Out of Compassion for Humanity, Do Not Make It the Center of the Universe
Mohammad Kawrani, 2026.08.14
Towards Rebuilding the Human Sciences Through Recognizing the Reality of the Human Being Before the Entire Universe.
A large proportion of modern human sciences research is based on making the human being a central subject of knowledge: psychology studies the human being and his behavior, sociology studies the human being within the group, economics studies his choices and needs, political science studies power and institutions, anthropology studies human beings and their cultures, and modern humanistic philosophy—and this is good and natural.
This focus on the human being is not, in itself, a mistake; rather, it is a scientific necessity. But the problem begins when “the human being as a subject of research” becomes “the human being as the ultimate standard of truth,” and when methodological human centrality turns into absolute ontological centrality, so that the human being becomes as though he were the origin from which everything is explained, instead of himself being a subject in need of explanation.
Here a deeper question emerges:
What happens to the human sciences if the human being himself is taken as a subject of knowledge, with complete neutrality, without presupposing that he is self-sufficient?
The result may be radically different.
First: The Problem Is Not Studying the Human Being, but Assuming His Sufficiency
From a scientific and rational perspective, there is no objection to making the human being the focus of the human sciences; he is their direct subject.
But there is a difference between two propositions:
The first: the human being is a fundamental subject of the human sciences.
The second: the human being is the center of existence, the source of value, and the ultimate reference for truth.
The first is methodological.
The second is a philosophical and ontological claim that requires proof.
The human sciences can tell us how human beings behave, how they learn, how their personalities develop, how societies are formed, and how the environment, culture, and economy influence their behavior.
But merely describing these phenomena cannot allow them to conclude that:
The human being is the ultimate truth in existence.
Indeed, studying the human being with scientific rigor may lead to exactly the opposite conclusion: the human being is a being that is profoundly dependent on others.
Second: Modern Science Itself Has Revealed the Fragility of the Human Being
The more precise the human sciences have become, the more the naïve conception of the human being as an independent master and a self-sufficient mind has receded.
The human being is born incapable of independence.
He needs his parents.
He needs a language that he did not invent.
He needs society.
He needs education.
He needs culture.
He needs food, water, and air.
He needs the natural environment.
He needs knowledge produced by others.
Indeed, a large part of his psychological and behavioral decisions is influenced by factors that he does not fully consciously perceive.
Here, modern human sciences have presented a long series of discoveries that have stripped away the illusion of complete transparency of the human being to himself.
Sigmund Freud, for example, made the unconscious a fundamental element in understanding the human being and showed that the human being is not an absolute master of his psychological life.
Then the schools of social psychology came to demonstrate the extent to which groups, environments, and social expectations influence behavior.
Behavioral economics challenged the image of the completely rational economic human being.
Research in cognitive psychology showed that human beings systematically fall into errors and cognitive biases.
Thus, we can observe an important paradox:
The more our knowledge of the human being increases, the more our knowledge of his limitations increases.
This is not a defeat for humanity; rather, it is the beginning of genuine knowledge of the human being.
Third: Freud and the Collapse of the Illusion of the Human Being’s Transparency to Himself
One of the most important transformations in the history of modern human sciences was the discovery that the human being does not directly know all of his motives.
In psychoanalysis, the unconscious became a fundamental element in understanding human behavior.
Regardless of how much of Freud’s theories we accept today, the philosophical significance of the idea of the unconscious is immense:
The human being is not completely transparent to himself.
This places an important limit on any arrogant conception of the human being as the mind that completely knows itself and the world.
If the human being does not even know all of his internal motives, how can he be the absolute standard of truth?
Fourth: Cognitive Psychology: The Mind Itself Is Limited
Research in cognitive psychology came to present a more complex picture.
The human being does not receive reality exactly as it is in a completely neutral manner. Rather, he relies on limited cognitive mechanisms, uses mental shortcuts, is influenced by context, and may fall into recurring biases.
One important concept in this field has become the concept of the cognitive limitations of the human being.
This means that the human mind, despite its exceptional abilities, is not an absolute mind.
It is a mind that is:
Limited in information;
Limited in time;
Limited in computational capacity;
Prone to error;
Susceptible to influence;
And capable of reshaping itself.
Hence came Herbert Simon’s concept of Bounded Rationality.
The human being does not always make the optimal decision after calculating all possibilities, simply because he does not possess the complete cognitive capacity to do so.
Here an important philosophical conclusion emerges:
The mind that recognizes its limitations is more rational than the mind that denies its limitations.
Fifth: Behavioral Economics Destroyed the Image of the Perfectly Rational Human Being
In traditional economics, the model of Homo economicus emerged: the human being who acts rationally in order to achieve his interests.
But behavioral economics, particularly through the work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, demonstrated that human beings make systematic errors and exhibit systematic biases in decision-making.
The human being does not always behave as a perfect calculating machine.
This discovery is extremely important for the human sciences.
If the human being is:
Limited in knowledge + limited in calculation + influenced by context + prone to error,
then building an entire philosophy of existence on the basis that “the human being is the ultimate reference” requires reconsideration, because it is an extremely dangerous matter.
Sixth: Darwin Removed the Human Being’s Exception from Nature
Then came the Darwinian transformation, placing the human being within the natural history of life.
Here a tremendous revolution occurred in the Western conception of the human being.
The human being was no longer studied as a being completely separate from the rest of living creatures, but as part of a long biological history.
