What do you think?
Rate this book
Humanly Possible: Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Freethinking, Inquiry, and Hope
The bestselling author of How to Live and At the Existentialist Café explores seven hundred years of writers, thinkers, scientists, and artists, all trying to understand what it means to be truly human
Humanism is an expansive tradition of thought that places shared humanity, cultural vibrancy, and moral responsibility at the center of our lives. The humanistic worldview--as clear-eyed and enlightening as it is kaleidoscopic and richly ambiguous--has inspired people for centuries to make their choices by principles of freethinking, intellectual inquiry, fellow feeling, and optimism.
In this sweeping new history, Sarah Bakewell, herself a lifelong humanist, illuminates the very personal, individual, and, well, human matter of humanism and takes readers on a grand intellectual adventure.
Voyaging from the literary enthusiasts of the fourteenth century to the secular campaigners of our own time, from Erasmus to Esperanto, from anatomists to agnostics, from Christine de Pizan to Bertrand Russell, and from Voltaire to Zora Neale Hurston, Bakewell brings together extraordinary humanists across history. She explores their immense variety: some sought to promote scientific and rationalist ideas, others put more emphasis on moral living, and still others were concerned with the cultural and literary studies known as "the humanities." Humanly Possible asks not only what brings all these aspects of humanism together but why it has such enduring power, despite opposition from fanatics, mystics, and tyrants.
A singular examination of this vital tradition as well as a dazzling contribution to its literature, this is an intoxicating, joyful celebration of the human spirit from one of our most beloved writers. And at a moment when we are all too conscious of the world's divisions, Humanly Possible--brimming with ideas, experiments in living, and respect for the deepest ethical values--serves as a recentering, a call to care for one another, and a reminder that we are all, together, only human.
Humanism is an expansive tradition of thought that places shared humanity, cultural vibrancy, and moral responsibility at the center of our lives. The humanistic worldview--as clear-eyed and enlightening as it is kaleidoscopic and richly ambiguous--has inspired people for centuries to make their choices by principles of freethinking, intellectual inquiry, fellow feeling, and optimism.
In this sweeping new history, Sarah Bakewell, herself a lifelong humanist, illuminates the very personal, individual, and, well, human matter of humanism and takes readers on a grand intellectual adventure.
Voyaging from the literary enthusiasts of the fourteenth century to the secular campaigners of our own time, from Erasmus to Esperanto, from anatomists to agnostics, from Christine de Pizan to Bertrand Russell, and from Voltaire to Zora Neale Hurston, Bakewell brings together extraordinary humanists across history. She explores their immense variety: some sought to promote scientific and rationalist ideas, others put more emphasis on moral living, and still others were concerned with the cultural and literary studies known as "the humanities." Humanly Possible asks not only what brings all these aspects of humanism together but why it has such enduring power, despite opposition from fanatics, mystics, and tyrants.
A singular examination of this vital tradition as well as a dazzling contribution to its literature, this is an intoxicating, joyful celebration of the human spirit from one of our most beloved writers. And at a moment when we are all too conscious of the world's divisions, Humanly Possible--brimming with ideas, experiments in living, and respect for the deepest ethical values--serves as a recentering, a call to care for one another, and a reminder that we are all, together, only human.
464 pages, Hardcover
First published March 28, 2023
About the author
Sarah Bakewell
14 books843 followersSarah Bakewell was a bookseller and a curator of early printed books at the Wellcome Library before publishing her highly acclaimed biographies The Smart, The English Dane, and the best-selling How to Live: A Life of Montaigne, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award for Biography. In addition to writing, she now teaches in the Masters of Studies in Creative Writing at Kellogg College, University of Oxford. She lives in London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 200 reviews
Read
April 25, 2023Wrong reader, wrong book, wrong time.
I think I might have loved this book when I was a teenager; but it was a long time ago that I was a teenager.
Now it strikes me that Humanism is a limited form of Epicureanism, but maybe I am being optimistic.
I am struck by Bakewell's need to discover, assert, or maybe claim a heritage and history for Humanism. I see from other reviews that some readers are convinced by this, but Bakewell's book brought me to the opposite conclusion; that Humanism is a very recent invention, though inspired by some thinkers from the recent past and to a lesser extent by aspects of the thought of some people before the nineteenth century. I don't have a problem with systems of ethics being new, given social and technological change,we are possibly better off with new philosophies than trying to hammer the old ones into current holes.
I loved her Montaigne book (How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer )and on the strength of that alone read her Existentialists book (At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails) both of which I cheerfully recommend, but this was a shot across my bows. For me it was a book in which the whole is less than the sum of the parts. It has nice bits - excellent maybe if you want to build up your stock of anecdotes to amuse people at dinner parties, funerals, and other social events, but it doesn't coalesce into a book - you could as well use a razor and a ruler to cut it into a few dozen fragments - and if this had originated as a blog series about her favourite intellectuals in European history - I would not have been surprised. Still it is smoothly written, conversational and breezy, a nice example of style.
To be fair she does warn the reader what the book is going to be like on the first two pages (which is very fair minded of her): " What is humanism? That is the question posed, in David Nobb's 1983 comic novel 'Second from Last in the Sack Race' at the inaugural meeting of the Thurmarsh Grammar school Bisexual Humanist Society...One girl begins by saying that it means the Renaissance's attempt to escape from the Middle ages. She is thinking of the literary & cultural revival conducted by energetic, free-spirited intellectuals in Italian cities...But that's not right, says another of the society's members. Humanism means 'being kind, & nice to animals and things, & having charities, & visiting old people & things'.
A third replies scathingly this is to confuse Humanism and Humanitarianism. A fourth complains that they are all wasting time.
The scathing one now puts forward a different definition altogether. 'It's a philosophy that rejects supernaturalism, regards man as a natural object & asserts the essential dignity of man and his capacity to achieve self-realisation through the use of reason & the scientific method.' ...someone else raises a problem: some people do believe in God, yet they still call themselves humanists..." (pp 1-2)
And Bakewell finishes by writing "they were all on the right track. Each of their descriptions - and more - contributes to the fullest richest picture of what humanism means" (p 2).
Well I have not read David Nobb's book, but I guess since Bakewell describes it as a comic novel that what she recounts is not meant to be taken seriously - except she does, it's the basis of her book. Second since she writes "and more" , we are warned that she is giving herself permission to write about what ever she pleases. A good move, maybe. But if you think that "Seven hundred years of humanist freethinking, enquiry and hope" as it says on the cover sounds as though it has a purpose, direction and consistency, the reality it is vague, scattered and woolly like lost sheep spread over a hillside - but as I said, she has given fair warning of that.
The book proceeds in sections about different people, picking up on aspects of their lives which suit her themes, very broadly speaking she pays attention to Petrarch, Boccaccio, Erasmus, Thomas More, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell and a bunch of others either more briefly or who I have already forgotten (or both) and I was really bothered by this - not my forgetfulness but by bringing all these people together. Thomas More ordered the judicial torture and execution of people for believing in God in the wrong way - you are not going to get him or Erasmus in the same tent as people who either do not believe in God or who are prepared to tolerate non-belief. Petrarch and Boccaccio also might not want to be associated with Humanism as she describes it. The big tent is too big for these people. Bakewell is not doing to justice to them as individuals living their lives with their own values, in their times, ok there is an overlap of interests between the individuals that she discusses - like a Venn diagram, but I have the feeling that the more or less the only point they might all have in common is something like 'books and reading are great' though half of the people in the book might what to add 'for people of our social class, gender, and political values' which is a long way from a philosophy that champions human flourishing.
The short version of this is to say that Sarah Bakewell was more light hearted and breezy in conceiving of and writing this book than I was reading it, earnest as I am. Caveat lector. Its a book which will surprise and delight many readers, if it will reach those who might benefit from conversion or reassurance that they are not alone in their approach to life, who can say.
I think I might have loved this book when I was a teenager; but it was a long time ago that I was a teenager.
Now it strikes me that Humanism is a limited form of Epicureanism, but maybe I am being optimistic.
I am struck by Bakewell's need to discover, assert, or maybe claim a heritage and history for Humanism. I see from other reviews that some readers are convinced by this, but Bakewell's book brought me to the opposite conclusion; that Humanism is a very recent invention, though inspired by some thinkers from the recent past and to a lesser extent by aspects of the thought of some people before the nineteenth century. I don't have a problem with systems of ethics being new, given social and technological change,we are possibly better off with new philosophies than trying to hammer the old ones into current holes.
I loved her Montaigne book (How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer )and on the strength of that alone read her Existentialists book (At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails) both of which I cheerfully recommend, but this was a shot across my bows. For me it was a book in which the whole is less than the sum of the parts. It has nice bits - excellent maybe if you want to build up your stock of anecdotes to amuse people at dinner parties, funerals, and other social events, but it doesn't coalesce into a book - you could as well use a razor and a ruler to cut it into a few dozen fragments - and if this had originated as a blog series about her favourite intellectuals in European history - I would not have been surprised. Still it is smoothly written, conversational and breezy, a nice example of style.
To be fair she does warn the reader what the book is going to be like on the first two pages (which is very fair minded of her): " What is humanism? That is the question posed, in David Nobb's 1983 comic novel 'Second from Last in the Sack Race' at the inaugural meeting of the Thurmarsh Grammar school Bisexual Humanist Society...One girl begins by saying that it means the Renaissance's attempt to escape from the Middle ages. She is thinking of the literary & cultural revival conducted by energetic, free-spirited intellectuals in Italian cities...But that's not right, says another of the society's members. Humanism means 'being kind, & nice to animals and things, & having charities, & visiting old people & things'.
A third replies scathingly this is to confuse Humanism and Humanitarianism. A fourth complains that they are all wasting time.
The scathing one now puts forward a different definition altogether. 'It's a philosophy that rejects supernaturalism, regards man as a natural object & asserts the essential dignity of man and his capacity to achieve self-realisation through the use of reason & the scientific method.' ...someone else raises a problem: some people do believe in God, yet they still call themselves humanists..." (pp 1-2)
And Bakewell finishes by writing "they were all on the right track. Each of their descriptions - and more - contributes to the fullest richest picture of what humanism means" (p 2).
Well I have not read David Nobb's book, but I guess since Bakewell describes it as a comic novel that what she recounts is not meant to be taken seriously - except she does, it's the basis of her book. Second since she writes "and more" , we are warned that she is giving herself permission to write about what ever she pleases. A good move, maybe. But if you think that "Seven hundred years of humanist freethinking, enquiry and hope" as it says on the cover sounds as though it has a purpose, direction and consistency, the reality it is vague, scattered and woolly like lost sheep spread over a hillside - but as I said, she has given fair warning of that.
The book proceeds in sections about different people, picking up on aspects of their lives which suit her themes, very broadly speaking she pays attention to Petrarch, Boccaccio, Erasmus, Thomas More, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell and a bunch of others either more briefly or who I have already forgotten (or both) and I was really bothered by this - not my forgetfulness but by bringing all these people together. Thomas More ordered the judicial torture and execution of people for believing in God in the wrong way - you are not going to get him or Erasmus in the same tent as people who either do not believe in God or who are prepared to tolerate non-belief. Petrarch and Boccaccio also might not want to be associated with Humanism as she describes it. The big tent is too big for these people. Bakewell is not doing to justice to them as individuals living their lives with their own values, in their times, ok there is an overlap of interests between the individuals that she discusses - like a Venn diagram, but I have the feeling that the more or less the only point they might all have in common is something like 'books and reading are great' though half of the people in the book might what to add 'for people of our social class, gender, and political values' which is a long way from a philosophy that champions human flourishing.
The short version of this is to say that Sarah Bakewell was more light hearted and breezy in conceiving of and writing this book than I was reading it, earnest as I am. Caveat lector. Its a book which will surprise and delight many readers, if it will reach those who might benefit from conversion or reassurance that they are not alone in their approach to life, who can say.
Read
May 15, 2024An account of the development of humanism and some of the major humanist thinkers, striving in the spirit of modern humanism to be as inclusive as possible (culture, race, gender, sexuality). Obviously this isn't always possible because wow a lot of men have sincerely asserted that all humans have the right to liberty and self fulfilment except women, or black people, or poors. Consider that a reminder of how we can be entirely well meaning while also being prejudiced, blinkered, and wrong.
ANYWAY.
I like humanism, and would probably call myself a humanist. It is sometimes painfully optimistic, which the author does address, and fundamentally hamstrung by its inherent tendency to be open to all points of view when some points of view need killing with fire. As with democracy, I feel it's the worst option except for all the other ones. It is not a creed that will ever see people marching with banners or spilling blood in its name or even schisming furiously over points of doctrine, which is simultaneously its appeal and its achilles heel. This is a good historical overview of development and compendium of pithy quotes.
(I was reading the chapter on 20th century antihumanism while giving blood, ie in a room full of people who'd volunteered to give up an hour, endure some mildly painful needle action, and feel a bit crap for the rest of the day, getting nothing in return other than a moment of altruistic smugness and a biscuit. There was a whole queue of people waiting for their turn to help an anonymous other. It was a happy corrective.)
ANYWAY.
