Question : Is social progress possible without Humanism?
(2010)
Answer : Humanism is an ideology which lays emphasis on the true and complete development of mankind. It does not believe in transcendentalism and there is rational in its thinking and approach. These things are also necessary for the social progress. Some of the basic tenets of the humanism are as follows:
placing the human being as the central value and concern,
affirming the equality of all people and striving for truly equality of opportunity for all
valuing personal and cultural diversity and condemning all forms of discrimination
encouraging the development of knowledge beyond limitations accepted as “truths”
affirming the freedom of ideas and beliefs
rejecting all forms of violence, including economic, racial, religious and other forms of violence
Most of these things are essential for the social progress. Progress is term that signifies a change for the betterment of the society. I man progresses, it prepares the background for the social progress if the approach behind is not individualistic. In other words the progress of the society lies in the progress of the mankind which is the ultimate goal of the humanism. Though humanism seems individualistic in nature, it is not that it opposes the concept of social progress. In fact it encompasses many things that are necessary for the social progress. It emphasis on the scientific temper and approach, affirms the equality and freedom of the human being. These are the things which one can think of social progress. Social progress refers to progress in social, economic, political aspects keeping in tune with the ethical norms of the society. This is what is truly implied in the concept of humanism if individual is replaced by the term society.
Question : Is Secularism analogous to Atheism? Examine in the Indian context.
(2009)
Answer : Secularism as a modern political and constitutional principle involves two basic propositions. The first is that people belonging to different faiths and sections of society are equal before the law, the Constitution and government policy. The second requirement is that there can be no mixing up of religion and politics. It follows therefore that there can be no discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion or faith nor is there room for the hegemony of one religion or majoritarian religious sentiments and aspirations. It is in this double sense no discrimination against anyone on grounds of faith and separation of religion from politics—that our Constitution safeguards secularism, however imperfectly.
These political principles imply also the acceptance of a somewhat more general principle: that the realm of validity of religion in the public arena and society is necessarily limited. Religion, being above all a matter of personal faith, cannot be used as the basis of settling questions of the real world, or of man in society. While individuals in society may base their values on particular religious tenets, where such questions impinge on society as a whole the basis of discussion and social consensus cannot be religion—much less one particular religion. This larger principle does not conflict with the historical fact that certain values in a society may have their foundation in religion; these values are re-examined in a rational and humane spirit before they are accepted as the values that govern the functioning of a modern society, and new values indeed are created which are necessary for modern times. Secularism in India has very different meaning and implications. The word secularism has never been used in Indian context in the sense in which it has been used in Western countries i.e. in the sense of atheism or purely this worldly approach, rejecting the other-worldly beliefs. India is a country where religion is very central to the life of people.
India’s age-old philosophy as expounded in Hindu scriptures called Upanishad is sarva dharma samabhava, which means equal respect for all religions. The reason behind this approach is the fact that India has never been a mono-religious country. Even before the Aryan invasion India was not a mono-religious country. Atheism on the other hand can be either the rejection of theism or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from non-belief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviours to which all atheists adhere.
Practical atheism can take various forms:
Question : Is multiculturalism a boon or a bane? Discuss.
(2008)
Answer : The term multiculturalism generally refers to an applied ideology of racial, cultural and ethnic diversity within the demographics of a specified place, usually at the scale of an organization such as a school, business, neighbourhood, city or nation.
Some countries have official, or de jure policies of multiculturalism aimed at recognizing, celebrating and maintaining the different cultures or cultural identities within that society to promote social cohesion. In this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to distinct cultural and religious groups, with no one culture predominating. According to many scholars, India is the most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the African continent. India’s democratic republic is premised on a national belief in pluralism, not the standard nationalist invocation of a shared history, a single language and assimilation’s culture. State boundaries in India are mostly drawn on linguistic lines. In addition India is also one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world, with significant Hindu (80.5%) , Muslim (13.4%), Christian (2.3%), Sikh (2.1%), Buddhist, Bahá’í, Ahmadi, Jain and Parsi populations. Cities like Mumbai in Maharashtra display high levels of multilingualism and multiculturalism, spurred by political integration after independence and migration from rural areas.
Multiculturalism or cultural pluralism is fundamental to the belief that all citizens are equal. Multiculturalism in India ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. Acceptance gives each Indian citizen a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures. India has embraced diversity, or cultural pluralism in both policy and practice. The Indian Constitution which is the source of many state policies can be said to be a basic multicultural document, in the sense of providing for political and institutional measures for the recognition and accommodation of the country’s diversity.
