Humanities & Classics 1002
|
|
Renaissance Forum
Humanities & Classics 1002 |
    |
|
In Reply to: PLEASE POST YOU FIRST REQUIRED POSTING AS A REPLY TO THIS posted by TOM BACIG on December 13, 1998 at 19:30:06:
By comparing the Medieval period to the Renaissance period, it is discovered that their views on humanity reflected all that encompassed life during these periods. I have not read about two ages that were both so passionate about their beliefs, yet have such opposite ones. During the Medieval times there was an intense concentration on God as being our reason for existing. In _The Imitaion of Christ_ by Thomas a Kempis, he discusses the humans role in the scheme of life (and afterlife). He states that the "Kingdom of Heaven is within you" and describes this world as a "wretched world." It can be inferred that human's are vehicles in which we serve God's purpose. We are pawns of the Lord and we are happy to be, and we must not question this way of thinking. He says that in order to truly love God and to deserve what God has to offer we have to meek and if we aren't, then we don't deserve to have God's presence among us. This way of thinking is very narrow, it doesn't leave much room to deviate off the track to God. It was a conforming idea and because of it is how the Renaissance spun off in the opposite direction.
In _Of the Dignity of Man_ Pico della Mirandola expresses the true idea of humanity during the Renaissance. They believed that "there is nothing more wonderful than man" and that "Man is the intermediary between creatures, the intimate of gods, king of lower beings...". This is drastically different than the previous era. Man is at the top of food chain, yes, but they are also the top on the Earthly god chain. Man is here to live life to the fullest, not to sit in an Earthly purgatory until we go to Heaven, which was the idea in Medieval times. It wasn't that the Renaissance people didn't believe in God, it was just that they had an opposite view of him. I think that this is the most interesting span of time because it is so much different from anything that I have been exposed to. I suppose it is more of what i believe to a point, but it is so different written out, and to think that hundreds of years ago they came up with such a new idea.
"The Name of the Rose" is a classic depiction of what could have been seen in a monastary in the late 14th Century (I believe). There were certain rules and they were to be followed. As one monk believed, a monastary is no place for laughter. It was prayer and work, work and prayer. When monks started dying, the monks believed that it was the work of the devil, because as we are vehicles for God, we can also be vehicles for the devil. This is what they learned and this is what they believed because it was a comfortable scapegoat. William on the other hand is one of the most Renaissance of the monks. He used reason and investgating to figure out the real killer. He didn't automatically believe what he was supposed to believe, he searched for the truth. This movie was very informative and now I share my monk knowledge with all my friends. I think I am driving them nuts. Oh well, their loss.