Product Description
EXODUS TO HUMANISM: Jewish Identity without Religion

is aboutHow Humanism can help bring peace in the Middle East. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

It made me think!
After reading this book I asked myself:
What would happen when more and more people will realize that there is no God, no Heaven or Hell, no immortal soul and no divine revelation?
I hope that also the Jewish Identity, like the English, the German and the American identities will survive, because like the
English, the Germans and the Americans also the Jews have their own country again.

Traumatic but true
David Ibry, an Israeli born Jew, exhorts all Jews to face the traumatic fact that all religions including the Jewish Religion, are obsolete and that a Jewish Identity based solely on an obsolete religion will sooner or later become obsolete.
The author maintains that a really secular Israeli model, retaining the great Jewish history and traditions, but without depending on religious belief for its nationhood, would help to save the Jewish Identity in the Diaspora.

The dangers of religion
Yes,people are naturally inclined to antagonise those perceived
as different. Religions offer the opportunity to validate antagonsims and confrontations through messages which cannot be doubted because they are revealed from an infallible source.
Without religion people will still confront one another, but their antagonisms will becomeopen to human reasoning and compromise.

A Starting Point
I think the most important aspect of this book, aside from the fact thatit is well written and unpretentious is that it starts the dialogue-- theinner dialogue one has with one's self and the one between one Jew andanother.Ibry astutely avoids providing pat, specious answers, insteadthrowing open the discussion to fellow Jews and admitting that it is, infact, a brave new world.Recognizing that old traditions and sentimentsare hard to leave behind, he reminds us that the Jews invented Judaism, notthe other way around.

The questions and opinions explored in this book,while specifically addressing the Jewish dilemma in the Twentieth andTwenty-first centuries, should also have appeal to anyone who feelsconstrained by the implausibility--if not outright absurdity--of a deity asdescribed in ANY western religious scripture.

If you're looking for aplace to begin your transitional journey from theism to rational thought,done with wit, intelligence and emotion, this is the place to start.

Can Jews rely onreligion for their identity?
This book aims at providing an answer to this question. Included with the author's observations and experiences are arguments and explanations from26 Jewish contributors who have either rejected Judaism or have neverbelieved in it, including Prof. Sir Isaiah Berlin, Prof. Sir Herman Bondi,Prof. Albert Ellis, Prof. Adolf Grunbaum,Rose Hacker, Prof. George Klein,Dr. Henri Morgentaler, Prof. Jean-Claude Pecker, Prof. Ernest Poser, Prof.Howard Radest, Claire Rayner, Prof.Evry Schatzman, Helen Suzman, and ArnoldWesker. The author is concerned about the survival of the Jewish identitywhen Jews will realize that the religion of Judaism is obsolete and has theguts to face the problem head on.I found it of great help because itopened my mind to the realities of our day. ... Read more

Product Description
Translated with a new introduction by John O'NeillRaymond Aron called Merleau-Ponty "the most influential French philosopher of his generation." First published in France in 1947, Humanism and Terror was in part a response to Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, and in a larger sense a contribution to the political and moral debates of a postwar world suddenly divided into two ideological armed camps. For Merleau-Ponty, the central question was: could Communism transcend its violence and intentions?

The value of a society is the value it places upon man's relation to man, Merleau-Ponty examines not only the Moscow trials of the late thirties but also Koestler's re-creation of them. He argues that violence in general in the Communist world can be understood only in the context of revolutionary activism. He demonstrates that it is pointless to ask whether Communism respects the rules of liberal society; it is evident that Communism does not.

In post-Communist Europe, when many are addressing similar questions throughout the world, Merleau-Ponty's discourse is of prime importance; it stands as a major and provocative contribution to limits on the use of violence. The argument is placed in its current context in a brilliant new introduction by John O'Neill. His remarks extend the line of argument originally developed by the great French political philosopher. This is a major contribution to political theory and philosophy. ... Read more

Product Description
Browning argues that the time is right for religious intellectuals in conversation with the social sciences to reinvigorate the deep humanistic strands of the grand religions and enter into global interfaith dialogue on that basis. Concentrating on the Christian heritage, he draws on such diverse disciplines to envision a broader canvas for psychology, a keener theological use of new insights from psychology, a more complex understanding of how personal change is fostered, a recognition of the indispensable role of institutions in personal formation and ethical deliberation, and in the end, a deeper spirituality that directly feeds the common human endeavor and the public good. ... Read more

Product Description
An Essay on the Communist Problem. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Existentialism is an anti-humanism
Maurice Merleau-Ponty may have been a competent philosopher. Politically, he was - to put it mildly - very misguided indeed. While Martin Heidegger supported the Nazis, Merleau-Ponty became a Communist fellow traveller. Or rather, a very specifically Stalinist one. Maybe this was "understandable" in post-war France, since the French Communist Party had fought the Nazis and entered the democratic provisional government after liberation.

Maybe.

And then, maybe not.

The problem with Merleau-Ponty's book "Humanism and Terror" is that it goes far beyond any legitimate idea about an alliance of all Frenchmen (including Communists) against the Nazi occupation. It also goes further than a simple criticism of Western hypocrisy concerning "democracy" (at the time, France and other Western nations still had colonial empires). No, the comrade philosopher positively embraces and excuses Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, including the Great Purges and Moscow show trials! He does it with a breathtaking cynicism as well, almost a caricature of the official Communist position.

At least I think that's what he does. "Humanism and Terror", first published in 1947,is written in that inimitable and impenetrable quasi-intellectual style which a certain kind of philosophers seems to love. It's not an easy read. Ostensibly, we are dealing with a series of essays criticizing Arthur Koestler's novel "Darkness at noon". The more "sophisticated" arguments revolving around existentialism and dialectics were lost on me. However, the other arguments sound familiar...

Merleau-Ponty defends the Moscow show trials, and claims that the defendants were guilty. But guilty of what? It's not clear whether he believes that Bukharin actually was a Nazi agent. Occasionally, it sounds that way. But on other pages, Merleau-Ponty seems to support a more sinister position: Bukharin was a good-intentioned critic of Stalin, but this in itself aided the Nazis "objectively" speaking. Since "nobody is wholly innocent" before the tribunal of history, Stalin did the right thing when he had Bukharin shot. Indeed, it seems as if the author criticizes Vyshinsky for wanting to prove that Bukharin was guilty of real acts of sabotage, rather than conducting a purely political trial based on the "objective" danger! Presumably, our philosopher really wants Bukharin to be executed for his *opinions* rather than some concrete acts.

Merleau-Ponty attempts to sugercoat his position by pointing out that there are situations when disinterested opinions are as dangerous as actual acts, that good intentions aren't an excuse if the consequences are bad, and that the Western democracies are hypocrites who base their system on violence. This, admittedly, is quite true. But how on earth does it justify Stalin's regime in Russia? Indeed, the very same arguments could be used to justify Hitler or Vichy! Here, Merleau-Ponty has very little to say, as long as he speaks as an existentialist. After all, the existentialist "ethic" sees life as a risk, where we never know the outcome of our choices, and thus the only thing to do is bravely embrace whatever course of action we deem best, and stand for it in both failure and success. A collaborator in Vichy France might have reasoned in exactly the same way.

