Humanist or Antihumanist?

[BakuninFan]

Humanist or Antihumanist? Sartre or Althusser? Balibar or Debord?

[YKTMX]

I'm not convinced that Sartre was a Humanist i.e. had a belief in a transcendent subject with a "nature". I understand that this is the most common reading of existenstialism - that it rebukes Althusser - but I don't think I completely agree with it.

Anyway, I am a Humanist, even if JP wasn't.

[Dean]

This has been discussed before, I think, in a few different phrasings. It's simple: if you are a communist or an anarchist, you're at the very least empowering the individual human being against authority (anarchist) or endorsing an humanist expression of economic reorganization (Marx's anti-alienation and re-association of the human to his/her labor). Socialism tends to describe a lot of different ideas, but I'm not convinced that one can ever really be a socialist and be anti-humanist anyhow.

[Dimentio]

I was an antihumanist before, but I have reconsidered that position due to the fact that I have come to the conclusion that the current civilisation which claims to uphold humanitarian values in reality is an antihumanist construction. Without humanism, we either must embrace nihilism or put something above humanity (an abstract value like religion, ideology or a factual value like the environment).

I have come to believe that all values should serve humanity first and foremost, not make humanity serve them. Also, most external values upheld historically are done so in order to serve entrenched minorities which put themselves above everyone else and repress them.

Neither do I think nihilism is an alternative. Since nihilism doesn't hold any values, its usage for deconstruction would in itself not lead to anything else than a society where everyone might do everything and the very fabric of social life and customs itself is thrown into the dust. That would only serve to justify actions which will hurt the interests of the majority of humanity.

Nihilism basically is the core value of fascism. It takes away all responsibility for everyone, and thus would mean that those with most access to arms will rule from the virtue of possessing the biggest guns. I do not think that is a goal worth striving for or even feasible given that the human being is a social being.

[black magick hustla]

antihumanism in the marxist context has nothing to do with misanthrophism, but it is a worldview on the way the subject "does" history.

[Parker]

I'm not convinced that Sartre was a Humanist i.e. had a belief in a transcendent subject with a "nature". I understand that this is the most common reading of existenstialism - that it rebukes Althusser - but I don't think I completely agree with it.

Anyway, I am a Humanist, even if JP wasn't.

According to Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism.

It's been a long time since I read that little tract (which is freely available online) but I am sure Sartre says that for an act to be truly moral, it must be freely chosen.

He never really managed to reconcile his concept of radical freedom with an ethics though - and of course largely abandoned existentialism for Marxism.

[BakuninFan]

Sartre tried numerous times, culminating in his massive "Critique of Dialectical Reason", to synthesize existentialism and Marxism. I'm pretty sure he was a pretty big humanist, because he constantly, and publicly, debated and argued with other, more antihumanist Marxists in cafes and resturants, most notably Althusser. The only public debate that Sartre ever lost was to Althusser.

I am, personally, a radical humanist. Sartre is possibly my favorite thinker, up with Camus, Marcuse, Heidegger, and Marx.

[ev]

Didn't we go over this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/antihumanismi-t111001/index.html?t=111001) already?

Humanism is a complete philosophy whereas 'antihumanism' is rejection of one aspect of the philosphy (humanism), namely, antihumanism is the idea that history cannot be judged from the total human agency perspective.

Instead of reforming humanism so it took into account this position, Althusser (the guy who defined antihumanism) called his philosophical position (which argued that history cannot be judged from the total human agency perspective) 'antihumanism'.

Now.. This is confusing as fuck, because 'antihumanism' is does not object to:


"Humanism 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 ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

Instead, it argues its position in regard to history being unable to be judged from the total human agency perspective.


So basically, antihumanism has some merit, although it only advocates one position and does not object to the philosphy of humanism entirely, instead it merely rdownplays the humanist stance in regard to the role of the human agency in the process of history.

So what needs to happen is, 'antihumanism' needs to be renamed so people don't interprete it as an opposing philosophy (where in fact it is merely opposing one aspect of the philosophy).

OR

Humanism needs to be revised so that it incorporates the 'antihumanist' objection. Therefore eliminating antihumanism and consolidating the humanist philosophy.

