Thank you for sharing these lectures. I am not a seminary student, "just" a lay person, but find them fascinating. They have enriched my understanding of my relationship with God and with that of the people in the parish. May God continue to guide and bless you.
Sir, I love that you point out humanism as being initially good. I want to let you know what an impact your lectures have had on me. I even cited your work in my most recent book. You've become one of my most reliable sources for information and I feel so privileged to have found your lectures. My niche is postmodern epistemology v. Christian theism. I still consider myself a novice, but after graduating my real study and research began. I wrote a book comparing world views. To get there I undertook a survey of church history and discussed events through that comparison. Your lectures are also where I turn for edification personally and respite. You are a very blessed man and thank you for sharing your gifts. I hope to reach your level of clarity on the complete tapestry of Christian history one day. Because of you I am well on my way.
Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality. The term was coined in 1808 by the early nineteenth century German educational reformer and theologian Friedrich Niethammer and gradually adopted into English. Niethammer had wished to introduce into German education the humane values of ancient Greece and Rome. Niethhammer was a Lutheran theologian. Since the twentieth century, however, Anglophone humanist movements have usually been aligned with secularism, and today humanism typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centred on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world.
While the word Humanism was coined in 1808, it was taken from Humanitas which can be found as early as the year 180BC. "But they gave to humanitas the force of the Greek παιδεία (paideia); that is, what we call eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes(education and training in the liberal arts)" ~ Aulus Gellius This same person speaks of Cicero and others using the term 100 years before him and that it was used as "kindness and benevolence toward one's fellow human beings" and in fact, it was Gallius's writings that sparked the "Humanist" movement during the Renaissance that led directly to Niethammer dubbing it Humanism since his writings are based off of them.
Petrarch was a snob, and we're still saddled with his attitudes today. Of course, I can understand his disgruntlement at having had to live through the plague. I might even have held his same attitude. But that doesn't excuse us in still looking down our noses on scholasticism and treating it so shoddily. Scholasticism didn't have the benefit of a lot of the classical sources we have since recovered from the Arabs. But they did understand logic and rhetoric and tried valiantly to systematically apply them. Our own logic today is feeble by comparison. I see non sequiturs in public discourse all the time. Politicians get away with saying truly idiotic things because nobody even studies rhetoric any more. All because we fail to appreciate the basics taught and practiced by the scholastics.
10:11 The Black Death. Sure people wanted to get past it to something better but that's almost a constant of human life. What the black death did was upset the social structure and created opportunities for social advancement. So many people died that there was a shortage of people and lots of freed up resources such as land. It's simple supply and demand, a short supply of people made them people, humans, more valuable. "Humanism" is a relatively modern term, sure it developed from older ideas but it shouldn't be mistaken for those ideas. Humanism is valuing humankind relative to ideals and doctrines.
One thing noteworthy about the pieta- Mary is way too young in the depiction. What we have is an idealized Renaissance depiction of human beauty and serene resignation (contrast this with the Pieta scene in Mel Gibson's The Passion, with the creased, middle-aged face of Mary with a look of desolation).
Not yet. I actually made this one in a hotel room in the middle of the night and didn't like the quality. I want to do a long couple of videos on Humanism to replace this one.
Dr. Reeves, thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your videos are real gifts. Your balance is extraordinary. I've endlessly referred others to your videos.
Humanism today, is a philosophy of how to approach life that makes human benefit and enjoyment the end of all human activity and pursuit. It claims the reason we exist is for our own benefit and enjoyment and that we are able to humanly decide what is the this chief end or the most beneficial way humans should live. Humanism claims the human's perspective is more important then God's perspective. It has destroyed much good by pretending good can be defined by man without any thought of God. Hitler's ideas of what is good is just another human's ideas, so if you disagree, you just have a different human perspective, ect. Who cares what man thinks or what he likes, I want to know God, His thoughts, His judgements, His definition of human goodness. I want to know God's thoughts of Hitler and then to go and express God's judgements, His love and His hate with my life. I want to see things, the way He sees them, because human vision is so limited, so dark and foggy in comparison.
I think that is a characterization of humanism. Many or even most humanist would not say we exist for our own benefit and enjoyment, they would say we exist. What we do with that existence is up to us. There's no claim about God's perspective or about god or gods in general. The claim is that humans exist, they are what we should care about. What is good is defined by man, or rather humans. Even if those who believe in god attribute their own morals and values to that god. Rarely do you hear someone say "I think it's completely immoral but it's what god, the father, wants me to do so I'll do it anyway." That's good thing. It's when people subvert their morals off to some authority, some Father in heaven, or Holy Father in Rome or the Führer that we run into problems. Humans should stand up and take responsibility for their own morals and actions and not try to pawn them off on some book of commandments or orders from above. It's strange twist in logic to ascribe the horrors of nazism to a philosophy that values humanity because the nazis did not.
