Humanism was solely for and defined a
municipal/administrative/aristocratic elite class. Possessing its own exclusive
language, knowledge and values, this movement maintained and reinforced the
power structure of government. This being said, what power structure will not
re-enforce itself? This movement was based on education of a knowledge base of
inherent value, and was valued as a “national” history as well. Like the
technological advances of science, this knowledge is in itself amoral. Though,
much like technology, this knowledge was used in a self-serving manner. The
Humanist movement was born of power, justified by the power of its originators,
and used to garner power for personal gain, and with eloquence/rhetoric as a
“guiding aim”, what cannot be rationalized? (Especially when valued over
philosophy) With these tools, Humanism “reshaped” society, and the ideal of (an
elite) man; the use of these tools left no legitimate alternative. Of course
the ideals of Humanism exemplify the pursuit of wealth, what power structure
ever failed to do so? (While at the same times disdaining the plebes?) Poggio
Bracciolini statement that those elites enjoying the justification and rewards of
Humanism were “ …exceptions to the rule (of human life in general as) …toil,
error, and stupidity.”, seems accurate.
Good knowledge, used for greed and
power over the majority. We got some nice art out of it though.
Good focus on ideology. But do you do enough to tell us what exactly "humanism" was? And was it not very much intended as a "morality?"
ReplyDeleteGood point, I chose to take this slant as an alternative to other blogs p.o.v., but looking forward to class/discussion on the subject.
ReplyDelete