- hope that helps

[ev]

The poll is like "existentialist or nihilist?" in a way..

[Anaximander]

Evan:

Could you explain what you mean by total human agency?

[Lord Hargreaves]

anti-humanism is a theoretical position, thus why it may be better to speak of theoretical anti-humanism, as I believe Althusser actually does. It doesnt necessarily imply that anti-humanists have much of a moral difference with humanists - in fact, I guess the argument would be that anti-humanist philosophy is, in the end, more conducive to "humanist" (humanitarian) outcomes than Humanism itself

I am, by the way, more open to anti-humanist approaches personally

[New Tet]

I'm an Anti-human humanist!

[JimFar]

anti-humanism is a theoretical position, thus why it may be better to speak of theoretical anti-humanism, as I believe Althusser actually does. It doesnt necessarily imply that anti-humanists have much of a moral difference with humanists - in fact, I guess the argument would be that anti-humanist philosophy is, in the end, more conducive to "humanist" (humanitarian) outcomes than Humanism itself

I am, by the way, more open to anti-humanist approaches personally

Usually, discussions of humanism versus theoretical anti-humanism occur within the context of discussions of French thought, so usually it is people like Althusser or Foucault who get discussed. However, analogs to this debate can be found elsewhere as well. For example, back in 1972, the American Humanist Association decided to give its "Humanist of the Year" award to the noted behaviorist psychologist B. F. Skinner, who back then was drawing much attention on account of his book, Beyond Freedom & Dignity. That decision caused much controversy within the American Humanist Association, since many organization members argued that Skinner was no humanist on account of his denials of free will. In other words for these people to be a "real" humanist you had to believe in free will. Skinner's radical behaviorism can thus be seen as representing a kind of theoretical anti-humanism, and in fact, Skinner in his address at the AHA convention argued that his behavioral psychology offered us the best means available for realizing humanist values:

http://www.archive.org/details/BehaviorismIsAHumanisticPsychology (http://www.archive.org/details/BehaviorismIsAHumanisticPsychology)

[Lord Hargreaves]

And to add to that, note how humanists cling onto these old Christian ways of thinking - free will, as you say - while ditching the more obvious dogmas. It is Christian Humanism shorn of the idea of God, just as in Nietzsche's genealogy of Christianity

[Muzk]

humans are our race, why would we want to exterminate ourselves?

[Nwoye]

humans are our race, why would we want to exterminate ourselves?
please read the whole thread and if necessary some introductory pieces to humanism and anti-humanism before making such silly comments.

[blake 3:17]

E.P. Thompson v Althusser! Thompson wins every time.

Edited to add: I just read Mike Davis's book Late Victorian Holocausts. He makes a remark early in the book against ideas that the crimes of the market are blameless. Unemployment, war, famine and genocide are not blameless. Imperial conquest, starvations, the terrors of oppression and exploitation are carried about by human beings, who have some degree of free will. People make decisions and those decisions affect the world.

[Hiero]

E.P. Thompson v Althusser! Thompson wins every time.

Edited to add: I just read Mike Davis's book Late Victorian Holocausts. He makes a remark early in the book against ideas that the crimes of the market are blameless. Unemployment, war, famine and genocide are not blameless. Imperial conquest, starvations, the terrors of oppression and exploitation are carried about by human beings, who have some degree of free will. People make decisions and those decisions affect the world.

My lecturer got me onto the Hall, Thompson and Williams (I may have misplaced one for the other), what annoyed me about this debate was the useless dialogue over Althusser's Stalinism, which just wasted time.

[blake 3:17]

My lecturer got me onto the Hall, Thompson and Williams (I may have misplaced one for the other), what annoyed me about this debate was the useless dialogue over Althusser's Stalinism, which just wasted time.

Very cool. Williams is great. I was looking at Keywords today. What were you being lectured on?

[Lodestar]

Has anyone here read anything by Erich Fromm, the prominent Austrian Marxist Humanist?
I think he displayed some pretty interesting ideas about alienation and socialization...

