By Bronte Dawson and Tate Slyfield
General Characteristics
Overall, this characterised the diminishing power of the church against the increasing authority of science. The increase in scientific knowledge saw the end of the middle ages as man began to discover more and more about the Earth and why it is what it is - whatever that is.
The States began taking over the governmental body of the church, there was no order - no society or rulings were made that could maintain a stable society. Men were divided - the aristocracy and the barbarians. Those that were educated were considered greater and those that weren't were not considered as much.
During the Enlightenment began to be freed from the metaphorical chains and shackles that religion enforced upon them. This saw great progression in art and literature, particularly in Italy.
The Italian Renaissance
The Renaissance, meaning "rebirth", explored a whole new range of concepts and ideas; with the explosion of classical literature, vernacular languages, architecture, painting, art, trade and wealth. It typically began in the 14th century and it aimed to move away from the medieval period and scholastic philosophy. Despite that, the Renaissance was mostly prominent in Florence as trade entered Italy and the state flourished. The five key states in Italy at the time were Florence, Milan, Naples, Papal Domain and Venice.
However, Milan demonstrated elements of plutocracy in their state by exercising authority through wealth, with the Visconti family that ruled for 170 years. This also evokes the corruption and instability of Italy. Although the Italian Renaissance was not an era of great achievement, it absolutely thrived in Paris - but it also saw the revival of the work of intellectuality with Plato and Aristotle.
It is evident that those in power were corrupt, especially the Medici family and the Popes. Many people lost in faith in religion and severe authority, where many people started living upon Plato's philosophy, where they became independent.
Machiavelli
Machiavelli was a man of political philosophy - he thought politics was all about power. He knew how to gain power and thought man should stop at nothing to get it. His philosophy is scientific and empirical and was concerned with results - whether the means of reaching the results were good or bad/moral or immoral was irrelevant to him.
As a Florentine man, Machiavelli saw the rise and inevitable end of Savonarola, which clearly made quite an impact of the leanings of his political philosophy. He remarks that 'all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed', placing Savonarola in the latter category. In our opinion, Machiavelli would have approved of the Reichstag fire caused by Hitler (an arson attach on a Reichstag building in Berlin in 1933) - which he proceeded to blame on Marinus van der Lubbe, an innocent communist. The Nazis then used this to persuade to the German government that the Communists were plotting against them. This acquired the Nazis more power and more favour - immoral yes, however, successful.
A quote that really stood out with us was 'The nearer people are to the Church of Rome, which is the head of our religion, the less religious they are' which, in our opinion, could be compared to Rousseau's philosophy of 'the closer man is to society, the more corrupt man is'. This is an interesting comparison, as Rousseau is closely related to romanticism whereas Machiavelli is quite the opposite, which quite frankly is not giving a fuck how he gained power, yet it is quite a nice comparison, that the closer man is to the source of the item/belief/religion/whatever it may be - the further away they actually are. It's as if man may come up with a brilliant idea, but the more people that get involved, the more corrupt it is. It almost seems as if the human race as a whole is corrupt - if you bring everyone together - it'll do nothing but push them further away from each other.
The Prince is one of the two famous books by Machiavelli and is essentially Power in Politics For Dummies. It goes through history and contemporary events, (at the time it was written), about how power was won, held and lost. Fifteenth century Italy produced a lot of examples; most illegitimate - despite some even being Popes. Few places of power were achieved without corruption, in some form or another.
Erasmus and Thomas More
Erasmus and Thomas More were two men who were exemplars of the northern Renaissance. Both were academics, witty and humorous, despised scholastic philosophy and were highly skilled writers.
Erasmus was born at Rotterdam and was an intellectual from the beginning. After his parents died at a young age, he knew more Latin than his guardians. He hated scholastics and despite Plato and Aristotle being high respected at that time, he had no time for them and didn't really care for their teachings.
The only book still read by Erasumus is The Praise of Folly. The book is dedicated to More, who's house the book was written at. The book is spoken by Folly in her own person and she covers all parts of human life including all classes and professions. The book strongly voices Erasmus's opinions, particularly those concerned with ecclesiastical abuses. The book ends with serious suggestion that all religion is a form of folly.
