|This subject is featured in the Outline of humanism, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 180 days may be archived by.|
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". 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 , altruism toward others , and meritocracy .
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 , altruism toward others , and meritocracy " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
- 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)
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 188.8.131.52 (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)
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)
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.)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
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
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)