[Dean]

Has anyone here read anything by Erich Fromm, the prominent Austrian Marxist Humanist?
I think he displayed some pretty interesting ideas about alienation and socialization...

Fromm actually described his system of thought as "humanistic psychoanalysis." He was a Marxist, but I don't think he had any ties to Austria - he was German.

I admit that I haven't read much of his stuff recently, but he had a profound influence over me in my earlier years and I still think his ideas are important. Fundamentally, alienation is the problem in our social lives, and only by solving that problem can society really be revolutionized.

[Black Dagger]

Anti-humanist.

I agree with Althusser's criticism of humanist historical discourse, but i'm an anti-humanist not because of that, but because i reject (this in philosophical terms mind you, i don't oppose human rights for example) the univeralism inherent in humanist thought.

[Lodestar]

Fromm actually described his system of thought as "humanistic psychoanalysis." He was a Marxist, but I don't think he had any ties to Austria - he was German.

I admit that I haven't read much of his stuff recently, but he had a profound influence over me in my earlier years and I still think his ideas are important. Fundamentally, alienation is the problem in our social lives, and only by solving that problem can society really be revolutionized.

-- My mistake, German. :blushing:

And agreed.

[blake 3:17]

Fromm's OK. I think the basic Marxist criticism of his thought is that he goes the opposite route from Althusser focussing pretty much exclusively on alienation and not giving enough attention to material or economic.

I just looked him up on Marxists.org and I see has an article on Summerhill! I like him better since I started writing this post. Thanks! More to him than I thought!

[blake 3:17]

weird double post oops

[Nwoye]

So would anti-humanists completely reject Marx's argument of alienation or commodity fetishism on the basis that it's based on an appeal to some kind of universal human essence (that we objectify our humanity through the labor process + interaction with other humans)?

btw I tend to sympathize with the anti-humanist position.

[Lord Hargreaves]

So would anti-humanists completely reject Marx's argument of alienation or commodity fetishism on the basis that it's based on an appeal to some kind of universal human essence (that we objectify our humanity through the labor process + interaction with other humans)?

btw I tend to sympathize with the anti-humanist position.

Yes to rejecting "alienation", anti-humanists have no time for such an idea. I don't see why "commodity fetishism" would be considered a humanist belief though

[Nwoye]

Yes to rejecting "alienation", anti-humanists have no time for such an idea. I don't see why "commodity fetishism" would be considered a humanist belief though
i always felt like it was based on the same assumptions as alienation, and that it was kind of an outgrowth of the former. I always interpreted commodity fetishism to be resting on the assumption that those human relationships which capitalism obscures were integral to affirming one's "humanity" (as he described in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts).

[kalu]

i always felt like it was based on the same assumptions as alienation, and that it was kind of an outgrowth of the former. I always interpreted commodity fetishism to be resting on the assumption that those human relationships which capitalism obscures were integral to affirming one's "humanity" (as he described in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts).

I think commodity fetishism, which is "late" Marx's subject for the first chapters of Capital, is just an issue of the mystification of a commodity's origin in historical productive processes, which in Althusser's case is to be dissected by Marxist science, nothing to do with "humanity" per se. On the other hand, "alienation" is based on "early" Marx's concept of species-being, controlling one's labor/self-realization, and other humanist assumptions.

[cenv]

Commodity fetishism doesn't presuppose a subject or Marx's theory of alienation, but the results of commodity fetishism become a lot less problematic when placed in an antihumanist context. Then again, so do a lot of Marx's other theories.

I sympathize with the humanist perspective because I don't think Marxism makes much sense without alienation and the assumptions it implies. And while antihumanism may be elegant as a purely theoretical abstraction, who here can really say they go through their daily lives in capitalism without feeling dehumanized and alienated?

[Belisarius]

i believe in a dialectic of both "making ones history" and "being made by history". it is the difference heidegger makes between authenticity and inauthenticity. when we inauthenticily just "live our lives" without a lot of reflections (thus most of the time), we are made by our environment and thus are determined. but sometimes we revolt against reality and put it into question, then we live authenicily and define our own lives. both are necessary and can't survive without the other.

