REVIEW ARTICLE |
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-11005-0077 |
About the Primacy of Practice
International Academy of Sciences and Arts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Corresponding Author: Lino Veljak, International Academy of Sciences and Arts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Phone: +385 91 5663025, e-mail: lveljak@ffzg.hr
Received: 13 March 2024; Accepted: 20 April 2024; Published on: 17 July 2024
ABSTRACT
Different conflicting worldviews (primarily cosmocentrism, geocentrism, theocentrism, biocentrism, and anthropocentrism) clash when they insist on a rigid, dogmatic claim to absolute truth. By insisting on the theoretical truth of a particular worldview (and that means on tenets/orthodoxy/one’s position), even the very possibility of dialogue is ruled out. The antitheses between cosmocentric, theocentric, geocentric, biocentric, and anthropocentric views of the world are eliminated by establishing the primacy of the practical as opposed to the theoretical-dogmatic persistence of a certain science. Humanism is understood as anthropocentrism free from the temptation of its absolutization in this way can refer to Kant’s categorical imperative (which has its deep roots in the religious and philosophical tradition), as we find in, among others, Confucius, Buddha, Thales, the Pythagorean school, the Gospel, and the Proverbs of the Prophet Muhammad. Humanism may in particular refer to Kant’s formulation of the categorical imperative that humanity in one’s own person and in the person of another must always be used as a purpose, and in no way as a means—humanity is an end in itself and not a means to achieve some other goals. This meaningful core of humanism can also be found in the demands for peaceful, tolerant, and civilized behavior among people, demands set by Herder, among others, convinced of the need for constant development of humanity, without which we are in danger of reentering brutality. Our times, marked by the growth of verbal (and, unfortunately, not only verbal) brutality, the relativization of truth and lies, good and evil, the meaning of nonsense, the mind of madness, are also marked by growing egocentrism and ethnocentrism, as well as a disquieting rise in divisions—point to the necessity of reaffirming the values of humanism conceived in the above way. Religions that adopt humanistic ethics serve and will serve to unite and connect, while those religions that insist on dogmatic differences and monopolize the right to truth will produce divisions, disputes, and ultimately violence and evil. The contradictions between the representatives of different theocentric worldviews, that is, different religions and denominations, could be overcome through the common heritage of almost all religions and philosophical teachings. It is a golden rule that in one possible formulation reads—treat others as you would like to be treated.
Keywords: Anthropocentrism, Biocentrism, Cosmocentrism, Egoism, Faith, Geocentrism, Humanism, Religion, Theocentrism
SAŽETAK
Antiteze između kozmocentričkih, teocentričkih, geocentričkih, biocentričkih i antropocentričkih pogleda na svijet ukdaju se posredstvom uspostavljanja primata praktičkoga nasuprot teorijsko-dogmatskom ustrajavanju na određenom nauku. Jednako važi i za protivnosti među zastupnicima različitih teocentričkih svjetonazora odnosno različitih religija i denominacija. Ključ takvog nadmašivanja protivnosti nalazi se u zajedničkoj baštini gotovo svih religija i filozofijskih učenja. Radi se o zlatnom pravilu koje u jednoj mogućoj formulaciji glasi: Postupaj s drugime tako kako bi htio da se s tobom postupa.
Ključne riječi: Antropocentrizam, Biocentrizam, Egoizam, Geocentrizam, Humanizam, Kozmocentrizam, Religija, Teocentrizam, Vjera
How to cite this article: Veljak L. About the Primacy of Practice. Sci Arts Relig 2024;3(3–4):67–71.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None
INTRODUCTION
Different conflicting worldviews (primarily cosmocentrism, geocentrism, theocentrism, biocentrism, and anthropocentrism) clash if they insist on a rigid, dogmatic claim to absolute truth. By insisting on the theoretical truth of a particular worldview (and that means on tenets/orthodoxy/one’s position), even the very possibility of dialogue is ruled out.
Let’s start from the beginning!
