what does "humanist" mean to you?

[ulysses]

Seems to me that the word has been flattened, and is usually used to mean only the non-religious. I think humanism more complicated, has to do with a realization, and occasionally acceptance, of the often crappy state of the human experience, and is not mutually exclusive of a religious viewpoint, necessarily.

Thoughts?

[JanMichael]

1. Add the word "Secular" and it makes perfect sense.

Look here.

As to the single word "Humanism"? I would suggest that it doesn't "need", or look to, a God, god or gods. BUT I acknowledge that Sectarians will argue that point.

So I stick to Secular Humanism to avoid the argument:-)

EDIT! I should have added this:

====================================================================
Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

* A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
* Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
* A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
* A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
* A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
* A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
* A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

[ulysses]

4. I agree with most of this.

I just don't see the need for humanism (as opposed to secular humanism, yes) to conflict with faith. Obviously, there are many varieties of faith and some will conflict of necessity. Given, also, that I'm working from a pretty personal definition.

:hi:

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Which is humanism?

Is it:

A. Inherently secular, thus making the term "secular humanism" redundant?

or

B. Potentially extra-secular, meaning spiritual or religious-without-dogma in addition to it being secular?

[JanMichael]

8. Look, I don't know, I still can't figure out Christian Existentialists!

:shrug:

[ulysses]

10. Soren Kierkegaard, please pick up the house courtesy phone...

;-)

[JanMichael]

15. Too bad, he isn't there. Maybe Tillich or Buber will pick it up?

Bwahahaha!

[barb162]

2. means

an ethical non religious person concerned about mankind and other speciess.

[Selwynn]

13. No it doesn't - not historically. You had to come to the 20th century ..

..for that definition.

Secular humanism added "non-religious" nothing wrong with that per se. In our world where religious institutions are increasingly oppressive and authoritarian, as well as being anti-intellectual and denying the dignity of human persons, that is understandable.


But historically, the simplest and most "unified" definition is, an ethical person that values and esteems to dignity and worth of humanity and the world, and believes human beings are responsible for continuing to make the world a better place. It was not necessary to be religious nor not be religious to hold these beliefs.

[barb162]

28. well doesn't make a diff

to me if you want to go back to Abelard or not. It is really about ethics/humanity/the world and probably wouldn't affect a person's actions if in the medieval or 20th century. (But personally I prefer the 20th century version or my version).

[Touchdown]

3. It's simply one who believes...

in the potential and worth of the human race, individual humans, and inherant good in human nature.

A contrast from fundamentalist sectarians. They believe humans are inherantly evil, and corruptible, but it's not their fault, which is why they vote for the party of "personal responsibility".:eyes:

[WoodrowFan]

5. damp and sticky

oh wait, that's humiDist.


Seriously, I think you make a good point

[ulysses]

7. LOL!

:D

[Selwynn]

9. Secular Humanism differentiated from other historical humanism

Humanism in its most basic, simple form is the belief in the worth and dignity of all human beings, i.e. the goodness/potential of humanity, as well as a belief that it is up to humanity to solve the problems of the world, rather than think they will solve themselves or be solved for us by some other power. Erasmus is a great example of an early humanist who was also a man of religious faith.

Secular Humanism is most closely associated with Corliss Lamont and the Humanist Manifesto. The articles of secular humanist belief are very good, but they move further than other examples of humanism by explicitly stating the secular nature of their version.

"Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include "scientific," "ethical," "democratic," "religious," and "Marxist" humanism. Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition. Humanism traces its roots from ancient China, classical Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, to the scientific revolution of the modern world.

But views that merely reject theism are not equivalent to humanism. They lack commitment to the positive belief in the possibilities of human progress and to the values central to it. Many within religious groups, believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation."

http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html

In that link provided, you can see references to the Humanist Manifesto I and II. Notice that I refers often to Religious Humanism. Don't let people who really are familiar with the historicity of humanism try to convince you it is synonymous with atheism or is inherently against religion. It is not "inherently" that at all. However, you can also notice that in II, there is a shift toward a more secular approach to humanist convictions.

