Book Description
The real Axis of Evil is… * The Religion of Humanism * American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) * National Education Association (NEA) It’s time to get back to some old-fashioned values like commitment and sacrifice and responsibility and purity and love and the straight life. Not only will our children benefit from our self-discipline and perseverance, but we adults will live in a less neurotic world, too! In the case Torcaso v. Watkins (in 1961) the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” ... Read more

Book Description
By some estimates, over 1 billion people in the world are non-religious (humanist/secular/atheist) yet we base some of our parenting techniques and traditions on religion. There are many books available on parenting around each of the major religions, but few around parenting in a Humanist household. This book is an attempt to outline how non-religious parents can have rites, rituals, and practices needed for a healthy, spiritually fulfilled family. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Straightforward and Easy to Read
This is a straightforward guide that is well written and easy to read.The author has included a chapter for kids that helps to answer some of the questions children may have regarding Humanism, religion, science, etc., as well as another chapter for more inquisitive teens that answers many of the same questions in more detail. Also covered in this book are subjects dealing with Humanist philosophy, morality, traditions, and relevant social issues.The book is filled with helpful information, and includes many references for those who want to delve deeper into various subjects.Sean has written a book that should make it much easier for non-religious, Humanist parents to give their children a nurturing family life. ... Read more

Book Description
Where should humanists stand on various political issues, and how can political activists bring humanism into their work? Twenty-five leading humanists discuss these questions in TOWARD A NEW POLITICAL HUMANISM, using humanism - a secular, planetary, and active philosophy whose aim is to build a cooperative human society where science, reason, compassion, and the use of evidence in each and every decision are paramount - as the basic philosophical core of human beliefs and nature that we can use as a foundation for creating a better society for the twenty-first century. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Well researched and written
Mr. Murphy has done years worth of well research and is a very intelligent editor to such an ecletic collection of works that will be included in any University's classical area for years to come. 2 Kudos to Mr. Murphy!

Awesome Collection of essays
This book articulate the importance of humanists having stances on political issues and the importance of humanism in our understanding of politics. For far too long religion has had a say in politics and this collection provides a much needed balance to the religous right. I highly recommend this collection

This Collection Can Save The Planet...
OK, so as one of the editors of this important collection of essays, I can sometimes get a bit carried away.But if you are indeed wondering how we humans can make it through the mess we find ourselves in right now, you may want to read this:

From book's introduction:

"For the world of the 21st century, humanistic values must project the vision of a peaceful world in which no man, woman or child, or class of men, women, or children shall live as servants or slaves existing simply to fulfill the whims and wishes and desires of others, a world in which no man or woman or child shall be used as a tool to satisfy the lusts or greed or ambitions of others, a world in which every human life, the life of every man, woman, and child shall be a wanted, welcomed, and esteemed member of the one human family." - Gerald A. Larue

Are Humanists' Progressive?

Just as organized religion in most any form-particularly in its marriage with government-can be seen as the most dangerous threat to humanism from without, the battle over where humanism stands in regard to real-world politics, might be the most dangerous-at least the most divisive-argument from within ... Especially in the post-911 world.

The question at hand is "can humanism, as put forth via the Affirmations of Humanism and the Humanist Manifestos I, II, III, and 2000, continue to stay neutral on political issues not so obviously tied in with religion or superstition-issues which nevertheless shape our daily lives and our collective future?"

Many within the humanist movement, unlike most other competing philosophies, have claimed that political ideologies such as Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, or Progressive/Regressive should not, dare we say CAN not, be addressed via humanist philosophy.The argument has gone that humanists of conscience can differ widely on any number of socio-political issues.

Although we recognize that different people do indeed come to humanism from different launching points, and expect different things from the movement (i.e. tough stands taken against religion, a non-religious community, a place where science is respected, etc), we feel that humanism can not reach its potential unless it becomes a universal philosophy.And that cannot happen unless humanists are willing to enter the real world of politics.

We as humanists need to embrace more cooperative structures that expand the humanist ethic from a libertarian, individualistic framework, to a more universalistic framework which while retaining the belief in personal freedom, seeks to bring about a global ethic that values interconnectedness as much as individualism. These goals and others are represented in the essays found in this book.

