My notes ;
My samples ;
My comments ;
My sandbox1 ;
My sandbox2 ;
My sandbox3
CURRENT TALK PAGE
Humanism in a historical perspective
Section title created on 21 Aug 2006 to hold related comments as subsections.
Humanism's genesis
0riginally a section rather uninformatively titled 'Humanism'
The genesis of Humanism lay in the belief among 14/15c scholars that true worth was to be found in the "litterae humaniores" of ancient Rome, and in the study of Latin, NOT Greek, as is stated here. (Interest in Greek was re-awakened later.) The heroes of the early Humanist thinkers were the Roman sages Cicero, Livy, Tacitus and Seneca, among many others. — 202.156.2.58 6 Apr 2005 (was unsigned, undated)
Two historical points and One on relevance of historical humanism today
Originally a section created at top of this talk page.
I agree about the article not being clear, but from the completely opposite viewpoint (than those described below [note by refactorer: assumedly then 2 sections lower by Upfront 2 Jul 2005). I seem to agree with Buridan. I have two main points: (1) history of humanism, especially 13-15th c, is missing. (2) the roots of christian european humanism in arab humanism (known as 'Adab' - Humanism) ie writing in arabic (by christian, muslim and jewish writers) of the 9th to 13th c. is also missing.
The first problem is straight forward and can be solved through input from a historian of the medieval-renaissance europe intellectual history. Historians who have written on this include paul kristellar, cassirer, donald kelley, many others.
The second problem can be solved by historians of muslim intellectual history especially covering the arab-muslim-christian-jewish interactions in byzantium (damscus, aleppo), baghdad, codoba, sicily and other mediteranean states. These would include historians such as W. Montgomery Watt 'The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe' (Edinburgh: University Press, 1972), George Makdisi, 'The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981), and The Rise of Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), and Franz Rosenthal 'The Classical Heritage in Islam, Emile and Jenny Marmorstein, trans. (New York: Routledge, 1992).
If we look at the history of humanism (and also the history of philosophy) we will see that religion and humanism have (often) been hand in hand. Some try to separate them. Modern 'notions' of 'humanism' always being 'secular' or 'nonreligious' are erroneous if they try to cover all historical humanism in their generalization. The same can be demonstrated in philosophy.
I would refer to christian humanists of the thirteenth to fifteenth century and arab humanists of ninth to thirteenth century (rouphly) in support of this. [Note: The history of humanism in Wikipedia, besides the inadequate 'Renaissance' entry, is totally missing. Hence, I argue, all the confusion.] Among pre-Renaissance figures are Marsilio Ficino, Pico Mirandolla, another Pico and precursors include dante and boccacio. Key texts are 'Orations on the Dignity of Man' and others. Many of these entries are here on Wikipedia, and quite adequate, if possibly neglecting point No.2, which Makdisi or example brings out - concerning 'adab' humanism taught as a subject in the muslim colleges such as in baghdad 12th c.
If we trace Dantes inluences (in Wikipedia), we go back to the 'Sicillian school' and the court of 'Frederik II of Sicily'. If we look at influences, later adventures and the early life of Frdederik II (for example thru Wikipedia) we will easily see the influence of arab culture. This is one line of capturing the interaction of the many local flavors with the 'inspired' (later 'enlightened') cultural influences of the muslim, jewish and christian arabs, already floating around the mediterranean for awhile.
responding to another point: I think the comparison of the renaissance with our times is incisively relevant because of the play between technological development and the human spirit. I think we would be cutting our roots off thinking what we have, happened out of the blue. We have everything to learn, especially from humanism, as we move in a post-human society like the modern industrial economies.
Best. i am not a historian but how can i be of help. Ibn-arabi 15:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
More on History
Originally a section created at top of this talk page, following the bad example by Ibn-arabi 3 Jan 2006.
I basically agree with Ibn-arabi here. Without a discussion of Erasmus (Thomas More etc.) and the reformation of the catholic church this section seems very incomplete and distorted. A lot of the key information is already in Wikipedia elsewhere and just needs cross-linking. Secular humanism has co-opted the term humanism but in no way eclipsed its original meaning and what is a critical piece of christian history as the article currently appears to imply. Interestingly, I have a 20 year old copy of encyclopaedia brittanica which by comparison fails to mention secular humanism at all, but devotes over 5 pages to Erasmus and the shift in catholic philosophy from a fatalistic to a humanist one. A change which almost certainly had wider support and a greater impact on western civilization that the advent of secular humanism has yet to muster. — 84.92.123.69 12 Jan 2006 (was unsigned, undated)
Other influences on modern Humanism
Originally a section, moved here as subsection on 21 Aug 2006.