In modern times, religious humanists and secular humanists enjoy a kind of tenuous partnership/dialog. I very much support the basic principles of humanism, I even agree with the rejection of theistic, dogmatic authoritarian religious structures. But am a person of non-authoritarian faith, and there is nothing inherent in the underlying principles of humanism which have existed and been articulated by philosophers for centuries that is at odds with my personal faith.

The humanist manifesto III is the most recent revision to the creed - I find this one to be an outstanding statement of principles. In this articulation of humanism, I can agree with every principle (and I do) and continue to feel it allows room for my personal private spirituality. I consider this document to be a moving articulation of some of the key foundational principles for healthy living.

Read it here:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

I was for a long time a member of the American Humanist Association. Unfortunately, I withdrew my membership recently. I did so because the AHA in his magazine and journal publications has become fixated with an atheist vs. theist debate. It has become so preoccupied with attacking religious belief, that it hardly does anything else. It is so pervasive, that for me, it was no longer meaningful. I desired to participate in a community where members were primarily focused on social justice - for that is really at the heart of humanism's call. It expected there to be a focus on progressive ideals such as equality in economics as well as social, higher education, the break down of social stereotypes, the elevation of the working class etc. But right before I withdrew all I saw far more often was continuous rhetorical rantings against "religion."

I was not looking for that kind of discussion I was looking for people who were going to carry out the principles of humanism as outlined in these charters above, and focus on those issues - "religion" of the critique of it isn't one of them.

Nevertheless, despite that criticism of the AHA, I believe that the humanist manifesto III is an amazing statement of principles to live by.

[JanMichael]

14. I agree that the Sectarian v. Secular Humanist argument is pointless.

I also agree that the Manifesto III is a fine philosophical document. To me the true motivating point of any "Humanism" is related strongly to Social Justice & Economic Equity.

This is an interesting comment on Humanists and Political beliefs.

"It is no coincidence that, according to recent poll data, less than 3 percent of American Humanist Association (AHA) members consider themselves conservative. And despite their high profile in discussions, less than 1 percent of AHA members define themselves as libertarian. Such poll results aren't surprising because the political positions held by the progressive majority come directly from cote Humanist principles. Therefore, of the very few Humanists who consider themselves politically conservative, most misuse the term, some hold irreconcilably conflicted views, and a very small number simply don't accept key Humanist ideas."

I see Humanism as much more of a political issue than an a-religious or religious issue.

[Selwynn]

17. I fully, wholly agree. I see progressivism and humanism as linked

[ulysses]

16. great post.

Thank you!

[jus_the_facts]

11. Hey Uly....to me it means...the ability to SEE....

....that we are IMperfect beings and MUST end the irrational idea that we should compare ourselves to perfection...only if that could ever happen...would we be able to function as the humans that we were intented to be.

"He was raised to believe God was love...but you had to wonder how a loving a God could be when He made men and women smart enough to land on the moon but stupid enough to have to learn there was no such thing as forever...over and over again." Stephen King~The Tommyknockers

:hi:

[ulysses]

19. but isn't that irrational idea of perfection

a very human one? ;-)

:hi:

[jus_the_facts]

20. Oh indeed it is.....

....and the BIGGEST mistake made by humans throughout recorded history...in my not so humble opinion o'course! *heavy sighs* :nopity:

[ulysses]

21. a large part of me wants to disagree with that.

Obviously, the comparison with a perfect deity has led to a great deal that is bad, but it has also given birth to a great deal that is good. Even beyond that, though - isn't the acceptance of that impulse in us a humanist position?

[jus_the_facts]

24. It.is.all. relative. m'man.......

.....the need to believe those eons old irrational ideals was necessary when we were still extremely ignorant of our selves and surroundings...it's no longer necessary in the world today as it mostly serves to weaken and in most cases...completely closes the mind to true enlightenment by our ability to logically think in different terms. :)

[ulysses]

25. I still disagree.

An example - when I was eleven, I was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma. I don't attribute my survival to anything but expert medical care and good fortune, but my mother got through the experience in no small part on faith - and she had an easier time of it in many points than my dad, who is an agnostic as I am, did. While I don't share her view, I can recognize the importance of her belief in *strengthening* her during that time even given the logical prognosis.

I'm not going to say that it's *necessary* by any means, but I do think that it's a valid part of being human.