Humanism is also in need of a coherent definition.In an age where religious (and other) fundamentalisms have taken over the mind of so many humans, it is time for humanists to articulate their political vision of a better world and have their voice represented in the political arena.This does not mean, as some have suggested, that we should vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation who publicly comes out as a secular humanist or an atheist.The issue should be not whether we vote ANY humanist into office but what TYPE of humanist we vote into political office.Indeed, we should support candidates whose platform articulates a vision of the United States, and the world, where people build cooperative structures instead of competitive ones; a world in which humanistic economics, universal human rights, and respecting human needs, take place over corporate capitalism and religious intolerance, and ultra-conservative ideologies.

In sum, it is our opinion that in order for humanism to have a real world impact on society-especially American society-we have to move beyond (but not forgo) our basic foundation of skepticism, atheism and agnosticism into the world of human endeavors.This means that we have to do more that write impressive manifestos and affirmations, we have to live by them! ... Read more

Book Description
to produce a definitive body of knowledge that would be as perfect as humanity's fallen state permits, and which would provide a view of God, nature, and human conduct, promoting order in this world and blessedness in the next. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Goes on my shelf of favorite books
For those interested in the history of Western thought, this is a readable, scholarly treatment of the beginnings of the "12th century renaissance".It gives one a three-dimensional sense of the important intellectual developments of the period, focusing on the roles of the universities, the masters and the students of the time.Southern takes the mystery out of the institutions and conditions which fostered Scholasticism and provides an understanding of how the flowering of intellectual life could and did take place.You will want to read the next volume in the series as soon as you finish this one. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Another "must read" from Prof. Larue
Very informative, as are all his books. In plain and comfortable English he discusses ways in which Humanists may be as deeply ethical as deists, without the trappings.

excellent for humanist and ethical culture services
Since I've started studying Humanism, I've become a big fan of Gerald A. Larue.His other works include "Freethought Across the Centuries", my favorite, and the "Way of Positive Humanism".

Like his "The Way of Positive Humanism", "The Way of Ethical Humanism" is a collection of his Ethical Culture Society platform addresses (sermons).I read one of his addresses in this book at a Humanist service when we decided to postpone the main presentation.

I recommend this book for anyone exploring Humanism as a religion. ... Read more

Amazon.com
Modern humanity made a deal with the devil, according to Tzvetan Todorov. We got freedom, but we also lost God and common society, and we have only a helpless and dizzying individualism to guide us. The central problem facing us now is how to survive the poison pill we swallowed when we tasted freedom. There are four basic responses, Todorov claims: conservatism, scientism, individualism, and humanism. As the reader soon learns from his characterizations, Todorov's allegiance is firmly with the humanists. Imperfect Garden takes up the standard of humanism, and Todorov situates himself alongside Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Montaigne.

For Todorov, as with the best of the humanists, life in the world is a garden that needs our tending. And though by its nature it is imperfect, at times bearing rotten and sour fruit, it can always be improved with our care, diligence, and love. Ultimately, Todorov proposes that humanism is a wager, à la Pascal: we will be no worse off for striving to mend the human condition, but we risk everything if we don't. --Eric de Place Book Description

Available in English for the first time, Imperfect Garden is both an approachable intellectual history and a bracing treatise on how we should understand and experience our lives. In it, one of France's most prominent intellectuals explores the foundations, limits, and possibilities of humanist thinking. Through his critical but sympathetic excavation of humanism, Tzvetan Todorov seeks an answer to modernity's fundamental challenge: how to maintain our hard-won liberty without paying too dearly in social ties, common values, and a coherent and responsible sense of self.

Todorov reads afresh the works of major humanists--primarily Montaigne, Rousseau, and Constant, but also Descartes, Montesquieu, and Toqueville. Each chapter considers humanism's approach to one major theme of human existence: liberty, social life, love, self, morality, and expression. Discussing humanism in dialogue with other systems, Todorov finds a response to the predicament of modernity that is far more instructive than any offered by conservatism, scientific determinism, existential individualism, or humanism's other contemporary competitors. Humanism suggests that we are members of an intelligent and sociable species who can act according to our will while connecting the well-being of other members with our own. It is through this understanding of free will, Todorov argues, that we can use humanism to rescue universality and reconcile human liberty with solidarity and personal integrity.