[smellincoffee]

I came to leftist thinking through Humanism.


Has anyone here read anything by Erich Fromm, the prominent Austrian Marxist Humanist?
I think he displayed some pretty interesting ideas about alienation and socialization...

I've read a few of his books...The Sane Society is particularly interesting, but To Have or to Be may the work of his that's most influenced me.

[革命者]

Like with all developments, the ideas that led to them are later perverted and they need to go. But not in their entirety and we shouldn't fight its accomplishments, so the term anti-humanism is indeed wrongly chosen.

[Red Monkey]

I differentiate being human and relatable from being humanist in the same way I differentiate communism from liberalism. Humanism doesn't represent a dialectical materialist outlook.

[cmdrdeathguts]

I'm not convinced that Sartre was a Humanist i.e. had a belief in a transcendent subject with a "nature". I understand that this is the most common reading of existenstialism - that it rebukes Althusser - but I don't think I completely agree with it.

Anyway, I am a Humanist, even if JP wasn't.

He did write a book called 'existentialism is a humanism', though. So he thought he was. Althusser evidently thinks he is, on the other side of things. Their combined authority is enough for me.

[A.R.Amistad]

What are everyone's thoughts on Balibar? So far I am a huge Fromm fan, but I like some of what Balibar wrote. I read his book on the dictatorship of the proletariat and found it particularly refreshing.

[Meridian]

Could someone neatly summarize exactly what 'humanism' and 'antihumanism' is, and why marxists should be concerned with either of them. That would be swell.

[Hiero]

Very cool. Williams is great. I was looking at Keywords today. What were you being lectured on?

Anthropology.

That debate wa followed very closesly by certian anthropology schools.



Could someone neatly summarize exactly what 'humanism' and 'antihumanism' is, and why marxists should be concerned with either of them. That would be swell.


My explanation comes from the anti-humanist school.

Humanism has a pre conception of "human" or what it is to be human, this can be conscious or non-conscious. So for example early Marx focused on alienation. Things such as religion are created in an alien form to represent man. So man is naturally democractic and wanting freedom. Then man creates the state to protect this values, but the state is alienated and goes on to infringe on man. So naturally in revolution once the state is finally abolished man finds himself in his natural state with other man, true democratic and free. So this ideaology starts with a conception of human and it is humans that will change history.

In anti-humanism, there is not definite man. Man is create in a structure and is first biological and then he is turned into a subject, someone who can wake up everymorning and go to work without any huge problems. This is where I find Sartre confusing. Sartre sort of hints this way in his elementary work but in Sartre's case the individual is free to create himself within a situation (I am with YKTMX on Sartr having difficulties turning existentionalism into humanism, but i am not familar with his advanced works). For Althusser the biological being already has a subject place choosen for him. So you are named before you even can speak, you are gendered before you know what sex is and you enter a class and other structural situations. Also the subject is interpellated to a master Subject, and the subject wants to be engaged in this process s/he accepts the calling form the master Subject. So there is no essence of man and this essence in the Althusser sense is created by the structural setting, your place in relation to production.

[HammerAlias]

I am a secular humanist/militant atheist.

[ZeroNowhere]

So for example early Marx focused on alienation. Things such as religion are created in an alien form to represent man. So man is naturally democractic and wanting freedom. Then man creates the state to protect this values, but the state is alienated and goes on to infringe on man. So naturally in revolution once the state is finally abolished man finds himself in his natural state with other man, true democratic and free. So this ideaology starts with a conception of human and it is humans that will change history.The Early Marx? The one who mocked Proudhon through comparisons to Genesis, and repudiated Feuerbach in The German Ideology? Really, the late Marx focused on alienation just as much, though, so I am not sure why this is specified here.

[A.R.Amistad]

Could someone neatly summarize exactly what 'humanism' and 'antihumanism' is, and why marxists should be concerned with either of them. That would be swell.

