A common perception of Spinoza casts him as one of the precursors, perhaps even founders, of modern humanism and Enlightenment thought. Given that in the twentieth century, humanism was commonly associated with the ideology of secularism and the politics of liberal democracies, and that Spinoza has been taken as voicing a “message of secularity” and as having provided “the psychology and ethics of a democratic soul” and “the decisive impulse to… modern republicanism which takes it bearings by the (...) dignity of every man,” it is easy to understand how this humanistic image developed. Spinoza’s deep interest in, and extensive discussion of, human nature may have contributed to the emergence of this image as well. In this paper, I will argue that this common perception of Spinoza is mistaken and that Spinoza was in fact the most radical anti-humanist among modern philosophers. Arguably, Spinoza rejects any notion of human dignity. He conceives of God’s - and not man’s - point of view as the only objective perspective through which one can know things adequately, and it is at least highly questionable whether he allows for any genuine notions of human autonomy or morality. The notions of ‘humanism’ and ‘anti-humanism’ have been discussed extensively -mainly among continental philosophers - since the end of World War II. Because these notions carry a variety of historical, ideological, and philosophical meanings, it is important to provide at the outset at least a rudimentary clarification of my use of these two terms. By ‘humanism’ I mean a view which (1) assigns a unique value to human beings among other things in nature, (2) stresses the primacy of the human perspective in understanding the nature of things, and (3) attempts to point out an essential property of humanity which justifies its elevated and unique status. This definition of philosophical humanism has only little in common with the historical notion of Renaissance humanism, and seems to match quite well the common understanding of philosophical humanism suggested by current philosophical dictionaries and encyclopedias. This notion of humanism should be understood in contrast to two competing positions. On the one hand, in contrast to the theocentric position that considers humanity to be radically dependent upon God, humanism affirms at least some degree of human independence. On the other hand, in contrast to the naturalist position which endorses the scientific examination of human beings just like any other objects in nature, humanists affirm the existence of a metaphysical and moral gulf between humanity and nature. This gulf assigns a special value to humanity and does not allow us to treat human beings like any other things in nature. For many humanists the nature/humanity gulf does not allow the application of the methods of natural sciences to the disciplines of the humanities. Humanism does not begin with modernity. In order to see how far back we can trace this position, we may recall Protagoras’ saying: “Man is the measure of all things, of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not.” In modern philosophy, the humanistic position had regained dominant status since the Renaissance, and variants of this position were vigorously argued for by prominent thinkers such as Pico della Mirandola, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, and finally, Hegel. In this paper, I will argue that Spinoza was a foe, and not a friend, of this tradition. I suggest that, in contrast to these humanist philosophers, Spinoza considers man as a marginal and limited being in nature, a being whose claims and presumptions far exceed its abilities. “To what length will the folly of the multitude not carry them?.... [T]hey imagine Nature to be so limited that they believe man to be his chief part.” Arguably, Spinoza locates the origin of our most fundamental metaphysical and ethical errors in a human hubris which not only tries to secure humanity an exceptional place in nature but also attempts to cast both God and nature in its own human image. (shrink)

"Why, in present-day French writing, are we most likely to encounter the word "humanist" only as a term of glib dismissal? In this introduction to the controversy over "humanism", Kate Soper explains how the argument (developed by existentialists and Marxist humanists), that human experience and action play a fundamental role in "making history", has fallen into disrepute. 'Humanism and anti-humanism' shows how the "humanist" standpoint emerged in the post-war period, out of a convergence of arguments derived (...) from Hegel, Marx, Husserl, and Heidegger, then traces its elaboration within existentialism and Marxism, and finally examines the "anti-humanist" reaction in the works of Lèvi-Strauss, Foucault, Althusser, Lacan, and Derrida. Soper clearly explains what is at stake in the debate between "humanists" and "anti-humanists", and contends that this can be understood only in the context of Cold War politics and the crisis for Marxism presented by Stalinism. 'Humanism and anti-humanism' is written from a position of critical sympathy with "humanism" and is aimed chiefly at readers with no previous knowledge of Continental philosophy." -- book cover. (shrink)

