Humanism is an idea that, like so many philosophical concepts, is hard to pin down. If asked whether I am a humanist, I would say yes, but would struggle to come up with a clean definition. If pressed, I would probably say something along the lines that I believe that humanism privileges feeling solidarity with fellow humans and values a sense of shared humanity that takes precedence over allegiances based on things like race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, and the like.
In her book Humanly Possible: Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Freethinking, Inquiry, and Hope (2023) Sarah Bakewell acknowledges that humanism resists sharp definition and indeed humanists tend to avoid creeds of any kind since a creed itself tends to separate people, from those who adhere to the creed to those who don’t. Her book instead gives a series of brief biographies of people down the ages who seemed to consider themselves to be humanists of various stripes and discusses what drove them.
Humanists tend to favor things like reason, freethinking, knowledge, education, ethical behavior, and peace. While there have been moments in history where humanistic ideas have been ascendant, those eras have been followed by periods of decline, where societies have plunged into divisions and wars. While we have undoubtedly made progress in terms of overcoming feelings of separation and sensing a common humanity, given the numerous conflicts that are currently being waged, it is hard to think that we are living in a humanistic age.
Towards the end of her book, she discusses why humanism, given all its virtues, has not been able to take root and become the dominant ethos.
In that same year, 1934, Zweig published a short biography of Erasmus, filled with his admiration for the great humanist, but also ending by asking the question of why the Erasmian values of peace and reason were so hard to maintain. They had fallen apart in Erasmus’s time; they were falling apart now. Why did humanism have this fatal “weakness”? Humanists seemed to suffer from a “beautiful error”: they allowed themselves to believe that better learning, better reading, and better reasoning would be enough to bring about a better world. The world kept proving them wrong.
But what does a humanist do? This was the question over which so many were now puzzling. Do you involve yourself in government and hope to minimize the damage from within? Italians had learned the dangers of that: trying to tone down fascists can merely make you complicit with them. Do you go out on the streets, ready for physical battle? That was not the humanistic way. Do you, then, deplore the rise of barbarism in elegant prose, reminding readers of their humanity in speeches and articles? But most of those who hear the speeches and read the articles probably already agree with you.
…Roger-Pol Droit, in his history of the postwar organization UNESCO has written:
There is something truly poignant in some of the debates and testimonies of the 1930s. The intellectuals concerned have diagnosed the essential elements in the crisis of humanism and modern societies and have started to propose remedies. Yet they find themselves the helpless spectators of an inexorable chain of events . . . . The tragedy arises here, as in Antiquity and in classical theatre, from the combination of lucidity and powerlessness’
One of these spectators, and a reader of Zweig’s Erasmus book when it came out, was the grandly successful German novelist Thomas Mann (father of, among others, the Erika Mann mentioned a few pages ago on the subject of Nazi education). Making notes on Zweig’s book in his diary, Thomas reflected that what Erasmus apparently had not understood was a strange fact. It was not just that humanism could not assert itself; it was that so many people actually seemed to long for a world of violence and unreason. But humanists’ failure to be bold came into it, too: in a lecture of April 1935, Mann said, “In all humanism there is an element of weakness, which . . . may be its ruin. He blamed its tendency to be too flexible. Humanists give in too easily. “Intimidated, stunned, ignorant of what is happening, with disconcerted smiles they abandon position after position and seem to want to agree that they `no longer understand the world.'” They even adjust themselves to the style of their enemy—”to the malignant stupidity of his whims and propagandist formulas.” Worst of all, they always try to see the other side of any question. When dealing with murderous fanaticism, that is not necessarily helpful. [p. 310-312]
Mann is perhaps unduly harsh in his critique. Being inflexible is the domain of people who adhere to creeds of various stripes, which humanists shy away from. The balance between holding firmly on to broad humanistic values while being willing to accommodate differing values and beliefs is a delicate one.
Despite its aversion to creeds, the desire to have a formal statement of what constitutes humanism is strong and the group Humanists International in 2022 came up with what is called the Amsterdam Declaration about what humanists aspire to, that are grouped under four headings:
- Humanists strive to be ethical
- Humanists strive to be rational
- Humanists strive for fulfillment in their lives
- Humanism meets the widespread demand for a source of meaning and purpose to stand as an alternative to dogmatic religion, authoritarian nationalism, tribal sectarianism, and selfish nihilism
That seems reasonable.