Here is the Marxist view of Humanism:

MIA

The system of views which makes the human being its central value, as opposed to abstract notions such as God (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/g/o.htm#god), religious or political ideals, abstractions like History or Reason, or sectional interests such as race or gender. In the theory of knowledge, Humanism holds that concepts are human products (rather than coming from God or Nature) and regards social relations as more fundamental than concepts like ‘Laws of History,’ or ‘Matter’ which ought to be explained in terms of human relations, rather than explaining humans through a given set of ideas.

and here is Althusser's ridiculous antihumanism:

WIKI

When Marxist philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy) Louis Althusser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Althusser) coined the term "antihumanism," it was directed against Marxist humanists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_humanists), which he considered a revisionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_revisionism) movement. It meant a radical opposition to the philosophy of the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28philosophy%29). Althusser considered "social relations" to have primacy over individual consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness). For Althusser, the beliefs, desires, preferences and judgements of the human individual are the product of social practices. That is to say, society makes the individual in its own image. The human individual's belief that he is a subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28philosophy%29) responsible for his own actions is not innate; rather, he is constituted as a subject by society and its ideologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology). For Marxist humanists such as Georg Lukács (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Luk%C3%A1cs), revolution was contingent on the development of the class consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_consciousness) of an historical subject, the proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat). In opposition to this, Althusser stated that it was not "man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_human_nature)" who made history, but the "masses". Thus, Althusser's antihumanism downplays the role of human agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_agency) in the process of history.

Althusser worships the God of "History," the all creating omnipotent director of everything :laugh:

Marxists should be concerned with Humanism and should oppose Antihumanism because:

1. Marxists should reject all forms of fatalism as mystical nonsense and reactionary. Humanism is opposed to fatalism.
2. For Marxists to understand (and be understood) society, they must realise that yes, history is driven by material relations, but it is human agents who create those. Marx and Engels constantly stressed this against the mechanical "materialists" who wanted to pervert Historical Materialism to ignore the world around them and the lives of individual people.
3. To understand why revolutionary action is needed, and that "Iron Laws of History" do not exist
4. To reject the reactionary myth of "human nature." To a humanist, "human nature" is pretty much as dead as God, and it dies when man's cerebral cortex evolved to the point where man could consciously manipulate and control nature, when man could walk upright and use its opposible thumbs to create tools, and when primitive agricultural production could create surplus value.

[Meridian]

If you paint an honest picture, I'll admit that it seems I agree with humanists. Though I am not really a fan of philosophical theories, I think it is worth mentioning that meaning (as in, the meaning of a word) is a human invention because language is a human trait. I also agree with the rejection of "human nature" and determinism.

[A.R.Amistad]

If you paint an honest picture, I'll admit that it seems I agree with humanists. Though I am not really a fan of philosophical theories, I think it is worth mentioning that meaning (as in, the meaning of a word) is a human invention because language is a human trait. I also agree with the rejection of "human nature" and determinism.

Why reject humanist philosophy? I think even those who adhere to Wittgenstein's ideas shouldn't have any opposition to humanism. Honestly, I don't see how one could escape philosophical thinking in one form or another, especially a humanist one. I think you'll find Marxist-Humanism most agreeable.

[Meridian]

Why reject humanist philosophy? I think even those who adhere to Wittgenstein's ideas shouldn't have any opposition to humanism. Honestly, I don't see how one could escape philosophical thinking in one form or another, especially a humanist one. I think you'll find Marxist-Humanism most agreeable.
Well, what makes humanism a philosophy? What I liked about 'humanism' was its apparent rejection of philosophical ideas.

So, what constitutes "humanist philosophy"?

[Zanthorus]

The problem with this poll is that we need a definition of "humanism" as well as what would constitute it's negation, "antihumanism".

From what I recall the first use of the word "humanism" was to describe renaissance humanism. They basically started digging up and really getting into old Greek texts and messing around with various fields we would now lable as "humanities" and this started a whole cultural thing of individualism. It was started in Italy and was linked with the rise of the bourgoisie as a class.

In a Marxist context "humanism" is sometimes used to describe those who emphasise the underlying subtext in Marx's work of Humans as beings who create themselves in producing their material base (this being the "essence" of humans) but whose free and creative self-activity is distorted by fetishistic and alienating modes of life such as capitalism.

If "humanism" is being meant in the latter sense then sure I'm one.