To square the circle, Merleau-Ponty must adopt a Marxist perspective, which he does quite explicitly in the second part of his book. Marxism (which he treats as in effect unfalsifiable) has divined the meaning of History. The future belongs to the proletariat and the collective economy. Somehow, this justifies Stalinist violence in the present. Although the author constantly tells us that one cannot *really* divine the future, the whole thing nevertheless comes back to this: sacrificing the present in the name of the future. And since nobody is wholly innocent, what's so special about supporting Stalin anyway? Merleau-Ponty waxes especially ironic when discussing Trotsky, quoting liberally from Trotsky's "Terrorism and Communism" to show that The Old Man wasn't really that different from Stalin. So with what right does *he* complain? (This is the only fun part of the book.)

Naturally, Merleau-Ponty has to accept the Stalinist propaganda without question. The forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture was supposedly necessary to build up an industrial base, without which the Soviet Union would have been easy prey to Nazi Germany. Not a word about the fact that collectivization started before Hitler took power, nor about the sectarianism of the Communist Party in Germany, which may have contributed to Hitler's victory. Not a word about the extensive US aid to the Soviet Union during the war, which showed that Soviet industry left much to be asked for. The author also accepts the lie that the Great Purges rid the USSR of potential collaborators, thereby aiding Soviet victory in the future war. Not a word about Communist "collaboration" during the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or the enormous number of collaborators in the Ukraine, Belarus, Crimea and the Caucasus (Stalin seems to have shot all the wrong people!). I also tend to be a consequentialist in matters ethical, but its precisely the consequences which makes political support and apologias for Stalin's Russia out of the question. Was it right to form an alliance with the Soviet Union during the war? Undoubtedly yes. Was it a tragedy that the great powers couldn't co-operate after the war? Perhaps. But that is something else than Maurice Merleau-Ponty's sycophancy. I never read Koestler's novel, but apparently the main character Rubashov "voluntarily" sacrifices himself for the good of the Party. Somehow, Merleau-Ponty believes that Rubashov did the right thing!

Somebody might argue that our Frenchman simply didn't have access to all the relevant facts. The book, after all, was published in 1947. I disagree. The author seems well versed in the writings of Trotsky and the International Left Opposition, and must have had access to many other critical sources about the Soviet Union as well.

His pimping for Joe Stalin was a conscious one. Existentialism, it seems, is an anti-humanism.

Contra Koestler
Maurice Merleau-Ponty's "Humanism and Terror" was intended, in 1946, to be an answer from the intellectuals still associated with the 'official' Communists to Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon: A Novel. Merleau-Ponty summarizes the book, addresses the challenge Koestler poses, and attempts to judge the USSR by the standards of "Marxist humanism" as he sees it. Nevertheless, the book is a very mixed bag.

The interesting thing about this book is that the preface, in which Merleau-Ponty does not address Koestler directly but instead deals with the trouble of Communism during the Stalinist period, the attempts to weigh means and ends, the desire for honesty vs the desire for pragmatism, the failure of people to face the dilemmas of history and the lack of seriousness on the part of liberal critics in this, and so on, is the most interesting part. This is all excellently written and clearly set out in unmistakable terms, at least for a Parisian philosopher.

The part of the book which discusses Koestler's thesis, however, is really poor. Merleau-Ponty ascribes to Koestler himself the views that Rubashov and his inquisitors share, namely a sort of Hegelian-mechanistic interpretation of History as the infallible guide of politics, and the risks and destructiveness this implies - but as is clear from an elementary reading of Koestler's book, he himself does not share this view at all, and precisely wrote the book to attack this viewpoint. It is really odd that someone with the philosophical and literary training of Merleau-Ponty does not see this.

In the subsequent discussion of Koestler's problematic itself, namely whether one can support communism but not communist policy, whether one can be a communist outside the Party, whether there can be such a thing as a democratic socialism, whether economic development is a prerequisite of such democratic socialism or not and what sacrifices are valid to achieve it, etc., Merleau-Ponty does not make this error as much. Yet here he makes a different error: especially in the discussion of the Moscow Trials, which take up the middle part of the book, he completely and uncritically adopts the Stalinist line. He believes every word in the 'confessions' of the accused to be actually intended and seriously meant by them (not writing a word about the torture applied before the Trials began), and he also uncritically adopts the Stalinist line that the suppression of all opposition was necessary to defend the USSR against foreign aggression. On the other hand, he clearly does not believe the actual charges themselves, for which there was blatantly no evidence whatever, as he freely admits. For Merleau-Ponty, the question is then reduced to why people like Bukharin and Trotsky would argue for the Party that 'had to' destroy them. An interesting dilemma, but an irrelevant one, since it is by no means necessary to adopt this assumption in the first place. Koestler's book is clearly superior to Merleau-Ponty's in this, since it makes no such assumption.

The last part of the book is the author's attempt to reconstitute the meaning of Marxism and its philosophy of history. Here, he does criticize the USSR quite strongly (for someone with sympathy for socialism in 1946), and his discussion of the merits and demerits of Trotsky's commentaries on this problem is quite good, if meanderingly written. There is still a lot of vague chatter about the dialectic and the proletariat in an abstract philosophical way, but it leads to several quite good points nonetheless, and advocates taking up a position that supports the Revolution of 1917 as well as communism in general, but without being uncritical towards the USSR or any specific form of Communist Parties and the like, and not binding oneself to having to defend it against better reason. He also engages the philosophical analysis undertaken by Koestler in The Yogi and the Commissar and Other Essays, and undertakes some effective and well-considered critiques of Koestler's metaphysical views in it, while admitting Koestler's own critiques as useful and valid, as it should be.

Here Merleau-Ponty concludes with the famous statement: "Marxism is not a philosophy of history; it is _the_ philosophy of history, and to renounce it is to dig the grave of Reason in history. After that there remain only dreams and adventures."
That, at least, is and remains true.

Brilliant flashes but...
This is an amazing document to read in the 21st century.It amounts to a full-throated defense of the Moscow show trials used in the late 1930s by Stalin to purge all his potential rivals from the party and the government (usually by executing them).Specifically, Merleau-Ponty, who was one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, is arguing here contra-Koestler and "Darkness at Noon."Merleau-Ponty is quite right in arguing that liberal societies hide the violence (and terror) that they use to enforce their own order - an argument that come critics of Globalization, such as the outstanding R. Radhakrishnan, have deployed to excellent and edifying effect.However, most of the time, "Humanism and Terror" reads like a document from the inquisition in which the ideological backdrop of demonic possession, witchcraft and satanic heresy are taken at face-value and completely seriously by the author.In other words, it belongs entirely to another era.And of course, Merleau-Ponty`s continuous reliance on the judgement of history would tend to suggest that he and his arguments were "objectively incorrect" while the defendants were "proven right" (assuming, of course, that they were in some sense disloyal to the Soviet state). ... Read more