Cultural diversity is viewed as one of India’s most important attributes, socially and economically. Through multiculturalism, India recognizes the potential of all citizens, encouraging them to integrate into their society and take an active part in its social, cultural, economic and political affairs. Our advantage lies in having been a multicultural society from our earliest days. Our diversity is a national asset. India contains the entire globe within its borders. Multiculturalism is a relationship between the state and the Indian people. Our citizenship gives us equal rights and equal responsibilities. By taking an active part in our civic affairs, we affirm these rights and strengthen India’s democracy.
The essence of inclusiveness is that we are part of a society in which language, colour, education, sex and money do not, should not divide us. A multicultural society cannot be stable and last long without developing a common sense of belonging among its citizens. Although equal citizenship is essential to fostering a common sense of belonging, it is not enough. Citizenship is about status and rights; belonging is about acceptance, feeling welcome, a sense of identification. The two do not necessarily coincide. One might enjoy all the rights of citizenship but feel that one does not quite belong to the community and is a relative outsider. This feeling of being fully a citizen and yet an outsider is difficult to analyze and explain, but it can be deep and real and seriously damage the quality of one’s citizenship as well as one’s sense of commitment to the political community. It is caused by, among other things, the manner in which the wider society defines itself, the demeaning ways in which the rest of its members talk about these groups, and the dismissive or patronizing ways in which they treat them.
Although members of these groups are in principle free to participate in its public life, they often stay away for fear of rejection and ridicule or out of a deep sense of alienation. Multiculturalism is best understood neither as a political doctrine with a programmatic content nor a philosophical school but as a perspective on or a way of viewing human life. In India it has three central insights: First, human beings are culturally embedded in the sense that they grow up and live within a culturally structured world and organize their lives and social relations.
Second, different cultures represent different systems of meaning and visions of the good life. Since each realizes a limited range of human capacities and emotions and grasps only a part of the totality of human existence, it needs other cultures to help it understand itself better, expand its intellectual and moral horizon, stretch its imagination, and so on. Third, every culture is internally plural and reflects a continuing conversation between its different traditions and strands of thought. This does not mean that it is devoid of coherence and identity, but that its identity is plural, fluid and open. Cultures grow out of conscious and unconscious interactions with each other, define their identity.
A culture cannot appreciate the value of others unless it appreciates the plurality within it; a culture cannot be at ease with differences outside it unless it is at ease with its own internal differences. A dialogue between cultures requires that each should be willing to open itself up to the influence of and learn from others, and this presupposes that it is self-critical and willing and able to engage in a dialogue with itself.
On the other hand social cleavage may there in the multicultural society. Social cleavage denotes a meaningful and enduring division in society, around which social forces define themselves and may engage in political mobilization. Cleavages based on class and ethnicity polarizes the society. Debates over class are often very confusing.
First, class represents a special kind of status group marked by distinctive life styles, tastes, and sensibilities. It is represented by non economic sources of social cleavage – such as caste, religion or ethnicity.
Second, class explains inequalities in economically-defined life chances and standards of living. Here, it is not defined by subjectively-salient attributes of a social location, but rather by the relationship of people to income-generating resources or assets of various sorts. The system of inequality generated by their relationship to these resources, and lifestyles in turn may be consolidated into salient identities.
Third, class represents economic cleavages in society hat systematically generate overt Conflicts. Inequalities in economic opportunities generate antagonisms of interest.
Finally, class represents sorts of struggles against exploitation and oppressions. This is a much more complex and normatively contentious question. But still benefits of multiculturalism outweigh its defects.
Question : “Christian Humanism is a contradiction in terms”.
(2006)
Answer : Christian Humanism is the belief that human freedom and individualism are intrinsic (natural) parts of, or are at least compatible with, Christian doctrine and practice. It is a philosophical union of Christian and humanist principles. Christian humanism may have begun as early as the 2nd century, with the writings of Justin Martyr. While far from radical, Justin suggested a value in the achievements of Classical culture in his Apology Influential letters by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa confirmed the commitment to using pre-Christian knowledge, particularly as it touched the material world and not metaphysical beliefs.
