Talk:Humanism

Template:Vital article

You don't mention everything

you write: "prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism)"

Critical thinking is very generic without a framing method because it includes philosophical reasoning based on common sense; and we know form facts than neuroscience, astrophysics and in general science, isn't usually explainable with common sense. As a matter of fact common sense leads to mistakes if the question is about an intricate issue.

The two important methods of safe reasoning are:

1. scientific empiricism: observational data, because lay-empiricism includes hallucination and intoxication not recorded from the side of the scientist
2. rigorous mathematical proofs; if possible metalogically causal (the mere collage of formulas is gerrymandering; the formulas should be causally linked and not a biased fabrication)

Humanism evolves, and is linked to the evolution of humanity and philosophy. Be fair. Write "old" and "new" values. It's a lie to claim that old humanists have the same non-evolving values with the modern ones. Write that the main idea is the same, but refined, because the philosophical evolution and the notional/conceptual evolution of humanity are components of humanism. Humanism isn't statistic (humanity isn't statistic; thus by definition humanism isn't also).

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)

"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)