Oh, yeah? Even greater than THIS architectural masturpiece (sp?)?
Posted on 08/22/2008 9:38:37 PM PDT by WesternCulture
The magnificent cathedral of Florence, Italy, one of the greatest architectural achievements of all times:
http://www.reformationtours.com/site/490868/uploaded/florence_dome.jpg
More images of Florence, hosted by the great German site of www.photocommunity.com
Oh, yeah? Even greater than THIS architectural masturpiece (sp?)?
In about six hundred years — after we hit rock bottom.
Correction:
“Western Civilization finally survived the Black Death and in the middle of the former century, Europe (where I live) went from the chaos, starvation and scorched earth following WWII to a prosperity never experienced before in the history of the continent (a development much aided by the US - in several ways)”
- Okay, those words probably make some kind of sense, but I forgot to add “IN TEN YEARS!” at the end.
Sorry for this - and sorry for not bothering to spend more time tidying up the article before posting. Lots of mistakes and flaws of all kind (like certain expressions being recycled a little too often - I know).
But, I hope readers agree both the Renaissance and the common future of Western Civilization deserves attention.
“Oh, yeah? Even greater than THIS architectural masturpiece (sp?)?”
- Looks like some obstacle Frank Dux came across on his way to the Martial Arts Hall of Fame.
I believe about half of us can participate in a new Renaissance, the other half is still trapped in a modernist/deconstructionist despair. Unfortunately, the modernist side still holds control over the culture and the institutions. While there is a new Renaissance going on in painting today, those painters are not well shown, and mostly toil in obscurity. The Renaissance will happen outside of the established venues, until it can’t be ignored anymore.
Do we want a new Renaissance? It was a time of revolutionary change, great conflict and constant warfare. New information technology helped spread revolutionary ideas leading to the destruction of established institutions.
The Reformation and Counter-Reformation, peasant revolts, the Sack of Rome, corruption of the clergy, redrawing political and social boundaries all came out of the Renaissance. Conservatives want to save, restore what is good from the past, not destroy it to create a new world.
What’s that — the National Trailer Park Museum?
Are you saying that the Renaissance was the result of the Black Plague? I have never heard that theory before, and I have no idea what you mean by it.
I am very fond of Florence, but most moderns have little knowledge of the history of Medieval Europe. Here is the way G.K. Chesterton characterezes the Middle Ages of the 12th century:
The great cities have arisen; the burghers are privileged and important; Labor has been organized into free and responsible Trade Unions; the Parliaments are powerful and disputing with the princes; slavery has almost disappeared; the great Universities are open and teaching with the scheme of education that Huxley so much admired; Republics as proud and civic as the Republics of the pagans stand like marble statues along the Mediterranean; and all over the North men have built churches as men may never build them again.He wrote that in 1913 which is a little longer than 20 or 30 years ago. The reappraisal of the Middle Ages actually took place in the 19th century before Chesterton was born.
As Chesterton goes on to point out, "There is scarcely a modern institution under which [we] live, from the college that trains [us] to the Parliament that rules [us], that did not make its main advance in [the Middle Ages]."
Then there are literary historians like C.S. Lewis who see no evidence of a Renaissance in literature, but rather a creative continuity with the past. But then how many moderns have read Chaucer, Spencer, Boiardo, Ariosto, Tasso, and Dante? I would guess very few.
To point out the advances of the Middle Ages is not to denigrate the Renaissance. This simply demonstrates that the Renaissance achievements depended on the achievements of the Middles Ages as much as any recovery of the achievements of ancient Roman or Greece.
I would agree that Brunelleschi made great advances in architecture. But his most famous achievement is the dome of the cathedral in Florence. The church below that dome was built in the Middle Ages. And I think this fact can serve as a proper image of the Renaissance: it built upon the accomplishments of the Middle Ages.
“I believe about half of us can participate in a new Renaissance, the other half is still trapped in a modernist/deconstructionist despair.”
- Very true.
