Italy at the time of the Renaissance was divided into competing city 'states' that were in an ongoing state of war with each other. Over time, these states became ruled by families, such as the Visconti family in Milan, that ruled from 1277 to 1477, or the Medici family of Florence who gained control of Florence with Cosimo dei Medici. The Medici family helped to make Florence one of the richest and most powerful cities in Italy through a combination of political savvy and business nous.
In particular, they managed to find a way around the laws laid down by the church that prevented Christians from charging interest on any money lent to other Christians. To get around these laws, they would make a loan in one currency, but expect the loan to be repaid in a different currency. In this way, either by performing the currency conversion at a rate favourable to themselves, or charging an 'admin fee', for performing the conversion between currencies, they were able to continue to make a profit on money lent.
It was the power and independence of the families ruling these city states, as well as a short-lived humanist streak in the church where a number of humanist popes were chosen, that allowed and encouraged the study of texts outside of those that had traditionally been considered suitable or necessary.
Nicholas V (1447-55) is known to have given positions to scholars whom he respected, regardless of the orthodoxy of their teachings. This new found freedom allowed for the study of Greek texts that had long been neglected, and encouraged much discussion and argument on the subjects of Aristotle and Plato.
These ancient Greek philosophers had different areas of focus in their writings. Plato believed that the world that our limited senses could perceive was but a poor imitation of a perfect world, and the items contained within it were shadows of the ideal of each object.
Aristotle on the other hand was much more interested in the tangible, and while he retained Plato's desire to find a 'universal truth', he was also much interested by the physical world, devoting a large amount of time to study of the world about him as viewed through the senses.
An extract from Phaedrus (276c) that I find most interesting, given the understandable importance attached to Plato's works is the following:
Socrates - And shall we suppose that he who has knowledge of the just and the good and beautiful has less sense about his seeds than the husbandman?
Phaedrus - By no means.
Socrates - Then he will not, when in earnest, write them in ink, sowing them through a pen with words which cannot defend themselves by argument and cannot teach the truth effectually.
In particular, they managed to find a way around the laws laid down by the church that prevented Christians from charging interest on any money lent to other Christians. To get around these laws, they would make a loan in one currency, but expect the loan to be repaid in a different currency. In this way, either by performing the currency conversion at a rate favourable to themselves, or charging an 'admin fee', for performing the conversion between currencies, they were able to continue to make a profit on money lent.
It was the power and independence of the families ruling these city states, as well as a short-lived humanist streak in the church where a number of humanist popes were chosen, that allowed and encouraged the study of texts outside of those that had traditionally been considered suitable or necessary.
Nicholas V (1447-55) is known to have given positions to scholars whom he respected, regardless of the orthodoxy of their teachings. This new found freedom allowed for the study of Greek texts that had long been neglected, and encouraged much discussion and argument on the subjects of Aristotle and Plato.
These ancient Greek philosophers had different areas of focus in their writings. Plato believed that the world that our limited senses could perceive was but a poor imitation of a perfect world, and the items contained within it were shadows of the ideal of each object.
Aristotle on the other hand was much more interested in the tangible, and while he retained Plato's desire to find a 'universal truth', he was also much interested by the physical world, devoting a large amount of time to study of the world about him as viewed through the senses.
An extract from Phaedrus (276c) that I find most interesting, given the understandable importance attached to Plato's works is the following:
Socrates - And shall we suppose that he who has knowledge of the just and the good and beautiful has less sense about his seeds than the husbandman?
Phaedrus - By no means.
Socrates - Then he will not, when in earnest, write them in ink, sowing them through a pen with words which cannot defend themselves by argument and cannot teach the truth effectually.
The above, effectively arguing that the written word is of no use except when backed up by somebody who knows the true meaning of the words and can argue on their behalf, does make me wonder how well we know what Socrates, Plato and Aristotle actually meant. Especially when you consider both the risk of errors in translation as the original work was translated then re-translated from language to language. There is also the risk of words changing meaning over time as frequently happens in English,
For example, when Plato argues that the senses are imperfect, our science has already proven this to be true. Even with the senses we possess, we are aware that there are frequencies that cannot be heard by human ear and that there are creatures too small to be detected by the human eye. In addition there are forms of radiation and energy that we use, but simply do not have a mechanism to detect. Do any of us see, taste, touch, hear or smell mobile phone or radio signals that are all around us? (Unless it's actually us on the phone or listening to the radio)
However, his claim that tangible objects are shadows of an ideal object, seems fanciful and far-fetched. The object used for demonstration in the lecture I attended was a chair. The idea of there being a 'divine chair' somewhere seems comical and ridiculous when looked at in today's society, armed with the knowledge that we have now.
