Thread: Religion Series; Humanism

Lack of film there O'nus. :3


So I'll chip in with what I consider to be a movie with a powerful humanist message.

On hindsight this is much more existential than humanist, but please don't delete my post

You touched upon "Once Upon a Time in the West", which is one of my favourite westerns, but I should probably expand on why I find westerns so good for this theme of humanism.

One of the major themes of the Western is that of duty.

High Noon particularly boils down to one man doing his duty, and that ultimately, a man is responsible for taking care of his own problems in the world.

Almost always a male protagonist is confronted with often horrific and brutal events in the world, and near always they have to confront this, often alone, or with friends. The movie "High Noon" exemplifies this perfectly for me (the following is the plot summary from wikipedia, which does it better than I could):



"Will Kane , the longtime marshal of Hadleyville, New Mexico Territory, has just married pacifist Quaker Amy and turned in his badge. He prepares to move away to become a storekeeper. Then the town learns that Frank Miller, a criminal Kane brought to justice, is due to arrive on the noon train. Miller had been sentenced to hang, but was pardoned for reasons never stated. In court, he had vowed to get revenge on Kane and anyone who got in his way. His three gang members wait for him at the station. The worried townspeople encourage Kane to leave, hoping to defuse the situation.

Kane and his wife leave town, but fearing that the gang will hunt him down, Kane turns back. He reclaims his badge and scours the town for deputies—even interrupting Sunday church services—but while many townspeople profess to admire Kane, only a fourteen-year-old boy is willing to lend a hand. His deputy, Harvey Pell, resigns. His former lover, Helen Ramírez, supports him, but there is little she can do to help. Disgusted, she sells her business and prepares to leave town. Kane's wife threatens to leave on the noon train with or without him, but he stubbornly refuses to give in.

In the end, Kane faces the four gunmen alone. He guns down two of Miller's men, though he himself is wounded in the arm. Helen Ramirez and Amy both board the train, but Amy gets off when she hears the sound of gunfire. Amy chooses her husband's life over her religious beliefs and kills the third gunman by shooting him in the back. Miller then takes her hostage and offers to trade her for Kane. Kane agrees, coming out into the open. Amy, however, claws Miller's face, causing him to release her. Kane then shoots and kills him. As the townspeople emerge, Kane contemptuously throws his marshal's star in the dirt and leaves town with his wife."


I've bolded what I think is key here. Kane has a duty to perform. he could choose to run, he could choose not to fight, as his wife and religion would tell him, but he chooses to stand alone against an overpowering enemy. The 'good' people of the town and the churchgoers refuse to help him, mainly out of fear, and as the clock slowly gets closer to noon, when the enemy will arrive, he becomes more and more alone and desperate, but he never runs away, and he stands to fight, because of some deeply ingrained morality within him, that seems to be deeper and more profound than the simple laws of the people and religion around him. It's a human thing.





And this is something we can take from and admire about humanism. There is no Deus Ex Machina or overwhelming certain power behind Kane, like a God. Nothing special or magical. Just one man doing what is the right thing to do, regardless of the consequence. Regardless of heaven or hell or social rejection or opinion.

In fact, the true light of the story is human courage in the face of adversity and evil. And Kane highlights perfectly how this is something intrinsic to humans. A courage and will supported by nothing more than doing the right thing. Not for a God or a religion, but because it is right.

High Noon goes a little bit beyond Humanism though and can really be considered an example of existentialism in film. It's pretty perfect in that sense.

Also of note is the actions of his wife, choosing to save her husband's life over obey her religion, which I think speaks for itself.

So what is being discussed here? I mean, I know it's about humanism, but that's about it. What particular aspect?

Originally Posted by Noogah

So what is being discussed here? I mean, I know it's about humanism, but that's about it. What particular aspect?

Read the first post and the companion "religion series" thread by Onus.

They spell it out pretty clearly.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Read the first post and the companion "religion series" thread by Onus.

They spell it out pretty clearly.

Oh, I see.

I don't think these things will gain much popularity here.

