First, briefly, I once and for all stopped hoping for -- let alone believing in -- human free will after reading The Laws of Emotion, the original paper, not the subsequent book, which can be found for free online. (@Epsilon0 and @Underscore, get ready, throwing out a sexy NSFW citation here.)
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349–358.
This theory was but the nail in the coffin for me after various interdisciplinary inquires into the nature and potential existence of agency and free will: from the academically philosophical; to the biological/physiological, such as endocrinology; to the psychological, such as persuasion and influence. Frijda's theory engages the latter two.
Now to ponder the intial claim of misanthropy as humanistic, a new intellectual endeavor for me. Hooray!
From vocabulary.com:
Misanthropy is a mistrust of other people and a general hatred for mankind. So people with this character trait aren't much fun at parties.
If you're full of misanthropy, then you don't care too much for other people — you're a misanthrope who basically hates everyone else in the world. Misanthropy isn't about disliking specific people, but disliking human beings in general. That makes misanthropy different from sexism or racism, which are prejudices aimed at specific types of people. If you're a fan of misanthropy, you'd better get a dog, because no one else will want to hang out with you.
Humanism, from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The philosophical term 'humanism' refers to a series of interrelated concepts about the nature, defining characteristics, powers, education and values of human persons. In one sense humanism is a coherent and recognizable philosophical system that advances substantive ontological, epistemological, anthropological, educational, aesthetic, ethical and political claims. In another sense humanism is understood more as a method and a series of loosely connected questions about the nature and character of human persons.
From the fourteenth century to the end of the nineteenth century, humanism minimally meant: (1) an educational programme founded on the classical authors and concentrating on the study of grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry and moral philosophy; (2) a commitment to the perspective, interests and centrality of human persons; (3) a belief in reason and autonomy as foundational aspects of human existence; (4) a belief that reason, scepticism and the scientific method are the only appropriate instruments for discovering truth and structuring the human community; (5) a belief that the foundations for ethics and society are to be found in autonomy and moral equality. From the end of the nineteenth century, humanism has been defined, in addition to the above, by the way in which particular aspects of core humanist belief such as human uniqueness, scientific method, reason and autonomy have been utilized in such philosophical systems as existentialism, Marxism and pragmatism.
@Epsilon0 said in the OP:
A misanthrope looks you straight in the eye
and exposes you for your foolishness, your narrow-mindedness, your deceit and your selfishness. In short, all that which makes you un-human.
Based on the Laws of Emotion, if this is how a misanthrope views you, he exposes you for exactly what makes you human and over which you have a limited amount of control (which is, theoretically, inextricably physiological and psychological).
Based on the quoted definition of misanthropy, he looks you in the eye and hates you because you're a human, but no worries, he's also human so he's gotta hate himself, too. Unfortunately, that does not inspire feelings of camaraderie in the misanthrope because, hate.
Based on the Routledge explanation of humanism, there is some support for @Epsilon0's hypothesis that the misanthrope is a humanist: In another sense humanism is understood more as a method and a series of loosely connected questions about the nature and character of human persons. This reflects @Epsilon0's assertion in the OP, a misanthrope sees what you should be, but are not. This stance is applicable to particular misanthropes like Molière as quoted in the OP, but I think not all misanthropes are necessarily misanthropic because of education, philosophy, or perspicacity; it could just as easily be rooted in sociopathy, a history or abuse, or just plain dickishness (apologies for my snobbish use of academic technical jargon here, I couldn't resist).
Moreover, based on the Routledge definition of humanism, a humanist seeks to focus on and understand what is human, while a misanthrope seeks to reject and consign humans and humanity to the rubbish pile, preferably the one destined for the incinerator and not just the dump. I acknowledge, however, that a misanthrope could have arrived at his/her stance as a result of humanistic pursuits, but they are not fundamentally required for the development of and arrival at misanthropy (cf. longitudinal studies on dickishness).
Goddamn, this was fun!