Epicurean Philosophy Vs. Humanism

I think the citations from the Humanist Manifesto perfectly show how secular Humanism is pretty much Christianity without God, but it seems Humanist organizations have grown indifferent to these principles as they have all sorts of people in their ranks. Check out the American Humanist Association's annual Humanist awardees. Many of these people wouldn't be Humanists according to the HM, I think the term Humanist now is very vague you could apply it to any non-religious philosophy. The great Dr. Albert Ellis was one of the awardees and his ethical beliefs were quite similar to Epicureanism. I think Humanist groups could be a nice space for Epicureans to battle superstition and share their views but it's not really a space for Epicureanism itself.

Humanists are quite an interesting phenomenon. From my point of experience, there are at least two types of current organizations that use the Humanist label:

a.) Those which are secular counter-clubs to confessional Christianity, celebrating coming-of-age-parties, offering secular rituals for weddings and funerals and so on. Historically, they emerged 100-200 years ago. In Germany for example, they are even registered as "Churchs" which gives them certain kinds of privileges.

b.) Atheist propagandists which proclaim science and evolutionary theory as illuminating forces and themselves as experts.

The other question is - consider Humanists themselves Epicureans? I would deny this question but nonetheless they frequently point to Epicurus when it comes to historical precursors giving them legetimacy.

"Humanism" has meant so many things throughout history, I tend to avoid it at this point. Cicero's usage 2,000 years ago informs its contemporary, academic usage of as "Liberal Arts". Renaissance "humanism" needs to be contextualized alongside a cultural movement driven by wealthy patrons funding of major art projects. Some early American colonists saw their revolution as being "humanistic" (against the proposition of the Divine Right of kings), and Marxists in the 1920s adopted the word to refer to the transformative nature of their politics and economics. It has also been championed by modern Unitarians to emphasize the human-aspect of their Christ. The generalized definition includes half of all thinkers throughout history, in which case, most of the pre-Socratic naturalists, and later Epicurus, would easily fall in this category (or, essentially, any naturalists). Interestingly, the phrase "Secular Humanism" was first employed by religious detractors of Secularism, but then, as happens, their secular opponents later adopted the the term as a badge.

So, if philosophers, liberal scholars, financiers, clergy, laity, colonists, revolutionaries, and religious critics are all comfortable using the term "humanism", then that word may have functionally run its course. I usually only run into it from two sources: (1) contemporary critics of religion and (2) Pope Francis, and that seems strange.

In this excellent book by Caspar Hirschi, The Origins of Nationalism: an alternative History from Ancient Rome to Early Modern Germany (Cambridge 2011) we see that humanism was once a movement (a concrete intellectual and political movement of the early modern period and not just a set of abstract ideas) that was closely associated with nationalism. This is something that modern 'humanists' would find completely preposterous and yet it is true. As Hirschi observes the concept of 'humanism' has today been absorbed by humanitarianism. Nevertheless the epithet humanist still vestigially preserves in Europe some of its original chauvinistic flavors and Europeans will often make quick use of the handle to express pride in the cultural achievements and refinement of European civilization and then proceed to bask in its reflected glory. In the US the word humanism functions as a registered trademark of mainstream leftists who especially use it when in a mood to attack the religious aspects of their political opponents in the name of progress and modernity. None of this has anything to do with Epicurus who lived in world that was alien to modernity and its political agendas and whose only concern was guiding his community to a pleasurable life. If he lived today would he tell us that the key to leading a life of pleasure is becoming humanists and spend our time picking quarrels with the enemies of progress? I doubt it.

I am probably going to attend a "Humanist" event this weekend, as it deals to some extend with Epicurean Philosophy and I'm also interested in how they perceive Epicureanism. It's organized by a society called "Humanistische Vereinigung" (Humanist Association).

The introductory text states:

Philosophical Breakfast: Thoughts on Man, Happiness and Death

Speaker: Dr. Frank Schulze

Starting with the question of what Friedrich Nietzsche actually means by the phrase "human, all-too-human", which has become a common phrase, we will first embark on a short journey of discovery in the direction of the question "What is man?" and from there to the question of human happiness. Here we devote special attention to Epicurus, whose "consistent and coherent grand design of a form of life" (K. Jaspers) is neither ascetic nor dissolute, but aims at inner independence. From this thought, various philosophical perspectives on the problem of death are presented, from antiquity to contemporary thought.

