Did thinkers who expound the ideas of humanism live before the Renaissance?
Religious tolerance, equality of all people, condemnation of slavery, the value of the individual, and so on.?
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The question is formulated somewhat one-sidedly in my opinion. It would be more correct to ask: did there exist thinkers before the Renaissance who lived in accordance with these ideals? You can express anything and everything, but try to live in accordance with the ideals.
And what do we see? Plato fought against materialism by buying up and destroying the works of Democritus. Aristotle was a slave owner. Confucius preached a hierarchical system in practical politics. There are many more such examples. There are also opposites: Buddha, Socrates, Diogenes and others lived in accordance with their own teachings, but all of them preached exclusively the change of society through the improvement of an individual or even offered to leave this sorrowful world for a better one. However, humanism can't be implemented only through self-improvement, while others will throw you in the mud while you improve.
Until the Renaissance, with the exception of religious sects, there were no doctrines aimed at changing the whole society, and not the individual. There were not enough non-religious humanist philosophers who were able to risk abandoning their religion for new ideas, as Spinoza did, for example (although he turned to Protestantism as a whole, his philosophy is free of it). There were ideas, there were few thinkers, and there were almost no active thinkers.
Mo Di, 3rd century BC, if I am not confused, actually came up with an analogue of humanism, and in fact secular, and before the Han Dynasty repressions was revered enough to create the teaching, develop it and get the nickname Mo-tzu, which is a sign of semi-religious veneration. He doesn't seem to have written about slavery, but the passages about how the sky sheds light and water on everyone, and therefore the will of heaven is the same for everyone, do not sound exactly like justifying slavery.
Formally, he had everything that you described and a few more buns like love for the far( not for the near, which is interesting, because it's easy to love your neighbors, but it's much harder to love the far ones), the highest value is the people, the system as a mutually beneficial cooperation, a social contract( I'm not kidding) and even a very interesting modal logic, about 2 higher quality than the European Renaissance philosophy all in a heap.
At a minimum, we can cite a number of Greek philosophers who existed in the VI-V century BC. The most striking of the “equalizers” is Diogenes, who was looking for a person, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and so on. In Asia, the birth of Buddhism, Confucianism, but a few centuries earlier, Lao Tzu wrote his great work on the people, the state, if you read it, and the face is a solid “democracy”. Because of his mentality, Lao Tzu was still somewhat sexist, but he still has ideas of equality.
I think so. but in the time of the tsars, no one cared about them. for as the king says , so it will be all the same. and those who try too hard, and even start collecting people for themselves-you can immediately remember the fate of Christ.