Man as the measure of all things.
In the Renaissance there was a very important shift from the ecclesiastic authority which had not dominated but more monitored the learning and thinking within the Middle Ages. This shift away from the dogmatic teachings of the Church allowed free thought to come forth and the scientific authority allowed people to question ideas that had come before. During the Middle Ages the Church had taught the works of the great Greek thinkers like Aristotle and Plato. They taught these ideas almost like dogmatic law and did not allow people to question the work. In a way the Church helped the formation of the free thinking of the Renaissance by keeping the teachings of the ancient Greeks intact, but the Church can also be ridiculed for hindering the advancement of the ideas.
When you think of the Renaissance most of what comes to mind is beautiful architecture, paintings and sculptures and there were many great pieces of artwork created in this period. The most important thing about the artwork created within the Renaissance was the introduction of humanism. Throughout the Middle Ages paintings weren’t true to life representations of humans, they had human features and were recognisable and the human form but they did not look human. The introduction of humanism within artwork, especially within religious artwork saw an important shift towards the Church becoming more lenient, for lack of a better word, and allowing freedom within thinking and artwork. This shift from the dogma of the Church to the humanism and scientific authority of the Renaissance allowed thinkers to begin to analyse and challenge other aspects of the society which brought about new ways of thinking in many different fields.
Machiavelli
Italy in at the beginning of the Renaissance was a changing country, after the death of Frederick II Italy was free from any foreign political influences, letting it govern itself. During this period many small city states arose, each governed by a powerful and influential family. This was a period of political unrest in Italy as these states would fight each other for control of more land. I will not go into depth about the history of the conflicts between the city states at this time, but within this turmoil there was a lot of growth within politics.With the growth of politics arising from the conflicts between the many states within Italy a new type of philosophy arose, political philosophy. The man who is mainly considered to have been the founder of this new political thinking was Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 – 1527). He was a very clever man who was empirically logical in his thinking, his most important piece of writing The Prince (1513) was written to give advice on how a principality was won, held and lost, . He took his ideas for the book from his own experiences when working within many political groups within Italy. Machiavelli’s ideas within The Prince are a perfect example of what can come out of free speech which was hailed within the Renaissance. Within The Prince he outlines many ways a leader must act towards and treat his subjects, and one of his most intriguing ideas is his thoughts on Cruelty vs. Clemency. Machiavelli believed that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved because “commitments made in fear are kept out of fear”. What Machiavelli is saying is that a ruler must be firm so his subjects fear him and therefore will not revolt, but must not be cruel because cruelty inspires revolution.
I find Machiavelli’s logic particularly interesting because he is a great example of an amoral thinker, he sees no difference between good and evil, and moral and immoral behaviour within politics because he writes that to win over a public a side must be, or appear to be more virtuous than the other. So as long as a group can appear to be more virtuous by controlling propaganda then it does not matter if they truly are more virtuous because they will have succeeded. In Russell’s opinion on Machiavelli at the end of the chapter he said “It is futile to pursue a political purpose by methods that are bound to fail; if the end is held good, we must choose methods adequate to its achievement” he then continues describing how in the end Machiavelli saw political conquest as a scientific action and if at the end you obtain success then your methods must have been the correct one. It is this kind of skewed logic that I think made Machiavelli stand out from other philosophers are the time.
After a bit of reading around The Prince I read that it was later criticised as a piece of political satire designed to give the wrong advice to princes and therefore hopefully bring an end to the principalities dividing Italy, and providing Machiavelli with what he really wanted, a united Italy. Mary Deitz (1986) writes that Machiavelli's agenda was ... "offering carefully crafted advice (such as arming the people) designed to undo the ruler if taken seriously and followed." Mary and many others had the opinion that Machiavelli’s Prince was full of so many moral absurdities and illogical ideals that it was in fact designed to highlight tyranny for what it was and bring it to an end. Although these are opinions and a reading of Prince and Discorsi would be needed for me to form my own decision I do like the idea of Machiavelli trying to make the tyrannical leaders of the time sabotage their own principalities.
I find Machiavelli’s thoughts about the Church interesting. To me it seems as though he has a split decision when it comes to the Church, he sees it as a place of great corruption but also sees its use in social structure and unity. “The closer people are to the Church of Rome, which is the head of our religion, the less religious they are” I think Machiavelli saw the Church and the Pope a place for men to act as tyrants but to do so without inquest or rebellion because they were protected by the God essentially. The other main criticism that Russell seems to outline about Machiavelli’s view of the Church is that he does not like is its role in the division of Italy “the Church has kept and still keeps our country divided”. This contradicts his opinion that religion is required to act as cement within a population, something that will keep everyone together. But I imagine that Machiavelli would have meant a just Church without a political interest if this were to actually become a reality. But because of the power struggles within Italy and the amount of influence and power the Church held I am sure he doubted this could have been achievable.
Overall I have found Machiavelli to be an extremely interesting man to learn about and definitely an important; if not one of the most important, figure in political philosophy. I am a fan of his thoughts on morals, and how a leader should gain and maintain power, even if it may be morally wrong if it gains you success then it must have been the correct method.
My thoughts on Descartes and some of the other influential philosophers and sceintists mentioned by Russell will be up soon
Henry
