For this first assignment Cathy (I feel admittedly awkward calling Dr. Adkins that, but perhaps it shall roll smoothly off my tongue by the end of five weeks time) has suggested we "post about your intellectual curiosity, whether or not you think you are a 'Renaissance man or woman,' which Renaissance persons you already know you would 'friend,' etc." In terms of my curiosity of Italy, I took Latin to fulfill my foreign language requirements in High school and as a result have been enthralled with much of the Italian legacy for a good many years (insert a shout out to Mr. Peacock and Magistra Alba). Capri, Herculaneum and Pompeii are calling my name in such a loud voice that I can barely resist their luxurious accents in beckoning! In short, the Amalfi Coast is a place I can scarcely resist attending while in Italia. I would also love to see the leaning tower of Pisa as well as Venice, but neither of those locales take primacy over the Amalfi trip. By the way, a trip to Rome and Florence is already included so that goes without saying. God knows I can't visit everywhere in Italy and still have money to eat! Ha.
That concept of knowing all I can about Italy, is something close to what Alex Petrov, the Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Ohio, argues is close to the concept of a Renaissance man: "The term Renaissance man suggests a person, either a man or a woman, of many accomplishments. A Renaissance man is neither an expert nor a specialist. He or she knows more than just a little about 'everything' instead of knowing 'everything' about a small part of the entire spectrum of modern knowledge." In this sense, the liberal arts education is truly establishing me as a Renaissance man, in that I am learning just enough about a great multitude of subjects. But in the same breath, I "know" a lot more about theology and philosophy than I do about most other topics. (I say "know" because I am somewhat sceptical as to how certain our knowledge can be). But am I a Renaissance man? Petrov argues that it is a futile effort, in that "The term is essentially ironic, for it is universally believed that no one really can be a Renaissance man in the true meaning of the term, since knowledge has become so complex that no human mind is capable of grasping all, or even a large part, of it." The idea that just because our society has developed technologies or has a better grasp of science is a fool's folly. Ultimately this depends on your understanding of knowledge in general, how is it attainable, what is knowledge, and finally am I even an appropriate judge of this? I think our grasp of intellect is tenuous as best (pardon my epistemological aside here) but I cannot adopt a non-functioning, debilitating sort of scepticism. No I think warranted verifiable belief works well enough for me to establish a definition of knowledge (sorry Socrates!) So in that sense I think I have dabbled enough in a good many areas to have my wvb definition of knowledge sufficiently fulfilled to meet Renaissance man requirements. What ranks am I joining then on this list of Renaissance men? The only individual that comes immediately to mind is Leonardo from Venice (da Vinci) a man known for his grand dabbling in theology, art, and the beginnings of science. I would certainly friend him, if it weren't for my extreme oppositions to facebook on the whole. I hope to learn more of the main actors of the Renaissance and broaden my knowledge to better fill their shoes!
No comments:
Post a Comment