On humanism
by The Editor
SERIES: The Thing About is a weekly Business Day column designed to discuss democratic ideas, ideals, values and principles from a liberal perspective. Today, a look at humanism and the idea that human achievement and potential is often downplayed in the favour of some supernatural explanation for accomplishment. This might seem beneficial – for one it allows one to abdicate responsibility when it comes to destructive behaviour – but that comes at a cost, including an inability to celebrate the great things of which humans alone are capable.
On humanism
By: Gareth van Onselen
Follow @GvanOnselen
19 March 2012
One could credibly generalise the human race suffers low self esteem. After all, it is often our first inclination to seek some supernatural validation of our own affairs, if not explanation for them, rather than to look to ourselves and each other.
Why is that? Why ascribe something so wonderous as the creative impulse to anything other than our own ability? Or draw from it inspiration and pride, as opposed to outsourcing that to a third party?
Certainly human accomplishment is worthy of much praise. In its fullness it is glorious.
That fact alone would seem satisfying. Not so. For many, that is not enough, if it is conceded at all. And, at the other end of the spectrum, the great evil of which human kind is likewise capable, reason enough to excuse our actions as the result of some external influence; for who would want to bear such a burden?
The payoff for that, however, for abdicating responsibility, is to surrender too our capacity to take credit for the majesty that is human achievement.
Some suggest modesty is encouraged and augmented by supernatural explanation but often they confuse celebration and egoism. Pride needn’t run rampant simply by cherishing those things that are marvelous, just as low self esteem needn’t rob a person of their due simply because they lack self worth.
This state of affairs is as much an indictment of human nature as it is regretful. Too often we fail to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, consumed by the intensity of the small universe that encompasses our day-to-day lives. That is our loss as much as it is theirs.
There is little point to art, invention and innovation if it is merely to satisfy self doubt; for it would mean the very essence of life – the joy and pleasure it is able to generate – is similarly it not ours to indulge.
Gareth van Onselen writes in his personal capacity. He is employed by the DA as a Director of Political Analysis and Development. An abbreviated version of this column first appeared in the Business Day.
www.inside-politics.org 
Hi Gareth
I need to inform you on this article and “On binary thinking” + in general that you may be a very right and a bit wrong, as you would put it=)
I apologize in advance, I seem to have a reactionary streak (devils advocate) when people present a concept that is somewhere off the center of the Bell Mound. Maybe I’m arguing your point too, Anyway.
Some things are absolute (murder “good&evil”&gravity), while some are very specific to the person (flavor & color) and non-prescriptive.
Some religions have a absolute way of dealing with issues – Sharia Law,
Some religions don’t quite have a policy or maybe I don’t quite know them well enough (Buddhism, Pantheism, New Age)
However the religion of self called Humanism (which in my uneducated opinion seems like a cousin of new age) you end up thinking that self is the center of the universe.
The science says that you did not create yourself as a starter, just the offspring of your parents.
One of the implications are that within Humanism people are the master of their own universe?
Yes we humans do have some awesome Historical achievements, but let’s not forget the Napoleon/Hitler/Marx and the other special pieces of work that also thought they were right.
If it is Liberal to have an individualized perspective, then is there a place for democracy, which constitutes a collection of differing collectives?
If a party is a collection of differing individuals/identity’s then how do you cut it by distinction between other party’s, or am I being too simplistic?
I know they say they have Policies, but at the end it seems like we hit the bottom of the pile in Maslow’s hierarchy by “leaders” making inflammatory statements that just polarize the voting public.
I totally in agreement with the individual and the varied identity, really tired of the whole race based political discourse.
I’m not quite sure what I’m advocating, but maybe just an observation from my own personal bias(Christian).
To me the whole process of Democracy (the one we have in this country which is a Republic or better described as Representative one) is a flop.
If I am correct, the word democracy in effect means majority rule, which automatically means that the minority’s say are not superior.
The implications are that a number of minority “Rights” would be infringed upon in our constitution, for example – gay’s.
So in essence let’s call it what it really is a Pseudo-Representation.
Where your voice will be heard every 5 years, based on whatever racist agenda you happen to affiliate to?
Jeremy Cronin as much as I dislike his governance/ideology style, did make a valid point when described the USA funding mechanism, which doesn’t absolve the current triple party-conundrum either, as they are just riding the backs of the capitalists.
We actually need reform, no use replacing one dictatorship via struggle, for another, then when we are eventually “gatvol” we pick another.
The Members of Parliament are put in place according the favor they carry with their party and then they also have the special privilege of “floor cross” when they feel like there is a better offer.
MP’s should be directly placed (voted in) by the public and be accountable to them, not to party, if they then choose to change their ideological views, then so be it, that should be a Liberal standpoint from their “good” conscience.
Or we need an electoral style such as Switzerland, where the issues or propositions are voted by majority in each “province” and at a national level.
This current system just makes me apathetic and annoyed.
What do you think?