Man is able to reach a high level of humanity, and this is proven by the very existence of people who have truly cared about humanity and dedicated their lives to the search for solutions to mankind's problems. We need to become wiser and more human not only in order to feel good about it, but, most important, because we have no choice. If we continue to live like barbarians and don't change our attitudes to life, then our chances of survival are nil. That is the most important reason. If the Earth's resources were limitless, if its size were so great that we could not damage the environment, then apart from the fact that there would still be a lot of suffering in this world, we could let evolution run its natural course and, over a couple of millennia, transform us into true Homo sapiens . But today the world is changing at an increasingly rapid pace. Technology is advancing so fast that our psyche and perceptions cannot keep up with it. This leads to more serious social problems and greater spiritual and intellectual confusion. That is why we should go back to these humanist ideas and ideals, reexamine and reevaluate them objectively and without prejudice in the light of the dramatic changes that have occurred over the past decades, and start applying them now before it is too late.

3.1  Idealism and Realism —It's All Upside Down

"All men are `idealists' and are striving for something beyond the attainment of physical satisfaction," wrote Erich Fromm in Man for Himself (p. 49). "They differ in the kinds of ideals they believe in. The very best but also the most satanic manifestations of man's mind are expressions not of his flesh but of this `idealism,' of his spirit." Normally, most people—politicians, scientists, journalists, economists—consider themselves realists. They call reality not only what they see and hear around them, but also their own beliefs and perceptions. Their reality, however, is only part of total reality, which comprises all that exists in man, outside man, in nature, in the universe, in both space and time.

So we should understand reality as everything that occurs in the universe, including our mind, our spirit, our concepts, our imagination. All this is reality because it exists as a combination of matter and spirit. Unfortunately, we go on denying total reality. "In our daily lives," wrote Aldous Huxley in Music at Night (p. 79), "the most important immediate realities are changing desires, emotions, moods. Some people accept these as they come and live from hand to mouth. But the `realism' they profess is not only slightly sordid and ignoble; it is also sterile. It leaves them without courage, as Clemenceau would say, without the motive and the power to pursue a course of effective action."

Another aspect of reality is time. Reality includes at least that span of time which affects human civilisation. We may not talk about, say, another million years. That may be considered impractical. But we should probably talk about fifty, a hundred years, or two hundred years from now. So, if we talk about the reality of economics, reality of politics, reality of social life, reality of culture, reality of environment, etc., then we should include the future in our concept of reality as well as the past and the present, and not only what we believe will happen but also what may happen. When politicians, economists, and business people discuss possibilities and trends of economic development, they talk about how to become more competitive and how to increase industrial production within the following decade. This is where reality ends for them. To project future development without looking ahead beyond one decade is not reality but irresponsible fantasy. © (E. Fromm, The Sane Society , p. 111).

3.2  Truth —One or Many?

As Fromm commented on how it is perceived in contemporary society ( Escape from Freedom , p. 274), "truth is declared to be an entirely subjective matter, almost a matter of taste." Contrary to this commonly held view, I believe that there can be only one objective truth, rather than two, or many, or mine and yours . Very frequently, people use the term truth in a figurative sense. And when we differ on what truth is, it is because some of us do not see it, or we see only part of it, or we express only our perceptions of truth. Truth is as eternal as the universe itself and is independent of our perceptions and emotions. So, it is not truth that changes, but only our perceptions of it. Perhaps that is what Arthur Schopenhauer meant when he said that "all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." One example of such truth no educated person would dare refute today is the fact that the Earth is a globe, and not a cube or flat like a pancake. That is, we are talking about absolute truth, truth as the ultimate reality. The notion of truth may be divorced from our minds. Our reason can only look for and find portions of truth, we may edge closer and closer to it, though we are unlikely to know the whole truth or absolute truth.

