humanism

Modern brutality, which found its culmination in using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against humanity, is the dark side of the principal teachings of the Enlightenment. The great thinkers of the Enlightenment, blaming religion as the main source of violence, removed God from the center of Western political and social thought to replace it with human. Although they were not conscious of the outcomes of their philosophy, in the course of time, it made modern societies more power-hungry and less accountable for their actions. To investigate this issue, relying on Theodor Adorno and other critics, the rudiments of the Enlightenment will first be analyzed. Then, looking at the history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this article investigates the way in which militarization, and its peak, the atomic bomb, became an unintended outcome of the Enlightenment. In the next step, we will discuss the reactions of American Churches to the bomb to examine how differently a God-centered perspective may act against using or proliferating WMD. This leads to the role that the belief in God may play in increasing the sense of accountability in man’s social and political behavior. The article concludes that based on historical evidence, there is no indication that a human-centered model is more immune from violence than a God-centered one.  

The main objective of human beings as absolute entities is related to our urge for survival, because in a material sense we are not self-supporting, but completely dependent on what nature offers us. In earlier times survival instincts meant that we lived as hunters, guided by our functional antennas (hunger, thirst, fatigue, sexual feelings, etc.). Today, this activity can be described as economically motivated, basically including everything that can be assumed to be serviceable, so it must therefore be construed very broadly – not merely providing in our primary needs, but everything else that is necessary for this. As our human society becomes more complex and more prosperous, secondary activities to attain the primary necessities of life become more comprehensive. In our present day and age they are even so multi-faceted that we can now expect to be occupied with such activity for perhaps the greatest part of life, possibly even without being truly aware of it on a daily basis.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify and rank the authentic leadership components in professors with humanistic approach in higher education organizations. Methodology: The research method used in this study a combination of applied and fundamental approaches. The research method was qualitative. The statistical population of the study consisted of professors who were selected using theoretical saturation principle and purposive sampling. In-depth interviews were conducted through reviewing the theoretical foundations. To evaluate the validity of the tool, the researcher used two types of descriptive and interpretive methods and test-retest reliability and in-subject agreement method were used to calculate the reliability of the interviews. Both validity and reliability were confirmed. The method of data analysis was theoretical coding based on the data theorization method. Finding: The results of the content analysis and foundation data method in the present study showed that the components of genuine leadership with a humanistic approach in higher education organizations include, respectively, management strategy components, intra-organizational trust, organizational culture, justice. Internal organization, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational support, empowerment, transparency in communication, self-awareness, balanced information processing, in the field of genuine leadership and empathy components, respect, reasoning, interpersonal relationships, authenticity, job passion, positive self-esteem, reinforcement Selfishness and self-efficacy were at the heart of humanism. Conclusion: Professors who adopt the humanistic and managerial approach, who believe in inter-organizational justice and good citizenship behavior, empathize with others, and achieve interpersonal relationships with others, and in interpersonal relationships with others. They are transparent, will be empowered internally and externally, will be supported by others, and ultimately attain authenticity and prosperity.

Humanism in modern western civilization is a fundamental idea. Underlying root, perhaps, in contradiction of the contemporary West with the Iran Islamic Revolution hidden in the humanistic nature of modernity, since the modern west pivotal view in all dimensions of life is humanistic, and human-like rather than God-oriented one. To this aim, a critical method used. Humanism has two meanings: first, the humans’ rights, kept and their dignity and then, attach prime importance to humans on all grounds. Based on the first, it reduces the possibility of humanism criticism and will display only as an indisputable fact in the past and the present. Humanism term employment of the outside its life domain, along with appendixes such as Islamic, etc. is unnecessary and even forged and incorrect. Concerning the second interpretation, humanism can cultivate from two aspects. First, from the viewpoint of intra thought school and then, from the perspective of inter thought school. Fundamental self-contradiction (either in theory dimension or in practice dimension), is the most basic fault that has made the human-oriented thought school facing crises. The unjust extension of humanism to the outside of its life forms the most basic inter critique of thought school.  