Regardless of the philosophical and religious debates surrounding certain aspects of evolution, the human lesson here is clear:
The human being is not independent of nature.
He depends on a vast ecological system that he cannot do without.
Food, water, oxygen, climate, soil, plants, animals, microorganisms, and the cycles of nature are all conditions for his existence.
Therefore, even the human being who believes that he is the “master of nature” cannot live outside a network of relationships that he did not create himself. Imagine Stephen Hawking, paralyzed, in the whirlwind of Darwin’s theory!?
Seventh: Sociology Revealed That the Human Being Does Not Create Himself Alone
One of the most important lessons of sociology is that the human being is not an isolated individual who comes into the world and then builds himself by himself.
Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, Pierre Bourdieu, and others studied how human actions are formed within social, cultural, and symbolic networks.
Bourdieu, in particular, demonstrated the importance of the concept of Habitus: that is, the human being carries within himself patterns of perception and behavior formed through a long social history.
The human being sometimes believes that he chooses with absolute freedom, while his choices are influenced by his social, cultural, and economic history.
Thus, the question:
Who am I?
becomes more complex than it appears.
Eighth: Anthropology Broke the Illusion of a Single Human Model
Modern anthropology has shown that human beings live within an enormous variety of forms of organization, cultures, symbols, and values.
This led to the realization that much of what a particular society considers “natural” may in fact be the product of history and culture.
Here the necessity of epistemic humility emerges.
The human being does not see the world from a neutral “zero point,” but from within a language, culture, history, and society.
Therefore:
Even the way in which the human being thinks about truth is partly influenced by the place where he was born and the time in which he lived.
Ninth: The Great Paradox: The Science That Studies the Human Being Reveals His Poverty
If we bring these discoveries together, we find a highly significant picture:
The human being is rational, but he is not an absolute intellect.
The human being is free, but he is influenced by biological, psychological, social, and cultural factors.
The human being knows, but he makes mistakes.
The human being chooses, but he does not choose the initial conditions of his existence.
The human being creates civilization, but he is born into a civilization that preceded his existence.
The human being discovers the laws of nature, but he does not establish these laws.
The human being uses the universe, but he cannot create the fundamental conditions of his own existence.
And the human being thinks about truth, but he is not the one who created truth.
Here emerges a concept that can be called philosophically:
Epistemic Humility — intellectual humility
That is, for the mind to know the limits of its knowledge.
This is not a weakness of the mind, but one of the conditions of its maturity.
Tenth: What If We Take This Conclusion to Its Philosophical End?
Here begins the point that the Islamic perspective can add to the human sciences.
If we discover that the human being is:
Contingent, limited, changing, needy, poor, and not self-sufficient,
then it is philosophically legitimate to ask:
What does this poverty point toward?
Poverty is not merely an economic attribute.
The human being is existentially poor:
He did not grant himself existence.
He did not choose his body.
He did not choose the time of his birth.
He did not choose the laws of nature that govern him.
He did not create the mind with which he thinks.
He did not create the truth he seeks.
And he has no comprehensive knowledge of the other worlds. The need here lies at the very origin of existence.
Eleventh: “The Human Being as the Focus of Study” Does Not Mean “The Human Being as the Origin of Existence”
Here the Islamic human sciences can offer an important methodological correction.
We can say:
Make the human being the focus of study, but do not necessarily make him the center of existence.
Study the human being as he is.
Study his weakness.
Study his fear.
Study his need.
Study his instincts.
Study his ignorance.
Study his mistakes.
Study his ability to learn.
Study his ability to transcend himself and his own mind.
Study his need for love and meaning.
Study his constant search for truth.
Then ask the question at which the materialist model may perhaps stop:
Why does this limited being possess a longing for the Absolute?
Why does the human being search for complete truth?
Why does he search for absolute justice?
Why does he long for perfect goodness?
Why does he reject death?
Why does he search for a meaning that transcends his individual life?
These questions cannot all be resolved merely by describing behavior.
Knowing the self is not only knowing personality, memories, and motives. It is also:
Knowing the existential reality of the human being.
That the human being should know that he:
Is not absolute, is not independent, is not eternal, is not perfect, and is not the source of truth.
And that he should know, in contrast, that he is:
Contingent, limited, changing, poor, needy, and capable of perfection.
This kind of knowledge of the self can lead to a deeper knowledge of the source of its existence.
Twelfth: Humility Is Not Against Human Development; It Is Its Condition
There is a common misunderstanding of humility.
Humility does not mean that the human being should despise himself.
Nor does it mean that he should stop pursuing knowledge.
Nor does it mean that he should accept ignorance.
Rather, it can mean exactly the opposite.
The human being who knows that he is incomplete becomes more willing to learn and to seek the truth.
And the human being who believes that he has reached the final truth closes the door to learning and moves toward the complete truth.
Therefore, acknowledging incompleteness can be a source of epistemic strength.
The true scholar says:
Perhaps I am mistaken.
The true researcher says:
What are the limits of my knowledge?
The true philosopher asks:
What makes truth true?
And the knowledgeable human being asks:
Who am I? What is the source of my existence? And what is the purpose of my existence?
Here the human sciences transform from merely studying the human being into a project for perfecting the human being. Thus, the Islamic human sciences become our path toward more humble human sciences.
https://mohammadabbaskawrani.com�
#An_Enlightened_Global_Civilization_to_Come #Merciful_Dignified_Civilization
#Islamic_Human_Sciences
