Definition of Humanism [Split from "Humanism"]

[BDS]

Humanism implies an interest in the works of man. When the word is co-opted by atheists, it subtly implies that religions people cannot have that same interest, which is obviously ridiculous, given Erasmus and More. The root of the word is the same as "The Humanities", which we study at Universities. One of the academic Humanities, by the way, is Religion.

"Universist" (which I'd never heard before) seems to be another silly, contrived word. The first part of the definition lauds the universists' aherence to "personal reason" and "experience", the second explains that he "denies the validity of revelation, faith and dogma." That's not a definition, but an argument. The hint is that anyone who adheres to "personal reason" will deny faith.

[SEF]

How odd. Are you spoofing, BDS?

Humanism in my dictionary is the rejection of religion in favour of the belief that humans can/do/did advance by their own efforts. NB 150 years ago "humanist" was still about the study of humans as opposed to the divine and even back in the 14th-16th centuries humanism was about human interests to explicitly contrast it with studies of divinity.

So I'd say that when the word "humanism" is co-opted by theists it subtly implies that the non-religious can't have the same interests - which is obviously ridiculous especially for the optimists (whereas the pessimists might be certain that humans are doomed to ruining the planet - which is a position most resembling religious/creationist ideas of a fall/curse/rapture disaster).

[BDS]

Your dictionary sucks, SEF. Actually, lexicographers construe definitions based on usage: no doubt they are correct in recognizing the atheists have SUCCESSFULLY transformed the meaning of the word. That doesn't mean I can't object.

This from my dictionary: "Humanism (with a capital H): The intellectual and literary movement during the Renaissance, and the study of Greek and Roman classics and by an emphasis on human interests rather than on religion or the world of nature."

Here's the appropriate definition of humanism (small "h"): A system or attitude in thought, religion, etc. in which human ideals and the perfection of the human personality are made central.

This dictionary was published in 1971. No doubt the word has been co-opted, but such was its meaning a mere 30 years ago. If you notice, humanism, back then, could be "a system in religion....", which is precisely what it was for More and Erasmus. Why is it that many want to take a perfectly good word, and change its meaning around? I would argue that there's sort of a vague, warm, fuzzy feeling surrounding the word "humanism", which does not surround the word "atheism" or "agnosticism". It's like being "pro-choice". Surely nobody could objct to someone who is "pro-choice" or "pro-life"? Surely nobody could object to someone being a "humanist"? But when words are twisted in the service of propaganda, they lose some of their charm. They become Orwellian slaves to political interest, and I will continue to object.

Have a nice day. "Nice" by the way, is another word that has morphed from a meaningul and useful word, to a general and useless one.

Here we see Henry Tilney and Catherine Morland discuss "nice", in Northanger Abbey, which Jane Austen wrote over 200 years ago. Catherine begins:

".......But now really, do not you think Udolpho the nicest book in the world?�

“The nicest — by which I suppose you mean the neatest. That must depend upon the binding.�

“Henry,� said Miss Tilney, “you are very impertinent. Miss Morland, he is treating you exactly as he does his sister. He is forever finding fault with me, for some incorrectness of language, and now he is taking the same liberty with you. The word ‘nicest,’ as you used it, did not suit him; and you had better change it as soon as you can, or we shall be overpowered with Johnson and Blair all the rest of the way.�

“I am sure,� cried Catherine, “I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should not I call it so?�

“Very true,� said Henry, “and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied only to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement — people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word.�

“While, in fact,� cried his sister, “it ought only to be applied to you, without any commendation at all. You are more nice than wise. Come, Miss Morland, let us leave him to meditate over our faults in the utmost propriety of diction, while we praise Udolpho in whatever terms we like best. It is a most interesting work. You are fond of that kind of reading?�


(Bravo, Eleanor Tilney, for that last speech!)

[wonkothesane]

I really like the philosophy of humanism, but I don't see man as the measure of all things (that just seems like supreme hubris & a kind of modern geocentricism - man as the center of everything) just the only *measurer* in this neck of the woods...

(I used to be really, really into Star Trek, and I would always read how it's creator tried to portray a "humanistic vision"...so would a non-theistic Vulcan be a "Vulcanist"???)

- wonko

[SEF]

Your dictionary sucks, SEF. Actually, lexicographers construe definitions based on usage: no doubt they are correct in recognizing the atheists have SUCCESSFULLY transformed the meaning of the word. That doesn't mean I can't object.
...
This dictionary was published in 1971.Ah, such objectivity and reasoned argument - not! I was careful to include the historical basis for the meaning of the word - something you chose to ignore. I had actually consulted 3 general and etymological English dictionaries I have on the shelf next to me because I'm very aware of how language evolves over time and like to see the trends. The oldest of those dictionaries was printed in 1867 (yes 1867). The most recent was printed in 1991. Each is by a different compiler/publisher. They all agree.

So (assuming accuracy of reporting on your part) no doubt there has been an attempt, in fundamentalist America perhaps, to redefine the word to make it more palatable for believers. I spot some 1984-style Orwellian double-think going on but it isn't in the direction you imagine...

[Writer@Large]

Whilie I find etymological and lexigraphic discussions fascinating, I really was trying to steer the other thread back OT. So I've split this discussion out. Carry on!

--W@L