Humanities & Classics 1002
|
|
Renaissance Forum
Humanities & Classics 1002 |
    |
|
In Reply to: PLEASE POST YOUR SECOND REQUIRED POSTING AS FOLLOWUPS TO THIS POST posted by Tom Bacig on January 13, 1999 at 21:59:54:
: I would like you to post your required posting on Machiavelli's, Alberti's and Castiglione's views on what makes a Renaissance person as follow ups to this post.
As I have read and tried to understand what a Renaissance person should be a few things have seemed to stand out. Alberti wrote that a man/person should never have a spare moment. Each person should be busy and always understand everything that goes on around himself. A "perfect" person knows how to do all aspects of life, and not only does he know how to do each thing, he does it. Lazy and "free time" were not part of the language.
Castiglione was more specific. He stated that each individual should find what he is good at, or what is right for him to learn, and to not only learn but fully embrace that task and that is what the perfect person should be. It is not learn all as fast as you can, but be specefic and see what is around and use that as part of the life. Spare time is embraced with a view of happiness instead of a pain.
Machiavelli knew that a perfect leader is one that is feared, but also loved. If there was a choice to be made, it was fear first. It was as if it was better to be a non-human type person if you were to be leader of a country. Don't trust anyone, and know everything. If an assignment is handed to another person because the leader does not know how to do something, or handle something, than a bit of fear and trust is gone from the people under rule.
A renaissance person was to know everything, or at least about everything, and then according to Castiglione they were to chose one specefic subject they were good at. It seems kind of confusing as to what the real renaissance person was, because almost everyone had a different view as to what it should have been.