The singleness of truth is a very important concept, because it relates to our approach to problem solving. If we accept the thesis that there is only one truth, then it follows that there is only one best solution to any problem, in terms of both the method used and the end result. So, in principle, best solutions to problems do exist, if they exist at all, but the difficulty is how to identify them. This task is more likely to be accomplished by those who possess wisdom, reason, rationality, logic, and objectivity, in combination with morality and spirituality. And instead of accusing such people of playing God or being megalomaniacs ("All great truths begin as blasphemies," said George Bernard Shaw), we should strain our brains a little harder and test those people's views by presenting logical and objective counterarguments—that is, to use a more familiar phrase, popular even with national leaders, "put up or shut up."

3.3  Awareness —Coming out of the Eggshell

To be aware means to understand that we humans are not something separate from the environment we live in or even from the whole universe itself. We are made of the same particles, atoms and molecules, that constitute the world around us. We exchange these particles with the rest of the world through the air we breathe, and through the food we eat and drink. Our bodies and minds are affected by changes in climate, by geological processes, by solar and cosmic radiation and gravitation, perhaps by other stars and galaxies, and we are not yet sure by what else. If we are not aware of these mostly invisible forms of matter and energy around us, we tend to believe that our personal "I" is the most important entity in the world, the centre of the universe, Number One. Outside this shell we live in is a different, strange, even hostile world to be used for our own purpose.

This is probably typical of any young individual, and some of us adults may still remember that feeling. I distinctly remember one particular night—I was about twenty—when I was lying in bed utterly depressed because I knew that some 40 years later I would be dead, and felt like the entire universe would die with me. But now, the longer I live and the closer I get to my Maker, the calmer I grow about my own destiny, because I become more and more aware of the outside world and of my own relative insignificance. I think less about me and more about us . Such an attitude may also be beneficial to our state of mind and help us find a purpose and meaning in life.

So, I believe that awareness is an important factor in our development as human beings, in our progress from animality to humanity. © (A. Huxley, "Ends and Means," Collected Essays , p. 374). When we are aware of the world around us, we seek to reach even farther into the universe through science and contemplation.

Is awareness a physical quality or an intellectual notion, one might ask. I think it's both. To me, there is no separation between the intellectual and the physical, because I visualize the world as a whole. Intellectual activity is characteristic only of humans, as far as we know. But there are no clear boundaries between matter and reason (conscience, spirit), because they interact, anyway. Our brain itself works through the interaction of matter and energy (electrical signals, chemical reactions).

Our ancestors certainly lived a more animallike life in tribes and small communities than we live today in large cities. It was less intellectual, knowledgeable, or conscious. But it wasn't necessarily less content or more stressful. There were forms of awareness through contact with nature and animal and plant life. Later, many people lost the sense of connectedness with nature.

Today intellectual awareness is becoming very important. We need to be aware not only of what is going on around us, but also of where we are going as human species. If our planet had had limitless resources and had not been so overpopulated, there might have been nothing wrong with the sort of life people used to live in the past. But, unfortunately, things have changed so dramatically that we are now besieged with tremendous problems. We are worried, we are tense, we are insecure and unhappy, and we are digging our own graves with our irresponsible attitude to life. Awareness helps us see the world in its entirety, better understand human problems, and find more realistic and effective solutions to them. Awareness can probably be achieved only through enlightenment and contemplation. In this respect, Buddhism, which focuses on individual spiritual perfection, may seem like an attractive alternative, except that many of those who practise it virtually shut themselves out from physical reality. But to survive, we need to act as well as contemplate.

Awareness may also provide us with a perception or feeling, which some of us may occasionally have, that we are all relatives descending from the same ancestor and belonging to the same family, rather than strangers, lonely animals, or members of different tribes competing with each other for individual survival. This perception may help us deal more effectively with fear of death, since from other people's experience, if not from our own, we know that it is easier to die when we are in the company of our family and friends than when we are on our own. We are not just dead but, in a way, continue to live through the same genes that, for all we know, may preserve our sense of "I" in our progeny.

