What is Humanism?

Black Swan

It appears to be a philosophy of life that is ethical, rational, nonreligious, and advocates creativity, human rights, personal liberty, and social responsibility (Amsterdam Declaration 2002). What am I missing? Comments?

Baked.noodle

Not that I'm well read on the subject, and I haven't given it a huge amount of though but my impression of Humanism thus far is I think, foundationally, it puts man at the center of philosophical importance. This would be in contrast to justifying our actions or beliefs through belief in God, or our means to do something through ability. Humanist ethics are concerned with what is best for man, and this may come into conflict with a rule based ethics, such as a deontological or God based ethics, but it may also conflict with what man is capable of doing if this degrades or diminishes man. The principal point being that man has more good characteristics than bad and can overcome his negative aspects but he must forever acknowledge his nature as part of nature, and must look to himself to be true to his man centrist philosophical perspective in the world. Man creates the standards.

Black Swan

Baked.noodle wrote: »

Humanist ethics are concerned with what is best for man, and this may come into conflict with a rule based ethics, such as a deontological or God based ethics, but it may also conflict with what man is capable of doing if this degrades or diminishes man.

When reading the Amsterdam Declaration (2002) I wonder how there exists a potential for conflict between personal liberty and social responsibility? Is there some balancing mechanism between the two, perhaps through humanism ethics? It's unclear in the Declaration how this occurs.

Baked.noodle wrote: »

The principal point being that man has more good characteristics than bad and can overcome his negative aspects but he must forever acknowledge his nature as part of nature, and must look to himself to be true to his man centrist philosophical perspective in the world.

Does humanism agree with the Jean-Jacques Rousseau romantic notion that humans are basically good; i.e., suggesting a noble savage that may be corrupted by external influences?

Peregrinus

As with a lot of philosophical positions, “humanism” doesn’t have a single uncontested meaning. Different people who describe themselves as humanists may have different understanding of what this means.

Originally, “humanism” referred to an intellectual movement which focussed on the study of human culture, as opposed to the external world - the humanities, as opposed to the sciences. This obviously involved either an implicit or an explicit affirmation of the value and worth of human culture as an object of study, which in turn implies an affirmation as to the value/worth/significance of humanity.

Over time, the primary referent of the word shifted from the study of the humanities to the philosophical position which justified it. Thus humanism came to describe a philosophical affirmation of the moral value and significance of humanity, and of human beings.

In modern times, humanism has been embraced by many nonreligious thinkers as a nonreligious foundation for ethical reflection and ethical judgments - so much so that, at least sometimes, “humanism” is used to mean something like “nonreligious ethics”. But it’s entirely possible to affirm the moral value and significance of humanity and at the same time to hold religious beliefs or convictions. Indeed, it’s possible to base an affirmation of the value of humanity on religious beliefs or convictions. Hence there are at least some senses of the word “humanism” which are not inconsistent with religious belief. Humanism may be secular, but it doesn’t have to be. Humanism has religious and indeed Christian expressions also.

Black Swan

Peregrinus wrote: »

As with a lot of philosophical positions, “humanism” doesn’t have a single uncontested meaning. Different people who describe themselves as humanists may have different understanding of what this means.

Indeed. Lacking a commonly accepted definition of humanism was part of the reason to open this thread. Although existing before Cicero, it appears that term humanism had been derived from the Latin humanitas and had been associated with a liberal education and related cultural practices. Nicholas Mann narrowed his working definition of humanism to the rediscovery, study, assimilation, and adoption of the legacies, ideas, values, and practices stemming from early Greek and Roman philosophical eras.

Peregrinus

Black Swan wrote: »

Does humanism agree with the Jean-Jacques Rousseau romantic notion that humans are basically good; i.e., suggesting a noble savage that may be corrupted by external influences?

No, they don’t. Or, at least, not necessarily. The Amsterdam Declaration asserts not the fundamental goodness of the human person, but the “worth, dignity and autonomy of the human person”. They do assert that humans are concerned about being good (“morality is an intrinsic part of human nature”), but I don’t think that translates into an assertion that we are actually good - i.e. we strive to be good, but we don’t necessarily succeed.

Black Swan wrote: »

When reading the Amsterdam Declaration (2002) I wonder how there exists a potential for conflict between personal liberty and social responsibility? Is there some balancing mechanism between the two, perhaps through humanism ethics? It's unclear in the Declaration how this occurs.

There is obviously potential for such a conflict; the Declaration explicitly recognises it. And I don’t think humanism necessarily leads to a single, unarguable rule about how to resolve that tension; humanists might reasonably disagree about the correct balance between personal liberty and social responsibility. All that humanism requires, I think, is an acknowledgement that it is necessary to find such a balance; personal liberty is a value, but not an absolute value that transcends all others.