Already the formal aspects of Greek philosophy, namely syllogistic reasoning, arose in both the Byzantine Empire and Western European circles in the eleventh century to inform the process of theology. However, the Byzantine hierarchy during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos convicted several thinkers of applying “human” logic to “divine” matters. Peter Abelard’s work encountered similar ecclesiastical resistance in the West in the same period. Petrarch (1304-1374) is also considered a father of humanism. The traditional teaching that humans are made in the image of God, or in Latin the Imago Dei, also supports individual worth and personal dignity. Humanists were involved with studia humanitatis and placed great importance on studying ancient languages, namely Greek and Latin, eloquence, classical authors, and rhetoric. All were important for educational curriculum. Christian humanists also cared about scriptural and patristic writings, Hebrew, Church reform, clerical education, and preaching. Christian humanism saw an explosion in the Renaissance, emanating from an increased faith in the capabilities of Man, married with a still-firm devotion to Christianity.
Mere Humanism might value earthly existence as something worthy in itself, whereas Christian humanism would value such existence, so long as it was combined with the Christian faith. One of the first texts regarding Christian humanism was Giovanni Pico della Mirandola Oration on the Dignity of Man, in which he stressed that Men had the free will to travel up and down a moral scale, with God and angels being at the top, and Satan being at the bottom. The country of Pico’s nativity, Italy, leaned heavily toward Civic humanism, while the firmer Christian principles took effect in places other than Italy, during what is now called the Northern Renaissance. Italian universities and academia stressed Classical mythology and writings as a source of knowledge, whereas universities in the Holy Roman Empire, France, etc. were still deeply Christian and taught extensively of Church Father’. After the fall of the Roman Empire and the civilization of barbarians, there were thoughts of a more Christianized humanity for society. Western Christian clerics controlled education, since only the monasteries remained as seats of learning. Charlemagne requested for scholars to set up places of learning that would become universities in the twelfth century. Eastern Christians meanwhile continued the late Antique practice of studying in the homes of secular masters, studying the same curriculum of “classical” Greek authors as their predecessors in the Roman period: Homer’s Iliad, Plato’s dialogues, Aristotle’s Categories, Demosthenes’ speeches, Galen, Dioscurides, Strabo and others.
Christian education in the East largely was relegated to learning to read the Bible at the knees of one’s parents and the rudiments of grammar in the letters of Basil or the homilies of Gregory Nazianzus. Western universities including Padua and Bologna, Paris and Oxford resulted from the so-called Gregorian Reform, which encouraged a new kind of cleric clustered around cathedrals, the secular canon. The cathedral schools meant to train clerics for the growing clerical bureaucracy soon served as training grounds for talented young men to train in medicine, law, and the liberal arts of the quadrivium and trivium, in addition to Christian theology.
Classical Latin texts and translations of Greek texts served as the basis of non-theological education. A primitive humanism actually started when the papacy began protecting the Northern Cluniacs and Cistercians and the Church formed a unifying bond. Monks and friars went on crusades and St. Bernard counseled kings. Priests were frequently Lord Chancellors in England and in France. Christian views became present in all aspects of society. There was a stressed importance that one must serve God and others. Furthermore, there was a view of human nature that was both hopeful and Christian. All offices, civil, and academic works had religious elements. For example, during the Middle Ages, guilds or livery companies resembled modern-day trade unions. In addition, religion influenced medicine with the Good Samaritan of the Gospels and St. Luke. The idea of free people under God came from this time and spread from the West to other areas of the world. Thus the term Christian humanism defines an idea that implies a contradiction. Christian humanism is meant to describe a person who has humanistic traits and goals and uses them in defense of his belief in Jesus Christ.
Question : What is humanism? What are its different kinds? In what way, if any, is M. N. Roy’s radical Humanism different from Marxism?
(2005)
Answer : Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism can be considered the process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
There are many people who consider themselves humanists, and much variety in the exact type of humanism to which they subscribe. There is some disagreement over terminology and definitions, with some people using narrower or broader interpretations. Not all people who call themselves humanists hold beliefs that are genuinely humanistic and not all people who do hold humanistic beliefs apply the label of humanism to themselves. All of this aside, Humanism can be divided into secular and religious types, although some Humanists, including the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), reject the addition of any adjective at all to “Humanist,” and instead intended the word to have universal application.
There are many forms of humanism. It is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.
