|
|
RE:
THE NEW HUMANISTS
By
John Brockman
From:
Chris
Anderson
Date: 4.13.02
First
off, the philosopher in me suspects there is some language
confusion seeping into this discussion.
Both Marc Hauser and Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi seem to
characterize your essay as championing the cause of 'scientists'
over 'humanists'. But I think in fact you are arguing
that Third Culture scientists have now been joined by
enlightened new thinkers from the humanities and that
together they can lay claim to the term 'humanists'.
So I have two questions.
1.
Are you sure you want to use the term 'humanist' as the
banner to unite under? In his controversial speech at
TED this year, Richard Dawkins pointed out that there
is a kind of speciesism inherent in the term that runs
counter to some of the most profound insights of the Third
Culture revolution... that we are special, but still just
part of a much bigger, mind-bogglingly complex evolutionary
process that (in your own words) is at an early stage.
Dawkins' preferred banner of 'atheist' has its own problems
(why use a negative to define something that is profoundly
positive?). If the goal is to reference Michelangelo and
Leonardo da Vinci, how about 'Renaissance thinker'...?
Actually this would be a great forum for you to canvas
alternatives. 'Rationalist'? 'Universalist'? There's a
lot of historical baggage whichever way you turn.
2. How far can the revolution go without the 'humanists'
providing something to replace the role of religion? Suppose
it turns out that religious instinct and consequent religious
group behavior has been a part of our species since sentience
first arose? Then the assumption of some scientists that
the new intellectual framework they've provided means
religion can be abandoned may be as mistaken as the now
discredited belief that cultures can simply reinvent sexual
and moral norms. Maybe most societies just need religious
expression as part of being human. What's interesting
is that science, or at least the breathtakingly mysterious
world unveiled by science, is potentially capable of filling
that role. As Douglas Rushkoff says: "The jaw drops,
the eyes widen, the mind opens." But so far this
is typically experienced by an individual alone. There
is no venue for a group celebration of the mystery of
our planet and universe. The very idea seems embarrassing.
Yet without the group experience, it is possible the psychological
appeal of church, mosque and synagogue will be too strong
for the revolution you believe ever to become more than
the conviction of an enlightened minority. Howard Rheingold
asks whether science can crack the problem of "cooperation".
It's a key question. But even more important may be whether
it can ever inspire cooperation.
CHRIS
ANDERSON, a philosopher by training, is the Chairman and
Host of the TED Conference held each February in Monterey,
California. [more....]
|