Placing the history of ideas at the service of a quest for moral and political wisdom, Todorov's compelling and no doubt controversial rethinking of humanist ideas testifies to the enduring capacity of those ideas to meditate on--and, if we are fortunate, cultivate--the imperfect garden in which we live.

Customer Reviews (3)

Pieper on being authentic
Pieper's interpretation of Plato's late Dialogue Phaedrus, and how Plato's views of where and how divine inspiration comes about, or what he calls "being-beside-oneself". Of all of Pieper's books I have read, thus far, none conjured up similarities of thought to Von Eschenbach's "Parzival", or Joseph campbell, or Allan Watts as this book does. His discription of the complications of staying in the state of "being-besides-oneself" may be the sort of advice Parzival might have used on his first experience of being in the Grail Castle; or, for that matter, for a surfer riding a wave. Pieper says the trouble is, "He can on condition (of being-besides-oneself) that when recieving the impetus born of emotion, he accepts and sustains it in lasting purity. In this context the possibilities of corruption, adulteration, dissimulation, pretension, and psuedo-actualization lie dangeriously close." It reminds me of Joseph Campbell saying "the privilidge of a life-time is being who you are"; or Allan Watts discussing the benifits of living in spontaneity, trusting in one's first thoughts, without the duelistic inner voice of self-doubt that makes one a splintered person; or, for that matter, "The Force"; or, further, the Kaballa's admiration of chaos; or Albert Camus' facination with the absurd.Pieper, in a nutshell, states that this divinely inspired "being-besides-oneself" may come from an unforseen act of chaos or "ecstatic frenzy"; or submission to god, creation; or Poetic mania; or beauty (of a very specific nature). Peiper, seemed to be saying, that like the Holy Grail, this "being-besides-oneslef" is a difficult thing to find if one is, on the whole, consciously looking for it. Pieper seemed to struggle to find a voice for this book, and it didn't seem entirely complete, thus the 4 stars.

Human Existence is Possible through Openness to the Divine
This little book lacks Josef Pieper's usually flare, but it is still very good.

The subtitle is very important -- "Plato's Case Against Secular Humanism" -- for it tells us what Peiper is up to.He is arguing against secular humanism which he defines in the following way:

"We do not need any supernatural answers; we ourselves takes care of any psychological problems that call for relief; any "art" that neither satisfies a specific need, even if this need is only entertainment, nor serves the political and technological control of the world is not welcome; and above all, sexuality must not be hindered in its expressions or idealized romantically."

Pieper responds to this anthropology through a careful analysis of Plato's "Phaedrus."His answer can be divided in the following four points:

1. It is only when the human person looses his or her rational sovereignty that he or she can gain a wealth of intuition, light, truth, and insight into the MYSTERY of reality.

2. It is only when we realize that we have inherited the guilt of the human race -- i.e., that in some way, we are all responsible for the moral evils in the world -- can we open ourselves up to Divine Healing.

3. True poetry transcends rationality insofar that is originates in divine inspiration.(Note: this is one of the sub-themes of the Dead Poet's Society.)

4. Natural beauty must be seen as a metaphor for divine beauty.Natural beauty gives us an eschatological awareness by awakening in us a yearning to behold divine beauty.

This book is not very easy to read, but very profound, especially if you are interested in a philosophical starting point for dialogue with modern and post-modern men and women.

Inspiring book
This is a short essay on the real location of happiness. Pieper writes this book in a sofisticated way (perhaps is the translation) but his ideas are clear and deep. ... Read more