3.4  Knowledge, Understanding, Intuition

Knowledge and understanding are two different things. Knowledge is just the availability of information (facts, data, experience), a tool that can be used for any purpose, whether good and bad, whereas understanding is the ability to see the connection between different pieces of information, between different events, phenomena, and circumstances, i.e., global, long-term reality, and to use knowledge for the benefit of all humanity, including our children and grandchildren. ©

Understanding is also superior to intelligence, which also can be compared to a powerful and sometimes dangerous tool. To use our intelligence effectively and safely, we need to have understanding. But, one might object, you cannot understand if you are not intelligent. That is true. You must have a sufficient level of intelligence. However, you may be less intelligent in comparison with other people but, at the same time, much wiser, more reasonable, and have a better understanding of things. Occasionally we meet poorly educated, even slow-thinking people who demonstrate very sound judgement and a lot of perspicacity.

As for intuition , which to many is almost a mystical phenomenon, I would define it as subconscious experience stored in our brain. We can react to various circumstances and even make the right decisions without understanding the reasons for our actions, because our subconscious experience, including probably the hereditary information encoded in our genes, is constantly doing its own work. We all to some degree possess intuition. It is known to play an important part in making scientific discoveries. Women are reputed to have stronger intuition than men, who, it is claimed, rely more on their analytical faculties. This could, perhaps, be explained by their biological, social, and historical differences.

3.5  Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom —Is There a Difference?

Most people, including philosophers, scientists, writers, politicians, media professional, and others, do not distinguish between intelligence and reason. They talk a great deal about intelligence , while hardly ever mentioning reason or wisdom . They regard intelligence as man's supreme quality, naively believing that we will solve our problems by becoming more intelligent. First of all, intelligence (or intellect) is a relative notion. A person may look intelligent to some people and stupid to others. And as one wise man has observed, every fool thinks he is intelligent. We can measure intelligence only by comparison with some standards. One such standard is IQ (Intelligence Quotient). And who, do you think, has developed and perpetuated this standard? Was it Homo sapiens ? God? Or some other Absolute Intellect existing somewhere in the universe? No, it was done by the same "intelligent" barbarian, probably by some modern psychologist who was unaware of the other half of man's wit, namely, reason . That is why IQ reflects the memory storage capacity of the human brain, rather than its analytical, deductive, logical, and extrapolative powers. Therefore, "wisdomwise," those who have a "normal" or high IQ can still be half-wits, because they don't understand what the root causes of our problems are and what the consequences for this and future generations will be.

We need to understand further what intelligence means. Intelligence can be defined as the ability of the brain to absorb, retain, process, and retrieve information for the purpose of achieving specific goals, usually in one's own interests. There are many very able and talented people around who can talk and write in great detail and at great length on many subjects, and we marvel at their intelligence and erudition. Also, it is intelligence that allows man to make scientific discoveries and develop amazing technologies, including nuclear weapons and other means of mass destruction. One can be intelligent and, at the same time, a most despicable person, a criminal, a ruthless barbarian. Intelligence may even be one of nature's aberrations. It may be periodically self-destructive, because, unless combined with reason, it cannot achieve what it aspires to do—bring nature under control.

Reason , on the other hand, is close in meaning to understanding and wisdom . An excellent definition of reason is to be found in Fromm's Man for Himself (p. 102):

"Reason involves a third dimension, that of depth, which reaches to the essence of things and processes. While reason is not divorced from the practical aims of life... , it is not a mere tool for immediate action. Its function is to know, to understand, to grasp, to relate oneself to things by comprehending them. It penetrates through the surface of things in order to discover their essence, their hidden relationships and deeper meanings, their `reason.' It is, as it were, not two-dimensional but `perspectivistic,' to use Nietzsche's term; i.e., it grasps all conceivable perspectives and dimensions, not only the practically relevant ones. Being concerned with the essence of things does not mean being concerned with something `behind' things, but with the essential, with the generic and the universal, with the most general and pervasive traits of phenomena, freed from their superficial and accidental (logically irrelevant) aspects."

Reason and wisdom are based on experience. Thus a young person, a teenager for example, may have a very high IQ, that is, be very intelligent and even rational, but he or she is very unlikely to possess reason or wisdom, and therefore understand reality. One important component of reason and wisdom is the ability and the need to think critically, logically, and objectively, in space and time. It is reason that we should recognize as the supreme human quality, because, in my definition, it incorporates the best of what, to our knowledge, exists on Earth, and maybe in the universe, namely, understanding, vision, awareness, morality, virtue, love, kindness, imagination, and, not least, spirituality (search for truth and meaning in life, philosophy, arts, or science).

