Let's define humanism

Humanism
21

I’m familiar with that, have visited it multiple times, By now, I’ve read most of it, since I couldn’t do it in one reading, makes my head spin, gotta take a break.

But linking to it, sidesteps my question.

As for it’s relevance, sorry I get sidetrack by show stoppers like this:

Conclusion

Democratic secular humanism is too important for human civilization to abandon. Reasonable persons will surely recognize its profound contributions to human welfare. We are nevertheless surrounded by doomsday prophets of disaster, always wishing to turn the clock back – they are anti science, anti freedom, anti human. In contrast, the secular humanistic outlook is basically melioristic, looking forward with hope rather than backward with despair. We are committed to extending the ideals of reason, freedom, individual and collective opportunity, and democracy throughout the world community. The problems that humankind will face in the future, as in the past, will no doubt be complex and difficult.

So let’s ignore what Earth scientists are explaining about Earth systems and what humans are continuing to do to them? Let’s pretend we’re just in another chapter of humanity, no different from past human induced crises that we’ve managed to muddle through.

However, if it is to prevail, it can only do so by enlisting resourcefulness and courage. Secular humanism places trust in human intelligence rather than in divine guidance. Skeptical of theories of redemption, damnation, and reincarnation, secular humanists attempt to approach the human situation in realistic terms: human beings are responsible for their own destinies. We believe that it is possible to bring about a more humane world, one based upon the methods of reason and the principles of tolerance, compromise, and the negotiations of difference.We recognize the need for intellectual modesty and the willingness to revise beliefs in the light of criticism. Thus consensus is sometimes attainable. While emotions are important, we need not resort to the panaceas of salvation, to escape through illusion, or to some desperate leap toward passion and violence. We deplore the growth of intolerant sectarian creeds that foster hatred. In a world engulfed by obscurantism and irrationalism it is vital that the ideals of the secular city not be lost.

A Secular Humanist Declaration was drafted by Paul Kurtz, Editor, Free Inquiry.

Aside from the physical reality we find ourselves in, in this day and age, it’s great stuff.
.
.
,

22

I see your point. This is philosophy. Philosophy is your passion.

But the thread title is Let’s define humanism.

If, in order to do that, one needs a comprehensive knowledge of all of your citations, very few people can participate meaningfully. Certainly, I cannot.

And perhaps this is a forum dedicated to philosophy and I am out of my league. That’s perfectly fine. I am impressed by the immense knowledge base of philosophers.

There are those who mistakenly presume philosophy has been replaced by science, and those we used to call philosophers are now called scientists. I think philosophy has a place in the world today. But my mind is focused on science and engineering, and art. My vocabulary is different. I like you, but I can’t really speak in your vocabulary. I hope someone with the appropriate knowledge base steps in.

Edit to add: There is also a Philosophy subsection that you might want to post under.

1 Like
23

Sounds a lot like what HR would say to me when I would complain about my crappy managers

1 Like
24

Enlightenment values are not universal. Not even a little bit.

25

If all of humanity shared the same values history would not even exist.

1 Like
26

The Humanist manifesto.

Even the motto – Good without a God – gives that impression.

27

You linked to version 1. And it’s full of specifics

28

This is how I define humanism:

Definition of Humanism

Humanism* is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.
– American Humanist Association

There are more definitions here, but that’s the definition I prefer.

1 Like
29

Humanist Manifesto III

I feel like this conversation is redundant, because I started a thread on definition and the manifesto here, but no one seemed interested.

3 Likes
30

I understand.

IMO, humanism is a goal (or a meaning of life), AND a means to achieve this goal, AND the insurance that the goal is reached by these means.

The good goal, the efficient means, and the positive consequences are indivisible, otherwise it is not humanism, and it can lead to catastrophe.

  • The goal:

self-preservation (access to life) → welfare (access to health and psychological/intellectual autonomy) → individual development/fulfillment (happiness and individualism)

  • The means:

_Science
Human Sciences: feminism, happiness, toleration, clarity, material reality, logic, individualism, consequentialism, humanism
Natural sciences: biology, physics, etc.

_Technology: computer sciences, medicine, craftmanship, etc.