The individual-society relationship remains a central issue in the social sciences which has not yet reached a consensual explanation. This article presents the way in which Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems deals with the subject. I discuss some of the critical approaches this theory has arises. Then I present social system’s concepts and partial theories that describe the individual-society relationship. I conclude with some reflections about what we consider to be "theoretical advantages" regarding Luhmann’s theory vis-a-vis common explanations in (...) sociology. This, because in Luhmann’s theory of social systems -contrary to critical judgments-, individuals are theoretically placed in society’s environment, thus maintaining a relative autonomy which allows them to consider without idealism their actual possibilities to influence society. La relación individuo-sociedad continúa siendo un problema central en las ciencias sociales, sin haber encontrado aún una solución teórica que alcance un mínimo consenso. Este artículo discute el abordaje al tema por parte de la teoría de sistemas sociales propuesta por Niklas Luhmann, considerando algunas de las críticas que ha suscitado. Se presentan los conceptos y teorías parciales con que la teoría de sistemas sociales describe la relación individuo-sociedad. Se concluye con una reflexión sobre lo que se pueden considerar "ventajas teóricas" respecto de la teoría luhmanniana en oposición a explicaciones tradicionales de la sociología, por cuanto, contrario a los juicios críticos, en la teoría de sistemas sociales los individuos concebidos teóricamente en el entorno de la sociedad conservan una autonomía relativa que les permite evaluar, sin idealizaciones, sus posibilidades concretas de influir en ella. (shrink)

France saw a great intellectual upsurge in a variety of different academic fields in the 1970s, principally in philosophy, but also in the social sciences, linguistics, anthropology, history, and psychiatry. Different strands of thinking, from the linguistic school of structuralists, Lévi-Strauss’ structuralist anthropology, Louis Althusser’s reconsiderations of the basis of Marxism, Derrida’s philosophical critique of phenomenology and structuralism, Lacan’s of Freud and the unconscious, and Michel Foucault’s historical genealogy, all seemed to be coalescing in a reconsideration of the centrality of (...) Man in what had been assumed to be a human-centred universe. Often seen as representing the triumph of subjectivity over objective reality, this chapter will show how the theories of deconstruction were really a critique of the Subject. (shrink)

This paper examines the challenges to critical realism posed by the ways in which the original postmodern sensibility has transformed into various forms of anti-humanism, trans-humanism, and post-humanism. These transformations, largely growing out of poststructuralism, are reinforced by developments in psychology and computer science but also incorporate a new turn toward ontology in alternate forms of realism such as Object-Oriented-Ontology. This paper identifies what is new and what is old in these trends and argues that, while (...) there is something to be learned from them, some of which implicitly and even explicitly borrow from CR, the humanist orientation of CR continues to deserve defense. (shrink)