The difference between reason and intelligence is stated, in a nutshell, by Fromm in The Sane Society (p. 65): "Reason is man's instrument for arriving at the truth, intelligence is man's instrument for manipulating the world more successfully; the former is essentially human, the latter belongs to the animal part of man."

3.6  Objectivity, Logic (the Forgotten Subject)

Being objective, basically, means being honest with oneself. If we really want to understand reality and get at the truth, we must learn to recognize it, however scary or unpleasant it may be. This also means publicly admitting to being wrong when, deep in your heart, you know you are, as well as keeping an open mind to new ideas. This does not necessarily mean rushing to accept them just because they are new; rather we should try first to verify their validity. Objectivity can be taught and developed through conscious effort and practice. Socrates, as American philosopher Charles S. Peirce suggested in his essay "How to Make Our Ideas Clear," "... would have been delighted to have been `overcome in argument,' because he would have learned something by it..."

Logic is one of the most important analytical skills that we need to develop in order to think clearly and, it is hoped, act rationally. It reflects the law of cause and effect, which governs all events, phenomena, and processes occurring in this physical world of ours and, perhaps, everywhere else in the universe. Simply put, the law of cause and effect means that anything that happens is caused by something and, in turn, causes something else to happen. This chain of causes and consequences, like the universe itself, has no beginning and no end in relation to time or space.

Some people believe that we use different kinds of logic. Apparently, they confuse logic with perceptions or even tastes. When I was a student in Russia, our teacher of linguistics told us that the Chinese had a different kind of logic from ours. At that time, of course, I cared more about pleasures than logic, but now I believe that just as there is only one truth and one law of cause and effect, so there is only one kind of logic. Logic is as exact as mathematics. If, for example, we assume that A=B and B=C, it follows that A=C, and there is no getting around this fact.

"Why should we care so much about logic?" one may ask. "What use does it have? After all, many of us do just fine without it." Well, in the first place, people with a good sense of logic understand things more clearly and are able to detect inconsistencies in the statements and behaviour of others who may claim to say or do the "right" things. Besides, if we don't mind living in a barbarous society plagued with ever-increasing problems, a society without a future, then, indeed, we have no use for logic. But if, on the contrary, we want to live in a better, more human, less suffering world, then we need to think logically in order to find solutions to our chronic horrendous problems. Logic can and should be taught as a compulsory discipline in schools, colleges, and universities, because it provides a method to our thinking. It helps us see things in their true light, better understand one another, and arrive at similar conclusions.

3.7  Meaning of Life

It is important to find meaning in our life. Too many of us live without it. In the former Soviet Union, where I was born and lived for forty years, we were expected to devote our lives to the building of a "just and prosperous" communist society under the wise leadership of our dear father Joseph Stalin. But not everyone was so blind and stupid as not to see the hypocrisy, the lies, and the terror that were part of this "new" society. By the time I was about thirty years old, I had come to believe that life was meaningless, that we just existed like trees, for instance. I remember meeting a former classmate in Moscow. We sat down for a drink in an outdoor cafe and talked about the latest events. Somehow we got to talking about the meaning of life, and I said that there was no such thing unless one believed in God. And then, after having kept it a secret for all the years that I had known him, my friend admitted that he believed in God but asked me to please not tell anyone.

For some twenty years after that conversation I still took no particular interest in that issue, although most of the time I felt that my life was empty and meaningless. That is, I knew it was meaningless but had no idea how to make it meaningful. And because of that, I often felt listless and depressed, which probably affected my health as well. And we all have heard stories about people who rose to power, wealth, and fame but failed to find satisfaction in life and even committed suicide because their psyches could not cope with the meaningless and insanity of modern life.