Honestly, I don't see how one could escape philosophical thinking in one form or another, especially a humanist one.

Wittgensteinians dont necessarily reject philosophical thinking but rather see it only as a means to clarification rather than the discovery of hidden truths, meanings or "essences" behind the "appearances" of everyday life. The point of philosophy is not to create arbitrary metaphysical systems but rather to clarify concepts in order to avoid the trap of metaphysical speculation. The point of philosophy is not to erect fantastic systems but to cure oneself of philosophical thinking altogether.

[A.R.Amistad]

Well, here are a few definitions that should be helpful:

Humanism:


The system of views which makes the human being its central value, as opposed to abstract notions such as God (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/g/o.htm#god), religious or political ideals, abstractions like History or Reason, or sectional interests such as race or gender. In the theory of knowledge, Humanism holds that concepts are human products (rather than coming from God or Nature) and regards social relations as more fundamental than concepts like ‘Laws of History,’ or ‘Matter’ which ought to be explained in terms of human relations, rather than explaining humans through a given set of ideas. Humanism has its origins in the Renaissance and reached its zenith in the Enlightenment.
In his Private Property & Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/3rd.htm#s2), Marx wrote: “... communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution”..
Humanism itself does not rise higher than the social consciousness of the epoch of which it is a part. The bourgeois conception of humanism bases itself on private property, the central value of bourgeois society; on the other hand, proletarian humanism is based on cooperative social activity.
For Structuralists (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#structuralism) like Louis Althusser (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/a/l.htm#althusser-louis), “humanism” means the illusion that individual human beings are autonomous, thinking subjects (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/u.htm#subject), whereas for structuralists (and poststructuralists), individual human beings are nothing but unconscious agents of structural forces, in much the same way as organisms are agents for the spread of a disease. Thus structuralists associate humanism with a naive and unproblematic conceptions of language and consciousness, and illusory belief in the autonomy of human beings.
It can be argued that humanism, in taking the generic (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/g/e.htm#genus) human being as its starting point, abstracts from the real human being who is male or female, black or white, capitalist or worker, etc., and from this point of view can be argued as obscuring conflicts of interest, or even as being tied to some notion of what is essentially human “behind” the various determinations of class, gender, etc. A Marxist humanist would argue that what is essentially human is to produce oneself, to be free in the fullest sense of the word. From this point of view, the “essentialist (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/e/s.htm#essentialism)” charge is turned on itself.
See also: Naturalism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/n/a.htm#naturalism), Marxist Humanism Subject Archive (http://www.marxists.org/subject/humanism/index.htm) and Humanism and Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1966/humanism.htm), Paul Mattick
-Marxist.org definition
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/u.htm#humanism

Althusser's view of humanism (which I personally oppose 100%):


Humanism is the characteristic feature of the ideological problematic from which Marx emerged, and more generally, of most modern ideology; a particularly conscious form of humanism is Feuerbach’s anthropology, which dominates Marx’s Early Works. As a science, however, historical materialism, as exposed in Marx’s later works, implies a theoretical anti-humanism. ‘Real-humanism’ characterizes the works of the break: the humanist form is retained, but usages such as ‘the ensemble of the social relations’ point forward to the concepts of historical materialism. However, the ideology of a socialist society may be a humanism, a proletarian ‘class humanism’ [an expression I obviously use in a provisional, half-critical sense. L. A.].

...because of these false statements:


As a science, however, historical materialism, as exposed in Marx’s later works, implies a theoretical anti-humanism.


Marx’s Early Works. (my emphasis, because there was no real "break" from a "utopian" and materialist Marx. )

Antihumanism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism
Hope this helps. @ Meridian, I'm not going to be pretentious. I'm 17 and new to philosophy and hope I learn more when i go to college next year. So, I'm afriad I can't give a good definition of "philosophy," since I'm sure theres a debate over what it even is.

[A.R.Amistad]

The problem with this poll is that we need a definition of "humanism" as well as what would constitute it's negation, "antihumanism".