I like humanism, and would probably call myself a humanist. It is sometimes painfully optimistic, which the author does address, and fundamentally hamstrung by its inherent tendency to be open to all points of view when some points of view need killing with fire. As with democracy, I feel it's the worst option except for all the other ones. It is not a creed that will ever see people marching with banners or spilling blood in its name or even schisming furiously over points of doctrine, which is simultaneously its appeal and its achilles heel. This is a good historical overview of development and compendium of pithy quotes.
(I was reading the chapter on 20th century antihumanism while giving blood, ie in a room full of people who'd volunteered to give up an hour, endure some mildly painful needle action, and feel a bit crap for the rest of the day, getting nothing in return other than a moment of altruistic smugness and a biscuit. There was a whole queue of people waiting for their turn to help an anonymous other. It was a happy corrective.)
May 16, 2023
A thrilling work. I admire this author tremendously.
I value both her How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer and At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails
The book is a gold mine for readers who know something about humanism but may not have grasped its historical development. It has the feel of an excellent graduate seminar. Bakewell exlores the fuzzy concept of "humanism" from late Middle Ages to the present by telling us of its history and proponents.
I can't summarize all of the scholarly contributions discussed here, but I can list some of the thinkers. In no particular order they include Petrarch, Bocaccio, Cicero, Lucretius, Augustine of Hippo, Vasari, Desiderius Erasmus, Montaigne, Rabelais, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, George Eliot, David Hume, Matthew Arnold, Auguste Comte, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Voltaire, Charles Darwin, Willhelm von Humboldt, Thomas Huxley, Machiavelli, Malsherbes, John Stuart Mill, Blaise Pascal, Ernest Renan, Bertrand Russell and others.
So the book points you toward others you might not have thought to read. Moreover, books like this are interstitial reads. They help you to tie together seemingly disparate bits of information gleaned from other readings into a more or less coherent whole. This time the focus is humanism. Fascinating.
I value both her How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer and At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails
The book is a gold mine for readers who know something about humanism but may not have grasped its historical development. It has the feel of an excellent graduate seminar. Bakewell exlores the fuzzy concept of "humanism" from late Middle Ages to the present by telling us of its history and proponents.
I can't summarize all of the scholarly contributions discussed here, but I can list some of the thinkers. In no particular order they include Petrarch, Bocaccio, Cicero, Lucretius, Augustine of Hippo, Vasari, Desiderius Erasmus, Montaigne, Rabelais, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, George Eliot, David Hume, Matthew Arnold, Auguste Comte, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Voltaire, Charles Darwin, Willhelm von Humboldt, Thomas Huxley, Machiavelli, Malsherbes, John Stuart Mill, Blaise Pascal, Ernest Renan, Bertrand Russell and others.
So the book points you toward others you might not have thought to read. Moreover, books like this are interstitial reads. They help you to tie together seemingly disparate bits of information gleaned from other readings into a more or less coherent whole. This time the focus is humanism. Fascinating.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 17, 2023
MAGA is anti-humanist. The exemplars who advocated for the humanly possible are presented in this book with their thoughts, feelings, aspirations, and worldview and are shown to be antithetical to Trump and his modern-day sycophants.
Humanism is not the rejection of God or the embracing of atheism. Humanism as outlined in this book is shown as foundationally starting with Dante, crystalized with Petrarch, and formalized with Erasmus each of whom were known for their strong belief in God. Will Durant in The Story of Civilization volume 4, The Age of Faith made his focal point and last character Dante, and Gibbons in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire did that for Petrarch. They both realized that their story should end with the beginning of humanism.
This book does not mention Martin Luther explicitly as an anti-humanist but it should have. All one needs to do is read Luther’s Bondage of the Will and one will see a thinker who is antithetical to all the humanists presented within this book, after all Luther did write that book as a broadside against his ‘friend’ Erasmus, and one can learn as much about a subject by studying its opposite. Trump and Luther are both exemplars for anti-humanists.
This book made me take two side trips into other books. I ended up reading a philosophical book from 1986 by Kate Soper Humanism and Anti-humanism; I wanted to see what Humanism meant in 1986 French intellectual terms. I’m glad I did. It made me realize that Bakewell’s approach was the superior way of looking at the problem, because using a formalized definition as Soper does leads to confusion and creates a definitional problem. Bakewell is wise to teach by example.
The second side trip and a book highlighted in this book led me to reading Thomas Mann’s book Dr. Faustus, it shows what happens when a person loses their humanity and sublimates their will to something outside of themselves thus becoming an anti-humanist.
Trump and MAGA fascist are opposed to all the humanist thinkers presented in this book; the individual’s free agency is no longer their own while Epicurean and Pelagian thought are anathema to Trump and MAGA fascist, just read Luther’s Bondage of The Will to see what I mean since it is a perfect distillation of how to be an anti-humanist, or preferably do the opposite of what Luther thinks and become a humanist.
Fascists like to label those who disagree with them secular humanists thus smearing them by calling them materialistic atheists. Little do they really understand what those terms mean. The Wall Street Journal book review for this book brought in irrelevant criticisms about this book and thought Fascists were humanists, and he mentioned something about the Jonhannine Comma while attacking Erasmus and I don’t even think Bakewell mentioned that about Erasmus directly, I know what the reviewer is getting at but his criticism is flawed and it certainly doesn’t belong in a book review about this book, and the reviewer called John Lennon’s song “Imagine’ sentimental puddle and said it was the anthem for Humanists, maybe it is, but this book never mentioned that song either (at least I don’t think it did), and besides I really love that song. My point is MAGA morons such as all editorial writers in the WSJ love to hate humanism because they create their own definition for them and ignore reality, and they would serve themselves better by reading a very good book like this one.
Humanism is not the rejection of God or the embracing of atheism. Humanism as outlined in this book is shown as foundationally starting with Dante, crystalized with Petrarch, and formalized with Erasmus each of whom were known for their strong belief in God. Will Durant in The Story of Civilization volume 4, The Age of Faith made his focal point and last character Dante, and Gibbons in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire did that for Petrarch. They both realized that their story should end with the beginning of humanism.
This book does not mention Martin Luther explicitly as an anti-humanist but it should have. All one needs to do is read Luther’s Bondage of the Will and one will see a thinker who is antithetical to all the humanists presented within this book, after all Luther did write that book as a broadside against his ‘friend’ Erasmus, and one can learn as much about a subject by studying its opposite. Trump and Luther are both exemplars for anti-humanists.
This book made me take two side trips into other books. I ended up reading a philosophical book from 1986 by Kate Soper Humanism and Anti-humanism; I wanted to see what Humanism meant in 1986 French intellectual terms. I’m glad I did. It made me realize that Bakewell’s approach was the superior way of looking at the problem, because using a formalized definition as Soper does leads to confusion and creates a definitional problem. Bakewell is wise to teach by example.
The second side trip and a book highlighted in this book led me to reading Thomas Mann’s book Dr. Faustus, it shows what happens when a person loses their humanity and sublimates their will to something outside of themselves thus becoming an anti-humanist.
Trump and MAGA fascist are opposed to all the humanist thinkers presented in this book; the individual’s free agency is no longer their own while Epicurean and Pelagian thought are anathema to Trump and MAGA fascist, just read Luther’s Bondage of The Will to see what I mean since it is a perfect distillation of how to be an anti-humanist, or preferably do the opposite of what Luther thinks and become a humanist.
Fascists like to label those who disagree with them secular humanists thus smearing them by calling them materialistic atheists. Little do they really understand what those terms mean. The Wall Street Journal book review for this book brought in irrelevant criticisms about this book and thought Fascists were humanists, and he mentioned something about the Jonhannine Comma while attacking Erasmus and I don’t even think Bakewell mentioned that about Erasmus directly, I know what the reviewer is getting at but his criticism is flawed and it certainly doesn’t belong in a book review about this book, and the reviewer called John Lennon’s song “Imagine’ sentimental puddle and said it was the anthem for Humanists, maybe it is, but this book never mentioned that song either (at least I don’t think it did), and besides I really love that song. My point is MAGA morons such as all editorial writers in the WSJ love to hate humanism because they create their own definition for them and ignore reality, and they would serve themselves better by reading a very good book like this one.
May 13, 2023
This was my least favorite Sarah Blakewell book. As always, she writes well and demonstrates her erudition in each and every chapter. But the book often reads like a standard issue western civilization college textbook. Alas, Blakewell’s newest book lacks originality and merely recapitulates the standard catalog of liberal intellectual triumphs. Unfortunately, Blakewell’s philosophical competency doesn’t seem to lend any depth to her treatment of any of the old heroes of Whiggish history.
In some ways, this book is comparable to Susan Jacoby’s Strange Gods, a less coherent but far more interesting book. Unlike Jacoby, who focuses her attention on famous religious conversions to say something more interesting about the humanist tradition, Blakewell tries to tackle all aspects of humanism. The project was probably too broad and unfocused to do any of us much good. (Contrast this with the early chapters of Carlos Eire’s book, Reformations, that really fleshes out the term, humanism, and links it firmly to the Protestant Reformation and therefore modernity in general.)
In some ways, this book is comparable to Susan Jacoby’s Strange Gods, a less coherent but far more interesting book. Unlike Jacoby, who focuses her attention on famous religious conversions to say something more interesting about the humanist tradition, Blakewell tries to tackle all aspects of humanism. The project was probably too broad and unfocused to do any of us much good. (Contrast this with the early chapters of Carlos Eire’s book, Reformations, that really fleshes out the term, humanism, and links it firmly to the Protestant Reformation and therefore modernity in general.)
April 4, 2023
“Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.”
December 29, 2023
The Humanist in Anti-Humanist Times
The Anti-Humanist Danger
Being well read in the humanities is important for all people but it is essential for those who would administer the political system and manage the administrative apparatus of the state. Such leaders should be immersed in the literature of the humanities with a well-rounded general education. Having people of such refinement in leadership positions redounds to the good of all society. In the U.S., we can certainly see how the lack of such perspective and discernment redounds to the detriment of all society. The U.S. is rapidly becoming intoxicated with toxic religious anti-humanism. It is becoming a fundamentalist society threatening to reverse human progress in culture, relationships, learning and science. The general lack of education in the humanities is showing itself as we mindlessly consent to the establishment of a cruel, brutish, and ignorant tyranny of Christian fundamentalist fascism and personal totalitarian narcissism. Christianity is a low order mixture of ignorance, arrogance and brutish violence based on superstition with a bottomless ability to lower intellectual ability.
The three pillars of humanistic education are (were) 1) moral philosophy, 2) historical understanding, 3) good communication. All three of these principles are under assault but American politicians such as Trump and Johnson as well as their supporters in such places as Texas and Florida. Imagine, to govern well one should be able to speak well, reason well and be suffused with a sense of humanity as well as the practice of moderation and balance. Now, look upon the modern American Republican Party for the antithesis.
Modern Myth 1: Institutions Are Indispensable
The opposite is more correct, humans are indispensable, not institutions. Institutional guardrails are a myth. Part of our modern mythology is to worry about whether our institutions will hold off cultural chaos, political fascism, economic turmoil, or social unrest. We like to worry about whether or not the institutions of a free society will stand against the onslaught illiberalism and fundamentalism or give way to dictatorship and tyranny. Liberalism and humanism are states of mind and habits of behavior, they are not institution dependent. Institutions are people dependent. The institution is a myth we chose to believe. For example, the much admired and vaunted system of checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution are only as good and effective as the people who implement them. Checks and balances by themselves will not save us, there are no institutional constraints or system guardrails other than the ones we decide to respect. This reminds me of the line from the 1969 film ‘Hello, Dolly!’. The character played by Walter Matthau, Horace Vanderelder, says to the charter, Ambrose Kemper, played by Tommy Tune: “Law? The law is there to prevent crime. Men of sense are there to prevent foolishness.” Sensible forbearance, rather than arrogance in the exercise of power, is all that prevents the foolishness which destroys representative government and begins the slide into an anti-human cruel and brutish tyranny of some form.
One aspect of this is the arrogant foolishness in treating a democratic system of laws, checks and balances as well as the separation of powers and division of political authority as nothing more than a set of institutional procedures and administrative technicalities to be manipulated to one’s advantage. This is how checks and balances get captured, co-opted, and manipulated to the advantage of special interests and powerful parties. The ordinary tools of checks and balances, separation of powers and divisions of authority are not adequate to meet the challenge of planned and willful subversion by those whose responsibility it is to maintain and safeguard such ‘institutional’ arrangements and safeguards if they simply decide not to do so. The laws, courts and institutions are only as good or as effective as the people who enforce and maintain them. Policy is people. This is what makes Mitch McConnel’s (Senate Republican floor leader at the time of this writing) manipulative approach to constitutional government so worrisome. Given his cavalier abuse of process and procedure in denying (Merrick Garland) and confirming (Amy Coney Barrett) Supreme Court Justice nominees, why is anyone shocked by the childish and petulant antics of Tommy Tuberville? These abuses of institutional guardrails only create the precedent for Trump to use the same levers of the democratic liberal state to destroy it. The only faith we need is in ourselves, but most people prefer to put their faith in the fantasy of God or in mythical institutions with an imagined existence independent of the people who run them and thus absolve themselves of responsibility.
