Poor Erasmus. After his death, Erasmus was considered by Catholics to be an moderate figure and an advocate of reform within the Church. Some years later, he was viewed by the church as a near-heretic, and his writings were banned and suppressed because he was said to have "laid the egg that hatched the Reformation." Similarly, after Erasmus' death Protestants recognized the work Erasmus did to support the ideals of the Reformation. Later, they became disenchanted with Erasmus' critiques of Luther and the aims of the Reformation.
Perhaps this is the lot of the humanist. Religion is, after all, a supernatural pursuit, and it may always call upon supernatural "proof" in its arguments. This gives religion a sort of trump card that rhetoric does not possess. Religious arguments don't have to be logical and reasoned, they don't have to stand up to examination and the dialectic process. Humanism asserts that Truth is found through human pursuits, especially the application of reason. But there are no trump cards. The conclusions of humanists are tenuous, and understood to be changeable if new information comes to light. This is how it was possible for Erasmus to both support and criticize the Church, Luther, and the Reformation - thereby making an enemy of everyone.
Well done, Prince of Humanists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I understand that Erasmus was a great argumenter, but I'm not really sure why. I learned how to argue both sides of an argument in collge and it never really made sense to me. If I feel passionately about a subject I definately don't want to argue the point of the other side. It seems to me (and I could very well be wrong) that he rarely chooses a position. I think he was criticized so much because no one understood that he was using ironic and sarcasm. Even still, The way Conley made it sound was that his arguments could go either way. I say pick a side and stay with it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for summary of what happened to Erasmus. Interesting. As per religion, I see your point. Religous truth is based on writings supposedly influenced from God so it's hard to hold it to human truth. But I disagree that religious argument don't have to be logical. Perhaps they don't in humanist terms, but they still must follow some sort of logic as set up by whatever religous topic they are commenting on. It would seem to me that some sort of logic has to be follwed for the arguments to make any sense in relation to the respective religion. They all have rules.
ReplyDeleteThere is no better way to refute an argument than to argue both sides, find their weaknesses, and capitalize on them. I loved Erasmus and also found it disappointing that his writing was in and out of popularity as it was.
ReplyDeleteIF we are to be good arguers then we need to be able to argue both sides of a topic. It makes our stance stronger and makes us stronger rhetors.
While the text does point to Erasmus as a moderating figure, often taking a middle position or leaving his arguments open ended for his reader (he is the one who believes in free will after all). However, questioning the value of learning to argue both sides of an issue because of your passionate stance on one side or the other is dangerous. The intellectually honest thing to do (now how often do we all do what's best? There's a bunch of fingers pointing back at me here as I say this) is to learn both sides of an issue before taking sides. Especially if we feel passionate about it.
ReplyDeleteIf we are ever to move beyond shouting labels at each other in the public sphere it will be because of an increased ability to see both sides of an issue and to avoid painting those who disagree with us as evil or deranged.