WI: No Renaissance/Humanist Rejection of Medieval Thought

As we know, the Renaissance was celebrated as a rebirth of European art, culture, and learning, as the works of antiquity were brought into wider circulation. However, in this process, much of the learning of the Medieval Era was discarded for a variety of reasons. In some sense, there's some irony in this, as many in the Renaissance were more dogmatic in their Aristotelianism than their Medieval predecessors were, setting back many fields of intellectual discourse as scholars basically went back to basics and rebuilt their conclusions. On the other hand, it can be argued that this 'reset' fostered new ways of thinking, along different lines from Medieval scholars. I think this overall structure of viewing the Medieval era is best personified in poor Duns Scotus, a brilliant thinker who is now best remembered as the source of the word 'dunce' thanks to Renaissance Humanists.

For the sake of this discussion, we will assume that the Renaissance actually happened, and is not just a convenient label used by later scholars.

So, what if, rather than an intellectual revolution, this period of history was far more gradual and iterative? What if the scholars were more apt to see themselves as the heirs to their immediate predecessors, rather than Antiquity? Interwoven into all of this is, of course, the Protestant Reformation, so there could be some consideration as to what form it might take, but that is quite the rabbit hole, so its probably best to stay focused.

And, of course, there's the bigger question of how this could come about, which I think could be trickier. Perhaps an earlier printing press? Later fall of Constantinople? No Black Death? Earlier re-introduction of Platonic and other non-Aristotelian texts?
 
As we know, the Renaissance was celebrated as a rebirth of European art, culture, and learning, as the works of antiquity were brought into wider circulation. However, in this process, much of the learning of the Medieval Era was discarded for a variety of reasons. In some sense, there's some irony in this, as many in the Renaissance were more dogmatic in their Aristotelianism than their Medieval predecessors were, setting back many fields of intellectual discourse as scholars basically went back to basics and rebuilt their conclusions. On the other hand, it can be argued that this 'reset' fostered new ways of thinking, along different lines from Medieval scholars. I think this overall structure of viewing the Medieval era is best personified in poor Duns Scotus, a brilliant thinker who is now best remembered as the source of the word 'dunce' thanks to Renaissance Humanists.

For the sake of this discussion, we will assume that the Renaissance actually happened, and is not just a convenient label used by later scholars.

So, what if, rather than an intellectual revolution, this period of history was far more gradual and iterative? What if the scholars were more apt to see themselves as the heirs to their immediate predecessors, rather than Antiquity? Interwoven into all of this is, of course, the Protestant Reformation, so there could be some consideration as to what form it might take, but that is quite the rabbit hole, so its probably best to stay focused.

And, of course, there's the bigger question of how this could come about, which I think could be trickier. Perhaps an earlier printing press? Later fall of Constantinople? No Black Death? Earlier re-introduction of Platonic and other non-Aristotelian texts?

Love this question.
I think No Black Death would do it.
The foundational effects of such a cataclysmic culling of people, more specifically the conservative elite class, were massive - and in turn are inexorably linked to the birth of new ideas of governance, Humanism, medicine, etc that came about in the Renaissance period.
We also can't ignore the fact that the Black Death did much to dis-enfranchise the power of the Church in relation to emerging fields of scientific thought such as medicine, which can be correlated to the upcoming overall primacy of scientific discourse over religious discourse in the Renaissance period.
 
Love this question.
I think No Black Death would do it.
The foundational effects of such a cataclysmic culling of people, more specifically the conservative elite class, were massive - and in turn are inexorably linked to the birth of new ideas of governance, Humanism, medicine, etc that came about in the Renaissance period.
We also can't ignore the fact that the Black Death did much to dis-enfranchise the power of the Church in relation to emerging fields of scientific thought such as medicine, which can be correlated to the upcoming overall primacy of scientific discourse over religious discourse in the Renaissance period.

I’d like to challenge the idea that the Reniassance was necessarily less conservative than the Medieval era. After all, the period was considered a ‘rebirth’ of pre-existing culture. Implicit in that term is a reactionary worldview.
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
Love this question.
I think No Black Death would do it.
The foundational effects of such a cataclysmic culling of people, more specifically the conservative elite class, were massive - and in turn are inexorably linked to the birth of new ideas of governance, Humanism, medicine, etc that came about in the Renaissance period.
We also can't ignore the fact that the Black Death did much to dis-enfranchise the power of the Church in relation to emerging fields of scientific thought such as medicine, which can be correlated to the upcoming overall primacy of scientific discourse over religious discourse in the Renaissance period.

