CC BY
10
DOI: 10.24234/wisdom.v22i2.756 Olga MELNYK, Nataliia SHAKUN, Olena HERASYMENKO, Alla NITCHENKO, Oleksii KOLIEVATOV
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE HUMANISTIC
Modern socio-philosophical discourse is in a state of humanistic reorientation. Hence, the subject of scientific exploration is the theoretical and methodological substantiation of humanistic principles of the scientific picture of the world. The research aims to develop the constants of humanism, which constitute a humanistically oriented sociocultural space. The result of the work is the illumination of the interaction of fundamental humanistic aspects of responsibility, activity, creativity, and self-organization. Humanism differs significantly from its previous versions in its modern socio-philosophical interpretation. First of all, it deals with the realities of modern human civilization, balancing between dialectical confrontation and synergetic combination. This is how the methodological basis of the humanities-science discourse is formed, which increasingly gravitates toward a philosophical-synergetic manifestation. Philosophy and science of the present interpret the human being not only in the classical natural science or humanities perspective. The dichotomy of transdisciplinarity (which generates diversity) and anthropocentrism (which is grounded in the supremacy of the human being) is relevant today. Humanistic orientation acts as a regulator for the rapid development of scientific and technological progress, in which moral and spiritual values are lost. Thus, the humanistic paradigm forms the methodological guidelines for the social cluster.
Keywords: humanism, human-dimensionality, anthropocentric constants, synergetics, social philosophy.
REORIENTATION OF MODERN SOCIETY
Abstract
Introduction
constant struggle between two fundamental tendencies: ontologization and anthropologization. The classical period of ancient philosophy, the Renaissance, the human-dimensional ideas of the New Age, and philosophical and anthropological concepts of the 20th century are manifestations of the anthropologization of the world picture. Man and his potential are at the centre of the world-view, culture, science, philosophy, social life, etc. Instead, in the Dark Ages of the Middle Ages, the rationalist existentialist principles of the New Age are characterized by the dominance of essential characteristics, displacing the human dimension. Likewise, the opposite of the modern
The modern scientific picture of the world is becoming multifaceted and dynamic, which necessitates the introduction of appropriate philosophical precepts. Historically, philosophy has acted first in the vanguard of sociocultural transformations and later as a systematizing factor of scientific and worldview ideas. The social cluster is somewhat vulnerable to paradigmatic transformations since society continually adapts to the changes it offers.
The philosophical-scientific paradigm, throughout its existence, has been characterized by a
human-measured scientific picture of the world are the philosophical concepts that existentialism deals with being, non-being, existence, and essence are abstract ideas through which the concrete existence of the human person is examined from a subjective perspective (Gosetti-Ferencei, 2020).
The question before us is which tendency reigns in planetary social consciousness today? Given the fundamental features of the development of human civilization in recent decades, we can state the dominance of the processes of on-tologization. This is confirmed by the statement of the two critical components of the modern socio-cultural space: technologization and informatization. These clusters become dominant in the public consciousness, determining its orientation. Science-centeredness of the present has deprived the man of his dominant role in the picture of the world. This is manifested in many aspects - from socio-economic vulnerability to human information dependence. At the same time, as history has shown, a picture of the world that does not provide for the full development of man and his potential is failing.
For now, we can observe the powerful turbulence that human civilization is experiencing. The COVID-19 pandemic, the full-scale war on the European continent due to Russian aggression against Ukraine, has grown into factors indicating significant existential problems. This entails a crisis of ontologization in general and the collapse of the technological-informational format of societal development. Such catastrophes call into question the continued effectiveness of the ontological development model. Human civilization has already experienced such periods of decline after the Dark Ages of the Middle Ages and the collapse of rationalism after the First and Second World Wars. These difficult periods in human history have always been replaced by the humanist paradigms of the Renaissance, the philosophy of life, and the theory of self-organization.