[jus_the_facts]

29. IMO....it's only a crutch....

....borne out of a false sense of security that's only truly validated within ones own mind...regardless of any supernatural superstition attached to it...too many refuse to adhere to their responsibility as a human being and become even weaker when attempting to lay all the problems and woe in the world on something else...instead of accepting the fact that WE have made everything the way it is.

[ulysses]

30. ok, so it's a crutch.

So is counting on your fingers - or, for that matter, having to figure out long division instead of knowing the answer off the top of your head.

instead of accepting the fact that WE have made everything the way it is.

We did? :)

[jus_the_facts]

32. I understand that some can't wrap their brains around the fact...

....they are totally alone in the world...and with the decisions they make or are made for them at other times...but with our technology today there's no reason at ALL to still be ignorant and weak minded....that's all passed down neurosis and stupidity.

on edit...I meant that WE are responsible for the way the world has turned out...not literally for it's existence....but yet for it's survival WE ARE and instead of really trying to make it live on for future generations...well...you know! :silly:

[kodi]

12. that a person's grace comes from themselves, not instilled by a god

a humanist may believe a god, and at times believe one is acting directly in the world, but it is not the basic tenet of a humanist.

similar to the difference between ethics and morality. the former arises, aside from mere survival or human comfort, from the recognition of the commonalities of humans, the property of actual or latent potential of consciousness. the special relationship conscious beings have is the result of understanding the uniqueness in the world of consciousness. it holds as sacred the "I am" principle and ethics is the basic affect of the recognition of that principle in all conscious beings.

whereas morality takes it one step further to a primal first cause from which the "I am" of consciousness arises, and religions call this primal first cause their gods. therefore, that which is acceptable to the gods is moral.

[ulysses]

18. does that grace

imply a sense or a kind of goodness? I would say so, and I'm venturing further afield, but I'm just trying to flesh the thing out some.

[kodi]

22. beyond good and evil, towards that which is noble

but even here, with good, evil, or nobility it is values that are the crux, and values are, well, defined by many ways; subjectively as that which satisfies a human need or desire, or objectively, as that perceived quality of a thing that evokes some sort of appreciative response.

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/beyondgoodandevil9.htm

[ulysses]

23. values are part of our experience

as what we are, subjectively or objectively, aren't they?

[kodi]

26. it depends on whether values are a priori or posteriori to experience

subjectively, we dont strive for something because we desire it and think it is good, we think it is good because we desire it and strive for it.

objectively, well, for plato at least, the world of concepts, univerals, ideas, and values is the real, permenant world.

[ulysses]

27. I suppose I would say that values are a posteriori

but that it's an immediate judgment that begins immediately upon birth - hurting (be it due to diaper rash, intestinal gas, passage through the birth canal, etc.) is bad because hurting is unpleasant. The absence of hurting is good.

I suspect that the impulse to translate good and bad onto an other follows as closely behind as does the awareness of others.

[kodi]

31. People say that Nature is beautiful, but to whom does that beauty belong?

Nature or Man?

Subjectively, Nature is only beautiful if it is experienced. Yet Nature maintains the inherent properties one describes as beautiful whether or not it is obsevered.

if values are subjective, why so do beauty and goodness exist for all minds alike? these were universals to Plato and Aristole.

...I leave out of this that humanity produces different evaluations (gradients) of these values depending upon the physical, biological or social/cultural backgrounds of the individual or group.

its not that values are different, but that they exist and all humans evaluate in some way.

i dont think we can use here an existentialist koan of "if a value falls in the forest and no one perceives it, it doesn't exist."

[Selwynn]

34. I like you.

:)


(ps - I hypothesize that there is an external (to a particular concrete individual) foundation for ethical values (where things like "beauty" play into this I don't know). The foundation I suggest is life itself, that the principles by which we seek to interpret degrees of good or bad (relative always to contextual nuances) comes from the intrinsic and naturalistic drive of life to live and flourish. So in peeling back all the layers, essentially what is at the heart of ethical value judgments is life - the will to life, and to live well.

Unfortunately, inherent in the reality of reasoning choosing beings is the possibility that human beings can literally choose against the inherent drive of the natural world - to live and flourish. Our choices against that order are destructive, and comprise the foundational basis for what we might call "bad" or wrong.