Bakewell also begins and ends her book with one simple formulation by Robert G. Ingersoll that I think most humanists know of and would agree with. Ingersoll said:
Happiness is the only good.
The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here.
The way to be happy is to make others so.
It is the final line that lifts the sentiment from one of hedonism to humanism.
I seem to remember reading that happiness is not really a durable mental state, but that contentment can be.
That suggests updating Ingersoll’s formulation to use contentment instead of happiness. I don’t think that does any violence to the message, and it may improve it.
--Laici
It’s because sociopaths are anti-humanists. Until we find a way to cure or control sociopathy all the billionaires, wannabe dictactors and just plain assholes will make life rough for everyone else.
If I ever encounter a wish granting genie, my first wish would be to endow everyone in the world with a level of empathy.
Sarah Bakewell, Humanly Possible: Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Freethinking, Inquiry, and Hope: definitely something I want to read; thanks.
From Mano’s quote from the book:
That is so depressing.
Also quoted from the book:
Makes me think of Biden vs. Netanyahu at present.
I also need to read the Amsterdam Declaration that Mano mentioned.
Laici @1: yes, I think “contentment” might be better these days; but I seem to recall that, in Ingersoll’s time, “happiness” also had the meaning of “a whole life well-lived” or something like that. I could go with that.
@Laici #1:
I’m no seeker of enlightenment, but I don’t think contentment is a great substitute for happiness. In fact I think happiness, contentment, fulfilment, even meaning and purpose, are all overrated. I just don’t want people to suffer and I want to make people’s lives easier. Mostly according to how much they’re struggling (stopping bombing the shit out of people would be a good start). Not sure whether that’s enough to make me a humanist.
Having said that, Mano’s definition of it does closely reflect my worldview…
But there we go again, meaning and purpose. Memo to self, try not to be too selfish or nihilistic though.
Widest scope, I consider humanism as any moral/legal system that contrasts with theism — that is, an acknowledged human-made set of norms and/or rules and/or aspirations, rather than a purportedly divinely-dictated set.
So, for me, humanistic Christianity is an oxymoron.
Indeed. I held back, because of my dedicated detractors, but yeah.
Teleological thinking is very pernicious. Stupid, too.
Clearly, one can have meaning without purpose, but not purpose without meaning.
Only needy people need either purpose or meaning, of course.
(The sort of person that becomes religious and/or idealistic; the former is a perversion of the latter)
@ 5
I assume I’m a “dedicated detractor” but perhaps that’s understandable since Morales just said he considers totalitarian communism to be “humanism”. X-D
I interpret “meaning, purpose” to just refer to a reason to get out of bed in the morning, i.e. to continue living. I don’t think the teleological implications follow at all. Wanting to have a long life of satisfaction, contentment, joy and contribution to others seems to me to fit the bill of “meaning, purpose”.
Ah, so predictable.
<snicker>
Silentbob has just said that he considers totalitarian communists to not be an acknowledged human-made set of norms and/or rules and/or aspirations, in contrast to a purportedly divinely-dictated set.
Way to deny the humanity of totalitarian communists, Silentbob!
(Your technique, rudimentary as it is, is most eminently mockable)
—
Anyway. You need not assume you’re a “dedicated detractor”; going on for a decade now you’ve been stupidly trying to misunderstand what I write and trying to put words in my mouth. \
It could not be more obvious.
And, of course, misnyming me under the most stupidly transparent claim that it’s out of respect for me.
(Your stupidity is more on the side of imagining that anyone at all buys your bullshit, to be clear.
I do get it; bluster is all you have)
—
Of course, the allusion I made to epistemology is utterly ignored; pearls before swine.
Ah well, dolts are doltish.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwXliCK19Y
[2] You might want to look up the term ‘teleology’.
[3] Well, yes; human purpose. Humanism.
Human purposes, as opposed to God-given purposes.
Humanism.
You really, really didn’t get anything I wrote, did you?
(Your antipathy towards me stupefies you, quite clearly)
—
Anyway.
Humans can be good, humans can be bad, and humanism is about human aspirations.
(Pearls before the SwillBubs)
[corollary]
If your purpose in life is to continue living (as per [1] above), be aware that you will fail.
You will die. This much is ineluctable.
So, you cannot achieve your purpose; it follows that your true purpose is to fail at your self-proclaimed unachievable goal. To, basically, live a futile and never to be fulfilled existence.
(So goes the thinking of your ilk, bobulous)
Ah right. Sniper, blob is.
