Talk:Humanism/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

POV and Accuracy tags

POV and accuracy tags were forced into the article by Jeannedeba in a continuation of an edit war from a few days ago. It seems plain to me that Jeanne added the tags in order to "mark" the article as problematic, and not in an effort to spur discussion and improve it. She seems to be the only editor now who feels these problems exist, and has ceased contributing to discussion on making improvements. On those grounds, I'm going to be removing the tags. If anyone else feels that they should stay, it would be helpful to enumerate any problems and propose specific solutions in this section. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Protected

This article is a page of conflicts for various pages. This page should be protected immediately.

AMS351996 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)AMS351996AMS351996 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You can make a request at WP:RFPP. But you need to make a good case for it - saying "This article is a page of conflicts for various pages" does not really provide the necessary explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing of important forms of humanism

I especially miss the "Dritter Humanismus" / "Third humanism", e.g. by Werner Jaeger and other important persons, cf. also the German Wikipedia article on humanism, with several good chapters, and the chapter "Dritter Humanismus". Maybe I come back and suggest a new sub-chapter. --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I just restored this topic (which was preemptively archived) from Talk:Humanism/Archive 7. It still makes a valid point, the de.wiki article has a richer content.--Sum (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Engvar

As of 2003-AUG-02 this article was already using US Engvar. It was recently, 2013-MAR-20, changed to British Engvar by an anonymous IP. This seems to violate WP:RETAIN--JimWae (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Recommended section header change

The history sub-section "19th and 20th centuries" contains an event from 2004, which is distinctly 21st century. Propose header gets updated to reflect change. Keithh (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The content of the recently created Humanism (philosophy of education) significantly overlaps with this page; I propose to merge it into this one.hgilbert (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I disagree with the merger. The educational perspective is significantly different from the psychology perspective or even the philosophy perspective and the less overlap the better. Stmullin (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A merger is not the way to handle it. Make a section in this article which is a summary of the article on humanism as an educational philosophy, and then make a link at the top of the section using {{main|Humanism (philosophy of education)}}. See Wikipedia:Integrate. Greg Bard (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Imagine how long this article (Humanism) would be if all the subjects covered at Humanism (disambiguation) were to be merged into it. The PoE article appears to be a valid content fork and should be kept and expanded. Gregbard's suggestion to summarize PoE in Humanism would be the way to go. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Inquiry. Please note that a list of similar topics (some with merge proposals) are found at Talk:Humanism (philosophy of education). Perhaps these need to be summarized in the Philosophy of education article, as well? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Better done with links than merger. Disambiguation would be undone by combining the two--very different--approaches to the word 'humanism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.103.130 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose That article seems misnamed, gathering a bunch of different not-very-notable theorists with little in common. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Huge article, independent theory. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Aulus Gellius

Those who have spoken Latin and have used the language correctly do not give to the word humanitas the meaning which it is commonly thought to have, namely, what the Greeks call φιλανθρωπία (philanthropy), signifying a kind of friendly spirit and good-feeling towards all men without distinction; but they gave to humanitas the force of the Greek παιδεία (paideia); that is, what we call eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes, or "education and training in the liberal arts [literally "good arts"]. Those who earnestly desire and seek after these are most highly humanized. For the pursuit of that kind of knowledge, and the training given by it, have been granted to man alone of all the animals, and for that reason it is termed humanitas, or "humanity." --Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, XII: 17

Gellius says that in his day humanitas is commonly used as a synonym for philanthropy -- or love of one's fellow man. He maintains that this is incorrect and that Cicero and others used the word to mean what we might call 'humane" or "polite" learning, or the Greek equivalent paideia. This is true, but scholars point out that both senses had always been current. Both senses continue to be used for its for modern derivative, humanism. Gellius was a favorite author in the Renaissance and the teachers of philosophy, poetry, and rhetoric were called and called themselves humanists.

Insofar as what the word denotes about human nature, Vito Giustiniani points out that the Greeks and Romans stressed man's superiority to beasts. Humans, according to Aristotle and Cicero. were intended to live harmoniously together, and not be brutal like beasts (or barbarians, they would have added), whereas in the Middle Ages, the emphasis in Christian writing stressed not man's superiority to animals, but rather his likeness to God, in whose image they were made. This Christian/Stoic sense of the unique worth of each individual regardless of earthly status, carried over to Renaissance and modern, secular conceptions of humanism. Mballen (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Martin Luther, Thomas More as humanists

I have removed the sentence about Luther being a humanist "despite being religious" in the first paragraph because it is rather misleading. Martin Luther, Erasmus, and Thomas More were called humanists because they were teachers and scholars of Classical Literature (as opposed to Theology and Logic, which were taught in the universities). This had nothing to do with whether or not they were religious and zero to do with the secular humanism of today. It is true that they engaged in critical thinking but this was a characteristic of Latin and Greek writing, particularly Greek. Critical thinking is our legacy from Greek and Latin scholars (philologists), philosophers, and scientists. Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome were also teachers of rhetoric and classical litterature (bonae litterae). They were humanists in the sense of being learned -- translators of the Bible and so on. If you are going to have an illustration of St. Thomas More's Utopia, you need to include the definition of humanism as pertaining to learning in the lede paragraph, because More was by no stretch of the imagination a modern humanist. He is a Catholic saint who chose to die rather than give up his religion. Mballen (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Advertisements for modern organizations

Many of the entries here still read as POV publicity press material for specific organizations, which I believe is contrary to wikipedia's ideal of an encyclopedic tone. Not that I oppose these organizations, but this has been a problem with this article from the beginning. Mballen (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Os Guinness