The article is good - much better than it was a year ago.
It's fair to say that the European Renaissance was a critical period in the development of ideas that eventually gave rise to modern Humanism. I feel however that the article needs to say more about other influences on modern Humanism in the description of its History. It is not an entirely western way of thinking. Many modern Humanists I know, including myself, have been and continue to be, inspired by the philosophical ideas of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, for example. It can be argued that European philosophers like Nietzsche (who has been an inspiration for many Humanists) was influenced by eastern ideas through Schopenhauer who had studied Buddhism (albeit with poor translations). The influence of Arab thinkers on the renaissance needs to be stated more explicitly.
It's important to make it clear that Humanism is not only product of Western culture. Paul B. 17 Jan 2006 (signed as shown, IP id other contributions; undated)
Speciesism
I was thinking of replacing the section on speciesism with the following:
- ---Humanism and anthropocentrism ---
- A distinction is often made between philosophies such as humanism, that recognize and exalt the value of what can be seen as specifically human traits, and related philosophies such as anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism, which hold that humans because of this have a status and rights which no other creature may have. Some have interpreted humanism as a form of speciesism (similar to racism), often because of the word itself.
- Proponents of the latter philosophies tend towards a view that, because other species are not human, therefore they de facto have none of the rights we classify under
human rights and should not be considered capable of
personhood. Humanists tend to differ from this view and hold that whilst humans should aspire to be the best that humans can be, this does not exclude respect for, and valuing of, other species and other animal's world-view as well. For these reasons, humanism appears to be neutral with regard to issues of
animal rights.
Comments? FT2 ( Talk) 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- It sounds better than what is in the article at present, however this could turn into a very controversial section. I think your edits are a good start in the right direction. — Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that humanism has nothing to do with putting humans first or knocking non-human animals. This is, at best, a misconception, and the suggested edit only furthers the misconception. Alienus 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- At the cost of adding lots of words that don't improve the article and make it less clear whether humanism means hating non-humans. It's not a positive change. Alienus 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the issue on speciesism is a very valid negative view on humanism that is completely ommited in the current article. There is a whole literature on this, and many contemporary philosophers (including Derrida) use the word meaning exactly that. This is not simply a mis-understanding. -- 132.239.66.166 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Tech: template errors
I'm getting this ugly error smack dab on the top of the article:
Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Humanism.png': No such file or directory. convert: unable to open file `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Humanism.png'. convert: missing an image filename `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Humanism.png/50px-Humanism.png'.
I tried to figure it out but can't... somebody who knows how please fix -- Davidkazuhiro 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I see no such error in either Firefox or IE. Perhaps it was just a temporary problem on the Wikipedia servers? - Rhwentworth 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes the problem seems to be gone from this article but it still pops up on the other humanism articles. Have you tried checking the others? Use Firefox, IE and Maxthon and the same problem persists for all. Most likely server problem but its lasted for a while now. Its just weird how the same template is fine on some articles but screws up on others. Please check the other Humanism articles and see for yourself. I just did so myself -- Davidkazuhiro 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Tech: deletion/copyvio
just had to delete the page because an anon inserted copyrighted info. should be back in ten minutes or so, sorry for the delay . . . -- he ah 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- okay it's back . . . seems like there must be an easier way to do this than having to click on 850 different reversions to restore them, when only 3 were being left out . . . But as far as i know there isn't. -- he ah 01:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Style: vagueness, "parochial"
The opening section talks about universal morality and something about problems being parochial. This gets redirected to "parish", so my first thought is that humanists advocate a world state, which is surely wrong. So what does this sentence mean? Bob A 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am not very family with Humanism but something is telling me this article is propaganda and misleading. It is very vague. -- HResearcher 09:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- The link for the word parochial near the beginning refers to the parish article, whereas I think it should refer to the parochialism article. How is this changed? Azlib77 20 Aug 2006
- The 'parish' link under "parochial" was highly inappropriate, the one Viriditas put there is the right one. Though I think that article emphasises too much on governments. In this context the term has similar but more general meaning. Like in countries where every village and every part of town has a parish ([Late] Latin: parochia) with typically locally organized circles, events, etc: focused on the local scale (thus within a particular point of view), having (too) little contact with and thus interest for and knowledge about the universal scale (like the parish belonging to a much larger Church that mainly has more, other, and perhaps more important things in mind). "Parochial" is a rather polite adjective to point out showing an interest only in the close (at heart) aspects of what is mainly a much broader subject. — SomeHuman 21 Aug 2006 01:27 (UTC)
My notes ;
My samples ;
My comments ;
My sandbox1 ;
My sandbox2 ;
My sandbox3
CURRENT TALK PAGE
Humanism in a historical perspective
Section title created on 21 Aug 2006 to hold related comments as subsections.