Secular humanism is the branch of humanism that rejects theistic religious belief and adherence to belief in the existence of a supernatural world. When people speak of Humanism in general, they are sometimes referring to secular humanism as a default meaning. Some secular humanists take this even further by denying that less anti-religious humanists qualify as genuine humanists. Others feel that the ethical side of humanism transcends the issue of religion, because being a good person is more important than rejecting supernatural beliefs. The Humanist Manifestos, which represent consensus statements of Humanists, present Humanism as an ethical process and a religion through which we can move above and beyond both the divisive particulars of older religious stances and the negation of these
Religious humanism is the branch of humanism that considers itself religious (based on a functional definition of religion), or embraces some form of theism or deism, without necessarily being allied with organized religion. Religious humanism is frequently associated with philosophers, academics and scholars in the liberal arts. It holds appeal for a number of Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, Lutherans and Anglicans. Subscribers to a religion who do not hold supernatural assertions as a necessary source for their moral values may be religious humanists. The central position of human beings in humanist philosophy goes with a humane morality; the latter alone does not constitute Humanism. A humanitarian who derives morality from religious grounds does not make a religious Humanist. A number of religious humanists feel that secular humanism is too coldly logical and rejects the full emotional experience that makes humans human. From this comes the notion that secular humanism is inadequate in meeting the human need for a socially fulfilling philosophy of life. Disagreements over things of this nature have resulted in friction between secular and religious humanists, despite their commonalities.
Religious Humanism was studied and developed by the late Rev. Paul Beattie during his tenure as editor of Religious Humanism, a periodical which became Unitarian rather than Humanist after his death and continues as such today.
Humanism, as a current in education, began to dominate U.S. school systems in the 17th century. It held that the studies that develop human intellect are those that make humans “most truly human”. The practical basis for this was faculty psychology, or the belief in distinct intellectual faculties, such as the analytical, the mathematical, the linguistic, etc. Strengthening one faculty was believed to benefit other faculties as well (transfer of training). A key player in the late 19th-century educational humanism was U.S. Commissioner of Education W.T. Harris, whose “Five Windows of the Soul” (mathematics, geography, history, grammar, and literature/art) were believed especially appropriate for “development of the faculties”. Educational humanists believe that “the best studies, for the best kids” are “the best studies” for all kids. While humanism as an educational current was widely supplanted in the United States by the innovations of the early 20th century, it still holds out in some preparatory schools and some high school disciplines (especially in literature).
One form of humanism is Marxist humanism. Marx held that insofar as man only has his liberty to produce, and produce according to his own conceived ideas (e.g., he designs a very fancy shoe and wants to see this shoe materialize), capitalism, as a system, will be an eternal stymie to man’s natural freedom. Roy on the other hand rejected historical determinism and class war of Marxism, and declared that without a cultural and philosophical revolution no social, political and economic revolution was possible. Terming this desired cultural transformation a 20th century renaissance, Roy later founded in 1946, along with his second wife Ellen Gottschalk and other colleagues, the Indian Renaissance Institute for ‘spreading the spirit of Enlightenment Humanism and the Search for Truth’. Roy formulated his materialistic approach in 22 theses where he attempted to restore to 19th century Radicalism its humanist essence, and hence called his philosophy Radical Humanism. Roy’s approach integrates the scientific attitude and the democratic spirit - democracy is not merely a process, it is a system of values. For the Radical Humanist, the quest for freedom and search for truth constitute the basic urge of human progress. The quest for freedom is the continuation, on a higher level - of intelligence and emotion - of the biological struggle for existence.
According to Roy the method and program of a social revolution must therefore be based on a reassertion of the basic principle of social progress. Hence, the program of the humanist revolution will be based on the principles of freedom, reason and social harmony. In this way, Radicalism gives to freedom a moral-intellectual as well as social content; and it also offers a comprehensive theory of social progress in which both the dialectics of economic determinism and dynamics of ideas find their due recognition; and it deduces from the same a method and program of social revolution in our time. Radical Humanism provides an approach to the reconstruction of the world as a commonwealth and fraternity of free men, by the collective endeavour of spiritually emancipated moral men.Question : Mahatma Gandhi on sarva dharma sambhava.
(2002)
Answer : Mahatma Gandhi had a solution for everything and so religious pluralism was also not an exception to it. Religious pluralism is a loosely defined expression concerning acceptance of different religions, and is used in a number of related ways:
To prevent conflicts caused by religious bigotry, Gandhi suggested “Sarva Dharma Sambhav”. According to him all religions are true and man can not live without religion so he recommends attitude of respect and tolerance towards all religions. According to Gandhi indeed, religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality.
Question : Freedom as liberation from samsara.