This chapter discusses Kierkegaard's impact on creative writers worldwide. Traditional attempts to identify his individual “influence” have increasingly yielded to an interest in “intertextuality,” a more socially oriented take on authorial interrelationships, overcoming the narrow specificity of “influence,” while sometimes tending to be overly broad and general instead. Concurrently, Kierkegaard's role as a literary writer has recently been favored over his role as a Christian thinker, although by no means exclusively so. Altogether, intertextual reception of his corpus significantly extends his (...) literary profile as an existential storyteller, while also engaging in a multifaceted dialogue about both humanism and anti‐humanism. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to situate Arendt’s account of labour as a critical response to humanisms of labour, or put otherwise, to situate it as an anti-humanism of labour. It compares Arendt’s account of labour with that of the most prominent humanist theorist of labour at the time of the composition of The Human Condition: Georges Friedmann. Arendt’s and Friedmann’s accounts of labour are compared specifically with respect to the range of capacities, social relations, and possibilities (...) of fulfilment at stake in the activity of labour. The comparison provides a previously unexplored context for understanding Arendt’s account of labour and her distinction between labour and work. The relevance of Arendt’s and Friedmann’s theories of labour for the contemporary debate about the meaning of work in an age of automation is also briefly discussed. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that Peter Kivy’s contention that music is incapable of profundity is correct only in a limited sense. So long as we associate profundity with depth of subject matter, even the revisions proposed by Stephen Davies and Julian Dodd are incapable of delivering an account of musical profundity which has the correct scope. Theories of profundity based on criteria of exemplification and non-denotational expression of content remain vulnerable to Kivy’s well-chosen counter-examples of non-profound artworks which meet (...) these criteria. However, the established debate presumes that profundity is only possible through a depth of subject matter; I argue that there is an alternative form off profundity which music does exhibit, relating to its formal complexity. This profundity I term ‘anti-humanist’. (shrink)

This article engages the current anti‐humanist or post‐human ethos from the point of view of Christology. Invoking Alain Badiou's claim that “the man of humanism has not survived the twentieth century”, it argues that the death of “the man of humanism” ushers in a situation in which the Christian proposal can be clarified in two crucial ways: Christology is the core of Christian anthropology, and therefore must be the first and last word of the Church's formulation of (...) her answer to the question that is every human life; there is no neutral “human” ground in which the Church can carry on a discourse about “humanism” or “natural law”. The current situation thus forces a theological decision: either the death of man or the God‐Man. (shrink)

The hegemonic discourse on humanism in the contemporary academy – a critical discourse in the form of a theoretical anti-humanism – is marked by a certain degree of impoverishment. This impoverishment is the result of many contextual factors, including the ideological purposes to which the discourse has been put, but also the effects of internal workings of the paradigm associated with anti-humanism itself. In this article, I trace the development of this discourse in its foundational (...) early- and mid-twentieth century manifestations, outlining its central characteristics as well as its tensions and aporias, both theoretical and political. I argue that the critical discourse, which has informed our contemporary understanding of humanism, needs to be meaningfully sublated and that a new discourse – one that has reflected deeply upon the anti-humanist discourse: its strengths and its weaknesses – should take its place. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to situate Arendt’s account of labour as a critical response to humanisms of labour, or put otherwise, to situate it as an anti-humanism of labour. It compares Arendt’s account of labour with that of the most prominent humanist theorist of labour at the time of the composition of The Human Condition: Georges Friedmann. Arendt’s and Friedmann’s accounts of labour are compared specifically with respect to the range of capacities, social relations, and possibilities (...) of fulfilment at stake in the activity of labour. The comparison provides a previously unexplored context for understanding Arendt’s account of labour and her distinction between labour and work. The relevance of Arendt’s and Friedmann’s theories of labour for the contemporary debate about the meaning of work in an age of automation is also briefly discussed. (shrink)

Heidegger's affirmation is categorical: “… the thinking expressed in Being and Time is against humanism”. Heidegger's thesis is not only categorical, it is also polemical. He maintains that the humanist conception does not grasp man's essence, and it is for this reason that he is opposed to humanism, which is a doctrine that “has not thought profoundly enough of man's humanitas.

In this paper I establish an alliance between the thought of Frantz Fanon and Gilles Deleuze's Philosophy of Difference. In light of Fanon's critique of Sartre's characterization of the place of the Negritude movement in terms of dialectic, I point to the inherent limitations of modern humanism's dialectical accounts for enabling genuine historical change. Alternatively, I appeal to Deleuze's distinction between history and becoming, and his concomitant idea of intensive becoming-revolutionary. I conclude that such an alliance with Deleuzian metaphysics (...) holds far greater promises for effecting Fanon's revolutionary project of the creation of a new humanity (and therefore, of a new ethics and a new politics) than his traditional assimilation to Phenomenology and Existentialism. (shrink)