The understanding of humanism as a philo-
sophical concept, not just a worldview precept, was born during the Renaissance (Sellars, 2020). Humanist orientation in a worldview context has purely moral precepts. The philosophical principles of humanism are close to the anthropocen-tric paradigm, which assumes the dominance of the human being through his capacity for transformative activity. Thus, humanism, in its purely theoretical idea, has received practical realization of its principles in social and philosophical manifestations. Classical humanism is no longer relevant in the modern model of the scientific picture of the world. Neohumanism (Sarracino & O'Connor, 2021), radical humanism (Saleem, Morrill, & Karter, 2019), posthumanism (Evans, 2015), and transhumanism (Manzocco, 2019) are gradually playing a dominant role. These elements of the humanist paradigm are relevant in the public consciousness because they neither exclude nor deny the importance of an information technology society. They aim to "humanize" on-tological entities.
We observe all the signs indicating the prospect of anthropologization processes coming to the forefront of the worldview picture of the world, which is human-dimensional. Along with these processes, the humanistic-scientific discourse and the humanistic reorientation of society are becoming more and more relevant. Consequently, there is now an urgent need to develop humanistic constants that will guide the new humanistic era of human civilization. These constants must be both theoretically and methodologically valuable and practically oriented. We are talking about such humanistic constants:
• efficacy
• activity
• ethics
• responsibility
• self-organization.
Methods
The methodology of science possesses a rather powerful arsenal in the cluster of social phi-
losophy. General scientific rationalistic and empirical, methodological elements allow us to investigate the problem of society's human dimensionality. Analysis, synthesis, observation, experiment, and other general scientific methods become the basis for a large number of sociological studies. When the problem narrows down to so-cio-philosophical aspects, it is predominantly philosophical-scientific methodology that is actualized here. Dialectics and synergetics, acting as a methodology, activate the scientific-cognitive process from two cardinally opposite positions. Truth is achieved in the process of confrontation of ideas (dialectical model) or the context of their interaction (synergetics). For the study of social-humanistic aspects, such dichotomy is demanded, as it gives the possibility to investigate features of the functioning of society in the conditions of conflicts and the context of community.
Literature Review
Humanistic principles have been considered in socio-philosophical discourse since the assertion of humanistic ideas in the worldview paradigm in the antiquity era. After undergoing a period of transformation during the Renaissance, the New Age, and XX-XXI centuries, several lines of thought have emerged in interpreting humanism in its social dimension.
The historical and philosophical manifestation of the theoretical and methodological precepts of humanism can be found in the works of J. W. de Gruchy (2018), M. A. Peters, D. Neilson, L. Jackson (2020), and J. Sellars (2020). The practical implementation of humanistic principles in the cultural sphere of social engagement has been illuminated by M.-É. Zovko, and J. Dillon (2017). Humanistic principles in education are explored by F. Sarracino and K. J. O'Connor (2021). Socio-humanistic elements are found in T. E. Wilson (2020).
Varieties of humanistically oriented strands of contemporary philosophy and science have been
explored in a regional context. In particular, R. K. Chigangaidze (2021) highlights the concept of Ubuntu, which focuses on the humanistic vector of the African community. Of course, here we are talking about a naïve pre-theoretical conception of humanism, but what is important here is an example of an attempt at humanist transformation carried out under certain socio-philoso-phical conditions. M. A. Peters (2020) points to aspects of self-identity that are inherent in the humanistic ideals of Chinese society. General points related to the contemporary interpretation of the socio-philosophical manifestation of humanistic ideas are indicated in scholarly studies of G. C. F. Bearn (2019), J. A. Gosetti-Ferencei (2020), and J. A. Reeves and T. D. Peters (2022).
Results
The direct results of the humanistic reorientation of society are the removal of contradictions in the existing model of the world order and guidelines for the development of the sociocul-tural environment. Man is philosophical reflection's primary subject and object in any historical and cultural reality. The difference between an-thropologization and ontologization lies only in which a human-dimensional cluster (subjective or objective) dominates in a particular cultural-historical epoch. In modern conditions, it is the subjective-measurable dominant in the world-view picture of the world, in which the individual is presented as an active element.
