Axiom About Humanism

Humans are driven by feelings. A theory about humans should start from studying human soul. However, scholars feel uncomfortable speaking about human feelings plainly. They tend to embellish them, caught surprised afterwards with “sudden” mass violence and deceit.

In previous post I listed eight observations—eight axioms about human feelings—, which anyone talking on social topics should take into account, especially the ones holding themselves as scientists. And if someone disagrees with one axiom or another, he should propose an alternative, so that anyone could see a basis for his conclusions. I assume that intelligent people won’t disagree with these axioms, because they correspond to the honest expression of feelings that anyone experience. Here are my axioms:

About Humanism: Only humans feel; collectives do not feel.
About Isolation: Feelings of other people can be judged only by their acts.
About Insatiability: It is impossible to overcome all needs.
About Tastes: People value powers differently.
About Egoism: Strangers' needs are not important.
About Love: Loved ones are only few.
About Justice: The worse the offense, the more offender is hated.
About Envy: The richer the person, the more he is hated.

Each of these axioms cuts away a huge mass of statements as antiscientific ones. And only the statements not contradictory to these axioms can be considered as scientific.

We will talk about each of these axioms one after another.

Today it’s turn of the first axiom—about humanism. This axiom divides people talking on social subjects in two groups:

1. Humanists—those who endue only humans with ability to feel, but not collectives—and,
2. Collectivists—those who endue collectives as well as humans with ability to feel.

Axiom about humanism means that such phrases as people’s wishes, social needs, national interests, public reception and suchlike can only be treated allegorically, not literally. These phrases are only tropes, because collectives have no wishes, no soul, no sensor that could feel need or joy. Only humans that form collectives can wish and enjoy. Collective or society is nothing but communicating people.

Society for collectivists isn’t just humans, but Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes, Le Grand Être of Auguste Comte, Humant Hill of Aleksandr Zinovyev, Oranus of Victor Pelevin, or Society, Nation, People in some other inhuman sense. It’s not fairly correct to call social philosophers affected with collectivism humanitarians, because their views are inhumane, manless, unpeopled. They study collectives, not humans. Their humans are either dissolved in collectives, or so much pressed together that it’s impossible to find a gap between them: “A Party means millions of arms, brains, eyes linked and acting together”, wrote Vladimir Mayakovsky—Soviet revolutionary poet.

Only while speaking of society collectivists don’t spare words like system, whole system, integrated system. For them, human is just an element of this system, a member of society, who doesn’t worth interest as itself. Mikhail Zhvanetsky once said: “…I mean society that we form, not the one we belong to”. Indeed, while forming a society, humans preserve their integrity, their soul; human souls do not mix down into some big soul of society.

Collectivists state that only the People—not individuals—is the true subjects of history. An individual human is not even a unit—it’s zero, nothing. Only collective is something. This is what Vladimir Mayakovsky wrote in his poem Vladimir Ilyich Lenin:

Individual —
	what can he mean
		in life?

His voice sounds fainter
	than a needle dropping

Who hears him?
	Only, perhaps,
		his wife,

and then if she’s near
	and not out shopping

Here’s what another poet of collectivism in its fascist form—Benito Mussolini—wrote: “Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality. In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation”.

Humanists—on the contrary to collectivists—believe that human is much more consistent, integral and whole than society. There was a good reason that ancient Romans applied the word individuum (indivisible, impartible) to human, not to society.

When a humanist is prompted to contribute in the interests of society, he—understanding that only humans can have interests—would always inquire, in the interests of which people specifically he should contribute. A sophisticated humanist understands that social interests may turn to be the interests of those who prompt to contribute in the interests of society. Sophisticated fraudsters know that naïve people would rather contribute for common needs than for needs of specific fraudsters, and sophisticated humanists know about this knowledge of fraudsters.

---

Translator's note:
There’s a remarkable nuance in English language. The word people in English is normally treated as plural from person: “people are dancing” or “people were angry”. However sometimes people can become singular, and then you hear “Peoples” or “the People is”. Reading the works of great collectivists you would notice that they mostly use the word people as a noun in singular form, like they were talking about an individual: “The state is an abstraction; the people alone is the concrete” (K. Marx). Karl Marx used Das Volk (the people), which is singular in German. Vladimir Lenin said narod, which is also singular in Russian. French un peuple, Italian il populo and even original Latin populus are also singular. I wouldn’t go too far saying that this nuance of English language, which always reminds the speaker that people is nothing but many individuals and not some superbeing The People, leads to higher level of individualism in Britain and US than it is in many other countries, but I believe there’s at least something to it.

