The Renaissance world view

[Clay MacDonnell]

I for one am a convinced renaissance man. What is meant by this? It means that to me physical reality echoes the transcendent truths of existence, the eternal first cause and harbourer of all truth and goodness is revealed and not in conflict with the natural world. Western philosophy and thought seems to be in a steady conflict between the metaphysical and the physical. For every Plato there is an Aristotle, for every Nietzsche there is a Kant.

Just like the natural world, Western civilization has opposing qualities that intersect and reveal their deepest moments when combined. Like a soothing jet of steam caught between the elements of hot and cold. Perfection.

The naturalistic tendencies of Western civilization may be represented by movements such as the classical era and the enlightenment.

Whereas the more metaphysical are represented in the medieval and romantic periods.

These conflicts are conflicts between the objective rational world view and the subjective consciousness of reality.

These conflicts however, are harmonious. The very fact of such opposites demand some kind of eternal law, a guiding balance. We are participants in nature and are not therefore inclined to forgo the rule of opposites that is demanded by nature. The greatest truth and the greatest virtue as Aristotle posits, is in the middle, moderation.

Does faith complement reason? Does passion complement trepidation? Is the greatest virtue of these states in the joining of them? Or is it misguided to think so? Your thoughts, and a very merry Christmas

[cafolini]

I for one am a convinced renaissance man. What is meant by this? It means that to me physical reality echoes the transcendent truths of existence, the eternal first cause and harbourer of all truth and goodness is revealed and not in conflict with the natural world. Western philosophy and thought seems to be in a steady conflict between the metaphysical and the physical. For every Plato there is an Aristotle, for every Nietzsche there is a Kant.

Just like the natural world, Western civilization has opposing qualities that intersect and reveal their deepest moments when combined. Like a soothing jet of steam caught between the elements of hot and cold. Perfection.

The naturalistic tendencies of Western civilization may be represented by movements such as the classical era and the enlightenment.

Whereas the more metaphysical are represented in the medieval and romantic periods.

These conflicts are conflicts between the objective rational world view and the subjective consciousness of reality.

These conflicts however, are harmonious. The very fact of such opposites demand some kind of eternal law, a guiding balance. We are participants in nature and are not therefore inclined to forgo the rule of opposites that is demanded by nature. The greatest truth and the greatest virtue as Aristotle posits, is in the middle, moderation.

Does faith complement reason? Does passion complement trepidation? Is the greatest virtue of these states in the joining of them? Or is it misguided to think so? Your thoughts, and a very merry Christmas

Up until the end of modernism it was so. Today all that stuff is a museum piece. And it's not coming back where the action that rules de world is entrenched. All the systems of confusion with their unending circular ruins we once saw as philosophy have been overcome. Humanity has been overcome. Dehumanization has been complete for several decades now. Rennaissance (modernism) is finished. We still hear the havoc, que quacking and the hocus pocus all over the place, but it is inconsequential except as historical.

[BlackCat]

I for one am a convinced renaissance man. What is meant by this? It means that to me physical reality echoes the transcendent truths of existence, the eternal first cause and harbourer of all truth and goodness is revealed and not in conflict with the natural world. Western philosophy and thought seems to be in a steady conflict between the metaphysical and the physical. For every Plato there is an Aristotle, for every Nietzsche there is a Kant.

Just like the natural world, Western civilization has opposing qualities that intersect and reveal their deepest moments when combined. Like a soothing jet of steam caught between the elements of hot and cold. Perfection.

The naturalistic tendencies of Western civilization may be represented by movements such as the classical era and the enlightenment.

Whereas the more metaphysical are represented in the medieval and romantic periods.

These conflicts are conflicts between the objective rational world view and the subjective consciousness of reality.

These conflicts however, are harmonious. The very fact of such opposites demand some kind of eternal law, a guiding balance. We are participants in nature and are not therefore inclined to forgo the rule of opposites that is demanded by nature. The greatest truth and the greatest virtue as Aristotle posits, is in the middle, moderation.

Does faith complement reason? Does passion complement trepidation? Is the greatest virtue of these states in the joining of them? Or is it misguided to think so? Your thoughts, and a very merry Christmas

There is an opposition because to every truth there will be lies. It is either 2+2= 4 or 2+2 = 1978, one true answer, gotta pick one. This is my thought regarding your thread, still I might be wrong :P