On the Renaissance and Remarkable Men.

After this first in-depth lecture on the Renaissance, I can't help but picture it stepping out of what can be safely described as a quagmire of ignorance. Free Thought finds it's feet (metaphorically) shackled by the dogged stubbornness of the Church and it's vehement control of ideas that dare to step outside the iron word of the Bible and it's accompanying philosophies. The rediscovery of ancient Greek writings and dialogues breathe new life into this stagnation and free thought as hasn't been known for 1000 odd years. Renaissance Italy finds itself redeveloping in style of these "new" Hellenistic teachings. A new age had begun and people seemed desperate to have a part. Perhaps the most influential of these philosophers was Plato, best known for his 'Theory of Forms' which states that the world in which we live is but a crude copy of a perfect world. To demonstrate this simply, I could say "this is a window. But somewhere there is a better window, and somewhere else is a perfect window". Plato demonstrates his theory using his 'Cave' analogy, in which, men are trapped in a cave, whilst outside is a wondrous world. However all the men can see are the pale shadows of this world falling on the cave walls. He did go further in describing his Forms using a straight line and a circle.  He says that no one has ever seen a perfect circle, or a perfect line (he must be right about this as no matter how small you make the building blocks, there will be some smaller still that we can't see), and yet everybody knows what a circle and a line are. He claims that this knowledge or blueprint that we innately have, is evidence that somewhere, these fabled Forms exist.

Another famous Greek philosopher was Aristotle, Plato's student. Aristotle is well known for (among many other things) his use of logic through deductive reasoning or 'Analytics' as he called it. Using both inductive and deductive logic (unlike Plato who used only deductive logic). I think it can be argued that most, if not all modern scientific study follows Aristotle's Example in using inductive reasoning, as we have come to the conclusion that pretty much everything we know could be wrong. Therefore inductive reasoning is less potentially embarrassing for all concerned. Both Plato and Aristotle are depicted in Raphael's 'School of Athens' showing their philosophical differences, Plato gestures toward the heavens, Demonstrating his confidence in the Forms. While Aristotle indicates the Earth, communicating belief in his theories through empirical evidence and a solid trust in his senses.

It seems that whenever the renaissance is mentioned, people have this image in their mind of a glorious shining beacon of learning  and enlightenment. This is fairly accurate, in it's way. Art took on a new depth and beauty as opposed to the stark austerity of the Dark Ages preceding it. Not to mention great names such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael rising to become masters of Renaissance art. Considering all of this refinement and prosperity of learning. I was very surprised to learn about the various undercurrents running throughout Italy which seem to show them all to be morally bankrupt swine. Albeit cunning swine. It seems as though, if they weren't all constantly engaging in civil war; Then they were going to an audience with the Pope, afraid to drink the wine in case it were poisoned. Now, don't get me wrong I'm not exactly an advocate of Christianity (nor of religion in general) but still, the Pope! Christ knows how these guys felt about so much as leaving the house without wearing a full suit of armour! Bertrand Russell does make a point of highlighting Pope Alexander VI, along with his son Caesor Borgia (who I'll mention later concerning Machiavelli) saying of the two:
"The wickedness off these two men soon became legendary, and it is difficult to disentangle truth from falsehood as regards to the innumerable murders of which they are accused"
The fact that this can be said about two men, one of which would be held up as an example of piety and of representing the highest orders of the Church, Holding the keys to Heaven no less! Says something about the sort of times in which they lived. A keen sense of politics and an ability to manipulate, would have been crucial to success. and in this respect we move on to the works of Niccolò Machiavelli.

Niccolò Machiavelli 1467 - 1527 was a very clever man, if not exactly the most ethical. He was a master of political science and wrote the first (I believe) 'How To' guide for rulers. More specifically, he wrote it as a peace-offering to the Medici family, the current rulers of Florence, who he had angered by serving another ruler. He gathered many of his frames of reference for his book 'The Prince' through his own first-hand experience of the successes and failures of various nobles of the times. Perhaps most notably Savonarola, who seems a particularly dour person to be around, especially considering the general Renaissance brightness and artfulness. After burning everything he considered gaudy or creative (or fun) in his infamous 'Burning of the Vanities' and generally making the lives of everyone in Florence a misery he was torn apart and burnt on a cross for heresy among other crimes, as demanded by Pope Alexander VI (and we know how much of a saint he was). After witnessing this execution, Machiavelli put together one of his most important statements "all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed prophets have come to grief”. This, along with his other works, have since changed the way in which people went about looking for and seizing power. Many critics of Machiavelli claim he was amoral, even evil. I disagree. I see him as the ultimate pragmatist. A man who saw that while certain methods were not the most ethical, they did the job they were meant for. And they did it well. He uses the example of Caesar Borgia (mentioned earlier) as one of the greatest 'Princes' of the time. he portrayed him as a man who saw what was needed, and how to do it so that it least affected himself negatively. He knew that cruelty is inevitable, and while Borgia was indeed cruel Machiavelli wrote that "his harsh measures restored order to the Romagna, unifying it and rendering it peaceful and loyal". He continues this by pointing out that it is always preferable to be cruel to the few, so that you wont have to be cruel to many. Otherwise you will be hated by your people and that is one of the worst things for a ruler to have happen "My view it that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved.". Machiavelli wrote many other worthy books of note, although only one of the was published during his lifetime: 'The Art of War'. This was probably because many of his books would have gotten him killed, had they been published while he was alive.
Machiavelli died in 1527, the same year as the sack of Rome. Some people also regard it as the death of the Renaissance. He was buried with the inscription "TANTO NOMINI NULLUM PAR ELOGIUM", possibly translated as "So great a name has no adequate praise".