No. It fits the bill of having personal desires.
Your conflation of desires with purpose is about as silly as another’s conflation of need with desires.
(No names need be named, right? 😉 )
Sadly, other people practising realpolitik -- or plain old political greed -- make noble sentiments a little difficult to hold as national policy. And then of course there are the threats from outside the border. Global change towards humanism will be very gradual.
___
John
A quad post in reply to a single poke? No wonder you call him a sniper -- a single shot from him got you to spray everywhere.
Holms’ silliness:
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows?
(Tricky!)
—
#7 & #8 are a single shot. For you.
<snicker>
—
This is your version of humanism, right?
—
Way to show you don’t know to what the term refers.
(What’s noble about it, supposedly?)
You mean, beyond the pale? 🙂
Humanism is what humans do. Already. Always.
Did you notice, Holms, but did you notice how, by now, neither you nor SpittleBib even try to dispute me?
Very human of us all, no?
Humanistic.
(Heh)
Right.
So, one could perhaps see the contrast of fideism with humanism, if one were to pay attention to what I originally wrote and be able to generalise. Epistemology and all that.
Instead, of course, it became personal. Because, monkey-brains.
And now a triple!
You consider #8 ‘a poke’?? Incredible sensitivity! You are a princess, and Silentbob is your pea.
Heh. Incredible! Unbelievable! Inconceivable! Unthinkable!
(Oh wait, you don’t believe it, but you did think of it. I reckon you’ve got men in dresses on the brain)
Other than ethical behavior , none of the other seem mandatory (ethical behavior by definition would need some good amount of reasoning). The less said about “freethinkers” (Dawkins? Harris ? Hitchens ? Coyne ? The Intellectual Dork web ?) and humanists is probably better.
Knowledge and education is sometimes lacking (not by choice , but by circumstance) . You can find more examples of humanism in the poor (atleast in India) than you could among the more well to do .
Religion is a somewhat tricky one , especially if you rate by behavior. You can find examples of religious people who are more humanist in their actions than people who claim the humanist label -- because they treat religion as a private endeavor and socially they are secular.
As such if a person is kind and compassionate and ethical who cares if they satisfy some literal definition.
Deepak,
Do you even know to what ‘freethinking’ refers? Freethoughtblogs?
Here’s Wikipedia: Freethought is a philosophical position that holds that ideas and opinions should be based on science and reason, and not restricted by authority, tradition, or religion.
That’s what it means.
Presumably — let me ostentatiously not be hyper-literal for my obsessive hatefans — you did not intend to express that one should not speak about people who think for themselves.
“(Dawkins? Harris ? Hitchens ? Coyne ? The Intellectual Dork web ?)” evinces a very poor comprehension of the concept.
Still. If you really, truly think people should indeed be restricted by authority, tradition, or religion rather than think for themselves, you’ve expressed that quite clearly.
(Sames applies to your claims about humanists, of course)
—
PS you could have said less than you did, and by your claim it would have been better.
(People are rarely reflexive)
#18
In which you accept my point and try to distract elsewhere with nonsense.
Ah, not even pretending any more.
So, let’s tango, for a bit.
<smirk>
Oh yes. Princess, I — and comment sections are thousands of mattresses and also I am a fragile snowflake who is melting and hyperliteral and spectral and who cannot stop posting except when I dare not post and so forth etc.
Tell me more about me, Holms.
—
Anyway.
I held back, because of my dedicated detractors, but yeah.
↓
My detractors try to detract
↓
Now, I don’t hold back.
See? Makes zero difference.
—
It’s my fragility and low self-esteem (heh) that’s been holding me back.
But the therapy is working, I think.
…
Tell me more about me, Holms.
(You know you want to)
@John Morales
The context was humanism. One may very well think for themselves , and base their views in science and reason ,and not be restricted by authority, tradition or religion and may yet may hold the opposite of humanist views (See for e.g. the support of Israel , right now , among some prominent freethinkers). And yes obviously every freethinker is not a humanist -- but this association itself seems weak to me.
Thats right -- Humans can only have 2 possibilities -- Either they are restricted in all aspects of their lives by authority, tradition and religion or they can be freethinkers bound only by faithful application of science and reason.
Someday you need to get out of your basement and talk to people instead of arguing with them.(yes yes I know you dont live in your moms basement)
Deepak, maybe you can do a bit better than the drive-by snipers.
Specifically, practitioners of humanism. Humanists.