(2002)
Answer : In Indian religions, Moksha or Mukti , literally “release” (both from a root muc “to let loose, let go”), is the liberation from samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth or reincarnation and all of the suffering and limitation of worldly existence. In Hindu philosophy, it is seen as a transcendence of phenomenal being, a state of higher consciousness, in which matter, energy, time, space, causation (karma) and the other features of empirical reality are understood as maya. Liberation is experienced in this very life as dissolution of the sense of self as an egoistic personality by which the underlying, eternal, pure spirit is uncovered.
This desire less state concludes the yogic path through which conditioned mentality-materiality or nama-roopa (lit. name-form) has been dissolved uncovering one’s eternal identity prior to the mind/spirit’s identification with material form. Liberation is achieved by (and accompanied with) the complete stilling of all passions — a state of being known as Nirvana. Advaita Vedantist thought differs slightly from the Buddhist reading of liberation. In the state of Moksha or Mukti, lies ultimate peace (Shanti), ultimate knowledge (Videh), and ultimate enlightenment (Kaivalya). Paradise (Swarga) is believed to be a place of temporal attractions to be avoided by the seeker in order to pursue the ultimate goal of yoking up with God through Yoga. In fact, even acquiring intermediate spiritual powers (Siddhis) is to be avoided as they can turn out to be stumbling blocks in the path towards ultimate liberation, Mukti. Hinduism, atma-jnana (self-realization) is the key to obtaining Moksha.
The Hindu is one who practices one or more forms of Yoga — Bhakti, Karma, Jnana, and Raja, knowing that God is unlimited and exists in many different forms, both personal and impersonal. There are believed to be four Yogas (disciplines) or margas (paths) for the attainment of Moksha. These are: working for the Supreme (Karma Yoga), realizing the Supreme (Jnana Yoga), meditating on the Supreme (Raja Yoga) and serving the Supreme in loving devotion (Bhakti Yoga). Different schools of Hinduism place varying emphasis on one path or other, some of the most famous being the tantric and yogic practices developed in Hinduism. Today, the two major schools of thought are Advaita Vedanta and Bhakti branches.
One must achieve Moksha on his or her own under the guidance of a Guru. A Guru or a Siddha inspires but does not intervene. In the state of Moksha or Mukti, lies ultimate peace (Shanti), ultimate knowledge (Videh), and ultimate enlightenment (Kaivalya). Paradise (Swarga) is believed to be a place of temporal attractions to be avoided by the seeker in order to pursue the ultimate goal of yoking up with God through Yoga. In fact, even acquiring intermediate spiritual powers (Siddhis) is to be avoided as they can turn out to be stumbling blocks in the path towards ultimate liberation, Mukti.
Question : Evaluate M. N. Roy’s Humanism as a response to Marxism.
(2002)
Answer : The term “Marxist humanism” has as its foundation Marx’s conception of the “alienation of the labourer” as he advanced it in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 — an alienation that is born of a capitalist system in which the worker no longer functions as (what Marx termed) a free being involved with free and associated labor. And although many scholars consider late Marx less of a humanist than the Marx who wrote pre-Das Kapital as his later works are rather bereft of references to this alienation, others {for example David McClellan, Robert C. Tucker, George Brenkert} argue that the notion of alienation remains a part of Marx’s philosophy. Theodor Shanin) and RayaDunayevskaya go further, not only is alienation present in the late Marx, but that there is no split between the young Marx and mature Marx, but one Marx. As is assumed under the very notion of alienation, there is a human who, when disenfranchised by his own labour, becomes less human — in fact, Marx says he becomes objectified. According to Marx, humans naturally produce for their own benefit; and, furthermore, he freely produces in association with other free beings.
However, under a capitalist society the alienation of the means of production gives rise to “fettering” productive relations; there is a single capitalist employing an army of workers at wages just sufficient to provide for their mere subsistence. The worker becomes a slave. He is no longer a free productive being, but instead he absolutely must produce to simply meet his most basic needs. Multiple alienations are evident: from themselves, from the human being, from the object they produce, and the process of work itself. The stamp of Hegel is clear and unmistakable.