Modern Myth 2: Teach How to think, not What to Think
What is the humanist connection to education? Since there is no moral purity and it may very well be that the principles of empathy and compassion (avoiding cruelty) rest on nothing deeper than historical contingencies, it is all the more important that WE cast them into learned principles and rules of human conduct to be reinforced in every generation through education and acculturation. This is an example of where teaching ‘what to think’ is more important than teaching ‘how to think’. It is not enough to teach students simply ‘how to think’ value free. This is to mistake emptiness for objectivity. Learning ‘what to think’ is a part of learning ‘how to think.’ We have natural human inclinations of sympathy and cooperation, but they must be reinforced with education. How else can human beings with moral responsibility be created? Once the many-sided human being comes into existence through basic education, her or she is free to advance themselves as they see fit. Love and justice can harmonize with our basic humanity through education or be short-circuited with ideology.
Humanism predates the ideals of the European Enlightenment. The completion of the Enlightenment is to be found in humanistic education and rationalism while retaining notions of liberalism. That is, rational calculation is a typical characteristic of human beings, not a product of the humanism. One can be barbaric as well as cruel and still be rational and make rational calculations, often all too well. The achievement of a humanistic education is not to be found in a better method of thinking, but in better thinking. This is actually a very counter intuitive and controversial claim. We still accept it as axiomatic that students should be taught ‘how to think’, not ‘what to think’. Is this really correct? Examples of better thinking include ending slavery, promoting widespread education, equality of women, access to healthcare and secular government etc. Sometimes we need to teach students ‘what to think’, not just ‘how to think’ as counter intuitive as this sounds. Learning ‘how to think’ can be instrumentalized for any purpose. It becomes knowledge without ethics. However, teaching ‘what to think’ involves teaching facts but there is no such thing as a pure fact without interpretation or context. Omitted facts from standard narratives of history must be clawed back into education. So yes, in some areas of human inquiry, personal development, social relations, political principles and, economic transactions we must also teach students ‘what to think’ in addition to ‘how to think’. David Hume saw that reason (how to think) is only a means to achieving the ends set by our desires (what to think). This is what he meant when he said that reason is the slave of the passions. Fundamental errors in core beliefs in turn interfere with the ability to think and reason. The missing facts about things such as racism and genocide distort our view of the past and mislead us as to the future. Missing facts from American history include the reality of class conflict, the long legacy of racial discrimination, gender bias, ethnic genocide, wars of aggression and choice, financial greed, and the arrogant reach for empire. The alternative is to remain joyfully uninformed and free to repeat.
We are only answerable to each other, and this is the great risk inscribed into the human condition. Progress can always be undone because progress is based on a reversible cultural inheritance and a revisable social consensus. This why teaching ‘what to think’ is crucial to human advancement. To forget this is to assume that future progress is inevitable, this thinking closes off the possibility for reform in the present. This is why I believe that the greatest benefit from a humanist education is not to be found in a better method of thinking, but in better thinking. That is, teaching ‘what to think’ not just ‘how to think’ to avoid the instrumentalization of thinking. For example, the commanders of the Einsatzgruppen were among the intellectual elite of the SS, they sure knew ‘how to think’; they were the products of the enlightened humanistic German educational tradition. What does this say about the ability of the narrowly academically degreed to see through the sophistry, to the evil? So much for education, reason and rationality in learning ‘how to think’ being the path to moral excellence without the guardrails of ‘what to think’. It is in just these sorts of cases where human judgment and knowing ‘what to think’, not just ‘how to think’ is paramount. When the institutions are gone or destroyed, when there are no longer any rules or principles of society, cultural values, context or methods of reasoning by which to guide one’s judgment is when judgment, knowing ‘what to think’, is at its most risky and thus at its most value to us as humans. This is why cultural stability depends on humanistic education as to ‘what to think’. The failure of the social, political, economic, and educational systems is what opens the door for grim alternatives.
Modern Myth 3: People Desire Free Thought and Political Liberty
We accept it is as axiomatic that people crave progress, yearn for personal freedom and desire political liberty. But is this just another myth? With such freedom and liberty comes diversity of people of variety of thought. I think it more likely that people seek freedom through submission. We can observe from contemporary American politics a strong desire to stamp out variety and end free thought which are cast as a source of immorality and chaos. There is a strong constituency for authoritarian control from which will flow order, belonging and meaning. There is a savage taste for authoritarian revenge against humanistic liberalness and openness. Freedom and liberty are seen as empty in value as well as devoid of meaning but many people crave meaning more than liberty. People want to be told what to do, how to act, and what is right and what is wrong; to feel sure and thus be secure in belonging to something, anything. This is the anti-humanist desire to be less than human, thus creating the right to dehumanize others. It seems that people desire a transcendent glorious purpose, not progress, they crave a grand moral vision more than freedom, often this is accomplished through religion, but it is increasing seeping into the administration of the state. When transcendent freedom is sought, actual freedom is lost. It is a small step to require self-sacrifice and then the sacrifice of others, in pursuit of the glorious and transcendent truth. When the rhetoric is about restoring a mythological past or achieving a mythical future, the present is likely to be very miserable. There is a fatal charismatic attraction or magnetism of irrational extremist ideas. There are many people who thrive in an anti-humanist world of chaos and conspiracy with the violence and unreason such a world breeds, this has become the basis of social solidarity and shared meaning for many people. These are the people who resent liberty and freedom; they will seek to impose their malignant stupidity through authoritarian state action to stamp out diversity and guarantee absolute belief, with universal truth and sure knowledge for all.
Given the current state of our world and politics, are Western Humanist and Enlightenment values to blame for their own negation? That is, humanism causes its own dialectal anthesis in fascism? Is it inevitable for democracy to degrade into populism? If this is the case, there is good reason to fear a cold wind blowing from the future. The fascist of the mid-twentieth century explicitly defined themselves by rejecting reason, cosmopolitanism, humanism and by embracing alienation, violence, nationalism, and war. Is the choice to be between irrational religion and mysticism on the one hand, including the need to believe in a power higher than humans or human tyranny on the other hand? These are bizarre absolutist extremes presenting a Hobbesian choice.
The Anti-Humanist Danger
Being well read in the humanities is important for all people but it is essential for those who would administer the political system and manage the administrative apparatus of the state. Such leaders should be immersed in the literature of the humanities with a well-rounded general education. Having people of such refinement in leadership positions redounds to the good of all society. In the U.S., we can certainly see how the lack of such perspective and discernment redounds to the detriment of all society. The U.S. is rapidly becoming intoxicated with toxic religious anti-humanism. It is becoming a fundamentalist society threatening to reverse human progress in culture, relationships, learning and science. The general lack of education in the humanities is showing itself as we mindlessly consent to the establishment of a cruel, brutish, and ignorant tyranny of Christian fundamentalist fascism and personal totalitarian narcissism. Christianity is a low order mixture of ignorance, arrogance and brutish violence based on superstition with a bottomless ability to lower intellectual ability.
The three pillars of humanistic education are (were) 1) moral philosophy, 2) historical understanding, 3) good communication. All three of these principles are under assault but American politicians such as Trump and Johnson as well as their supporters in such places as Texas and Florida. Imagine, to govern well one should be able to speak well, reason well and be suffused with a sense of humanity as well as the practice of moderation and balance. Now, look upon the modern American Republican Party for the antithesis.
Modern Myth 1: Institutions Are Indispensable
The opposite is more correct, humans are indispensable, not institutions. Institutional guardrails are a myth. Part of our modern mythology is to worry about whether our institutions will hold off cultural chaos, political fascism, economic turmoil, or social unrest. We like to worry about whether or not the institutions of a free society will stand against the onslaught illiberalism and fundamentalism or give way to dictatorship and tyranny. Liberalism and humanism are states of mind and habits of behavior, they are not institution dependent. Institutions are people dependent. The institution is a myth we chose to believe. For example, the much admired and vaunted system of checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution are only as good and effective as the people who implement them. Checks and balances by themselves will not save us, there are no institutional constraints or system guardrails other than the ones we decide to respect. This reminds me of the line from the 1969 film ‘Hello, Dolly!’. The character played by Walter Matthau, Horace Vanderelder, says to the charter, Ambrose Kemper, played by Tommy Tune: “Law? The law is there to prevent crime. Men of sense are there to prevent foolishness.” Sensible forbearance, rather than arrogance in the exercise of power, is all that prevents the foolishness which destroys representative government and begins the slide into an anti-human cruel and brutish tyranny of some form.
One aspect of this is the arrogant foolishness in treating a democratic system of laws, checks and balances as well as the separation of powers and division of political authority as nothing more than a set of institutional procedures and administrative technicalities to be manipulated to one’s advantage. This is how checks and balances get captured, co-opted, and manipulated to the advantage of special interests and powerful parties. The ordinary tools of checks and balances, separation of powers and divisions of authority are not adequate to meet the challenge of planned and willful subversion by those whose responsibility it is to maintain and safeguard such ‘institutional’ arrangements and safeguards if they simply decide not to do so. The laws, courts and institutions are only as good or as effective as the people who enforce and maintain them. Policy is people. This is what makes Mitch McConnel’s (Senate Republican floor leader at the time of this writing) manipulative approach to constitutional government so worrisome. Given his cavalier abuse of process and procedure in denying (Merrick Garland) and confirming (Amy Coney Barrett) Supreme Court Justice nominees, why is anyone shocked by the childish and petulant antics of Tommy Tuberville? These abuses of institutional guardrails only create the precedent for Trump to use the same levers of the democratic liberal state to destroy it. The only faith we need is in ourselves, but most people prefer to put their faith in the fantasy of God or in mythical institutions with an imagined existence independent of the people who run them and thus absolve themselves of responsibility.
Modern Myth 2: Teach How to think, not What to Think
What is the humanist connection to education? Since there is no moral purity and it may very well be that the principles of empathy and compassion (avoiding cruelty) rest on nothing deeper than historical contingencies, it is all the more important that WE cast them into learned principles and rules of human conduct to be reinforced in every generation through education and acculturation. This is an example of where teaching ‘what to think’ is more important than teaching ‘how to think’. It is not enough to teach students simply ‘how to think’ value free. This is to mistake emptiness for objectivity. Learning ‘what to think’ is a part of learning ‘how to think.’ We have natural human inclinations of sympathy and cooperation, but they must be reinforced with education. How else can human beings with moral responsibility be created? Once the many-sided human being comes into existence through basic education, her or she is free to advance themselves as they see fit. Love and justice can harmonize with our basic humanity through education or be short-circuited with ideology.
Humanism predates the ideals of the European Enlightenment. The completion of the Enlightenment is to be found in humanistic education and rationalism while retaining notions of liberalism. That is, rational calculation is a typical characteristic of human beings, not a product of the humanism. One can be barbaric as well as cruel and still be rational and make rational calculations, often all too well. The achievement of a humanistic education is not to be found in a better method of thinking, but in better thinking. This is actually a very counter intuitive and controversial claim. We still accept it as axiomatic that students should be taught ‘how to think’, not ‘what to think’. Is this really correct? Examples of better thinking include ending slavery, promoting widespread education, equality of women, access to healthcare and secular government etc. Sometimes we need to teach students ‘what to think’, not just ‘how to think’ as counter intuitive as this sounds. Learning ‘how to think’ can be instrumentalized for any purpose. It becomes knowledge without ethics. However, teaching ‘what to think’ involves teaching facts but there is no such thing as a pure fact without interpretation or context. Omitted facts from standard narratives of history must be clawed back into education. So yes, in some areas of human inquiry, personal development, social relations, political principles and, economic transactions we must also teach students ‘what to think’ in addition to ‘how to think’. David Hume saw that reason (how to think) is only a means to achieving the ends set by our desires (what to think). This is what he meant when he said that reason is the slave of the passions. Fundamental errors in core beliefs in turn interfere with the ability to think and reason. The missing facts about things such as racism and genocide distort our view of the past and mislead us as to the future. Missing facts from American history include the reality of class conflict, the long legacy of racial discrimination, gender bias, ethnic genocide, wars of aggression and choice, financial greed, and the arrogant reach for empire. The alternative is to remain joyfully uninformed and free to repeat.
We are only answerable to each other, and this is the great risk inscribed into the human condition. Progress can always be undone because progress is based on a reversible cultural inheritance and a revisable social consensus. This why teaching ‘what to think’ is crucial to human advancement. To forget this is to assume that future progress is inevitable, this thinking closes off the possibility for reform in the present. This is why I believe that the greatest benefit from a humanist education is not to be found in a better method of thinking, but in better thinking. That is, teaching ‘what to think’ not just ‘how to think’ to avoid the instrumentalization of thinking. For example, the commanders of the Einsatzgruppen were among the intellectual elite of the SS, they sure knew ‘how to think’; they were the products of the enlightened humanistic German educational tradition. What does this say about the ability of the narrowly academically degreed to see through the sophistry, to the evil? So much for education, reason and rationality in learning ‘how to think’ being the path to moral excellence without the guardrails of ‘what to think’. It is in just these sorts of cases where human judgment and knowing ‘what to think’, not just ‘how to think’ is paramount. When the institutions are gone or destroyed, when there are no longer any rules or principles of society, cultural values, context or methods of reasoning by which to guide one’s judgment is when judgment, knowing ‘what to think’, is at its most risky and thus at its most value to us as humans. This is why cultural stability depends on humanistic education as to ‘what to think’. The failure of the social, political, economic, and educational systems is what opens the door for grim alternatives.