COSMOCENTRISM
Cosmocentrism, which was characteristic of the oldest Greek philosophy, is now defined in a popular encyclopedic article as follows—“cosmocentrism contrasts with other worldviews in how it gives the astronomical world a central importance in all discourses, both spiritual, philosophical, religious, and political and has become a hallmark of Astronist philosophy as a result. It challenges the worldviews of other religions and philosophies like theocentrism geocentrism, biocentrism, and anthropocentrism, each place God(s), the earth, animals and plants, and humans at the center of thought, respectively.”1
According to Wilber, the meaning of the notion of worldcentric consists in the broadening of the ideal horizon through one transpersonal ethic in which the object of moral and emotional reference is not only human beings but all living beings. In this sense, worldcentrism could be defined as an expansion of sociocentrism. Worldcentrism (which includes global and planetary dimensions) situates the productive aspects of egocentrism and sociocentrism in a larger context—it includes all peoples but also all beings.2
Similar to the worldcentric attitude (or, better, to the worldcentric view), is cosmocentrism. According to Esbjorn-Hargens and Zimmermann the most important character of the cosmocentric view consists of the following—one experiences a release of attachments of the gross realm and a radical recognition of evolutionary processes so that an individual is compassionately called to action and becomes capable of letting the gravity of outcomes go.”3
GEOCENTRISM
According to one popular encyclopedia geocentrism consists of the following—“in geocentric worldviews, the earth is the center of the universe.”4 According to the same source, Aristotle “thought of celestial bodies as beautiful and pure, traveling on the surface of perfect spheres, and of the earth as an imperfect place that had fallen to the center of the universe. In the 2nd century before the common era, Ptolemy adjusted the geocentric theory with epicycles (orbits imposed on the orbits of the planets) and eccentrics (orbits that were centered to the side of the universe) so that the theory was better able to predict the orbits of the sun, moon, and stars. The geocentric view of the universe was replaced by the heliocentric (sun-centered) view that was pioneered by Nicolaus Copernicus, adopted and defended by Galileo Galilei and much refined by Johannes Kepler who discovered the elliptical nature of planetary orbits.”5 However, the contemporary worldview meaning of geocentrism is outlined in the notion of worldcentrism (Wilber, 2000). The authors like Wilber, however, are reducing worldcentrism to an ethical dimension, while neglecting its metaphysical (precisely mystical) grounding.
THEOCENTRISM
Theocentrism was a key element of the philosophy and theology (especially of the Christology) of St Augustine.6 According to one popular (religiously based) explanation “to be theocentric means to live in a way that puts God at the center of life or makes him the main focus of life. To be theocentric is to be “God-centered.” A theocentric life is lived in the understanding that all things flow “from him, through him, and to him” (Romans 11:36). By contrast, an anthropocentric life puts man at the center. Existentialism puts existence at the center—just living is meaning enough—but theocentrism points to God as the meaning and ultimate motivation for what we do; God gives us our identity and purpose. As the Westminster Confession states, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” This is a theocentric viewpoint. It is rational to believe that finite, limited beings can find the most satisfaction when focused on the infinite, unlimited God. In times of our weakness, we find strength (2 Corinthians 12:9); in times of spiritual lack, we find fulfilment (Matthew 5:6). And the fountain never runs dry because God himself is eternal. Putting God at the center of our lives—living theocentrically—naturally gives a finite human existence eternal meaning. Theocentrism has what existentialism and anthropocentrism do not—a focus that goes beyond the life we see around us. Living a life with God in the center encourages virtues like mercy, peace, humility, selflessness, and environmental stewardship. If, however, one is convinced that experiencing this life is all there is, the goal becomes gaining and experiencing as much as possible, as soon as possible. Unfortunately, living for the moment often leads to misery in the form of addiction, unwanted pregnancies, broken relationships, and other regrets. Living for humanistic, anthropocentric goals also has its problems—if the advancement of man is the highest good, ambitious leaders can justify almost anything to ensure the progress of humanity—even, ironically, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.”7
The basic principle of theocentrism is already clear from the decoding of this term8—the ethimology of this notion comes from the Greek word “Theos” (God) and the Latin word “Centrum” (in a sense—the center of the circle). Thus, theocentrism is a philosophical concept in which God is central. He is regarded as absolute and perfection, the source of any being and any good. The principles of theocentrism gained the greatest popularity in the Middle Ages—a time when science and philosophy were inseparable from religion. According to medieval theocentrism, it was God, as an active creative principle, who served as the cause of everything. He created the world and the person in it, determining the norms of his behavior. However, the first people (Adam and Eve) violated these norms. Their sin was that they wished to determine the norms of good and evil themselves, violating the data above the norm. Christ, through his sacrifice, partially atoned for this original sin, but each person still bears his burden. Forgiveness can be earned through repentance and behavior pleasing to the Almighty. Thus, according to the philosophy of theocentrism, morality is based on the veneration of God. Service and imitation of him is interpreted as the highest goal of human life. Medieval theocentrism is a philosophy whose main questions concerned the knowledge of God, essence and existence, the meaning of eternity, man, truth, and the relationship between the cities of the earthly and the divine. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest philosopher of the Middle Ages, tried to “link” the divine will with the relationships that take place in the world of things. At the same time, he acknowledged that even the most powerful human mind is a limited tool, and it is impossible to comprehend some truths with the mind, for example, the doctrine that God is one in three persons. Thomas Aquinas first drew attention to the difference between the truths of fact and faith. The principles of theocentrism of the Middle Ages were reflected in the writings of St Augustine. According to him, man differs from animals in that he has a soul that God breathes into him. The flesh is sinful and despicable. Having complete control over man, God created him free. But having committed the fall, people condemned themselves to a lack of freedom and life in evil. Man has to do it even when he strives for good. The ideas of confrontation between flesh and spirit, original sin and its atonement, salvation before the last judgment, and unquestioning obedience to church norms are characteristic of medieval theocentrism. This philosophy–according to the above-cited source (scienecedevices.com), organically connected with the concepts of theism, has become a pivot for the further development of philosophy and knowledge of human beings.