Product Description
The Renaissance movement known as humanism eventually spread from Italy through all of Western Europe, transforming early modern culture in ways that are still being felt and debated.Central to these debates—and to this book—is the question of whether (and how) the humanist movement contributed to the secularization of western cultural traditions at the end of the Middle Ages.A preeminent scholar of Italian humanism, Riccardo Fubini approaches this question in a new way—by redefining the problem of secularization more carefully to show how humanists can at once be secularizers and also religious thinkers.The result is a provocative vision of the humanist movement. Humanism and Secularization offers a nuanced account of humanists contesting medieval ideas about authority not in order to reject Christianity or even orthodoxy, but to claim for themselves the right to define what it meant to be a Christian.Fubini analyzes key texts by major humanists--such as Petrarch, Poggio, and Valla—from the first century of the movement.As he subtly works out these authors’ views on religion and the church from both biographical and textual information, Fubini reveals in detail the new historical consciousness that animated the humanists in their reading of classical and patristic texts.His book as a whole shows convincingly just how radical the humanism of the first half of the fifteenth century was and how sharply it challenged well entrenched ideas and institutions.Appearing here in English for the first time, his work provides a model set of readings of humanist texts and a critical perspective on Italian humanism that will alter and enrich discussion and understanding of the nature of the humanist movement throughout the English-speaking world. ... Read more

Product Description
Ignatian spirituality is a dynamic and ever-evolving practice that has great relevance in the twenty-first century. In Ignatian Humanism, author Ronald Modras explains the importance of a sixteenth-century spirituality in a post-modern world and reveals the impact Renaissance humanism had on Ignatian spirituality and the Society of Jesus.

In this vividly written and meticulously researched book, Modras explores the life of St. Ignatius of Loyola, his founding of the Society of Jesus, and the development of the Spiritual Exercises. He also outlines the characteristics of Renaissance humanism and its influence on Ignatian spirituality and the Jesuits. This impact is made tangible in five compelling biographies of Jesuit heroes and humanists: Matteo Ricci, Frederic Spee, Karl Rahner, Pierre Theilard de Chardin, and Pedro Arrupe. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

Naturalistic Spirituality
You don't need this book for a Dynamic Spirituality for the 21st Century. Instead, turn to the works of the brilliant and ever-so-wise George Santayana. There you will find a genuinely humanistic vision, totally chastened and realistic, yet devoted to cultivating the spiritual life.....within THIS world. Hint: Santayana's influences include Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Lucretius, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, and Arnold.

Jesuit Spirituality: Men of Faith, Courage, and Imagination
This marvelous book concerns the essence of Jesuit spirituality i.e., its rootedness in the human experience.Ronald Modras, in the presentation of his book, turns this concept into action by rooting his discussion of this humanism in the experiences of six men who exemplify the Jesuit Way, beginning with the sixteenth-century founder of the Society of Jesus, Ignatius of Loyola, and ending with his twentieth-century doppelganger, Pedro Arrupe.

What struck me about each of the Jesuits discussed is that they were all men of tremendous faith, courage and imagination.I put particular emphasis on the last quality: imagination is at the heart of the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises, which comprise the foundation of a Jesuit's life, and of the Order itself.Following Ignatius, each of the Jesuits discussed here employed great imagination in shattering a paradigm of the society of the time: Matteo Ricci (16th c), rather than remain stuck in European dress, customs, and attitudes, practiced acculturation--becoming a Mandarin scholar--to reach the minds of the Chinese; Friedrich Spee (17th c), rather than accept society's hysteria over a supposed epidemic of witchcraft, talked with accused women, and, at great personal risk, denounced the injustice of tens of thousands of innocent people being executed--his work helped to finally put an end to this madness; Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (20th c), rather than accept a wall between faith and science, sought to reconcile Christian hope with evolution--but first by accepting the validity of evolution; Karl Rahner, rather than hold fast to the notion of salvation only through conscious acceptance of Christ, promoted the concept that all people are given God's grace; and Pedro Arrupe, who survived Hiroshima, rather than simply maintain an Order that was comfortable in its large universities and which gloried in its much lauded successes, pushed the Society of Jesus to making "the promotion of justice integral to the service of faith" (p. 281).

Modras devotes too much attention at the beginning of the book to justifying his title: i.e., why "humanism."He in part seeks to rescue humanism from those Christians who equate it with secularism and atheism and, for that matter, from those secular humanists who might abhor religion as centering people outside of their humanness.But witness, for instance, Karl Rahner: he directed the faithful to look to science to better appreciate God's gifts, and made close friends of atheists, because he found that among atheists were also men of profound good will and brilliant ideas.He preached that grace resides within us, that God speaks to us deep within, "deeper than our conscious intellects" (p. 225).He, like all of the other men in this book, are clearly humanists.And they were also all deeply spiritual men, with a spirituality and mysticism that was not "out there" but was experienced right here and now, in the world and in our humanity.

St. Ignatius' improbable legacy
It may seem very unlikely that an ex-soldier, persecuted by the Spanish inquisition, would oneday win favor with the Pope for himself and his followers. This eventually led to the creation of the Society of Jesus. Their legacy includes the precurser of post-secondary education for the masses. Originally free of charge, this education in science and the humanities was offered to woman and the poor or anyone else who sought to be literate. The Society's influence reached throughout the world, and showed that Christianity could adapt to many cultures including closed societies such as China. Where through years of patience and purity, the Jesuits were the first foreigners to penetrate the forbiden city. This is a very informative read.

A profound work of faith and meditation
Ignatian Humanism: A Dynamic Spirituality For The 21st Century portrays the work, teachings, and spirituality of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order, and five of his successors: Matteo Ricci, the first Westerner at the court of the Chinese emperor; Frederick Spee, who stepped forward to defend women accused of witchcraft; Karl Rahner, reknowned Catholic 20th-century theologian; Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, scientist and mystic; and Pedro Arrupe, who has led the Jesuits since the era of Vatican II. The final chapter of Ignatian Humanism focuses especially upon spirituality for and within the rapidly changing 21st century. At once both an extensively researched history and a profound work of faith and meditation on what it means to form a connection with a dynamic, actively involved God, Ignatian Humanism is a passionate discussion especially recommended for modern religious and Jesuit studies shelves. ... Read more

Product Description

Stephen Jay Gould was not only a leading paleontologist and evolutionary theorist, he was also ahumanist with an enduring interest in the history and philosophy of science. The extraordinary range of Gould’s work was underpinned by a richly nuanced and deeply insightful worldview.

Richard York and Brett Clark engage Gould’s science and humanism to illustrate and develop the intellectual power of Gould’s worldview, particularly with regard to the philosophy of science. They demonstrate how the Gouldian perspective sheds light on many of the key debates occurring not only in the natural sciences, but in the social sciences as well. They engage the themes that unified Gould’s work and drove his inquires throughout his intellectual career, such as the nature of history, both natural and social, particularly the profound importance of contingency and the uneven tempo of change. They also assess Gould’s views on structuralism, highlighting the importance of the dialectical interaction of structural forces with everyday demands for function, and his views on the hierarchical ordering of causal forces, with some forces operating at large scales and/or over long spans of time, while others are operating on small scales and/or occur frequently or rapidly.

York and Clark also address Gould’s application of these principals to understanding humanity's place in nature, including discussions of human evolution, sociobiology, and the role of art in human life.Taken together, this book illuminates Gould’s dynamic understanding of the world and his celebration of both science and humanism.

