Customer Reviews

The Philosophy of Humanism

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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 it is written in a most readable style.

I heartily recommend this book to anyone who truly wishes to investigate and understand this often misinterpreted philosophy. They will learn that Humanism certainly does not promote witchcraft or the worship of human beings, nor does it advocate selfishness, as in the "me" generation, or for conscienceless materialism and ruthlessness, as is often falsely asserted by those who fear and misunderstand the principles of Humanism.

Rather, as Dr. Lamont points out, it promotes ethical behavior and respect for others, yet with a freedom of conscience unfettered by traditional supernatural beliefs. Humanists oppose censorship and insist on full exercise of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech and access to information. Humanists are devoted to democratic principles, the employment of critical reasoning and scientific method, and the full recognition that we humans are products of continuing evolution.

The Creationists' wish to hold the line against the teaching of evolution in the public schools is understandable. Open scientific inquiry does not promote acceptance on blind faith; the scientist searches for evidence. It's a worrisome matter of 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 of Humanism 36 times in his own book The Battle for the Mind, which denounces Humanism as "amoral" and as "the most dangerous religion in the world." An alarming "moral majority" pamphlet for parents asks: "Is Humanism molesting your child?"

Humanism is not taught in any public schools, contrary to the religious right's accusation, but is synonymous with a scientific method, that of a questioning, open, approach to learning, using critical reasoning. This method itself is seen as constituting the great danger: that of encouraging a child to examine and articulate values and concepts in an objective way, rather than accepting with blind obedience that which has been asserted by a power or authority.

The Philosophy of Humanism is the definitive work on the subject of Humanism, used as a standard text, and even as a reference in the ongoing debate that swirls around the words "secular humanism." This name, incidentally, (which is redundant inasmuch as humanism is already secular, being not-religious), was coined in a Supreme Court footnote (Torcaso vs. Watkins) that declared humanism similar to religions, like Buddhism or Hinduism, that do not worship a supernatural god.

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

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

Dr. Lamont traces the first written record of the philosophy of naturalistic Humanism to ancient Athens in the fifth century BCE in the words of Pericles, who gave a funeral oration championing the cause of democracy and saluting the bravery of those fallen in battle without reference to a deity or a promise of an afterlife reward for their sacrifice.

This book explores the development of our very human need to explain the mysteries of the universe, beginning with some of the most ancient concepts and leading up to present day philosophies. We share our human curiosity with our primate ancestors. In the absence of science in the childhood of humankind, we did what all children 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 Lamont describes Humanism as a philosophy of joyous service for the good of all humanity that advocates reason, science and democracy. This book is joyous reading! Enjoy!

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.

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.

Corliss Lamont has wonderfully organized the philosophical views of humanism in a systematic manner by presenting the general humanist view in different fundamental subjects of life such as naturalism, ethics, free-will vs. determinism, personal identity, political philosophy, and science. This voluminous exposition of different subjects from the humanist point of view is also very useful in explaining what humanism is essentially about to the curious readers who wants to understand humanism. Despite the fact that this book is very long, it is not very difficult to read if the reader decides to consistently spend portion of his or her spare time to concentrate on reading.

Even though Corliss Lamont has successfully provided a general humanist view on many subjects that approximately reflects the views among secular humanists, which is something he intended to accomplish, the "answers" or "solutions" to some of the subjects are at least open to dispute. For example, Lamont insisted that humanism is not dedicated or committed to any ethical theory such as deontology or utilitarianism, and Lamont himself argued that there should be a balance between "means" and "ends". While this is a interesting position, I feel as though Lamont has not clarified what this "balance" consists of, and why commitment to any one ethical theory is something humanism avoids. The avoidance of ethical theory would, in general, make it apparent that humanism has a very vague position on the theory of ethics, but a strong view on applied ethics. While I am not demanding any specific view of ethical theory on humanism, I am inclined to think that any ethical theory is needed to explain why we hold certain ethical opnions/views in everyday life.

Another interesting subject which Lamont expounded on was free-will. Lamont was promoting for the compatibilist view on free-will vs. determinism in which both free-will and determinism are compatible. With talented writing, Lamont has profoundly expressed his compatibalist view, but did little to defend it.

I do not think Lamont himself would deny this, but to argue on his behalf Lamont intended to provide an introduction to humanism, not necessarily a kind of philosophical defense of it. Even though his voluminous introduction of humanism is one of the classical standard reading of humanism, one can not help but feel that the kind of humanism Lamont presented is not necessarily absent of any philosophical challenges to the political kind.

Despite this, I enjoyed reading Lamont's Humanism, and the reason why I read Lamont's humanism is to find an alternative to supernatural explanation of life. I personally agree with most of his views, which probably means that I fit into his description of a humanist. In a way this book has made myself aware of what my personal views are, which is why I found it rewarding.

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 think anyone 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.

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.