Modern Myth 3: People Desire Free Thought and Political Liberty
We accept it is as axiomatic that people crave progress, yearn for personal freedom and desire political liberty. But is this just another myth? With such freedom and liberty comes diversity of people of variety of thought. I think it more likely that people seek freedom through submission. We can observe from contemporary American politics a strong desire to stamp out variety and end free thought which are cast as a source of immorality and chaos. There is a strong constituency for authoritarian control from which will flow order, belonging and meaning. There is a savage taste for authoritarian revenge against humanistic liberalness and openness. Freedom and liberty are seen as empty in value as well as devoid of meaning but many people crave meaning more than liberty. People want to be told what to do, how to act, and what is right and what is wrong; to feel sure and thus be secure in belonging to something, anything. This is the anti-humanist desire to be less than human, thus creating the right to dehumanize others. It seems that people desire a transcendent glorious purpose, not progress, they crave a grand moral vision more than freedom, often this is accomplished through religion, but it is increasing seeping into the administration of the state. When transcendent freedom is sought, actual freedom is lost. It is a small step to require self-sacrifice and then the sacrifice of others, in pursuit of the glorious and transcendent truth. When the rhetoric is about restoring a mythological past or achieving a mythical future, the present is likely to be very miserable. There is a fatal charismatic attraction or magnetism of irrational extremist ideas. There are many people who thrive in an anti-humanist world of chaos and conspiracy with the violence and unreason such a world breeds, this has become the basis of social solidarity and shared meaning for many people. These are the people who resent liberty and freedom; they will seek to impose their malignant stupidity through authoritarian state action to stamp out diversity and guarantee absolute belief, with universal truth and sure knowledge for all.
Given the current state of our world and politics, are Western Humanist and Enlightenment values to blame for their own negation? That is, humanism causes its own dialectal anthesis in fascism? Is it inevitable for democracy to degrade into populism? If this is the case, there is good reason to fear a cold wind blowing from the future. The fascist of the mid-twentieth century explicitly defined themselves by rejecting reason, cosmopolitanism, humanism and by embracing alienation, violence, nationalism, and war. Is the choice to be between irrational religion and mysticism on the one hand, including the need to believe in a power higher than humans or human tyranny on the other hand? These are bizarre absolutist extremes presenting a Hobbesian choice.
April 25, 2023
Sarah Bakewell é reconhecida por dois belíssimos livros, um sobre Montaigne (2010) e outro sobre a corrente do Existencialismo (2016), neste seu último livro — "Humanly Possible: Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Freethinking, Inquiry, and Hope" (2023) — foi à procura da definição de Humanismo. Partindo do estilo que a caracteriza — a fusão fluída de biografia, arte, história e filosofia — atravessa 700 anos de ideias para dar conta das origens, evolução e relevância do Humanismo, um termo apenas cunhado no século XIX, e para o qual ainda hoje temos dificuldade em encontrar uma definição que sirva a todos. Para o efeito, convoca as vidas e ideias de Petrarca, Boccaccio, Da Vinci, Erasmus, Montaigne, Voltaire, Spinoza, David Hume, Thomas Paine, Frederick Douglass, Robert G. Ingersoll, John Stuart Mill, Harriet Taylor, Bertrand Russell, Zora Neale Hurston, Thomas Mann e Vasily Grossman.
Saber mais: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
Saber mais: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
April 1, 2023
A fascinating history of Humanism from the fourteenth century to modern times . A journey that celebrates open mindedness,optimism ,freedom and the power of the here and now . Think my favourite humanist is Erasmus who said ,’My home is wherever I keep my library.’ I totally concur .
September 10, 2023
Though this is a survey of Humanism, it is not a detailed study of philosophical ideas. Those who come expecting a thorough appraisal of philosophical thought will be disappointed. The purpose of the book is suggested by the title: what are humans capable of and what does it mean to be human? Bakewell establishes a number of key elements in Humanism, one of which is -- humour. And the book is written with a sense of humour, depth, and character. Bakewell has written two significant books of ideas, one on Montaigne, one on Existentialism. Humanly Possible leans towards the light of the former rather than the gloom of the latter. Like Montaigne, Bakewell adopts a low key style and her explanations are to the point with telling asides (every now and again). This is a book for lovers of books: a second key element that Bakewell attaches to Humanism is its devotion to the written word and the transmission of learning. The range is quite breathtaking and a reader, at the end, does emerge with a sense that Humanism is much more than a rejection of God; in fact, as it discounts the superhuman, why make what it is not interested in into the central debate? Bakewell is particularly good at tracing the development of educational ideas and showing how far modern education has strayed from the human, a terrible paradox, since education is the great humanising drive in mankind. A terrific book.
October 6, 2023
Splendidly explained history of Humanists and their forebearers, a lineage explored. Bakewell is methodical, but also entertaining while she lays out the facts from the ancient Greeks to modern day - it is no easy feat to cover so much history so concisely and seemingly seamlessly!
A wonderful jumping off point for anyone interested in Humanism. With this book Bakewell provides plenty to think about, plenty to explore further, and plenty of inspiration. I often battle with my perception of what I am seeing in the world around me and a more optimistic humanist outlook, but take in the wider scope of history and I think optimism and a push to improve wins out - there is much to be amazed by and much to aspire to, particularly when you see facets of our civilizations moving in less informed directions.
“Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.”
“Dispute and contradiction, not veneration and obedience, are the essence of intellectual life.”
A wonderful jumping off point for anyone interested in Humanism. With this book Bakewell provides plenty to think about, plenty to explore further, and plenty of inspiration. I often battle with my perception of what I am seeing in the world around me and a more optimistic humanist outlook, but take in the wider scope of history and I think optimism and a push to improve wins out - there is much to be amazed by and much to aspire to, particularly when you see facets of our civilizations moving in less informed directions.
“Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.”
“Dispute and contradiction, not veneration and obedience, are the essence of intellectual life.”
July 22, 2023
Well written and extensively researched, but unfortunately, it's rarely more than an endless, tedious account of who lived where when, collected which books, had which habits, wrote letters to whom,...
I put the book aside a couple of times, skimmed over a couple of the most boring passages and really had a hard time convicing me to finish it.
First, I had hoped to, as always, get some new insights and practical knowledge from this book, but unfortunately there was none to find. The few actual interesting ideas conveyed in this book, like utilitarianism, you'll already have read about in other contexts. Secondly, I had hoped to finally understand what 'all the fuzz' around humanism is about, what it *is* that makes it deserve a dedicated term (and its own book). Unfortunately, there isn't really such a thing. Well, nothing more than you already could assume: in the early days it's spoiled rich guys who loved reading and collecting ancient Roman and later Greek books and travel a lot, writing and boasting about their knowledge and eloquence; later there's overlap between moral philosophers, scientists and atheists,... and that's about it. Trying to transpose humanism further than that is a quite meaningless endeavor. E.g., later you could say that humanists were people who protested against wars, or for human rights (e.g. women or gay),... but one doesn't really need the concept of humanism for that. That's moral progress, which is by itself of course interesting, but I didn't really need all the tedious details about the lives of the people involved.
This book sort of confirmed what I already assumed: humanism is all about a certain class of people who, at any occasion, like to boast their knowledge of 'humanists', in the most eloquent way, without really having anything of substance to say.
If like me you read books to get new, interesting, useful insights: there are none to find. Trust me, you already know all there is to know about humanism.
I put the book aside a couple of times, skimmed over a couple of the most boring passages and really had a hard time convicing me to finish it.
First, I had hoped to, as always, get some new insights and practical knowledge from this book, but unfortunately there was none to find. The few actual interesting ideas conveyed in this book, like utilitarianism, you'll already have read about in other contexts. Secondly, I had hoped to finally understand what 'all the fuzz' around humanism is about, what it *is* that makes it deserve a dedicated term (and its own book). Unfortunately, there isn't really such a thing. Well, nothing more than you already could assume: in the early days it's spoiled rich guys who loved reading and collecting ancient Roman and later Greek books and travel a lot, writing and boasting about their knowledge and eloquence; later there's overlap between moral philosophers, scientists and atheists,... and that's about it. Trying to transpose humanism further than that is a quite meaningless endeavor. E.g., later you could say that humanists were people who protested against wars, or for human rights (e.g. women or gay),... but one doesn't really need the concept of humanism for that. That's moral progress, which is by itself of course interesting, but I didn't really need all the tedious details about the lives of the people involved.
This book sort of confirmed what I already assumed: humanism is all about a certain class of people who, at any occasion, like to boast their knowledge of 'humanists', in the most eloquent way, without really having anything of substance to say.
If like me you read books to get new, interesting, useful insights: there are none to find. Trust me, you already know all there is to know about humanism.
April 26, 2023
This is an excellent history of humanism, it’s christian and secular origins, variations, and the primary proponents throughout time. There are no rose colored glasses in the making of this. The author covers the flaws and mistakes of the leading figures as well as the debates that those figures had with each other. I look forward to rereading.
Want to read
May 7, 2023Jennifer Szalai reviewed it at the Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/bo...
Excerpt:
"Sarah Bakewell’s sweeping new survey of the philosophical tradition, “Humanly Possible,” says that putting your faith in human behavior means confronting complacency and nihilism — but it can be worth it.
“I am human, and consider nothing human alien to me”: The famous line from the Roman playwright Terence, written more than two millenniums ago, is easy to assert but hard to live by, at least with any consistency. The attitude it suggests is adamantly open-minded and resolutely pluralist: Even the most annoying, the most confounding, the most atrocious example of anyone’s behavior is necessarily part of the human experience. There are points of connection between all of us weirdos, no matter how different we are. Michel de Montaigne liked the line so much that he had the Latin original — Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto — inscribed on a ceiling joist in his library.
But as Sarah Bakewell notes in her lively new book, “Humanly Possible,” Terence wrote the line as a joke. It’s said by a busybody character after being asked why he cannot seem to keep his nose out of everybody else’s beeswax. This sly double meaning is what makes the line so fitting for the capacious tradition known as humanism that Bakewell writes about. On the one hand, the quote offers a high-minded philosophical sentiment; on the other, it’s a playful gag. Humanism, too, has always had to negotiate between noble ideals of humanity and the peculiarities of actual humans. Paradox and ambiguity aren’t to be rejected but embraced. “Dispute and contradiction, not veneration and obedience, are the essence of intellectual life,” Bakewell writes."
It's a good review, no surprise there: Jennifer Szalai. Not sure it's a book for me . . .
Excerpt:
"Sarah Bakewell’s sweeping new survey of the philosophical tradition, “Humanly Possible,” says that putting your faith in human behavior means confronting complacency and nihilism — but it can be worth it.
“I am human, and consider nothing human alien to me”: The famous line from the Roman playwright Terence, written more than two millenniums ago, is easy to assert but hard to live by, at least with any consistency. The attitude it suggests is adamantly open-minded and resolutely pluralist: Even the most annoying, the most confounding, the most atrocious example of anyone’s behavior is necessarily part of the human experience. There are points of connection between all of us weirdos, no matter how different we are. Michel de Montaigne liked the line so much that he had the Latin original — Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto — inscribed on a ceiling joist in his library.
But as Sarah Bakewell notes in her lively new book, “Humanly Possible,” Terence wrote the line as a joke. It’s said by a busybody character after being asked why he cannot seem to keep his nose out of everybody else’s beeswax. This sly double meaning is what makes the line so fitting for the capacious tradition known as humanism that Bakewell writes about. On the one hand, the quote offers a high-minded philosophical sentiment; on the other, it’s a playful gag. Humanism, too, has always had to negotiate between noble ideals of humanity and the peculiarities of actual humans. Paradox and ambiguity aren’t to be rejected but embraced. “Dispute and contradiction, not veneration and obedience, are the essence of intellectual life,” Bakewell writes."
It's a good review, no surprise there: Jennifer Szalai. Not sure it's a book for me . . .
November 19, 2023
This is a typical Bakewell book, which is a compliment! It is just what the subtitle promises, a historical review of humanists and humanist thinking. It was meticulously and impressively researched. The thinking was lucidly described. I picked up some neat new terms,like insectolatrists and felicific calculus. There were MANY fascinating tidbits and fun details and wonderful humor, such as when she described Joseph Stalin's vision of the New Soviet type:
Such types were physically depicted in sculpture and photography as pumped-up Vitruvians, with masculine chins held high and shoulder muscles bulging. (And those were just the women.)
Not too surprisingly, though, there were some times where I felt she had to document just how deep her research went and I got a bit impatient with too much unimpotant detail about where people moved and who they married, etc.
WARNING: Reading this book could be dangerous to your TBR list! She mentions SO MANY books I wanted to follow up as well as old favorites it would be fun (I hope!) to reread, like A Canticle for Liebowitz.
Such types were physically depicted in sculpture and photography as pumped-up Vitruvians, with masculine chins held high and shoulder muscles bulging. (And those were just the women.)
Not too surprisingly, though, there were some times where I felt she had to document just how deep her research went and I got a bit impatient with too much unimpotant detail about where people moved and who they married, etc.
WARNING: Reading this book could be dangerous to your TBR list! She mentions SO MANY books I wanted to follow up as well as old favorites it would be fun (I hope!) to reread, like A Canticle for Liebowitz.
