When reviewing Corliss Lamont's book I came across some comments about the influence of Classical Philosophy on modern Humanism. Several paragraphs seem pertinent to Professor Appleby's lecture.

(Naturalistic humanism) considers that man, the earth, and the unending universe of space and time are all parts of one great Nature. The whole of existence is equivalent to Nature and outside of Nature nothing exists. This ...(Humanism) has no place for the supernatural, no room for super-physical beings or a super-material God, whether Christian or non-Christian in character. But (it) does not, like the more naive type of atheist, go about shaking...(its) fist at the universe.

He writes this about Epicurean philosophy:

Epicurus had strong ethical grounds for preferring a materialistic (humanistic) system, since he wanted to see men live in the light of reason and without fear. Accordingly, he tried to eliminate apprehensions about the supernatural by teaching that there were no deities who intervened in human affairs and that mortal men had no existence after death. This negation of religious doctrines was a prerequisite, in the judgment of Epicurus, for attaining individual happiness on earth. Such happiness he defined in terms of the more refined pleasures, guided by wisdom and adjusted to the hard realities of life. The Epicureans placed affection, or friendship among the highest goods of experience. Epicurus himself retired to his garden to live quietly, abstemiously, and nobly, achieving a kind of philosophic saintliness. Yet Epicureanism had come to mean generally the pursuit of sensual enjoyment; the philosophy par excellence of wine, women, and song. And Epicurus remains perhaps the outstanding example of a great philosopher who has been perpetually misunderstood.

Corliss Lamont then adds a ringing injunction to humanists:

Philosophy's constant involvement in the issues that mean most to men and in the defense of truth is dramatically brought out in the career of Socrates...The powers that were in ancient Athens accused Socrates of corrupting the minds of youth by raising too many thought-provoking questions and giving those questions unorthodox answers. Rather than remain silent or compromise, Socrates defied the authorities and drank the hemlock. "The unexamined life is not worth living," said Socrates in his final remarks to the judges, as recounted in the Apology. "I would rather die," he continued, "having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live...The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness...No evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death.

Then and there, in the year 399 B.C., Socrates once and for all established a moral imperative for philosophers: that no matter what the personal consequences, it is necessary for them to exercise their freedom of speech and stand firm for what they consider the truth and the right. Indeed, no man has a philosophy worthy of the name or has achieved full stature as a human being unless he is willing to lay down his life for his ultimate principles.

--Bob Green