Book Description
In the tradition of Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary, and Joseph McCabe's Rationalist Encyclopedia, this accessible dictionary addresses the contemporary need for a reference book that succinctly summarizes the key concepts, current terminology, and major contributions of influential thinkers broadly associated with atheism, skepticism, and humanism. In the preface, author Bill Cooke notes that his work is intended "for freethinkers in the broadest sense of the word: people who like to think for themselves and not according to the preplanned routes set by others." This dictionary will serve as a guide for all those people striving to lead fulfilling, morally responsible lives without religious belief. Readers are offered a wide range of concepts, from ancient, well-known notions such as God, free will, and evil to new concepts such as "eupraxsophy." Also included are current "buzzwords" that have some bearing on the freethought worldview such as "metrosexual." The names of many people whose lives or work reflect freethought principles form a major portion of the entries. Finally, a humanist calendar is included, on which events of interest to freethinkers are noted. This unique, accessible, and highly informative work will be a welcome addition to the libraries ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Concise, Thorough, Comprehensive Biographical and Conceptual Dictionary
This book is extremely good.Entries are very readable, and cover all different types of material from biographical data of important freethinkers; history of freethought; philosophical concepts; ideas in sociology, psychology, and political science, and even modern neologisms.

A valuable reference and a just plain fun to pick up at any point and start reading.

Humanist wit and wisdom
Bill Cooke has written a wonderful and insightful book which is much more than a reference book on humanism, atheism and skepticism. Cooke shows that there is a wealth of humanist insights in different cultures and times. The style of the book is marvellous: funny and witty: 'The ability to talk to oneself without feeling sliiy.' [prayer]. This book can (and should) be read cover to cover. You will learn about many thinkers and activists which are not mentioned in most history and philosophy books (like Robert Green Ingersoll) but who have done more to improve the human condition than most philosophers. In many entries on modern culture Cooke gives his own ideas on humanism and what it means to be a humanist. According to Cooke for example you can't be a humanist and drive in a hummer [check out the entry]. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Solid North
(Pardon all the "to be" verbs.)

It's hard not to be impressed by this book. Surpassing 400 pages, North's work details countless facets of the "paranormal" or "occult," all while analyzing them from what can be called a "poor man's" Van Tillian point of view; after all, Mr. North is the ultimate "poor man's philosopher."

The book seems bewildering in places. North has no problem accepting as reality all sorts of things Science vehemently repudiates. Under discussion, among other things, are Spontaneous Human Combustion, ESP, crystals, psychic healing, primitive sorcery, telepathy, telekinesis, talking plants, outright Satanism, precognition, even UFOs. For this reason, this book poses just as many problems to "post-Kantian, mechanistic, impersonalistic, rationalistic, liberal humanistic" Science as it does to occultism. North spends almost as much time debunking the ways Science has "debunked" these phenomena as he does condemning the phenomena themselves as evil.

While judiciously weighing the merits of the claims that make up the book, North still wants to make it very clear to his reader that, in principle, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of such accounts. Many times throughout the book, North will inform the reader that such and such a claim is not trustworthy, or that some other person was exposed as a fraud (through legitimate means). Overall, however, he presents the case that these things are real, for he is just as interested in exposing the rotting foundations of modern science as he is in exposing the evil of the phenomena themselves. For this reason, this book is quite awesome.

The research done for this book is astounding. Some of the longer chapters have upwards of 100 footnotes apiece.

A few words of criticism:

A) In place, the reader wonders how trustworthy some of the stories are when they come from the same sources. In particular, North's account of Cayce (among others) shows itself more thin than some of the rest, because all the information presented in the book comes from the same one to three sources. Minor detail, however.

B) No bibliography. How useful would an annotated bibliography be in a book like this which uses hundreds and hundreds of sources! Argh.

C) Like many of North's book, _Unholy Spirits_ suffers from a little too much repetition. Throughout. To use one example, he calls chapter 10 ("The Escape from Creaturehood") the "heart of the book," but the 50-page chapter doesn't seem to contain anything new in it. Everything in it has already been detailed earlier in the book in extensive detail. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

D) Most importantly, North doesn't seem to do enough analysis in many places, but instead only engages in criticism. For example, North seems content, grounded as he is in presuppositional apologetics, to detail the beliefs of some sect (say the sorcery of don Juan), and then skip right to the criticism: it's demonic or it's evil or it's Gnostic, &c. and it contradicts the Bible here and here. But the reader would benefit greatly from _internal_ criticism here: how does this philosophy kill itself? How does this world-view rationally self-destruct? There is almost none of that in the book.

However, many of the critical sections of the book are absolutely priceless. In particular, North's discussions on the abolition of time, the importance of the orgy in primitivism, the economic consequences of occultism, why primitivism is primitive, &c. are all absolutely essential. It should be understood, though, that these sections are not analytical, but instead critical.