I know. You quoted the sentence in your comment.
(What you imagine the specific relevance of the context to my retort may be you leave to the imagination)
Well, of course.
Humanism is about human value systems, freethinking is about forming one’s own opinion.
Entirely different categories.
Thus, what you quoted: “Humanists tend to favor things like reason, freethinking, knowledge, education, ethical behavior, and peace.”
They tend to favour that, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient.
More to the point, you should note the distinction between humanists, freethinking, and humanism there.
Can’t conflate them.
This is where you evince your misapprehension and confusion.
One can be a freethinker and yet support Israel right now.
One can also be a humanist and yet support Israel right now.
It’s almost like you imagine humanism is some sort of synonym for benevolence.
Again, here’s Wikipedia: Freethought is a philosophical position that holds that ideas and opinions should be based on science and reason, and not restricted by authority, tradition, or religion.
Are you disputing that definition?
Because if not, it follows that you think there is a weak association between humanism and thinking for oneself.
(Still, a weak association is more association than no association, right?)
(sigh)
You: “The less said about “freethinkers” (Dawkins? Harris ? Hitchens ? Coyne ? The Intellectual Dork web ?) and humanists is probably better.”
So, that boils down to “The less said about “freethinkers” and humanists is probably better.”
Right?
Now, presumably you don’t intend to mean (“freethinkers” and humanists), though, but rather to ((“freethinkers”) or (humanists)), but in any case you yourself are distinguishing between the two.
Note how you began your quotation at “Still.”, indicating there was a prefatory section you are ignoring.
Point being, whether you intended to mean (“freethinkers” and humanists) rather than ((“freethinkers”) or (humanists)), in either case you were dissing freethinkers, about whom you claim “The less said about “freethinkers” is probably better.”.
You clearly don’t think much of those people.
Your examples: “(Dawkins? Harris ? Hitchens ? Coyne ? The Intellectual Dork web ?)”
To you, those represent freethinkers.
Are you aware that you are commenting on FreethoughtBlogs? 😉
As an aside, it is mildly interesting how you employ the scare quotes, indicating perhaps that you mean (¬freethinkers) rather than (freethinkers), but the etiology of your confusion is not particularly relevant.
Now, either you diss freethinkers, or you do not.
You already addressed them, so you are saying stuff about them.
More than nothing, contrary to your own advice.
<snicker>
You, of course, are not arguing with me; you’re talking to a person.
Outside of your basement, presumably.
Be aware that even if you live in a basement, it doesn’t entail that others do.
I thought this was well known, but humanism doesn’t just mean ‘no gods’.
There are principles such as freedom of thought, the dignity of the individual, rationality, scientific skepticism, embrace of new knowledge, openness to new ideas, valuing other peoples and not wanting to subjugate them, generally endorsing pacifism -- engaging in war only to defend the downtrodden, never for ‘glory’ or conquest -- at least some form of democracy, eschewing dogmatism, valuing human rights of the kind in the Universal Declaration. That kinda stuff.
It’s not just ‘no gods’; it’s ‘no masters’ and no unquestioned authorities.
… and trying to maximise human wellbeing and minimise human suffering.
.. and the idea all types of human are of equal value whether they be disabled or gay or lefthanded or transgender or from different ethnic backgrounds, or whatever.
Here endeth the lecture. X-D
You do amuse, TalkativeBob.
One should eschew dogmatism, yet one necessarily should adopt a particular set of principles and ideas, should one aspire to humanism.
(Interesting take)
@john Morales
Really? Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia article on humanism then.
The agnostic says their views on God are based on science and reason. The atheist also says their views are based on science and reason. The agnostic believes the atheist is bound by their ideology to take a position stronger than they should -- nothing to do with science and reason. The atheist believes the agnostic is just a coward not willing to go where science and reason leads. The Christian scientist points out that religion and science don’t share the same domain and both the atheist and the agnostic misuse science. The fundamentalist believes that the truth is all of the above are going to hell. All of the above forget about science and reason in their pursuits of love, family , hobbies. Yet other atheists argue that this is all an illusion -- we just obey the laws of nature -- no reason to be seen.
And People with too much time on their hands argue on blogs about the definition of terms -- they too believe that reason drives their views even when their conclusions are opposite.
Sure . PZ Myers and Mano and Ophelia(You know how that turned out). But just as Atheists liked to say are religious people good because of religion or inspite of it ? Applies to freethinkers too. My experience is in general Freethinkers tend to be more liberatarian in their outlook- But most definitions of humanism include some aspect of collective good.