I have some problems with having this person cited as a historian. His wikipedia article also reads like publicity material and the talk page complains that their are no independent sources to justify his notability. In any case, I removed the sentence that gave an erroneous description of what Renaissance humanists believed and am leaving the reference to him in it for now, despite his quotation's being very POV, not to say quite untrue. Contrary to what he suggests, Galileo is not an example of a Renaissance humanist. In the mid-sixteenth century Erasmus was briefly placed on the Index of forbidden books for Pelagianism (I believe), the heresy that contends that man can win salvation by works alone without grace. But he was soon taken off. Catholicism recognizes both works and grace; and Erasmus actually tried to adhere to a middle way. Some maintain that the Jesuits were very influenced by Erasmus's compromise. Calvin and Luther's view of man's total depravity was much more extreme even than that of the Catholic church The sinfulness of man was very much emphasized during the seventeenth century wars of religion. Mballen (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is what Mr. Guinness, who is an evangelical Christian, has to say elsewhere about humanism:

Ever since the Renaissance, there has been a humanism that was post-Christian but claimed to have just as high a view of human dignity as Christians had. But now you have the so-called anti-humanists who have come along to say, wait a minute, you’re borrowing Christian views of human dignity, but if there’s no Christianity you have no right to that. So you can see today that a science-based naturalism is giving us lower and lower and lower views of human dignity. So there’s a good example. Only the Jewish and Christian anthropology, view of human dignity, is keeping alive certain things like human rights. http://www.ameliachapel.com/blog/index.php/tag/os-guinness/

I think I can discern something behind this. It is true -- and our article doesn't really recognize it yet -- that the Christian Church in the Middle Ages kept alive the notion (inherited from both the Bible and the Stoicism of pagan Rome), of human dignity. The fathers of the Church, such as Lactantius, Saint Augustine, and and St. Jerome (Renaissance favorites, by the way) were devoted to Cicero and Senecca and considered them Christian in everything but name. This was the Church's official potition. The Church kept alive Roman law, as well. But basically Mr. Guiness's writing seems to me like gibberish. Mballen (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Mballen (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC) (added link)

1856 was not before Humanism used to mean "secular"

I am going to revert this erroneous insertion which is contradicted by body of the text. Humanism derives from the Latin humanitas (which see), which in classical times meant kindness in the sense of not like an animal (i.e., civilized, rather than violent and brutal). Humanitas thus referred to those qualities that distinguished human beings, civilized human human beings, in particular. In late antiquity humanitas came to mean "learning" as well. In the second century AD, a well-known Latin grammarian, Aulus Gellius (c. 125 – c. 180) maintained it was incorrect to use humanitas to mean kind or civilized. In Gellius's opinion humanitas ought to be used strictly to mean "learned". However, he was wrong, those great Latin writers, Cicero and Julius Ceasar, regularly used humanitas to mean benevolent and civilized and this was a well established usage. Nevertheless Aulus Gellius's definition was taken up with great enthusiasm in the Renaissance and is still retained in languages other than English. These two meanings "kindness" (humanity) and "learning" are thus the two main strains of meaning that the words "humanity" and its derivative "humanism" have denoted through the centuries, sometimes with more emphasis on one meaning, sometimes on the other. All the words ending in -ism, by the way, (an ending borrowed from Latin, into German ), date from the nineteenth century (except the lone prior example someone has found of humanism used in French). Humanitas (meaning kindness and benevolence toward other human beings) also apparently was an important concept in Free Masonry, which had its heyday at the turn of the nineteenth century. However, I don't know very much about this freemason aspect, which is mentioned in the German wikipedia, I gather. Mballen (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 173.77.14.63 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that George Holyoake coined the word "secularism" (but not the word "secular", which meant the world as it exists in time as opposed to eternity, in 1851. Before then, "secular" was not opposed to "religious", it just meant this life as opposed to the next. Holyoake later adopted the word "agnosticism", in preference to atheism, to describe what he believed (or didn't believe. Humanitas always applied to this world. In the next world you don't have to have humanity, you just spend eternity as a sort of angel, praising God. Mballen (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to start a new comment.

The lede is a mess

What's going on y'all? Byelf2007 (talk) July 18 2012

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#cite_note-3

The third citation for Humanism is currently: Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, XII: 17.

It should read Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, XIII: 17.

(XII -> XIII)

Source: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Gellius/13*.html

64.125.102.218 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Humanity and litterae humaniores in the age of sensibility

A lesson in humanity from the Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy (1767):

[My] uncle Toby had scarce a heart to retaliate upon a fly. "Go," says he, one day at dinner, to an over-grown one which had buzzed about his nose, and tormented him cruelly all dinner-time, and which after infinite attempts he had caught at last, as it flew by him. —"I'll not hurt thee," says my uncle Toby, rising from his chair, and going across the room, with the fly in his hand.—"I'll not hurt a hair of thy head. Go," says he, lifting up the sash, and opening his hand as he spoke, to let it escape, "Go, poor devil, get thee gone, why should I hurt thee? This world surely is wide enough to hold both thee and me."
I was but ten years old when this happened: but whether it was, that the action itself was more in unison to my nerves at that age of pity, which instantly set my whole frame into one vibration of most pleasurable sensation —or how far the manner and expression of it might go towards it — or in what degree, or by what secret magic—a tone of voice and harmony of movement, attuned by mercy, might find a passage to my heart, I know not. This I know, that the lesson of universal good-will then taught and imprinted by my uncle Toby, has never since been worn out of my mind. And tho' I would not depreciate what the study of the Literae humaniores at the university have done for me in that respect or discredit the other helps of an expensive education bestowed upon me, both at home and abroad since — yet I often think that I owe one half of my philanthropy to that one accidental impression.
This is to serve for parents and governors instead of a whole volume upon the subject. --Laurence Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy: Gentleman, Chapter 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 June 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

