WWWBoard/LT

Renaissance Forum   Humanities & Classics 1002

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

I am slightly confused. In the medievel time period arguments were based on Authority, that was the Bible and the highest sources contected with it right? So, when the Renaissance time came people started using historical references to back up their arguments. Well, wouldn't the historical references be also of authoritical reference? The history and the knowledge is from an authoritative view, and so when a new argument is begun, the information, no matter how differently put, is the same as before. I can understand the new thoughts and using the world around them as a "new" and wonderful way to base an argument, but how can some of the view points be varified?

Machiavelli used historical references, and Bacig said in class that The Prince was based on historical proof, NOT ethical, moral, or philisophical proof, but then wouldn't those three still play a part because the morals, ethics, and philosophy's are still part of the historical proof?

In other words, who was the author of the historical accounts that people began using when the Renaissance came about? It was authoritative figures, or people of high social class wasn't it? So how does that then make the history any different than it was in the medievel time period?

I don't know if it really makes much sense, but I am slightly confused, and I am sure you are now too. If someone could just clue me in that would be wonderful.

Thanks,
Hillary

Follow Ups:

• Re: historical proof Heather Koski 10:50:54 1/13/99 (0)

POST FOLLOWUP

NAME:
E-MAIL:
SUBJECT:

RESPONSE:
: I am slightly confused. In the medievel time period arguments were based on Authority, that was the Bible and the highest sources contected with it right? So, when the Renaissance time came people started using historical references to back up their arguments. Well, wouldn't the historical references be also of authoritical reference? The history and the knowledge is from an authoritative view, and so when a new argument is begun, the information, no matter how differently put, is the same as before. I can understand the new thoughts and using the world around them as a "new" and wonderful way to base an argument, but how can some of the view points be varified? : Machiavelli used historical references, and Bacig said in class that The Prince was based on historical proof, NOT ethical, moral, or philisophical proof, but then wouldn't those three still play a part because the morals, ethics, and philosophy's are still part of the historical proof? : In other words, who was the author of the historical accounts that people began using when the Renaissance came about? It was authoritative figures, or people of high social class wasn't it? So how does that then make the history any different than it was in the medievel time period? : I don't know if it really makes much sense, but I am slightly confused, and I am sure you are now too. If someone could just clue me in that would be wonderful. : Thanks, : Hillary

LINK URL:
LINK TITLE:
IMAGE URL:

---

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

---

[ FOLLOW UPS ] [ POST FOLLOWUP ]

---

 

v 1.1 is made possbile by:

Original WWWBoard design and code by Matt Wright.  See the original at Matt's Script Acrhive. WWWBoard v2.0a © 1998 Matt Wright. WWWBoard/LT Upgrade by Lion Templin of Leonine Computational Resources.  © 1998 Lion Templin. Tom Bacig, University of Minnesota, Duluth.  © 1998 Tom Bacig.