(translated by DeepL)

Do anyone of you have any questions you would like to ask them?

Quote from Cassius

Not too bad an intro, and in my experience if they indeed have an interest in Nietzsche they will not go too far astray toward excessive asceticism (but that's the direction I would expect them to take anyway). Will be interesting to hear your take on the program.

I think I won't act well as a yardstick as I definitively have a tendency towards frugality. Anyway, I too expect the speaker to focus on the moderate life. I will take the forum navigation map with me and try to figure out where they are positioned. I know humanist groups to value Epicurus at least as a person giving them historical legetimacy.

The lecture was quite interesting as it reminded me of a popular stance on Epicurus which is predominant in modern German literature. Epicurus is understood as a philosopher who reaches for inner independence while also granting enjoyment of pleasure as long as the enjoyment doesn't collide with freedom from pain. The focus is slightly different than that of the forum, as it traditionally centers the ethics and doesn't dig deeper. Physics and Canonics remain nearly untouched.

Nonetheless I was amazed by the quite remarkable volume Epicurus was granted by the speaker.

In the following discussion I asked what the reference of Humanism to Epicurus is and he indeed answered, that Epicurean Philosophy has many similarities to Humanism because of Materialism and a positive attitude towards life and the human being. But he also stated, that rather Cicero is seen as a father figure, refering to the term "humanitas" which he told had been coined by Cicero.

I also asked what Humanism is, and they answered that it's about focussing on the human being and individuality. Speaking from the point of being an organisation, they don't want to be critics of religion but form a secular alternative, giving positive value in the world.

I would definitely see them as allies, but I also recognise them as focused more on societally tasks than promoting the personal transformation through philosophy which I regard as the key point.

Quote from Titus

The lecture was quite interesting as it reminded me of a popular stance on Epicurus which is predominant in modern German literature. Epicurus is understood as a philosopher who reaches for inner independence while also granting enjoyment of pleasure as long as the enjoyment doesn't collide with freedom from pain.

Just for clarity sake, wanted to point out this ( Titus you likely already know this) from the Letter to Menoeceus:

"And because this is the primary and inborn good, we do not choose every pleasure. Instead, we pass up many pleasures when we will gain more of what we need from doing so. And we consider many pains to be better than pleasures, if we experience a greater pleasure for a long time from having endured those pains. So every pleasure is a good thing because its nature is favorable to us, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen — just as every pain is a bad thing, yet not every pain is always to be shunned. It is proper to make all these decisions through measuring things side by side and looking at both the advantages and disadvantages, for sometimes we treat a good thing as bad and a bad thing as good."

Quote from Titus

I would definitely see them as allies, but I also recognise them as focused more on societally tasks than promoting the personal transformation through philosophy which I regard as the key point.

This is definitely a key difference between Epicureanism and Humanism. Within Humanism, I think there is nothing wrong with the attempt of societal transformation, but there is only so much time in life -- and it is quite a difficult task to actual do something rather than just talk about it (plus potentially more pain than pleasure). And ever since Epicurus, perhaps this is an issue (and virtue not being the goal) that detractors brought against Epicureanism.

Quote from Cassius

But I wager that is what the "humanists" will always do, because like Cicero they insist on seeing "being human" as something higher than pleasure.

They definitely do and from their point of view, Epicureans adhere to some kind of dogma or be just the unfinished raw diamond or just an example of the past (while still a good one!).

Quote from Cassius

And that's the problem with those who aren't willing to straightforwardly identify freedom from pain as pleasure and see that the overall goal is not some kind of definition of "freedom from pain" that conflicts with or is superior to pleasure, but "pleasure" itself.

I tend to think they might understand the constellation between "freedom from pain" and "pleasure" as you do. The authors I refer to rather argue Epicurus promotes self-sufficiency over excesses, because in the end they cause more unpleasure than create pleasure. Perhaps their main difference is, they emphasize Epicurus' search for painlessness and self-sufficiency (for the reason to be always available of pleasure) rather than calling it pleasure directly (this way would be more antizipating of the canonical structure of the philosophy itself, but makes it even more difficult for the external reader to understand), although they mean the same. Perhaps the devil is just in the details. Especially when it comes to different languages.