BIOCENTRISM
Biocentrism (considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value)9 could be defined “as an ethical perspective holding that all life deserves equal moral consideration or has equal moral standing. Although elements of biocentrism can be found in several religious traditions, it was not until the late decades of the 20th century that philosophical ethics in the Western tradition addressed the topic in a systematic manner. The roots of biocentric ethics can be found in a number of traditions and historical figures. The first of the five basic precepts of Buddhist ethics is to avoid killing or harming any living thing. The Christian St Francis of Assisi preached to animals and proclaimed a biocentric theology that explicitly included animals and plants. Some native American traditions also hold that all living things are sacred. The Romantic movement of the 18th and 19th centuries defended the intrinsic value of the natural world against the tendency of the technological age to treat all nature as having mere instrumental value.”10 The main criticism of biocentrism emphasizes its exaggerated individualism and its negation or its decrease of the importance of collective groups.11
According to one convincing judge, “the biocentric philosophy places the greatest importance on living individuals or living components of the environment. Biocentric theories do not consider chemical and geological elements of the environment to be as important as living beings in the way that ecocentric theories do. Biocentrists believe that all living things are equally important. For example, a tree’s life would be considered just as important as a human’s life. This is in contrast to an anthropocentric view in which the lives of humans are given the greatest value.”12
ANTHROPOCENTRISM
The definition of anthropocentrism is according to Merriam-Webster the following—“considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe and interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences.”13 According to Britannica, “anthropocentrism is a philosophical viewpoint arguing that human beings are the central or most significant entities in the world. This is a basic belief embedded in many Western religions and philosophies. Anthropocentrism regards humans as separate from and superior to nature and holds that human life has intrinsic value while other entities (including animals, plants, mineral resources, and so on) are resources that may justifiably be exploited for the benefit of humankind. Many ethicists find the roots of anthropocentrism in the creation story told in the book of Genesis in the Judeo-Christian Bible, in which humans are created in the image of God and are instructed to “subdue” earth and to “have dominion” over all other living creatures. This passage has been interpreted as an indication of humanity’s superiority to nature and as condoning an instrumental view of nature, where the natural world has value only as it benefits humankind. This line of thought is not limited to Jewish and Christian theology and can be found in Aristotle’s Politics and in Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy.”14
But Hayward gives “fragmented definitions of anthropocentrism, some of which, as noted, overlap with human chauvinism and speciesism. He observes that what is objected to under the heading of anthropocentrism in environmental ethics and ecological politics is a concern with human interests to the exclusion, or at the expense, of interests of other species.”15
Anthropocentrism reaches a dangerous proximity to egocentrism and selfishness. At the same time, egoism can be of an individualistic character or manifest itself as group egoism (ethnocentrism, racism, etc.). As Carnegie formulated—“we should be cautious to assume that “self-love can be considered a precondition of loving others” as sometimes in consumer-oriented and often narcissistic societies, self-love often happens to be the goal in and of itself. In fact, the self-love fetish in the Western consumer society may preclude collective action, individual sacrifice, and most importantly, the altruism that the dire environmental conditions require.”16
Egocentrism could be understood as an inability, that is, as the incapacity to differentiate between self and other. An egocentric person cannot understand and assumes any perspective other than one’s own. But egocentrism is not only characteristic of individual persons, it can also be collective. The unitary ideology of “we first” (“America first,” “Europe first,” or “France first,” “Islam first,” etc.), of taking pride in oneself or of national preference, results in acts of purification and eradicating the others.17
The result is an endless series of confrontations and conflicts (often violent) between advocates of opposing different egoisms and egocentrisms.