"of a what" word sequence seems to be an error. 184.77.222.216 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Confucian influences on Humanism

I am not comfortable with this line "Taoist and Confucian secularism contain elements of moral thought devoid of religious authority or deism however they only partly resembled our modern concept of secularism"[1]. First, it confuses the related but different topics of secularism with humanism. Second, there are several Confucian principles that are consistent with contemporary humanism. These include, Confucian belief in the ethic of reciprocity [2], altruism toward others [3], and meritocracy [4].

If you agree, a minimalist edit could be: "Taoist and Confucian secularism contain elements of moral thought devoid of religious authority or deism and are partly reflected modern secularism and humanism."

A more detailed update could be along these lines: "Taoist and Confucian secularism contain elements of moral thought devoid of religious authority or deism and are partly reflected modern secularism and humanism, including the ethic of reciprocity [5], altruism toward others [6], and meritocracy [7]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.222.67 (talk • contribs)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Asia
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Ancient_China
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Ethics
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Meritocracy
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Ancient_China
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Ethics
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Meritocracy
You can find more about Humanism and Confucian in the book Humanism in East Asian Confucian Contexts. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links

I'd appreciate if it can be clarified why the external links I added are not deemed appropriate. There are links to the American and British humanist associations, why not to the Canadian one, since all three are mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talar (talk • contribs) 01:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is hardly a neutral article. Proudhon clearly agrees with Burke, for example, though obviously with different ends in mind, but it's not mentioned. Humanism's conservativism is wholly eclipsed. When Proudhon said that Humanism is the deification of humanity, he didn't mean that it was a good thing. Anarchists don't like dieties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.104.109 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

First use of word "humanist" in English

The first use of the term humanist in English occurred in 1817 during a controversy between Samuel Taylor Coleridge and one of his critics. The renowned English poet, himself trained as a Unitarian minister, had formally recanted his youthful revolutionary politics and Unitarian faith a in a series of “Lay Sermons” in which he now criticized his former co-religionists as allegedly asserting the “mere humanity” of Christ (a stock accusation). “Their true designation, which simply expresses a fact admitted on all sides, would be that of Psilanthropists, or assertors of the mere humanity of Christ. (Samuel Taylor Coleridge, On the Constitution of the Church and State: Lay Sermons, Henry Nelson Coleridge, Editor [London: William Pickering, 1839], pp. 367-68).

Unitarians at that time considered themselves Christians and not "mere philanthropists", as an anonymous Unitarian reviewer in the Monthly Repository protested. He countered that "all Christians believe in the humanity of Christ, and none that we are acquainted with profess to believe in the mere humanity of Christ. “Many a man has wished to christen the Unitarians anew; the name that our quondam preacher proposes is amongst the oddest that ingenuity or envy or even bigotry has suggested, Psilanthropists, that is, if it may be Englished, Mere-Humanists.” (Unsigned review 73, Monthly Repository: XII [May 1817]: 299-301, in J. R. de Jackson, Editor Samuel Taylor Coleridge: The Critical Heritage Volume 1 1794-1834 [Routlege, 2002], p. 287). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs)

Take a look at the OED or even The Online Etymology Dictionary. The term humanist has been used in English at least the 1580s. To refer to a person who believes that Christ's nature was human only, it's been in use since at least the 1790s. Its use in reference to an adherent of the philosophy of Humanism does indeed date to the nineteenth century (but that's not really surprising). In general, I'm afraid I'm not clear what your purpose is in posting this here. How do you propose improving the article? Garik (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe you are right, Garik. I wrote the above in response to a version of the OED that is quoted in the article. The gist was a discussion of why the word 'humanism' as a philosophical term was slower to catch on in the Anglophone world than in, say, Germany (which adopted it around 1800) i.e., and it was suggested that it was because of negative associations -- attacks on Unitarianism originating at the time of the French Revolution (i.e., the 1790s, as you point out). The reference to Coleridge's disparaging use of the term appears to be gone from the Oxford English Dictionary, at least the online dictionary. The online etymological dictionary is not quite right. The word is first attested in print in a satiric little Italian poem by Ariosto, which suggests rather graphically that "humanists" (that is, teachers of the humanities) tended to be pederasts, but he probably did not coin it. Kristeller hypothesizes that it was 15h c. Italian student slang. As a synonym for philologist/scholar, it seems to have entered English from Italian by means of French, but was never very common, apparently. As an improvement to the article I personally would favor the references to the Oxford Dictionary removed, especially since it has since been updated. I'm not sure that dictionary definitions add much, anyway. When I first began trying to work on the article, incidentally, other editors were doggedly attached to retaining them. Mballen (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Mathew Arnold, for example, proposed reforms of British education along Niethammer's "new humanist" lines (1808), but avoided using the term "humanism". I am glad to see that humanist organizations today have embraced Niethammer's as a founder, if not the founder, of modern humanism, which will make improving of this article much much easier: https://newhumanist.org.uk/1740 I have always believed that there was a deep connection to today's version of humanism and earlier ones. Mballen (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Fideism

This phrase in the introductory paragraph defining humanism : "and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism)." I think the term "fideism" should be replaced by "dogma." "Fideism" is a term of art that was coined by the Catholic Church to identify the heresy of exclusive reliance of faith to the exclusion of reason. I don't think humanism or humanists are in the business of decreeing what is or isn't a heresy! Virtually all mainstream religions endorse reason, BTW and don't consider it as conflicting with faith! Mballen (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC) revised Mballen (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Second paragraph in the 'Background' section:

The word in is a Latin word. In the source/reference material<ref>Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, XIII: 17.</ref> for the blockquote Latin words/phrases are colored red (and Greek gold). However, at present the word "in" is not italicized with the rest of the Latin phrase.