But the longer I lived and the more I thought about it, the clearer it became to me that if there were no meaning in life, then there was no meaning in anything. Then why should we bother at all about such notions as freedom, democracy, justice, love, etc.? What does it matter anyway? Why not just exist, like animals, trying to survive at whatever cost to others and to nature, and who cares about what will happen to anyone else or even to our children and grandchildren? To me, that makes no sense whatsoever. As psychologist B. F. Skinner says in Beyond Freedom and Dignity (p. 118), "To be for oneself is to be almost nothing."

If we consider ourselves human beings who care about other humans, as well as freedom and justice, we should ask ourselves: where is the meaning? It should be somewhere. What is it? ©

Most of us, I believe, can find meaning in doing what we can to contribute to the survival of planet Earth, including our own species, to minimize human suffering, and to struggle against evil. As Albert Einstein said: "Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society."

3.8  Good and Evil —the Uneven Struggle

Most people are in the habit of saying, "What's good for you may be bad for me," or, to use the idiom, "One man's meat is another man's poison." This may be true about our physical health, senses, preferences, and perceptions. But when we extend these usages to more serious discussion, then things get mixed up, all communication is broken down, the issue under discussion loses all sense, and mutual understanding becomes impossible. To understand each other, we have to arrive at a common denominator, mutually acceptable terminology, and unambiguous definitions. Is that possible? Full communication and understanding are possible only if both parties have sufficient wisdom, a sense of logic, objectivity, and, not least, honesty with themselves. Why honesty? Because if, at some point, you realise that you have made a mistake and your opponent is right, your honesty will help you overcome your ego and admit your mistake. Otherwise, all communication would be futile and useless, which is normally the case.

So, when we start arguing about what is good and what is bad, we must first settle the question: good or bad for whom and for what? I would define good as anything that helps us to become wiser, kinder, more considerate to each other and to nature, more knowledgeable, more aware, more spiritual, in order to minimize suffering in this world and to ensure the survival and evolution of the human race. According to psychologist B. F. Skinner ( Beyond Freedom and Dignity , p. 99), "Things are good (positively reinforcing) or bad (negatively reinforcing) presumably because of the contingencies of survival under which the species evolved."

On the social and philosophical plane, the issue of good and evil makes sense only if approached from the standpoint of humanity's interests. "Goodness," wrote Huxley ("Ends and Means," Collected Essays , p. 374), "is the means by which we divert our attention from the singularly wearisome topic of our animality and our individual separateness."

I think it is worth determining the main obstacle to understanding good and evil. First and foremost, it has to be ignorance. If we don't know the difference, perhaps because we haven't thought about it or are poorly educated, we won't be able to recognize and resist evil in all its forms. We may easily succumb to its lures without realising that we may have to pay a heavy price later. There is no shortage of examples: drugs, sexual promiscuity, AIDS, crime, violence, pollution, etc.

Another thing about this business of good and bad is the question of which is stronger? From the moment I was born, I have been told repeatedly that good always defeats evil. But as I grew up, I began noticing that this was not exactly true. Now that I am no longer young, I know that this is exactly not true. And if you really think about it, you might understand why. It is because good is good and bad is evil. Good is too good to be bad, so it always stops short of doing bad things, whereas evil stops short of nothing. As Aristotle wrote a long time ago, "... evil is infinite in nature, while good is finite." There is considerable evidence of this all around us, as well as within us, in our relations with other co-barbarians, in the decay of morality and culture, in the destruction of our own habitat, in the continual human suffering all around the world. And gradually, bad is becoming good. Bad and mean characters parading on TV and movie screens are becoming our heroes and role models. As proclaimed by lady wrestlers who rap-sang their professional hymn on a nationally televised Donahue show, "... being bad is really good."