In all, this is one of North's best books. In addition, I know of no other Reformed Christian book written on occultism. I unreservedly recommend it.

Well researched analysis of occultism.
Every Christian ought to read Gary North's "Unholy Spirits." Within our context we probably do not encounter too many psychic healings, spontaneous combustions, witch hexings and the like.North assembles an impressive amount of research (his chapter on the sorcerer's world was particularly intriguing) in a convincing fashion.By the end of the book, one should be convinced in the existence and power of evil spirits.North does an excellent job of critiquing the rationalism of modern scientists, who refuse to take seriously the reality of the paranormal.Rationalism, as Cornelius Van Til argued, has a secret treaty with irrationalism, and North proves the existence of this treaty.Both sides (rationalism/irrationalism),although they often have internal squabbles, are against God and His Anointed.History often manifests the oscillation between these two systems of thought, and this is due to man's propensity to refuse to embrace biblical religion.The 1960s and its infatuation with the occult mark a transitory stage into the irrational, Van Til's "integration into the void."Being a man who refuses to fight something with nothing, North offers his readers the only good alternative to the coming (seemingly) world of irrational, chaotic humanism--covenantal obedience to every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."Unholy Spirits" is a fine read.Be sure to follow North's warnings, however, in your study of this often macabre subject.

A unique, groundbreaking book
This is intellectual detective work at its best. The forward alone (TheCrisis of Western Rationalism) is just about worth the price of the book.North follows the rationalistic viewpoint to lits logical conclusion,showing why it helps foment occultism. He also shows how orthodoxChristianity has the only answer to problems unanswerable by devotees ofscience or the occult. But it's hardly a sermon. None the likes of whichyou've heard before. It's a full course meal for the mind on every page. Itwas through the reading of this book that I was introduced to the writingsof Jacques Vallee, because North dedicates some analysis to Vallee's work.He believes that Vallee is on target about UFO's being a control mechanismof deception, but wrong about what they really are. At any rate there isone thing you will not be when reading this book....bored. ... Read more

Book 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

Book Description
Explores the moral and philosophical underpinnings of Vonnegut's work. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

An advanced and formal literary analysis
Kurt Vonnegut's Crusade: Or How A Post Modern Harlequin Preached A New Kind Of Humanism by Todd D. Davis (Assistant Professor of English at Penn State) explores the humanistic angle of the fiction of celebrated 60's and 70's author Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut's wish to preserve the world from environmental and military destruction, to use writing as an instrument of good citizenship and offer hope for the power of writing through provisional narratives are among the themes explored at length. An advanced and formal literary analysis, recommended for college library shelves. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

Another failed attempt at a secular ethic
As the old saw goes: It's easier to toss grenades than it is to catch them.In other words, it's easier to attack something than it is to posit a defensible alternative.Kurtz is on stronger grounds critiquing theistic ethics and theism in general than he is in providing some rational, secular basis for ethics.For the last few centuries, philosophy has been rife with failed attempts to find some nontheistic, rational foundation for morality.But if there's any consensus in moral philosophy today, both theistic and nontheistic moral philosophy, it's that no attempt to generate such a rational defense or "proof" has of yet been successful.There's simply no rational secular reason why someone should always morally care for another human being, particularly when there's no particular reason why caring about another serves any particular personal interests.What the religious folks have going for them is that they have shared bases for moral appeal.Go to a church, mosque, temple or synagogue, and everyone can point to some shared agreement in a religious text that tells them why they ought to care for one another and for strangers.Atheists and agnostics have no such shared basis, and whatever basis any particular nontheist might personally appeal to provides no rational reason for any other nontheist (unless they just choose to believe - i.e. faith), since there's no objective, secular, rational grounds for morally caring about others when it's not in one's interest.Any assumption that it's always in one's interests to morally care about everyone else in every case is just naive and unrealistic. Certainly there are cases when the expected personal gains from, say, stealing from someone else, outweigh any personal costs, at least for some people. Appeals to evolutionary ethics begs the question, since just because evolution has generated a moral impulse gives nobody any reason to follow that impulse (should we follow all impulses all the time? - and why should one in the short term care about the ultimate survival of one's genes or even species?).What's good for society is not always what's best for the individual, so merely appealing to the best interests of society in general doesn't provide the individual any rational reason to do something that may not be in his or her bests interests.And so on.Perhaps this is why we see moral and charitable movements generated by religious movements but not many by way of atheistic groups.Religious folks can rally around some shared sacred text to motivate them en masse.What do nontheists have?