However, there is more to this. In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts Marx writes: “A forcing-up of wages (disregarding all other difficulties, including the fact that it would only be by force, too, that the higher-wages, being an anomaly, could be maintained) would therefore be nothing but better payment for the slave, and would not conquer either for the worker or for labour their human status and dignity.” It is here that Marx as a humanist is well evinced. This quote is intended to convey that it is not the 12-hour work-day alone that enslaves man, forcing him to give his entire productive being -— his natural skills, or that which constitutes his essence as a man -— over to another. Rather, it is the very (philosophic) condition behind the capitalist structure that enslaves man. Basically, capitalism is not conducive to democracy on Marx’s conception. On his conception, capitalism inherently gives rise to an elite bourgeoisie for whom the rest of society, the proletariat, must work. Insofar as this is the case, the proletarian himself will never be able to dictate the conditions of his work; they will always be determined by the capitalist himself. Marx held that insofar as man only has his liberty to produce, and produce according to his own conceived ideas (e.g., he designs a very fancy shoe and wants to see this shoe materialize), capitalism, as a system, will be an eternal stymie to man’s natural freedom. This is Marx’s humanism. Marxist Humanism is the political, or philosophic, association that assumes this as its premise.
M N Roy did not appreciate Marx’s point of view. In 1948, he launched the Radical Humanist Movement, a nonpartisan political movement, to make India what he considered a true democracy. He was a founding vice president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU); the Radical Humanist Movement was one of the original IHEU member organizations. Roy’s ideas in the context of the history of materialist philosophy, including a tantalizingly brief mention of Lokayat or Charvaka, an ancient Indian school of materialist thought are worth mentioning. While Roy opposed the glorification of India’s so-called spiritual heritage, he favored a rational and critical study of ancient Indian philosophy. He thought it might do for India what the rediscovery of ancient Greek thought did for Europe in the Renaissance. Roy’s version of materialism was an ethical philosophy. He believed that human beings have the power to make free and rational choices, and that they have a duty to do this without debasing themselves before imaginary supernatural beings. Roy’s thought differed from Marxian materialism.
According to Roy, Marxian determinism did not allow for human freedom and it neglected ethics. Like Bertrand Russell, Roy perceived there is no logical connection between Marx’s philosophical materialism (there is no supernatural reality) and his historical materialism (everything in history has economic causes).
Roy preferred to call his philosophy “physical realism,” meaning that the physical world comprises all of reality, and a supposed supernatural or spiritual realm is not necessary to explain the world. He did not think the discoveries of modern physics invalidate physical realism. The universe may not be mechanistic, but it is still understandable through rational inquiry, according to Roy. There is the same logical disjunction within M.N. Roy’s thought that Roy observed in Karl Marx, in that physical realism neither contradicts nor supports Roy’s new humanist political philosophy. While this is true, there is a psychological, if not a logical, connection between the two aspects of Roy’s ideas.
The person who is able to reject supernatural beliefs and apply his own understanding to the physical world is a person likely to desire political freedom and the right to apply his own understanding to society.The 22 Theses outline the principles of the personal and social philosophy of Radical Humanism. The basic values of freedom, rationalism and morality are traced in the Theses to man’s biological evolution. It is pointed out that quest for freedom and search for truth constitute the basic urge of human progress. The Theses emphasize the in-severability of political and economic freedom and indicate how the comprehensive ideal of political and economic freedom may be achieved.
Further discussion of the principles enunciated in the 22 Theses and the Manifesto led Roy to the conclusion that party politics was inconsistent with the ideal of democracy and that it was liable to degenerate into power politics. Roy was of the view that political power in a democracy should reside in primary organizations of the people such as People’s Committees and should not be usurped by any political party. He was further of the view that particularly in countries like India, where a major section of the electorate was illiterate, party politics was bound to become an unprincipled scramble for power.
These ideas led to the dissolution of the Radical Democratic Party in an all India Conference held in December, l948 and the launching of a movement called the Radical Humanist Movement. One of the new ideas developed by Roy during his Radical Humanist phase related to the concept of “co-operative economy”. In a cooperative economy, the means of production would not belong either to the capitalist class or to the State.They would belong to the workers themselves. Roy was of the view that co-operative economy was superior to both capitalism and State ownership. Man is archetype of society; co-operative social relationships contribute to develop individual potentialities. But the development of the individual is the measure of social progress. Quest for freedom and search for truth constitute the basic urge of human progress. Roy is of the view that, “religion is bound to be liquidated by science, because scientific knowledge enables mankind to answer questions, confronted by which in its childhood, it was compelled to assume super-natural forces or agencies.”
Question : “Politics bereft of religion are absolute dirt, ever to be shunned.”