Currently: eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes

Please change to: eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes

Ecrofleinad (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where this comment goes, but near the Attic Nights edit requests seems right... Is the translation of "liberal arts" as "good arts" an wiki editor's translation or that of the quoted author? I ask because I was taught that "liberal" was from the Latin "libere" (free), which denotes arts not devoted to practical considerations (e.g., law, architecture), which were arts done for pay, and designated "servile arts". "Liberal" was thus intended to denote, I believe, arts which are pursued for their own sake rather than as a means to an end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.233.197 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 30 November 2015‎

Removed that commentary from the quote. Vsmith (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Humanism is not sectarian

There is no such thing as a 'secular humanist' or a 'spiritual humanist'. A humanist by definition is open-minded to all ideas and philosophies, and does not adhere to any sect such as atheism or religion, creed, or constrained idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

- Comment: I think the problem here is that the BHA and AHA (British and American Humanist Associations) ARE in fact anti-religious organizations, as evidenced by e.g. their webpages which are to a large degree filled with anti-religious commentary. It would be valuable to separate the history of Humanist philosophy from these more contemporary sectarian efforts. Humanism as a philosophical movement has no inherent connection to anti-religionism per-se. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAAtheist (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Humanism has no alignment with secularism

The move to align the term and history of Humanist philosophy with atheism and secularism, especially undertaken in the context of the "Humanist Societies" as referenced by the logo of this page is a recent one and does not reflect the true philosophical history of the term. To me this always looks as though someone is trying to highjack the achievements of philosophers stretching back at least 600 years into the Renaissance if not to earlier times. For a more neutral and less ideologically biased perspective on Humanism please consider http://www.britannica.com/topic/humanism .

In order to be correct, this page should be renamed to "Secular Humanism" or maybe even "Anti-Religious Humanism" and references appropriately adjusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAAtheist (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Secular humanism is covered in a separate article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah - great. I think it would be good to rewrite some of this page then and link to the Secular Humanism page where appropriate. MrAAtheist (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2015 (PST)
I'm not an expert on the philosophy of humanism, but other editors here, I'm sure, are. As you are a new editor, I respectfully suggest that it would be best for you to set out what specific wording changes you would like to see in the article, and gain consensus for them before making any major changes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Humanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Offline 00:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Should the "happy human" logo be in the box at the top of this page? The logo was created by the British Humanist Association and is used by secular humanists worldide, but it can't be said to represent any other kind of humanism, e.g. Christian humanism. Dadge (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree the logo should go. 2ct7 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit to semi-protected page

I don't have an account so I can't make this edit, but "centered" is spelled incorrectly as "centred" in the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.173.126 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Polemics?

Is the word "polemic" really the most neutral term for that section? The term "criticism" is more unbiased, more descriptive of the section's actual contents, and more in line with how similar articles are structured on Wikipedia. 

173.77.243.42 (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What about?

The lead paragraph makes it seem that humanism is concerned strictly with correct belief. This seems a rather limited view. What about social justice? The environment. Inequality? Disarmament? World peace and understanding? Climate change? Don't these come under the purview of humanism? Human rights? (I won't even mention art and music.)

Paragraph above goes back to November 2, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humanism&diff=prev&oldid=688733631
I wrote in the context of an earlier lead paragraph and no longer think it pertinent. Mballen (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016

175.101.19.114 (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

Please add at te beginning of the article the modern definition: Humanism - philosophical current or outlook, based on rational thinking, which expresses concern about the need, happiness, dignity and the free development of man in his environments: social and natural. Humanism puts man in the role of the host (in the sense of exploitation but also protection) of the environment, aware that the man is also a part of the Earth's ecosystem. Specific human rights and responsibilities arise solely from the fact that he is the only creature on Earth that holds science and technology. Humanism excludes selfishness (individual, state, inter generational, etc) and calls for brotherhood and solidarity. 2A01:E35:8A70:DC80:119E:715:8BB3:B7AE (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

The article references science, but it does not include the social sciences, which are also based on observable fact, hypothesis etc. The study of social systems, groups, and psychology, political science to name a few. I'd suggest adding the social sciences so that readers understand the full breadth of humanism and do not inadvertently attribute it solely to the hard sciences (mathematics, medicine, chemistry etc.). Coherence360 (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I hasten to add that your suggestion is perfectly welcome; it just doesn't need to be an official edit request. Also note that humanistic psychology does have its own section in the article. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Flaming POV

First sentence ends this way: "...improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality." This sounds like: "This is the right and best and only really sensible way to do things, far superior to those who in all their stupidity follow authority and tradition or who live like dogs." POV. At the very least "blindly" should be removed. Of course the "use of reason" begs the question of which authority or tradition that reason is incorporating into its calculus. Ideologues seem to have been calling the shots on this article. It would be better to say humanism claims a superiority to these other approaches. There are certainly traditions and authority that have incorporated reason and ingenuity too, far more broadly and deeply than is possible by any single individual. Come on, NPOV specialists, do your thing. Pernimius (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The change was made in this edit in November 2016, which was not contested at the time. I agree that it seems to be partial, and I have no way of knowing whether the revised sentence is, in fact, justified by the citation, which related to the previous version of the sentence. So, I'll revert to the earlier wording of that opening paragraph, and we can take the discussion from there if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Better expression but still slanted: request for edit

The first sentence now reads "Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition."