From what I recall the first use of the word "humanism" was to describe renaissance humanism. They basically started digging up and really getting into old Greek texts and messing around with various fields we would now lable as "humanities" and this started a whole cultural thing of individualism. It was started in Italy and was linked with the rise of the bourgoisie as a class.

In a Marxist context "humanism" is sometimes used to describe those who emphasise the underlying subtext in Marx's work of Humans as beings who create themselves in producing their material base (this being the "essence" of humans) but whose free and creative self-activity is distorted by fetishistic and alienating modes of life such as capitalism.

If "humanism" is being meant in the latter sense then sure I'm one.

Like many things, such as morality, philosophy, ethics, etc, there are often different versions based in different class interests. The latter definition that you present is the definition that I adhere to, and is Marxist, or Proletarian Humanism. I would argue that proletarian humanism is the only real humanism, seeing as any bourgeois ideology can result in the alienation of man from himself, and the placement of individuality and value in commodities rather than labor and human agency. Humanism of course has its roots in bourgeois Renaissance philosophy, but this is not the stripe of humanism that I adhere to, and nor do I even think it is really humanism, since capitalism is anti-humanist in essence.

[blackwave]

So, basically, 'anti-humanism' almost completely rejects human consciousness, preferring to explain all in terms of physical relationships. In that case, I am a humanist. For me the mental world is crucially important, whether one wishes to think of it in a materialist or idealist way.

I wrote an essay from such a perspective, which some of you, particularly the Fromm fans, may wish to read:
http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/the-other-an-essay-on-finitude/6407236 (http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-other-an-essay-on-finitude/6407235)

[Hiero]

The Early Marx? The one who mocked Proudhon through comparisons to Genesis, and repudiated Feuerbach in The German Ideology? Really, the late Marx focused on alienation just as much, though, so I am not sure why this is specified here.


That is Althusser's reading of Marx, not my own. You would have to read his stuff in 'For Marx'.



So, basically, 'anti-humanism' almost completely rejects human consciousness,


No it doesn't.



Let me summarize what we have discovered about ideology in general.
The duplicate mirror-structure of ideology ensures simultaneously:
1. the interpellation of ‘individuals’ as subjects;
2. their subjection to the Subject;
3. the mutual recognition of subjects and Subject, the subjects’ recognition of each other, and finally the subject’s recognition of himself;[22] (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm#n22)
4. the absolute guarantee that everything really is so, and that on condition that the subjects recognize what they are and behave accordingly, everything will be all right: Amen – ‘So be it’.




the individual is interpellated as a (free) subject in order that he shall submit freely to the commandments of the Subject, i.e. in order that he shall (freely) accept his subjection, i.e. in order that he shall make the gestures and actions of his subjection ‘all by himself’. There are no subjects except by and for their subjection. That is why they ‘work all by themselves’.


I don't have the time to go into it and read over Althusser, but that comes from Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm). I have just quickly grabbed some quotes to show that anti-humanism does not reject human consciousness.

What it means is, the individual is hailed by a dominanting ideaology and repsonds. So Chrisanity interpellates the pre-Christian individual, the individual wants to join in a symbolic network, that is some ideaological structure that gives meaning and place in the world. The individual answers the interpellation and goes through the ideaological practices to come a christian. Althusser showed how the pre-ideological individual requires a pre-existing structure to allow them to have place in the world, to find their identity/ego.

This example works alot better in Althusser's time in France when being French mean being christian.

The idea of "human" is an abstract idea. It is a cultural created ideology.

This is from Marxists.org:



For Structuralists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../s/t.htm#structuralism) like Louis Althusser (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../people/a/l.htm#althusser-louis), “humanism” means the illusion that individual human beings are autonomous, thinking subjects (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../s/u.htm#subject), whereas for structuralists (and poststructuralists), individual human beings are nothing but unconscious agents of structural forces, in much the same way as organisms are agents for the spread of a disease. Thus structuralists associate humanism with a naive and unproblematic conceptions of language and consciousness, and illusory belief in the autonomy of human beings.


The two quotes I have provided show that structuralist like Althusser do not think that "individual human beings are nothing but unconscious agents of structural forces". It is a fairl poor description of what structuralism and post-structuralism actually is.