The Theory of Society: Basic Concepts

"Do not undertake to define any of the things so well known of themselves that the clearer terms cannot be had to explain them"
Blaise Pascal

I have a meticulous critic. He points out that I start discussion using the basic concepts without giving rigorous definitions for them.

But it is a prejudice that all scientific concepts should be rigorously defined through other concepts. Rigorous definition of all concepts is simply impossible. Once we try to define concepts only through other concepts, we will have to rigorously define those other concepts too, etc., indefinitely.

In order to avoid absurd infinity, scientists do not give rigorous definition to the basic concepts (or primitive notions). Instead of defining A, they would point at certain area of a subject and say, “this is A”. In case it’s still unclear, they would add, “and this is also A, and this is A too, and that…” In other words, a real scientist doesn’t philosophize with words, when he can just point a finger. Of course, such definition isn’t 100% precise; for the concept is an abstraction, while we are defining it using specific object. We can’t be certain that we embraced all specific things with such an abstraction. But at the same time we overcome absurd infinity and truly touch the subject without hovering between concepts, linked to each other.

The basic concepts of the theory of society will not be defined through other concepts as well. Instead, I will just point at the subject under study—the communicating people.

There are three basic concepts:

• Feelings;
• Acts;
• Powers

Feelings. Humans are animated creatures. They feel. They can suffer and enjoy, love and hate. However, we can only feel our own feelings directly. We can judge about feelings of other people only by their acts. Someone is crying—seems that he feels bad, he suffers. A person is laughing—probably he feels good, he enjoys. And here are people exchanging their things willingly—means that each of them value things received more that things paid, otherwise what’s the point of exchange? Value means joy. More valuable means more joyful.

Acts. Feelings prompt to actions. Feelings disturb, and humans act: trade, fight, hunt or farm. Synonyms for acts are: actions, activities, behavior, affair, conduct or deeds. People readily ban some types of acts, such as certain kinds of enforcement or deceit. The banned acts are called offenses. But enforcement and deceit towards offenders is not necessarily an offense.

Powers. Acts are impossible without powers. For instance, you can’t eat without food, you can’t sing without voice or you can’t listen without ears. Other words to describe powers: resources, abilities, capabilities or potential. We could use these words, but I prefer powers. First, because traditional resources or capabilities are overused words involved in many clichés and prejudices. Second, power is a short word, which is often used in this sense: manpower, labor power, productive powers.

When powers are marked—when we know whose they are—they become rights. My powers are my rights; your powers are your rights.

Powers, which can be given away to or received from another person, is property. A property to be exchanged is commodity (or merchandise)*.
The most liquid commodity—i.e. the commodity that changes its owners more frequently than others—is money.

Feelings are subjective. They are fruits of our souls. They are like dreams, which unlike movies can be only watched individually. They are subjective in a sense that person can feel directly only his feeling. We may only guess about feelings of other people. It also possible that other people can mislead us about their feelings. For example, they may say that some strong feelings are bad and sinful in order to put their competitors off guard.

Acts and powers may have objective instance. People can notice and feel other’s acts and powers, such as other people’s words, gestures or abilities that they possess. Only by acts and powers of other person one can surmise other’s inner condition. Only by the means of acts and powers we can give signals about our feelings—needs and joys—to others. Only by the means of acts and powers we can delude our competitors regarding our true feelings.

Act is some flow, process, something that proceeds in time, something that takes time.

Power is some supply or reserve that can be described as of any moment and that doesn’t require timeline.

Observations. By overseeing human behavior, we can fix the following observations, using the basic concepts—feelings, powers and acts.

1. About Humanism: Only humans feel; collectives do not feel.
2. About Isolation: Feelings of other people can be judged only by their acts.
3. About Insatiability: It is impossible to overcome all needs.
4. About Tastes: People value powers differently.
5. About Egoism: Strangers' needs are not important.
6. About Love: Loved ones are only few.
7. About Justice: The worse the offense, the more offender is hated.
8. About Envy: The richer the person, the more he is hated.