The modern world of technology and information has relegated human qualities to the background. Despite all the benefits created by and for humans, a paradoxical situation is forming in which the same person loses the dominant role in the worldview system. Society in any of its manifestations is also influenced by ontologi-zation.
The realities of today demonstrate the crisis of ontologizing processes in the worldview picture of the world, which manifests itself in the risks of the destruction of human civilization by its achie-
vements. This means the urgent need for human-ization in all its possible manifestations. The introduction of the process of anthropologization is accompanied by the development of corresponding theoretical-methodological constants of human ability, which serve as signposts of individual elements of human activity. Note that humanism has been quite shatteringly criticized in social or historical contexts. The failure of humanism in the social dimension is dictated by the contradictions embedded in the essence of society (Ng, 2021). Society's all-consuming pursuit of progress levels out humanist paradigms. At the same time, the results of society's development are interpreted as the result of a social consciousness oriented toward humanistic ideals. Under such conditions, there is a need for a theoretical and methodological resolution of the contradictions in the humanization of society.
The constants of humanity proposed for consideration are interrelated and have a common purpose: to bring the human being to the centre of the world order. In practice, it is a matter of recognizing the uniqueness of human beings and the need to realise human potential fully. The theoretical and methodological precepts of any principle must be impeccably structured termino-logically. Given the great diversity of the terminological base of humanism, the conceptual apparatus concerning humanistic ideas in the socio-philosophical aspect should be systematized before forming the constants of humanism. In particular, V.-Y. Koon (2021) warns against a "terminological confusion" of humanist principles.
Anthropocentrism and humanism in the social dimension characterize human privilege and human exceptionalism. Social work acts as a humanistic format based on human rights and freedom (Wilson, 2020). Anthropocentrism duplicates humanist principles with the difference that human beings are not only stated as a distinctive element in world history but win this status through their transformative activities. It is noted that these activities provoke many contradictions in society, both horizontally and vertically.
Human reality is a fundamental constant of the anthropocentric worldview. When considering the historical and cultural development of civilization, we state the defining role of man in the processes of transformation of the natural and social.
In the global understanding, there is a confrontation between globalization and intercultur-alism (Svetelj, 2017). Globalization has clearly expressed anti-anthropocentric characteristics: the homogenization of culture, the desire for unity of socio-cultural parameters, and the desire to equalize differences. Detailed interpretations of these aspects confirm the levelling of man's role and his potential as a key component of development. The movement toward the generality of goods and ideas deprives man of the advantages he can achieve by realising his abilities (both natural and acquired).
Human efficacy is distorted because this humanly measurable constant focuses exclusively on the process, depriving it of its purpose. Consequently, efficacy can only be a relevant humanistic attitude in an intercultural, democratic environment. Under such conditions, a person is aware of his dominant role in the world order system and directs his efforts to constructive activity.
Consequently, effectiveness is the embodiment of human potential and the potential ability to conduct creative or transformative activities. At the same time, it should be noted that a humanistic reorientation of social development involves a statement of the potential available and calls for its realization. The humanization of society has long gone beyond calls for humanity in all its manifestations. It is now a powerful ideological platform, providing for the development of all possible clusters of sociocultural activity.
Along with effectiveness, the constant of activity is actualized. This guideline provides for the concretization of humanization transformations. Human activity in all spheres involves the creation of material and spiritual goods. In one way or another, human activity embraces all
spheres of public activity.
In particular, the awareness of the role of man in civilizational advancement gave rise to the basic ideas of socio-economic relations. In particular, the concept of human capital became a leitmotif for the ideological basis of the capitalist and socialist path of development in economic life (Peters et al., 2020). The notion of human rights and freedoms differentiated democratic and authoritarian forms of political order. Consequently, humanism became a kind of benchmark for positioning man in the civilizational dimension. This is how the human dimension was formed in all spheres of social life when the individual became a reference point for creating and affirming certain clusters of social development. At the same time, in actualizing human rights, it is inadmissible to neglect the other side of the problem, which concerns the individual's social responsibility. The humanist transformation should not be guided by the principle "the end justifies the means" because such an algorithm itself poses an inhuman threat.
