Humanism?

[Frank Zapatista]

Can somebody please explain the basic tenets of Humanism to me? I read the wikipedia article but I cant quite wrap my head around it as a universal philosophy. It appears to have been founded as a Christian movement and yet, is secular? There are Jewish, Muslim, Christian and even Marxist branches of it, what is the unifying philosophy ans is it really compatible with Communist theory? If there are any Marxist humanists here, Im sure they could help.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm not a humanist per se, but here's a real simple overview of my understanding of the position. The basic metaphysical position is that human beings are the basis of value and that the job of social institutions is to help people become the fullest and most actual human being. Freedom is valued, as is thought and reason, as these are viewed as the faculties which are necessary to allow one to actualize their humanity.

It is compatible with socialism in general, and Marx had a humanist phase though I haven't read what he wrote, however it predated his move towards a more strictly scientific position. From what I do remember however is that early on he had a humanist notion of "alienation" in that the separation of a worker from what he produces and what he works on dehumanizes the worker, turning them into a "cog in the machine". It is a flexible philosophy in that it can be held by people with varying beliefs. One could be a Christian or Muslim humanist, but I see less of a point since one already has God to ground their metaphysics. One can think of it as a secular religion, although this is doing humanism a disservice as it is so much more.

anyhow im tired so i guess this explanation isnt as eloquent as i would have liked.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can somebody please explain the basic tenets of Humanism to me? I read the wikipedia article but I cant quite wrap my head around it as a universal philosophy. It appears to have been founded as a Christian movement and yet, is secular? There are Jewish, Muslim, Christian and even Marxist branches of it, what is the unifying philosophy ans is it really compatible with Communist theory? If there are any Marxist humanists here, Im sure they could help.

The basic concept of "humanism" is that human actions shape the human world - as opposed to divine interventions. In this broad sense, capitalist liberalism and Marxism are descendants of humanist thought. Marxism is a direct follower of humanism as the left-Hegelians considered themselves part of that tradition in opposition to supernatural ideas about the world.

Within a materialist view of the world, humanism doesn't stand in opposition to the belief in supernatural explanations for things (although there is a lot of idealism common in society) but in opposition to mechanical views of the world.

I think any radical has to be a humanist on a very basic level to believe that humans crated this organization of society and can potentially create a better way of running society.

[cenv]

Can somebody please explain the basic tenets of Humanism to me? I read the wikipedia article but I cant quite wrap my head around it as a universal philosophy. It appears to have been founded as a Christian movement and yet, is secular? There are Jewish, Muslim, Christian and even Marxist branches of it, what is the unifying philosophy ans is it really compatible with Communist theory? If there are any Marxist humanists here, Im sure they could help.
It's better to think of it as a general approach to understanding reality, not a specific philosophy that people identify with like Marxism. It has to do with interpreting the world in terms of human values and human experience. It's often associated with Enlightenment because it marks a shift away from world views oriented around some transcendent, divine law.

In the context of Marxism, humanism implies more focus on the "early Marx" -- alienation, species-being, etc. Antihumanist Marxism (eg. Louis Althusser) emphasizes the "scientific" view that humans are basically the extension of social forces and downplays the strands of Marxian theory that deal with subjective human experience. Humanist Marxists would say that Marx's early and later writings complement each other, while antihumanists argue for a definitive split between the two.

But in a more general sense, both Marxism and bourgeois liberalism arise from the shift towards humanist thinking in modern thought.

[Hermes]

I'm not a humanist per se, but here's a real simple overview of my understanding of the position. The basic metaphysical position is that human beings are the basis of value and that the job of social institutions is to help people become the fullest and most actual human being. Freedom is valued, as is thought and reason, as these are viewed as the faculties which are necessary to allow one to actualize their humanity.

It is compatible with socialism in general, and Marx had a humanist phase though I haven't read what he wrote, however it predated his move towards a more strictly scientific position. From what I do remember however is that early on he had a humanist notion of "alienation" in that the separation of a worker from what he produces and what he works on dehumanizes the worker, turning them into a "cog in the machine". It is a flexible philosophy in that it can be held by people with varying beliefs. One could be a Christian or Muslim humanist, but I see less of a point since one already has God to ground their metaphysics. One can think of it as a secular religion, although this is doing humanism a disservice as it is so much more.

anyhow im tired so i guess this explanation isnt as eloquent as i would have liked.

To add a little to this, during the Renaissance, Humanism allowed people from the Christian world to view people of other religions as still being able to contribute to society, as all things created by humanity have value. (also added a resurgence of the classics, translated from islamic.. translations)

This was while the Christian Church was in full swing, authoritatively. That's why it can be both a secular movement, though still have its roots in Christianity.
--

Uh, actually, I feel like I'm entirely in the wrong here. If so, please ignore the post and forgive me for my ignorance.