(2001)
Answer : Gandhi claim that human mind or human society is not divided into watertight compartments called social, political and religious. All act and react upon one another. Human life being an undivided whole, no line can ever be drawn between its different compartments, not between ethics and politics. A trader who earns his wealth by deception only succeeds in deceiving himself when he thinks that his sins can be washed away by spending some amount of his ill-gotten gains on the so-called religious purposes. One’s everyday life is never capable of being separated from one’s spiritual being. Both act and react upon one another.
The politician in one’s should never dominate a single decision and if one really takes part in politics, it is only because politics encircle everybody today, it has to be sanctified with the religion. In other words introducing religion into politics is the spiritualization of the politics. To see the universal and all-pervading Spirit of Truth face to face, one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life. In the word of Gandhi “That is why my devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means.” According to Gandhi leading a religious life binds one with the whole of mankind, and that can not be done unless one takes part in politics. The whole gamut of man’s activities today constitutes an indivisible whole. We cannot divide social, economic, political and purely religious work into watertight compartments. Religion provides a moral basis to all other activities which they would otherwise lack, reducing life to a maze of ‘sound and fury signifying nothing’. For Gandhi, politics bereft of religion are absolute dirt, ever to be shunned. Politics concern nations and that which concerns the welfare of nations must be one of the concerns of a man who is religiously inclined, in other words, a seeker after God and Truth. For me, God and Truth are convertible terms, and if anyone told me that God was a god of untruth or a god of torture, I would decline to worship Him, said Gandhi.
Therefore, in politics also we have to establish the kingdom of Heaven. According to Gandhi indeed, religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality. Religion is no test of nationality, but a personal matter between man and his God. In the sense of nationality they are Indians first and Indians last, no matter what religion they profess.
Question : Secularism in Indian context.
(2000)
Answer : The concept of secularism in India could have three meanings;
The third view as the one having an aggressive element because it denies any place to the transcendent. Secularism is no more than one member of a family of worldviews, relations between which need to be based on the principle of Sarva Dharma Samabhav. Any religion is not consistent with the concept of secularism, that a life must be guided by reason and a life guided by reason must take into account the material as well as the non-material needs of human personality, that the shared values and norms for a life in this world often run counter to the explicit norms of religion and that theistic and transcendental belief systems have often tended to be intolerant of each other.
Even secularism of the agnostic variety need accept the right of another individual to have his own belief system; this is not the same thing as respecting that belief system itself. Despite the platitudes of politicians and others there is in reality no respect among the adherents of one religion for the religion of others. Thus in case of India one can say by and large it is secular in as much as it is religiously plural and tolerant but there are politically divisive forces quite active and create communal pressure and widen the gap between religious community thus bringing Indian secularism under threat.
Question : Explain humanism and discuss the essential features of radical humanism.
(1999)
Answer : Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism can be considered the process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
Humanism clearly rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in resolving human affairs but not necessarily the beliefs themselves; indeed some strains of Humanism are compatible with some religions. It is generally compatible with atheism and agnosticism but doesn’t require either of these. The word “ignostic” (American) or “indifferentist” (British, including OED) are sometimes applied to Humanism, on the grounds that Humanism is an ethical process, not a dogma about the existence or otherwise of gods; Humanists simply have no need to be concerned with such questions. Agnosticism or atheism on their own does not necessarily entail Humanism; many different and sometimes incompatible philosophies happen to be atheistic in nature. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere, and not all are humanistic.
As Humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical and religious thought, several strains of Humanism allow it to fulfill, supplement or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance. In a number of countries, for the purpose of laws that give rights to “religions”, the secular life stance has become legally recognized as equivalent to a “religion” for this purpose. Renaissance humanism, and its emphasis on returning to the sources, contributed to the Protestant reformation by helping to gain what Protestants believe was a more accurate translation of Biblical texts.
According to Humanism, it is up to humans to find the truth, as opposed to seeking it through revelation, mysticism, tradition, or anything else that is incompatible with the application of logic to the observable evidence. In demanding that humans avoid blindly accepting unsupported beliefs, it supports scientific skepticism and the scientific method, rejecting authoritarianism and extreme skepticism, and rendering faith an unacceptable basis for action. Likewise, Humanism asserts that knowledge of right and wrong is based on the best understanding of one’s individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental truth or an arbitrarily local source.