The 'from the hip' definition of humanism tends to find secularism in lieu of spiritualism, but this view appears wrong-headed as a conclusory note. If the virtue of a pocket knife is the sharp blade that adds value to and in fact completes the tool, the humanist is one who finds virtuous behavior as that which adds value to the being and completes the being. It seems the deist is the worthy product of humanist notions. As an historical outsider I've often wondered as to the preeminence of Rome as a classical metaphor when it always appeared to me (in passing) that all that was Rome was based on the greek tutorship--even a misapplication of the grecian values associated with being a person of note. As the perfect example of a renaissance man, I have the luxury of choosing apples from the tree of combined knowledge planted by the sons of mothers throughout history. What my choices do for me and those around me is the sum and total of who I am. Thanks again this was a really good introductory series that has propelled me to know more. Your church history of the early Middle Ages deviates ever so slightly and justifiably from the Yale University Course on the early Middle Ages. How empirical historians rediscover Rome (Imperial, Holy, and Administrative) throughout the ages tends to test my limits of rationality, but I'll let that history write its own ending.
Was Petrarch referring to the Roman Empire as "classical" or the flowering of Greek culture? One has only to look at some Greek columns to see that perspective was well known in ancient Greece. Think of the Greek scientists, philosophers and dramatists. The biggest contribution which the Romans made, in my opinion, was in organizational changes in war, administration and city life. And I have to agree with Petrarch that the Medieval period was pretty dark -- look at all the knowledge which was lost when the Alexandrian library burned down, or the church's attempt to stifle scientific knowledge when it did not agree with church teaching. At least Galileo only got house arrest. And speaking of, I wonder that you have not covered the inquisition in these lectures, as well as where to find the rest of your lecture on Humanism. I guess I'll browse around.
Sandy I would say a bit of both. His main coinage was to refer to the intermediate period as the Dark Ages (as I say in the video), but there really was a lack of concrete awareness of the Greco-Roman period as more than a singular period during his day. A case in point is the use of "Roman type" by humanists. They found the Carolingian script and confused it as classic Greco-Roman handwriting and starting using it in their own works (hence calling it "Roman type"). For them anything that wasn't as bad as the medieval period was classical. (I tell the story of the handwriting in the Charlemagne video).
Thank you for sharing these lectures. I am not a seminary student, "just" a lay person, but find them fascinating. They have enriched my understanding of my relationship with God and with that of the people in the parish. May God continue to guide and bless you.
Thank you for your generosity in releasing these lectures. They have been invaluable to my studies.
Sir, I love that you point out humanism as being initially good.
I want to let you know what an impact your lectures have had on me. I even cited your work in my most recent book. You've become one of my most reliable sources for information and I feel so privileged to have found your lectures.
My niche is postmodern epistemology v. Christian theism. I still consider myself a novice, but after graduating my real study and research began. I wrote a book comparing world views. To get there I undertook a survey of church history and discussed events through that comparison. Your lectures are also where I turn for edification personally and respite. You are a very blessed man and thank you for sharing your gifts. I hope to reach your level of clarity on the complete tapestry of Christian history one day. Because of you I am well on my way.
Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality.
The term was coined in 1808 by the early nineteenth century German educational reformer and theologian Friedrich Niethammer and gradually adopted into English.
Niethammer had wished to introduce into German education the humane values of ancient Greece and Rome.
Niethhammer was a Lutheran theologian.
Since the twentieth century, however, Anglophone humanist movements have usually been aligned with secularism, and today humanism typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centred on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world.
While the word Humanism was coined in 1808, it was taken from Humanitas which can be found as early as the year 180BC.
"But they gave to humanitas the force of the Greek παιδεία (paideia); that is, what we call eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes(education and training in the liberal arts)" ~ Aulus Gellius
This same person speaks of Cicero and others using the term 100 years before him and that it was used as "kindness and benevolence toward one's fellow human beings" and in fact, it was Gallius's writings that sparked the "Humanist" movement during the Renaissance that led directly to Niethammer dubbing it Humanism since his writings are based off of them.
Petrarch was a snob, and we're still saddled with his attitudes today. Of course, I can understand his disgruntlement at having had to live through the plague. I might even have held his same attitude. But that doesn't excuse us in still looking down our noses on scholasticism and treating it so shoddily. Scholasticism didn't have the benefit of a lot of the classical sources we have since recovered from the Arabs. But they did understand logic and rhetoric and tried valiantly to systematically apply them. Our own logic today is feeble by comparison. I see non sequiturs in public discourse all the time. Politicians get away with saying truly idiotic things because nobody even studies rhetoric any more. All because we fail to appreciate the basics taught and practiced by the scholastics.
One of your best, Dr. (and ain't none of them not enlightening)
Should I watch the Reformation and Modern Church series or the Luther and Calvin series now that I've finished this one?
10:11 The Black Death. Sure people wanted to get past it to something better but that's almost a constant of human life. What the black death did was upset the social structure and created opportunities for social advancement. So many people died that there was a shortage of people and lots of freed up resources such as land. It's simple supply and demand, a short supply of people made them people, humans, more valuable.
"Humanism" is a relatively modern term, sure it developed from older ideas but it shouldn't be mistaken for those ideas. Humanism is valuing humankind relative to ideals and doctrines.