It was however, the renewed investigation of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, with the blessing of the wealthy families running the city states of Italy, in particular the Medici family in Florence, that allowed the Renaissance to occur.
The Renaissance itself did not bring any new important 'theoretical' philosophers to the foreground. Being concerned mainly with looking back at the work of the Greeks and combining that work with the teachings of the Church, meant that there was not a great deal of original thinking taking place, rather the bulk of effort appeared to be being made in reconciling the ideas of Aristotle and Plato with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. However, the freedoms granted by the Renaissance did allow a leap forward in art and literature. Art of the period still deals almost exclusively with religious subjects, but changes dramatically in style over the course of the Renaissance. Pre-Renaissance, art depicted holy figures and scenes in a symbolic style, with figures represented as icons. Post-Renaissance, figures were depicted as human, drawn with elaborate care and often showing the great beauty of their subjects. This change in artistic style is the first visual sign of 'humanism'.
It was during the Renaissance that Machiavelli wrote his seminal work, 'The Prince'. Intended as a 'How To' Guide for those who sought power, it has become famous as much for what it doesn't say as what it does. Historically it was considered shocking for not giving any moral instruction within its pages, it gave simple practical advice on how to obtain power and how to keep power without beseeching the reader to use their power for good. It is not averse to recommending action that could be considered morally dubious, but does offer advice on how to minimise the harm to yourself if you should take action that could be questioned morally.
Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' while effectively exiled to his country home by the Medici family when they came back into power in 1512. The book was dedicated to Lorenzo The Second, in an apparently vain attempt to bring himself back into favour with the Medici, who he had previously opposed. Machiavelli had held a minor position in the government that preceded the Medici's return to power, and so was viewed with suspicion.
While Machiavelli was in his twenties, a man named Savonarola, who railed against the lack of morality and religion in the Renaissance came to power. While Savonarola had a lot of popular support, he had no support amongst the army and was eventually imprisoned and executed. This is believed to have led directly to Machiavelli's line in The Prince that 'all armed prophets have conquered and all unarmed ones failed'.
Over time the teachings of the Renaissance spread to Northern Europe, although they were not associated with the same lapses in morality that occurred in Italy. Indeed over time the weakened moral and spiritual authority of the humanist Popes, caused a backlash, starting with Pope Leo X (1513-21) which in turn caused the beginnings of the Reformation.
Machiavelli died in 1527, the same year that Rome was sacked by Protestants. It is generally believed that the Renaissance paved the way for the next generation of philosophers, and that while Machiavelli's work could almost be considered in the light of a political work, rather than a philosophical one, it was nevertheless important in allowing future generations to speculate on possibilities that would previously have been considered completely taboo.
The philosopher who seems to have benefited most from the Renaissance and the ideas re-introduced and discussed during this time is Rene Descartes, who was not born until 1596, almost a hundred years later. Often considered the founder of modern philosophy. He was the first philosopher to take into account the advances in physics and astronomy, and more importantly the first philosopher to try and tear down everything that had previously been 'known' and start again from scratch.
His most famous phrase 'cogito ergo sum', translates as 'I think, therefore I am'. In discarding all of the things that Descartes had previously thought he knew, he had to start with the very basic building blocks of knowledge. One of the first questions that arose was 'How do I know that I exist?'. His answer to this question was that there was an 'I' that had had that thought, therefore he must exist. It should be noted that this only actually proves that the mind exists, it does not provide any proof that the body or external senses are not illusory or dreamt.
For me, Descartes is spoilt by his need to cling to the idea of a perfect being or a God, which he claimed remained in his mind after he had stripped out everything that he thought he knew.. He also appears to regard animals as automata and humans as somehow set apart, which again is a belief that doesn't really stand up to scientific scrutiny in the modern age, while being more understandable and forgiveable in the 17th Century.
Descartes system of stripping back knowledge is known as 'Cartesian doubt'. It is in essence, the practice of asking yourself 'What do I really know?' and stripping away anything that you do not know as cold hard fact. It should be useful to all journalists, although if you haven't already read Nick Davies excellent book 'Flat Earth News', it is worth doing so to see why you might not get as much opportunity to apply it as you'd like...
For example, when Plato argues that the senses are imperfect, our science has already proven this to be true. Even with the senses we possess, we are aware that there are frequencies that cannot be heard by human ear and that there are creatures too small to be detected by the human eye. In addition there are forms of radiation and energy that we use, but simply do not have a mechanism to detect. Do any of us see, taste, touch, hear or smell mobile phone or radio signals that are all around us? (Unless it's actually us on the phone or listening to the radio)
However, his claim that tangible objects are shadows of an ideal object, seems fanciful and far-fetched. The object used for demonstration in the lecture I attended was a chair. The idea of there being a 'divine chair' somewhere seems comical and ridiculous when looked at in today's society, armed with the knowledge that we have now.