The final part of the lecture that I will be covering that of René Descartes. Now, in my previous post, I made a rather frank appraisal of Descartes 'Cogito' saying that it was simplistic, that it was too easy to say that we're here because we are. However, after a more detailed look at his work I have decided that I need to reassess my thinking. Here goes, beginning at the beginning.

Descartes was born post-Renaissance into the Age of Reason, in fact, one could make the argument that it was he that began it. He is the founder of Cartesian Doubt. This, as a mainstay for his other arguments demands drawing conclusions only from what you can and cannot doubt. For example, you cannot doubt (in his mind) the truths of mathematics or mechanical science. However, before he could believe in these things. He had to believe in himself. And now we come to his deductive reasoning. He used doubt to decide what things around him he could believe were true i.e. Can I doubt that I am in this room? Yes, because it could be a dream. And so forth until he came to the last part of himself he may be able to doubt. Can I doubt I am thinking? No, because the fact that I can think of doubting it, means that I'm thinking "Cogito ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am". Here was where I had a problem, but my problem was that by itself  "I think, therefore I am" means nothing. But with all the background I realised, that was not his philosophy. 'Cogito ergo sum' was Square One of his philosophy. Before he had that established, he could do nothing. And so from his first square he decided that if he existed, God must exist, and he must be a benevolent God, and therefore he can trust himself because God - being good - would not mislead him. If he can trust himself, then everything else begins to fall into place as according to his own reasoning. I have to say that I'm still not 100% on this, as it is crucially linked to a belief in God, which I lack. However it is extremely well thought out, and very logical (which I approve of) and he uses his system to demonstrate a number of different suppositions in support of Rationalism, and leading into Idealism in which his work becomes a springboard for later philosophers such as Kant and Hegel.

Looking back I'm beginning to think i should have split this in half. I seem to have gotten very enthusiastic once I got to Machiavelli and Descartes, people I can actually wrap my head around. Nonetheless you're stuck with it now, I'm off to make an awful attempt at some shorthand.

Principles of Pontification

It's surprising how detailed one can be when describing what is essentially a span of 3000 years, covering the history of something as potentially convoluted and contradictory as philosophy. However I believe that not only have I taken in the odd thing here and there; but I have also been impressed with a sense that there is all this knowledge and wisdom, gleaned from minds insurmountably more intelligent than my own. And I am to take it, build on it, and use it to better myself and my abilities.If that isn't something to get you excited and raring to go, then I dont know what is.

I consider myself to be a voracious reader of books, and while the majority of the material will be new to me,  I'm very glad to be taking all these names such as Voltaire, Aristotle and Machiavelli (to list just a few) that I've come across many times in books and seen on television, and actually learning what it was that made them famous people they have become. Or, more to the point the famous philosophies they produced. Give me a moment actually and I'll have a go...

"I think therefore I am" - Descartes. Well that seems obvious to me, but then I'm not really the introspective type. I don't quite see how pointing out something as evident as the fact that I'm here because I'm here, can grant you a place in the annals of history. I can only hope that in learning about the background to this revelation, I can see through the eyes of the people who were actually there at the time. It says something to me that people can be that interested in wondering the why of our existence as opposed to just getting on with it! However, times change, as do cultural views, and they change as a result of people like Descartes. That, if nothing else seems a good reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, which I'm sure he would have appreciated.

Refreshing Start

Well this does make a change.

Today marks my third day away from Devon and living in Winchester starting a journalism course at university. It certainly feels like it's been hectic few days and 'it' doesn't seem to have kicked in yet. The world hasn't exploded and i haven't broken down in hysterical wailing and sobbing. Be thankful for small things eh? I'll keep this first post relatively small as I'm almost certainly out of practice when it comes to writing, and I'll probably look at this in a day or so and find a plethora of atrocious grammar  and punctuation.

This is me, always the optimist.