• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A New Humanism

coberst

Critical Thinker
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
415
A New Humanism

The term ‘humanism’ became prominent during the Renaissance. It was developed at the end of the Middle Ages; resulting from the revival of classical letters. This rebirth focused upon humans as the center of an effort to reassert self-determination. This early humanism focused on culture and learning, in an effort to center intellectual efforts on the human need and interests rather than on the divine.

Modern Humanism is "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion. Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub-categories.”

A critical characteristic of Modern Humanism is the fact that there existed two factions of humanism, those whose world view centers on the divine while a second faction whose world view centers on secularism.

In America a New Humanist movement began in the early part of the twentieth century, which sought to solve the crises in knowledge. They sought a New Birth of rational humanity. “The goal was human happiness and dignity; the ideals were classical; the means were reason and critical intellect; and the enemy was many-headed.”

The New Humanists opposed the mechanistic worship of stuff while denying the nature of the human spirit; it respected subjectivity and revered the “depth and uniqueness of man’s spirit” but distrusted the irresponsible, emotional, weak, and uncritical nature of Romanticism. They detested superstition, supernaturalism, and authoritarianism. Their idea was to train an intellectual elite who could “reintroduce responsible humanity into the mechanical shell of modern living…The weapon was to be a new humanistic education; the ammunition was the vast store of literature accumulated by the great and balanced minds of the best ages of history.”

The New Humanism fathered the Great Discussion in the form of the Great Books.
 
It reads like the answer to a question we haven't had the opportunity to see.

A little help for us slowpokes, coberst?
 
I am reading a book by Earnest Becker "Beyond Alienation". Becker is making an argument which is long and I think it is important. I am trying to set the stage for the argument.

It is the basic problem of means and ends. One cannot comprehend the argument until one has the means to do so. This is part of furnishing those means. Like a person cannot comprehend algebra until one has first learned multiplication. I am learning the necessary means to comprehend his argumnet. I am taking the forum along so that you too can comprehend the argument when we get there.
 
I just knew another book was involved! (Not a slur on books - like them, own them, read them - just don't put them out for public view/comment in this particular way.)
 
Ooooooohhhhhh! Coberst's reading another book.


Hey, everyone, Coberst's reading another book.


Isn't he great? :clap:









:rolleyes:
 
Like all philosophies and beliefs, Humanism has various branches and variations in belief. I consider myself to be a Humanist, and while I don't agree with everything that is written in the name of "Humanism", I think for the most part it is dead on target.

In particular, I think one of Humanism's most important contributions is the effort to develop a standard of "morality" that is based on rational beliefs, rather than on religious dictates handed down by supernatural beings. One of the common 'criticisms' of theists is that atheism is essentially amoral...if you don't believe in some higher power, how can you have any standard of morality?

In some ways, this argument has merit...I've talked with many an atheist who argues that, in the absence of any god or 'higher power', anything is acceptable or justifiable, that there is no such thing as 'good' or 'evil', 'right' or 'wrong'.

While I agree that there is no universal law to define these things, I don't think that means we should not attempt to define them for ourselves, and to create a basic set of 'human rights' that atheists should seek to apply universally...and this is exactly what Humanism seeks to do.
 
this may seem shocking but I didn't even know anything about Humanists until recently. I'm finding it very interesting. I've never felt comfortable claiming to be an atheist and agnostic isn't really my thing either, I couldn't find a word that described "me"

A humanist might be just what I've been looking for.

now when people say "what are you?" as in what religious belief do I have, I could say "I'm a humanist" and they'll be like?? :confused: A what?? haha I like that, A LOT

I just need to understand what a humanist is more. so that I can sound more intelligent when I explain but...so far what I've learned, I'm thinking, Yep thats what I am :) I've found my place in the world, it's very comforting :D
 
I suspect, Scarlett, that the reason you've felt uncomfortable defining yourself as an "atheist" is that such a definition defines only what you do not believe in, not what you do believe in. For all that some members here seem to equate atheism with belief in science, and/or certain moral/ethical systems, the fact is you can be an atheist and believe anything (as long as it does not include believing in God). There is no implicit morality or belief system attached to simply 'being an atheist'.

Does any theist introduce themselves by saying "I am a theist"? Not that I'm aware of. Saying "I'm a theist" does not define one's beliefs, beyond the fact that they believe in the existence of some kind of god. They will always define what kind of theist they are -- Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.

Atheists also have many different kinds of beliefs, organizations, and structures. Humanism is one of those.

Technically speaking, as an atheist, I could argue that absolutely anything I do is ok, so long as I personally believe it is the right thing. However, on a societal scale, such thinking would lead to chaos and suffering. So I needed to find some sort of system that provided a moral/ethical structure, but without any god or supernatural dictates. A "logical" morality.

That's what Humanism provides. It takes as a fundamental belief that a core goal for all of humanity is the survival of humanity. Beyond survival, the next goal is for as many people as possible to live happy, productive lives. So Humanism looks at these fundamental goals, and develops a moral/ethical structure that seems most suited to meeting those goals. Equality, human rights, justice, etc. all become core values, not because some god has said so, but because we believe these are the values which best lead to a society that offers the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people.

Following is a summary of Humanist beliefs, taken from the "Amsterdam Declaration", a kind of Humanist "Bill of Rights". While it may not answer every possible question or issue, I think it takes a big step in the right direction.
Amsterdam Declaration 2002

Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the world's great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself.
The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:
  1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.
  2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.
  3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.
  4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.
  5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world's major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. of observation, evaluation and revision.
  6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.
  7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.
Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to. By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. We call upon all who share this conviction to associate themselves with us in this endeavour.
 
So what's in it for me?
:D

Good question -- as an individual, probably nothing much at all. It's not "Me-ism", its "human-ism". The focus is on humanity as a whole, not on individuals.

If you personally don't give a damn about the rest of humanity, if you're narcicistic, if you're racist, if you believe in the 'superiority' of one particular group (race, gender, politics, nationality, etc.) above others...then you won't really see any benefit to Humanism whatsoever.

Humanism is a philosophy. Its not a science, there's nothing in it one can 'preach' as an absolute truth. It is rather a particular viewpoint about life that best encapsulates how some people see the world, and their place in it.

If it is something that fits your worldview, and you see value in it, great. If not...then of course you should explore other directions. But in the end, no matter what philosophy you end up choosing, the question "What's in it for me?" will remain exactly the same, and just as unanswerable. There will always be people who will believe it is beneficial; and there will always be people who will believe it is wrong.
 

Back
Top Bottom