Jump to content

Talk:Humanism/Archive 10

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

A couple more comments

The article has improved dramatically from when I first saw it, and I think the essay tag can come off with the resolution of these two issues:

  • One of the main issues that I still have is the use of quotes and excerpts to make a point that may or not be made by other reliable sources. For example, in the Enlightenment section, we have this: Previous appeals to "men" now shifted toward "man"; this is evident in political documents like The Social Contract (1762) of Rousseau, in which he says "Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains". Is there a source that says that Rousseau's comments reflect a development in humanism, or are we just saying that? If the former, it needs a source. If the latter, it needs to be replaced by a different example that is sourced. Same for the Brothers Karamazov quote in Themes: Morality and the Confucius quotes later (and was also true for the Camus quote).
  • The Geographies of humanism section is a little confusing, in that the individual sections don't seem to thematically hold together. Some are about an entire continental history, others about a single religion or religious figure, and then the Americas section just includes a very broad, sweeping statement about humanism in a single document (the US Constitution) with an inference made about the rest of US history. It feels...a little thrown together? I'm not sure that this section is really needed, as a lot of this could be merged into the history section (the Europe stuff already is) and the rest cut.

Let me know what you think. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I am glad @Alyo: you feel the article has improved. I share the same view.Cinadon36 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Quotes on the enlightenment section. Source (Davies, p 25), notices a shift during that era, he says the abstract notion of humanity was formed. He uses Rousseau's quote (and others) as example. He dedicates a section at his book on this shift. I think if we try, we could tell the same story without the quotation. Give me a couple of days and I will think of something. If you have something to suggest, please go ahead. Cinadon36 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
    Well to be clear, if the source uses that quote, then it's fine. We can just say "Davies points to Rousseau..." etc etc. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
    Ok, so I have made this edit [1]. Cinadon36 11:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    I do not have time for the rest, I will have a look on Monday. Cinadon36 11:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    No rush :) Alyo (chat·edits) 14:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Quoting Fyodor Dostoevsky (The Karamazov Brothers). This is a much quoted argument. Most books discussing humanism and morality of humanism, discuss this argument. The relation to humanistic morality is obvious. Richand Norman uses the quatation, as cited, but I am not sure that it would be an improvement if we write "Scholar Richard Norman points..." since many authors also pointed to the exact same issue. Cinadon36 16:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Quotes from Camus and Confucius. Yes, we could trim these quotes. The problem with Confucius, is that we will be trimming text from East Asia section which maybe is under-covered. I am not sure...I will think of something. Cinadon36 16:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
    Regarding Camus, I removed the last sentence of the paragraph. [2] It seem not necessary or redundant or "not necessary". Cinadon36 08:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
    Regarding Confucius, I also removed a sentence [3] I feel the relevance to humanism is apparent with the rest of the text. I remember the source relies heavily on quotes from Analects. Anyway, tell me what you think, before we move forward. Cinadon36 09:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've re-added the Camus line as I actually think it's still helpful? Unless you still want to remove that, I was talking more about the previous version of the paragraph. I think it looks good now. Re: Dostoevsky, can you just add a citation to Norman to the end of the sentence with the quotation, just so that it's clear that Norman also uses that specific quotation? You don't have to add "As scholar Richard Norman points out..." Alyo (chat·edits) 15:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Geographies of humanism

I see the problem you @Alyo: are pointing to. I followed the paradigm of Oxford Handbook of Humanism (2019) [6] where, as you can see if you follow the external link, the first section is dedicated to "Geographies of Humanism". There are 5 chapters. I thought something had to be told. I do not know what is the best solution now. Maybe removing the whole chapter? What would you suggest? Cinadon36 08:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit odd. I think we would need to have a clear plan for that section, and right now it seems like it's just us trying to copy a textbook. Perhaps we could aim, in the future, to have some content about the different expressions of humanism in different parts of the world? Or the different religious traditions that have simultaneously developed humanistic ideals? Maybe remove it for now, but in the future if you wanted to expand the article that might be a good place to start. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the text I removed. I am not sure how to fix the issue. We have to mention ancient China and other parts of the world. But history of humanism in China is not part of the history of the contemporary humanist movement. I shouldnt agree moving the text into the section of history of humanism. Cinadon36 10:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Geographies of humanism

