Humanism

Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism). During the Renaissance period in Western Europe humanist movements attempted to demonstrate the benefit of gaining learning from classical, pre-Christian sources in and of themselves or for secular ends such as political science and rhetoric. It should not be said that the Renaissance humanists were not religious; rather, they simply sought secular activities and thought in addition to religious ones. Nor should it be that they accepted classical thought where the Medieval scholastics did not, given that that many scholastics, for example, Dante, deeply valued GrecoRoman influences. In modern times, many humanist movements have become strongly aligned with atheism, with the term Humanism often used as a byword for non-theistic beliefs about otherwise theistic or spiritual ideas such as meaning and purpose. The term humanism can be ambiguously diverse, and there has been a persistent confusion between the several, related uses of the term because different intellectual movements have identified with it over time.[1] In philosophy and social science, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (contrasted with anti-humanism). The word "humanist" derives from the 15thcentury Italian term umanista describing a teacher or scholar of classical Greek and Latin literature and the ethical philosophy behind it (including the approach to the humanities).[2][2][3] In 1856, still before the word was associated with secularism, German historian and philologist Georg Voigt used humanism to describe Renaissance humanism, the movement that flourished in the Italian Renaissance to revive classical learning (this definition won wide acceptance among historians in many nations).[4] During the French Revolution, and soon after in Germany (by the Left Hegelians), humanism began to refer to philosophies and morality centred on human kind, without attention to any notions of the divine. Religious humanism developed as more liberal religious organizations evolved in more humanistic directions. Religious humanism is a unique integration of humanist ethical philosophy with the rituals and beliefs of some religion, although religious humanism still centers on human needs, interests, and abilities.[5] However, as the Ethical movement began using the word in the 1930s, the term "humanism" became increasingly associated with philosophical naturalism (against the existence of supernatural or divine influence in the universe), and with secularism and the secularization of society. Hence a new movement was formalized at the University of Chicago with the Humanist Manifesto I (1933).[6] The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) founded in 1952 would carry this usage forward, and later statements such as Humanist Manifesto II (1973) would move away from the word 'religious', with the term secular humanism becoming more widely employed.[7] Today IHEU uses 'Humanism' capitalized and without qualification.[8] Formal positions adopted by Humanist organizations from around the world in the form of the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 would assert the integrally non-theistic nature of Humanism, and IHEU's Minimum Statement (1996)[9] and current bylaws (adopted 2009)[10] both assert a Humanism which is "not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality." When the first letter is capitalized, "Humanism" describes the secular ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, while specifically rejecting supernatural and religious ideas as a basis of morality and decision-making.[11]

Feudalism
Feudalism was a set of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries, which, broadly defined, was a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour. Although derived from the Latin word feodum or feudum (fief),[1] then in use, the term feudalism and the system it describes were not conceived of as a formal political system by the people living in the medieval period. In its classic definition, by Franois-Louis Ganshof (1944),[2] feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs.[2] There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but all three estates of the realm: the nobility, the clerics, and the peasantry bonds of manorialism; this is sometimes referred to as a "feudal society". Since 1974 with the publication of Elizabeth A. R. Brown's The Tyranny of a Construct, and Susan Reynolds' Fiefs and Vassals (1994), there has been ongoing inconclusive discussion among medieval historians as to whether feudalism is a useful construct for understanding medieval society. There is no broadly accepted modern definition of feudalism.[3][6] The adjective feudal was coined in the 17th century, and the noun feudalism, often used in a political and propaganda context, was not coined until the 19th century.[3] By the mid-20th century, Franois Louis Ganshof's Feudalism, 3rd ed. (1964; originally published in French, 1947), became a standard scholarly definition of feudalism.[2][3] Since at least the 1960s, when Marc Bloch's Feudal Society (1939) was first translated into English in 1961, many medieval historians have included a broader social aspect that includes not only the nobility but all three estates of the realm, adding the peasantry bonds of manorialism and the estates of the Church; this is sometimes referred to as "feudal society" since it encompasses all members of society into the feudal system.[3][8] Since the 1970s, when Elizabeth A. R. Brown published The Tyranny of a Construct (1974), many have re-examined the evidence and concluded that feudalism is an unworkable term and should be removed entirely from scholarly and educational discussion, or at least used only with severe qualification and warning.[3][4] Outside a European context, the concept of feudalism is normally used only by analogy (called semi-feudal), most often in discussions of feudal Japan under the shoguns, and sometimes medieval and Gondarine Ethiopia.[9] However, some have taken the feudalism analogy further, seeing it in places as diverse as ancient Egypt, the Parthian empire, the Indian subcontinent, and the Antebellum and Jim Crow American South.[9] The term feudalism has also been appliedoften inappropriately or pejorativelyto nonWestern societies where institutions and attitudes similar to those of medieval Europe are perceived to prevail.[10] Some historians and political theorists believe that the term feudalism has been deprived of specific meaning by the many ways it has been used, leading them to reject it as a useful concept for understanding society.