2

How Humanism (as the philosophical movement of the Renaissance historical period), the philosophy of the Enlightenment, and classical liberalism are related?

I have some difficulties distinguishing them from one another, since they share many of their (core) principles. (Humanism has later developed into so-called "secular humanism". I distinguish between Humanism and secular humanism principles in the following presentation).

  • Place and Time. The three emerged roughly around the same period of time and in the same place: roughly 16th-18th century Europe.

  • Freedom. They all insist on the freedom of the individual(1). Secular humanism will later, along with the philosophy of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism advocate for democracy.

  • Tolerance. They all advocate for tolerance.

  • Free market. The philosophy of Enlightenment, classical liberalism, and later secular humanism, advocate for some form of free market.

  • Reason and empirical sciences. Both Humanism and the philosophy of the Enlightenment defend the use of reason and empirical sciences over faith/mysticism/intuition/etc. At a very different degree, it can be argued that classical liberals also put emphasis on reason, to the extent that to them, a liberal society can function successfully only if individuals are responsible of themselves, which can be ensured by their fair use of reason (to identify what is in their own long term interest, e.g. not harming other unnecessarily and cooperating).

  • Progress. In the Humanism movement, it is more a moral progress. In the Enlightenment movement it is more a scientific and technical progress. The idea of progress does not stand as a principle in classical liberalism, but the materialistic progress that the application of classical liberalism main principles (free market and limited government) historically brought often serves as an argument for the adoption of classical liberalism.

So to me, Humanism, philosophy of the Enlightenment, and classical liberalism are in a continuity (and sometimes historically intertwined), with the liberty of the individual as a common thread. This continuity takes this shape:

Humanism 14th-17th century Europe (Petrarch, Montaigne, More) → Enlightenment 18th Europe (Locke, Smith, Voltaire) → classical liberalism 19th-20th Europe/U.S (Bastiat, Hayek, Friedman)*

The interesting point is they do are different movements, in the sense that they refined, modified each other according to the criterion concerning how to give greater freedom to the individual. Therefore, a classical liberal might not agree with a humanist, a humanist might not agree with an Enlightenment philosopher, etc.

But since it is the Humanism which introduced the emphasis on the freedom of the individual (more broadly designated as "the autonomy of the individual" [World History] [Britannica] at the time), one could hardly self-designates themselves as a classical liberal without recognizing their debt to the Humanism movement.

*It is worth noticing that these philosophical movements have been accompanied by the religious movement of the Reformation, the historical and geographical development of the latter maybe having definitive impact on how each philosophical movement were shaped according to their geographical position (Italy vs. France vs. Netherlands vs. Germany vs. Great Britain).

More in depth references

(1) Concerning Humanism and individualism

The period from the fourteenth century to the seventeenth worked in favor of the general emancipation of the individual. The city-states of northern Italy had come into contact with the diverse customs of the East, and gradually permitted expression in matters of taste and dress. The writings of Dante, and particularly the doctrines of Petrarch and humanists like Machiavelli, emphasized the virtues of intellectual freedom and individual expression. In the essays of Montaigne the individualistic view of life received perhaps the most persuasive and eloquent statement in the history of literature and philosophy.

Kreis, Steven (2008). "Renaissance Humanism". Retrieved 2009-03-03.

