Well, I watched it and left the comment below:
I enjoyed Gilliam’s presentation and will acknowledge that he has quite a story to tell, but I do wonder about the label “humanism” applied to him and, frankly, about his philosophy also. Humanism—yes, a notoriously ambiguous term—is often viewed as a non-theistic (godless) philosophy that embraces the notion of the power of human faculties—especially reason. Gilliam has surely abandoned theism and embraced human capability, but his embrace of reason is questionable, for he does seem to embrace “faith,” or something very like it, and it is faith (one might argue) that makes religion religion more than does embrace of the supernatural. Yes, Gilliam was saved in part by internet activists, but his rescue had more to do with medicine and the phenomenon of individuals choosing to make their organs available to others—both pre-dating the Internet. And so why does he attribute the miracle of his rescue to the Internet and not to these other things, which surely are more fundamental to the event? At a certain point, Gilliam reminds one of the charismatic preacher who, having roused his audience with stories of happy accident, human kindness, and whatnot, commits the usual non sequitur: it’s Jeeeeeesus.(Note: someone with a sounder training in the Humanities would not have made Gilliam's mistake—namely, conceiving and exhorting his godless, human-centered philosophy as a religion—something relying on "faith.")
Gilliam simply replaces Jesus with the Internet. So, what we have here is not humanism but a new, but a typical, religion—a thing with an utter failure of logic at its core.
15 comments:
You mean, you don't believe in the internet? A blogger doesn't believe in the internet?
I do not believe in the internet as a religion. I can think of no clear sense in which I either believe or "fail" to believe in the internet. I do think that it is fair to ask what we are to make of the internet from the perspective of concern for our wellbeing. Like most new things, it is embraced by "us" with little thought of what that might mean. Are you for real?
Seriously Chunk, you have a knack for just fuckin' nailing the point. Every time I come across some topic like this on your blog, I am excited to participate. However, you do such a good job using your words carefully and considering several vantage points simultaneously that I can't say a damned thing, either in addition to your words or counter.
I didn't even want to post this since it's just one big ass kiss, but I felt compelled to do so.
I'll pile on to that ass-kiss, Bohrstein (actually, just a well-deserved compliment). Thank you for still calling him Chunk, BTW. And well-said.
MAH
Well, gosh, thanks you two. The folks on the OJ Blog were, however, much less impressed!
"The folks on the OJ Blog were, however, much less impressed!"
You say this as though you may have been ever so slightly surprised...
I guess I was a little surprised. I should know better, I know.
K, what happened to your comment? It seems to have disappeared.
But thanks for your thoughtful comment. Very much appreciated.
And thanks for referring me to the Fraser piece, which I found interesting and helpful.
I do not suppose that humanism is an atheistic tradition. I am aware (perhaps less clearly than you) that the “history of humanism” is, as you say, closely linked to Christianity.
But we seem to live at a time in which one cannot assume that one’s audience understands such histories, that, in fact, many in one’s audience are more likely to adopt the caricature of philosophies offered by the media or that are in the noisy, stupid air. And so, abandoning hope of correcting my audience about the humanist tradition, I simply identified “a” humanism that they would recognize, one that does not merely celebrate human faculties but that does so over the supposed corpse of the Deity.
With regard to Mr. Gilliam, I do (and did) take him to be an atheist who seems prepared to reason badly in public and who embraces “the internet” in a fashion that is manifestly less than rational. If I understand him, he regards “faith,” not as a dubious irrationalist act but a kind of available tool. He chooses to have faith in the internet rather than in God.
My guess is that Mr. Gilliam could provide a much better case for admiration of the internet than he does in his presentation. I would be willing to listen to that.
But the sort of embrace of the internet implied in his presentation is a much grander thing than mere appreciation or admiration. I am amazed that he would offer it sans the slightest argument, which is exactly what he does. It is this gap in his “logic” that reminds me of charismatic evangelical preachers. He seems very like them to me.
Let me say, too, that I have long been annoyed by the new atheists and their approach and philosophy. I embrace atheism (or perhaps agnosticism). I do not have a problem with that. But Dawkins (and some others) do seem to have some of the optimism of Enlightenment thinkers, and that I simply do not understand. I am not at all convinced that taking religion away from people—i.e., such people as actually exist—will make them better, more rational, more peaceful, etc. I do not suppose that there is some rational state, a default condition, that is available to people, if only they would learn to read and write and then stay away from Christ and Buddha.
Neither am I a Marxist or Freudian. Nevertheless, I do find that I fit best into the anti-humanistic atheistic camp that you describe.
Let me know what you think.
K,
P.S.:
I do see your point. Gilliam does seem to fall into the "humanist" camp that you describe (such that it includes the new atheists). I should not have made my point about Gilliam in terms of whether or not he is a "humanist." Perhaps he is a humanist; my point is that his logic stinks and his manner of reasoning reminds one of the fallacy so commonly at the heart of religion.