It was however, the renewed investigation of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, with the blessing of the wealthy families running the city states of Italy, in particular the Medici family in Florence, that allowed the Renaissance to occur.
The Renaissance itself did not bring any new important 'theoretical' philosophers to the foreground. Being concerned mainly with looking back at the work of the Greeks and combining that work with the teachings of the Church, meant that there was not a great deal of original thinking taking place, rather the bulk of effort appeared to be being made in reconciling the ideas of Aristotle and Plato with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. However, the freedoms granted by the Renaissance did allow a leap forward in art and literature. Art of the period still deals almost exclusively with religious subjects, but changes dramatically in style over the course of the Renaissance. Pre-Renaissance, art depicted holy figures and scenes in a symbolic style, with figures represented as icons. Post-Renaissance, figures were depicted as human, drawn with elaborate care and often showing the great beauty of their subjects. This change in artistic style is the first visual sign of 'humanism'.
It was during the Renaissance that Machiavelli wrote his seminal work, 'The Prince'. Intended as a 'How To' Guide for those who sought power, it has become famous as much for what it doesn't say as what it does. Historically it was considered shocking for not giving any moral instruction within its pages, it gave simple practical advice on how to obtain power and how to keep power without beseeching the reader to use their power for good. It is not averse to recommending action that could be considered morally dubious, but does offer advice on how to minimise the harm to yourself if you should take action that could be questioned morally.
Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' while effectively exiled to his country home by the Medici family when they came back into power in 1512. The book was dedicated to Lorenzo The Second, in an apparently vain attempt to bring himself back into favour with the Medici, who he had previously opposed. Machiavelli had held a minor position in the government that preceded the Medici's return to power, and so was viewed with suspicion.
While Machiavelli was in his twenties, a man named Savonarola, who railed against the lack of morality and religion in the Renaissance came to power. While Savonarola had a lot of popular support, he had no support amongst the army and was eventually imprisoned and executed. This is believed to have led directly to Machiavelli's line in The Prince that 'all armed prophets have conquered and all unarmed ones failed'.
Over time the teachings of the Renaissance spread to Northern Europe, although they were not associated with the same lapses in morality that occurred in Italy. Indeed over time the weakened moral and spiritual authority of the humanist Popes, caused a backlash, starting with Pope Leo X (1513-21) which in turn caused the beginnings of the Reformation.
Machiavelli died in 1527, the same year that Rome was sacked by Protestants. It is generally believed that the Renaissance paved the way for the next generation of philosophers, and that while Machiavelli's work could almost be considered in the light of a political work, rather than a philosophical one, it was nevertheless important in allowing future generations to speculate on possibilities that would previously have been considered completely taboo.
The philosopher who seems to have benefited most from the Renaissance and the ideas re-introduced and discussed during this time is Rene Descartes, who was not born until 1596, almost a hundred years later. Often considered the founder of modern philosophy. He was the first philosopher to take into account the advances in physics and astronomy, and more importantly the first philosopher to try and tear down everything that had previously been 'known' and start again from scratch.
His most famous phrase 'cogito ergo sum', translates as 'I think, therefore I am'. In discarding all of the things that Descartes had previously thought he knew, he had to start with the very basic building blocks of knowledge. One of the first questions that arose was 'How do I know that I exist?'. His answer to this question was that there was an 'I' that had had that thought, therefore he must exist. It should be noted that this only actually proves that the mind exists, it does not provide any proof that the body or external senses are not illusory or dreamt.
For me, Descartes is spoilt by his need to cling to the idea of a perfect being or a God, which he claimed remained in his mind after he had stripped out everything that he thought he knew.. He also appears to regard animals as automata and humans as somehow set apart, which again is a belief that doesn't really stand up to scientific scrutiny in the modern age, while being more understandable and forgiveable in the 17th Century.
Descartes system of stripping back knowledge is known as 'Cartesian doubt'. It is in essence, the practice of asking yourself 'What do I really know?' and stripping away anything that you do not know as cold hard fact. It should be useful to all journalists, although if you haven't already read Nick Davies excellent book 'Flat Earth News', it is worth doing so to see why you might not get as much opportunity to apply it as you'd like...
excellent notes - a great start. If you carry on like this I am sure you will do very well.
ReplyDeleteGood work also going round the other blogs and linking.
ReplyDelete