Consider Zarathustra's song, first the lousy translation available at this website, due to Thomas Common (Dover edition):

O man! Take heed!
What saith deep midnight's voice indeed?
"I slept my sleep,—
"From deepest dream I've woke, and plead:—
"The world is deep,
"And deeper than the day could read.
"Deep is its woe,—
"Joy—deeper still than grief can be:
"Woe saith: Hence! Go!
"But joys all want eternity,—
"—Want deep, profound eternity!"

And then consider Kaufmann's translation, which I mention for the sake of the site's owner, who seems to care for Nietzsche.

O man, take care!
What does the deep midnight declare?
"I was asleep—
From a deep dream I woke and swear:
The world is deep,
Deeper than day had been aware.
Deep is its woe;
Joy—deeper yet than agony:
Woe implores: Go!
But all joy wants eternity—
Wants deep, wants deep eternity."

Kaufmann's translation is much better but is copyrighted, isn't it?

Another aspect of the Secular Humanist tradition is skepticism. Skepticism's historical exemplar is Socrates. Why Socrates? Because, after all this time, he still stands out alone among all the famous saints and sages from antiquity to the present. Every religion has its sage. Judaism has Moses, Zoroastrianism has Zarathustra, Buddhism has the Buddha, Christianity has Jesus, Islam has Mohammad, Mormonism has Joseph Smith, and Bahai has Baha-u-lah. Every one of these individuals claimed to know the absolute truth. It is Socrates, alone among famous sages, who claimed to know NOTHING. Each devised a set of rules or laws, save Socrates. Instead, Socrates gave us a method --a method of questioning the rules of others, of cross- examination. And Socrates didn't die for truth, he died for rights and the rule of law. For these reasons, Socrates is the quintessential skeptical Humanist. He stands as a symbol, both of Greek rationalism and the Humanist tradition that grew out of it. And no equally recognized saint or sage has joined his company since his death.

Source: http://www.jcn.com/humanism.php4

Quoting from copyrighted material for educational purposes is fair use.

I don't think the whole book could be posted, even for educational use, since this would cut into the publisher's profit.

Amen to that! And thanks for the link. I didn't know untill now how Humanistic I really was.

I don't dispute that. The real test of copyright violation is the intent of the user and any harm that may result to the author (or copyright holder). If a use should not be reasonably expected to cut in to the profit of the holder, and the user does not do the copying in order to avoid legitimately purchasing a copy, then the use is "fair use."

For example, if a friend wants to borrow my hard-cover dictionary to look up a word, that's fair use. If I get tired of him borrowing it, and make a xerox copy for him, that is avoiding purchasing a copy and is not fair use.

I could tell from your photograph that you were.

But seriously, I'm thinking about thinking about becoming a humanist (again).

OH NO! That's Che Guevara! A famous South American dead revolutionary. He does kind of look like me, though...

(back at you!)

What are you (is he) actually looking at?

Fidel Castro; since the picture was taken in Cuba back in the 70's

I feel I know Che very well:

http://www.robertlindsay.net/gallery.php