Why do you think it is the case, if there are any reason for that?
I donât know, because apparently there is a debate on this question Was Montesquieu a Liberal Republican? | The Review of Politics | Cambridge Core
Very interesting, thank you very much.
This definition is a good definition of what should be a nation/republic/nationalism
âHe is the man who loves the laws of his country, and who acts out of love for the laws of his country.â
Which clichés?
Isnât bourgeois often used as an insult? I think your definition of humanism is lacking. I donât see the words, âcompassion,â âreason,â etc. And where does owning property come from? Color me confused.
1 Like
And it is a shame. It should be a positive word, but the communists and socialists gave it a very pejorative connotation.
If people were happy, or at least accepted, to be bourgeois, we would not have so much problems, and the world would be much more peaceful and prosperous.
Oh, of course I define humanism by reason! (I did several times).
âScience is just the application of reason to the natural world.â (Steven Pinker).
Compassion? I think this belongs to virtue ethics, I donât like that much (we discussed about that some time ago). I prefer consequentialism, utilitarianism, epicureanism: âthe greatest good for the greatest numberâ; âWhen we say ⊠that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.â
From work?
My question, and I think coffeeâs too, was, why did you mix that in with a comment about humanism? I donât know anything in any humanistic definition that discusses land ownership.
Semantics, especially across cultures can get in the way of understanding. Thanks for clarifying.
1 Like
Because I tend to equate (my definition of) humanism and bourgeoisie/bourgeois ethics.
Right. I can see that you were doing that. But what source do you have that says humanism contains bourgeois ethics about land ownership?
Originally, âbourgeoisâ meant âinhabitant of the bourg (= little city)â
(Speak under the control of @morgankane01)
The different liberal declarations (British, English, French) were developed during times of humanism, and by bourgeois intellectuals of humanist culture and values. These declarations, first and foremost, protect the rights to property.
There is a big overlap between bourgeois lifestyle and values and humanist values.
That doesnât say anything about humanism.
And what does âspeak under the control ofâ mean?
How so? I donât know of anything like that in any manifesto or otherwise
Argh, sorry, I thought the French âparler sous le contrĂŽle deâ could be translated 1-1. Apparently the correct translation is âspeaking under the eye ofâ je parle sous votre contrĂŽle - Traduction anglaise â Linguee
âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.â (US Declaration of Independence, 1776) Declaration of Independence: A Transcription | National Archives
The term âhappinessâ here certainly stands for âpropertyâ.
In any way, the formula was inspired by John Lockeâs social contract and natural rights âlife, liberty, and property.â Teach Democracy
âThe aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.â (Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789) Avalon Project - Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789
Okay, I can see some cross-over with Humanism and declarations of human rights, but this was still a gross exaggeration:
Even if many humanists and socialists donât see themselves as bourgeois, there is nothing more bourgeois than their way of life
It would seem most likely that a declaration of Humanism, one that promoted equality and caring for people and their environment, would come from a people in the middle class. The upper class most often is concerned for themselves, at best believing that others could be upper class too if they just worked harder, or exploited others, or some other non-humanistic ideas. Lower classes are the ones being exploited and are denied access to education and even enough leisure time to reflect on how to express a path to a better society. It is usually middle-class people who can see all of that and speak for those who do not have the power to be heard.
Something else you may be addressing, if not, I will. When the first Manifesto was drafted in 1933, there was a sense, a dream maybe, that we could have a world where people could travel freely. Both in the sense of crossing borders without fear, and moving up or down economic ladders as they pleased. I donât think it was intentional, but what we have is a subset of people who can do that. Itâs hard to put numbers on this, but I think itâs fairly obvious.
1 Like
Personnally, I donât think that people are poor necessarily because they donât work enough. I know that some people in America, some conservatives, think that way. But I am not a conservative. Of course, some people are poor because they donât work enough. But it is obvious, IMO, that many are poor because of bad luck.
The problem is how you solve poverty. And you solve property by easing restrictions on commerce.
I hold that if âmiddle-classesâ enjoyed their bourgeois way of life, and defended it, instead of rejecting it and calling for more socialism, there would be a better environment for commerce, and thus a better economy, and there would be less restrictions on commerce, and therefore less poor people.
I think what you call socialism, is what created and strengthens the middle class, which in turn strengthens all of us.
This time of year, Iâm especially thankful for government spending that keeps my roads clear. That also allows for commerce, BTW, which is why businesses should also contribute.
1 Like
Constitutional government, rooted in liberal political ideas, originated in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individualâs right to life and property, and to freedom of religion and speech. In order to secure these rights, constitutional architects emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts, and separation of church and state. The exemplary representatives of this tradition include the poet John Milton, jurists Edward Coke and William Blackstone, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin.
I think most of the persons cited in this passage were bourgeois of humanistic culture and values. And the values they defended in their political/intellectual life were humanistic ones (freedom, individualism, separation of church and state, happiness, Reason, science, etc.).
I think they held âproperty rightsâ as an important means to implement their main value, which was freedom and autonomy for the individuals
The middle class appeared during the Industrial Revolution, because of easing on commerce restrictions and because of the diffusion of bourgeois ethics.