Starckman
  • 1,254
  • 3
  • 11
  • The additional discussion of humanism is very helpful and allows me to see the focus of your interest in this topic. You'll be aware of Thomas Paine and his part in the American and French Revolutions and the political consequences for most of the 19th century. The development of Romanticism is often regarded as the end of Enlightenment, but I see it as a continuation and strengthening of the emphasis on the individual as free, as well as a reaction against the Industrial Revolution. – Ludwig V Mar 05 '23 at 15:40
  • @LudwigV The relation of Romanticism with the Humanism/Enlightenment/Classical Liberalism set is also interesting. The romanticist did indeed present themselves as a better alternative to them, in the quest of freedom. – Starckman Mar 06 '23 at 00:55
  • But I think Romanticism are in fact anti-freedom (not only, anti-Enlightenment, see Isaiah Berlin and Zeev Sternhell). They advocated for the use intuition and the release of (strong negative) emotions. This is not freedom. Freedom is given by a greater use of reason, at least at the individual level. – Starckman Mar 06 '23 at 00:59
  • They also advocate for a return to nature, and tended to be anti-technology and science. This is not freedom. Science, technology and urbanization give greater freedom to the individual. The Romanticist often say people in a modern society are dependent on machines. In reality, people freedom is extremely limited by nature if it is all there is. – Starckman Mar 06 '23 at 01:01
  • Finally, the Romanticist tended, quite paradoxically with their freedom/individual stance, to advocate for an organic society, in the form of pre-modern ones. This is a collectivist view, which is antogonist to individualism, and therefore to the freedom of the individual. – Starckman Mar 06 '23 at 01:03
  • To me, what they called "individualism" had in fact nothing to see with individualism, but was narcissism (see the Romanticist theme of the "culte du moi" (cult of the self) – Starckman Mar 06 '23 at 01:04
  • 1
    H'm. I see your points - all of them. It is more complicated than I thought. No surprise there – Ludwig V Mar 06 '23 at 06:44
  • Another thing is that the romanticist favored to follow intuition and emotion as a way to express/develop your subjectivity but at the same time regretted the communal way of life. This doesn’t make sense. – Starckman Mar 06 '23 at 10:23
  • If you act upon your subjectivity this way, how do you live congruously with others? – Starckman Mar 06 '23 at 10:27
  • I'm very sorry that I do not know enough to answer all your points, because I would want to make sure I was talking about Romanticism as a historical phenomenon. The issues you raise could only be really tackled in a chat room. – Ludwig V Mar 06 '23 at 13:01
  • Two points, briefly. A lot depends on what is meant by subjectivity. Given a certain definition of it, subjectivity can be shared in a community. The idea that reason gives greater freedom depends a lot on what is meant by reason - and by freedom. The Romantics were not wrong to complain about a concept of reason that had no room for emotion. Whether that was true of the Enlightenment is another question. It certainly wasn't true of Hume. I being invited to move to chat. What do you say? – Ludwig V Mar 06 '23 at 13:02
  • @LudwigV Sure, let's open a chat – Starckman Mar 06 '23 at 13:07
  • The chat room we used before is still open... – Ludwig V Mar 06 '23 at 13:10
  • @Starckman being forbidden to express our feelings, or our feelings being censored is certainly not freedom. "*Nothing human should be foreign to us*". Technology is not an unconditional good. Mass destruction is possible because of technology, so is mass surveillance and mass control. All these are not freedom. You seem to want to fish for a specific point of view, with the question, instead of being open to a range of possible answers. – Nikos M. Mar 06 '23 at 20:14
  • @NikosM. "Nothing human should be foreign to us". I think this is pretty the idea of the Enlightenment. "Technology is not an unconditional good. Mass destruction is possible because of technology, so is mass surveillance and mass control." Technology is a tool, you can do anything with it. And btw, national socialism has its very root in romanticism, not in the Enlightenment, to which it vehemently opposed. – Starckman Mar 07 '23 at 03:00
  • It is the philosophy of Enlightenment who brought the idea of freedom of expression, freedom of thoughts, seperation of the powers – Starckman Mar 07 '23 at 03:01
  • @Starckman romanticism is responsible for the recognition of national identities and break up of imperial monarchies. This had definitely positive consequences. Fascist nationalism is an extension of that, but is not representative of romanticism. In the same sense Nazi genetic studies are not representative of good science. – Nikos M. Mar 10 '23 at 11:32
  • @Starckmanin the same sense one cannot collectively accuse the origins of science for some scientific or pseudo-scientific practices, in the same sense one cannot accuse romanticism for fascist nationalism. – Nikos M. Mar 10 '23 at 11:42
  • @NikosM. Thank you for your comment. I don't mean to be sarcastic or anything. Readings on the subject of romanticism and later (far right) totalitarism includes Isaiah Berlin, Zeev Sternhell, Robert Legros – Starckman Mar 10 '23 at 15:40

1 Answers1

2

The relationship between classical liberalism and the Enlightenment is easy to identify. John Locke is a paradigm philosopher of the Enlightenment and often identified as the father of English liberalism. Humanism is more complicated; it isn't a well-defined concept and takes different forms at different times. You can find precursors in Ancient Greece - "Man is the measure of all things" was coined by Protagoras (5th century BCE) and Xenophanes famously observed that horses, oxen and lions would have equine, bovine and leonine gods (6th - 5th centuries BCE). But it's first appearance as a more or less coherent movement is much earlier than the Enlightenment, say 14th to 15th centuries CE, with people like Copernicus and Erasmus. In the 19th century it was popular and was associated with liberalism and atheism.

I'm not a good enough historian to go much further than that, I'm afraid. I hope it helps.