By accepting these observations as axioms for deducting theorems from them, we get a practical theory of society. However, humans in our theory are no angels. They are insatiable and envious egoists, who love only a few other people. But on the other hand they don’t like offenders—those, who cross borders, break treaties, break the bans against dangerous acts.

The proposed theory doesn’t promise abolishing insatiability, egoism or envy, or organizing global brotherhood. Moreover, this theory states that those are impossible, inhumane goals—the goals of fighting human nature. The theory suggests rejecting these false problems.

But the theory helps distinguishing between envy and justice and shows feasibility of strive for justice—for reducing enforcement and deceit. In order to do that it is necessary to understand that the only common affair for all people on Earth is fight against offenders: murderers, abusers, thieves, violators of treaties, etc. All other problems are solved privately.

---

*Translator’s note:
There’s a great word in Russian language, commonly used to describe property to be exchanged—tovar. It is great because it’s short and specifically designates an article meant to be exchanged, unlike commodities or goods, which are rather perceived like something necessarily consumable. Although it is also unusual for Russian audience to hear that money is also a tovar (because it’s meant to be exchanged), as well as that service can be a tovar too, I find it much more elegant than commodity, so actively used by economists. Merchandise is a very good English analogue of tovar. However it is still too long for a good word, and not so actively used in this sense. I would propose to shorten it to merch and use it instead of commodity. Yes, that would be good.
Meanwhile, I will use commodity and merchandise as synonyms in further translations. And I would like to stress that commodity here is something meant to be exchanged in the first place, not consumed.

On 66th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Adoption.

Today is the important anniversary.

66 years ago, on December 10th, 1948, at the 183rd plenary meeting of United Nations General Assembly in Palais de Chaillot, Paris the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter – the Declaration) was adopted: 48 members voted in favor, 8 abstained. The Declaration was translated to 360 languages, being one of the most widely translated documents in history. It provided the basis for constitutions of many countries, including the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights was formed to work on the Declaration project. During its first meeting, which took place at Lake Success from January 27th to February 10th, 1947, the Commission elected for its Chairman Eleanor Roosevelt – the “First Lady of the World”, as US President Truman, successor to President Roosevelt, called her. Almost two years world first-string lawyers worked on the Declaration project.

Finally, it was adopted. It’s rather short, only 30 articles. From such Declaration one would expect a concentrate of wisdom to memorize like multiplication table.

Let’s read the Declaration. It turns out that we are all members of the human family, that we are all equal in dignity and rights, that we should all act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood, when each has the right to high standard of living. But such words have nothing to do with facts of life. These are questionable metaphors, acceptable in hymns. These are unrealistic vain wishes, deceptive preachment, filling one with nausea even while reading, not to mention memorizing.

The rights have nothing to do with friendship and gifts. Where love rules there’s no place for rights. But there’s never been, isn’t and hardly ever will be universal love and brotherhood. Love is little islands in the ocean of competition. The rights moderate this competition. The rights are restrictions of the most dangerous acts: don’t violate, don’t threaten, don’t deceive, otherwise violence, threats and deceit will be used against you. The rights are firm and precise formulations, not some crumbly words about liberty, equality and fraternity.

What influence does the Declaration have on people’s lives? Negative, I assume, because the Declaration absorbed the most popular and, at the same time, the most naïve views on rights and politics in one document and raised it to the level of global importance. The Declaration doesn’t lead to concord. It is irresponsible.

This is not my opinion only.

This is what Friedrich A. Hayek wrote on the Declaration in his book Law, Legislation and Liberty: “The conception of a ‘universal right’ which assures to the peasant, to the Eskimo, and presumably to the Abominable Snowman, ‘periodic holidays with pay’ shows the absurdity of the whole thing. Even the slightest amount of ordinary common sense ought to have told the authors of the document that what they decreed as universal rights were for the present and for any foreseeable future utterly impossible of achievement, and that solemnly to proclaim them as rights was to play an irresponsible game with the concept of ‘right’ which could result only in destroying the respect for it”.

Even the pleonasm “human rights” in the title of the Declaration bewilders. Why is it “human rights”, if only humans can have rights? We don’t say “human science”, because there’s no other science, but human.

I believe that most of our conflicts, including wars, are related to spoiled language we all use to talk about rights and politics, while the Declaration encourages this spoiling, selling mistakes as paragon of discourse about rights and politics.