DISCUSSION
The same applies to the confrontations based on the contradictions between the representatives and followers of different theocentric worldviews, that is, different religions and denominations within a particular religion, including among the followers of a particular monotheistic religion. The explanation is as follows—every organized religion (church, religious community) requires adherence to the published and/or traditions also obtained from the community in a binding way and accepted the truths of the faith. These truths are fixed as dogmas in institutionalized communities. And dogmatic differences (even within different denominations of the same monotheistic religion, and one could say—especially in such frameworks) are the source and assumption of intolerance, because as a rule heretics are perceived worse than innovators (this “narcissism of small differences” is not specific) religious differences, already occur wherever we deal with dogmatic pretensions to the possession of authentic truth). Intolerance (even religious hatred) is especially evident where God is perceived as “our God,” one who belongs exclusively to our tribe or our people or is believed to love and protect us in a special way (whoever you “we” were) and not the other and different, even if we profess the same variant of the same religion.
The proportions this can reach are best seen in the dark role of Catholic bishops, Protestant pastors, Orthodox bishops, and not so few imams and rabbis in the first World War. Thus the German Catholic bishops encouraged the German Catholic faithful to relentlessly deal with the French soldiers of the Catholic faith as German soldiers because the French had secularized their own country; at the same time, the French Catholic bishops addressed the French Catholic soldiers in the same way, explaining that German Catholics were fighting against Catholic France together with Protestants, that is, heretics, proving that they deserved the punishment and retribution provided by the brave and God-fearing French soldiers. Orthodox bishops (some on the side of the Russian Empire, others on the Austro-Hungarian side), Protestant pastors (some on the British side and others on the German side) and some imams and rabbis engaged in military service acted similarly.18
The abuse of faith for violating the Fifth Commandment is evident here. Is it necessary? The answer is by no means! It is possible to remove such distortions by which the universal God is reduced to a state or national demon.
However, something else is possible and advisable—It is possible to overcome and eliminate such contradictions in principle, and we will find the key to that superiority in the common heritage of almost all religions and philosophical teachings. This is the “Golden Rule,” the concept which in one possible formulation (one by Immanuel Kant) reads—“act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time that it should become a universal law.”19 According to Rushworth, this concept can be found in different religions, like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Taoism, and “the rest of the world’s major religions” (Rushworth 2003, 159).20 And not only in religions but also in philosophy from its very beginnings. It is enough to see two formulations, the one given by Thales (“avoid doing what you would blame others for doing”) and the one given by Seneca the Younger in Letter 47—“treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you.”21
HUMANISM
This key can also be called humanism, the common heritage of all religions, especially the monotheistic ones, but which is by no means limited to believers. But what is this humanism really supposed to mean? Humanism like this is not that of the British Humanist Association and the International Humanist and Ethical Union—“Humanists believe that human experience and rational thinking provide the only source of both knowledge and a moral code to live by. They reject the idea of knowledge “revealed” to human beings by gods, or in special books. Most humanists would agree with the ideas below—there are no supernatural beings. The material universe is the only thing that exists. Science provides the only reliable source of knowledge about this universe. We only live this life—there is no afterlife and no such thing as reincarnation. Human beings can live ethical and fulfilling lives without religious beliefs. Human beings derive their moral code from the lessons of history, personal experience, and thought”.22
Nor is humanism as popular psychology and self-help manuals advocate—“humanism is a philosophy that stresses the importance of human factors rather than looking at religious, divine, or spiritual matters. Humanism is rooted in the idea that people have an ethical responsibility to lead lives that are personally fulfilling while at the same time contributing to the greater good for all people. Humanism stresses the importance of human values and dignity. It proposes that people can resolve problems through the use of science and reason. Rather than looking to religious traditions, humanism instead focuses on helping people live well, achieve personal growth, and make the world a better place.”23
Of course, the humanism in question here does not mean any return to the historical epoch of humanism and the Renaissance that marked the beginning of the modern age. Humanism here, furthermore, does not mean (re) affirmation of the anthropocentric worldview, nor can spiritual and humanistic values be interpreted in the Renaissance key of inspiration from the ancient heritage which (then and later, primarily in the Enlightenment) challenged the theocentric worldview. Anthropocentrism defined as the absolutization of the central importance of man or humanity (man as the unrestricted master of the world and all living and nonliving beings) is a false alternative to cosmocentrism, theocentrism and biocentrism. Disputes among the proponents of all these “centrism” (but also within each of them, if we are dealing with rigidly understood absolutized variants of this or that worldview or the science of what is true) have led and lead to divisions among people, and often to violent calculation. The transcendence of anthropocentrism is possible through its reconciliation with the meaningful cores of other centrists, freed from their absolute centricity. The model of such reconciliation offers the evangelical transcendence of rigid theocentrism—“not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). This direction is imperatively determined by the words—“and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength—this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none another commandment greater than these” (Marcus 12:30–31), and that neighbor is every human being we meet, as is clear from the well-known parable about the merciful Samaritan (cfr. Luke 10: 25–37).