July 13, 2023
Learning what makes us human
Humanism is a philosophical stance with a long tradition. It emphasizes what makes us human – our rationality, dignity, and the value of the good things we are capable of doing and creating. It does so without relying on religious beliefs. We’re going to talk about the evolution of this idea by looking at the lives of several key humanists over the past seven hundred years: Petrarch, Boccaccio, Pizan, Erasmus, Montaigne, Voltaire, and Thomas Mann.
In the end, you’ll know a little bit about history and a lot about humanism. You may even find out that you want to embrace the philosophy yourself.
-
Thinking freely
In 2017 a young Pakistani named Hamza bin Walayat, who had been living in Britain for some years, applied for asylum to remain in Britain on the grounds that his humanist beliefs could get him killed in Pakistan. In his interviews with the UK’s Home Office, he was asked to define humanism. He did so by talking about the freethinkers of the Enlightenment era, but the assessors were not convinced he was a true convert to whatever this humanism thing was.
The problem Hamza ran into was that there is no flag or creed or church of humanism. It’s a philosophical stance or choice that can be traced back many hundreds of years. The truth Hamza told was that humanism, like any belief that isn’t officially approved, is indeed punishable in Pakistan, and many other countries. They don’t care whether it’s a “real” religion or not – they only care that it goes against the prescribed rules. Nations and societies with conservative religious leadership may feel threatened by humanism, which suggests that moral behavior doesn’t need scripture – just a conscience.
Humanism is, at its core, the ability to explore and value the humanness of our species. Humanists believe in freethinking – in asking questions, studying, learning, discovering, and preserving all things related to humanity. And above all, they are filled with the hope that occurs whenever we step back and acknowledge the technological progress, magnificent works of art, and empowering acts of benevolence that humans are capable of.
You might say it’s no wonder that Hamza was unable to explain humanism to the satisfaction of his assessors. After all, an institution designed to decide who is and isn’t worthy of staying inside an imaginary boundary line between one country and another is inherently not humanist. But his story has a happy ending. The organization Humanists UK stepped in and petitioned the Home Office to reconsider. In the process, they were able to help develop new training for assessors on how to properly interview non-religious asylum-seekers. Soon after, Hamza was elected to the board of trustees of the institution that had helped him find safety in the UK.
While it’s unlikely that anything short of mentioning Greek philosophers who weren’t even humanists would have convinced Hamza’s assessors, it is still valuable to understand the threads of humanism that have existed for the past 700 years. We can reach this understanding not by describing organized movements – there really weren’t any specific humanist movements – but by learning about the humanists who have shaped our world through art, science, and culture.
-
Saving books with Petrarch and Boccaccio
In the fourteenth century, two men created the template for what we consider humanism today: Francesco Petrarca, commonly referred to as Petrarch (1304–1374), and Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375). And they did it as the most normal act of teenage rebellion you could think of. Petrarch’s father was a notary, and Boccaccio’s father was a merchant. Both fathers demanded their sons take up their professions. And both sons rejected their fathers’ demands to pursue literature.
This all-in devotion to seeking knowledge, and to unburying the works of the past, is a key characteristic of humanism. Petrarch became obsessed with recovering and collecting manuscripts to the point where he would send wish lists with friends who were traveling in case they came across some rare work that might look good on his shelves.
Petrarch wrote extensively, from letters to scholarly works to poems. You may recognize his name from the Petrarchan sonnet, a form he invented that is used by poets to this day. Likewise, Boccaccio was also an avid student of life and history. He is most famous for his work The Decameron, a book of one hundred stories told at the time of the Black Death.
Both men lived through the bubonic plague of the fourteenth century, watching many of the people they loved succumb to the terrible illness. The effect of that time on both writers can be seen in their works, particularly in Petrarch’s letters to friends, in which he sends copies of various manuscripts on grief from throughout history, as well as expressing empathy for what they are going through.
Studying these humanists of the past allows us to see parallels to our own times and to see the value of being a little more human in our approach to things like work and relationships as well as collective traumas.
Petrarch and Boccaccio teach us that the ability to write or orate is nothing without a human reason behind it. On the other hand, the ability to communicate our humanity to one another is the core of all human studies.
Because of Petrarch and Boccaccio, following generations produced many artists, writers, explorers, scientists, teachers, librarians, and collectors who sought to recover and preserve the past achievements of humankind and contribute their own work to the growing archive.
One characteristic most of these humanists shared was that they were men. We’ll now look at an exception.
-
Making a mark with Christine de Pizan
In 1984, a historian named Joan Kelly-Gadol wrote a paper entitled “Did Women Have a Renaissance?” And the answer was, well, mostly, no. During the fifteenth century there was more opportunity for women than there had been before, but the majority of families still saw little reason to provide their daughters with a substantial education. However, there were some notable women humanists who made a name for themselves at this time.
Christine de Pizan, born in Venice in 1364, lived an exceptional life. She ended up living in France, and as a result learned to speak and read both French and her native Italian. Some speculate that she also learned Latin.
At 15, she married. She had three children. And then tragedy struck. Both her husband and her father died within a year of each other, leaving her alone to support her children and her mother. Christine decided to make her living producing writing under the patronage of wealthy, noble people.
She wrote on subjects ranging from ethics to politics to war. She also wrote love poetry. But most notably, she penned The Book of the City of Ladies, which was both an imitation of and a response to Boccaccio’s Decameron. Christine’s book was also a compilation of stories, but ones in which women’s abilities were on display.
Other ladies who took up the humanist way of Petrarch and Boccaccio include Laura Cereta, who compiled her letters as literature, like Petrarch, and Cassandra Fedele, who did the same. Fedele even sent her letters to a respected tutor to the Medici family. He praised her in a condescending way and then ignored her. Eventually she became prioress of an orphanage, and at the age of ninety was invited to give a welcome speech in Latin when the Polish queen visited Venice in 1556.
These exceptions aside, humanism as a rising philosophy largely lacked diversity of voice, and was primarily happening out of Italy. But that would change.
-
Being kind with Erasmus and Montaigne
In 1480, a Dutch humanist named Rudolf Agricola spoke at a school in the Netherlands. He talked about the value of education – but not the kind you get at school. He urged the students to pursue their own education in things like history and philosophy and poetry. Rather than have material handed to them, translated by others, they should seek out primary sources on their own.
One young boy in the audience was deeply affected by the speech. His name was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536), one of the greatest humanists of all time. Erasmus wrote in a wide range of styles, from dialogues to theological tracts to collections of proverbs.
Having been regularly punished and beaten throughout his school years, he grew to hate cruelty and intimidation. In his mind, human nature was made for peace and love. He believed the clues to this were in the human body. All animals have physical traits that hint at their capabilities and nature. For example, birds have feathers and wings, so we know they are made to fly. Likewise, humans have eyes that display emotion, arms to embrace, and soft bodies to thrive in safe, peaceful environments.
In addition to his belief in human kindness, Erasmus also proclaimed the importance of having a rich education and diverse connections. He is well-known for using the term “diversity” and encouraging people to move freely, make many friends, share knowledge, and consider the world from other points of view.
In 1987, an organization was formed that helps facilitate student educational opportunities abroad so European students can study and earn credits in other countries. This organization is called the European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students, or ERASMUS+. The acronym is not an accident.
Closely following in Erasmus’s footsteps, this time in France, was Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592). Montaigne’s father was a humanist and chose to raise his son in the humanities. As such, Montaigne was endowed with a varied and deep Latin education.
Like Erasmus, he abhorred violence. During his time, France was in a constant state of civil war, and people were often burned at the stake for suspected connections with the Devil. Montaigne despised all of this. He approached humanism with a mind to put his own stamp on it. He tended to deconstruct the things he read and then put them back together with his own special twist.
We have Montaigne to thank for the form of the personal essay. Montaigne was writing in stream-of-consciousness long before the modernist movement of the twentieth century. He seemed to enjoy living in a space of inquiry, open to and comfortable with change.
Montaigne freed humanist thinkers from religion without doing away with religion. He simply chose to leave religious writings to others and to write only of human things. In Montaigne’s mind, life and humanity were gifts from God, and to spend our lives hating ourselves was an affront to that gift. He preferred to focus on writing about his love for and appreciation of that gift.
And not least because of the work of these two men, humanism took a new shape in the form of the Enlightenment.
-
Empathy and progress with Voltaire
In 1755, an earthquake struck Lisbon, Portugal while a large number of citizens were at church. Many of the people who survived the earthquake were killed in a tsunami triggered by that earthquake. The death total is said to have been around 70,000.
This tragedy reached deep into the continent, affecting people all over Europe. At the time of the earthquake, the prevailing wisdom doled out by the Church was that everything is for the good: God had created the world in the best form possible, which surely meant that any other world would be far worse than this one. Therefore, human suffering aside, everything that happens in this world must be okay.
People of that time were encouraged to set their personal feelings aside and think of the grander scheme of God’s plan. But humanists all over the continent began rejecting this philosophy. One of the most famous of those was Voltaire (1694–1778).
Voltaire’s famous work, Candide, was written in response to the Lisbon earthquake. It follows two men who initially believe in the “all is good” ideal. Throughout the story, one bad thing after another happens to the men. Candide starts off firm in his belief, but starts to doubt. Candide realizes that the “all is good” idea is only optimistic on the surface. In reality, it’s kind of a cop-out. It suggests that people have no responsibility or ability to improve the world they live in. In the end, Candide and some others move to a patch of land together and focus on cultivating their own gardens, a metaphor for doing your part to make the world a better place.
Voltaire lived, along with many other humanists, at the intersection of humanism and the Enlightenment. This humanist idea of enlightenment meant considering the human situation to be as valid as the divine one. Many humanists of this time became so-called deists, choosing to believe that there probably had been a God at one point, but that he, she, or it no longer took an active interest in humankind.
Humanist enlightenment moved to embrace the power of humans to shape their lives and the world. Sure, earthquakes would happen – but perhaps humans could construct buildings that could hold up to them. Maybe nothing could be done about illness, but perhaps scientific research would uncover ways to mitigate their severity. And in terms of morality, enlightenment humanists took the stance that human empathy was the best guide for a moral world.
-
Fleeing fascism with Thomas Mann
Critics of Erasmus cited his refusal to acknowledge the evil inherent in mankind. There wasn’t a note of Machiavelli in anything he wrote, nor an acknowledgment of man’s darker side as a question unanswered by humanism. The twentieth century saw that dark side come to life in the form of fascism and subsequent anti-humanist sentiment.
The German writer Thomas Mann (1875–1955), who was a student of humanism and interested in the failings in Erasmus’s beliefs, started out believing that authors should remain apolitical. But when Hitler and Mussolini began doing away with humanist education and replacing it with whatever they wanted in order to shape citizens for their own ends, Mann could no longer remain silent. He spoke out against fascism in speeches and in fiction, forcing him to move to Switzerland to preserve his life and the lives of his family.
In 1941, Mann moved, for a time, to California, where he wrote Doctor Faustus and produced radio addresses to the German people to help them understand what was happening in their country. In one of those broadcasts, Mann implored people to reject the evil and violence around them and to embrace hope.
Once the war ended, Mann encountered a new source of frustration in the form of McCarthyism – a political campaign that spread fear of communism. He returned to Switzerland. The world looked very much anti-humanist at this point. William Golding’s book, Lord of the Flies, portrays a nihilistic sentiment of despair born of witnessing so much horror in the modern world.
The response, in 1952, was a humanist manifesto by a group that is now called Humanists International. The manifesto was revised in 2022 and focuses on the ethics of humanism. It outlines humanist beliefs in different societies and promotes the importance of the humanities, including art, music, and literature.
Today, we can see new versions of old battles in the form of religion-based laws, bigotry, discrimination, and fear of diversity. As long as there are humans, there will be a humanist response. The goal is the same now as it always was – to live, feel, and be human by asking questions, posing new ideas, connecting with others, growing in our knowledge and diversity, and ultimately embracing kindness.
-
Humanism can be traced back at least seven hundred years. It is a stance that asks us to preserve those things that are unique to humanity.
Petrarch and Boccaccio show us how to pursue a love of research. Christine de Pizan shows us that women throughout time have had something to say about humanism. Erasmus and Motaigne taught us to embrace kindness. Voltaire taught us to make use of our capabilities. And Mann showed us how to navigate the world even when the world is unfriendly to humans.
Humanism is a philosophical stance with a long tradition. It emphasizes what makes us human – our rationality, dignity, and the value of the good things we are capable of doing and creating. It does so without relying on religious beliefs. We’re going to talk about the evolution of this idea by looking at the lives of several key humanists over the past seven hundred years: Petrarch, Boccaccio, Pizan, Erasmus, Montaigne, Voltaire, and Thomas Mann.
In the end, you’ll know a little bit about history and a lot about humanism. You may even find out that you want to embrace the philosophy yourself.
-
Thinking freely
In 2017 a young Pakistani named Hamza bin Walayat, who had been living in Britain for some years, applied for asylum to remain in Britain on the grounds that his humanist beliefs could get him killed in Pakistan. In his interviews with the UK’s Home Office, he was asked to define humanism. He did so by talking about the freethinkers of the Enlightenment era, but the assessors were not convinced he was a true convert to whatever this humanism thing was.