This still tends to imply that all non-humanists are rather opposed to values of critical thinking and evidence. But see, for example, the article on the encyclical Fides et ratio (Faith and Reason), which says "The encyclical posits that faith and reason are not only compatible, but essential together. Faith without reason, he argues, leads to superstition. Reason without faith, he argues, leads to nihilism and relativism." To imply that someone like Thomas Aquinas or Augustine or Rahner did not value evidence or critical thinking is not really fair.

Suggested edit for the first sentence:

"Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and it generally prioritizes a non-religious kind of critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over theological understandings of transcendental experiences, or simple acceptance of dogma or superstition." --Pernimius (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"theological understandings of transcendental experiences." ... or maybe "theological blatherings about transcendental nonsense" :) sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Well most people would admit that many human beings have transcendental experiences. The language about them can be crude and naive (myth, superstition) or critical and sophisticated (Kierkegaard, Tillich, John of the Cross). NDE's are a very common type of transcendental experience. The people who testify to them you can see and judge for yourself (look for NDE's on youtube). An amazing person like the mystic Simone Weil is not to be dismissed as a blatherer. Your position against the transcendental stands against a strong current of human experience, expressed in most cultures globally through history. The NPOV stance of an encyclopedia should not assume at the outset that it is all nonsense. Scientism is just as superstitious as religious supersition, but science in itself deserves fair treatment--and so does the authentic religious dimension of existence. Most philosophers through the millenia agree. As do many scientists. Pernimius (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah ... but, this article is not about all that - it is about humanism. And no thanks to your you tube promo. Vsmith (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay...this article is about humanism...and it should note that humanism as such is not always simplistically dismissive of the (widely acknowledged) religious or transcendental dimensions of human existence, nor does humanism as such confine rationality to non-religious thinking. As a description of humanism, it is therefore misleading in its present form. One sub-section of humanism may take the stance that you are eager to promote. That is but one strand of humanism, with its own POV. Better not to impose this on all of humanism. Pernimius (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Methinks Religious humanism would be closer to your thinking... Vsmith (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Humanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit citation 6

Small edit, citation 6 refers to an article, the title of which is correct, but the volume is The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism. Arguffey (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Niethammer's understanding not the same as the lede's though it seems so implied

In the first paragraph we read "The term was coined by theologian Friedrich Niethammer at the beginning of the 19th century." There is no mention of the fact that Niethammer would never have defined humanism as the first paragraph defines it. This is quite misleading. Suggested improvement: "The term was coined by theologian Friedrich Niethammer at the beginning of the 19th century to refer to a system of education based on the study of classical literature, that is, on what could be called classical humanism." See pages 21-22 of Paul Oskar Kristeller's Renaissance Thought and Its Sources. Pernimius (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In the second paragraph it is made clear that classical humanism embodied the modern sense of improving the lot of humanity (philanthropy) from the very first and was not restricted to "classical learning" (as education for virtue) as is sometimes (mistakenly) thought. However, it was Niethammer who first used the "term" (i.e., the word itself, ending in -ism), in such a way that it got wide use. However, there is one French instance of the term ending in -ism occurring (and as far as we know occurring only once) -- humanisme -- in the mid-18th c., meaning "love of humanity", in connection with philanthropic activity (and not learning). But this use of the term did not catch on in either in France or in England. In England this was probably due to anti-French feeling among English speakers after the French revolution. This could be clarified, I agree.
Also it is true that German humanismus is a little different, since it implied the construction of a new, ennobled human being, based on exposure to exalted Greek ideals of beauty and proportion. Knowledge either in itself or as emulation of Greek aesthetics had never previously been explicitly included in either the Classical or Christian virtues. So Niethammer's educational humanismus is a bit of a novelty.
As far as the French use of the word humanisme I did once read that in France the humanities (studia humanitatae) have have never been limited to Greek and Latin, but always encompassed the whole world, including Asian and Middle Eastern antiquities. The French do not consider themselves to have undergone an interruption or dark ages in the way that the Italians did, but rather thought of themselves as possessing a continuous civilization since Roman times and hence did not need to experience one decisive Renaissance, or if they did, it was the Carolingian and 12th century ones. My impression is that modern French Masonic chapters also use the word humanism to denote philanthropy, as do the Germans, but I don't know very much about this.~~


Re: Niethammer, Wiki editors might want to consult this article by Bill Cooke, "Happy Birthday Humanism", New Humanist, March 4, 2008 I'm not sure I agree with it in every respect. I find it rather reductionist to define humanism as "centrism". The ancients, rather used the word "concord". Humanists want to settle disputes peacefully, through the use of reason and argument in the pursuit of truth, rather than force. But this hardly means that the solution to disputes and problems necessarily resides in the center -- "Truth, wherever it leads" was the motto of Jefferson. It could be anywhere. But Cooke definitely has the big picture historically speaking. I like his updating of the Roman "virtues" as "inner strength", as a goal of education. Mballen (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

After "source to understand the world", please add: "Other contemporary spiritualist movements, however, don't see any conflict between science and religion, nor between humanism and religion. Source http://www.fraternidaderosacruz.org/rosicrucianism_and_christianity.htm.