Product Description
"Professor Wittkower's....studies of humanist architecture are masterpieces of scholarship."-Sir Kenneth Clark, Architectural Review.

A fourth edition of the forty-year-old classic.

Focusing on the principal architects of that time-from Alberti to Palladio-this bestselling classic explains the true significance of certain architectural forms, bringing to light the connections between the architecture and culture of the period. With publication scheduled to coincide with that of Architectonics of Humanism, this important reference is superbly reproduced in a new, large square format.

The late RUDOLF WITTKOWER was a college professor and eminent scholar residing in London, England. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

More than just Architecture!
Already recognized since 1949 as "a masterpiece in scholarship" in its field by several eminent architects, the 173 page tome: ARCHITECTURAL PRINCIPLES IN THE AGE OF HUMANISM, 4th ed. (1971) by Rudolf Wittkower; had, incidentally, also provided an in-depth explanation on proportion and ratio as they differed in usage between architectural procedure and Boethian mathematics.
Of special importance is part four 'The Problem of Harmonic Proportion in Architecture' (p. 101) where the author made the salient point that "Although the Pythagoreo-Platonic concept of the numerical ratios of the musical scale never disappeared from mediaeval [sic], theological, philosophical, and aesthetic thought, there was no over-riding need to apply them to art and architecture" (p. 159).

Rudolf Wittkower unknowingly provided in part four the distinction between an elite Quadrivium education containing Boethian "mathematical arts" while "the 'liberal arts' of painting, sculpture, and architecture were regarded as manual occupations" (p. 117). The author explained "That the high Renaissance architects shunned theory" and "that they were practitioners rather than thinkers" (p. 30).And further "Italian architects strove for an easily perceptible ratio between length, height, and depth" (p. 74).So then according to this author, all of the Renaissance architects conception of architecture was based on a "commensurability of ratios" (p. 108).

Rudolf Wittkower indicated "that the [Renaissance] architect is by no means free to apply to a building a system of ratios of his own choosing, that the ratios have to comply with conceptions of a higher order and that a building should mirror the proportions of the human body" (p. 101).In developing the centrally planned church, Renaissance architects faced the dilemma of the pragmatics of church construction combined with the belief in divinity and the acceptance of Roman Catholic dogma.

The Church was to provide the "easily perceptible ratio" with the simple logic that "As man is the image of God and the proportions of his body are produced by divine will, so the proportions in architecture have to embrace and express the cosmic order" (p. 101).That cosmic order and harmony are contained in certain numbers Plato explained in his TIMAEUS.

Assigned to the architects, a Quadrivium trained Roman Catholic friar and musical theorist, Franchino Gaffurio (1451-1522) "in a truly Platonic spirit he regarded this principle of harmony as the basis of macrocosm and microcosm, body and soul, painting, architecture, and medicine" (p. 124).It was under this famous Renaissance musical theorist in 1525 that "the old belief in the mysterious efficacy of certain numbers and ratios was given new impetus" (p. 102)."It was Pythagoras who discovered that tones can be measured in space.What he found was that musical consonances were determined by the ratios of small whole numbers.If two strings are made to vibrate under the same conditions, one being half the length of the other, the pitch of the shorter string will be one octave (diapason) above that of the larger one" (p. 102)."Thus the consonances, on which the Greek musical system was based - octave, fifth, and fourth - can be expressed by the progression 1:2:3:4.One can understand that this staggering discovery made people believe that they had seized upon the mysterious harmony which pervades the universe" (p. 103).

"The musical consonances are determined by the mean proportionals; for that the three means constitute all the intervals of the musical scale had been shown in the TIMAEUS.Classical writers on musical theory discussed this point at great length.An exhaustive exposition is to be found in Boethius' DE MUSICA, first printed in Venice in 1491-92, and of very great importance for the doctrine of numbers throughout the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance" (p. 111).

Yet Boethius's DE MUSICA was de-emphasized by Renaissance architects in recognition that the "harmony of the universe which Plato had described in the TIMAEUS on the basis of Pythagora's discovery of the ratios of musical consonances" prompted the "application of Pythagoreo-Platonic system of harmonic ratios directly to architecture" (p. 125).As it turned out (not surprisingly) "Gafurio [sic] was regarded by his contemporaries as a critic in architectural matters" (p. 125).

The author of ARCHITECTURAL PRINCIPLES IN THE AGE OF HUMANISM provided the evidence that although the Quadrivium of the mathematical arts of music, astronomy, geometry, and Boethian proportion and ratio, was known to the Renaissance high architects, they preferred the 'harmonic proportion'; 'proportion of excess'; and the 'proportio proportionum'; derived directly from Plato's TIMAEUS and Pythagoras's three means (arithmetic, geometric, and the harmonic) over Boethius's DE MUSICA, though it was a substantial part of friar Gaffurio's ecclesiastical education.This resulted in "proportionally integrated 'spatial mathematics', which we have recognized as a distinguishing feature of humanist Renaissance architecture" (p. 26).

In comparison, for the practical application of Boethian proportion and ratios, please read: THE PHILOSOPHER'S GAME (2001) by Dr. Ann E. Moyer, where the rules of Boethian proportion found in rithmomachia, had been clearly defined, though inadvertently, by Rudolf Wittkower. ... Read more

Product Description
This volume presents an English translation of a lecture Sartre delivered at the Club Maintenant, along with several pages of dialogue between Sartre and the auditors and critics of the lecture. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

We are what we choose to make ourselves
For Sartre Man is thrown into the world without having being asked whether he wants to be here or not. This means in Sartre's terms that Man is born without an Essence, a fundamental nature. That Nature is shaped instead by decisions, by conscious choice, by our freedom.
But human beings, contrary to Sartre are born into family, communal , national , religious traditions. They are born into worlds in which there are values. They do not begin their journeys in life as blank slates.
This means that the ' freedom' which Sartre tends to make his absolute (i.e. while denying that we have a nature he makes Freedom our nature) is qualified and limited for all of us in many different ways even before we begin to make conscious choices.
Nonetheless the pessimistic doctrines of Marxism and certain forms of Christianity which tend in the direction of a total determination of our collective nature , are rightly criticized and qualified by Sartre.
Sartre's celebration of the possibilities of human self- creation and transformation of reality certainly provide a special kind of hope, and youthful sense of our own humanity.
"We are the makers of what we are, of what we are, and what we are not"
I would see parallels here between Sartre's existensialim and James-Dewey American pragmatism.
Nonetheless I would want to argue that in negating the importance of our connection with Transcendence i.e. with God, Sartre woefully, and unnecessarily limits human freedom.
For for many human beings the greatest free act of their life is their choice to devote their lives to making closer connection with God.

