27.10.2014 Views

Routledge History of Philosophy Volume IV

Routledge History of Philosophy Volume IV

Routledge History of Philosophy Volume IV

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

CHAPTER 2<br />

Renaissance philosophy outside Italy<br />

Stuart Brown<br />

Italy might justly be described as the home <strong>of</strong> Renaissance philosophy. Many <strong>of</strong><br />

the important cultural developments <strong>of</strong> the period originated in Italy and only<br />

gradually spread north and west to other countries. But each <strong>of</strong> the other major<br />

centres 1 <strong>of</strong> West European cultural activity —the German States, France, the<br />

Iberian Peninsula, England and the Low Countries—provided a distinct context<br />

for philosophical activity. Their very different political and religious histories<br />

had a more or less direct effect on the kind <strong>of</strong> philosophy that flourished in each<br />

country or region. Each, in its own way, added to what it inherited from Italy and<br />

developed what it received from elsewhere in Europe. In different ways and to<br />

varying extents, they prepared for or anticipated the transition to modern<br />

philosophy. In one way or another, Renaissance philosophy and philosophies<br />

continued to develop and flourish somewhere in Europe throughout the<br />

seventeenth century. They provided an <strong>of</strong>ten neglected part <strong>of</strong> the context for<br />

modern philosophy, both in some ways being continuous with it and in other<br />

ways shaping some <strong>of</strong> the responses to it. There are a number <strong>of</strong> philosophers,<br />

indeed, such as Gassendi and Leibniz, 2 who can fruitfully be represented as<br />

Renaissance as well as early modern philosophers.<br />

A distinguishing mark <strong>of</strong> Renaissance philosophers was their deference to the<br />

thought <strong>of</strong> the ancients. Their arguments <strong>of</strong>ten consisted in citing the support <strong>of</strong><br />

some ancient authority or the consensus <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> ancient authorities for<br />

the view they wished to advance. The tendency <strong>of</strong> modern philosophers, by<br />

contrast, was to rely on appeals to reason and experience rather than on citing<br />

authorities to advance their arguments. Some, <strong>of</strong> course, did both and the<br />

decision whether to call them modern or Renaissance philosophers might<br />

depend on whether their arguments turned more on one kind <strong>of</strong> appeal than the<br />

other.<br />

Renaissance philosophy needs also to be distinguished from the earlier style <strong>of</strong><br />

scholastic philosophy. And Renaissance philosophy, at least originally, was in<br />

part a reaction against the philosophy <strong>of</strong> the academic and ecclesiastical world. A<br />

reliance on authority was also a feature <strong>of</strong> scholastic philosophy, though it is in<br />

some ways more difficult to locate. The scholastics relied on a tradition <strong>of</strong><br />

interpreting Aristotle in which appeals to reason, tradition and the word <strong>of</strong> ‘the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!