I read PZ Myers not because he is a freethinker but because his views on issues mostly match mine.,If PZMyers found religion(ha, Anansi perhaps?) it wouldnt change anything! You may believe I am dissing freethought -- And Ill only say I value what people do , more than what they believe.
I can make an exception in your case. And yes you are bound to respond to people who mention your name -- and you are not bound by Religion , tradition or authority.
Um, I already quoted it, and I can’t quote what haven’t read.
I cut and pasted from it.
(Perhaps the inference was too obscure to you; always amuses me when people tell me to read something I’ve quoted)
Here is some more (my emphasis):
“Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential, and agency of human beings, whom it considers the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry.
The meaning of the term “humanism” has changed according to successive intellectual movements that have identified with it. During the Italian Renaissance, ancient works inspired Italian scholars, giving rise to the Renaissance humanism movement. During the Age of Enlightenment, humanistic values were reinforced by advances in science and technology, giving confidence to humans in their exploration of the world. By the early 20th century, organizations dedicated to humanism flourished in Europe and the United States, and have since expanded worldwide. In the early 21st century, the term generally denotes a focus on human well-being and advocates for human freedom, autonomy, and progress. It views humanity as responsible for the promotion and development of individuals, espouses the equal and inherent dignity of all human beings, and emphasizes a concern for humans in relation to the world.
Starting in the 20th century, humanist movements are typically non-religious and aligned with secularism. Most frequently, humanism refers to a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. Humanists tend to advocate for human rights, free speech, progressive policies, and democracy. People with a humanist worldview maintain religion is not a precondition of morality, and object to excessive religious entanglement with education and the state. ”
In what way do you imagine that contradicts what I wrote?
So, is that a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’? 🙂
You didn’t even get the point! I didn’t claim you read FTB because of the freethinking, I was claiming that freethinking is considered a virtue to bloggers here. I was noting freethought and humanism are different categories of things, though they are associated.
When it comes to humanism, PZ has a bit of form: International Humanist Award (2011) and Humanist of the Year award (2009) American Humanist Association.
To claim you can make an exception is not the same as making an exception.
But fine, don’t argue with me whilst talking to a person — which of those two things will you except?
—
Again: humanism is a stance where humans are the focus, unlike theism where some deity is the focus.
I do have a couple of criticisms of “humanism”.
Firstly, the term itself seems quite egocentric, implicitly suggesting that nature not involving humans is of negligible worth. I don’t agree with that, although not sure what a better replacement would be. The term “naturalism” suffers from the reverse problem, in that it doesn’t seem to value humans highly enough! I do think we’re more than bugs (with apologies to the San-Ti).
Secondly, in what way is humanism markedly different to utilitarianism? There is clearly some overlap, but I haven’t worked out what extra value humanism brings over utilitarianism alone. I probably favour negative utilitarianism anyway, which isn’t going to help.
One can be an utilitarian without being a humanist, and vice-versa.
Or, utilitarianism is about how to achieve goal(s), whereas humanism is about how to set the goal(s).
[too oblique?]
Utilitarianism basically allows for ‘the end justifies the means’ techniques, whereas humanism does not.
(Omelas and all that)
Nobody? I guess our resident dickhead has driven you all off
file thirteen, you clearly have not been driven off by my phallocephalic pulchritude.
(Like unto Odysseus, are you)
—
Now, technically, the Soviet Union was not atheistic, though obviously functionally it was.
(Putin worked out it’s best to coopt the goddists, thus reverting to the norm)
Anyway. It was humanistic, depending on one’s defintion. All about humans and not about gods.
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept
[tick, tock]
Bit like ‘god’, really.
Define it, I will argue about it.
Vague, inchoate definition? Arbitrary? Subjective? Temporally topical?
Not-so-straightforward.
—
BTW, F13, I did answer your question, rhetorically-intended as it may have been.
Hm. Can’t see that the problem has ever come up; gotta have humanistic societies before maintaining humanistic societies becomes a problem.
So, basically, a hypothetical problem. Depending.
—
Let’s see…
Communism, pretty much the best recent candidate. Could have been better.
French Revolution, I suppose. Didn’t turn out that well.
Hey — Confucianism, pretty damn close. Ancestor worship, but hey. Human ancestors.
Um. The USA?
Supercalifragilistichumanisticous!