If not added, the article will be partial and full of prejudice with modern religious people. Yehudi.ahov (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spintendo      21:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

See Also

Added a link to the WP page on "Humanistic Buddhism". --Daveler16 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Background

There are evidently some words missing from the quote from Aulus Gelius: "but they liberal arfrts"??? Could it be "refer to"? "mean"? Anyone know? Could you correct this or verify the wording? Thanks. --Daveler16 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Addition

Here (my Sandbox) is a draft for adding a bit on modern Buddhist humanism to the "Religious" section. Please check it out and comment. Thank you. --Daveler16 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I thought maybe it would fit better on another entry, so I put it there and added "Soka Gakkai" to the "See Also" section. --Daveler16 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the reasons for Buddhism's inclusion to "humanism"

Hello, I noticed that the "Ancient South Asia" section of the "Predecessors" category includes a quote by Gautama Buddha supposedly de-emphasising the supernatural. This is problematic, as the quote in question is actually in reference to the Buddha's teaching on not-self, a doctrine that rejects the existence of a "soul" (but not rebirth or karma), rather than rejecting supernatural components to the universe, which the Buddha most certainly acknowledged.

Eucalypt-guy (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that may be. However, there is a school of Buddhism, quite prominent today, for whom Richard Seager (of Hamilton College) coined the term "Nichiren Humanism". It's entirely focused on the human being with no esoteric or supernatural components. I could share some if its writings if you like. Since there are some 12 million people embracing it, could just a short paragraph somewhere be appropriate?--Daveler16 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Nichiren doesn't seem Ancient to me (more Medieval?). I agree that the quote from the Buddha is unhelpful and obscure. (Also: The link is broken. The translation archaic.) Furthermore the argument in the quote appears kinda silly - taken at face value it seems rather like: 'Since not P, then isn't it foolish to believe P?' Further, I imagine that by 'really and truly exist' he (Gautama) means 'exist unchanging forever' - which is simply not what 'really and truly exist' means in contemporary English ('right now I'm really and truly hungry, but I won't be after supper' makes good sense). And what does 'I who am 'world mean for heaven's sake? Is it an oblique reference to a materialist conception of the (everlasting) soul, so that this is a compressed version of Gautama Buddha's repudiation of both materialist and immaterialist conceptions of the soul? I suggest that the reference to Buddhism is removed for now; if someone finds a good reason to put something else on Buddhism in later then they can go ahead. 79.77.209.141 (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to compose a short insertion, with proper sources, either here or in my Sandbox. I'll let you knw when it's done, and would love to know what you think.--Daveler16 (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I added just a sentence for now. Still working on a longer paragraph.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Re-added the sentence after it was removed with no Talk Page discussion. I could add much more if that would make itx clearer that it does indeed belong on the page. But as the article does seem to be more about European Humanism than Humanism, I thought jsut a sentence about Buddhist humanism was appropriate. Discussion welcome.--Daveler16 (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Humanism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Humanism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Humanism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 08:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2019

Please add "Sir Thomas More" to the list of humanists in the Renaissance section with the link to his Wiki page. His thought, especially his work "Utopia", influenced the American founders and their founding discussions. He is a saint in the Anglican and Roman Catholic calendars. The Law Society of Great Britain voted Thomas More to be the "Lawyer of the Millennium" in December 1999. All this is to say that he is very influential and deserves recognition on the "Humanism" page. This page should represent the thought and the figures of the Humanist movement, and Thomas More is one of the most pre-eminent humanists of Renaissance. Space allowing, I also request that the website "thomasmorestudies.org" be added to the external references since this website has many free ebooks of humanist works, such as Erasmus, More, Swift, and others. 192.91.253.216 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Gangster8192 02:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Humanist fonts

Should I link to the font class? - TypicallyTrue (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

'Polemics about humanism have sometimes assumed paradoxical twists and turns.' seems to me to violate WP:NPOV, I think the line should be removed. I can't edit it myself so I would appreciate if someone could do it for me. --Palm Puree (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

What a remarkably biased article, possibly the most biased one I have seen on Wikipedia outside the corporate ad articles. I have certainly never seen a 'Criticism' section that only has the criticism of the criticism! SandJ-on-WP (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some American organization has been incredibly persistent in enforcing their very precise views over the years, & nobody else cares enough to keep the article straight,. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism [hominocracy]

Humanism being hominocratic (hominocracy focused) is also personocratic (personhood focused; person is a hypernym of human; which is a biological person).

Humanism isn't objective being personhood-biased / personocratic at the philosophical level. (person + krátos [power]; person deemed the utmost criterion and measure of all).

The role of philosophy is proper understanding; not nicety towards humans.

(confusion of philosophy with social care)


Sorry, just here to query whether Erasmus translated the New Testament from Latin to Greek, or the other way around?

