NationStates

The Parkus Empire wrote:Renaissance art began focusing on Christ as purely human. For instance, in prior art depicting the creation of Adam, Christ (who was the canonical athropomorphic rendering of God) was shown to be doing it. With the Renaissance, there comes an old guy as God who looks nothing like Christ, which makes a hard distinction between Christ and God. A new aesthetic exalting flesh and sensuality (even in Christ) becomes dominant, as opposed to prior art which stressed abstraction, asceticism and modesty.

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Renaissance art began focusing on Christ as purely human. For instance, in prior art depicting the creation of Adam, Christ (who was the canonical athropomorphic rendering of God) was shown to be doing it. With the Renaissance, there comes an old guy as God who looks nothing like Christ, which makes a hard distinction between Christ and God. A new aesthetic exalting flesh and sensuality (even in Christ) becomes dominant, as opposed to prior art which stressed abstraction, asceticism and modesty.

That was partially because Renaissance thinkers were influenced by the knowledge of the Arabs via the Crusades. They began focusing on the humanity of Christ (which, by the way, did not contradict the official position of the Roman Catholic Church), but they did not deny his divinity.

Arguably, the most left-of-center scholastic priest of the period, William of Ockham, never renounced his faith. For a time, the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated William (mostly for arguing, in contemporary terms, for a unique place for the public sphere), but that excommunication was shortly reversed.

The Parkus Empire wrote:They did not deny his divinity doctrinally, but the art effectively did.

Yeah, old subversive Ockham, the propagator of nominalism, a truly wicked teaching

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:They did not deny his divinity doctrinally, but the art effectively did.

Yeah, old subversive Ockham, the propagator of nominalism, a truly wicked teaching

How can art deny faith? That concept makes no sense to me. Some of my own poetry could be viewed, by some, as sacrilege, but I am a very religiously devout individual.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Art is expression. To say it cannot deny faith is to say expression cannot.

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Art is expression. To say it cannot deny faith is to say expression cannot.

That does not respond to my point.

The Parkus Empire wrote:You do not have a point, you asked a question.

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:You do not have a point, you asked a question.

Have you not been reading my extensive comments?

The Parkus Empire wrote:Yes, sort of like, "I practice freeloving sodomy on the weekends, yet I am strict about keeping Christian morality."

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Yes, sort of like, "I practice freeloving sodomy on the weekends, yet I am strict about keeping Christian morality."

? No, I do not engage in that practice you mentioned. No, I am not a Christian.

Kubra wrote:He is not saying you do, he is making an analogy.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Reason as paramount started in post-schism western theology, but it was not until the European Renaissance that reason became an endeavor autonomous from theology, which sparked the "Age of Reason" which culminated in a turn of reason against theology (the Enlightenment).

The New Sea Territory wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Reason as paramount started in post-schism western theology, but it was not until the European Renaissance that reason became an endeavor autonomous from theology, which sparked the "Age of Reason" which culminated in a turn of reason against theology (the Enlightenment).

This undermines the Platonic roots of the theological debate about reason, which proceeds the theological conversation all together.

I think numerous Platonic dialogues make very clear his distinction between "myth" and "reason" (muthos and logos, respectively). Socrates privileges logos over muthos in positioning philosophy against rhetoric (Gorgias), common conceptions of love (Symposium), poetry (Republic), etc....something anti-Homeric and anti-Hesiodic by nature. Socrates even says he 'loves' Homer and looks forward to talking with him in the afterlife, but after reading enough of his arguments I can't help but feel he was sarcastic, because he talks about the ideal city banishing the majority of Homeric mythology because they don't line up with logos, by which he means they depict the gods as imperfect.

Capital-R Reason might not have been explicitly stated pre-schism, but it's presence as one of the defining abstractions of western thought, even to this day in various incarnations, cannot be understated. It's origins are far older than you seem to be talking about.

The New Sea Territory wrote:On this day in 1973, Basque separatists from the ETA assassinated Franco's successor by blowing up his car on the way to mass, sending him 20 meters into the air.

Eusko Gudariak

Crysuko wrote:Good on 'em, willing to bet that went towards helping spain rise out of fascism

The New Sea Territory wrote:On this day in 1973, Basque separatists from the ETA assassinated Franco's successor by blowing up his car on the way to mass, sending him 20 meters into the air.

Eusko Gudariak

Crysuko wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:On this day in 1973, Basque separatists from the ETA assassinated Franco's successor by blowing up his car on the way to mass, sending him 20 meters into the air.

Eusko Gudariak

Good on 'em, willing to bet that went towards helping spain rise out of fascism

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:

Crysuko wrote:Good on 'em, willing to bet that went towards helping spain rise out of fascism

Antifa cannot afford to wait.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Crysuko wrote:Good on 'em, willing to bet that went towards helping spain rise out of fascism

Franco wasn't all that bad.

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:
Antifa cannot afford to wait.

They seem more eager to tip over trash cans.

Crysuko wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Franco wasn't all that bad.

They seem more eager to tip over trash cans.

he ordered the deaths of over 100,000 CNT members, he absolutly was that bad

Northern Davincia wrote:

Crysuko wrote:he ordered the deaths of over 100,000 CNT members, he absolutly was that bad

Your point being...?

Northern Davincia wrote:They seem more eager to tip over trash cans.

Crysuko wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:On this day in 1973, Basque separatists from the ETA assassinated Franco's successor by blowing up his car on the way to mass, sending him 20 meters into the air.

Eusko Gudariak

Good on 'em, willing to bet that went towards helping spain rise out of fascism

Crysuko wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Your point being...?