Derivations on a Theme - So Full of Ourselves

Yesterday I focused the Blog Spotlight on NW Ohio Skeptics and, here again, I am using that blog for this post as well. In a post yesterday, Bruce wrote,

The best answer, the best philosophy of living, in my humble opinion, is humanism. With humanism the focus is on reality, the here and now. Surely, Ron, the history major that he is, knows that many humanists have a spiritual or religious dimension to their beliefs. But, the humanist always comes back to what they can see. The humanist does not have time to spend on pining about a future in heaven, the rapture, and the many other events in the eternal future that preoccupy and keep Christians from engaging a suffering, hurting, and dying world.

While this discussion of humanism wasn't the focal point of the post, in question, I'm using it as my springboard for my latest Derivations on a Theme.

I do not consider myself a humanist. My chief problem with the term is that it is so egotistical. While we Homo sapiens use a wide variety of terms to describe ourselves and others (e.g., Christian, Muslim, Taoist, smart, affable, sexy, boorish, friend, enemy, etc.), the one term we all share collectively is HUMAN.

All of these terms -- including human -- are used to delineate separation and boundaries. If you call yourself a Buddhist, you are indicating that you subscribe to a general worldview that is different than other belief perspectives. You are drawing a line in the sand to say that people who generally believe as I do are over here and the rest of you are other there.

(As a side note, this tendency to compare and contrast perceived differences will be featured over the next few days in the Line by Line series as we dive into Verse 2 of the Tao Te Ching.)

While humans like to separate things and draw definitive distinctions, if we look to nature, this doesn't seem to be the way the cosmos works! The air, sun, wind and rain aren't cordoned off to be utilized by specific species; each is freely available to all. The inference here is that nature treats all substance and non-substance alike. It draws no such distinctions -- it is impartial.

And so, if we are to be one with the cosmos, then we shouldn't be drawing lines between humans and all other beings. While there is nothing wrong with showing concern for your species, this concern should not be at the expense of others.

This is where I lodge an objection against humanism. In his post, Bruce quotes the Humanist Magazine regarding their statement of what humanism entails. It reads, in part,

Free of theism and other supernatural beliefs, humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny. (emphasis added)

For me, the issue I have with this methodology is that "human need and interest" often conflicts with the "needs" of Mother Earth and all the other beings that inhabit her.

I am, of course, not immune from this penchant to ascribe labels to myself and others. I go by the moniker of The Rambling Taoist and this blog is about a specific philosophic perspective. If I genuinely practiced what I preach, then I should just call myself a nebulous-ist or, better yet, not call myself anything at all!