Africa

In Africa, contemporary humanism has been shaped by the continent's colonial history, and the introduction of Christianity and Islam. African philosophers focused on inter-dependency among humans, and between humans and nature.[1] Pre-colonial oral traditions reflecting African views on humanity and human good were eliminated by the entrance of European powers. Christianity and Islam advanced, and many intra-African atrocities took place. Africans never abandoned the ideas of human value and the mutual interdependence of humans, which are core features of African humanism. This idea was advanced by philosophers such as Kwasi Wiredu and Jean-Godefroy Bidima. Wiredu emphasized the need of human interaction for humans to become what they are, and projected his thought to the need for democracy. Bidima added, the interaction should be enduringly, not an one time event.[2] According to socialist philosopher Léopold Sédar Senghor, Africans were naturally leaning towards humanism and socialism, not because of its scientific or epistemological basis, but because of their intuition.[3]

Middle East

It is a widely held view among scholars that due to the dominance of Islam, humanistic values found a hostile environment in the Middle East and were unable to flourish there.[4] According to scholar Khurram Hussain, however, some traits of the early Islamic world resemble humanism. He notes Islam unified a diverse population and provided political, epistemological, and social solutions to the then-fragmented Arab world.[5] Also according to Hussain, there is a form of humanism within the Islamic anthropology. To support his argument, he notes examples such as the lack of "original sin", indicating in Islamic theology the human is a free, moral agent. He also said Islamic scholars such as Ibn al-‛Arabī and al-Jīlī placed humans at the center of the universe, a place occupied by God in Christian traditions.[6] Khurram Hussain also notes the Arab Spring of 2011 revived certain humanistic values—including democracy, freedom, and fairness—in the Middle East, and argues they are not incompatible with Islam.[7]

East Asia

In East Asia, Confucianism's core ideas are humanistic.[8] The philosophy of Confucius (551–479 BCE), which became the basis of the state ideology of successive Chinese dynasties and nearby polities in East Asia, has several humanistic traits, placing a high value on human life, and discounting mysticism and superstition—including speculations on ghosts and an afterlife.[9] Confucianism is considered a religious form of humanism because supernatural phenomena such as Heaven (天; Tian)—which supposedly guides the world—have a place in it.[10] According to sinologist Theodore de Bary, in the Analects, humanist ideals include respectfulness, reasonableness, kindness, and enthusiasm for learning. A fundamental teaching of Confucius is a person can become a junzi (someone who is noble, just, or kind) through education. After Confucius' death, his disciple Mencius (371–289 BCE) centered his philosophies on secular, humanistic concerns like the nature of good governance and the role of education rather than on ideas founded on the state or folk religions.[11] Societies in China, Japan, and Korea were shaped by the prevalence of humanistic Confucianism.[8]

Early Taoism also had some humanistic tenets. Taoism initially developed as a naturalistic philosophy, aiming for the harmony of self, society, and the universe. Naturalness is achieved by wu wei (non‐action); philosopher Michael LaFargue said the philosophy's fundamental book, the Tao Te Ching, is based on humanistic thought.[12] Buddhism has also been noted to include elements of humanistic thought because Buddhism aims to the salvage humans from the sorrows of life, after abandoning egoistic tendencies, and coming in peace with society and universe.[13]

America

The United States Constitution was shaped by humanistic ideas originating from the Enlightenment but did not go far enough to tackle gender-and-race-inequality issues.[14] According to Carol Wayne White, Black communities experiencing injustice moved toward atheism in the 20th century. Later, many Black organizations loosely connected within the Black Lives Matter movement rejected theism or embraced a humanistic agenda.[15] Black literature reveals the quest for freedom and justice in a community often subordinated to white dominance.[16]

Humanism in Latin America is hard to detect, mainly because of the dominance of Catholicism and Protestantism.[17] European positivism had influenced the thought of scholars and political leaders in Latin America during the 19th century but its influences wavered in the next century.[18] Since 2017, the number of Latin America's humanist organizations registered in the International Humanist Association has increased.[19]