Some Thoughts on Morality
Last night I read Jean-Paul Sartre's short manuscript Existentialism and Humanism, in which he set out to defend the existentialist philosophy against criticisms that had been made against it, particularly by Marxists, and particularly for its being (perceived as) overly subjective (amongst other things). I think there is a lot that Sartre says that is just right. Such as, every action is a moral action, including the action of doing nothing. And most importantly, Sartre makes the connection between freedom and morality. This is something that Musil is really sharp on, as well (particularly with the Moosbrugger case in The Man Without Qualities) -- in order for any action to be perfectly moral, it must be perfectly freely chosen; and to the extent that various extra-agent factors impinge on the action, the action is subsequently less moral.This is built into our very idea of what it is to be moral: an action you initiate is something you are morally accountable for; an action that happens from outside of you is something you are not morally accountable for. Now, if as (arguably) the Marxists say, the individual is inextricably determined by the social, there can be no morality, since everything is determined from without. Seen from this perspective, it is clear why many of the existentialists were Christians: Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, and Jaspers, for example. However if we are to take the atheistic line (which I believe with Sartre to be the most consistent with the existentialist principles) we say that even God couldn't help us act morally. Sartre illustrates the point with an example (which is appropriate, of course, since existentialism is a form of moral particularism, in that it says we need to act in each new case on the basis of information we have at hand, and no rules can guide us rigidly from case to case). A young man approached him (Sartre) and said that he had a choice to stay at home and care for his sick mother, or to leave and fight in the war. Caring for his mother had concrete calculable benefits over the short term; fighting in the war has abstract, generalised benefits that may, moreover, have been thwarted (he may have been stuck in a camp or pushing paper at a desk, or whatnot). Sartre says, what can guide the man here? No moral rule can determine what his course of action should be; the decision is the man's freely to make; and this free action is what confers the status of a moral decision on it. And so Sartre simply said to the man, do what you feel is right (or something similar). I think Sartre is absolutely correct to say that existentialism is not mired in subjectivity, or in despair. It is not mired in subjectivity, because your morality is something that is exhibited by your actions (we might even say there is no such thing as a moral thought, only a moral action: something that fits well with liberal political principles [as an aside, one of the interlocuters at the end of the manuscript accuses Sartre's moral system of being simply a variant of 18th Century liberal philosophy, a point which has, I think, some merit]). It is not mired in despair, because there is no correct reponse to the absolute freedom on which morality depends; despair is one reaction; glee is another; and none is more natural or correct than another.

Sartre Defends Existentialism
This book will either make you want to read more about existentialism or it will lead you into making quite the opposite choice by leaving existentialism to others possibly more patient than yourself though not necessarily more intelligent.

Whatever your choice you will nonetheless be making a choice even if that choice is not to make a choice.

Or as Sartre would put it, in a far more philosophical manner, you can always choose but you must know that even if you do not choose that would still be a choice. For what is not possible is not to choose.

This is the first book I have read about existentialism so I cannot judge whether it is a good introduction to this philosophical movement yet the very fact that the purpose of the lecture delivered by Sartre is to offer a defence of existentialism against certain reproaches laid against it, seems by itself to shape the content of the lecture into an attempt by necessity to capture the essence of existentialism. In particular, in relation to the reactions existentialism has provoked.

There are certain key ideas that are very plainly put across to the reader which may well capture one's attention and actually lead to a further exploration of other books about existentialism.

For example, Sartre after referring to the two kinds of existentialists that there are and declaring that he is a representative of atheistic existentialism explains that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, that is to say a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it.

That being, of course, is man.

Thus, existence precedes essence. Man first exists and then defines himself.

Basically, in conclusion to his reference to atheistic existentialism, Sartre adds that the first principle of existentialism is that man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. Not as what he conceives himself to be after already existing but that which he wills himself to be subsequent to a necessary leap towards existence. Basically, man only attains existence when he is what he purposes to be. Whereas, before that projection of the self, nothing exists.

Doubtless this first principle of existentialism gave rise to a reproach against the subjectivity of existentialism. Other ideas and terms used are also examined always with reference made to the particular reproaches Sartre has to answer in relation to such ideas and terms.

All in all, he makes out quite a solid and intelligible defence of existentialism as he explains that the first effect of existentialism is to put every man in possession of himself with the entire responsibility of his existence being placed on his shoulders.

The emphasis in the doctrine presented by Sartre is that there is no reality except in action. Man is described as nothing else but what he purposes with his existence being attained only in so far as he realizes himself. Man is therefore, nothing else but the sum of his actions.

He clarifies further this basic idea by stating - rather poetically in fact - that for the existentialist (though also in reality) there is no love apart from the deeds of love, no potentiality of love other than that which is manifested in loving and no genius other than that which is expressed in works of art.

Throughout the lecture the basic theme delivered by Sartre is that reality alone is reliable and dreams, expectations and hopes serve only to define man negatively and not positively since man is nothing else but what he lives.

One can easily understand how a basic idea such as this could give rise to a reproach for the pessimism of existentialism. Yet, Sartre manages to turn around this reproach and to declare that what people reproach existentialists with is not their pessimism but the sternness of their optimism.

As to the structure of the book, this is divided into three parts each of which can be enjoyed in its own right even though the parts are actually interrelated. First, there is a rather helpful introduction, then the lecture itself and finally the actual discussion that followed the lecture.

An additional benefit to the newcomer to the study of existentialism is the slimness of the book. This means the entire book or any part of it can easily be read time and time again. No doubt each fresh reading will be to the advantage of the reader as it will add to his understanding of the ideas expressed while simultaneously increasing his appreciation of the manner of their expression.

Man Is What He Wills Himself To Be
EXISTENTIALISM AND HUMANISM did not start life as a book.It is actually a translation of a lecture delivered by Sartre in Paris in 1945 at a time when the term "existentialism" was being bandied about ratherloosely.My 1947 copy also incorporates the discussion which immediatelyfollowed the lecture.It is interesting to note that, after a fewlegitimate questions, the discussion became a series of challenges to theexistentialist philosophy by a M. Naville who was a leading French Marxistin post World War II Paris.

Contrary to some comments contained inreviews of Sartre's books and collections of his essays, existentialism isnot an easily understood philosophy and there were, and still are,differences of opinions regarding existentialism, and what it might mean,between major proponents of the philosophy such as Sartre and Gide. (Sartre alludes to this in this lecture.)For this review I will attemptto stick to the opinions stated herein by Sartre.

He led off his lectureby making the point that existentialism was under attack by The Church onone side and the Marxists on the other.He stated that both attacks werebased on misunderstandings of the existentialist philosophy.

As is to beexpected, his starting point for his discussion is the basic concept thatexistence precedes essence, or, putting it into his own words, "Notonly is man what he conceives himself to be, he is also only what he willshimself to be."Carrying this to its logical conclusion; man,individually and collectively, is responsible for his own choices andactions.No excuses accepted.

Another often misunderstood term used indefining existentialism is "anguish."In layman's terms, anguishin existentialism has to do with the doubts surrounding making choices. Sartre uses "the anguish of Abraham" to illustrate.When Abrahamwas instructed to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham had to decide if the instructionreally came from a messinger of God, or, conversely, was the messenger atool of Satan.Then, when he was told not to perform the sacrifice, he wasfaced with exactly the same dilemna.

What I have covered in the lastparagraph was merely the beginning of Sartre's discussion onanguish.

Another aspect has to do with being forlorn.In oversimplifiedterms, this means that we have nothing such as "human nature" orsome predetermined value system to fall back on.Even when relying onsomeone else's advice our final decision is our own. We are trulyresponsible for our choices.How much more alone can one get.

