Could the Western World of today develop anything resembling a new renaissance?

To begin with, let's try and fully understand what Renaissance Florence actually has accomplished, apart from making tourists feel like this:

"I was in a sort of ecstasy, from the idea of being in Florence, close to the great men whose tombs I had seen. Absorbed in the contemplation of sublime beauty ... I reached the point where one encounters celestial sensations ... Everything spoke so vividly to my soul. Ah, if I could only forget. I had palpitations of the heart, what in Berlin they call 'nerves.' Life was drained from me. I walked with the fear of falling."

Before having visited Florence, Italy, intellects tend to be lacking in vigor as well as tenacity.

Why don't we Westerners of today, while being members of the best educated, best technologically equipped and most scientifically advanced civilization history has ever known, make full use of this enormous privelige of ours?

Does a civilization really have to experience something like the Black Death in order to gear up and make use of its full capacity?

In my part of the world, Europe, we still haven't gotten over the two disastrous world wars - at least from a psychological viewpoint - that haunted our continent just some decades ago. Likewise, many families of US, Canadian, Australian, Indian, New Zealand nationality etc have paid the ultimate price for defending democracy and it sure has influenced the way in which these nations too, at large, conceive of the development of mankind.

Still, these recent experiences were, comparatively speaking, less challenging than those of the Black Death was to Medieval Europe in the way that the people exposed to the latter weren't able of fully understanding the very nature of the horror plaguing their time.

The victims of the WWI and WW2 could, at least, mentally grasp what was going on around them, namely a devastating war between nations, but this was not the case concerning the Black Death - an epidemic killing around half of Europe's population at that time.

It has often been pointed out, during the last 20-30 years or so, by experts in the field that people living during the Renaissance itself were much more influenced by Medieval culture than generally has been believed since the late 19th century.

To some extent, this objection towards the traditional, modern image of Renaissance European holds water, but on the other hand the scholars who've launched these "alternative" perspectives probably underestimate the indirect influence of revolutionary thinkers like Pico della Mirandola and Erasmus among the broad layers of Western civilization at that time.

Even if ordinary people of Renaissance Florence slaving for 14 hours (and being awarded a loaf of bread and a jar of something called "vino" that no member of this forum would be brave enough to taste) didn't understand much of the enormous breakthroughs of their own time, they probably sensed that they were part of something unique - despite wars, despite plagues.

The people of Renaissance Italy, not only its intellectuals, displayed very much of a dualism in terms of attitudes towards what was going on in the immediate reality surrounding them and to them reality looked liked this; either God was with them or God wished to make them "liable", make them pay for their "sins".

In this sense, they were trapped within a Medieval structure of thought, shunning the central idea of the Renaissance (at least from a theological point of view); that the idea of Man having been created in the image of God manifests itself through the fact that Man, evidently, being able of shaping the Earth - as well as himself - according to his own, free will.

It is true most Europeans were unable of viewing things this way at that time. Most of them were in fact unable of understanding what their religious leaders were on about at all as all ceremonies were held in Latin before Luther came along and ordinary people neither in Holland, Bohemia, Sicily or anywhere else understood medieval church Latin.

However, (anti-Conservative) scholars who argue like the Renaissance never happened and probably believe we still are living in the Middle Ages, all have forgotten something of major importance.

Ordinary renaissance people (at least the majority of city dwellers) viewed themselves as being the inferiors of their heathen, although highly admirable predecessors, more precisely their distant, yet omnipresent ancestors who lived during the days of the Roman Empire.

Claiming that average inhabitants of the Italian peninsula living in the days of Dante - just prior to the Black Death (and prior to the Renaissance of course) - felt as if they spiritually and culturally were living in the shadow of their culturally superior forebears might sound like the brainchild of a 19th century, second rate, Goethe wannabee, Romanticist charlatan.

All the same, it stood clear to Medieval intellectuals, engineers and masons alike that they were unable of erecting structures like the Colosseum, the aqueducts and the Pantheon.

I doubt people of today are able of fully understanding what it actually means to live in an environment like this, an environment making you think mankind day by day is LOSING intellectual ground once gained.

Today, most people take for granted that our ancestors were ignorants compared to us in all fields. It has not always been like this.