Europe

In Europe, various currents of 19th century thought, such as freethinkers, ethicists, atheists and rationalists have merged to form the contemporary humanist movement.[20] Various national organizations founded the European Humanist Federation (EHF) in 1991, affirming their support for secularism. All humanistic organizations promote a naturalistic worldview, scientific approach, individualism, and solidarity but they vary in terms of their practice. One view is that they should focus on meeting the needs of non-religious peoples and their members; the other is pursuing activism to bring about social change. These two main patterns in European humanism that coexist within humanist organizations often collude with each other.[21]

References

  1. ^ Masolo 2020, p. 1.
  2. ^ Masolo 2020, pp. 23–25.
  3. ^ Masolo 2020, p. 3.
  4. ^ Hussain 2020, pp. 1–2.
  5. ^ Hussain 2020, pp. 4–5.
  6. ^ Hussain 2020, pp. 8–12.
  7. ^ Hussain 2020, pp. 12.
  8. ^ a b Huang 2020, pp. 1–2.
  9. ^ Law 2011, chapter History of Humanism, #Confucius.
  10. ^ Heavens 2013, pp. 31–35; Yao 2000, pp. 44–45.
  11. ^ Fowler 2015, pp. 133–37.
  12. ^ Fowler 2015, pp. 139-141 & 147.
  13. ^ Fowler 2015, p. 147.
  14. ^ White 2020, p. 20.
  15. ^ White 2020, pp. 20–21.
  16. ^ White 2020, pp. 19–20.
  17. ^ White 2020, p. 19.
  18. ^ White 2020, pp. 17–18.
  19. ^ White 2020, p. 19:In just 12 months the IHEU has doubled its membership in Latin America, rising from 7 to 14 Member Organizations, in 9 countries or territories: Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, Suriname
  20. ^ Schröder 2020, p. 1.
  21. ^ Schröder 2020, pp. 13–14.

A few issues/suggestions

I don't think I have sufficient time or knowledge of Wikipedia to serve as GA reviewer, but I saw the nomination and gave the article a read-through. Mostly it looks very good. Here, however, are a few points for possible improvements:

  1. The History section seems quite admirably to cover a lot of ground in a relatively small amount of space. But I was surprised to see Erasmus get only one sentence. The article Wikilinks out, but isn't there something more to say in the main article about the "Prince of the Humanists"? He is usually the first figure I think of when I see a reference to humanism.
  2. Is there some non-obnoxious way to more often remind the reader that the humanism under discussion for most of the article is that of the 20th century on? (Or else change the title of the article, which I do not imagine editors want to do.)
  3. The section on the meaning of life implies Nietzsche is a humanist, but then he is discussed as an antihumanist (which I think is correct). This apparent contradiction should be addressed.
  4. The discussion of the Euthyphro does not make sense to me. The conclusion that "relativism is invited if God creates goodness" seems exactly the opposite of what would follow. I'm sure the dialogue is relevant to humanistic concerns, but the discussion here is not clear.
  5. The Antihumanism section could be much stronger without being much longer. My own sympathies are with humanism, but it would be worth clarifying that plenty of people reject humanism on admirably moral grounds. Just off-hand, I could direct editors to Michael E. Zimmerman's contribution to the Camb. Comp. to Heidegger, in which he links H.'s antihumanism to deep ecology. The argument might be lousy, but the intention is admirable. There are also other, less radical arguments for rejecting humanism in view of, for instance, findings about animal sentience.
  6. This might be overly specific to my own interests, but I would have liked even just a few more sentences explaining the way that Kant "provided the modern philosophical basis of the humanist narrative." Kant explicitly refuses to ground rationality, autonomy, etc. in human nature. It's not hard to see the appeal many of his ideas would have to humanists, but he himself would have rejected such an appropriation. So I'm just curious about how that played out.

