5 ms·
But there was more: by claiming that the Renaissance—and all its glittering art and innovation—was caused by individualism, Burkhardt was really advancing a cla
by narag 6y ago
But there was more: by claiming that the Renaissance—and all its glittering art and innovation—was caused by individualism, Burkhardt was really advancing a claim about the nature of modernity.
All the text is an ellaborate argument against this. He's framing it as if it's a historic simplification to promote this value.
Why is it a fallacy? Because Renaissance was brought by a number of factors and several of them had in common that they were more on the individualism side than what existed in the middle ages.
So what does he does to undermine this wide consensus? He invents some conspiration to appropiate Renaissance spirit, idealize it and use it to promote some agenda. That's called projection, BTW.
Middle ages weren't so bad? In what sense? If you take it to mean material life conditions, it could be right. But it was a millenium with an oppresive military/theocratic system that for the most part stalled all progress in the western world.
When the civilization started to get rid of that yoke of course it caused bloodbaths, revolutions and all kind of disasters.
Question is, would have been it better to keep the old regime around?
- goto11 6y agoThe "old regime" or "L'ancien régime" was the term for the pre-revolution government used after the French Revolution. Perhaps you are conflating the Renaissance with the age of enlightenment/revolutions? They are different eras.
- narag 6y agoIt's intended. Enlightment is the logical culmination of the changes started in the Renaissance.
- goto11 6y agoThe Enlightenment is in many ways a counter-movement to the ideals of the Renaissance. For example the Renaissance was characterized by absolute monarchy like Louis XIV, while enlightenment and the revolution was countermovement to the autocrat ruler.
- narag 6y agoKings promoted cities as a tool to concentrate power and debilitate intermediate feudal lords. But that temporary alliance could not last, once the basic idea that the power comes from God was undermined and bourgeoisie raised. I wouldn't call that "a counter-movement" because it seems exactly the opposite: one idea that keeps pushing ahead until it's taken to its ultimate consequences. It would have been impossible to have a middle class revolution when there was no middle class. If there's a single factor that explains the changes between Quattrocento and Enlightenment is commerce. It was almost completely absent in the Middle Ages.