Let us consider in more detail the peculiarities of modern humanistic concepts. In particular, Ubuntu philosophy is part of the humanistic-existential approach in social work. Several attributes of humanization are defined: self-awareness, self-determination, human dignity, holism, the pursuit of social justice and human rights, motivation, social cohesion, spirituality, and death (Chigangaidze, 2021). Such theoretical-methodological precepts become important in interpreting the practical meaning of humanistic principles. It should not be forgotten that Ubuntu is an ideological platform for many African communities. Consequently, such a humanist conception has set the stage for profound social shifts in their society. Without such a foundation, no further humanist transformation (or any transformation at all) would have been possible.
Social philosophy has quite a few branches that interpret humanistic principles in specific ways. Some social and philosophical clusters explicitly reject humanism because these ideas
are unpopular in society. When considering political philosophy, it is pointed out that it is devoid of human content. This is why G. C. F. Bearn (2019) notes the formation of an anthropological impasse in political philosophy, referring to the failure of humanistic principles to satisfy the political ambitions of power and become political capital for the people.
Considering the various socio-cultural environments in which humanistic principles can be disseminated, religion should focus. In particular, Christian humanism is a striking example of the discrepancy between the declared religious tenets and the realization of these intentions in the public consciousness of believers. Therefore, more and more researchers identify humanism predominantly with the secular cluster of public life (de Gruchy, 2018). The apparent results of the practical implementation of any social doctrine are the emergence of contradictions, and humanistic transformation, in this case, is no exception.
The constant responsibility involves an individual's awareness of the risks of his activity. One should not idealize humanism because it involves satisfying human needs and benefits. However, based on the laws of nature, concepts such as balance should be considered. It is clear that in providing for its good, man exploits other clusters of the world order, above all, nature.
Responsibility in humanism is not a rejection of the constant striving to create new. It is, however, a kind of guard against human actions that will potentially lead to irreversible changes in natural or social processes. Humanity has repeatedly approached critical situations that threatened its existence (above all, the threat of a nuclear crisis on the planet). The responsibility, therefore, makes it possible to ensure the awareness of red lines in the relationship between man and nature and to make it impossible to cross them on the human initiative. The principle of an an-thropocentric legal worldview is proposed (Reeves & Peters, 2022), which would clearly regulate potential threats.
Another constant of human meaningfulness is
self-organization. The origins of human self-identity in all its manifestations are based on the time of the ancient world. The philosophy of self-improvement is a kind of cultural ethos of many ancient civilizations: from China to Greece. "The philosophical ideal of self-improvement has been the practical basis for a variety of conceptions and practices of human development, which most often embrace an essentially moral dimension based on virtue or the manifestation of a good life" (Peters, 2020). The humanistic tradition is inseparably connected with reflection, as evidenced by a multitude of philosophical ideas and principles. Self-development and self-education are by no means a complete list of human transformations in those or other sociocultural traits (historical eras, regional centres, cultural centres).
The crown of humanistically oriented ideas of self-identification was self-organization. Note that in the modern synergetic interpretation, self-organization refers to complex systems. However, we note that the vast majority of researchers undoubtedly refer both man and society to this type of system. Self-organization determines the organizational and structural cluster of humani-zation. Man orders his being while providing the content and form of social being.
Discussion
At present, the most debated issue among scholars, scientists, and thinkers is the humanistic reorientation that has been evident in recent times. Humanistic principles can act as a regulative element of the existential challenges of soci-ocultural space. At the same time, a possible option could be a paradigmatic shift, in which the trend of anthropologization completely takes over the dominant role. Rationalism (and with it the process of ontologization) once again turned out not to be the saviour of humanity but its potential destroyer. A humanistic paradigm designed to restore human confidence and help transform the social order.
