This lecture brought to mind Pangloss from Candide. (It took me like...forever to remember what the title of the story was).
Pangloss teaches the philosophy of metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-boobology. He continues to argue, no matter what happens to him, and quite a lot of bad stuff happens to him, (contracting STDs, being beaten in front of a crowd, etc etc) that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Everything bad that happens, happens for what will ultimately be a greater good.
"'It has been proven,' he used to say, 'that things cannot be other than what they are, for since everything is made for an end, everything is necessarily for the best end. Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs are patently devised to be breeched, and so we have breeches.'"
Pangloss is certainly not a humanist. I say this because according to the little tree model from my notes in class, humanist falls under the 'no' answer to the question of 'is this the best of all possible worlds' while Pangloss obviously falls under the 'yes' column.
I'll be honest and say that I've never encountered the term before Tuesday.
So, what is a humanist? According to dictionary.com it is a person having strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. That seems to mesh pretty well with what we were going for in class.
Although, I think we were all leaning toward the idea that being a humanist requires that one care about people as individuals, be anti-killing folk, pro end world hunger.
I am about to stop making sense if I haven't done that already.
It seems to me that humanism isn't necessarily all about caring about helping the people around you live happier lives. I mean, it is if you think that that's what is best for humanity. Maybe I'm stretching it or maybe I'm confused, but I think that you might even be able to call Pangloss a humanist.
It's kind of like talking about good and evil.
Can a person be concidered a humanist if they are more concerned with humanity as a whole than humans as individuals?
If you ignore a few people's wants to promote more general happiness, are you humanist?
I think I need to read up on humanism some more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christ, thank you for mentioning "Candide"! i thought no one would. I read two other blogs, and like you, they couldn't give a positive description of humanism, either. Why? i suppose we had lousy educations, or our grade school teachers, wherever they cam from, tore out the humanism chapters in our books.Anyway, screw them, and thanks for your blog.
ReplyDeletevery interesting post. I don't feel like I understood humanism either. couldn't we all be considered humanist if we all care about someone else? would would a non-humanist be in that case?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your theory of humanism, that it doesn't just serve to make people live a happier life. I don't really think that humanism is feasible, but I do think that the concept itself encompassess much more than compassion.
ReplyDelete