It's the Black Death, followed by the discovery of the Americas, and subsequent death of virtually the entire population of the Americas, that changes everything. This constitutes a double whammy of new wealth. The Black Death created wealth simply by exterminating 40% of the population, leaving the remainder much richer, particularly the young and vigorous, who were most affected. The discovery of the Americas, and the fact that the inhabitants had no immunity to smallpox and influenza, left open an entire hemisphere for European colonization.

The Medieval World was a very limited one, so, Church control and structure -- a kind of Catholic Socialism -- were necessary to rule the roost, and to keep things stable. The Black Death suddenly gave people much, more more opportunity to pursue their own interests -- hence, the rise of individualism. Then, the discovery of the Americas and the rather fortuitous extermination of the local population by disease allowed centuries of free-wheeling exploitation to occur for the lucky nations of Europe. Hence, the rise of Capitalism. If you read Robinson Crusoe all the way through, you'll note it's really a song of praise to both capitalism, and individualism. The hero actually sets up his own trading empire entirely on his own!

So, the rejection of "Medieval Thought" is really just a rejection of social controls that aren't necessary given new frontiers. Currently, the world may be becoming more "medieval" again, as we attempt to survive within the confines of our overpopulated planet, I think.
 
I’d like to challenge the idea that the Reniassance was necessarily less conservative than the Medieval era. After all, the period was considered a ‘rebirth’ of pre-existing culture. Implicit in that term is a reactionary worldview.

Now that's a fascinating perspective...
The Renaissance was a reactionary response to medieval "progressiveness"?
There's a dissertation in there somewhere.

However to your point, I think your conflating reaction with romanticism - which I think the Renaissance was more the latter.
Moreover we also have to take into the account how and why Medieval modes of thought came about when they did. If I'm not mistaken, the primacy of intractible dogma over more liquid, exploratory modes of thought and being, prevalent in antiquity, came about as a means to preserve knowledge and social cohesion.
For instance if we look at the intrinsitic insecurities of life in post Western Rome Europe - the systems that helped bring about ideas we may consider as medieval dogma (landed gentry, monostary learning, guild trade) were created as a reaction to these insecurities. So rather than reaction, Renaissance thought was simply a "picking up where we left off" - championing and then expanding off of what was achieved prior to said age of insecurity.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Kraus

Banned
Now that's a fascinating perspective...
The Renaissance was a reactionary response to medieval "progressiveness"?
There's a dissertation in there somewhere.

However to your point, I think your conflating reaction with romanticism - which I think the Renaissance was more the latter.
Moreover we also have to take into the account how and why Medieval modes of thought came about when they did. If I'm not mistaken, the primacy of intractible dogma over more liquid, exploratory modes of thought and being, prevalent in antiquity, came about as a means toto preserve knowledge and social cohesion.
For instance if we look at the intrinsitic insecurities of life in post Western Rome Europe - the systems that helped bring about ideas we may consider as medieval dogma (landed gentry, monostary learning, guild trade) were created as a reaction to these insecurities. So rather than reaction, Renaissance thought was simply a "picking up where we left off" - championing and then expanding off of what was achieved prior to said age of insecurity.

I suspect our friend DominusNovus is perhaps a Priest. He seems very determined to press the view that medieval Catholicism was some kind of an ideal world, and becomes evasive and extremely confrontational when anyone suggests otherwise. Personally, I think Catholicism had its points, but, as the world changed, it simply became less relevant. Hence, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment.
 
How certain are you that antiquity was more open to novel forms of exploration? I look at the scholastic egnagement of Aristotle, and how ambivalent the scholars if the medieval era were toward him, with some praising, some condemning, and others sythesizing his work, and see a pretty liquid and novel intellectual environment.
 
