...the question may be asked whether the sophia perennis is a "humanism"; the answer would in principle be "yes", but in fact it must be "no" since humanism in the conventional sense of the term de facto exalts fallen man and not man as such. The humanism of the moderns is practically an utilitarianism aimed at fragmentary man; it is the will to make oneself as useful as possible to a humanity as useless as possible. [HaveCenter, p. viii]

The word “humanism” constitutes a curious abuse of language in view of the fact that it expresses a notion that is contrary to the integrally human, hence to the human properly so called: indeed, nothing is more fundamentally inhuman than the “purely human,” the illusion of constructing a perfect man starting from the individual and terrestrial; whereas the human in the ideal sense draws its reason for existence and its entire content from that which transcends the individual and the earthly. [GTUFS: DivineHuman, Consequences Flowing from the Mystery of Subjectivity]

Whoever says humanism, says individualism, and whoever says individualism, says narcissism, and consequently: breaching of that protective wall which is the human norm; thus rupture of equilibrium between the subjective and the objective, or between vagabond sensibility and pure intelligence . . . What we wish to suggest in most of our considerations on modern genius is that humanistic culture, insofar as it functions as an ideology and therefore as a religion, consists essentially in being unaware of three things: firstly, of what God is, because it does not grant primacy to Him; secondly, of what man is, because it puts him in the place of God; thirdly, of what the meaning of life is, because this culture limits itself to playing with evanescent things and to plunging into them with criminal unconscious. In a word, there is nothing more inhuman than humanism, by the fact that it, so to speak, decapitates man: wishing to make of him an animal which is perfect, it succeeds in turning him into a perfect animal; not all at once – because it has the fragmentary merit of abolishing certain barbaric traits – but in the long run, since it inevitably ends by “re-barbarizing” society, while “dehumanizing” it ipso facto in depth. A fragmentary merit, we say, because softening of manners is good only on condition that it not corrupt man: that it not unleash criminality, and not open the door to all possible perversions. In the 19th century it was still possible to believe in an indefinite moral progress; in the 20th century came the brutal awakening; it was necessary to recognize that one cannot improve man by being content with the surface while destroying the foundations. [GTUFS: HaveCenter, To Have a Center]

Humanism is the reign of horizontality, either naïve or perfidious; and since it is also – and by that very fact – the negation of the Absolute, it is a door open to a multitude of sham absolutes, which in addition are often negative, subversive, and destructive. [GTUFS: HaveCenter, To Have a Center]

Humanism (contradiction of): The initial contradiction of humanism is that, if one man can prescribe for himself an ideal that pleases him, so too can someone else, for the same reason, prescribe for himself another ideal, or indeed nothing at all; and in fact amoral humanism is almost as ancient as moralistic humanism . . . The moral ideal of humanism is inefficacious because it is subject to the tastes of the moment, or to fashion, if one wishes; for positive qualities are fully human only in connection with the will to surpass oneself, hence only in relation to what transcends us. Just as man’s reason for being does not lie within man as such, so too, man’s qualities do not represent an end in themselves; it is not for nothing that deifying gnosis requires the virtues. A quality is fully legitimate only on condition that in the last analysis it be linked to necessary Being, not to mere contingency, that is, to what is merely possible. [GTUFS: HaveCenter, To Have a Center]