3.9  Moral Values —Mine, Yours, Theirs?

Until recently, my understanding of morality amounted to the following: Morality is not something mystical. It is a product of human experience. It has developed in the process of human evolution by trial and error, most likely on the basis of the same mechanism that is found in animals and prevents members of the same species from killing each other. As W. G. Sumner wrote in Folkways , "... morals can never be intuitive. They are historical, institutional, and empirical... The mores came down to us from the past." Tribes and societies have needed morality in order to survive, function, and continue to evolve. John Stuart Mill wrote in Utilitarianism : "... mankind have been learning by experience the tendencies of actions; on which experience all the prudence, as well as all the morality of life, is dependent." The wise people of the past, some of whom we call prophets, noticed long ago the necessity of formulating a code of human behaviour for regulating social relations, and they registered it in the Bible, the Koran, and other religious doctrines as commandments—"thou shall not kill," "thou shall not steal," etc.

I still believe all this to be, by and large, true. However, simply to acknowledge that morality has evolved from experience is not enough, because this does not explain what makes some of us obey its commandments, what makes us care. So there has to be some spiritual force behind the idea of morality, which no one has so far been able to identify, except those who associate it with God.

Morality as such is not intrinsic to human nature. Some positive human traits may be inherited through genes but on the whole, morality can and should be taught. To quote Aristotle, "... none of the moral excellences or virtues is implanted in us by nature;... but nature gives the capacity for acquiring them, and this is developed by training." Some moralists (including Saint Paul in the Bible and Joseph Butler) maintain that "man is a law unto himself." This might hold true only in a hypothetical situation where man is completely isolated from society, where his actions are motivated by his needs, wishes, and emotions but in no way affect other people's lives. The closest to an ideal example might be a person living on a desert island. In this case it wouldn't matter to society if that person was cruel, dishonest, filthy, a drug addict, a sex pervert, or none of those things. There is no issue of morality involved here; it can apply only to social relations, and therefore the popular argument that "you have your morals and I have mine" is complete nonsense, though one can often hear it even from intellectuals and politicians. This enormous confusion on the subject of morality is due to the absence of a criterion for its definition. Obviously, such a criterion cannot be the personal individual perceptions of 5.5 billion different people. The only possible criterion is the welfare and further humanization of mankind in a healthy environment.

Morality is an unwritten law and is the foundation of the societal structure. Constitutional law cannot cover all aspects of human life; that is why we must continue to rely heavily on ethics and moral values in the future. In practice, morality is basically consideration for others. However, morality alone won't solve many of our problems. To be constructive and effective, it needs to be combined with reason. Sidney Hook must have meant "reason" rather than "intelligence" when he wrote in Neither Blind Obedience nor Uncivil Disobedience (p. 582): "It is commendable to recognize the primacy of morality to law but unless we recognize the centrality of intelligence to morality, we stumble with blind self- righteousness into moral disaster."

3.10  Conscience —the Silenced Voice

Conscience is directly related to morality, although we don't use this term as often as morality , moral values , or ethics . Why is this so? Many people have a rather vague idea of what conscience means. Conscience is our inner voice, which speaks with honesty. So when we are not honest with ourselves or others, it means that we have silenced that voice. In today's society, conscience is a burden; it makes life difficult—it's no fun. That's why some of us try to suppress it. And when we are not very successful in silencing it on our own, the modern psychologist comes to our aid with his or her rather expensive advice on how to get rid of it. Conscience is a burden, but one that we must carry in order to move on. It's a burden that uplifts the human spirit.

The late Erich Fromm, who was a psychoanalyst of international standing, wrote in Man for Himself (p. 161):

"In order to listen to the voice of our conscience, we must be able to listen to ourselves, and this is exactly what most people in our culture have difficulties in doing. We listen to every voice and to everybody but not to ourselves. We are constantly exposed to the noise of opinions and ideas hammering at us from everywhere: motion pictures, newspapers, radio, idle chatter... Listening to ourselves is so difficult because this art requires another ability, rare in modern man: that of being alone with oneself. In fact, we have developed a phobia of being alone; we prefer the most trivial and even obnoxious company, the most meaningless activities, to being alone with ourselves; we seem to be frightened at the prospect of facing ourselves. Is it because we feel we would be such bad company? I think the fear of being alone with ourselves is rather a feeling of embarrassment, bordering sometimes on terror at seeing a person at once so well known and so strange; we are afraid and run away. We thus miss the chance of listening to ourselves, and we continue to ignore our conscience."