Under any conditions, the constants of humanism are in demand among the public consciousness. When it comes to the theoretical cluster, humanism's moral and ethical principles are actualized here. When it comes to the practically oriented component of humanism, attention should be paid to the efficacy of the individual as a manifestation of social activity. The distinction between theoretical and practical aspects, which are characteristic of the constants of humanism, is not entirely clear. If effectiveness, activity, and self-organization have a clear, practical direction, then ethics and responsibility are more oriented to the theoretical and methodological components. At the same time, each constant has a double expression, guided by the principles of human self-identity. For example, self-organization can emerge as a theoretical ideology designed to elaborate a cultural-educational model of societal development and have practical means for the realization of human activity.
Humanization processes have a substantial impact on the cultural-educational and scientific-philosophical branches. Modern educational systems are characterized by recognized humaniza-tion ideals of equality, tolerance, and cultural diversity (Zovko & Dillon, 2017). At the same time, stating such essential elements does not mean that education has answered the critical question - how are the components of humanity formed, and what forces lead to the destruction of the architecture of that humanity? The meaning of human life, the purpose of man in the world order system, and even the trivial question of man's origin cause controversy among the scientific and philosophical community. This state of affairs denotes the key problem of humanistic philosophy: the incompleteness of the study and understanding of the essence of human nature. Unresolved questions or postponed solutions become a factor in the decline of the humanist tradition and the change of anthropology by ontological paradigms.
Human civilization has faced the same ideological problem throughout its existence. The
humanistic paradigm is optimal for human rights and freedoms but is characterized by conservatism and an inability to ensure progress and innovation. On the other hand, the ontological paradigm, based on existential ideals (religion, rationalism, technologization, etc.), brings civilization to a qualitatively new and higher level of development but cannot ensure the supremacy of humanity. Consequently, humanity is constantly faced with a dilemma: development with disregard for humanistic principles or humanization without progressive transformations in the soci-ocultural space.
Paradoxically, the contradictions in public consciousness produced by humanist principles result from an anthropocentric worldview. Consequently, there was an urgent need to bring the principles of humanism and anthropocentrism to a common denominator. Part of this mission has been realized through the actualization of post-humanism and postanthropocentrism. These two trends in philosophy consider variants of humanistic perspectives in the picture of the world. Both currents assert that interdisciplinary is potentially the most effective methodology for developing a unified and powerful humanitarian-scientific discourse (Bozalek & Pease, 2020). An example of significant achievements of the interdisciplinary approach in modern science is medical research in such fields as neuroscience, biochemistry and biomedical engineering, which are also often referred to as interdisciplines. At the same time, we note that the object of study of these sciences is predominantly human and its potential (physiological, intellectual), so the attachment to humanistic transformations is obvious.
It is obvious that a humanistic transformation should be coordinated with the main characteristics of sociocultural space, first of all, with socioeconomic life. Hence, there is a contradiction between the humanist idea of human welfare (socio-economic well-being and equality) and the capitalist reality (individual enrichment and socio-economic differentiation). This contradic-
tion must be resolved through the realization of humanist constants. In particular, activity and efficacy enable a person to realize his or her potential. At the same time, responsibility and ethics provide indicators of individual and social minimum living standards. Thus, we get the level of well-being: from the minimum to the maximum. Humanistic principles are based on the fact that a red line is set - the limit of well-being that is acceptable for an entire human life (human rights, social security, etc.). Furthermore, depending on the activity of the individual, the level of well-being will increase.
Another contradiction lies in the worldview beliefs of contemporary sociocultural space. In essence, consumerist thinking leaves no room for humanistic principles. The desire for individual enrichment (in all senses of the word: from the economic to the spiritual) prevails in the awareness of the negative consequences of these processes. On the one hand, such individualization is a peculiar manifestation of humanism, and to a large extent, of humanistic elements, since it is a manifestation of human activity. Moreover, it would be inappropriate to speak of a situation in which an individual or society would voluntarily renounce the existing benefits of civilization and oppose their development. At the same time, there is a need to regulate these processes since the irresponsible exploitation of resources will lead to catastrophe sooner or later. Therefore, the task of humanist transformation is to form principles that respond to the realities of the age and respond to the challenges that man faces (and produces). Good but declarative ideas will have no effect for the time being. Therefore, humani-zation is relevant in the context of strategizing the development of human civilization following the permanent changes that can harm sociocul-tural development.