_Art: entertainment or sensitive objectivity

_Politics: free-market, democracy, rule of law, republic, separation of Church and state

  • The consequences:

Keeping tracks of whether these goals are really achieved, the concrete positive consequences being as, if not more important, than the values (happiness, niceness, etc.). In philosophy, this is what we call consequentialism.
This is why, in my definition, you won’t find a lot of “vague ideas” (like niceness, fulfillment, etc.). I just care about a fairly easily measurable (this is where you people from science and technology come into play) thing: welfare.

Consequentialism can help to spot those ill-intentioned people/ideologies who hide behind “humanist” values (niceness, empathy, sharing, etc. you name it), differentiating clearly between what they pretend and what they really do.

  1. All modern human sciences (sociology, history, psychology, etc.) enter into “human sciences”.

  2. By “entertainement” I mean normal art, like the movie you shared, or the music you guys shared from post 79 here.

  3. By “sensitive objectivity” I mean “realist” schools in art: Dickens, Stendhal, Hopper, etc.

  4. I think satirical art and journalism are important, and I would put them at the more subjective end of human sciences.

  5. You will notice that I added “humanism” to “human sciences”. Indeed humanism is defined by human sciences, so it is also a field and a value in “human sciences”.

31

If by “history” you mean “war”, yes, so that’s why we need to discuss on common grounds, and that is called “humanism”.

32

Thank you for your clear response.

Yes, that’s why the American Humanist Association belongs to religious humanism, I guess.

A Humanist Manifesto, also known as Humanist Manifesto I to distinguish it from later Humanist Manifestos in the series, was written in 1933 primarily by Raymond Bragg and published with 34 signers. Humanist Manifesto I - Wikipedia

Raymond Bennett Bragg (1902–1979) was an American Unitarian minister who played a key role in the writing of the original Humanist Manifesto (1933) and eventually signing Humanist Manifesto II (1973).[1] Raymond Bragg - Wikipedia

The first Humanist Manifesto was issued by a conference held at the University of Chicago in 1933. Signatories included John Dewey, but the majority were ministers (chiefly Unitarian) and theologians. American Humanist Association - Wikipedia

So humanism can be approached and defined in different ways, which explains we are having sometimes even strong disagreements here.

33

I think once we have defined clear and realistic goals (welfare), efficient means (modern science/technology and ideas) to attain them, and obtained insurance that these goals are attained, I don’t see problems in having mottos like “be nice to each other” (especially because, once we broke down “welfare” it gives “happiness for one and others”, implying to a certain extent “be nice to each other”). To consolidate the ideology, maybe, and to facilitate the spreading of this ideology.

So I often listen to A.C. Grayling.

Factually, I noticed that those who belittle fundamental (and fairly universal) principles like clarity, happiness and niceness (mocking them respectively as stupidity, stupidity and stupidity) are often bad people.

A fact that I suppose to be universally verified.

Disliking bad people is, I think, a fairly universally shared sentiment, and it can serve as a solid common ground for cross-cultural discussions and agreements.

34

I think this definition is slightly too vague so that it could participate in making humanism look like a religion.

35

You make it sound like humans actions in this world we live in are done with forethought and consideration?

Do you believe that?

What clarity can philosophy provide, when every statement made, can be under cut, watered down, and sliced up?

36

Do you know that this is the same argument that religious people make, when we try to advance Reason?

What do you propose instead?

Isn’t it philosophy which clarify things by breaking them down?

37

Could you explain this? It’s observable that humans sometimes act without forethought. What religious argument are comparing to?

1 Like
38

When I discuss with religious people of secular humanism values and goals, they will say the same thing “You make it sound like humans actions in this world we live in are done with forethought and consideration?”.

What is implied is that (1) humans can not but have religions (2) too much rationality is harmful and anti-human (3) we need religions

39

@citizenschallengev4 I move this topic here.

“As in recognizing one’s individual biological self.” this is very interesting. What do you mean? Religions don’t help in recognizing one’s individual biological self?

40

I can see the possible implication. And from a “religious person”, you might be right. But it’s definitely not the ONLY implication.