So on the meta-ethical level, the foundational basis for ethical evaluation comes from a naturalistic base. And from that base we can seek to understand some generalized principles that are true conclusions from that basis. In other words we can ask, "well what would the growth and flourishing of life entail?" On that normative plane, we can understand some normative principles for evaluating every day situations. For example, if the growth and flourishment of life is the foundation, then principles of relational cooperation and relational health are principles that must be striven for in the contextual situations we face.

Finally, at the applied level of ethics we face the concrete-specific situations of our everyday existence and struggle to evaluate the choices we must make based on the guiding principles that are rooted in the very structure of life itself, and the natural drive of life to survive and thrive.

Just some speculative thoughts about the tension between subjectivity of context and objectivity of foundations.)

[kodi]

36. Interesting that you chose Life as the foundation for Ethics.

whereas I noted sentience as the basis.

if we are going to talk of "vitalism" as the base, why not also atomism, molecularism or crystalism too?

Life emerges from those, so what is unique? Life itself? If so, consider that Life stands to simple matter in the same kind of relation as mind (sentience) to life.

At each level of increased complexity new unforetold and unimagined properties come into being.

think of two hydrogen atoms and one of oxygen. when they merge, water, with properties totally unlike its gaseous components arises.

I think so too with life, and mind.

and so too perhaps does mind stand in relation with, well, let's call it God, or the Transcendent Ground of Being......heck, there might be a lot of layers of complexity between those levels too.

and there might well be nothing beyond us in complexity than sentience, who know?

But we are working on a level beyond mere vitalism and are now in that multidimensional world of the mind.

I am an old aficionado of Flatland and think that as complexity increases (i.e., more dimensions), there are processes that are not understood by the lower components of the system.

Emergence theory has been around for more than a century to my scant knowledge, but the most forceful advocate of it in modern times is Ken Wilbur, who if one reads makes one hell of a lot more sense than my meager posts here do.

only one question remains>>>>>> what makes the emergence emerge?

there is, to me, an obvious pull towards increased complexity in our universe and while i would reject some alien influx into the system that creates a drive towards increased complexity, I have to admit seeing a creative or directing power immanent or indwelling in each of the many levels/entities that make up the whole.

ghost in the machine? who knows?

If I had a third eye, maybe I could see it, and then again, maybe not.

[Selwynn]

37. fascinating. I must think on these things...

[jus_the_facts]

33. Your statement here is inductive to the Golden Rule....

....it should be natrual for us to treat others the way we ourselves want to be treated....but our animal instincts still rule our emotions so our brain still processes those chemical reactions to induce survival of the fittest instead of compassion and acceptance.

[ulysses]

42. and yet

we see examples of compassion every day - alongside many other examples of its lack, of course, but it's still there. Why, if we're only a series of chemical reactions angling for advantage?

[jus_the_facts]

49. Because as you stated...it's that hurt/bad reaction just the same....

...that IS a chemical reaction as well...and it stands to reason that some feel the response more strongly than others...and vise versa. :)

[ulysses]

50. I'm not sure I buy that.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that our reactive, chemical brains naturally lead us toward a sort of Darwinian reaction to stimuli, but, that in some of us, the same process leads to a reaction that does *nothing* towards assuring our survival and may even threaten it. Am I correct in my understanding of what you're saying? If so, how is it that one chemical process can produce such different results?

[jus_the_facts]

53. YES....that's exactly what I'm sayin' Uly....

....the pathways of brain chemistry get broken sometimes...other times it secretes too much of one thing or another....or all of the above....some people become overly aggressive...others overly submissive...think about the different ways some behave when they expose themselves to the chemicals of alcohol as one example....our chemical makeup is inherited and then we're exposed to even more as we mature and age which alter our perceptions and ability to function...sometimes normal...sometimes abnormal..depending on how the brain processes the chemicals! :think:

[ulysses]

54. I think that's our point of departure, then.

I've always had a hard time with the idea that we're the sum total of our chemical reactions. I think that's what's kept me from being an atheist. :)

[jus_the_facts]

56. S'cool...can't make anyone think or believe anything they don't want to...

.....anyway! Peace m'brotha! :hi:

[Malva Zebrina]

35. this is an interesting thread

I have no real intellectual grasp of the deep intellectual postulations of secular humanism. I am not well read in that. I will say that I think, after reading the thread, I am probably a natural humanist. I reject all religion for myself and beliefs in diety because simply-- I cannot believe in magic. I simply cannot.