Ludwig V
  • 2,247
  • 4
  • 22
  • I don't think anthropomorphism and relativism (man is the measure of things) is what secular humanism means in the question. Rather more towards human rights, as related to enlightenment and liberalism. – Nikos M. Mar 04 '23 at 16:17
  • It depends how you define the concept of human rights. The earliest version appears to be 539 BCE with the cylinder of Cyrus which specified universal rights for all within his empire. Locke discusses universal rights, but calls them natural rights. Then there's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. There's a similar, but much more murky, story to be told about humanism. Renaissance humanism, for example, meant the study of the classics, especially what academics now call the humanities. Their word came from the Latin word "humanus" which meant "cultured". – Ludwig V Mar 04 '23 at 19:53
  • 1
    @LudwigV, there is a false translation of the Cylinder of Cyrus making the rounds on the internet. The real cylinder doesn't say anything remotely like that. It does say that Cyrus saved the people from their despotic former king and frees some captives, but nothing like a declaration of human rights. Universal natural rights as we understand them today are a product of the Enlightenment. – David Gudeman Mar 04 '23 at 21:37
  • "Renaissance humanism, for example, meant the study of the classics, especially what academics now call the humanities." can you explain the difference between this definition of humanism, and the humanism as the movement of the 15-16th Europe? – Starckman Mar 05 '23 at 01:46
  • There is indeed a humanist movement in Europe, starting in Italy, which emphasized the individual. This movement is distinguished from the Renaissance movement? I am a bit lost. Was raised and educated in Western Europe, and always heard about humanism, developed during a period called Renaissance, as defined in my question, although I know about the artistic (perspective in painting) and technological aspect (Leonard de Vinci) of the Renaissance – Starckman Mar 05 '23 at 01:50
  • @David Gudeman Thank you for putting me right about the Cylinder of Cyrus. Of course, you are right about natural rights. Though, if I have understood correctly, Locke attributes them to God. Who else could create laws superior to all human laws? – Ludwig V Mar 05 '23 at 05:06
  • @Starckman It's really hard to reply to all that you ask in a comment. Humanism is a jelly-fish, with manifestations of all sorts at different times and places. Britannica has it starting in 13th century. It is part artistic and part technological and part a scholarly revival in Ancient Latin and Greek culture. Its definition seems to start in 19th century. The Enlightenment is not dissimilar in its ability to morph and spread. But the emphasis is on reason and science rather than art and culture. These phenomena are very hard to pin down. – Ludwig V Mar 05 '23 at 05:24
  • 1
    @Starckman I forgot to mention that I think you will also find the Reformation and Counter-Reformation interesting. It is usually distinguished from humanism, but shares the emphasis on human beings, especially the individual conscience at the centre of things. Moreover, Weber, I think it was, who attributed the rise of capitalism largely to Protestantism. There's lots of information readily available in the encyclopedias &c. – Ludwig V Mar 05 '23 at 05:34
  • "I forgot to mention that I think you will also find the Reformation and Counter-Reformation interesting. It is usually distinguished from humanism, but shares the emphasis on human beings, especially the individual conscience at the centre of things. Moreover, Weber, I think it was, who attributed the rise of capitalism largely to Protestantism. There's lots of information readily available in the encyclopedias &c. " Agree with that. – Starckman Mar 05 '23 at 05:48
  • "It is part artistic and part technological and part a scholarly revival in Ancient Latin and Greek culture." Sure, so I don't understand why we have a so-called "Renaissance humanism" that should be distinguished from "Humanism", with "Renaissance humanism" meaning something like "the study of the classics, especially what academics now call the humanities." (a term/concept "Renaissance humanism" that I saw elsewhere on the forum, with that same definition, that's why I asked the question) – Starckman Mar 05 '23 at 05:51
  • Modified my post concerning the Reformation – Starckman Mar 05 '23 at 06:03
  • I could reply. Not sure we need to move to chat. I haven't much more to say. – Ludwig V Mar 05 '23 at 11:02
  • @LudwigV I found an answer "The Renaissance era has the reputation for rediscovering the classical world and fostering humanism in the West." (Shook 2020) http://www.pragmatism.org/shook/2020%20Shook%20Humanism%20in%20the%20Medieval%20World%20-%20in%20Oxford%20Handbook%20of%20Humanism.pdf – Starckman Mar 07 '23 at 05:39
  • I think that's more or less right. – Ludwig V Mar 07 '23 at 08:50