In this sense, the hadith (the accounts of Muhammad and his teachings during his lifetime) can also be cited—“none of you (truly) believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself” or “seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer.”
What is the meaningful core of humanism (which we can define as anthropocentrism free from the temptation of its absolutization), the core that can be reconciled with other positions emancipated from absolutization to stubborn rigidity? To this core belongs that part of the heritage of classical humanism which is manifested in the belief that the human will is autonomous and that it is only on its basis that it can act responsibly, in the exercise of human freedom to manage common affairs (instead of obeying self-proclaimed masters, or by this authority), and in the practice of freedom of thought and scientific research. In this sense, humanism is conceptually almost identical to humanity, understood as the opposite of self-centered egocentrism, aimed at the well-being and happiness of others while respecting the dignity of all human beings (but also respecting the well-being of other living beings, in which lies the perspective of reconciliation with the rational core of biocentrism).
CONCLUSION
Humanism understood in this way can refer to Kant’s categorical imperative (which has its deep roots in the religious and philosophical tradition), as we find in, among others, Confucius, Buddha, Thales, the Pythagorean school, the Gospel and the Proverbs of the Prophet Muhammad. Humanism may in particular refer to Kant’s formulation of the categorical imperative that humanity in one’s own person and in the person of another must always be used as a purpose, and in no way as a means—humanity is an end in itself and not a means to achieve some other goals.
This meaningful core of humanism can also be found in the demands for peaceful, tolerant, and civilized behavior among people, demands set by Herder, among others, convinced of the need for constant development of humanity, without which we are in danger of reentering brutality.
Our times, marked by the growth of verbal (and, unfortunately, not only verbal) brutality, the relativization of truth and lies, good and evil, the meaning of nonsense, the mind of madness, also marked by growing egocentrism and ethnocentrism, as well as a disquieting rise in divisions—point to the necessity of reaffirming the values of humanism conceived in the above way. Religions that adopt humanistic ethics serve and will serve to unite and connect, while those religions that insist on dogmatic differences and monopolize the right to truth will produce divisions, disputes, and ultimately violence and evil.
REFERENCES
1. http://www.encyclo.co.uk/meaning-of-cosmocentrism
2. Wilber K. Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy. Shambhala Publications. Boston; 2000.
3. Esbjorn-Hargens S, Zimmermann M. Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World. Boulder, Colorado: Shambhala Publications; 2008. p. 403.
4. https://epdf.pub/encyclopedia-of-science-and-religion-macmillan-reference-usa-html
5. https://epdf.pub/encyclopedia-of-science-and-religion-macmillan-reference-usa-html and https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/geocentrism
6. Demacopoulos GE, Papanikolaou A. Orthodox readings of Augustine. New York: Fordham University Press; 2020.
7. https://www.gotquestions.org/theocentric.html
8. https://eng.sciencedevices.com/chto-takoe-teocentrizm-view-704555
9. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biocentricrismdocx.
10. https://www.coursehero.com/file/132936613/biocentrismdocx.Cfr.too https://www.britannica.com/topic/biocentrism
11. Silva C. Green Ethics and Philosophy: An A-to-Z Guide. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.; 2011.
12. https://sciencing.com/differences-between-ecocentric-biocentric-18072.html
13. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropocentrism#other-words and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10668-019-00419-z
14. https://www.britannica.com/explore/savingearth/anthropocentrism
15. Hayward T. Anthropocentrism: a misunderstood problem. Environmental Values 1997;6(1):49–63. DOI: 10.3197/096327197776679185
16. Carnegie D: How to stop worrying and start living. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2004.
17. Iveković R. Migration, New Nationalisms and Populism (Birkbeck Law Press). New York; 2022.
18. Merker N: La guerra di Dio. Carocci Editore. Roma, 2015.
19. Kant I: Grundlegung zur Metaphyisik der Sitten. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin, 1978: 420.
20. The Stoic Philosophy of Seneca: Essays and Letters of Seneca. New York: WW Norton & Company; 1968.
21. https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/humanism.shtml and https://pohkok.blogspot.com/2019/05/secular-humanism.html
22. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-humanistic-psychology-2795242
23. https://themuslimtimes.info/2013/10/27/the-golden-rule-in-islam
________________________
© The Author(s). 2024 Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.