The problem Hamza ran into was that there is no flag or creed or church of humanism. It’s a philosophical stance or choice that can be traced back many hundreds of years. The truth Hamza told was that humanism, like any belief that isn’t officially approved, is indeed punishable in Pakistan, and many other countries. They don’t care whether it’s a “real” religion or not – they only care that it goes against the prescribed rules. Nations and societies with conservative religious leadership may feel threatened by humanism, which suggests that moral behavior doesn’t need scripture – just a conscience.
Humanism is, at its core, the ability to explore and value the humanness of our species. Humanists believe in freethinking – in asking questions, studying, learning, discovering, and preserving all things related to humanity. And above all, they are filled with the hope that occurs whenever we step back and acknowledge the technological progress, magnificent works of art, and empowering acts of benevolence that humans are capable of.
You might say it’s no wonder that Hamza was unable to explain humanism to the satisfaction of his assessors. After all, an institution designed to decide who is and isn’t worthy of staying inside an imaginary boundary line between one country and another is inherently not humanist. But his story has a happy ending. The organization Humanists UK stepped in and petitioned the Home Office to reconsider. In the process, they were able to help develop new training for assessors on how to properly interview non-religious asylum-seekers. Soon after, Hamza was elected to the board of trustees of the institution that had helped him find safety in the UK.
While it’s unlikely that anything short of mentioning Greek philosophers who weren’t even humanists would have convinced Hamza’s assessors, it is still valuable to understand the threads of humanism that have existed for the past 700 years. We can reach this understanding not by describing organized movements – there really weren’t any specific humanist movements – but by learning about the humanists who have shaped our world through art, science, and culture.
-
Saving books with Petrarch and Boccaccio
In the fourteenth century, two men created the template for what we consider humanism today: Francesco Petrarca, commonly referred to as Petrarch (1304–1374), and Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375). And they did it as the most normal act of teenage rebellion you could think of. Petrarch’s father was a notary, and Boccaccio’s father was a merchant. Both fathers demanded their sons take up their professions. And both sons rejected their fathers’ demands to pursue literature.
This all-in devotion to seeking knowledge, and to unburying the works of the past, is a key characteristic of humanism. Petrarch became obsessed with recovering and collecting manuscripts to the point where he would send wish lists with friends who were traveling in case they came across some rare work that might look good on his shelves.
Petrarch wrote extensively, from letters to scholarly works to poems. You may recognize his name from the Petrarchan sonnet, a form he invented that is used by poets to this day. Likewise, Boccaccio was also an avid student of life and history. He is most famous for his work The Decameron, a book of one hundred stories told at the time of the Black Death.
Both men lived through the bubonic plague of the fourteenth century, watching many of the people they loved succumb to the terrible illness. The effect of that time on both writers can be seen in their works, particularly in Petrarch’s letters to friends, in which he sends copies of various manuscripts on grief from throughout history, as well as expressing empathy for what they are going through.
Studying these humanists of the past allows us to see parallels to our own times and to see the value of being a little more human in our approach to things like work and relationships as well as collective traumas.
Petrarch and Boccaccio teach us that the ability to write or orate is nothing without a human reason behind it. On the other hand, the ability to communicate our humanity to one another is the core of all human studies.
Because of Petrarch and Boccaccio, following generations produced many artists, writers, explorers, scientists, teachers, librarians, and collectors who sought to recover and preserve the past achievements of humankind and contribute their own work to the growing archive.
One characteristic most of these humanists shared was that they were men. We’ll now look at an exception.
-
Making a mark with Christine de Pizan
In 1984, a historian named Joan Kelly-Gadol wrote a paper entitled “Did Women Have a Renaissance?” And the answer was, well, mostly, no. During the fifteenth century there was more opportunity for women than there had been before, but the majority of families still saw little reason to provide their daughters with a substantial education. However, there were some notable women humanists who made a name for themselves at this time.
Christine de Pizan, born in Venice in 1364, lived an exceptional life. She ended up living in France, and as a result learned to speak and read both French and her native Italian. Some speculate that she also learned Latin.
At 15, she married. She had three children. And then tragedy struck. Both her husband and her father died within a year of each other, leaving her alone to support her children and her mother. Christine decided to make her living producing writing under the patronage of wealthy, noble people.
She wrote on subjects ranging from ethics to politics to war. She also wrote love poetry. But most notably, she penned The Book of the City of Ladies, which was both an imitation of and a response to Boccaccio’s Decameron. Christine’s book was also a compilation of stories, but ones in which women’s abilities were on display.
Other ladies who took up the humanist way of Petrarch and Boccaccio include Laura Cereta, who compiled her letters as literature, like Petrarch, and Cassandra Fedele, who did the same. Fedele even sent her letters to a respected tutor to the Medici family. He praised her in a condescending way and then ignored her. Eventually she became prioress of an orphanage, and at the age of ninety was invited to give a welcome speech in Latin when the Polish queen visited Venice in 1556.
These exceptions aside, humanism as a rising philosophy largely lacked diversity of voice, and was primarily happening out of Italy. But that would change.
-
Being kind with Erasmus and Montaigne
In 1480, a Dutch humanist named Rudolf Agricola spoke at a school in the Netherlands. He talked about the value of education – but not the kind you get at school. He urged the students to pursue their own education in things like history and philosophy and poetry. Rather than have material handed to them, translated by others, they should seek out primary sources on their own.
One young boy in the audience was deeply affected by the speech. His name was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536), one of the greatest humanists of all time. Erasmus wrote in a wide range of styles, from dialogues to theological tracts to collections of proverbs.
Having been regularly punished and beaten throughout his school years, he grew to hate cruelty and intimidation. In his mind, human nature was made for peace and love. He believed the clues to this were in the human body. All animals have physical traits that hint at their capabilities and nature. For example, birds have feathers and wings, so we know they are made to fly. Likewise, humans have eyes that display emotion, arms to embrace, and soft bodies to thrive in safe, peaceful environments.
In addition to his belief in human kindness, Erasmus also proclaimed the importance of having a rich education and diverse connections. He is well-known for using the term “diversity” and encouraging people to move freely, make many friends, share knowledge, and consider the world from other points of view.
In 1987, an organization was formed that helps facilitate student educational opportunities abroad so European students can study and earn credits in other countries. This organization is called the European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students, or ERASMUS+. The acronym is not an accident.
Closely following in Erasmus’s footsteps, this time in France, was Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592). Montaigne’s father was a humanist and chose to raise his son in the humanities. As such, Montaigne was endowed with a varied and deep Latin education.
Like Erasmus, he abhorred violence. During his time, France was in a constant state of civil war, and people were often burned at the stake for suspected connections with the Devil. Montaigne despised all of this. He approached humanism with a mind to put his own stamp on it. He tended to deconstruct the things he read and then put them back together with his own special twist.
We have Montaigne to thank for the form of the personal essay. Montaigne was writing in stream-of-consciousness long before the modernist movement of the twentieth century. He seemed to enjoy living in a space of inquiry, open to and comfortable with change.
Montaigne freed humanist thinkers from religion without doing away with religion. He simply chose to leave religious writings to others and to write only of human things. In Montaigne’s mind, life and humanity were gifts from God, and to spend our lives hating ourselves was an affront to that gift. He preferred to focus on writing about his love for and appreciation of that gift.
And not least because of the work of these two men, humanism took a new shape in the form of the Enlightenment.
-
Empathy and progress with Voltaire
In 1755, an earthquake struck Lisbon, Portugal while a large number of citizens were at church. Many of the people who survived the earthquake were killed in a tsunami triggered by that earthquake. The death total is said to have been around 70,000.
This tragedy reached deep into the continent, affecting people all over Europe. At the time of the earthquake, the prevailing wisdom doled out by the Church was that everything is for the good: God had created the world in the best form possible, which surely meant that any other world would be far worse than this one. Therefore, human suffering aside, everything that happens in this world must be okay.
People of that time were encouraged to set their personal feelings aside and think of the grander scheme of God’s plan. But humanists all over the continent began rejecting this philosophy. One of the most famous of those was Voltaire (1694–1778).
Voltaire’s famous work, Candide, was written in response to the Lisbon earthquake. It follows two men who initially believe in the “all is good” ideal. Throughout the story, one bad thing after another happens to the men. Candide starts off firm in his belief, but starts to doubt. Candide realizes that the “all is good” idea is only optimistic on the surface. In reality, it’s kind of a cop-out. It suggests that people have no responsibility or ability to improve the world they live in. In the end, Candide and some others move to a patch of land together and focus on cultivating their own gardens, a metaphor for doing your part to make the world a better place.
Voltaire lived, along with many other humanists, at the intersection of humanism and the Enlightenment. This humanist idea of enlightenment meant considering the human situation to be as valid as the divine one. Many humanists of this time became so-called deists, choosing to believe that there probably had been a God at one point, but that he, she, or it no longer took an active interest in humankind.
Humanist enlightenment moved to embrace the power of humans to shape their lives and the world. Sure, earthquakes would happen – but perhaps humans could construct buildings that could hold up to them. Maybe nothing could be done about illness, but perhaps scientific research would uncover ways to mitigate their severity. And in terms of morality, enlightenment humanists took the stance that human empathy was the best guide for a moral world.
-
Fleeing fascism with Thomas Mann
Critics of Erasmus cited his refusal to acknowledge the evil inherent in mankind. There wasn’t a note of Machiavelli in anything he wrote, nor an acknowledgment of man’s darker side as a question unanswered by humanism. The twentieth century saw that dark side come to life in the form of fascism and subsequent anti-humanist sentiment.
The German writer Thomas Mann (1875–1955), who was a student of humanism and interested in the failings in Erasmus’s beliefs, started out believing that authors should remain apolitical. But when Hitler and Mussolini began doing away with humanist education and replacing it with whatever they wanted in order to shape citizens for their own ends, Mann could no longer remain silent. He spoke out against fascism in speeches and in fiction, forcing him to move to Switzerland to preserve his life and the lives of his family.
In 1941, Mann moved, for a time, to California, where he wrote Doctor Faustus and produced radio addresses to the German people to help them understand what was happening in their country. In one of those broadcasts, Mann implored people to reject the evil and violence around them and to embrace hope.
Once the war ended, Mann encountered a new source of frustration in the form of McCarthyism – a political campaign that spread fear of communism. He returned to Switzerland. The world looked very much anti-humanist at this point. William Golding’s book, Lord of the Flies, portrays a nihilistic sentiment of despair born of witnessing so much horror in the modern world.
The response, in 1952, was a humanist manifesto by a group that is now called Humanists International. The manifesto was revised in 2022 and focuses on the ethics of humanism. It outlines humanist beliefs in different societies and promotes the importance of the humanities, including art, music, and literature.
Today, we can see new versions of old battles in the form of religion-based laws, bigotry, discrimination, and fear of diversity. As long as there are humans, there will be a humanist response. The goal is the same now as it always was – to live, feel, and be human by asking questions, posing new ideas, connecting with others, growing in our knowledge and diversity, and ultimately embracing kindness.
-
Humanism can be traced back at least seven hundred years. It is a stance that asks us to preserve those things that are unique to humanity.
Petrarch and Boccaccio show us how to pursue a love of research. Christine de Pizan shows us that women throughout time have had something to say about humanism. Erasmus and Motaigne taught us to embrace kindness. Voltaire taught us to make use of our capabilities. And Mann showed us how to navigate the world even when the world is unfriendly to humans.
August 24, 2023
I should start off by saying that I really enjoyed Bakewell’s two previous books, How to Live, about the philosophy of Michele de Montaigne, and At the Existentialist Café, about, well, Existentialism. I recommend this latter book highly and have given at a least a couple as gifts.
I assumed I would similarly appreciate Bakewell’s latest offering, but it was somewhat disappointing. It is very good as a series of mini-biographies of some notable historical persons, but as an evaluation and analysis of the philosophy of humanism it is lacking and largely uncritical. She provides some fascinating details about the lives and thoughts of many figures including Petrarch, Bocaccio, Cicero, Lorenzo Valla, Montaigne, Erasmus (I love his quote, “My home is wherever I keep my library.”), Voltaire, Thomas Paine, David Hume, EM Forster, Willhelm von Humboldt, John Stuart Mill, Matthew Arnold, Thomas Huxley, Auguste Comte, Ludwik Zamenhoff, Robert Ingersol, and Bertrand Russell. It’s a diverse group and the common humanist ideas linking these folks becomes somewhat tenuous.
Granted, the definition of humanism has morphed and mutated over the ages, and even current self-described humanists have difficulty settling on a set of principles they can agree upon.
While Bakewell includes the Humanists International Declaration of Modern Humanism in the appendix, she mostly resorts to repeating slogans in lieu of a definition. One is the Protagoras line, “Man is the measure of all things.” Another is the creed of Robert G. Ingersoll:
“Happiness is the only good.
The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here.
The way to be happy is to make others so.”
Maybe it’s hardly worth critiquing such a benign and anodyne motto let alone formulating a refutation, but attempting to use this as a philosophical foundation should make one consider the potential defects. Bakewell doesn’t really wrestle with them at all.
There are a number of problems with using humanism as a governing principle, but I believe its primary defect is its exalted and unrealistic view of human nature. There is also no understanding of the very real and human longing for transcendence.
I would contend that Bakewell and other humanists are unwilling to recognize how innately flawed humans really are. It’s not just that people are fallible or finite, or that our systems aren’t set up right. The problem is with us. As Solzhenitsyn wrote, “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts.”