I suspect our friend DominusNovus is perhaps a Priest. He seems very determined to press the view that medieval Catholicism was some kind of an ideal world, and becomes evasive and extremely confrontational when anyone suggests otherwise. Personally, I think Catholicism had its points, but, as the world changed, it simply became less relevant. Hence, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment.
On a more modern note, the theology of liberation is very interesting and a somewhat missed opportunity. Also interesting as it links to the idea of Catholic socialism mentioned earlier
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
On a more modern note, the theology of liberation is very interesting and a somewhat missed opportunity. Also interesting as it links to the idea of Catholic socialism mentioned earlier

Off hand, I suspect DominusNovus would be no great fan of the theology of liberation, or, of the current Pope Francis, who would likely be interested in it. Of course, the current Pope was himself trained as a scientist, and, no doubt, would be rather a fan of secular humanism, and, the Renaissance and Enlightenment philosophers.
 
How certain are you that antiquity was more open to novel forms of exploration? I look at the scholastic egnagement of Aristotle, and how ambivalent the scholars if the medieval era were toward him, with some praising, some condemning, and others sythesizing his work, and see a pretty liquid and novel intellectual environment.

Sure, in theoretical pursuits of philosophy and theology - Additionally, for centuries the Catholic Church was indeed the steward of the sciences and you only need to read Augustine to see that.
But the Renaissance opened up the discourse on much deeper things such as the veracity of religious historiography regarding astronomy, physics, metaphysics, etc, which totally upturned the nature of how Western Europe saw the world, and itself within. That in it of itself was world changing.
For instance, the meta-physical and physical identity of the individual went from being pre-destined by God and subsequent birthright to being open to discussion and scientific exploration.
 
Sure, in theoretical pursuits of philosophy and theology - Additionally, for centuries the Catholic Church was indeed the steward of the sciences and you only need to read Augustine to see that.
But the Renaissance opened up the discourse on much deeper things such as the veracity of religious historiography regarding astronomy, physics, metaphysics, etc, which totally upturned the nature of how Western Europe saw the world, and itself within. That in it of itself was world changing.
For instance, the meta-physical and physical identity of the individual went from being pre-destined by God and subsequent birthright to being open to discussion and scientific exploration.

I have to disagree here, particularly regarding metaphysics. Also, if metaphysics doesn't count as a pursuit of theology or philosophy, than what is it?

But lets take something more tangible, astronomy. Buridan, in the first half of the 14th century, seriously considered the possibility of a heliocentric system but rejected it on his own observations. Oresme then went on to disprove at least one of Buridan's objections, even if he still came to the same Geocentric conclusion.

In rather crude terms, I'd say that the Medievals had come to terms with the idea of rejecting Aristotle and others when they saw fit, but the Renaissance did the same to the Medievals, prior to medieval thought really ossifying the way the thought of antiquity did.
 
As we know, the Renaissance was celebrated as a rebirth of European art, culture, and learning, as the works of antiquity were brought into wider circulation. However, in this process, much of the learning of the Medieval Era was discarded for a variety of reasons. In some sense, there's some irony in this, as many in the Renaissance were more dogmatic in their Aristotelianism than their Medieval predecessors were, setting back many fields of intellectual discourse as scholars basically went back to basics and rebuilt their conclusions. On the other hand, it can be argued that this 'reset' fostered new ways of thinking, along different lines from Medieval scholars. I think this overall structure of viewing the Medieval era is best personified in poor Duns Scotus, a brilliant thinker who is now best remembered as the source of the word 'dunce' thanks to Renaissance Humanists.

For the sake of this discussion, we will assume that the Renaissance actually happened, and is not just a convenient label used by later scholars.

So, what if, rather than an intellectual revolution, this period of history was far more gradual and iterative? What if the scholars were more apt to see themselves as the heirs to their immediate predecessors, rather than Antiquity? Interwoven into all of this is, of course, the Protestant Reformation, so there could be some consideration as to what form it might take, but that is quite the rabbit hole, so its probably best to stay focused.

And, of course, there's the bigger question of how this could come about, which I think could be trickier. Perhaps an earlier printing press? Later fall of Constantinople? No Black Death? Earlier re-introduction of Platonic and other non-Aristotelian texts?
Could we perhaps get a more permanent version of the Condemnations of 1210–1277 and just get Aristotelian science booted out of universities entirely?
 
Top