AlthoughSartre discusses many other aspects of the existentialist philosophy, I'dlike to leave these discussions to those who choose to read this lecture. I would, however, like to sum up with the followingquotation.

"(Existentialism) can not be taken for a philosophy ofquietism, since it defines man in terms of action;nor for a pessimisticdescription of man--there is no doctrine more optimistic, since man'sdestiny is within himself;....It tells him that action is theonly thing that enables man to live.Consequently, we are dealing with anethics (sic) of action and involvement."

There's a lot more depth tothose few aspects of existentialism that I did touch upon.For those whoare tempted to use the term, "existentialism," to categorize aschool of writing or as an excuse for certain excesses of behavior, or forinactivity, I would recommend reading this lecture as a starting point inunderstanding the term you are using.If it interests you, you mightdecide to expand your investigation to include other works on the subjectand, perhaps, to further expand, and investigate other philosophicalthoughts of both classical and contemporary thinkers.

Calm and to-the-point...
This book is what got me started on Sartre, it's fairly easy to follow and it explains the basics of Sartre. Quality reading that gets you thinking... GET IT NOW! ... Read more

Product Description
God In Us is a radical representation of theChristian faith for the 21st century. Following the example of the OldTestament prophets and the first-century Christians it overturnsreceived ideas about God.God is not an invisible person 'out there'somewhere, but lives in the human heart and mind as 'the sum of allour values and ideals' guiding and inspiring our lives. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

If It's Broke, Maybe We Can Fix It.
GOD IN US is a fascinating little book which presents a fairly radical view of God and the current state of Christianity. Actually it contains two contrasting viewpoints counting the interesting Foreward provided by John Shelby Spong.

Anthony Freeman does not believe in the traditional God of Christianity as described in the Bible and the Creeds. He does not put faith in an objective God out there somewhere but instead chooses to construct a God from his own most cherished values. Freeman's ideas of God are very similar to those expressed by Don Cupitt who places great emphasis on embracing the Void.Freeman regards the Bible and the Creeds as purely human inventions. In fact, he considers all religions to be made entirely by humans.

Spong, on the other hand, talks about God as if it actually exists in the depths of being. He believes that he experiences God although he is not able to explain God.

Freeman and Spong are at their best when describing what is wrong with Christianity. They are much less convincing when they try to offer solutions for fixing it.

An exciting glimpse of the future of Christianity
Throughout history, there have been many concepts of the supernatural. In ancient times, the Gods and Goddesses resembled humans with special powers. More recently, they were all-powerful beings in charge of a defined geographical area. Still more recently, God has been visualized as an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibeneficient spirit, in spite of the logical contradictions that these attributes generate. Freeman has taken the next step, towards a God who is not "an invisible person 'out there' somewhere, but lives in the human heart and mind as 'the sum of all our values and ideals' guiding and inspiring our lives." Unfortunately, the Church of England was not willing to tolerate one of their priests taking this step.

Provocative!
Anthony Freeman is a de-frocked Anglican priest.Why did he get the boot?Maybe it's because he dared to say what many people already suspect, that God is not "out there," in heaven, outside of history, distant, aloof, and silent, but "in here," alive and present. Does Anthony believe in God or doesn't he?The church said no, and he had to go.He says yes. It depends how you understand God. He presents his reasoning in this brief, but provocative gem. ... Read more

Product Description
This work is aimed at ages 10+. Complete with discussion questions, suggestions for activities, and a bibliography, this innovative approach to presenting humanism to young adults will be welcome by parents and teachers looking to expose their children or students to a secular philosophic perspective. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (15)

Pretty Poorly Written, but a nice idea
I consider myself a Humanist and I was looking for good ways to discuss my beliefs with my children, but I found this book to be poorly written, fairly inarticulate, and includes peripheral issues (like abortion) that seemed to me more political than necessary.I found it relatively unhelpful to me and will not give it to my children.

Exploration of Humanism for Children
This book is obviously didactic, but it should be of some use to liberal-minded parents who want to encourage their kids to think about these issues. However, parents should be aware that although the cover says ages 10 and up, everything about the book, including the reading level and the cover illustration, would tend to make anyone over 11 find it babyish. I'd say the most effective age would be 8 to 10, possibly younger if they're strong readers with a philosophical bent. There's also a lengthy poetry section which is sure to be of zero interest to most kids, and I think the vocabulary in many of the poems is going to be beyond their capabilities. I was also really disappointed that the bibliography only lists adult books, so any child readers aren't going to be able to continue learning about humanism or freethought from the books mentioned there. Overall, a so-so effort, but I'd still recommend it since there's almost nothing else written for elementary school kids that deals with these topics.

Not happy with this book
I found this book to be preachy, patronizing, and a bit snotty. I expected a thorough explanation of the definition of humanism. I did not expect a lecture on prayer in schools, an abortion debate, or condescending comments and implications about the religious.

If you do decide to purchase this book for your child, I strongly suggest you pre-read. You may have specific ideas about how you want to handle some portions of the text.

Shocked this got 4 stars - relatives reviewing?
The book mentions too many things too hastily. It briefly mentions abortion, the Dark Ages, suicide bombers, religious intolerance, 9/11, school prayer, a child's death, bigotry, women's rights, Kurt Vonnegut - yes Kurt Vonnegut, and on and on. All of these are mentioned in a book(pamphlet really) you can read in less than 15 minutes. Not things I want to discuss with a young child.

I also don't like the tone, which I consider a bit righteous. I don't want to "sell" humanism, I just want to explain it.

I won't show the book to my child and would like to return it.

A debate versus an explanation
Like many reviews of this book, it is a dialogue between a few children and their teacher. While the teacher challenges the children's statements and questions, such as "how can anyone be good who doesn't believe in god?" she sometimes responds with a barrage of questions of her own that could be more helpful broken down and answered individually. Also, she refers to many, many facets of history such as the Dark Ages, Renaissance, Genesis, Greek Mythology etc. in her answers and explanation of Humanism. So it will take a child well versed in social studies, various religions or science to understand her answers to some of questions. Or it will take a child/parent willing to stop and explore these things to grasp the entire concept. I would say this book would be most effective with kids with an open mind, skepticism and a willingness to stand by what feels right for them to believe. Whether it is Humanism or not. ... Read more

Product Description
Most people are quick to note the influence that religion has had on African-American history--its help in securing the freedom of slaves and its powerful role in the subsequent struggles by blacks for civil rights.But few are aware of the role played by humanism in the black experience.This ambitious collection of writings by and about black humanists breaks new ground by demonstrating the extent to which humanism and freethought have helped to assess, explore, interpret, and substantively develop the history and ideals of black intellectualism.

Part One offers biographical sketches of such prominent black humanists as Frederick Douglass (1817-1895), an emancipated slave who became a great abolitionist and political leader; Hubert H. Harrison (1883-1927), possibly the greatest Afro-American intellectual of his time; and the revisionist historian and physicist Cheikh Anta Diop (1923-1985).