Erasmus was influential within the education system and remained to be until the 20th century, with strong grounding in Greek and Latin. He also believed that Plato should be studied, but not the subject that Plato thought worth studying. He was well read and believed everyone should be literate.
Sir Thomas More, although more admirable than Erasmus, was much less influential. He started to learn Greek at Oxford University but was removed by his father and the authorities and then set to follow his father's footstep and become a lawyer. More was forcibly friends with Henry VIII but knew the friendship was solely for convenience on the King's part. After More voiced his opinions on Henry VIII being made the head of the Church of England, he was beheaded for high treason.
However, More is remember for his account of Utopia. In Utopia, as in Plato's Republic,all things are held common as it was though society could not flourish with private property. The basic idea that everything is equal, the towns are the same (except one being the capital), the houses are the same, the streets are the same and so on. It is vital that there is no sense of ownership and a lot is done to prevent this, for instance; people change house every ten years, all men wear the same clothes, all women wear the same clothes - respective of whether they are married or unmarried.
The basics of More's Utopia is everyone is equal and does what needs to be done for society to function. The importance of communism is greatly stressed. Although, in my opinion, if put into practise Utopia wouldn't work, I think More's idea is one of the greatest ideas of Utopia and would create a functioning society.
The Reformation and the Counter-Reformation
The Reformation was a religious revolution that saw the revival of Protestantism in the 16th century, with the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin were their biggest leaders. Notably, the Reformation in Germany saw Luther and Calvin wanting to diminish the power of the Church, by omitting purgatory and rejecting the doctrine of Indulgences. These cruel innovations hindered Protestant Churches from becoming powerful in other Protestant countries. Luther and Calvin were highly influenced by St. Augustine’s teaching of the relation of the soul to God, not the part which is concerned with the Church.
The Reformation in particular was sparked by Martin Luther’s 95 Theses which rejected all forms of Catholicism, especially Transubstantiation. Luther coined, Consubstantiation, where the body and blood of Christ is physically present because Christ is everywhere. The key to Luther’s ideology is that ethical and theological reform of the Church should be justified by faith and not with works. The Reformation in England saw Luther assert the prince as Protestant and to become the head of the Church. This was clearly asserted by King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth and even increased the power of royalty.
The Reformation saw the rebellion of less civilised nations against the intellectual domination of Italy. The Italians disregarded Luther and Calvin’s medieval philosophies, as they had much to do with the actual Reformation themselves, whilst the power of the Popes was rejected. Whereas the Counter – Reformation which was Spanish, saw a rebellion against the intellectual and moral freedom of Renaissance, where the power of the Pope was increased but his authority was adverse to the likes of the Borgias and Medici.
The results of the Reformation and Counter Reformation show that Protestantism was finally established as one of the major branches of Christianity, alongside Catholicism. It was a move away from medieval doctrines and introduced a number of Protestant Churches. It saw also demonstrated that, neither Protestants nor Catholics could be triumphant.
The Rise Of Science
This saw a drastic move from the Ancient Period and the Medieval Ages that the philosophers of these periods were hampered by the lack of instruments and they were unable to classify their ideas through observation and experimentation. People relied upon the authority of Church figures and the ancient world, such as Aristotle, who was considered to be the source of truth.
But there were only four influential men who coined practical science, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Isaac Newton. This increased men’s freedom to think for themselves, particularly for secular learning, mathematics and science. It was also men’s freedom to shift away from theoretical science and focus on practical science. New science evidently influenced philosophy, particularly with the work of Descartes.
Copernicus, a Polish astronomer and mathematician endorsed his work on the Earth’s daily motion around a stationary sun. He is one of the most prominent individuals who had two merits: ‘patience in observation’ and ‘framing a hypothesis’. Framing a hypothesis was the most difficult attributes for scientists to sustain their scientific theories. Aside from that, the Copernican Theory was extensively rejected particularly by German Lutherans. Luther criticised Copernicus’s work claiming in the History of Western Philosophy that, “This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” Arguably, this demonstrates the religious nature of disagreeing with everything that was produced or that made an increase of knowledge on the Earth. Despite the ongoing criticisms that many of these scientific individuals faced, Copernicus had a lack of influence in his era, which was a downcast to him, because he knew everything that existed in his time.