Best wishes with the GA nomination —

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA @Cinadon36 :) Alyo (chat·edits) 21:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Alyo, couldnt have done this without your assistance! Cinadon36 21:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @PatrickJWelsh:, I have just seen your comment. I am so sorry I missed it. I was super busy in April. To address your points: (1) I tried to keep history section in a same proportion history covers most RS sources I had read- mostly the Oxford Handbook. Generally, because discussing History is easier than dealing with abstract meanings, I believe that most WP articles are overloaded with historical facts or even trivia. (2) I get your concern, it was mine concern as well. But almost all RS on the topic, use the word Humanism to address the contemporary movement, so I follow their lead. (3)As I get it, Nietzsche's ideas contributed to the development of both humanism and antihumanism; I wouldn't dare to put a label to Nietzsche. (4)The sentence is rephrased now (is it better?), but as I see it, if God creates goodness, it means that goodness is subjective to the will/opinion of God. Therefor, Goodness does not exist independently, which reflects moral absolutism.(5)If you have available RS on humanism, discussing these issues, pls do not hesitate to add/remove/edit the section. (6) I tried to avoid naming Kant as a humanist. I just wanted to highlight his influence on humanism. While I also do find discussing Kant interesting, I believe that it would be UNDUE WEIGHT to discuss him further. But as in 5. if you have the will and RS to improve the section, you are more than welcomed! Cinadon36 21:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Cinadon36,
No worries about missing my note. The GA nomination seems to have gone just fine without my suggestions, so congrats on that!
Just briefly to a few of your responses:
1) I would argue that (with some special exceptions) you do not understand a concept or thing until you understand its history. That said, however, you are certainly right that many Wikipedia articles are loaded with factually correct information that contributes nothing to an understanding their topic. And, anyway, I'm not here to start a philosophical argument.
4) I did not adequately explain my objection to your invocation of the Euthyphro. The problem is that the argument, as best I can make out, only works on the anthropomorphic Ancient Greek conception of the gods, who are famously petty and constantly disagree among themselves. In my anecdotal experience, Ivan's position is much more common among Christians today (and probably among many other monotheistic believers as well). According to Thomas Aquinas, for instance, God is the eternal law upon which divine, natural, and (our own imperfect) positive law depend. And it's not just Thomists who are today penning books and op-eds (for good university presses and mainstream legacy media, I must add) diagnosing every sort of social ill as a consequence of the decline of religion. There are obviously problems with their own premises (among other things, very likely), but I do not believe they are captured by the Euthyphro. So, I guess I would just advise against anyone invoking this in the context of a debate. But I don't think there's a problem with it being in the article. My only objection would be that you don't link out to any of the public-domain translations available online. That far down in a humanism article, you're probably just preaching to the choir, but I would still be inviting readers to check out the dialogue for themselves.
5 & 6) I will try keep this article in mind if I come across anything that might be a constructive contribution with respect to either of these points. Developing them could further strengthen the article, but I don't believe it strictly needs them. (My point about Kant, in particular, is probably endnote material that the article does not really need.)
In all events, thanks for all your hard work improving an article on such a dauntingly large and important topic!
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
1-I 've met this argument many times. I am kind of agnostic, both sides have good points. I dont know. I would welcome any bite of historical knowledge that contribute to better understanding today's essence of humanism.
4-Hm, I believe external links shouldn't be used within the text of article, per WP:EL, but maybe we can add this Euthyphro by Plato from Project Gutenberg or this [7] Euthyphro, section 2a (tufts.edu) at external links sections?
5-6-Maybe you are right about Kant. I will give it another thought later. Cinadon36 09:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 22:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Humanism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argenti Aertheri (talk · contribs) 22:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated at 2024-03-19 13:43:14 by Lowercase sigmabot III

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
2c) it contains no original research
2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

  • "the brevity of man's life". (80B4 DK)[17] Socrates spoke of" - What's with the stray "(80B4 DK)"? Move to citation maybe?
    • It is a form of citation of ancient texts. It is widely used, see for example here.[8] But you are right, I will move it to citation.
    • Changed [9]
  • "While there is a widely-held belief that the birth of humanism was solely a European affair" = weasel
    • I do not feel it is weasel, because according to source: In western genealogies, one popular starting point for the birth of Humanism is the Renaissance. Supposedly, Europe awoke from its medieval slumber and rediscovered classical knowledge, in particular the Ancient Greeks, which again placed Man as a dynamic agent at the center of the universe. and I believe this opinion is widely shared. It is not a controversial opinion. In any case, would you feel that if I move the attribution to the beginning of the sentence, would that be more appropriate?
    • Reworded [10]
  • "He gives as example the paradigm of Africa" - the what?
    • I have some rewording to do here...(I will do it by Sunday)
      • Is this better? [11] I believe the paradigm is explained now by the second half of the sentence.
  • "This was intended to be an atheist cult" - cult is a strong statement and needs either a direct quotation or an in text attribution (i.e. According to so-and-so this was...)
    • You are probably right. Changed. [12]
  • "Instead of a universal ethic code, Kant suggested a universal procedure that shapes the ethics that differ among groups of people.[66][failed verification]" - this absolutely must be fixed. I think this is probably the right SEP page.
    • Silly mistake. Fixed. [13]

@Cinadon36: That citation must be fixed before this can pass GA.