Humanism's genesis
0riginally a section rather uninformatively titled 'Humanism'
The genesis of Humanism lay in the belief among 14/15c scholars that true worth was to be found in the "litterae humaniores" of ancient Rome, and in the study of Latin, NOT Greek, as is stated here. (Interest in Greek was re-awakened later.) The heroes of the early Humanist thinkers were the Roman sages Cicero, Livy, Tacitus and Seneca, among many others. — 202.156.2.58 6 Apr 2005 (was unsigned, undated)
Two historical points and One on relevance of historical humanism today
Originally a section created at top of this talk page.
I agree about the article not being clear, but from the completely opposite viewpoint (than those described below [note by refactorer: assumedly then 2 sections lower by Upfront 2 Jul 2005). I seem to agree with Buridan. I have two main points: (1) history of humanism, especially 13-15th c, is missing. (2) the roots of christian european humanism in arab humanism (known as 'Adab' - Humanism) ie writing in arabic (by christian, muslim and jewish writers) of the 9th to 13th c. is also missing.
The first problem is straight forward and can be solved through input from a historian of the medieval-renaissance europe intellectual history. Historians who have written on this include paul kristellar, cassirer, donald kelley, many others.
The second problem can be solved by historians of muslim intellectual history especially covering the arab-muslim-christian-jewish interactions in byzantium (damscus, aleppo), baghdad, codoba, sicily and other mediteranean states. These would include historians such as W. Montgomery Watt 'The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe' (Edinburgh: University Press, 1972), George Makdisi, 'The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981), and The Rise of Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), and Franz Rosenthal 'The Classical Heritage in Islam, Emile and Jenny Marmorstein, trans. (New York: Routledge, 1992).
If we look at the history of humanism (and also the history of philosophy) we will see that religion and humanism have (often) been hand in hand. Some try to separate them. Modern 'notions' of 'humanism' always being 'secular' or 'nonreligious' are erroneous if they try to cover all historical humanism in their generalization. The same can be demonstrated in philosophy.
I would refer to christian humanists of the thirteenth to fifteenth century and arab humanists of ninth to thirteenth century (rouphly) in support of this. [Note: The history of humanism in Wikipedia, besides the inadequate 'Renaissance' entry, is totally missing. Hence, I argue, all the confusion.] Among pre-Renaissance figures are Marsilio Ficino, Pico Mirandolla, another Pico and precursors include dante and boccacio. Key texts are 'Orations on the Dignity of Man' and others. Many of these entries are here on Wikipedia, and quite adequate, if possibly neglecting point No.2, which Makdisi or example brings out - concerning 'adab' humanism taught as a subject in the muslim colleges such as in baghdad 12th c.
If we trace Dantes inluences (in Wikipedia), we go back to the 'Sicillian school' and the court of 'Frederik II of Sicily'. If we look at influences, later adventures and the early life of Frdederik II (for example thru Wikipedia) we will easily see the influence of arab culture. This is one line of capturing the interaction of the many local flavors with the 'inspired' (later 'enlightened') cultural influences of the muslim, jewish and christian arabs, already floating around the mediterranean for awhile.
responding to another point: I think the comparison of the renaissance with our times is incisively relevant because of the play between technological development and the human spirit. I think we would be cutting our roots off thinking what we have, happened out of the blue. We have everything to learn, especially from humanism, as we move in a post-human society like the modern industrial economies.
Best. i am not a historian but how can i be of help. Ibn-arabi 15:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
More on History
Originally a section created at top of this talk page, following the bad example by Ibn-arabi 3 Jan 2006.
I basically agree with Ibn-arabi here. Without a discussion of Erasmus (Thomas More etc.) and the reformation of the catholic church this section seems very incomplete and distorted. A lot of the key information is already in Wikipedia elsewhere and just needs cross-linking. Secular humanism has co-opted the term humanism but in no way eclipsed its original meaning and what is a critical piece of christian history as the article currently appears to imply. Interestingly, I have a 20 year old copy of encyclopaedia brittanica which by comparison fails to mention secular humanism at all, but devotes over 5 pages to Erasmus and the shift in catholic philosophy from a fatalistic to a humanist one. A change which almost certainly had wider support and a greater impact on western civilization that the advent of secular humanism has yet to muster. — 84.92.123.69 12 Jan 2006 (was unsigned, undated)
Other influences on modern Humanism
Originally a section, moved here as subsection on 21 Aug 2006.