If I had a criticism of the Amsterdam Declaration, it would be that it adopts a fairly individualistic tone. Not that there’s anything wrong with that; just that humanism can be more communitarian than the Amsterdam Declaration might sugggest, and expressing a particularly individualist version of humanism will tend to exclude some humanists. What I have in mind is, e.g., the assertion in that the human person has the right to “the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others”. That seems to me to suggest that the only proper limitation on the rights of individual X are the rights of individuals Y, Z, etc. It’s only when you get down to the fourth or fifth point that they identify a tension between personal liberty and “social responsibility”, and there is no account offered of why we should be concerned about society. If individual rights can be balanced against the common good as well as against the rights of other individuals, shouldn’t that be mentioned in the first bullet point? If it can't, then where does the tension with "social responsiblity" come from? And I think it’s precisely because they duck that issue that you find the Declaration a bit fuzzy on how the personal/societal tension is to be reconciled.

Black Swan

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is obviously potential for such a conflict; the Declaration explicitly recognises it. And I don’t think humanism necessarily leads to a single, unarguable rule about how to resolve that tension; humanists might reasonably disagree about the correct balance between personal liberty and social responsibility. All that humanism requires, I think, is an acknowledgement that it is necessary to find such a balance; personal liberty is a value, but not an absolute value that transcends all others.

"Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents" states the Amsterdam Declaration 2002. But when searching the web for how to resolve the potential conflict between personal liberty and social responsibility, I found an extraordinary number of humanism sites with literal repetitious affirmations of the Declaration, almost as if these sites were quoting Bible-like scripture. While some consensus among humanists may be useful through the Declaration, is there a concern that it may become a surrogate religion similar in some ways to Robert Bellah's civil religion (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Winter 1967)?

Peregrinus

Black Swan wrote: »

"Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents" states the Amsterdam Declaration 2002. But when searching the web for how to resolve the potential conflict between personal liberty and social responsibility, I found an extraordinary number of humanism sites with literal repetitious affirmations of the Declaration, almost as if these sites were quoting Bible-like scripture. While some consensus among humanists may be useful through the Declaration, is there a concern that it may become a surrogate religion similar in some ways to Robert Bellah's civil religion (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Winter 1967)?

I confess to being a little impatient with the trope that my beliefs are rational, enlightened, etc but yours are dogmatic. The Amsterdam Declaration opens with an affirmation of the "worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom". No evidence for these claims is advanced - nor could it be - and there is no argument as to why we should accept them. Yet they are foundational for everything that follows. If this foundational statement of belief is not a "creed", then I don't know what is, frankly. By definition, of course, Humanism doesn't "impose" this creed on its adherents; they are only "adherents" because they have accepted it. But exactly the same is true of most theistic religions.

Yes, humanism functions as a surrogate religion. That seems to me to be its purpose, frankly. It seeks to fill the role that might otherwise be filled by one or more religions of providing a community or society with the common beliefs necessary to support a shared societal ethic. And, if it is to be effective in that, it must seek respect and acceptance in the same way that a theistic religion would.

(And, just to be clear, I don't see any of this as necessarily a criticism of humanism. I do think the Amsterdam Declaration is a little bit holier-than-thou in its attitude to alternatives to humanism, but it would hardly be the only religious document to adopt that tone.)

Manach

Venn diagram of humanism : all things nice and good which adherents would like to be associated with so as to elevate their moral standing.:rolleyes:

Erasmus would surprised on how the term evolved.

Peregrinus

Manach wrote: »

Venn diagram of humanism : all things nice and good which adherents would like to be associated with so as to elevate their moral standing.:rolleyes:

A little cynical, perhaps, but you have a point.

There's a school of thought which holds that humanism, at least as expressed in the Amsterdam Declaration, is basically Christian ethics but without the Christian underpinning. If you strip out the explicitly anti-religious/anti-theistic elements (which are in themselves a bit anomalous; how many foundational statements of belief include critiques of other beliefs?) then what you are left with is a set of ethical propositions which most Christian ethicists would not only accept but would enthusiastically assert.

I'm not suggesting that this is how Amsterdam Declaration-style humanism was consciously constructed. I think it just reflects the fact that it emerges from a European tradition which has been profoundly influenced by Christianity. And while the AD-humanists reject the theological propositions of Christianity, and are keen to say so, they don't have the same aversion to the Christian ethical heritage, and so have largely retained it.