In this modern and civilized contemporary era, there are various spiritualist movements and schools claim to satisfy the transcendent nature of man. They are often in opposition to the divine religions and seek to marginalize them. These movements have been emerged and developed in an all-humanist context, and they have a number of epistemological, anthropological, and ontological foundations. In order to prove their ineffectiveness in responding to the thirst of the spiritually thirsty human being, it must be first examined and meticulously criticized their foundations. One of the most important anthropological foundations of secular spirituality is individualism, which, by focusing on the desires and inclinations of the individual, seeks him within the search for the entire truth, and reject other external authority such as divine revelation and prophets. The basis saying that the spiritual behavior of modern human being is only on the needs and desires of the “inside” of man, denies the authority and validity of any external authority and it causes separation of human existence from heavenly religions. In contrast, the anthropological foundations of genuine and Islamic spirituality, rely on the existence of divine and common human nature between individuals. Thus, these Islamic foundations provide the possibility of general advice on spiritual journey. In addition, they consider guidance through revelation and true religion as the only reliable reference to respond to the nature and the transcendent spirit of man.  

I consider the principle of sufficient reason (henceforth, PSR) as it functions in both Leibniz and Kant. The issue separating these thinkers is a modal status of absolute contingency, which is exempt from PSR insofar as it is neither logically necessary, nor does it necessarily follow from the given causal series. Leibniz’s ambitious metaphysics applies PSR even to God’s choices, which, since they must rest on a reason that makes sense of them, necessarily tend to the creation of the best of all possible worlds. Through PSR, the exercise of human freedom represents the unfolding of a concept God already has chosen, with an eye to the best possible world aligned with the universal intelligibility enjoined by PSR. PSR, in Kant’s critical period, is not a principle of being, but one of mere experience, since any extension of thought beyond possible experience can yield no knowledge. Human agency, for Kant, has an intelligible aspect that is beyond possible experience. Since PSR is only a principle of experience for Kant, the agent in its intelligible aspect is not subject to it. Human free will introduces a special modal category of absolute contingency. Kant provides impetus for a humanism that makes the absolute freedom of the human will a competitor with the sovereignty of God, and also liberates the human will from contemporary ideologies that would subordinate it to natural determinism or group dynamics.

The experience of our conscience belongs in the same category as feeling, thinking and wanting. However, it has a special aspect, namely the presence of other human beings as absolute entities. The process of experience is concerned with the way to best promote your own interests, with how far you will go in actualising your essential characteristics as an absolute entity. The discussion of our urge for survival shows that we can go quite far in that respect, and that to actualise that urge, there are in fact no boundaries; everything is permitted. The same can be said about actualising our other essential characteristics, but the difference is that our need to do so is perhaps less cogently present; it is not our life, or at least not our continued material existence, that is at stake. Nonetheless, we can and may even choose to go to extremes in this respect and thus to give ourselves priority over others. Respect for the interests of others is based on self-respect, which may lead you to decide to subject your dealings with other people to a set of standards for yourself. Here we enter the area of morals and ethics, to which we can attach a complete moral philosophy and on the basis of a belief, a moral theology. At the end of this road is total love of yourself and others, because you have come to realise that it is the only way that can lead to the fourth essential characteristic of human beings as absolute entities, namely self-fulfilment. You will then have developed in a way that allows you to give yourself and others the scope we need as absolute entities (compassion, solidarity). Self-fulfilment is achieved through self-development, i.e. discovering and honing our gifts and talents and thus finding our own identity (development), a process by which the lives of human beings as absolute entities acquire purpose (the search for meaning). Self-fulfilment is self-actualisation, the state that results from the realisation of the essential characteristics of human beings as absolute entities, and it leads to satisfaction derived from ourselves or our activities, a sense of being satisfied with what we have accomplished.

Today, the approach of separating spirituality from religion in modern spirituality, in competition with spirituality derived from established religions, is prevalent. One of the key foundations of this approach is the liberalism towards Western readings. The present study aims to critique the basis of liberalism in separating spirituality from religion in order to clarify the fundamental flaws of this approach and the inadequacy of its results in providing for human spiritual life. In this regard, the works of Allamah Tabataba’i, as one of the greatest interpreters of Islamic teachings, have been extensively utilized. To this aim, data collection was done through library research and information processing using descriptive-analytical method with a critical approach. According to the findings, liberalism towards Western readings, rooted in individualistic humanism, is ineffective in the foundation of human spiritual life regarding the three major criticisms. Firstly, absolute freedom, which is the basis and component of the approach of separating spirituality from religion, is unattainable and non-existent. Then, freedom is not the ultimate goal but a tool to achieve genuine and true spirituality, and finally, rights-based approaches, considered as consequences of liberalism, are in contrast and on the other hand, duty-based approaches are the crucial basis for achieving true spirituality and without it, it is unimaginable.