Kepler, another astronomer in the seventeenth century had his 3 key laws of planetary motion. It is arguable that much of his work was largely accepted by society and was demonstrated alongside cosmogony and he followed Plato’s work, “TImaeus” which identified cosmic significance.
One of the greatest founders of modern science was Galileo. He discovered that the earth was not at the centre of the universe, but it revolved around the sun. Galileo’s astronomical discoveries and investigations confirmed the Copernican theory. Galileo also adopted Kepler’s work and accepted his discoveries, particularly the heliocentric system which stated that the earth and planets rotated around the sun.
Isaac Newton basically achieved the works of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. But he theoretically kept his work a secret as he was afraid of religious persecution and the destruction of his theories. He fully established the methods of acceleration, gravity and the three laws of motion. In Newton’s Principia he stressed the importance of supplementing mathematical analysis with observation. He also confirmed the basic essence of modern science that all nature is governed by laws.
The significance of modern science which was deemed as the new philosophy started to make an impact on peoples’ lives, where it revolutionised peoples’ view of their own purposes. The rise of science evidently provided routes of scientific success and progression. Perhaps to a large extent medieval philosophy can be seen as a mere guidance tool for people to follow, rather than attempting to change the world.
Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes’s philosophy aimed to prevent disagreements from the aspects of human nature, society and a proper government. It focused on ending the conditions of war.
Leviathan is just a metaphor for the state and is described as an artificial person, whose body is made up of all bodies of its citizens who are solid members of the Leviathan body. The head of the Leviathan would be the sovereign. Communities are subjected to a social contract or covenant, alike Plato’s Republic. When a covenant is agreed the government is decided by the majority and once the government is chosen, citizens lose their rights and their political power ends. Even touching upon Plato and Aristotle, their forms of society demonstrate which could make the world a better place whilst preventing war. This is clearly seen with Hobbes who aimed for the perfect government, but Russell claims it’s an explanatory myth as it did not go into force or reality. Consequently, Leviathan argues that civil peace and social unity are likely achieved by the establishment of a commonwealth through a social contract.
Russell argues that it would be difficult to place Hobbes as one of the top philosophers, but I certainly would as he established political philosophy. Upon my reading, it was intriguing to find that despotism is better than anarchy - being ruled by an absolute dictator or not being ruled by a recognisable government. This stems from the English Civil War (1642 – 1651); the Royalists, King Charles I and II were against the Parliamentarians, Oliver Cromwell. According to Hobbes, who survived the war, it led to an increased fear of anarchy because in such a state, people generally fear things and so to avoid it, by means to obtain a social contract and establish a civil society. Hobbes came to the conclusion that sharing power is not the best way to govern a society, but a monarchy is. It’s arguable that Hobbes favoured a monarchy because it concentrated on private interests rather than public interests.
Hobbes was clearly a controversial character as Leviathan, published in 1651, did not receive positive reviews. The aim of the book was to diminish democracy and focus on Royalism. It is evident that Hobbes aimed to create controversy for many reasons. For instance, in politics and science he wanted to challenge the government and even philosophy itself. Hobbes was so controversial, he was even accused of being an atheist. This stems from Hobbes being a determinist, where he did not believe in souls, spirits, ghosts and the devil. He thought God was the ‘first cause’ of a chain of events. However, his profound Leviathan society suggested that it could put an end to controversy, war and possibly fear.
Descartes
Descartes was a French philosopher whom lived in the 1600s. He is considered the founder of modern philosophy, being the first man of high philosophic capacity who's outlook is profoundly affected by the rise of science. He was a scientist and a mathematician, and surprisingly, a man of God.
He adopted the cogito and wanted to learn how to doubt the universe (Cartesian doubt). He used the analytical method, which supposes a problem solved and examines the consequences of the supposition.
He believed ideas were in three sorts; those that are innate, those that are foreign and come from without, and those that are invented by me. Descartes asked himself 'How can I believe that what I'm seeing is true?' and his answer was the senses. He tries to disassociate himself from everything and asks 'How can I trust me senses?' to which he answers God. Many other philosophers would not recognise this answer as fact, but in Descartes views, God is good and senses are real because of this - God would not disillusion him. A famous quote by Descartes that accurately sums this up "I think, therefore, I am."