A lot strange Greek-mixed with-Latin terminology above... wouldn't it be anthropocratic? The personocratic thing gets confusing, given what persona meant in ancient times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.23.178 (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020

Add an image of Mary Ann Evans next to the paragraph covering her contribution. This sample image is uploaded at wikimedia commons: NSRW_Mary_Ann_Evans.jpg There are many images of male contributors to Humanism in this article, and not of female contributors. Many people still don't realize George Eliot was a woman.Let's share that knowledge.Sharriger (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Sharriger (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sharriger: I agree that an image in this wall of text would be helpful, but I don't know of she's the best one for this context. Not an expert on this subject, but is her contribution to humanism that important, aside from translating two German texts? What would the caption be, aside from "Eliot was a humanist"? I'm more inclined to add Paine or Comte's portrait here. Leaving request open for more opinions. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The Image Use Policy says: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. While George Eliot/Mary Ann Evans is mentioned, it is not clear that there is a connection to Humanism that is relevant enough to include. The text does not make any claims that Evans was more than a translator and enthusiast of the idea whereas persons depicted in concept articles are usually those that made large contributions to the development of that concept. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)69.174.167.201 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Major change at section Renaissance

Hi all, I would like to explain a [major edit I just did]. I have identified several problems with the existing text. #Undue, Syntesis and poorly sourced.

Major issue was that it was Undue. In not one book or RS discussing Humanism, did I ever met such a huge (%) coverage of history and in particular Renaissance. One factor contributing to the problem were the many (and large) quotations, taken out of books discussing Renaissance. They didnt offered summarized knowledge to the readers, nor valuable opinion. As I see it, every Era of History, should be confined in one or two paragraphs. The problem was created, mainly because (as I understand) the sources were not discussing humanism, but were about Renaissance, thus creating a "wrong-lens problem". Too much focus was given at renaissance. Also, many references were not actually references, they were examples or other comments.

Not everything has to be deleted. I will try to salvage some sentences that were important and well sourced. Cinadon36 10:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021

2nd, not really, paragraph contains the word tent, it should actually be tend. Wish Wapo had this service. 2600:1005:B04A:93BA:F8A5:50F5:7075:9C5D (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cinadon36 05:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021

Remove or revise this sentence in the opening: Humanism is criticized for being too Western-centric.

The "Western-centric" argument stems from a faith that objective reality is unknowable, so things like science and reason are said to be merely Western ways of knowing, no better than revelation from supernatural sources or folkish ways of knowing. (See Edward Said's "Orientalism" for an early example.) It also derives from Foucault's notion that language does not express knowledge (a corollary of rejecting objective knowledge), but rather power; thus science and reason are seen as projections of power, not projections of knowledge.

There are other criticisms of humanism (Nietzsche, Marx, religious), and this is the weakest one so not the best to highlight in the summary. It's the weakest because one can also find science and reason valued in some Eastern cultures independent of the West, most especially Medieval Islam. Also the valuing of education (especially in Judaism) and hints of individualism in some strains of Buddhism. This weakness is reflected in the main content: when you get to the full criticism section near the end, the "too Western" argument is the least fleshed out of them all, mostly focusing on the religious critiques.

It would be better to do one of the following:

  • Just remove the sentence.
  • Reword to say it's been criticized for its emphasis on science and reason and its rejection of folkish and supernatural ways of knowing. This is the root of the Western-centric critique, but more importantly it is also more inclusive of the religious critique. Thus it more fully captures the broader critiques than the current sentence.
  • Do above reword bullet but also get Nietzsche and Marx's views in the summary.

Then the "too Western" critique in the main criticisms section could be fleshed out to explain that this critique starts with the premise that objective reality is unknowable and language projects power, not knowledge, etc. leading to the conclusion that science is no better than folkish and supernature ways of knowing and must just be a projection of power. That gives the critique more context and a greater depth of understanding to the reader, especially for the many readers who don't understand why someone might argue science and reason are tools of colonialism. But before doing that, first confirm if there is more than just one academic paper that has this position. If the current citation is the only paper that takes this position, then I argue for dropping it entirely for not having enough relevant support to highlight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.182.142 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment/request for edit. You have a valid point. The sentence was too vague and didn't summarize critique section at article. But your suggestion, while I wouldnt disagree, it doesn't reflect the main body of the article. Nowhere it is stated that humanism draws critique for not believing in supernatural causes. Criticism of humanism is mostly secular. Critics say that it is a vehicle for continuation of western oppression (by moral dominance). If you have other secondary sources on Humanism critique, pls do share! I would be more than grateful! Cinadon36 16:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

"Political humanism, to describe movements as marxism and communism, are also a misuse of the term, since these political ideologies do not value freedom of speech and political dissent.[56]"

The source of this claim doesn't back it up with any supporting evidence or other sources. To claim that Marxism doesn't value free speech is a gross misinterpretation of Marx's works. Marx criticized the right of free speech in liberal societies, not because he didn't believe people should speak freely, but because regimes based on the protection of individual rights have to protect individuals so that they can enjoy those rights, but once a right like free speech or the press is declared a security risk it's "fully annihilated" by the government. He's criticizing that the interests behind those civil rights are intended only for the bourgeois, not the importance of the rights themselves.

It's just such an oddly biased and opinionated statement to include on this page. At the very least it should be made clear that it's an opinion and not an objective fact, and a counter to that argument should be made after it otherwise it's just wrong. You can read what the man said for himself.

K Marx ([1844] 1956). “Zur Judenfrage,” in 1 Marx-Engels Werke, Berlin: Dietz, 347-77, at 367 K Marx ([1842] 1956). “Bemerkungen über die neueste preußische Zensurinstruktion,” id., 3–27, at 27 128.172.48.59 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Author does not refer to Marx, neither did WP's text. The critique is on 20th century Marxism, not Marx. I reworded the text [1] text to make it more clear.Cinadon36 06:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


  • For anthropology professor Talal Asad, humanism is a project of modernity, a secularized continuation of western Christian theology. As Catholic church passed the Christian d doctrine of love to Africa and Asia:

Stray letter that should be removed.