Given the growing interest in Spinoza’s work in recent years, there is surprisingly little written on the subject of Spinoza and education. There are a handful of journal articles, such as Aloni’s “Spinoza as educator”, Derry’s “The unity of intellect and will”, Puolimatka’s “Spinoza’s theory of teaching and indoctrination” and Dahlbeck’s “Educating for immortality”, and a few notable anthology chapters, such as Genevieve Lloyd’s “Spinoza and the education of the imagination”, but overall the literature on Spinoza and education is quite (...) limited. This paper seeks to add to this work, focusing on initiating a discussion on some of the normative consequences of formulating a philosophy of education based on Spinoza’s ethics of self-preservation. In doing so, it connects with a recent trend in Spinoza scholarship focusing on the ethical core of his philosophy, such as LeBuffe’s From Bondage to Freedom, Kisner’s Spinoza on Human Freedom and Kisner and Youpa’s Essays on Spinoza’s Ethical Theory. (shrink)

The caterpillar’s question is the question Wonderland’s caterpillar posed to Alice: Who are you? This is a question Alice finds she cannot answer. According to postmodernist anti-humanism, Alice cannot answer the question because there is no coherent Alice there to answer it, no unitary subject of consciousness.This paper contests the anti-humanist denial of a coherent subject of experience. While it is conceded that phenomenologically, we may have difficulty today identifying who we are essentially, it is argued that, (...) conceptually, we cannot do without the ontological category of the person as a unified center of consciousness. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: References.

Nietzsche’s texts contain a puzzle about the role of vulnerability in the creation of intimacy and its function on behalf of human flourishing. I describe the interpretive puzzle and its prima facie paradoxical aspects. On the one hand, there are texts in which Nietzsche expresses a longing for intimacy and other texts where he furnishes details about the possibility of intimacy between equals. On the other hand, Nietzsche is severely critical of certain types of intimacy and advocates for a pathos (...) of distance in human relationships. I claim that Nietzschean intimacy is not an inherently paradoxical concept. A proper understanding of Nietzsche’s anti-humanism provides the resources to resolve the paradox and to use the solution of the puzzle to illuminate Nietzsche’s insights about human psychology. (shrink)

Georges Bataille (1887–1962) is one of the most significant thinkers of the 20th century, whose anti-humanist anthropology influenced subsequent existentialist and post-structuralist philosophy. His wide-ranging writings (across philosophy, archaeology, economics, sociology, poetry, erotica and history of art) frequently mention children, childhood and childishness, and yet there has hitherto been little to no attention paid to this aspect of his work. This article opens up a neglected theme in Bataille studies, and also explores the consequences of Bataille's presentation of the (...) human condition for our understanding of the pedagogical relationship. Of particular interest is the idea of the agentic child, which occupies such an important place in childhood studies, educational theory and public policy. In the light of Bataille's anthropology, I shall explore the idea that the pursuit of children's agency is the victim of its vaunting ambition. (shrink)

Este artigo pretende restituir a leitura que Heidegger e Sartre realizam da filosofia de Descartes, desvelando, a partir disso, as diferentes posições interpretativas que ambos os filósofos tomam em relação ao pensamento cartesiano. Observar-se-á que o tratamento dado por Heidegger à metafísica cartesiana explicita um anti-humanismo contrário ao humanismo sartreano. A partir dessa diferença, seremos capazes de assinalar um distanciamento teórico entre Heidegger e Sartre, distanciamento que poderá revelar, por conseguinte, a maneira peculiar pela qual Sartre opera com os (...) conceitos hedeggerianos em L’être et le néant. Palavras-chave: humanismo; anti-humanismo; fenomenologia; liberdade; metafísica.: This article aims to replace the Hedeigger’s and Sartre’s read from Descarte’s philosophy unveiling, from that, the different interpretive positions that both philosophers take in relation to the Cartesian thought. We will observe that the treatment given by Heidegger to the Cartesian metaphysics reveals an anti-humanism contrary from Sartre’s humanism. From this difference, we will be able to point out a theoretical detachment between Heidegger and Sartre, detachment that may reveal, meanwhile, the peculiar way by which Sartre deals with the Heidegger’s concepts in L’être et le néant. Keywords: humanism; anti-humanism; phenomenology; freedom; metaphysics. (shrink)

