1. I gotta say I found the Erasmus piece pretty entertaining. Although I think I've come around to appreciate many of the philosophers and theists that we've read this semester, Erasmus' satirical jab brought me back to my original perspective when we first started reading many of the medievals. Erasmus' points out how needlessly convoluted many of the theists works had become and how they seemed to prefer to lecture in there works from a holier than thou position rather than participating in a more constructive dialogue.
2. I particularly liked when Erasmus said, "while being happy in their own opinion, and as if they dwelt in the third heaven, they look with haughtiness on all others as poor creeping things and could almost find in their hearts to pity them" (2). All in all, reading Erasmus' irreverent commentary on the medievals I thought was some solid closure to the semester.
The Erasmus reading, at first, I found difficult and obscure. The satirical nature of the reading eluded me and I was unable to really follow what it was he was getting at. However, eventually it began to make sense as he speaks of the magisterial definitions and their new-found words and prodigious terms (2) of other medieval philosophers. I also found it amusing how he speaks of the sects that medieval philosophers have divided themselves among based on how agreeable and disagreeable they are with one another.
I did find it interesting in the Michel De Montaigne reading how it starts off detailing that man has no knowledge. In his apology, Montaigne details that claim by using examples of many great philosophers before his time, such as Socrates, and how they have exclaimed that they truly have no inherent knowledge of anything despite their inquiries and pursuits of it. As he continues on however, and speaks of those like the Stoics, Pyrrho, etc...; he then goes on to say that "ignorance that knows itself, which judges and condemns itself, is not complete ignorance" (516). This I find interesting, as sort of gives off the Platonic (I think Plato said this) notion that we get ever so closer to truth by recognizing the previous paths that lead to errors and trying to find different paths that lead to different results. I also do agree with that notion that it is not true ignorance if it is recognized and acknowledged as ignorance, as the recognition of it can allow for a recourse of actions or thoughts.
1) The Erasmus reading definitely had me laughing. It must have been incredibly satisfying to have had the political climate where he could have made such statements without fear of punishment by the state, assuming he had such freedoms. I can only imagine the countless generations of people who had similar sentiments but were forced into science by internal political pressure. I really like how he makes fun of the doctrines of transubstantiation. As a youth I remember that was the starting point of my skepticism. 2.) In the Montaigne reading I really find the genuine humility of the skeptical position be one of its strong points. This seems to demonstrate an interesting fact about human political thinking, namely that even the most revolutionary of thinkers become the most ardent Conservatives the day after the revolution.
The Erasmus was much more entertaining in its approach and different than previous writing styles we've encountered before. i was a bit confused to grasp exactly what was being said, it was a good read.
In the Montaigne reading i found the claims on ignorance and how an ignorance that judges itself and knows itself is not actually ignorance. the claim itself seems obvious but with further analysis, it provides an important insight for getting closer to the ultimate "truth".
1. I gotta say I found the Erasmus piece pretty entertaining. Although I think I've come around to appreciate many of the philosophers and theists that we've read this semester, Erasmus' satirical jab brought me back to my original perspective when we first started reading many of the medievals. Erasmus' points out how needlessly convoluted many of the theists works had become and how they seemed to prefer to lecture in there works from a holier than thou position rather than participating in a more constructive dialogue.
ReplyDelete2. I particularly liked when Erasmus said, "while being happy in their own opinion, and as if they dwelt in the third heaven, they look with haughtiness on all others as poor creeping things and could almost find in their hearts to pity them" (2). All in all, reading Erasmus' irreverent commentary on the medievals I thought was some solid closure to the semester.
The Erasmus reading, at first, I found difficult and obscure. The satirical nature of the reading eluded me and I was unable to really follow what it was he was getting at. However, eventually it began to make sense as he speaks of the magisterial definitions and their new-found words and prodigious terms (2) of other medieval philosophers. I also found it amusing how he speaks of the sects that medieval philosophers have divided themselves among based on how agreeable and disagreeable they are with one another.
ReplyDeleteI did find it interesting in the Michel De Montaigne reading how it starts off detailing that man has no knowledge. In his apology, Montaigne details that claim by using examples of many great philosophers before his time, such as Socrates, and how they have exclaimed that they truly have no inherent knowledge of anything despite their inquiries and pursuits of it. As he continues on however, and speaks of those like the Stoics, Pyrrho, etc...; he then goes on to say that "ignorance that knows itself, which judges and condemns itself, is not complete ignorance" (516). This I find interesting, as sort of gives off the Platonic (I think Plato said this) notion that we get ever so closer to truth by recognizing the previous paths that lead to errors and trying to find different paths that lead to different results. I also do agree with that notion that it is not true ignorance if it is recognized and acknowledged as ignorance, as the recognition of it can allow for a recourse of actions or thoughts.
1) The Erasmus reading definitely had me laughing. It must have been incredibly satisfying to have had the political climate where he could have made such statements without fear of punishment by the state, assuming he had such freedoms. I can only imagine the countless generations of people who had similar sentiments but were forced into science by internal political pressure. I really like how he makes fun of the doctrines of transubstantiation. As a youth I remember that was the starting point of my skepticism.
ReplyDelete2.) In the Montaigne reading I really find the genuine humility of the skeptical position be one of its strong points. This seems to demonstrate an interesting fact about human political thinking, namely that even the most revolutionary of thinkers become the most ardent Conservatives the day after the revolution.
The Erasmus was much more entertaining in its approach and different than previous writing styles we've encountered before. i was a bit confused to grasp exactly what was being said, it was a good read.
ReplyDeleteIn the Montaigne reading i found the claims on ignorance and how an ignorance that judges itself and knows itself is not actually ignorance. the claim itself seems obvious but with further analysis, it provides an important insight for getting closer to the ultimate "truth".