In this context, I'd say two major factors contributed to a revolutionary change in the mindset among 15th and early 16th century Europeans;

2. The marvels of Renaissance engineering and science. Not so much the genius of Leonardo da Vinci in fact (even if we by today understand why already Vasari, in 1550, wrote that "grandissimi doni" - the greatest of gifts - had been bestowed upon him.)

Engineering and the way common people of that very time experienced their reality.

To begin with, the PSYCHOLOGICAL impact on contemporary societal and cultural life following the completion of the dome of the Florence Cathedral/(Basilica di) Santa Maria del Fiore, is painfully overlooked and underestimated by most academies of today.

Through Brunelleschis architectural triumph, Renaissance Florence beat everything the ancient Romans were able of erecting - as well as anything the revolutionary Gothic vaults were able of supporting.

Even by today, we do not fully understand how Brunelleschi went ahead bringing about his architectural revolution. But we do know he combined forgotten/rediscovered building techniques of ancient Rome and Gothic principles of architecture.

Imagine to be a simple peasant from "il Contado", the immediately surrounding countryside of Florence, visiting this leading city of medieval Europe a beautiful morning for the first time in your life.

To you, the meaning of words like "life" and "reality" are very much restricted to whatever is going on in the village you belong to.

The elders of this community, men you respect, men you'd better respect and likewise men who have more of a say in your own life than you do yourself til you reach their age, lately have spoken a lot of a certain miracle that recently has taken place in Florence. They have heard news of "La Cupola" having been completed.

Being a curious person in the possession of a vivid imagination, you've sometimes allowed yourself to get carried away listening to discussions between these elders and the local priest.

Even though the priest is far from old, he is an educated man who in fact knows how to read, how to write and even how to count without using his fingers, small stones or sticks.

Something these men once got very excited over was a fascinating discussion dealing with the bygone age when Rome - a distant, but yet not too distant city, ruled all of the world.

At that particular occasion, these old men made the impression of having a great deal of insight into the history of ancient Rome. Too bad most of them lack teeth and the local wine produced that year turned out a very strong one.

Anyhow, these highlights of local village life somehow inspired you to explore the world outside your home terrain.

You've understood that the Roman Empire was a "golden" age and as far as you've understood things, almost everyone back then was noble, brave and knew how to read and write - and now some claim Florence of your time has found out the secret behind it all!

Despite the fact that you nourish mixed emotions regarding the cocky "Fiorentini" - the people living in the city itself - resisting the desire of experiencing the "new Rome" on everybody's lips at first hand is futile.

Carried by winding roads, you approach Florence. The noise and the stench of her gutters drag you into an endless labyrinth.

You hear excited tounges throwing the words "la cupola" all around them, but "la cupola" seems nowhere to be found.

Then, given no forewarning, you are instantly struck, dwarfed into utter nothingness by a giant, cupped hand coming out of the sky - the hand of God.

Surrounded by likewise dumbfounded men wearing much fancier clothing than you and children running around shouting things like "Ecco la cupola, ecco la cupola, apri gli occhi vecchia letrosa, ecco Fiorenza!!" you admit to yourself:

Just like the struggle for freedom is eternal, humanity can not allow itself to embrace each and every idiotic doomsday prophecy being presently being marketed by the least responsible occupational group throughout the entire history of mankind; journalists.

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).

We all know life isn't easy, but that doesn't mean whining is the solution to anything.

Once we Westerners of today decide to do away with the PC notion consisting in our civilization being morally inferior compared to all others and doomed for one reason or the other and all of that nonsense, we will found an age more "golden" than the Renaissance. An era actually even more golden than the sum of all tacky accessories that troughout history has hindered hip hop/R&B celebs and their entourage from moving around like normal persons.

Believe me, developing a confidence in one's own dignity, in the ability of your own country and the future possibilities of true civilization is something more fruitful and rewarding than running around, constantly cackling about the end of the world.

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.

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.

Does a civilization really have to experience something like the Black Death in order to gear up and make use of its full capacity?

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."

“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.

Labor has been organized into free and responsible Trade Unions

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.

I don't know what you mean by "moribund scholastic interpretation".

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.