Some have interpreted Humanism to be a form of speciesism, regarding humans as being more important than other species. The philosopher Peter Singer, himself a Humanist, stated that “despite many individual exceptions, Humanists have, on the whole, been unable to free themselves from one of the most central. Christian dogmas: the prejudice of speciesism”. He called on Humanists to “take a stand against... ruthless exploitation of other sentient beings”, and took issue with statements in the Humanist Manifest II, which he felt gave “precedence to the interests of members of our own species.” Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that all people can live up to the Humanist ideals without help. If anything, there is the recognition that living up to one’s potential is hard work and requires the assistance of others. The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species, also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings. The focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world better for those who come after.
So far as Radical Humanism is concerned, this point of view regards the social world from a nominalist, anti-positivist and ideographic perspective. It emphasizes the importance of overcoming the limitations of existing social structures. It Claims that nothing changes of the influence of the individual. It denies of any objective reality and claims that any social structure can only be studied from the point of view of individuals directly involved. It focuses on the importance of the individual’s subjective experience in creating social structures. It main tenets are:
Question : Socialistic Humanism.
(1998)
Answer : Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism can be considered the process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
Socialism also talks about humanism.As per the socialism the capitalist world, unable to transform itself into a socialist society, but still able either to neutralize or subdue the potentially-given social forces that could affect such a transformation, tends towards its own self-destruction. While it is generally granted that war, though improbable, may be released ‘accidentally’, a concern with humanism must assume that, while war is probable, peace may be maintained ‘accidentally’. In that case, there arises the possibility of a new upsurge of anti-capitalist sentiments and activities. The capacity of private capitalism, in its variously diluted forms, to ameliorate the conditions of exploitation is clearly limited. This is apparent in the division of the labouring population in a decreasingly favoured and an increasingly neglected sector. The elimination of human labour that accompanies the further expansion of capital neither wipes out the proletariat numerically, nor kills its desire to live decently. The very expansion of the newly-developing capitalistic system, on the other hand, brings with it the growth of an industrial proletariat and thus the objective conditions of class consciousness. The resumption of the struggle for socialism would also be the rebirth of socialist humanism.
Question : Emotive meaning in religious language.
(1996)
Answer : Religious language is same as the language we use in our day to day life. But it uses some of the specialized terminologies that we mean in a particular context though these terms are also used in normal socio cultural context.Most terms are tied to or else distinguish by cultural differences, and methods for maintaining the meaning of its collective terms over time. Particular terms may express concepts which may be largely unique to that religion, or may otherwise be translatable to concepts present in other religious systems, as well as secular terms. It is mistakenly imagined by some that belief in a Supreme Being as the Creator and Controller of the universe is a mere emotional aspiration, a superstition of ancient times, irrational and illogical, and exploded by modern science. It is believed that scientists (physicists, biologists and others) have erected some theory which both refutes and replaces the traditional belief in God. Such ideas have only a very superficial grounding, and are the result of ignorance or an indifference to both the fundamentals of religious faith and the scope of the physical sciences. It is the religious belief of an individual that is expressed in the religious language.
Through this language a believer shows his firm faith in God.It is a significant fact in the history of world thought that very few people have ever made it their business to refute the existence of God. The views of the universe which are considered to be anti-religious are almost all agnostic, not atheistic, that is to say, they attempt to ignore the existence of God instead of denying it. This is true of certain views of modern science as well as of the ancient non-religious theories. The universe in which we live comprises an evident system of causes and effects, of phenomena and their results, and it is possible to discuss them indefinitely and construct theories about them, giving a superficial appearance of completeness. This is done, however, only at the expense of ignoring fundamentals or claiming that they cannot be known.
If one were to search for a convincing statement based on firm principles that the existence of a Supreme Being is impossible, one would not be able to find it. The reason for this state of affairs is that belief in God is at once instinctive, rational, evidential and intuitional, and it is only by deliberately neglecting to consider it that the non-religious attitude is maintained. It is instinctive in that man has an innate feeling of his own inadequacy and helplessness, which accompanies him from the cradle to the grave, a feeling accompanied by the complementary desire to seek refuge and support with a being that controls all those forces before which he feels himself inadequate. We put this feeling forward as instinctive, although it will immediately be perceived that it is also evidential.
Question : Identify the traditional Indian values which need to be fostered by modern Indian family. How can these values be fostered?
(1996)
Answer : Some of the traditional Indian values Indian families need to foster are following:
One result of the difference between group and individual emphasis is that internal conflict may result since the accent in most schools in generally on work for personal gain, not on group work. The Indian child may not forge ahead as an independent person and may prefer to work with and for the group. Some educators consider this to be behavior that should be discouraged and modified.
