Finding the balance of how much technology we want seems like the hardest task of all, and it’s obvious to me that this is the reason why we avoid it. Just think of all the reasoned debates that would have to occur! It’s much easier to give ourselves over to unlimited technology, or to deny it altogether. The notion of having a direction (forwards or backwards) appears to be the root cause of this drift from humanism, as you’ve defined it. If a sense of direction weren’t so present in how we see the world, we would find the task of deciding on how much technology we want much easier. I like the idea of a directionless humanity, and find it rather comforting myself, but perhaps that’s not for everyone.
Finding the balance of how much technology we want seems like the hardest task of all, and it’s obvious to me that this is the reason why we avoid it. Just think of all the reasoned debates that would have to occur! It’s much easier to give ourselves over to unlimited technology, or to deny it altogether. The notion of having a direction (forwards or backwards) appears to be the root cause of this drift from humanism, as you’ve defined it. If a sense of direction weren’t so present in how we see the world, we would find the task of deciding on how much technology we want much easier. I like the idea of a directionless humanity, and find it rather comforting myself, but perhaps that’s not for everyone.
In fact it was the first bastion of humanism. It stopped being humane when it stopped being Christian
I explain how the Christian humanism of the Renaissance was hijacked by modern humanism (a substitute for religion) here: https://www.sacredarchitecture.org/articles/the_myth_of_renaissance_secular_humanism