They don't seem to speak of pleasure, but indeed they do. But I agree, without a proper understanding, "freedom from pain" can stroll apart and be seen as something different than pleasure.

“Humanism” is such a broad concept, with many – often conflicting (e.g. theistic and nontheistic) – strands, that I find it pretty meaningless as a catch-all philosophical term in itself. Better, perhaps, to speak of “humanisms” of different sorts.

With that said, if one considers the following definitions (from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanism) as valid, then I would think of Epicurean philosophy as a humanism (not necessarily – or perhaps even often – compatible with others):

2: devotion to human welfare : HUMANITARIANISM

"renowned for his humanism"

3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values

The philosophy of Epicurus can't be humanism because it is already called Epicureanism, lol (Apples and oranges are both a fruit)...and maybe we need a chart comparing them.

Quote from Pacatus

"Humanism” is such a broad concept, with many – often conflicting (e.g. theistic and nontheistic) – strands, that I find it pretty meaningless as a catch-all philosophical term in itself. Better, perhaps, to speak of “humanisms” of different sorts.

Perhaps a chart with some common types of humanism listed.

I couldn't find much (and I'm not a chart-maker), but here's a limited one:

Not sure I buy into "unique and sacred nature that is fundamentally different from the nature of all other beings and phenomena". That seems to me to be in conflict with evolution. Also, separating ourselves out as unique, sacred and fundamentally different sounds like one of the evils of idealism and religion which leads to all sorts of misinterpretation and ensuing conflict.

But I appreciate the chart Pacatus ! Quite interesting.

Perhaps this Principal Doctrine has some applicability with regard to Humanism/virtue/ideology:

PD22: "You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion."

(a reminder to "not put the cart before the horse").

I keep mulling this over...it seems that Humanism goes a step further than Epicureanism -- with an ethical goal of improving the greater good of humanity - so progressive politics, philanthropy, and on-going involvement in projects to make the world better according to conceived ideals of peace and equality would be part of Humanism. So while thinking/acting this way wouldn't stop one from "being Epicurean" (finding pleasure in philanthropy), not all Epicureans think this way (and pleasure is found in myriad things). And I think many Epicureans might consider that "perfect peace and equality" are impossible when clearly observing the root causes of inequality and war -- and we are animals with basic needs for food, shelter, and security -- and who have "animal" fears and anxieties. But so many people want to see humans as being something other than animals -- and that we must evolve into "perfect human beings" -- in spite of the stresses that civilization causes to human animals.

Quote from Cassius

"GOOD WITHOUT GOD"

That should be an immediate tipoff that feeling - pleasure and pain - are not at the center of Humanism. What's at the center is "being good."

Yesterday, I visited the "Philosophical Breakfast" for the second time. It would have been an interesting event for you, Cassius, as it dealt with Paul Rée, a nearly forgotten philosopher who is said to have inspired Nietzsche to start his materialistic phase. He finally got another direction than the later madman Nietzsche, becoming a philantropic physician for the poor and died falling from a cliff - one say it was an accident, the other say it was suicide.

More importantly, through my observations I've started to recognize that they are really concerned about being atheist. They are in fact a secular version of theism as they deal with various points they exclusively have in common with the established churches. Firstly, they are registered as a church and they offer secular rituals as substitutes to classical Christian ones. Secondly, they share some stunning patterns with their religious counterparts. They try to meet the same societally consensus to be "good" under the current definition.

Ironically, with the established churches in Germany dropping their faith in sin and the afterlife, they start becoming even closer to the Humanists than mainline Christianity to the the free churches. (The American equivalents e.g. mainline doesn't fit exactly, but they are relatively the same. The American Humanists also use a quite similar logo as their German counterpart and both take part in the same international conferences on Humanism).

I have to say that I enjoyed the atmosphere and speaker was quite talented. I might visit this format again. What they definitely lack is the concept of the happy life. They don't know about the remedies and although many of them would acknoledge some wisdom in Epicureanism, they are far more centered on current topics which finally gets political.

In my opinion, Epicurean Philosophy is a system of thought which tries to guide the individual towards wisdom and gives practical advice how to accomplish a happy life. In the end, Humanism seems to be a complex of atheist ideas which tries to develop influence in society.

That is so well said Cassius! THANK YOU!