Part Two features essays by black humanists, including the American teacher and writer W.E.B. Du Bois (1868-1963) on Christianity, and anthropologist and Harlem Renaissance novelist Zora Neale Hurston (1903-1960) on religion.

Part Three offers the views of contemporary African humanists, including Emmanuel Kofi Mensah and Freda Amakye Ansah, on African religion, education, and women's issues.

Part Four contains interviews conducted by Norm R. Allen, Jr., on the subjects of black humanist activism, the Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization, and the Harlem Renaissance.

Included are contributions by:Freda Amakye Ansah, Martin G. Bernal, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Michel Fabre, Charles W. Faulkner, Leonard Harris, David Howard-Pitney, Norman Hill, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, Ishmael Jaffree, Mike McBryde, Claude McKay, Emmanuel Kofi Mensah, Nkeyonye Otakpor, Joel Augustus Rogers, Melvin B. Tolson, Franz Vanderpuye, Ivan Van Sertima, and Kwasi Wiredu. ... Read more

Product Description
What is humanism, and why have humanists come under attack by religious conservatives and the fundamentalist right? "Humanism is not a dogma or a creed," writes Paul Kurtz."Humanists have confidence in human beings, and they believe that the only bases for morality are human experience and human needs. Humanists are opposed to all forms of supernaturalistic and authoritarian religion. Many humanists believe that scientific intelligence and critical reason can assist in reconstructing our moral lives ...Humanists believe in freedom and pluralistic democracy as virtually our first principle, and we are disturbed by any authoritarian effort to impose one point of view on America. Defence of the open, democratic society should be the first point humanists make in response to the Moral Majority, making it clear that in our reading of the American tradition, pluralism is essential." This is a volume of collected essays by one of the leading exponents of secular humanism. It is a closely reasoned defence of one of the most venerable ethical, scientific and philosophical traditions within Western civilisation. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Fair (Early) Introduction To Humanism
A compendium of essays, some better than others, Kurtz reports secular humanism (SH) is based on rational thinking, opposed to dogma and any system or influence suppressing critical thinking (Church, State, bigotry Left or Right). It is not a religion as it "generally" dismisses the supernatural as readily as the paranormal, astrology, UFOs and all superstitions. (One can see why it will never have a significant following, as superstition is much easier and goes far in making boring / suffering lives more exciting / tolerable.) High on the SH list is moral education, noting non God-based morality needn't be antisocial, subjective or promiscuous (as is, apparently frequently, one of the attacks on SH). Kurtz supports a program of moral education rather than obedience to a canon. Ethics has a longer history than Judeo-Christianity, he argues. (We assume he's not predating Greek ethics before Hebrew Law - perhaps Hammurabi?) "It is in the crucible of history that ethics have been tested." (i.e. no need for commandments.) Kurtz submits that God does not speak to humanity from above, but the Word is instead an expression of humanity's deepest longings (i.e. it is man speaking to himself). Yet, he stresses that simply rejecting theism is not humanistic, respect for religious freedom must be maintained. Likewise his Secular Humanist Declaration reads like a review of the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights. He also notes reasonable limits to science, misapplied to nature and human life, opening opportunities for ecological disaster and dehumanization of people and their institutions. The ultimate goal should be human growth for all, not a few, and humans are to be responsible for it, rather than forever waiting on divine intervention. "The problem for man is to discover the good life, which is achievable in human terms. The standard is... within man where sources of the good life are to be found, and in this view is an affirmation that life is worth living." Natural Humanists (a slight twist on secular) support Jesus' remark that "the kingdom of God is within thee." Humanism claims humanity as rooted in the soil (nature), it is the flesh (life) that provides satisfaction, but it is social harmony and creative fulfillment (the spirit) that we find our deepest significance.

Kurtz shines most in his chapter on Libertarianism. Oddly, earlier in the book he supports world order through world laws of transnational governments. (Yikes.) Extreme disproportions of wealth should be reduced worldwide, he says. Generally agreeable, but since this is an overview, we never know how exactly he intends to make this happen without the usual resulting tyranny. In Libertarianism he goes on to say that large governments are a threat as is new Liberalism's paternalistic welfare state. The principle of equality in the extreme has turned "equality before the law", and "equality of opportunity" into guarantees of equal results. "Doctrines of social equality are counterproductive, smothering individual initiative." For Libertarianism, he notes, economic and political liberty are central but derivative of a more fundamental ideal - the high moral value placed on individual freedom and choice. (He does not enter into the two-individuals question, both with freedom, one with choice, one in the womb.) Again he returns to morality. "While liberation from control frees us from stultifying customs it can also lead to loss of civil conduct and morality." "To emancipate individuals unprepared for loss in restraint results in license. Autonomous choice is not possible if one is not nurtured to appreciate and handle it... Freedom of restraint is not the same as the developed freedom of a person able to realize his potential. Complete autonomy can only occur in a developed personality." Ironically Kurtz was decades ahead of his time (and the Iraq war) when he stated, "As if democracy were suddenly imposed on a people unready for it or for whom it were alien." And offering advice to our modern universities - in the modern lingo to boot - Kurtz writes, "Because we tolerate diversity does not mean we approve of every style of life."

Not too bad, but not too good either
In Defense of Secular Humanism is a collection of essays written by Paul Kurtz, mostly in reaction to allegations leveled against secular humanism (and humanism in general) by the Religious Right and other fundamentalist Christian organizations in the United States.

And therein lies the chief problem: it's a collection of essays that are almost totally focused on one central concern. Whereas many other essay collections by other authors tend to cover wide ranges of concerns (anything from war, to ethics, to religion, to sports), Kurtz's collection is focused almost entirely on answering allegations by his opponents.

And since his opponents had a habit of making the same allegations again, and again, and again, much of this book is Kurtz writing the same responses again, and again, and again.

To sum the problem up, there's a heck of a lot of repition in this book.

Of course, there are several good essays, and some excellent ones. Kurtz's "Principle of Tolerance Reaffirmed", "Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle", and "The Democratic Ethic" are very thought-provoking works to read. However, much of the book delves into seemingly mindless repition and even vitrolic rhetoric, which is, in my opinion, unbecomming of a person of Kurtz's intellectual capabilities.

Bear in mind that I do have some biases on this subject. This was my first introduction to humanism, and it's a very poor book for a first exposure. If you're like I was, and looking for something to introduce the ideas of Humanism to you, read "The Philosophy of Humanism," by Lamont.

Ultimately, I would hesitate to buy this book if I were you. If you're like me, and willing to spend the money to add this to your collections (and read the occasional very interesting articles within), go ahead. However, overall the book is intellectually unstimulating, and probably not worth most people's money. These essays just weren't meant to be put together.

