[lit-ideas] Re: Anti-Humanism & Its Enemies
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:08:19 EST
Eric Yost waxes logical and implicates:
"Stupid J. L. cannot infer 'anti-humanism' from the meaning of 'anti' +
'humanism', and thus provides entries for both -- I'll comment on the first
one.
However, I was trying to see if Lady Montagu in her copious letters was
reprimanding some of her lady friends, "Oh, I've been to such an anti-humanist
party. It was a total fracas".
I love a snob quote.
Anyway, the problem with deriving 'anti-humanism' from 'humanism' is that
anti-humanists don't want to do that. They don't want to even HEAR about
'humans', let alone 'humanists'.
But let's see what Yost has found for us:
'humanism' probably derives from from Middle French high culture, where the
top word was "il est un humaniste" (as applied to Charlemagne and Alcuin),
itself from Classical Latin "humanus" plus, not the Classical suffixe -ista,
but from the later, Middle French "-iste" "-ist". This suffix is
controversial. A sophos, wise man, becomes a sophist, a sophisticated. Now a
'humanist'
can be defined as a person (usually, or a doctrine, or more to the point, a
MARTIAN) who pursues the study of the Humanities.
There is a quote in Yost's cite here, "She has been accused by humanists of
having an exclusive interest in social sciences" (Publ's Mod. Lang.
Association of American"
So the idea is that a humanist is NOT a scientist, which is a blow. Because
in classical antiquity, they did use 'saptientia' a lot, for lack of better
word, meaning 'sophia', which was 'episteme', so that sophoi, or even
philosophoi would now be considered not only scientists but humanists ('the
human
sciences', les sciences humaines, in French).
This has to do with the neo-Kantian (Dilthey) distinction between 'natural
sciences' and 'human sciences'. In his parlance, naturwissenschaft versus
geistwissenschaft, which is also a blow, since you cannot be into the latter
and
be a 'materialist', for example ('geist' = 'ghost')
Yost continues:
"called for a greater understanding between scientists and humanists --
Science"
This relates to something that boring author, C. P. Snow, called a 'clash'
between the two things. In general, in England (at the gentleman's club level)
there _is_ such a clash -- but in general it is agreed that scientists have
no class, and cannot really join a club. Humanists neither, but if you want
to join a club, like "White's", or the Saville, you better be acquainted with
the humaniores litera rather than on how to dissect a frog.
Yost continues:
"an adherent or practitioner of Renaissance humanism ; specifically : a
Renaissance scholar devoting himself to the study of classical letters"
L. K. Helm has talked about his, and I disagree. I think Renaissance has
been OVER-INFLATED, and OVER-RATED. I shouldn't be saying that, because I hold
an Italian citizenhsip, and it's nice to see such a centrality of thought
ascribed to something which is basically an Italian thing. But I claim that
the
Renaissace 'men' (never 'woman'?) were just parroting the Greeks.
I studied that in my research into the English Grand Tour. While the English
gentleman's highest point in the Grand Tour was indeed Rome (and the Cafe
Grecco, in Piazza Spagna), his writings and love, and things, were focused on
the Greeks. Take sculpture. Writing on art in this period makes a distinction
in terms of quality very manifest between:
FIRST LEVEL: A Greek original
SECOND LEVEL, Class B: A Roman copy of the original
THIRD LEVEL: Class C. A silly Renaissance copy of a Roman copy of a Greek
original.
Give me a break!
Yost continues:
"A humanist is also a person who is devoted to human welfare : one who is
marked by a strong interest in or concern for man : HUMANITARIAN, a humanist,
a
lover of all sorts of people -- Yale Review."
It's ironic that they quote from this elitist Ivy League publication to
illustrate that! The description of 'sort' as in 'sort of people' is already
offensive. But for that person I use 'anthropologist', a person interested in
all
sorts of people, like McCreery is.
Yost continues:
"a humanist, who felt deeply about inequality ... wherever he saw it -- Max
Lerner> 3 a often capitalized : a person who subscribes to the doctrines of
scientific humanism ; specifically : a member of a religious society or cult
subscribing to such doctrines b : a person who subscribes to a form of
philosophical humanism c : NEW HUMANIST."
Well, this collocations escape me, as I'm not sure what scientific humanism
is, or that horrible phrase, new humanist.
I would consider Grice. He got his B. A. in Lit. Hum. -- does that make him
a 'humanist'. YES.
Ditto, myself, since I graduated from the 'Faculty of Humanities'.
But I wouldn't show it off with the usually ultimately derogatory suffix,
-ist. And the quote for today is
HOMO SVM NIHIL HVMANVM AD ME ALIENVM PVTO.
-- which is ascribed to TERENCE -- I was reading him yesterday. What a bore
of a playright. All his comedies -- I only have LOEB No. 1 -- are based on
MELANDER, and on top of that, since Terence was a former slave, they have been
criticised on the ground that it was his master, Plubius Marcus, as having
written them, but as having found it not too classy to show as a
'professional'
playwright.
Apparently, Terence was originally a Spaniard, so that may account for his
lack of humor of any sort.
Not even with titles like THE EUNUCH can he distill any humor into the
preceedings. In this play, one of the characters -- big deal -- 'dresses up as
a
eunuch' to enter a frigidarium or something. Man, I would have had him cut his
balls, if only to get a sincere laughter from the spectators.
Cheers,
JL Speranza
Buenos Aires, Argentina
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Other related posts:
