I was reading a fellow student's blog on the intellectual revolution and she posed a question about how intelligent it would be to compare our own technological explosion to the renaissance.  It's sort of interesting to think about.  To many of us now to live without computers and television and all of our little convinces would seem overly simplistic and in some cases barbaric.  I'm sure it was feelings like that that spawned the great awakening in the minds of early philosophers.  It's interesting to see that at some point, the human mind started to grasp exactly what it was we could accomplish, and look how much we've done!  Form morals, to politics and religion, to the way society interacts, we've completely overhauled our lives in the last 600 years.  

I thought it was neat how the author used the words "new human identity" to describe the thought process that went into the shifting of mass thought.  The idea of replacing the old line of thinking with a new, updated, better way of thinking truly pleases me, i feel like our own society has undergone it's own sort of shift in the human identity with the election of an african american president, and with approving the rights to gay marriage.  (i understand that the right to gay marriage was taken away, but i feel like at this point, it is a matter of months before prop 8 is overturned and homosexuals are given back their rights, i'm optimistic.  it is almost ridiculous to think that at this point in our society people are just going to lay back and accept being denied their basic rights. this is why i compare the two.)   

ANYWAY, i thoroughly enjoyed reading about the intellectual change that took place in society, i hope that human beings at as a whole wont stop evolving in this manner.  

The Renaissance-weekly post

I thoroughly enjoy the idea of modern artists trying to improve upon the past.  It seems that in art, there is the original, and the basic, and the first, and all we can do as artists is try and make the past into something different, but still relevant.  In art classes i always wondered who it was that discovered various mediums for art.  Take the oil paintings of flemmish artists, it was adopted by the italians and is still used today.  I'm still fascinated by the fact the the society we have now, art, religion, politics, are all affected by the past, and the foundation that was laid thousands of years ago. 

The experimentation with depth and lines and all the things that makes paintings beautiful also excites me.  in the art classes i've taken, they explained all the methods, i had no idea that the methods themselves were developed by italians so long ago.  

I was very pleased to read about how the artistic revolution took place. 

Over the summer i spent hours watching the Elizabeth movies and Other Boleyn Girl.  I always meant to look up the truth beyond Hollywood, but never got around to it, so i was pleased to see that we sort of cover that time period.  

These sections were some of the most interesting i read.  It seemed hard to believe that some of the events took place were real.  It seemed like a adventure story, complete with hidden alliances and kidnappings in the middle of the night.  Also, its never quite fun until there's an execution!  

I was sort of pleased at first to see the success of the radicals, but understood the disappointment the levellers felt when there was no drastic change.  That was, until, i read the section on Oliver Cromwell entering the debate with Parliament, then simply calling in his army and having them disband Parliament.  The man obviously had guts.  Imagine being able to just walk into a meeting hall and disband an institution that had been in effect for years and years.  Wow. Would've been more impressive still if he'd managed to find a parlimentary system that actually worked.  

Well, My head is just spinning trying to keep up with all the back and forth political changes.  No wonder there was so much unrest.  

Wikipedia- Martin Luther

This article is a very detailed account of the life of Martin Luther.  There are extensive amounts of resources.

1. 11,900

2. I searched Martin Luther, and turned up an article of the same name

3. Martin Luther diplomat, Martin Luther Musician, Martin Luther Film (1953)

4. There seems to be a disagreement about whether or not the page should be re-written, as it hadn't been edited for two years.  

5. Over 500, the latest revision was on November 16th 2008

6.none

7. 127

8. It gives a link to a page with hundreds of reference material 

This seems like it would be extremely helpful to anyone hoping to learn about Martin Luther.  The article itself is very long, and if you managed to read it, and were still unsatisfied, there is over 100 resources listed with links that you could explore.  Anyone researching Martin Luther should start here.  

I found myself continuously drawing comparisons between Martin Luther's Freedom of Christianity and Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail.  Obviously very different circumstances, but both wrote rather eloquently about their beliefs.  It's just my minds inability to ignore the similar names i guess, but still, sort of interesting to think about.  

I guess i've just got classic political literature on my mind.  When reading about the Levellers there were several quotes that i felt could have come straight from Emma Goldman's Anarchy and Other essays.  Goldman, in her essays tries to set the record straight against slander of the anarchists, and the Levellers do to, and they had kind of similar beliefs about the social system.  Obviously there are distinct differences in their teachings but this was once again a comparison i couldn't help but draw several times throughout reading the statement of the Levellers.  

The Schleitheim Confession was difficult for my to read for many reasons.  First and foremost i feel that my views on religion are made fairly obvious by my previous blog posts, and also the language itself can be hard to process, but it was mostly just the rules that people force themselves to follow, and the authority that some are vountarily given, that confuses me.  We see over and over again rules made by the church and the wars fought over religion, but it seems that no one realized that maybe they should just remove their religion from their politics.  still today, it plays such a big part.  

early modern europe

I was excited to start reading about the transition from medieval country, to socially and economically modern countries.  In the introduction, it states that there were major changes in education and science, as well as religion, but it seems that i may have missed the parts that did not only cover religion, if someone could point out to me where i missed those sections, it would be greatly appreciated.

The reformation- as i am urged in the reading to touch on this subject, I'd have to agree that perhaps the creation of new church was because of the failure of the catholic church.  it would be nearly impossible to create a religion that meets the needs of every single one of its members, which is probably why so many desired to branch off.  

I feel silly saying that had no idea what martin Luther was responsible for, it's interesting to find out that such a familiar name was actually the foundation for an entire religion.  The same would go for John Calvin, i had never even begun to think of how many people it took to spread religion.  And also, how religions can be so similar, but very simple little variations justify war.  

  

week 10

oh religion, how you make my mind spin.

as the cultures we've been studying have changed, i wondered where the rebellion against the church was going to come.  It made me smile that translating the text of the scriptures was illegal, and when they were translated, it was found that they were ridden with contradictions.  Yet another example of how the past corresponds to the present, authority figures were lying to keep us quiet thousands of years ago.  They still lie to cover their posteriors today.  

I found it strange the the church was irritated by the waldensians missionary procedure, it seems that the church would have wanted people to be attracted to religion.  I guess there will always be people that say, as far as religion goes, that their own beliefs are true and no variation can be accepted.  Obviously the followers of the variations were seen as heretics, but instead of causing trouble, why would the church just, use that method of teaching gospel to their advantage?

Was there ever a ruling party that wasn't in some way propelled by favors or power or greed?  Ever? Anyone?  Reading the Crises in the Medieval Church section, i couldn't help but try to recall a completely honest political party.  There sure isn't one now.