Jesus christ
William shakespear

Don't entirely discount my post for saying this but;
If humanism is the empahasis of human kindness and the human experience, than I can think of no greater a humanist than Jesus himself. If you take away all the religious dogma srounding him and just look at the human christ, he seems to me to be the ultimate Humanist. His doctrine literally created the golden rule that o'nus mentions. Another cool historical humanist (I know this wasn't a mentioned category but these men certianly contributed to our culture) would have to be shakespear (sp?) his writings seem to me (if you look beyond the literal) all about the human experience.

I'm surprised there's been no mention of Kurt Vonnegut, I always thought of him to be one of the most popular contemporary humanists.

http://worcester.humanists.net/site/node/54

^I concur.

i.e. - "The Sirens of Titan", perhaps?

Originally Posted by Catbus

I'm surprised there's been no mention of Kurt Vonnegut, I always thought of him to be one of the most popular contemporary humanists.

http://worcester.humanists.net/site/node/54

why don't you write a piece on him then?



or you, acatelalelaelalalaphobic

Originally Posted by Lucid Boy

If you take away all the religious dogma srounding him and just look at the human christ, he seems to me to be the ultimate Humanist.

Problem: Jesus says that no human is good, and all humans need him.

Humanism says good humans can be good.

Big difference.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Problem: Jesus says that no human is good, and all humans need him.

Humanism says good humans can be good.

Big difference.

Wrong.

Humanism does not make any claims about "good" or "bad" but just that flourishing of human nature is ideal.

~

Nonetheless, humanism focuses on the humans. Christianity focuses on Christ.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Nonetheless, humanism focuses on the humans. Christianity focuses on Christ.

Jesus was a man.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Nonetheless, humanism focuses on the humans. Christianity focuses on Christ.

I would argue that jesus was focused on helping mankind achieve what would ultimately be considered a utopia. Christianity is about god, Jesus was about love and man helping man to become better.

Either way, we should try to focus on humanism, not what jesus was or wasn't...

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Jesus was a man.

So was tina if you've heard the song *lol* Anyway, back to humanism.

Another historical humanist would have to obviously be Gahndi? He worked for the improvement and benefit of mankind, though he was not focused so much on the human experience. How about Descartes? A psychologist? He seemed pretty focused on mankind.

Jesus, the man, was a revolutionary.

That being said, I would honestly hate to derail such a well-intended thread into pointless argument...

So, again, this:

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Either way, we should try to focus on humanism, not what jesus was or wasn't...

For once let's try to come together instead of finding pointless pigeonholes to force us apart, shall we? Isn't that the point of this thread, and ultimately of all human interaction...?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

why don't you write a piece on him then?



or you, acatelalelaelalalaphobic

Atelophobic?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Atelophobic?

Aw man.
No.

But that's what I get for making up words I guess.

And by the by, that doesn't even sound like a real thing to me.

Originally Posted by A roxxor

Jesus was a man.

I hate to take things off topic again, but just to clarify:

Jesus was God in human form.

Right, so, carry on.

The Thin Red Line for me personally is a very humanistic film. particularly considering it's a war movie.

The movie basically concerns the various soldiers in a company headed for Guadalcanal, in the Pacific Theater of the second world war. This is one of the more famous Pacific battles.

Anyway the movie charts the internal dialogues and emotional feelings and thoughts of various soldiers throughout the battle of Guadalcanal until they finally leave, and the themes it presents are not entirely satisfying, but still totally humanist.

The movie starts with us being presented with the goings on in a small native village in the pacific, where one of the main characters [Pvt. Whitt] is staying before being shipped to Guadalcanal. Here we are shown a very primitive way of living, by these people, they live a simple communal existence, unaware of the great world war, the great evil, which consumes the rest of the globe at the time.

The main crux of the movie is the juxtaposition of this peaceful and nature based existence, with the titanic clash and brutality of two fully developed nations going to war.

Before landing at Guadalcanal, two of the main characters have a dialogue, and something to this effect is said:

"There's not some other world out there where everything's gonna be okay. There's just this one, just this rock."

This is in reference to the horror and unfathomable suffering around them in this war.

