Bo Bennett's Positive Humanism
I just finished reading Bo Bennett's new book - Positive Humanism: A Primer
. I enjoyed it. It's a short read - just 32 pages in pdf form and consists of several short essays - that take us through the basics of Positive Humanism.This is an academically oriented book. It is meant to be a sequel to Gerard Larue's The Way of Positive Humanism
. What is Positive Humanism? Is the focus of Humanism on all that is positive - how to live life better and be a better person and flourish - and a downplaying of the - what we are against approach that a lot of the modern Humanist movement seems to find itself stuck in.
Now, for
a Humanist, like me, some of this was a bit redundant, known and obvious. I wouldn't necessarily call his version of Humanism, Positive Humanism as something separate from what I know Humanism to be - but at the same time, I understand why it might be necessary given the current movement's penchant to focus on - rights of non-belief - as if that is the sum total of what we Humanists are concerned about.Back to the book, For someone new to the concept of Humanism, or who is coming out of the self-help and success guru world, or who - like the author, spent time as an angry atheist and is trying to rid themselves of their "anger" – this is a really good book and a really needed book.
I kind of wish I had read his bio (which is at the back) first as it would have made the rest of the book – and how he approached the subject make more sense. But again, that may be because I'm well versed in the subject and so understanding WHY Bo wrote this book and his background would have helped me appreciate his approach better. His background by the way is self help guru turned self help skeptic turned angry atheist, turned social psychologist PhD, turned advocate for Positive Humanism, as a way to combat the many "success" myths that permeate the self help word..
As for the specific content. I liked how he laid out the scientific case for rationalism and morality without religion. I also liked how he dealt with the problem of free will. This may seem esoteric - but it does matter to the practice of Humanism because if we don't have free will (and the scientific jury is still out on that), then how can we choose to be good. His answer is - it doesn't matter if we have free will or not. I love that. That's kind of how I approach it to.
However, his conclusion on the topic of free will left me feeling a little icky. His conclusion is about how we are part of the causal chain for others. We can change others. This bothered me a bit because my own Humanist practice is so inward looking. Yeah – I’m dedicated to making the world a better place. But intentionally trying to change someone – that makes me uncomfortable. It seems disrespectful. I think of Humanism as a personal practice. That is what works for me. I share it because I think others could be helped by it as well. But they are free to chose a different path. Intentionally trying to change other people who don’t want to be changed bothers me. I got what he was saying. It's a way to deal with the free will problem and not devolve into victim blaming by taking an optimistic and positive and compassionate approach to people who believe and behave differently – but it still smacked of privilege and ego.
All in all - it's a good addition to the written world of Humanism. Now – if I can just talk him into turning his Many Myths of Success presentation into an online course for Humanist Learning System.
