that their work complies with every stricture of Material Humanism, as they administer a system which has essentially brought about slave ship earth.

Spiritual Humanism is a philosophy of government which might enable us to get out of this trap. It was first inspired by the writings of Simone Weil 1909-1943, a French philosopher, mystic and activist. In a relatively short passage in her book, “The Need for Roots,” she explored the spiritual aspects of work, bemoaning the alienated nature of modern work. She even mentioned that Marx touched on this subject, but that that part of his thinking got ignored by those who rule in his name.

She started by looking at the system of apprenticeship French chefs had been put through in olden times, what was called the Toure de France. In that system, the young cook would go to some various restaurants in other parts of France, working at each one for a year or two. After some years, the now accomplished chef would return to their hometown, to either work in an established restaurant, or start one of their own.

The now somewhat older culinary master would know how to set the business up, how to make a menu, and all that. Also, they would know how to make arrangements with local farmers to provide the basic ingredients for the food.

Additionally, and the most pertinent part for our purpose, they would see the importance of their work. They would see themselves as a vital, needed and appreciated contributor to the local community. In other words, they came to see meaning, purpose and fulfillment in their work, and in their place in the human community. Work then became not an alienated drudgery, as it is in most of our lives today, but rather an engaging and joyful part of their holistic lives. The spiritual aspects of work were enhanced and appreciated.

On reading this passage thirty or more years ago, this writer was immediately struck by the idea that her use of “spiritual, a use that means something more akin to feeling, or sense, than it does to anything religious, could be expanded to encompass all of human existence. Thus the idea of “Spiritual Humanism” was born, and left to simmer for decades.

Spiritual Humanism is first of all another school of Humanism; therefore it will always focus, by definition, on the greatest good, for the greatest number, of humans. It shares that basis with Material Humanism, but way the two diverge with respect to the natural world reveals how great the difference is. Environmental decay is of no concern to Material Humanism, unless such decay threatens the immediate material well being of humans. Spiritual Humanism does not, however, share that contemptuous attitude toward nature. That is because having a sense, or feeling, of being connected with nature is one of the tenets of Spiritual Humanism.

In fact, our sense or feelings about almost everything (our attitude or spirit about them) is the core tenet of Spiritual Humanism. With it we can take into account all the feelings, sensibilities, attitudes and spirits of all aspects of our lives. Instead of focusing on a never ending dialectical materialism, it will always ask, “How do the people actually feel about something, do they have a good sense of it, what spirit, or attitude is in the people about it?”

It asks; do people feel connected with each other? Do they feel a sense of material well being?(this can cover everything contained within Material Humanism) Do the people feel connected with nature? Do the people have a sense of connectedness with their work? Do they see their work as worthwhile, and their lives as being full of purpose and meaning?

Most important, it would ask the questions of: Do the people have a sense of self determination, as individuals and as a community? Do the individuals feel that their ideas, dreams, aspirations and concerns are really being taken into consideration by authorities and officials? Finally, (for this moment, because the list of subjects to which Spiritual Humanism will apply is inexhaustible), it would ask; Do the individuals in the system feel a sense, a spirit, of their own autonomy, their own agency, of being in control of their own lives?

When we start putting together governmental structures to carry out this philosophy, it will necessarily change our entire structure of government. If policies are to be based on how the people, as individuals, actually feel about things, then there has to be a way to determine what those feelings are. Simply launching more government studies, which is what the bureaucrats in Washington DC will likely propose, would never generate the kind of honest and in depth knowledge Spiritual Humanism would need.

The better way to attain that kind of information, to discern what goes on inside the head and heart of millions of people, is to simply ask them. Let their voices be encouraged and heard in the deliberations of government.

This highlights the key difference between Material Humanism, and Spiritual Humanism. With Material Humanism, people are seen primarily as economic beings, with both their oppression and liberation conceived as economic in nature. Thus material, economic analysis is all that is needed. With Spiritual Humanism, people are seen primarily as communicative beings, with communication (or lack of it) being the greatest factor in their oppression, and open communication being the key to their liberation.

When we take the philosophy of Spiritual Humanism seriously, and determine that the voices of all the people must be heard in the deliberations of government, we are driven by simple logic to turn to a form of government which will place almost all those deliberations in local or community governments. It is irrefutably true that the only way to engage the hearts and minds of the people in their own governance is to have their lives lived within vibrant communities. What's more, the only way to generate the kind of community spirit that will make that system work is if the local communities have real powers of self government.

Then the little people, the citizens in their communities, can feel that vital connection to their own self governance. Then all aspects of a thoroughgoing Spiritual Humanism can be brought into play, building a society which actually delivers the greatest good, for the greatest number, of all people.

There is no immediate suggestions for how we can bring this about. This is just an initial assertion of a new philosophical perspective, and should be received as such. It is left to others, or to all of us together, to determine how best to give political embodiment to this philosophy.