Rightwingers on the Warpath
Paul Kurtz,professor of philosophy, publisher of Prometheus Books, and editor of Free Inquiry, wrote this volume in the early 1980s, when the Moral Majority were on a war path against the "religion" ofSecular Humanism.Though many of his articles are redundant, Kurtz's bookbeing a compilation, his rebuttal of much of the Religious Right's paranoiais as refreshing today as it was then.If the Secular Humanists were sucha power block, it would stand to reason that such organizations would havefar more than a few thousand members each. What the Falwells of the worldare reacting to, lumped together under the S.H. bogeyman, is the influenceof a broader humanism, which is attractive to many religionists who seelittle contradiction with their beliefs.The clock can't be turned back. ... Read more

Product Description
Released by Humanist Press in its degenderized eighth edition, this powerful book is the definitive study of the history and growth of the humanist movement in North America. Renowned philosopher and activist Corliss Lamont offers a vigorous argument for humanism and provides an affirmative, intelligent guidebook for shaping a better life in today's complex world. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Excellent introduction
Trying to sum up a wide topic in a single volume Mr. Lamont had to hit a lot of topics so at times the book jumps around and only gives overviews.I don't thinkanyone could put more information about humanist philosophy in a single readable and enjoyable volume though.Certainly some of the topics he hits on leave the reader wanting to learn more which to me is a good thing.There are lots more books out there.

Good introduction
The author's approach of explaining what is humanism is to contrast it against other schools of thought.This author did so in a concise way with clarity, which is quite rare amongst philosophers.I have been confused for the longest time what IS humanism?Not to mention materialism, naturalism, unitarinism, universalism, Deism...etc, which were not covered in my two college level philosphy classes.The level of discussion in this book is simple enough that someone with my background can understand.

The 6th edition I own contains the author's introductions of previous editions, which could actually be interesting and entertaining to read.They are basically the author's sometimes condescending, sometimes logical, defense against the smearing of humanism by different religous groups.Although this book is quite old (1960s), given the increasing level of religious conservatism in US, this book still have relevance.

The reason why this book would not get a 5 star from me is that a large part of this book is devoted to proving why God does not exist and that only scientific method produces Truth.Such topic for this intro text is just too ambitious and the arugement used is probably less sophisticated that other books that attempts to disprove the existence of god.It feels like there is cherry picking of examples.The author used examples, perhaps too many of them, to explain why things like natural moral law, miracles, after life, mysticism..etc does not makes sense.I agree with one reviewer that the author's tone is dogmatic.I expect this author, as an academics, to sound less opinionated and more open minded.

After understanding what humanist means, I agree with the author that many forms of beliefs has qualities of humanism.However, I am not persuaded by the author that other forms of beliefs are necessarily wrong. I think I am 50% athetist and 50% agnostic.This book did not manage to suade me to the athetist camp.

Pretty darn dull
This is a great book for an insomniac, it puts you right to sleep.It's too bad, because Lamont seems to have put in a lot of work reviewing his encyclopedia for vapid generalities about dead white men.

Specifically, the "philosophy of humanism" in Lamont's hands is an exercise in wool gathering, padding, and trying to look like he's saying something while saying as little as possible (but the same could be said for the Humanist Manifesto III).In addition, the book definitely shows a '50s mentality which has not been edited out of the later "editions."For Lamont, the '60s never happened.

The historical review probably has some value as a bibliography to more vital and lively works.Really, I'd like to be more positive, but I just can't find much to like about this book.By the way, I am a humanist.

Primer on Secular Humanism
This book answers the "what" of secular humanism, but not the "why." So, if you're looking for a "debate" or treatise on why humanism is the better philosophy for humankind, you may not find everything you want in this book. What the book does offer is an explanation of specific humanist "tenets" and what implications arise from them. The book covers the definition and history of humanism and then goes into specification application as it pertains to: unity of "mind" and body, origins, science, reason, ethics, freedom, happiness and democracy.

This book is joyous reading! Enjoy!
The Philosophy of Humanism is a scholarly work, tracing the influence of Humanism from the ancient Greek philosophers through the Enlightenment and the Bill of Rights to the twentieth century. It is very well documented with reference notes and bibliography for those who prefer sources, yet itis written in a most readable style.

I heartily recommend this book toanyone who truly wishes to investigate and understand this oftenmisinterpreted philosophy. They will learn that Humanism certainly does notpromote witchcraft or the worship of human beings, nor does it advocateselfishness, as in the "me" generation, or for consciencelessmaterialism and ruthlessness, as is often falsely asserted by those whofear and misunderstand the principles of Humanism.

Rather, as Dr. Lamontpoints out, it promotes ethical behavior and respect for others, yet with afreedom of conscience unfettered by traditional supernatural beliefs.Humanists oppose censorship and insist on full exercise of the freedomsguaranteed by the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech and access toinformation. Humanists are devoted to democratic principles, the employmentof critical reasoning and scientific method, and the full recognition thatwe humans are products of continuing evolution.

The Creationists' wish tohold the line against the teaching of evolution in the public schools isunderstandable. Open scientific inquiry does not promote acceptance onblind faith; the scientist searches for evidence. It's a worrisome matterof indoctrination versus education.

Corliss Lamont was pleased to note,in the introduction to his sixth edition of this book, that so-called"moral majority" leader, Tim LaHaye, cited The Philosophy ofHumanism 36 times in his own book The Battle for the Mind, which denouncesHumanism as "amoral" and as "the most dangerous religion inthe world." An alarming "moral majority" pamphlet forparents asks: "Is Humanism molesting your child?"

Humanism isnot taught in any public schools, contrary to the religious right'saccusation, but is synonymous with a scientific method, that of aquestioning, open, approach to learning, using critical reasoning. Thismethod itself is seen as constituting the great danger: that of encouraginga child to examine and articulate values and concepts in an objective way,rather than accepting with blind obedience that which has been asserted bya power or authority.

The Philosophy of Humanism is the definitive workon the subject of Humanism, used as a standard text, and even as areference in the ongoing debate that swirls around the words "secularhumanism." This name, incidentally, (which is redundant inasmuch ashumanism is already secular, being not-religious), was coined in a SupremeCourt footnote (Torcaso vs. Watkins) that declared humanism similar toreligions, like Buddhism or Hinduism, that do not worship a supernaturalgod.

However, Dr. Lamont insists that Humanism is not a religion, but aphilosophy!

Instead of a personal salvation in some afterlife, Humanismemphasizes the present, the here and now, living to the fullest the onlylife we know we have. The Humanist projection into the future is not a wishfor immortality, according to Dr. Lamont, or survival of the personality insome mysterious spiritual realm, but instead focuses on a commitment to thelong-range benefit of those around us and those who live after us. Thesurvival of the best of our human endeavors, our species, our families, ourgenes is consistent with the Humanist outlook.

Dr. Lamont traces thefirst written record of the philosophy of naturalistic Humanism to ancientAthens in the fifth century BCE in the words of Pericles, who gave afuneral oration championing the cause of democracy and saluting the braveryof those fallen in battle without reference to a deity or a promise of anafterlife reward for their sacrifice.

This book explores the developmentof our very human need to explain the mysteries of the universe, beginningwith some of the most ancient concepts and leading up to present dayphilosophies. We share our human curiosity with our primate ancestors. Inthe absence of science in the childhood of humankind, we did what allchildren do: we made up stories to explain the phenomena which we observed,and which were incomprehensible to us, and therefore seemed akin to magic.Without science how could it have been otherwise?

Dr. Corliss Lamontdescribes Humanism as a philosophy of joyous service for the good of allhumanity that advocates reason, science and democracy. This book is joyousreading! Enjoy! ... Read more