In her book, Soper uses the classical humanism of the Enlightenment as a starting point and then takes the “Positivistic humanism” of the British Humanist Association as a contemporary British version of it. Turning to the Continent she then discusses the dialecticalism of Hegel, a form of idealistic humanism, and the dialecticalism of Feuerbach and Marx as a type of materialistic humanism.

This chapter discusses the developments of Young Hegelianism in Restoration Prussia, with a special focus on Max Stirner’s radical critique of Hegelian thinking. It presents an overview of the history of Hegelianism in the 1830s and 1840s, and addresses the theoretical issues raised by Stirner’s attack in 1844. It examines important aspects of Young Hegelianism, including ideas of a modernized civic humanism and emancipation, and traces the Young Hegelians’ reconfiguration of Hegel’s thought in order to eliminate what they saw (...) as its conservative or insufficiently critical elements. The refurbished republicanism of the Young Hegelians took up the new challenges of the industrial age that was dawning in Germany, with special attention to the social question and the intransigent conflicting interests that typified the emergent economic order. Stirner’s critique is framed by its anti-humanist repudiation of Left Hegelian emancipatory projects. (shrink)

This book presents pragmatist humanism as a form of anti-authoritarianism and sheds light on the contemporary significance of pragmatist aesthetics and the revival of humanism.

Some contemporary authors have witnessed the flourishing of the Sinophilia of the Early Enlightenment and the direct impact of Daoist and Chinese thought on the ideas of Spinoza, Leibniz, Voltaire, Quesnay and the philosophes and have proceeded to make overt connections between the Daoist notion of 'non-action' or Wu wei and Enlightenment doctrines of laissez-faire. In contrast to such approaches, I argue that these frequent conceptual comparisons have often been inappropriate where touchstone humanist notions devoid of the Dao de Jing's (...) fundamental spiritual and metaphysical commitments are brought forward as evidence of interconnection. (shrink)

RESUMEN Si bien la crítica antihumanista de la categoría de lo humano tenía un objetivo eminentemente emancipador, ha desembocado en los últimos años en una paradoja vinculada a la defensa del carácter construido y, por tanto, descualificado de lo humano. Para responder a esta paradoja, varios filósofos ubicados en el espacio teórico del antihumanismo se han visto forzados a repensar, y en cierto modo a recuperar, lo humano. Judith Butler ofrece uno de los tratamientos más sofisticados de esta cuestión en (...) la medida en que propone, según nuestra hipótesis, no un nuevo concepto de lo humano o un nuevo humanismo, sino distintas figuras de lo humano articuladas en torno a dos vértebras fundamentales: la impropiedad y la precariedad. Al explorar la tensión que modula la relación entre estas dos vértebras, sostenemos que Butler estaría sentando las bases para una antropología política crítica, antihumanista y no antropocéntrica. ABSTRACT While the antihumanist critique of the concept "the human" initially had a fundamentally emancipatory aim, a particular paradox -related to the thesis of the constructed and ultimately disqualified character of the human- eventually grew from it. To deal with this, subsequent thinkers working within and from this position have, therefore, re-thought and, to a certain extent, recuperated the notion of "the human." We argue that Judith Butler offers one of the most sophisticated treatments of this issue by proposing not a new concept of the human or a new humanism, but different figures of the human articulated around two axes: inconsistency and pre-cariousness. The argument defended is that, by exploring the tension that modulates the relation between these two axes, Butler establishes the parameters for a critical, political antihumanist and non-anthropocentric anthropology. (shrink)