Private Witt, having been living this Idyllic existence with the native people of the island, says

"I seen another world. Sometimes I think it was just my imagination."

What Private Witt means here, I interpret, is that in his experiences with the native village, he has maybe glimpsed a vision of humans living together, with no unneccessary suffering or hatred. A world in which human interaction and community is everything, and is beautiful alone. Nothing more is needed. No wealth, no war, no Gods, just people, human beings, living with each other, and experiencing the world.

But is this world real?

This screenshot sums up alot of the feel of the movie:

Spoiler for quite large image:

The contrast the movie creates, between man in a peaceful state of nature and man in an advanced war, is not as simple as all that though.

Questions are raised; Can mankind ever be free of conflict and suffering? Although the first part of the movie charts an arguably simplistic comparison, of nature and beauty in contrast with man created horror and war, we are shown later scenes from the same village, with natives fighting, and arguing, dying.

Is this idea of human peace and community just a fantasy, just like Private Witt's imaginings? And if it is, why does it feel so possible, feel so close, but just out of reach? Why is it so tantalising?



The issues aren't simple, and "The Thin Red Line" doesn't try to preach a straight answer, because there isn't one.

What we are shown, is the sense of longing and despair of the character, seeing how mankind has developed, somehow, from this primal and often beautiful simplicity, to a situation in which millions of innocent young people can be butchered efficiently, by people they don't know.

Now, I think this movie is humanist, because it addresses the real nature of human interaction. Can human beings ever live in peace. It tempts us with moments of absolute human peace and tranquility, before snatching them away, and leaving us only with the harsh and desolate brutality of modern war. In one intense scene, in the middle of a great gunfight to take some Japanese Bunkers, the camera focuses on a small bird hatching out of it's egg in the long grass, as the war rages.

Is Private Witt's "other world" real, or is it imagined? The movie doesn't answer this for us, it makes us ask the question, and I think that's how a movie should be. Never preachy, but always asking.


There are many other themes to the movie, I think it's highly layered, but I've specifically picked out the particularly humanistic part of it here. If you haven't seen the movie, I recommend it.



Relevant quotes from the movie [yes, they're a little pretentious at times]:

"This great evil. Where does it come from? How'd it steal into the world? What seed, what root did it grow from? Who's doin' this? Who's killin' us? Robbing us of life and light. Mockin' us with the sight of what we might've known. "


"I remember my mother when she was dyin', looked all shrunk up and gray. I asked her if she was afraid. She just shook her head. I was afraid to touch the death I seen in her. I couldn't find nothin' beautiful or uplifting about her goin' back to God. I heard of people talk about immortality, but I ain't seen it. I wondered how it'd be like when I died, what it'd be like to know this breath now was the last one you was ever gonna draw. I just hope I can meet it the same way she did, with the same... calm. 'Cause that's where it's hidden - the immortality I hadn't seen. "


Dead Japanese Soldier: "Are you righteous? Kind? Does your confidence lie in this? Are you loved by all? Know that I was, too. Do you imagine your suffering will be any less because you loved goodness and truth? "

Originally Posted by Noogah

I hate to take things off topic again, but just to clarify:

Jesus was God in human form.

Right, so, carry on.

Of course, you must realize that every religion has a form of humanism within it.

Your demonstration to argue this is interesting as it would suggest that you think humans are nothing of ethical concern but that Gods ought to take primacy over every single ethical concern.

In that case, you might as well enforce the mythical ethics of the medieval and ancient times.

Do you not see the fallacy in what you are trying to argue?

Humanism is within all religions for one reason alone; humans invented them. How the religions utilize them is up to them (eg. Jesus suggests ways for humans to interact with each other).

To argue that a religion is not humanistic is to argue that the religion is inhumane.

~

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

The Thin Red Line

Seems interesting, I've put it on my 'to watch' list.

Ah, so this is what humanism means! Not bad, not bad. Making life better for all instead of being a selfish snob. Personal beliefs aside, this is actually a good "religion" (and I use quotation marks because I know some Humanists don't consider this to be a religion) to be followed.