The major difference between the intellectuals of the Renaissance and the Liberal/Socialist intellectuals of our time is that while the Renaissance Humanists paved way for something new deriving from their constructive openess of mind and lust for exploration, the latter hold the development of civilization back through their intensive marketing efforts of the cheap drug of Relativism and ridiculous, self-contradicting theories of everything being “social constructions” and suchlike nonsense.
“Conservatives want to save, restore what is good from the past, not destroy it to create a new world.”
- During the Renaissance, what was good from the past - most importantly the belief in the possibilities of the human mind itself (the core idea of the ancient Western ideology of Humanism) and the democratic republic - was restored.
Who needs medievality and chewing on rotten turnips while repeatedly being slammed in the face by the door of an iron maiden?
Today, a loser like I can drive around in a nice car and say whatever I like, without being tortured to death - and afterwards I can enjoy a glass of Château de la Château.
That actually means a lot to me.
Sadly, there will not be a Renaissance in the West, because the real roots of the Renaissance was built in the middle ages.
It’s not an accident that the Renaissance took place in Christendom, because the search truth requires faith in the unalterable nature of truth, and to create true beauty requires knowledge of the transcendent.
As the West, particularly Europe, has become post-Christian, the rising skepticism on the nature of good, truth, and beauty has left its people lacking in any purpose to their lives except pleasure.
Such a culture may often come up with ingenious means of pleasure and entertainment, but it could hardly ever create anything truly beautiful.
My post was not about returning to medieval feudalism. It was about realizing that the Renaissance was a period of revolutionary change.
A new renaissance would mean another period of revolutionary change: years of war and destruction, upheaval in social, religious and political institutions. Those living through it would be experiencing the birth pangs of a new civilization.
Wishing for that is not the position of a conservative. If that is what you want, let me remind you of the Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.”
Absolutely! For example, Galileo challenged the moribund scholastic interpretation of Aristotle from the standpoint of an independently developed intelligence : "Now I want them to see that just as nature has given them, as well as to philosophers, eyes with which to see her works, so she has given them brains capable of penetrating and understanding them."
Do you agree the concept of beauty is something innate in human nature?
If so, you might also agree a culture always can find its way back to truth, reality and beauty.
Unfortunately, it seems like nations, as well as entire cultures (like that of the West) has to hit rock bottom before being able to strive in the right direction again.
“If so, you might also agree a culture always can find its way back to truth, reality and beauty.”
That was always true before, when societies might have disagreement about the qualities those things entail but always agreed that they existed.
But in the post-modern world we live in the very concept of truth and beauty are being attacked, how can one create something beautiful if he doesn’t believe that beauty exists, how can one find truth if he doesn’t believe there is such a thing as truth?
Until we find our way back to believing in those things, none of the other thing are possible.
95%+ of laborers in the MA were farm workers. No uniting allowed for them.
The guilds in the cities were sort of a cross between labor unions and monopolistic organizations of businessmen. With the latter aspect growing in importance all the time.
The common man did not have it very good during the Middle Ages, although admittedly better than most during antiquity, especially late antiquity.
I don't know what you mean by "moribund scholastic interpretation". Scholasticism was not a monolith. There were different schools within it and much lively debate and reasoned argumentation between the various parties. As for your quote from Galileo, I would call that a very fair summary of the philosophy Thomas Aquinas. He insisted on the validity of reason to understand objective reality conveyed by the senses. This is why the Augustinians opposed his philosophy. But Aquinas won that argument, though posthumously.
Aristotle's errors were codified into doctrine. In particular, it was taught that constant motion required constant force. Galileo went to great lengths to explode this doctrine, and I don't think it can be supported that the scholastics knew it was false all along.
I also don't think that Thomas Aquinas made any kind of appeal to independent thinking among the common folk such as Galileo did in the quote I cited. Insofar as Aquinas spoke of the "validity of reason" it was to the purpose of reconciling any reasoning that might done to Church doctrine. He wasn't exactly turning reason loose in the streets. Bruno was burnt at the stake!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.