The article is good - much better than it was a year ago.
It's fair to say that the European Renaissance was a critical period in the development of ideas that eventually gave rise to modern Humanism. I feel however that the article needs to say more about other influences on modern Humanism in the description of its History. It is not an entirely western way of thinking. Many modern Humanists I know, including myself, have been and continue to be, inspired by the philosophical ideas of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, for example. It can be argued that European philosophers like Nietzsche (who has been an inspiration for many Humanists) was influenced by eastern ideas through Schopenhauer who had studied Buddhism (albeit with poor translations). The influence of Arab thinkers on the renaissance needs to be stated more explicitly.
It's important to make it clear that Humanism is not only product of Western culture. Paul B. 17 Jan 2006 (signed as shown, IP id other contributions; undated)
Speciesism
I was thinking of replacing the section on speciesism with the following:
- ---Humanism and anthropocentrism ---
- A distinction is often made between philosophies such as humanism, that recognize and exalt the value of what can be seen as specifically human traits, and related philosophies such as anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism, which hold that humans because of this have a status and rights which no other creature may have. Some have interpreted humanism as a form of speciesism (similar to racism), often because of the word itself.
- Proponents of the latter philosophies tend towards a view that, because other species are not human, therefore they de facto have none of the rights we classify under
human rights and should not be considered capable of
personhood. Humanists tend to differ from this view and hold that whilst humans should aspire to be the best that humans can be, this does not exclude respect for, and valuing of, other species and other animal's world-view as well. For these reasons, humanism appears to be neutral with regard to issues of
animal rights.
Comments? FT2 ( Talk) 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- It sounds better than what is in the article at present, however this could turn into a very controversial section. I think your edits are a good start in the right direction. — Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that humanism has nothing to do with putting humans first or knocking non-human animals. This is, at best, a misconception, and the suggested edit only furthers the misconception. Alienus 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- At the cost of adding lots of words that don't improve the article and make it less clear whether humanism means hating non-humans. It's not a positive change. Alienus 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the issue on speciesism is a very valid negative view on humanism that is completely ommited in the current article. There is a whole literature on this, and many contemporary philosophers (including Derrida) use the word meaning exactly that. This is not simply a mis-understanding. -- 132.239.66.166 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Tech: template errors
I'm getting this ugly error smack dab on the top of the article:
Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Humanism.png': No such file or directory. convert: unable to open file `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Humanism.png'. convert: missing an image filename `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Humanism.png/50px-Humanism.png'.
I tried to figure it out but can't... somebody who knows how please fix -- Davidkazuhiro 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I see no such error in either Firefox or IE. Perhaps it was just a temporary problem on the Wikipedia servers? - Rhwentworth 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes the problem seems to be gone from this article but it still pops up on the other humanism articles. Have you tried checking the others? Use Firefox, IE and Maxthon and the same problem persists for all. Most likely server problem but its lasted for a while now. Its just weird how the same template is fine on some articles but screws up on others. Please check the other Humanism articles and see for yourself. I just did so myself -- Davidkazuhiro 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Tech: deletion/copyvio
just had to delete the page because an anon inserted copyrighted info. should be back in ten minutes or so, sorry for the delay . . . -- he ah 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- okay it's back . . . seems like there must be an easier way to do this than having to click on 850 different reversions to restore them, when only 3 were being left out . . . But as far as i know there isn't. -- he ah 01:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Style: vagueness, "parochial"
The opening section talks about universal morality and something about problems being parochial. This gets redirected to "parish", so my first thought is that humanists advocate a world state, which is surely wrong. So what does this sentence mean? Bob A 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am not very family with Humanism but something is telling me this article is propaganda and misleading. It is very vague. -- HResearcher 09:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- The link for the word parochial near the beginning refers to the parish article, whereas I think it should refer to the parochialism article. How is this changed? Azlib77 20 Aug 2006
- The 'parish' link under "parochial" was highly inappropriate, the one Viriditas put there is the right one. Though I think that article emphasises too much on governments. In this context the term has similar but more general meaning. Like in countries where every village and every part of town has a parish ([Late] Latin: parochia) with typically locally organized circles, events, etc: focused on the local scale (thus within a particular point of view), having (too) little contact with and thus interest for and knowledge about the universal scale (like the parish belonging to a much larger Church that mainly has more, other, and perhaps more important things in mind). "Parochial" is a rather polite adjective to point out showing an interest only in the close (at heart) aspects of what is mainly a much broader subject. — SomeHuman 21 Aug 2006 01:27 (UTC)