In the end, the ethics one chooses just ends up being articles of faith, the same kind of rationally unproveable faith that notheists criticize religious folks for embracing.

Yes, humanists can moralize, too
This book is solid evidence that atheists do consider issues of "right and wrong" to be real, and important; that they have strong opinions about them; and that they can argue well, and at length, for their opinions.

As eloquent and insightful as Paul Kurtz can sometimes be, however, he seems to regard his own moral reasoning as THE "reasoned" morality.The evidence of history is that there are multiple opinions on moral issues, among those who base their opinions on "fact and reason" as well as among those who base their opinions on "faith and scripture."

Before reading, I already agreed that there is a rational basis for morality that does not depend on the existence of, or instructions from, a supernatural God.I was hoping to find new arguments for that, and found myself disappointed.This book isn't going to prove anything to religionists who insist that God is the foundation of all morality, because evidence does not affect basic assumptions.Basic assumptions affect how evidence is perceived.The most dogmatic religionists are more likely to avoid this book altogether, or to be immediately alienated by it (as demonstated by an earlier one-star review).

So far, I like Kurtz better as an editor than as an essayist.The case he attempts to make here seems to me to be made better in his compilation of other people's essays, Moral Problems in Contemporary Society. Moral Problems in Contemporary Society: Essays in Humanistic Ethics,

For a rational examination of the actual basis for the human moral sense, I recommend The Moral Sense by James Q. Wilson.It not only has more of science in it than Paul Kurtz's book of opinion, it is also not framed as a head-on conflict with religion.It is easier to appeal to reason when you do not gratuitously arouse emotional issues.The MORAL SENSE

Good, But Not His Best.
I would like to say that I have enormous respect for Paul Kurtz and that I essentially agree with everything he espouses. I am an agnostic who believes that religion is a force mainly for ill. But he has written better books than this one.

Unlike The Transcendental Temptation, where Mr. Kurtz masterfully strips religion & pseudo-science of their pretensions & delusions of grandeur with damning evidence, Forbidden Fruit comes up a bit short & a little inconsequential in comparison. As a general introduction to Humanist ethics, it's fine. To be sure, Kurtz does spend a lot of time aptly demonstrating the ills & immorality of religious thought. He also capably describes how ethics are human inventions & obviously not ordained from high. I completely agree with these observations.

Unfortunately, some of his observations are as ill-considered as those of any mystic or creationist.

Aside from quibbles like these, this is an excellent book written by a giant of Humanist thought. I definitely recommend it to those considering abandoning outmoded religious thinking and fanaticism. Speaking of these, I would humbly request that the reviewer from "stationed overseas" remain stationed overseas. We have enough close-minded religious fanatics in the US as it is.

Everyone Should Read this
As in his other book 'In Defense of Secular Humanism', Paul Kurtz explains that one need not be tied to religion to be ethical (or even moral).I agree with the previous reviewer who stated that the wirting can get a bit technical at times, but I don't think that it slows the pace at all.The technicality of some of the arguments is necessary, as Kurtz is using reason and logic to explain issues that are usually debated with emotional rhetoric or repititious dogma.You may have some friends who are teetering in their lockstep devotion to religion... so buy this book and give 'em a shove.They'll thank you.

This is not about ethics...
It's just another "I hate religion" book.This book is seething with "I feel guilty and I refuse to believe its my conscience given to me by God"... ... Read more

Book Description
In Defense of Humanism: Value in the Arts and Letters is a response to the critique of traditional humanism. In simple, clear language, Richard Etlin articulates the nature of aesthetic experience through analysis of works in a wide variety of media, including painting, sculpture, architecture, drawing, literature, and dance. Establishing categories for determining value in the arts and letters, Etlin also explores the operations of the creative process in a discussion of artistic genius, reaffirming the transcendent moral and enduring qualities in great works of art. ... Read more