[Kroksyist]

Humanism is a movement characterized by various themes, conceptions, principles and tenets, primarily that there is a human essence, and that this essence must be found, and this "tenet" may be construed as the statement that the human essence precedes the existence of the human, and thus that the humans job is to approximate it rather to bring it about. The human is the primary subject, and thus the primary object of attention, and by extension the measure of everything else: hence, it is the preservation, protection, welfare, etc., of the human being that is primary above everything else, as he is the origin of worth and can bring about worth in the world. There is much more worth, thus, also, to what is directly accessible to humans: direct experience, rationality, etcetera. The goal is to "become further human", or "confront and be in harmony with our humanity". You can see the supernatural and divine sort of takes a back-door except as a vehicle for the affirmation of the human, his humanity, and that which is directly accessible to him. The supernatural and divinity therefore lose a bit of relevance.

Marxism is a humanism insofar as humanism sees the human historical determination a result of humanity's capacity of intelligently organizing production to "create itself" by constant technological and informatic renovation. However, there are some antihumanist Marxist currents, most exemplary Althusser, predominantly influenced by post-structuralism/structuralism/postmodernism.

[Rafiq]

The basic concept of "humanism" is that human actions shape the human world - as opposed to divine interventions. In this broad sense, capitalist liberalism and Marxism are descendants of humanist thought. Marxism is a direct follower of humanism as the left-Hegelians considered themselves part of that tradition in opposition to supernatural ideas about the world.

Within a materialist view of the world, humanism doesn't stand in opposition to the belief in supernatural explanations for things (although there is a lot of idealism common in society) but in opposition to mechanical views of the world.

I think any radical has to be a humanist on a very basic level to believe that humans crated this organization of society and can potentially create a better way of running society.

Marxism isn't humanist by any means. Young Marx was indeed a Humanist, but all of this changed soon enough.

Humanism is antithetical to Materialist thought as it is a form of universalist ethics.

[L.A.P.]

Humanism in philosophy and social science presupposes some inherent human nature and believes that individual consciousness has primacy over structure and social relations. It can be rooted in the Cartesian idea on the foundation of subjectivity; cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"). This type of thought in Marxism was popular with thinkers like Georg Lukacs who believed that emancipation was contingent on the development of class conciousness of the proletariat as a historical subject. I kind of agree with Louis Althusser's criticisms of humanism, that individuals are not autonomous subjects completely responsible of their own actions but subjects constituted by the material conditions of society and its ideologies. Even Young Marx opposed the political struggle in the form of fighting for human rights as embodying the very dehumanization of capitalism, people are made egotistic to survive and thus in conflict with other people so they try to gain more freedom from each other's influence.

[Franz Fanonipants]

better latin translations

wait

[hatzel]

Humanism in philosophy and social science presupposes some inherent human nature


I kind of agree with Louis Althusser's criticisms of humanism, that individuals are not autonomous subjects completely responsible of their own actions but subjects constituted by the material conditions of society and its ideologiesThis strikes me as somewhat too simplistic. For example, Erich Fromm - certainly considered a humanist, though perhaps a 'late humanist' or one marking the transition out of humanism or whatever I dunno what you want to call it - didn't exactly posit much of an inherent human nature (beyond perhaps the desire to survive, whilst also acknowledging that some didn't even exhibit that clearly), and outlined a number of potential natures or categories of natures. Nor did he claim that individuals are autonomous subjects - he acknowledged that Freud had effectively stripped the individual of autonomy in the absolute sense - and his concept of social character could quite fairly be summarised as the claim that individuals are (at least partly) "subjects constituted by the material conditions of society and its ideologies."

[L.A.P.]

This strikes me as somewhat too simplistic. For example, Erich Fromm - certainly considered a humanist, though perhaps a 'late humanist' or one marking the transition out of humanism or whatever I dunno what you want to call it - didn't exactly posit much of an inherent human nature (beyond perhaps the desire to survive, whilst also acknowledging that some didn't even exhibit that clearly), and outlined a number of potential natures or categories of natures. Nor did he claim that individuals are autonomous subjects - he acknowledged that Freud had effectively stripped the individual of autonomy in the absolute sense - and his concept of social character could quite fairly be summarised as the claim that individuals are (at least partly) "subjects constituted by the material conditions of society and its ideologies."

Yeah, he also believed socialism could be acheived by means of reform and he also thought the problem with Marxism was its lack of an ideal of freedom (which I believe assumes some form of inherent human nature). Humanism is a heterogenous school of thought though.

[Sans]

The freedom of humans can not be determined by theory or philosophy, it is something which is discernible through observing fellow humans, their behavior and society. We already know it, I think that's why most of us would go to a site such as this.

[hatzel]

Yeah, he also believed socialism could be acheived by means of reform and he also thought the problem with Marxism was its lack of an ideal of freedom (which I believe assumes some form of inherent human nature). Humanism is a heterogenous school of thought though.

Some reeeally good on-topic stuff there, thanks...

I'm stating that your definition of humanism is flawed because humanists themselves hold humanist positions directly opposed to the supposedly fundamental tenants of humanism you outlined. What else this or that humanist happened to think about anything is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, don't you think?

The only thing that sucks more than your understanding of humanism is humanism itself...

[L.A.P.]

I'm stating that your definition of humanism is flawed because humanists themselves hold humanist positions directly opposed to the supposedly fundamental tenants of humanism you outlined.

Hence why I said "humanism is a heterogeneous school of thought".


What else this or that humanist happened to think about anything is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, don't you think?

How Eric Fromm thought socialism could be acheived is completely relevant to his philosophy as a whole.