However, I do believe in the beauty of the human being and the human condition and have spent most of my life trying to heal and help the human being, no matter what color, beliefs, cultural orientation or sexual orientation.

[kodi]

39. as others philosophize on life its ownself, you ask "what's for lunch?"

and show us all that you are the wiser.

:)

[ulysses]

41. heh!

Well said. :D

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[durutti]

40. The idea that humans can solve human problems.

I consider myself a humanist -- a marxist humanist, like Erich Fromm.

[H2O Man]

44. very good ....

Erich Fromm, one of the best. When I was in high school, I first read his introduction to A.S. Neil's "Summerhill" and was hooked.

"Humanism" to me represents a mature understanding of the central message of all sacred writings: bring forth that which is within you.

[T_i_B]

43. Ever heard of Erasmus of Rotterdam?

I'm trying my dammdest to find someone else who is interested in Erasmus but it's hard work. Maybe I'll just have to stick to Christian forums to discuss matters such as Calvinism and free will there.

http://smith2.sewanee.edu/erasmus/

[ulysses]

45. yes.

It's been a while, though. My Calvinism is rusty as well, but if you'd like to lead, let's see what we can make of it. :hi:

[Selwynn]

46. Yes, I know Erasmus - if you look above you'll see I mentioned him

.. in my posts.

[barb162]

47. there's a book

called "The World of Humanism 1453-`1517" by Myron Gilmore of Harvard U., Harper & Row was the publisher. If you don't have it you may find it an at a bookfair, AAUW sale, ebay, etc. Mine is my old college text and well-worn. It is a fabulous book and needless to say has a lot on Erasmus in the context of that period of European history.

[autorank]

48. Sanity

[The Straight Story]

51. My take

I intentionally did not read any other responses (though I will after posting this) so that I could examine my own ideas unfiltered.

I think of humanism like I do, to some extent, politics. You can have a human centric view of the world while still holding a subset of beliefs which differ on varying levels. To better explain - I can be a christian and have a world view on matters and what they mean, but still recognize that our form of government is what is best for all (including that don't agree with me). It keeps people free to make their own choices and makes rules/laws which have a tendency to promote a general well being for mankind without the input of a higher power (though some may have input based on their religious or philosophical leanings where one sees either the creator or great thinkers as having a deeper wisdom on such matters - not so much so that they feel the person with the idea is all knowing, but more so that they point to that person as a summation of reasons why they agree with them when asked. Ex: You might feel philospher X had great ideas which could benefit society and point to his/her teachings in toto to explain, better than you feel yourself able, why you think a view/idea is worthwhile).

Humanism can mean to some that we see ourselves as the sole superpower on this earth, versus a greater one from a spiritual realm. In that vein of thought we have a pool of competeting ideas but often the base/core shifts as people vary (ie, what is best for one and makes them happy may not be so with another - which leaves the latter out in the cold when the former has power to make decisions).

If we derive a core set of values/morals from a humanist viewpoint we need to construct a core 'constitution' or bill or rights, what have you. Something which has a bare bones belief system which is to guide our principles and reasoning. It would be interesting to see what people have come up with in that arena and how the justify it (or perhaps better, why they think it is best). In a religious view one can say something is best because the creator is wiser and has deemed it so, and one may not always understand the reasons behind it (because sometimes they don't have a long term vision of actions and consequences like the higher power would, one example might be don't eat snakes, and yet people do and nothing happens in their lifetime. But maybe over time it causes a genetic mutation which brings about disease - ok a stretch, but you get the general idea).

Humanism must evolve over time, those who had answers many years ago which we are finding true today we call visionaries.

[Mz Pip]

52. I behave myself

and act compassionately because I want to not because God will get me if I don't.

MzPip
:dem:

[MadProphetMargin]

55. Ralph Waldo Emerson was both a minister AND a humanist.

Just saying.