2601:600:A37F:F111:41A4:6D2A:E953:5CED (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"mostly at Islamic countries"

"In other parts of the world, mostly at Islamic countries, non religious people are persecuted."

"mostly" is obviously exagerrated. This could be changed to "for example, in countries adhering to some strict interpretations of Islamic law" or something.

Or, the example could just be excised.

The broken grammar surrounding and broken citations make it look like it's all from one author. Jbaber (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the relevant passage from Law 2011: "In many countries around the world, to reject the faith into which one was born is to risk social ostracism or worse. Apostate Muslims are executed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Qatar, Yemen, and Mauritania. In Malawi and Nigeria, Christian pastors condemn children for witchcraft who are then beaten, tortured, and sometimes killed in exorcisms. As a result of religious lobbying, Uganda is considering introducing life imprisonment as the minimum sentence for engaging in gay sex. In many parts of the world, religious intolerance is rife, and the fight for even basic rights and freedoms is ongoing." How should we rephrase? Cinadon36 18:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
If that's our only source, it certainly doesn't back up the assertion that this issue is mostly prevalent in Islamic countries. It simply uses several Islamic examples. I'll make a change to the article, and feel free to revert me if someone thinks it isn't an improvement.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Jess: for your edits, much better now. I removed the ps= since it is not really important. It tells more about other themes rather than humanism.Cinadon36 07:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

A few typos; change "...theism is and obstacle to morality..." to "...theism is an obstacle to morality...", "...but relativism in invited if if God creates goodness." to "...but relativism is invited in if God creates goodness. 130.245.192.7 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Eevee01(talk) 17:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"The meaning of the term has changed according to the movements that have identified with it."

Humanism is a modern term that in English only came into use in the nineteenth century, when it was adopted from Germany, where it was used to describe an educational movement, German new humanism, which began about 1750 and was not overtly anti-clerical (since some of its proponents were Lutheran clergymen I believe), and which advocated a return to the humane studies of antiquity, and in particular classical languages and literature, as a means of human improvement. What the article should say is that the term, which is modern, has been applied retroactively to various movements throughout history, beginning with Cicero (106 BC to 46 BC). IMO, the present article concentrates excessively on modern anti-clerical movements that call themselves humanist. It is also distinctly un-encyclopedic in tone.Mballen (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The article should present "Humanism" as it is presented in contemporary Reliable Sources such as the

  • "Oxford Handbook of Humanism" (2019)[2]
  • On Humanism (Routledge) by Richard Norman
  • Humanism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press) by Stephen Law
  • Humanism: Beliefs and Practices (Sussex) by Jeaneane Fowler
  • The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Humanism (Wiley Blackwell) edited by Andrew Copson and AC Grayling

It would be pointless to argue what is the correct meaning of humanism (an educational movement, an atheistic current etc etc). We should follow and summarize RS. Cinadon36 07:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course you are correct. I don't know if they are still around, but for years the article suffered from the tireless COI attentions of an editor connected with some obscure American organization with global pretentions, aspiring to be the Vatican of "humanism". Not sure how many editors are active here (not me), so you'd better give it a go yourself. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree, and I would add Tony Davies, Humanism (London & New York: The New Critical Idiom, 1997). Mballen (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The section on Italian humanism is a travesty that someone made up whole cloth out of their imagination. It is painful to read. Mballen (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Like perhaps much of this article, it was better (if longer) in the past - here's a version from 2015. Feel free to return to that. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect @Johnbod:, I disagree. The specific version has some significant problems. Fist, too many unnecessary and long quotations without adequate summarizing the era and secondly, an most important, it is not based on Reliable Resources focused on Humanism, but on RS examining Renaissance. If current version lacks depth, I think it would be better to do it using RS on humanism. It is in my to-do list actually, there is a chapter at Oxford Handbook of Humanism that is on R.Humanism. Give me some time and I will deliver! Cinadon36 05:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The current version is a complete pile of rubbish, and POV into the bargain; the 2015 one is probably too long, but that is relatively easily fixed. I don't actually see why, when dealing with Renaissance humanism, general sources on humanism are preferable to those on the Renaissance. On the whole, the latter are more likely to understand the context. I may not be able to resist a substitution for long, so please don't delay. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually I have considerable doubts about one of the books above (to which much of the rubbish is referenced). According to her (very small) publisher: Jeaneane D. Fowler "Jeaneane Fowler was formerly Head of Philosophy and Religious Studies at the University of Wales, Newport, and later an Honorary Research fellow. Her publications include Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices (Choice Outstanding Title, 1997; revised and enlarged to two volumes in 2019), and in the same series, Humanism, Chinese Religions, T'ai Chi Ch'üan, Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism in Wales; and books on the Philosophy of Hinduism, the Philosophy of Taoism, The Bhagavad Gita, and Causality." She spreads herself pretty thin, and can hardly be called a specialist on Renaissance humanism. We can do an awful lot better than this very easily, and have done in the past! Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I do think she is RS but if there are doubts there are plenty of other sources available. Certainly she is not super necessary for the subsection. I ll need a day or two. Cinadon36 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: how does it look now? [3] Philosophers Howler Fowler and Stephen Law are out. John Monfasani from The Oxford Handbook of Humanism (2020) Edited by Anthony B. Pinn is the main author, also Mann, Nicholas (1996). The origins of humanism". In Jill Kraye (ed.). "'The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism by Cambridge University Press. I think they are both great sources. Cinadon36 07:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humanism/Archive_8&oldid=1136805706"