Thank you Ryan for this excellent lecture series!
Do you know any good books on the rise of humanism (not modern day humanism)?
Amazing series. Thank you so much.
One thing noteworthy about the pieta- Mary is way too young in the depiction. What we have is an idealized Renaissance depiction of human beauty and serene resignation (contrast this with the Pieta scene in Mel Gibson's The Passion, with the creased, middle-aged face of Mary with a look of desolation).
Thank you so much
Was the follow up to this ever made?
Not yet. I actually made this one in a hotel room in the middle of the night and didn't like the quality. I want to do a long couple of videos on Humanism to replace this one.
Dr. Reeves, thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your videos are real gifts. Your balance is extraordinary. I've endlessly referred others to your videos.
Hi, I cant find the follow up video, do you mind telling me where it is? Thanks.
+Gi sele // Hey Gi. Still in the pipeline. :) Should be out soon!
John said that Jesus would be returning "soon" (nearly 2000 years ago).
Aslan said he called "all times soon".
And by "soon" you mean?
+Ryan Reeves Is the follow-up for this video in another section with a different name? I can't seem to find it.
soon; at arms reach
Humanism today, is a philosophy of how to approach life that makes human benefit and enjoyment the end of all human activity and pursuit. It claims the reason we exist is for our own benefit and enjoyment and that we are able to humanly decide what is the this chief end or the most beneficial way humans should live. Humanism claims the human's perspective is more important then God's perspective. It has destroyed much good by pretending good can be defined by man without any thought of God. Hitler's ideas of what is good is just another human's ideas, so if you disagree, you just have a different human perspective, ect.
Who cares what man thinks or what he likes, I want to know God, His thoughts, His judgements, His definition of human goodness. I want to know God's thoughts of Hitler and then to go and express God's judgements, His love and His hate with my life. I want to see things, the way He sees them, because human vision is so limited, so dark and foggy in comparison.
I think that is a characterization of humanism. Many or even most humanist would not say we exist for our own benefit and enjoyment, they would say we exist. What we do with that existence is up to us. There's no claim about God's perspective or about god or gods in general. The claim is that humans exist, they are what we should care about.
What is good is defined by man, or rather humans. Even if those who believe in god attribute their own morals and values to that god. Rarely do you hear someone say "I think it's completely immoral but it's what god, the father, wants me to do so I'll do it anyway." That's good thing. It's when people subvert their morals off to some authority, some Father in heaven, or Holy Father in Rome or the Führer that we run into problems. Humans should stand up and take responsibility for their own morals and actions and not try to pawn them off on some book of commandments or orders from above. It's strange twist in logic to ascribe the horrors of nazism to a philosophy that values humanity because the nazis did not.
The 'from the hip' definition of humanism tends to find secularism in lieu of spiritualism, but this view appears wrong-headed as a conclusory note. If the virtue of a pocket knife is the sharp blade that adds value to and in fact completes the tool, the humanist is one who finds virtuous behavior as that which adds value to the being and completes the being. It seems the deist is the worthy product of humanist notions. As an historical outsider I've often wondered as to the preeminence of Rome as a classical metaphor when it always appeared to me (in passing) that all that was Rome was based on the greek tutorship--even a misapplication of the grecian values associated with being a person of note. As the perfect example of a renaissance man, I have the luxury of choosing apples from the tree of combined knowledge planted by the sons of mothers throughout history. What my choices do for me and those around me is the sum and total of who I am. Thanks again this was a really good introductory series that has propelled me to know more. Your church history of the early Middle Ages deviates ever so slightly and justifiably from the Yale University Course on the early Middle Ages. How empirical historians rediscover Rome (Imperial, Holy, and Administrative) throughout the ages tends to test my limits of rationality, but I'll let that history write its own ending.
Was Petrarch referring to the Roman Empire as "classical" or the flowering of Greek culture? One has only to look at some Greek columns to see that perspective was well known in ancient Greece. Think of the Greek scientists, philosophers and dramatists. The biggest contribution which the Romans made, in my opinion, was in organizational changes in war, administration and city life. And I have to agree with Petrarch that the Medieval period was pretty dark -- look at all the knowledge which was lost when the Alexandrian library burned down, or the church's attempt to stifle scientific knowledge when it did not agree with church teaching. At least Galileo only got house arrest. And speaking of, I wonder that you have not covered the inquisition in these lectures, as well as where to find the rest of your lecture on Humanism. I guess I'll browse around.
Sandy I would say a bit of both. His main coinage was to refer to the intermediate period as the Dark Ages (as I say in the video), but there really was a lack of concrete awareness of the Greco-Roman period as more than a singular period during his day. A case in point is the use of "Roman type" by humanists. They found the Carolingian script and confused it as classic Greco-Roman handwriting and starting using it in their own works (hence calling it "Roman type"). For them anything that wasn't as bad as the medieval period was classical.
(I tell the story of the handwriting in the Charlemagne video).
How can a smart guy like you believe in religion? Like hereditary nobility, the only argument that can even be made is just an appeal to tradition.