Humanities & Classics 1002
|
|
Renaissance Forum
Humanities & Classics 1002 |
    |
|
In Reply to: PLEASE POST YOU FIRST REQUIRED POSTING AS A REPLY TO THIS posted by TOM BACIG on December 13, 1998 at 19:30:06:
Thomas a Kempis takes the stand that man is only worthy of God (and life) if he (man) lives as close to God as is humanly possible. I think this is clearly demonstrated in the way Book II is written. The form is that of series of statements of how you should live; the only things missing are numbers before each statement and the word 'Commandments' at the top.
As is stated in the preface to a Kempis' writing--"its awareness of the comtemporary world is virtually nil and it seems drenched in the flood of divinity"--it is showing where his head is at. He's thinking purely from the point of view that, because he lives so close to God, so shall/must/does everyone else. And if not, humankind is nothing and will perish. That last part may be a little extreme in its' interpretation, however, I believe this to be his view of the world. His appeal stems from the fact that he was a simple monk who has devoted his life to the sanctity of God. His writing is ever- lasting because it probably gives hope to others. His interpretations as to what it means to be a man is not discounted by the masses because he is seen as one of them/you.
Our purpose in life, according to a Kempis, is to be God-like, hence the title "The Imitation of Christ." It's not, I believe, a coincidence for such a title. As we saw demonstrated in the film "The Name of the Rose" the monks went about their daily lives according to how they had been taught to live--according to the Bible, God's supposed manual on how to live. They ascribe to living that way without question, as does a Kempis.
Now, this view of how we should live, by who's choice this is, and whether man is worthy or not, is taken up by Mirandola. Compared to a Kempis, Mirandola is coming to the defense of man and humankind.
They both state that man is below God. However, I hear Mirandola also saying that even though he (man) is below, he's not less than God. The reaon for this being that God created man, so why would man be reduced to a subservient level, as a Kempis says, by the God that went to great lengths to create him? According to Mirandola he's not been reduced to subservience. In fact God made man "...to ponder the rationality of [Gods]...work, to its beauty, and to wonder at its vastness." He (God) put man at the center of this new world creation. God told man that aside from some basic laws of nature that God wanted man to follow, he was free to do as he chooses. Thus, according to Mirandola God gave man FREE WILL! Which is the total opposite of a Kempis, who believed the only choice was to live like God.
Mirandola is suggesting that man has the upper hand in his destiny. That humankind is more than just servants of God, they stem from God, extensions of God.
"...Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones hold the first places; let us, incapable of yielding to them and intolerant of a lower place, emulate their dignity and their glory. If we have willed it, we shall be second to them in nothing."
How is that for a rallying cry! At this time to say something like that would probably have brought the inquisition down on your ass. Not only is Mirandola comparing himself to the Angels in Heaven, he's saying humans can be just as great as them too. (And people wonder why Lucifer doesn't like man.) I think Mirandola goes to the extreme opposite of a Kempis. Between the two however, I'd have to side with Mirandola, mainly because he's a little more, albeit radical, grounded, where as a Kempis is too lofty. My quirk with Mirandola is that I don't believe in free will: It's and Illusion!