David Zahl points out three problems in our human condition. They are significant and they are irremediable:
1. Limitation: there are limits to what we can do and what we can know. We have blind spots. We die.
2. Doubleness: we don't seem to be able or willing to do what we know we should do. We do stuff that we know is stupid or harmful. Henry James called this "the divided self." "Doubleness comprises the observation that our agency—or personal power—is more restricted than we like to think it is.”
3. Self-centeredness: "It is fairly easy to see this in other people, but we have a harder time identifying it in ourselves that is, we are less likely to acknowledge our complicity, manipulations, and corner-cutting than other people's.”
Man is not reliable nor worthy enough to serve as solid foundation for a religion or philosophy of life. At least not one that works. Man is the measure of all things? I disagree. When it comes to justice and goodness I would recommend a higher standard.
I assumed I would similarly appreciate Bakewell’s latest offering, but it was somewhat disappointing. It is very good as a series of mini-biographies of some notable historical persons, but as an evaluation and analysis of the philosophy of humanism it is lacking and largely uncritical. She provides some fascinating details about the lives and thoughts of many figures including Petrarch, Bocaccio, Cicero, Lorenzo Valla, Montaigne, Erasmus (I love his quote, “My home is wherever I keep my library.”), Voltaire, Thomas Paine, David Hume, EM Forster, Willhelm von Humboldt, John Stuart Mill, Matthew Arnold, Thomas Huxley, Auguste Comte, Ludwik Zamenhoff, Robert Ingersol, and Bertrand Russell. It’s a diverse group and the common humanist ideas linking these folks becomes somewhat tenuous.
Granted, the definition of humanism has morphed and mutated over the ages, and even current self-described humanists have difficulty settling on a set of principles they can agree upon.
While Bakewell includes the Humanists International Declaration of Modern Humanism in the appendix, she mostly resorts to repeating slogans in lieu of a definition. One is the Protagoras line, “Man is the measure of all things.” Another is the creed of Robert G. Ingersoll:
“Happiness is the only good.
The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here.
The way to be happy is to make others so.”
Maybe it’s hardly worth critiquing such a benign and anodyne motto let alone formulating a refutation, but attempting to use this as a philosophical foundation should make one consider the potential defects. Bakewell doesn’t really wrestle with them at all.
There are a number of problems with using humanism as a governing principle, but I believe its primary defect is its exalted and unrealistic view of human nature. There is also no understanding of the very real and human longing for transcendence.
I would contend that Bakewell and other humanists are unwilling to recognize how innately flawed humans really are. It’s not just that people are fallible or finite, or that our systems aren’t set up right. The problem is with us. As Solzhenitsyn wrote, “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts.”
David Zahl points out three problems in our human condition. They are significant and they are irremediable:
1. Limitation: there are limits to what we can do and what we can know. We have blind spots. We die.
2. Doubleness: we don't seem to be able or willing to do what we know we should do. We do stuff that we know is stupid or harmful. Henry James called this "the divided self." "Doubleness comprises the observation that our agency—or personal power—is more restricted than we like to think it is.”
3. Self-centeredness: "It is fairly easy to see this in other people, but we have a harder time identifying it in ourselves that is, we are less likely to acknowledge our complicity, manipulations, and corner-cutting than other people's.”
Man is not reliable nor worthy enough to serve as solid foundation for a religion or philosophy of life. At least not one that works. Man is the measure of all things? I disagree. When it comes to justice and goodness I would recommend a higher standard.
February 1, 2024
Sadly i have to say that this book is a good introduction to humanism across history but lacks in character exploration and their impacts.
This is probably me but i found Sarah's earlier works like "At the Existentialist Café" to be more enjoyable and insightful compared to this book. while this one is well researched, i'm afraid it offers little beyond what we may already know about humanism.
Each chapter feels more like a history textbook on western thinkers which in my opinion becomes somewhat tedious. it bombards me with a lot of information and honestly it gets a bit boring. the scope of the topic here seems too broad, especially when compared to her previous focused exploration of existentialism in "At the Existentialist Café".
I mean, when i read "At the Existentialist Café," sarah discusses only a few people like martin heidegger, simone de beauvoir, jean paul sartre, and camus, but you see them actually traverse their lives throughout the 19th century. i saw how ww2 has an effect on them, how their philosophy impacts the world and that created a more interesting narrative rather than having a lot of character to tell the reader.
Eventhough i did pick up new information about the middle ages and the humanist movement, it felt somewhat flat and didn't provide any new insights. i can confidently say that my understanding of humanism remains pretty much unchanged after reading this book.
The language used in this book is accessible and easy to read, but unfortunately, it didn't live up to my expectations.
So, I would rate this book 3/5⭐️
This is probably me but i found Sarah's earlier works like "At the Existentialist Café" to be more enjoyable and insightful compared to this book. while this one is well researched, i'm afraid it offers little beyond what we may already know about humanism.
Each chapter feels more like a history textbook on western thinkers which in my opinion becomes somewhat tedious. it bombards me with a lot of information and honestly it gets a bit boring. the scope of the topic here seems too broad, especially when compared to her previous focused exploration of existentialism in "At the Existentialist Café".
I mean, when i read "At the Existentialist Café," sarah discusses only a few people like martin heidegger, simone de beauvoir, jean paul sartre, and camus, but you see them actually traverse their lives throughout the 19th century. i saw how ww2 has an effect on them, how their philosophy impacts the world and that created a more interesting narrative rather than having a lot of character to tell the reader.
Eventhough i did pick up new information about the middle ages and the humanist movement, it felt somewhat flat and didn't provide any new insights. i can confidently say that my understanding of humanism remains pretty much unchanged after reading this book.
The language used in this book is accessible and easy to read, but unfortunately, it didn't live up to my expectations.
So, I would rate this book 3/5⭐️
June 30, 2023
What is Humanism? I once had to explain humanism and Sir Thomas More in an undergrad English quiz but hadn't done any of that week's readings so I wordsmithed a bullshit essay about emphasizing human achievement and human potential. (You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, right?) Imagine my surprise when the professor gave me full credit. I hadn't thought about humanism since then, but when I read Sarah Bakewell's Humanly Possible I found that I'd actually been on the right track. But to be fair, I could've been on a few other tracks and still have been on the right track, because humanism encompasses a lot of things.
Bakewell's book traces the history of humanistic thinking and connects the dots between luminaries separated by centuries and continents. What connected them was a hunger to understand the full power of our collective humanity, a sense of optimism about what we can achieve, and a desire to harness that power to improve the well-being of other humans. It's curiosity, reason, critical thinking, and the scientific method, all put to the service of bettering life for current and future generations. Those with a background in education may recognize the humanistic approach as "inquiry-based" and "student-centered" teaching. But she also traces the flip side. Anti-humanism is Western Civ's long history of religious authorities battling against math, astronomy, and biology, it's the fascist and totalitarian states of the early 20th century, it's the Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge, it's the rise in anti-intellectualism in recent US history, and although she doesn't mention it by name, there's one we're all thinking right now.
I really enjoyed this book. Bakewell balances insightful facts about history with an easy sense of humor, offering great lines like "A youthful counterculture can take many forms: in the 1300s, it could mean reading a lot of Cicero and starting a book collection." If you ever wanted to know more about the history of the Enlightenment and how it relates to modern writers like Forster or Hurston, it's an excellent read.
Bakewell's book traces the history of humanistic thinking and connects the dots between luminaries separated by centuries and continents. What connected them was a hunger to understand the full power of our collective humanity, a sense of optimism about what we can achieve, and a desire to harness that power to improve the well-being of other humans. It's curiosity, reason, critical thinking, and the scientific method, all put to the service of bettering life for current and future generations. Those with a background in education may recognize the humanistic approach as "inquiry-based" and "student-centered" teaching. But she also traces the flip side. Anti-humanism is Western Civ's long history of religious authorities battling against math, astronomy, and biology, it's the fascist and totalitarian states of the early 20th century, it's the Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge, it's the rise in anti-intellectualism in recent US history, and although she doesn't mention it by name, there's one we're all thinking right now.
I really enjoyed this book. Bakewell balances insightful facts about history with an easy sense of humor, offering great lines like "A youthful counterculture can take many forms: in the 1300s, it could mean reading a lot of Cicero and starting a book collection." If you ever wanted to know more about the history of the Enlightenment and how it relates to modern writers like Forster or Hurston, it's an excellent read.
November 7, 2023
I’ll start off by saying that I loved Sarah Bakewell’s other two books - on Montaigne and on Existentialism - and that this one was not as easy a read. It’s basically a history of and an argument for humanism. Much to my embarrassment, I didn’t know humanism had a history. And actually I didn’t really know what humanism was. Turns out I think I might be a humanist! The book is a voyage through centuries of struggle to place human feelings, human achievements and the need to understand and empathize with one another at the heart of human society. It also includes tips from ancient scholars on how to pass gas without offending those around you - so there’s practical advice in here too! And If nothing else it’s worth reading to learn Robert G. Ingersoll’s creed for how to live a joy-filled life: “Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so!”
June 14, 2023
Sorry to say it, but I want to be honest, this was a tough read.
The writing is good, but the pace of information is, like the research for the book, exhaustive. So many humans, so little time...and although the overall theme of humanism throughout the ages is presented well and its values to our species championed, reading humanist history is tedious... especially when what I really want is a humanistic present and, perhaps more importantly, future.
~ Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good. Apr 25, 2023 *Source - American Humanist Association
The writing is good, but the pace of information is, like the research for the book, exhaustive. So many humans, so little time...and although the overall theme of humanism throughout the ages is presented well and its values to our species championed, reading humanist history is tedious... especially when what I really want is a humanistic present and, perhaps more importantly, future.
~ Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good. Apr 25, 2023 *Source - American Humanist Association
June 18, 2023
So good. Will probably read again in a few years.
January 12, 2024
It’s tempting to despair in these benighted times of war, political populism, mendacious demagogues, religious fundamentalism, the rise of irrationalism and re-emergence of fascism, reversals of hard-won liberties in Western democracies, and institutionalised prejudice; so a book on the history of Humanism is both welcome and necessary.
Humanly Possible is a history of humanist thought and thinkers from 1300 to the present day. 700 years of freethinking, rational enquiry and questioning of received wisdom and religious and political authority; 700 years of making connections between people, recognising our shared humanity and celebrating our differences. Anyone who thinks that progress is an illusion, or is simply overwhelmed by the parlous state of the world, should read this book; it is, among other things, a chronicle of how human advancement was achieved by courageous women and men who thought and fought against the grain.
Humanly Possible made me realise that there has never been a better time than now. I don’t mean this in the sense of Voltaire’s Dr Pangloss that ‘all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds’; far from it, in fact. It’s simply that reading Sarah Bakewell’s accounts of the persecution by church and state of freethinkers down the centuries, and the horrors of fascism and communism in the twentieth century, reminded me that human history has always been a struggle between the forces of light - the Enlightener’s ‘light of reason’ - and the forces of darkness.
She makes the important point that for much of history humanist thought left out most of humanity. When philosophers spoke of the rights of man they usually meant precisely that: the rights of men. And ‘white, able-bodied, gender-conforming males’ to boot. It was for later thinkers and activists to extend these ideas to all humanity. Some reviewers have questioned whether it is entirely legitimate for Bakewell to annex so much pre-nineteenth century thought under the banner of Humanism. Personally, I think it is, because she is identifying common themes and doing that quintessentially humanist thing of making connections between diverse traditions (‘only connect’, as E. M. Forster said).
Sarah Bakewell weaves together philosophy, history and biography with great skill. Her prose is beautifully lucid and infused with wit and humour. I certainly wasn’t expecting a book about philosophy to make me laugh so much. I liked her openness to those with views very different to her own but also her anger at those who would force their views on others through statute and suppress freedom. I liked her lack of dogmatism, her broad definition of culture, and her emphasis on the sheer fun and pleasure of intellectual life; and, above all, I liked her cautious optimism and belief in the capacity of people to address the problems that face humanity and create happier societies through freethinking, enquiry and hope. An inspiring and important book.
Humanly Possible is a history of humanist thought and thinkers from 1300 to the present day. 700 years of freethinking, rational enquiry and questioning of received wisdom and religious and political authority; 700 years of making connections between people, recognising our shared humanity and celebrating our differences. Anyone who thinks that progress is an illusion, or is simply overwhelmed by the parlous state of the world, should read this book; it is, among other things, a chronicle of how human advancement was achieved by courageous women and men who thought and fought against the grain.
Humanly Possible made me realise that there has never been a better time than now. I don’t mean this in the sense of Voltaire’s Dr Pangloss that ‘all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds’; far from it, in fact. It’s simply that reading Sarah Bakewell’s accounts of the persecution by church and state of freethinkers down the centuries, and the horrors of fascism and communism in the twentieth century, reminded me that human history has always been a struggle between the forces of light - the Enlightener’s ‘light of reason’ - and the forces of darkness.
She makes the important point that for much of history humanist thought left out most of humanity. When philosophers spoke of the rights of man they usually meant precisely that: the rights of men. And ‘white, able-bodied, gender-conforming males’ to boot. It was for later thinkers and activists to extend these ideas to all humanity. Some reviewers have questioned whether it is entirely legitimate for Bakewell to annex so much pre-nineteenth century thought under the banner of Humanism. Personally, I think it is, because she is identifying common themes and doing that quintessentially humanist thing of making connections between diverse traditions (‘only connect’, as E. M. Forster said).
