Putting First Things First: Congregations of Philosophers

Putting First Things First: Congregations of Philosophers October 8, 2015

In 1931 the Humanist Unitarian minister Curtis Reese looked into his crystal ball and wrote that society was moving “away from religion conceived as one of man’s concerns, and toward religion conceived as man’s one concern.”

Why would a Humanist foresee religion becoming more, not less, central as a human concern? (Note that Reese had the dominant Western religions of his time in mind.)

Because Reese assumed the new religion of Humanism would make its adherents into practical philosophers, philosophers not out to save their own souls but human beings out to save humanity.

Reese’s hope for Humanism was that Humanists would awaken to a view outside the self; a philosophical, considered, humanistic view. Perhaps he had in mind the words of the Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius,

How might you do what your nature requires? By having principles from which you act. What principles? Principles that tell you good from bad. The first principle is that nothing is good that does not lead toward justice, moderation, strength, and freedom. The bad is that which leads away from these. (Meditations, VIII.1)

 

unnamed

THOU SHALT DO SOMETHING

Religions tell us what our first concerns should be: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” And things of that ilk. Humanism, however, proposes another way. When I don’t accept a pre-arranged solution to the most basic of questions, it is incumbent upon me to do some thinking about those questions.

What is the good?

What is happiness?

What does living in community require of me?

Whence cometh evil and just what the heck is evil?

Questions like that. When there are gods and scriptures involved, the answers are the work of theology and often those trained in the ways of theology—intermediaries. Priests. Preachers. When gods and scriptures are not involved, philosophy is the work to be done. By you. For us.

Is Marcus Aurelius correct in his assertion that justice, moderation, strength, and freedom are the conditions worth striving for?  If perhaps he is, what does “strength” mean?

 

JEFFERSON FESSES UP

William Short, a close friend and associate of Thomas Jefferson, once factiously wrote that he had become an Epicurean. Jefferson wrote:

As you say of yourself, I TOO AM AN EPICUREAN. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing every thing rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.

After outlining the actual rather than the cliched philosophy of Epicurus, Jefferson concludes,

I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which presents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.”

Jefferson proceeds to outline both Epicurus’ scientific and moral philosophies. The moral philosophy of Epicurus according to Jefferson begins,

 

Happiness is the aim of life.

Virtue the foundation of happiness.

Utility the test of virtue.

The list concludes:

 

Virtue consists in 1. Prudence 2. Temperance 3. Fortitude 4. Justice.

To which are opposed, 1. Folly. 2. Desire. 3. Fear. 4. Deceit.

 

How does this list compare with that of Marcus Aurelius?

Justice makes both lists. Moderation and temperance are surely similar. Are strength and fortitude roughly the same? (What words were used in the original?) But why temperance in addition to prudence in Epicurus’ list? Why doesn’t freedom appear on Epicurus’ list? Again, the difference between a look at the philosophers is that their words are interesting, but in no way sacred.

A religion conceived of as consisting of the personal obedience to the will of a god has its priorities pre-set, and these priorities become “one of man’s concerns” in the personal, eternal drama. Humanism turns this concern on its head, insisting upon “religion conceived as man’s one concern.”

Curtis Reese’s crystal ball has not proven to be all that accurate—personal religion was dying, but it has not been replaced with another sort. But Reese never claimed to be a prophet. The question is: would the world be a better place had his prophecy been correct?

 


Browse Our Archives