Renaissance [rəˈneɪsəns] philosophy
That of the West during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Renaissance cannot match [mæʧ] the medieval and modern periods for the originality [əˌrɪʤɪˈnælɪti] and influence of its philosophical ideas. For the most part it was concerned with the elaboration of systems of thought originating [əˈrɪʤɪneɪtɪŋ] in the classical [ˈklæsɪkəl] period. The main sources of philosophical inspiration [ˌɪnspəˈreɪʃən] were Plato and Aristotle, and although the tradition of scholasticism [skəˈlæstɪsɪzm] was maintained [meɪnˈteɪnd] by figures such as Cajetan [ˈkædʒətən] and Francisco Suarez [frænˈsisko svˈarəz], most Renaissance writers regarded the medievals [ˌmɛdɪˈiːvəlz] as idle [ˈaɪdl] sophisters [ˈsɒfɪstəz] writing a Latin that appeared barbaric [bɑːˈbærɪk] by comparison [kəmˈpærɪsn] with the courtly [ˈkɔːtli] version [ˈvɜːʃən] contrived [kənˈtraɪvd] by Cicero [ˈsɪsərəʊ]. Throughout the Renaissance, works by classical philosophers were retranslated [ˌriːtrænsˈleɪtɪd] and new commentaries [ˈkɒməntəriz] were produced. This led to the establishment of revivalist [rɪˈvaɪvəlɪst] schools, the most important of which was the Neoplatonic [ˈniːəʊpləˈtɒnɪk] academy in Florence [ˈflɒrəns] founded by Ficino [fiˈsiːnəu]. The Renaissance was immensely [ɪˈmɛnsli] receptive [rɪˈsɛptɪv] to occult [ˈɒkʌlt] and secret [ˈsiːkrɪt] lore [lɔː] of all kinds, especially if it claimed to come from the most ancient times and to incorporate [ɪnˈkɔːpəreɪt] the wisdom of the Egyptians [ɪˈʤɪpʃənz], Chaldeans, [kælˈdi(ː)ənz] and Hebrews [ˈhiːbruːz].
The principal concerns of Renaissance writers
The principal [ˈprɪnsəpəl] concerns of Renaissance writers were philosophy of nature (embracing [ɪmˈbreɪsɪŋ] science, occultism [ˈɒkəltɪzm], and metaphysics), psychology [saɪˈkɒləʤi] (including theory of knowledge), and moral [ˈmɒrəl] and political philosophy—one of the main contributions [ˌkɒntrɪˈbjuːʃənz] to which was the employment [ɪmˈplɔɪmənt] of fables [ˈfeɪblz] of golden ages [ˈeɪʤɪz], past and future, in order to retrieve [rɪˈtriːv] and refashion [ˌriːˈfæʃən] personal and social virtues [ˈvɜːtjuːz] associated [əˈsəʊʃɪeɪtɪd] with antiquity [ænˈtɪkwɪti].
Renaissance philosophers and humanist [ˈhjuːmənɪst] thinkers
Arguably [ˈɑːgjʊəbli] the first major Renaissance philosopher was Nicholas of Cusa [ˈnikolas ov ˈkju:za] and the last was Francisco Suarez [frænˈsisko svˈarəz]. Other important figures [ˈfɪgəz] include Marsilio Ficino [ˈmasiːljo fiˈsiːnəu], Pietro Pomponazzi [ˈpjətrə] [ˌpompoˈnazi], Giovanni Pico della Mirandola [dʒoˈvanni ˈpiko della miˈrandola], Cajetan [ˈkædʒətən], Giordano Bruno [dʒorˈdano ˈbruno], and Tommaso Campanella [tomˈmazo kampaˈnɛlla]. During the same period lived several important writers, such as Desiderius Erasmus [ˌdɛzɪˈdɪəriəs ɪˈræzməs], Niccolò Machiavelli [ˈnikolɔ makjaˈvɛli], and Thomas More [ˈtɒməs] [mɔː], who though not philosophers were influential humanist thinkers.
The seventeenth-century rationalists
The term is used to pick out a number of seventeenth-century philosophers, the chief of whom were Descartes [ˈdeɪˌkɑːt], Spinoza [bəˈruːk spɪˈnoʊzə] and Leibniz [ˈlaɪbnɪts], though Nicolas Malebranche[ˈnikɔlɑ ˈmalbra:ʃ] and the Flemish [ˈflɛmɪʃ] philosopher Geulincx [ˈhøːlɪŋks] are also included. Now, it must be admitted that none of these ever called himself a rationalist, nor can they be said to have constituted [ˈkɒnstɪtjuːtɪd] a school, in the sense of a group of people who saw themselves as separated [ˈsɛpəreɪtɪd] from others by virtue [ˈvɜːtjuː] of their adherence [ədˈhɪərəns] to certain shared [ʃeəd] principles. Spinoza criticized [ˈkrɪtɪsaɪzd] Descartes, Malebranche criticized Spinoza, and Leibniz criticized Descartes, Spinoza and Malebranche. Again, those who regard these philosophers as a group often contrast [kənˈtrɑːst] them with the ‘British empiricists’ [ɛmˈpɪrɪsɪsts], namely Locke [lɒk], Berkeley [ˈbɑːrklɪ] and Hume [ˈhjuːm]. Yet Locke’s use of the important term ‘idea’ owed [əʊd] something to Descartes, and Malebranche influenced both Berkeley and Hume.
Basic views in common
Despite all this, the philosophers who are commonly called the seventeenth-century rationalists did have a number of basic views in common. All agreed that it is possible to get to know the nature of reality simply by means of a priori [ˌeɪpraɪˈɔːraɪ] reasoning; [ˈriːznɪŋ] that is, that we can get to know by means of the reason [ˈriːzn], without any appeal to the senses, truths about reality that are necessary truths. Professor [prəˈfɛsə] Emeritus [i(ː)ˈmɛrɪtəs] of Philosophy at the University of Reading [ˈrɛdɪŋ] G.H.R.Parkinson wrote that it is these points of resemblance[rɪˈzɛmbləns], above all, that the term ‘rationalist’ picks out.
The time-span of the movement
The time-span of the movement is well enough indicated by the name given to it. Its first public manifestation was in Descartes’s Discourse [ˈdɪskɔːs] on Method, published in 1637; it ended in 1716, the year in which Leibniz—still philosophically active—died.
SOURCES
Oxford Companion to Philosophy / ed. by T. Honderich. Oxford University Press, 1995.
The Renaissance and Seventeenth-century Rationalism. Routledge History of Philosophy Volume IV / ed. by G.H.R.Parkinson. – London, Routledge, 1993.