Sarah Bakewell weaves together philosophy, history and biography with great skill. Her prose is beautifully lucid and infused with wit and humour. I certainly wasn’t expecting a book about philosophy to make me laugh so much. I liked her openness to those with views very different to her own but also her anger at those who would force their views on others through statute and suppress freedom. I liked her lack of dogmatism, her broad definition of culture, and her emphasis on the sheer fun and pleasure of intellectual life; and, above all, I liked her cautious optimism and belief in the capacity of people to address the problems that face humanity and create happier societies through freethinking, enquiry and hope. An inspiring and important book.
May 15, 2023
Another great book from Sarah Bakewell! At first, I was a bit overwhelmed by this book, as 700 years is a lot to cover. But I knew that she had seen me through two previous books I was not sure about when I started them, so I stuck with her, with excellent results. Highly recommended.
A couple of quotes, the first from p. 236: "A truly liberal society both values and enables deeper fulfillments: the pursuit of meaning and beauty, the diversity of cultural and personal experiences, the excitement of intellectual discovery, and the pleasures of love and companionship."
On p. 356, the author shares a passage from the great Zora Neale Hurston, on her attitude toward religion: "I would not, by word or deed, attempt to deprive another of the consolation it affords. It is simply not for me. Somebody else may have my rapturous glance at the archangels. The springing of the yellow line of morning out of the misty deep of dawn, is glory enough for me."
A couple of quotes, the first from p. 236: "A truly liberal society both values and enables deeper fulfillments: the pursuit of meaning and beauty, the diversity of cultural and personal experiences, the excitement of intellectual discovery, and the pleasures of love and companionship."
On p. 356, the author shares a passage from the great Zora Neale Hurston, on her attitude toward religion: "I would not, by word or deed, attempt to deprive another of the consolation it affords. It is simply not for me. Somebody else may have my rapturous glance at the archangels. The springing of the yellow line of morning out of the misty deep of dawn, is glory enough for me."
April 30, 2023
This book made me mad for a few reasons:
1)Every few pages I’d have to note a new person or text that I had never read that sounded interesting. My reading list is already long enough!
2)I continue to envy the way Bakewell is able to write about such broad topics in such a concise and readable way
3)I read it too quickly and will now presumably have to wait several years for her next one
1)Every few pages I’d have to note a new person or text that I had never read that sounded interesting. My reading list is already long enough!
2)I continue to envy the way Bakewell is able to write about such broad topics in such a concise and readable way
3)I read it too quickly and will now presumably have to wait several years for her next one
May 27, 2023
Wonderful book. Fascinating and compelling from chapter to chapter, beautifully written, I'd be interested in reading more of Bakewell after this.
April 20, 2023
As usual, Bakewell provides a smooth, narrative mixture of philosophical explication and biography. This time, her focus is humanism. Whereas in At the Existentialist Cafe she focused on a handful of philosophers who were active over a few decades in the twentieth century, this time she covers many more protagonists over a much longer period of time. Although she does an admirable job of covering (as the title indicates) seven hundred years of intellectual life, this breadth necessarily results in a less satisfying narrative, as none of the thinkers gets the kind of concentrated attention as did each thinker in the previous book. Nevertheless, each figure (especially figures such as Petrarch, Montaigne, and Russell) is portrayed in a way that makes them interesting as both a thinker and a person.
I must admit that I find the topic here less interesting than in the previous book about existentialism (although there is certainly overlap, particularly in the case of Sartre, who, as Bakewell reminds us here, wrote a famous text called "Existentialism is a Humanism"); it seems to me that the existentialists, with their investigations into the nature of existence or being itself, just had more substance to their work.
Although Bakewell acknowledges the wide range of humanisms, the overall philosophy seems to be more pragmatic than deeply ontological, with an emphasis on human happiness here and now, which many humanists relate to the preeminence of rational thought and a rejection of any sort of transcendent reality, whether religious or ideological.
Indeed, part of Bakewell's interpretation of humanism involves a contrast between it and what she calls anti-humanism, a category that for her includes religion as well as ideologies such as both fascism and Marxism. I would have liked to see more interrogation of that binary. It seems somewhat nonsensical to contrast all Marxism with humanism, as the method of the former is very much rational thought, and its aim is to allow all humans (not just wealthy ones) to have the kind of freedom and leisure time that would allow them to pursue humanistic pleasures.
An even more problematic notion, to my mind, is the opposition between humanism and religion. Although it is certainly true that many religious authorities have opposed the societal reforms championed by so-called humanists, it seems indisputable that religion and spirituality are quintessentially human activities; to my knowledge, no other species is at all religious or spiritual. On the other hand, the things that Bakewell's humanists favor (a general preference for worldly satisfactions and the freedom to enjoy them) seem to have equivalents among many other species. If a dog could articulate its philosophy, it might say something very much like the philosophy of humanism as most of Bakewell's protagonists articulate it: "All I want is to eat good food, to go for walks, and to have the freedom to sniff things. I have no need of anything greater or transcendent; as long as I can bark at strangers and have a tree to pee on, I am happy." This results in the implication that humanism is less truly human than so-called anti-humanism.
I would have liked more exploration of the paradox there. Although Bakewell does acknowledge that some humanists were religious or otherwise interested in larger causes, she nevertheless seems to favor the version of humanism that eschews such things. To me, that makes humanism by itself seem a bit petty, or at least unsatisfying. However, it is not quite fair to judge a book according to the thesis I wish it had, so I give the book four stars. Bakewell does an admirable job of covering this important category of philosophy and cultural activity, even if the breadth of the topic prevents the kind of concentrated attention on a few thinkers that made At the Existentialist Cafe so engaging.
P.S. As with Bakewell's book on existentialism, the audiobook for this is narrated by Antonia Beamish, who again does a fantastic job, reading with verve, intelligence, and wit. I highly recommend listening to this along with, or instead of, just reading the printed text.
I must admit that I find the topic here less interesting than in the previous book about existentialism (although there is certainly overlap, particularly in the case of Sartre, who, as Bakewell reminds us here, wrote a famous text called "Existentialism is a Humanism"); it seems to me that the existentialists, with their investigations into the nature of existence or being itself, just had more substance to their work.
Although Bakewell acknowledges the wide range of humanisms, the overall philosophy seems to be more pragmatic than deeply ontological, with an emphasis on human happiness here and now, which many humanists relate to the preeminence of rational thought and a rejection of any sort of transcendent reality, whether religious or ideological.
Indeed, part of Bakewell's interpretation of humanism involves a contrast between it and what she calls anti-humanism, a category that for her includes religion as well as ideologies such as both fascism and Marxism. I would have liked to see more interrogation of that binary. It seems somewhat nonsensical to contrast all Marxism with humanism, as the method of the former is very much rational thought, and its aim is to allow all humans (not just wealthy ones) to have the kind of freedom and leisure time that would allow them to pursue humanistic pleasures.
An even more problematic notion, to my mind, is the opposition between humanism and religion. Although it is certainly true that many religious authorities have opposed the societal reforms championed by so-called humanists, it seems indisputable that religion and spirituality are quintessentially human activities; to my knowledge, no other species is at all religious or spiritual. On the other hand, the things that Bakewell's humanists favor (a general preference for worldly satisfactions and the freedom to enjoy them) seem to have equivalents among many other species. If a dog could articulate its philosophy, it might say something very much like the philosophy of humanism as most of Bakewell's protagonists articulate it: "All I want is to eat good food, to go for walks, and to have the freedom to sniff things. I have no need of anything greater or transcendent; as long as I can bark at strangers and have a tree to pee on, I am happy." This results in the implication that humanism is less truly human than so-called anti-humanism.
I would have liked more exploration of the paradox there. Although Bakewell does acknowledge that some humanists were religious or otherwise interested in larger causes, she nevertheless seems to favor the version of humanism that eschews such things. To me, that makes humanism by itself seem a bit petty, or at least unsatisfying. However, it is not quite fair to judge a book according to the thesis I wish it had, so I give the book four stars. Bakewell does an admirable job of covering this important category of philosophy and cultural activity, even if the breadth of the topic prevents the kind of concentrated attention on a few thinkers that made At the Existentialist Cafe so engaging.
P.S. As with Bakewell's book on existentialism, the audiobook for this is narrated by Antonia Beamish, who again does a fantastic job, reading with verve, intelligence, and wit. I highly recommend listening to this along with, or instead of, just reading the printed text.
January 12, 2024
Interesting introduction to humanists over the course of history (not so much humanism, as she focuses more on individuals than general movements). Had to drag myself through this one a bit - her writing wasn't dense but it was very full. It was hard to keep track of all the names, especially when there were multiple Lorenzos, etc. I took some notes on each chapter of things I found interesting and wanted to follow up on, which I think was the best use for this book: as a guide for further reading. Some interesting thoughts in the final chapter about anti-humanism, and the need for us to take responsibility for the environmental impact of humankind. Mostly this was more of a textbook than an ideological account. I found it valuable but I imagine if you had a better grasp on history (especially of the Renaissance) than I do you wouldn't find much to entertain yourself with.
Main criticism I have is that there was a lack of female figures discussed. I understand that movements are shaped by dominant voices (men), so if you want to give a faithful account you will naturally focus more on men than women. There is also much less material preserved on female figures, which makes it harder to discuss them. But Bakewell's occasional references to women made it evident that these figures did exist - and let's not kid ourselves, women always make contributions to ideological movements, but their work is often absorbed into that of their husband's, father's, etc. For me, Christine de Pizan is one of the most interesting figures in the whole book - the fact that she wrote The Book of the City of Ladies when she did is proof that those women were there. So why does Bakewell, a woman herself, neglect to mention them as more than occasional asides in the text? There were a few women who were expanded upon, but not many. I do not think it is an accurate account of history if you do not consider these voices. Whatever happened to 'only connect!'? It is not a tenuous connection to connect half the human race to the history of a movement by the name of humanism.
Main criticism I have is that there was a lack of female figures discussed. I understand that movements are shaped by dominant voices (men), so if you want to give a faithful account you will naturally focus more on men than women. There is also much less material preserved on female figures, which makes it harder to discuss them. But Bakewell's occasional references to women made it evident that these figures did exist - and let's not kid ourselves, women always make contributions to ideological movements, but their work is often absorbed into that of their husband's, father's, etc. For me, Christine de Pizan is one of the most interesting figures in the whole book - the fact that she wrote The Book of the City of Ladies when she did is proof that those women were there. So why does Bakewell, a woman herself, neglect to mention them as more than occasional asides in the text? There were a few women who were expanded upon, but not many. I do not think it is an accurate account of history if you do not consider these voices. Whatever happened to 'only connect!'? It is not a tenuous connection to connect half the human race to the history of a movement by the name of humanism.
December 29, 2023
It pains me to say this, but I was left wanting by this book.
The beauty of Sarah‘s previous work is the way that they each have a quality of being in the eye of a storm. Most simply this is seen in her book on Montaigne, he is the storm of the book, a truly electric figure for good and bad. ‘At the Existentialist Cafe’ had world war 2, you watch a somewhat core set of characters - Martin Heidegger, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir - approach, in increasingly precarious ways, the advent of world war 2, only to see them all get shattered in various ways. The effects that it has on them, and vice versa, how they shape that period of history, illuminates so much about the period.
Unfortunately, due to the scope this book (taking us through the entire history of the humanists) takes it is unable to reach that same fever pitch, and in tern has a degree, less explanatory power.
I want to be clear, none of this really is an objective approach, I *could* come to the book on its own terms, but I can’t help but feel a little disappointed given how much I have loved her previous books.
The beauty of Sarah‘s previous work is the way that they each have a quality of being in the eye of a storm. Most simply this is seen in her book on Montaigne, he is the storm of the book, a truly electric figure for good and bad. ‘At the Existentialist Cafe’ had world war 2, you watch a somewhat core set of characters - Martin Heidegger, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir - approach, in increasingly precarious ways, the advent of world war 2, only to see them all get shattered in various ways. The effects that it has on them, and vice versa, how they shape that period of history, illuminates so much about the period.
Unfortunately, due to the scope this book (taking us through the entire history of the humanists) takes it is unable to reach that same fever pitch, and in tern has a degree, less explanatory power.
I want to be clear, none of this really is an objective approach, I *could* come to the book on its own terms, but I can’t help but feel a little disappointed given how much I have loved her previous books.
June 9, 2023
Very much enjoy Blakewell’s writing and choice of subject matter. (I’ve read one other book by her, about Montaigne, that I also liked quite a bit.) I’ve never called myself a “humanist” - for some reason the term makes me cringe. But going through her list of humanists over many hundreds of years I recognize that I very much like those sorts of people and tend to side with them if they are involved in any kind of debate.
Well, even if I do have a prejudice against the term “humanist” I do strive to be “humane” so I suppose that’s really the same thing.
At any rate, this book has lots of great history, told with sensitivity and humor.
Well, even if I do have a prejudice against the term “humanist” I do strive to be “humane” so I suppose that’s really the same thing.
At any rate, this book has lots of great history, told with sensitivity and humor.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 200 reviews