Conclusion
As we can see, a period of uncertainty in contemporary sociocultural space dictates the need
for a revival of humanism, which would become a stabilizing factor as it would be guided by the supremacy of human life and freedom. Such an approach opens up the potential for humanistic principles that will become relevant to both the individual and society. The technological-informational format has proven unable to regu-
late complex situations on a planetary scale. Consequently, the sociocultural space needs a reorientation toward humanistic ideals.
Under such conditions, there is a growing demand for specific theoretical-methodological constants of human dimensionality (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Constants of the Humanistic Paradigm's Human Ability.
References
Bearn, G. C. F. (2019). Political philosophy without human content. Dialogue and Universalism, 29(1), 105-116. https://-doi.org/10.5 840/du20192918 Bozalek, V., & Pease, B. (2020). Post-anthropo-centric social work: Critical posthuman and new materialist perspectives (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.43-24/9780429329982 Chigangaidze, R. K. (2021). Defending the African philosophy of ubuntu and its place in clinical social work practice in mental health: The biopsychosocial and ecological systems perspectives. Social Work in Mental Health, 19(4), 276-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2021. 1910894
de Gruchy, J. W. (2018). Christian humanism, progressive Christianity and social transformation. Journal for the Study of Religion, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1715-9/2413-3027/2018/v31n1a3
Evans, W. (2015). Derechos posthumanos: Dimensiones de los mundos transhumanos. Teknokultura, 12(2). https://doi.-org/10.5209/rev_tk.2015.v12.n2.49072 Gosetti-Ferencei, J. A. (2020). A philosophy for human existence. In On Being and Becoming (pp. 37-55). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780-190913656.003.0003 Koon, V.-Y. (2021). Bibliometric analyses on the emergence and present growth of humanistic management. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 37(4), 581-598. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoes-03-2021-0062 Manzocco, R. (2019). Transhumanism - engineering the human condition. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.-org/10.1007/978-3-030-04958-4 Ng, K. (2021). Humanism: A defense. Philosophical Topics, 49(1), 145-163. https:-//doi.org/10.5840/philtopics20214919 Peters, M. A. (2020). Educational philosophies of self-cultivation: Chinese humanism.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.20-20.1811679
Peters, M. A., Neilson, D., & Jackson, L. (2020). Post-marxism, humanism and (post)-structuralism: Educational philosophy and theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.10-80/00131857.2020.1824783 Reeves, J. A., & Peters, T. D. (2022). Responding to anthropocentrism with anthropo-centrism: The biopolitics of environmental personhood. Griffith Law Review, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10-383441.2022.2037882 Saleem, R., Morrill, Z., & Karter, J. M. (2019). Introduction to the special issue on radical humanism, critical consciousness, and social change. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 61(6), 851-860. https:-//doi.org/10.1177/0022167819878912 Sarracino, F., & O'Connor, K. J. (2021). Neo-humanism and COVID-19: Opportunities for a socially and environmentally
sustainable world. General Economics. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.00 556
Sellars, J. (2020). Renaissance humanism and philosophy as a way of life. Metaphilo-sophy, 51(2-3), 226-243. https://doi.-org/10.1111/meta.12409 Svetelj, T. (2017). Philosophy of interculturality: Philosophy of humanism for our time. Social Identities, 24(3), 395-402. https:-//doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2017.1387 040
Wilson, T. E. (2020). An invitation into the trouble with humanism for social work *. In Post-Anthropocentric Social Work (pp. 32-45). Routledge. https://doi.org/-10.4324/9780429329982-4 Zovko, M.-E., & Dillon, J. (2017). Humanism vs. competency: Traditional and contemporary models of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(6-7), 554-564. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013-1857.2017.1375757