Black Swan

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, humanism functions as a surrogate religion. That seems to me to be its purpose, frankly. It seeks to fill the role that might otherwise be filled by one or more religions of providing a community or society with the common beliefs necessary to support a shared societal ethic. And, if it is to be effective in that, it must seek respect and acceptance in the same way that a theistic religion would.

The Humanist Association of Ireland has a Chaplaincy, which on first blush caught me by surprise, but after our discussions here, not so much so. Generally speaking chaplaincies relate to ecclesiastical persons (chaplains) and the functions they perform for members of a chapel. TCD has a Chaplaincy that "seeks to promote a deeper understanding of Christian faith and spirituality," compared with "The Humanist Chaplain provides pastoral care based on Humanist principles."

Peregrinus

The terminology strikes me too, since the roots in the word "chapel" and therefore in Christianity are obvious. But chaplaincy wouldn’t be the first Christian invention to be secularised - hospitals (as in, public institutions for the reception and treatment of the sick) would be an obvious prior case.

We probably don’t experience the same degree of surprise at reading of, e.g., Jewish chaplains or Muslim chaplains, even though neither Judaism nor Islam has anything to do with chapels. The point about chaplains is that they work largely in secular or multifaith institutions - the army, hospitals, prisons, schools, etc - and the people who employ them to do so have no particular commitment to Christianity, and no reason to appoint only Christians to the role.

Undoubtedly some humanists would also be atheist materialists, and they might object to a humanist organisation providing explicitly spiritual support, or at least see it as inappropriate or pointless. But, equally, undoubtedly, other humanists would see spirituality as larger than simply theistic spirituality, and would see a valid and valuable role in ministering to human spiritual concerns from a humanistic perspective. And they will probably wear the word “chaplain” for want of a better alternative, just like Jewish and Muslim chaplains do, until in time we will be accustomed to chaplaincy as a profession which embraces both religious and non-religious practitioners, and no longer think about the origins of the word.

Black Swan

Peregrinus wrote: »

The terminology strikes me too...

Humanism adopting terms and positions often attributed to religious or interfaith organisations reminds me of Robert Bellah's Civil Religion, where secular governments symbolically acquired such roles and attributes to further their interests.

This may be a bit of a stretch, but I wonder to what extent humanism represents one variation of Hegelian change, where the conflict between the thesis (religion) and antithesis (atheism) are synthesized into humanism?

Peregrinus

Black Swan wrote: »

Humanism adopting terms and positions often attributed to religious or interfaith organisations reminds me of Robert Bellah's Civil Religion, where secular governments symbolically acquired such roles and attributes to further their interests.

This may be a bit of a stretch, but I wonder to what extent humanism represents one variation of Hegelian change, where the conflict between the thesis (religion) and antithesis (atheism) are synthesized into humanism?

I dunno. If humanism is a synthesis between theism and atheism, where's the distinctive contribution that atheism brings to the mix? Sure, humanists can be atheists, but - say - stoics can be atheists; that doesn't make stoicism a synthesis between atheism and something else. I think to say that A is a synthesis of a thesis B and an antithesis C, then A has to include essential elements which it draws from B and essential elements which it draws from C. And I'm not sure that there is anything essential to humanism which is drawn from atheism.

I think part of the problem here is the nature of atheism. An atheist is a person who does not have a certain belief, but there isn't any positive belief that you must have in order to be correctly called an atheist. Consequently I'm not sure that atheism has any "elements" which it could contribute to any sythesis other than lack of belief in god. It follows that a synthesis between atheism and anything else must itself be essentially atheistic. And I don't think humanism is.

Black Swan

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think part of the problem here is the nature of atheism. An atheist is a person who does not have a certain belief, but there isn't any positive belief that you must have in order to be correctly called an atheist. Consequently I'm not sure that atheism has any "elements" which it could contribute to any sythesis other than lack of belief in god.

Good points.

KomradeBishop

Came across an article, which gives an excellent look at the history of humanism, and how it's gone astray - posted this on A&A:

Interesting article, chronicling the history of the Humanist movement, how it has been historically based on opposing economic injustice - and how the issue of economic injustice has become watered down in the modern movement, in a way that supports the economic status quo through neglecting the movements roots (it's very long though, so skip past all the bits involved in citing e.g. names of the historical leadership of the movement):
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/28/how-the-humanist-movement-fosters-economic-injustice/

There is also a mention in the article, that the 'New Atheist' movement (I have not read up on the term/movement yet), is similarly 'state and corporate power serving' - presumably by neglecting economic justice/injustice issues.

I think it's a valid point, that movements that should be motivated to having a ruthless application of critical thinking and skepticism, do seem to have a conspicuous absence of applying these principles to issues of economic injustice - most particularly, completely neglecting applying those principles to analysing the economic system as a whole.