  • "If goodness is independent from God, humans can reach goodness without religion but relativism is invited if God creates goodness." - choosing a different verb here would make this much easier to understand.
    • I used the word "elicited". Maybe "introduced" is a better word choice? [14]
  • "does God command something because it is good or is something good because God commands it?" - Direct quotes require direct citations
  • "Humanism was associated with prominent thinkers who rationally advocated against the existence of God." - I know you mean rationality as a philosophical concept, you know that's what you mean, but what that says is "they logically/sensibly/obviously advocated against the existence of God"
    • Is this any better? (Humanism was linked with prominent thinkers who advocated against the existence of God using rationalistic arguments) [16]
  • "Copson sees elements of religion, such as belief, practice, identity and culture, in which a person adhering to few religious doctrines could also be humanist." - that's not a sentence
    • Correct, fixed. [17]
  • "Other critics say humanism is an oppressive philosophy because it is not free from the biases of the white, heterosexual males who shaped it." - which other critics?
  • "After the atrocities of World War II" - should atrocities be in wikivoice? I'm not sure if that runs afoul of 1b, or is just a fact.
    • I am not a great fun of wikivoice, but I believe in such cases, it is useful. I mean, there is almost universal consensus that during WWII, atrocities have been committed.
  • You moved (80B4 DK) to the citation (thank you), but you're now defining "FOOTNOTELaw2011chapter History of Humanism, #Ancient Greece" twice.
    • It does not appear in my browser. Has anybody fixed that?

Sorry about just leaving that marked as a weasel before, I must've missed that one when turning my notes into a review. Everything looks okay enough, but those citations have to be fixed before the minor copy edit issues matter. I'm going to put the GA nomination on hold for the week to give you time to track down that failed verification. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 05:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to sort this by the end of the weekend. Cinadon36 21:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok, ping me when you're ready ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 00:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
How does it look now @Argenti Aertheri:? Cheers, Cinadon36 21:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Everything looks good except it's still not clear to me what the paradigm of Africa actually is. Maybe a wikilink? ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 22:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hm, there is no wikilink to that. I am inclined to removing the sentence, it is not that significant. Would that be ok? Cinadon36 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
@Argenti Aertheri hm, it looks better now, in my opinion. [19]Cinadon36 22:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed! ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 22:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving ref at the end of the sentence

@Manbooferie:, regarding this edit [20] I assume you have read Norman's work, and your addition is based on that? If that is the case, the reference should be added at the end of the sentence. I fixed it [21] but pls confirm that you have read Norman and the addition is based on him. Cinadon36 20:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you assume correctly, I've read it. 84.92.96.230 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cinadon36 Forgot to log in. Yes, I've read it Manbooferie (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Cinadon36 21:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Incidentally, do you normally ask an editor if he/she has read the text that they've added? I've never been asked in 10 years until now. What matters surely, as per Wikipedia rules, is that any such edits are verifiable with good sources, which I believe is the case here. Manbooferie (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I normally do not move refs, but since ref had to be moved at the end of the paragraf, I felt I had to ask. The question was if you had read Norman and whether the addition was based on him.Cinadon36 07:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Kant

The Philosophy section begins with Kant and a bold statement that he "provided the modern philosophical basis of the humanist narrative". This struck me as odd when I first read it and seems out of place. Kant's philosophy of course has humanistic elements (ethics, morality etc) and he could be regarded as a forerunner of secular humanism, but the implication that his influence was in some way foundational to humanism is surely misleading if not wrong? I note that a reviewer of this article (see above under issues/suggestions) also queried the emphasis placed on Kant's role. The main article about Kant makes no mention of humanism at all. So, my suggestion:
- move the first paragraph (about Kant) to the end of the Philosophy section.
- add a sentence or two or reference(s) to clarify that Kant wasn't a humanist as we now understand the term.
Agree? Manbooferie (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

yeap, agreed! Go for it! Cinadon36 10:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humanism/Archive_10&oldid=1214523841"