I'd really like to see K's comment, too. Re-post, please, K--?
MAH
BvT and MAH, I'm not sure what happened to my comment. It may have been too lengthy or perhaps some divine wind erased it. I prefer the former explanation. I posted it twice. On the first attempt, I was told that it contained too many characters. So, I pasted into a word doc to edit and monitor the number of characters until it was within the acceptable limit. Then I reposted the (edited) comment once more. It was there and in the recent comments column as well. But, again I'm not sure where it went after that. But apparently you did see it, BvT. Fortunately, after editing I saved the doc file. If it is ok with you I will repost it in two comments.
-K
K's comment, part 1:
I've been mulling over your post along with a commentary by Giles Fraser in the Guardian from June 4, which concerned the "atheistic critique of humanism" and its falling into obscurity:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/04/atheistic-critique-of-humanism-forgotten
I think you are right that humanism is ambiguous. And I think you are arguing that you can't have religion and humanism at the same time. Yet, the history of humanism is nonetheless closely linked to Christanity: Augustine, Petrarch, Pico della Mirandola, More, Erasmus, etc.
Your assumption is that humanism is both non-theistic and rational—and that Gilliam is both a theist and a bad (irrational) humanist. But I'm not so sure. Gilliam seems to embrace a form of humanism that sees human goodness and capabilities as "divine". But, perhaps this residual theism has to do with the complicated relations that humanism has to theism. Aside from its history, isn't it false to assume that humanism can't be religious?— Nietzsche's critique of Christianity and humanism: once God is dead, Man takes his place; humanism is not so much a freedom from religion, but merely religion cloaked in different garb.
K's comment, part 2:
Fraser points out that "new" forms of humanism (really, just a new form of Enlightenment secular humanism) are often unreflective on their absolutist claims: unquestionability of reason, progress, essential goodness of human nature, etc. But human beings are also far more than their ability (or inability) to use reason (i.e., emotions, intuitions, creativity, stupidity—these make no claims to rationality, although they are, perhaps not exclusively, human).
Fraser brings up a good point: the tradition of antihumanist critique (which is not misanthropic, by the way) is precisely on the mark in opposing the theistic components in all forms of atheistic or secular humanisms. Antihumanists often get attacked by humanists for being irrational (denial of human agency, denial of the autonomy of the rational individual, denial of the reliability of the human senses, the denial of the detached Cartesian rational consciousness, and so on). But, what these antihumanists really point to—and it is this perspective which Fraser notes is increasingly rare nowadays—is the importance of critical reason. Anything can substitute itself for God—Man, the nation, the Internet, Reason—yet still retain theistic characteristics. Without the critical component, all of these notions can lead to their own forms of renewed enchantment.
So, I agree with your criticism of Gilliam. Although, I'm not convinced by your assumptions about humanism, if in fact you do hold these assumptions (in your post on the OJB you say in the passive voice, "Humanism—yes, a notoriously ambiguous term—is often viewed as a non-theistic (godless) philosophy that embraces the notion of the power of human faculties—especially reason." I'm critical of that equation of humanism-atheism-reason, but I'm less certain that you hold it). What do you think?
Anyway, my apologies for this lengthy post.
-K
BvT, I didn't get a chance earlier to respond to your comments. So I will do that now. it is clearer to me what you were getting at regarding your use of "humanism", and I know that wasn't the main thrust of your criticism of Gilliam (which I entirely agree with). "Faith" seems to be a notion that is sloppily used in many contexts and people seem to latch on to that idea uncritically.
But what amazes me with regard to Gilliam is how he uses his "faith" in the Internet as a means of what, of getting a following? Does the Internet need such evangelists? I'm not sure who his audience was or is, or how they received his talk. But I imagine it was not as critically received as your remarks indicate.
Even more troubling is his deification of the Internet without reasoned argument. I find that most, if not all, attempts at deification of anything (Jesus, Internet, Man, Elvis, Walt Disney) invite very lazy thinking that results in a widespread cultural failure to think at all. The one thing that struck me about Fraser's commentary is that he wasn't embracing anti-humanism. But he was indicating that there are grave dangers involved when real people embrace an idea, person, concept, or thing on faith alone, whether that be some form of humanism or theism. That theistic trait is—as Gilliam's talk illustrates—is not confined merely to the religious sphere. And from my perspective, most people seem to miss that, or they don't care.
And I also agree with you that there is not some rational kernal or invariant core of reason (is that Descartes, Kant, or Chomsky?) which lies deep within us all waiting to be liberated from ideology or superstition or nonsense. There is a mythology there that also rarely gets questioned outside of graduate philosophy seminars.
Thanks for the comments.
-K
Thank you, BvT and K, for a really enlightening and interesting discussion. K, where have you been for the life of this blog? It's wonderful to find thoughtful conversation here--especially in the quiet summer!
MAH
Post a Comment