It's not a problem unique to those movements though - to be honest, I'm kind of baffled by the society-wide lack of interest, in applying skeptical-analysis/critical-thinking, to the overall economic system; it's something that just doesn't seem to be discussed much at all, issues are only ever discussed within the limits of the current economic system, not of how the overall system should be reformed.

The article also gives an extremely interesting view of religion, and how economic injustice can help to bolster religious belief, and how resolving economic injustice helps make religious belief lose its power.

It seems that the issues/inconsistency noticed by people in this thread, may in part be due to the Humanist movement losing it's roots.

Perhaps for further reading, documents mentioned in the link, such as 'Humanist Manifesto I' and 'II', would be worth a look, to see where the roots of the movement come from and what it is (was) about.
'Humanist Manifesto III' (from 2003, around the time of the Amsterdam Declaration - so maybe very similar) is what the above article is highly critical of, for leaving out all of the principles surrounding 'economic injustice'.

Interesting wiki link about the manifesto's, and also contrasts them to the Amsterdam Declaration, that was talked about in this thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto

KomradeBishop

Cross-posting from A&A, to avoid derailing a thread there:

Buttonftw wrote: »

Just about every movement (awaits exceptions) has its roots in economic injustice and loses those roots as it evolves.

Ya but if you read the article (even partially), economic injustice was one of the central parts of the early Humanist movement - before being supplanted later on - and the article makes some great points as to why it is central, and why modern Humanism lacks coherence without it.

I mean, think about it; part of Humanism's general theme is the betterment of human life/values, and having a humane society based on such values - economics is absolutely central to that, because how humane our society is, is determined in large part by poverty, income/wealth inequality, quality of living - especially for the least well off, as well as the unemployed etc. - among more.

In modern developed societies, it is economic factors that nowadays have the greatest effect on how humane our societies are - especially to the least financially well off; a lot of people are just left to drop off the edge of society in this way, or to otherwise become trapped or be significantly negatively affected by economic circumstances.
It's very conspicuous, for something so important to drop off the radar of the modern Humanist movement, compared to the earlier movement, given the values they espouse.

recedite

Black Swan wrote: »

This may be a bit of a stretch, but I wonder to what extent humanism represents one variation of Hegelian change, where the conflict between the thesis (religion) and antithesis (atheism) are synthesized into humanism?

Alternatively, total anarchy/freedom could be considered as the thesis, and religion the antithesis, in the sense that religion is what introduces early rules and constraints.
In this hypothesis, Humanism and "ethical atheism" are both variants of the third stage.
from Wiki;

Hegel's method in philosophy consists of the triadic development (Entwicklung) in each concept and each thing...
If, for instance, we wish to know what liberty is, we take that concept where we first find it—the unrestrained action of the savage, who does not feel the need of repressing any thought, feeling, or tendency to act.
Next, we find that the savage has given up this freedom in exchange for its opposite, the restraint, or, as he considers it, the tyranny, of civilization and law. Finally, in the citizen under the rule of law, we find the third stage of development, namely liberty in a higher and a fuller sense than how the savage possessed it—the liberty to do, say, and think many things beyond the power of the savage.
In this triadic process, the second stage is the direct opposite, the annihilation, or at least the sublation, of the first. The third stage is the first returned to itself in a higher, truer, richer, and fuller form.

You can find echoes of this in the early definitions of Humanism, which sought to emphasise the "spark of divinity" which exists inside humans, and which could be cultivated through the arts or humanities. In other words, they were thinking of "that which separates man from beast" (or even the beast within). The "savage" in the quote above is enslaved to his primal urges, whereas the Humanist has risen above them and is more "liberated" than the nominally "free" savage. But also more liberated than those people constrained by religion and its mostly inflexible doctrines (many of which are arbitrary, such as dietary constraints, hairstyles and dress codes)

KomradeBishop wrote: »

how humane our society is, is determined in large part by poverty, income/wealth inequality, quality of living - especially for the least well off, as well as the unemployed etc.

The article does give a plausible explanation for the somewhat unexpected radicalisation of many in the modern younger generation of French muslims, and that whole Charlie Hebdo unpleasantness, despite most muslims being educated in secular state schools.

KomradeBishop

recedite wrote: »

The article does give a plausible explanation for the somewhat unexpected radicalisation of many in the modern younger generation of French muslims, and that whole Charlie Hebdo unpleasantness, despite most muslims being educated in secular state schools.

Ya the articles take on religion and how it relates to economic injustice (growing economic injustice = growing reliance on religion) was, overall, very interesting and something I'd not encountered before.