The Fallibility of Humanism Free Essay Example

During the Renaissance, a term that would now be an anachronism in context was used and proliferated as a way of thinking, believing, and examining one’s self and world in strikingly different ways. This ideology, coined as ‘humanism’, was a way of viewing the world through a pseudo-superior paradigm. Fundamentally, it was a belief in the power and, essentially, the divinity and ultimate dignity of man within the universe and his superiority to all of his surroundings. A piece written by the philosopher Pico entitled The Dignity of Man outlines and explores this ideology in some explicit detail, giving the reader a good idea of what the notion of ‘humanism’ encompasses.

To begin with, Pico suggests that man is the “maker and molder” of himself. He explores this idea further by saying, “Thou, constrained by no limits, in accordance with your own free will…shall ordain for thyself the limits of thy nature…thou mayest fashion thyself in whatever shape thou shalt prefer (225).

” Here, Pico ostensibly portrays man as superior to all others due to the fact that man has the power of free-will, as opposed to any other species. This is what shapes man into the ‘maker and molder’ of himself: he is only constrained by the limits of his own nature and can become whatever he chooses. Man is, in fact, so splendid and powerful he may do whatever he wishes. Thus, he should be bowed to and absolutely admired for his ‘self-transforming nature.’ There are, however, many complications to this concept.

Within the idea of humanism, many assumptions are made regarding the tendency of man to make ‘good’ choices, the importance of ‘self fashioning’ as an intricate part of human dignity, and the simple capacity of man to be a free-willed individual. The humanist philosophy places an amazing amount of weight on something as fallible as the ‘goodness’ of man. As well as this, it ignores the social and cultural point inherent in human beings to stay in tribes…to conform. Furthermore, humanism also forgets that man needs law. Specific law and order is needed for man to function in a society. Many works of literature written around the time work to explore this ideal further, complicating the concept by outlining and edifying the three cultural flaws intrinsic within the humanist philosophy. Two such works are: The Utopia by Sir Thomas Moore and Arden of Faversham by Edward White. Each of these works gives a contrasting view on ‘the dignity of man’ and his role in being able to ‘self-transform’ his destiny.

In Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, Pico’s ideals and ideas about potential to fashion one’s self and the grandiose majesty of man are explored through a more complex construct that culturally points out the seeds of doubt and contradiction that are, in fact, somewhat implicit within Pico’s doctrine. More takes the idea of humanism to a slightly new level, as he uses it as a foundation for building the ‘perfect’ society as described by Hythloday.

In Book I, we meet the character Hythloday as he is returning from a great journey where he saw a superficially perfect society at work in Utopia. Over the course of this first book, we see Hythloday personifying the flaws that could be seen as implicit in all humans as he shows himself contradictorily unwilling to sacrifice something for the greater good of society. This, already, helps to edify the flaws that are implicit in the humanist philosophy as it places an incredible emphasis on the ‘goodness’ of man and individualism. In the following example, Hythloday is being completely idiosyncratic about diplomacy and winds up doing no good for society and just himself again showing how unrealistic a fully functional humanist society is. The reader sees Hythloday express that he and his worldly knowledge of great and functional diplomacy would be of great use to a King’s court, but fears he would not be accepted into such a construct and instead be ostracized. He then gives an anecdote that does not validate his opinion, but in turn, contradicts him.

Next, he goes on to profess that he’d never work with any kind of government anyway because it would mean sacrificing some of his own personal beliefs about lies and duplicity. Hythloday not wanting to give up any of himself for the greater good shows another, perpetual major contradiction that is inherent in the text. Hythloday’s character, here, is exemplifying a specific flaw in mankind that is completely ironic. The main proponent and only witness of the Utopia in the book that only prospers because all of its citizens sacrifice something for the greater good of society, Hytholoday, is still unwilling to compromise his personal values for the greater good. Not only does this put an interesting spin on Utopia itself, but when applied to the idea of humanism, it complicates the concept by questioning the ability of humans to be ‘self-fashioning’ as we learn that the only fully functional, ‘perfect’ society in existence is run by extremely strict rules, a code of tremendous sacrifice and is very anti-individualism. Although all these things work in order in Utopia it helps to edify the three basic, cultural needs of a human civilization. It exemplifies man’s need for law, the non-essential ‘goodness’ of man and man’s tendency towards conformity. Those three constructs of a realistic human society edify the faults of the humanist philosophy.

In Book II of Utopia we see the actual description of the Utopia that Hythloday has visited. In Utopia, everything runs in perfect working order and under an extremely strict schedule of activities. In ‘leisure time,’ it is acceptable for a person to choose from a few dictated options that could constitute some choice, but are very restricted. The range of choice in Utopia leaves no room for any real expression. Fine arts are completely vacant in Utopia. The culture is based on work and concrete life and is altogether not very free at all, but it works. On page 76 of the text, a method for keeping citizens in line is described. It is believed, in Utopia, that the dead are always present – always around you – watching you – judging you. You are always being watched and controlled by a seeming fear of freedom, a fear and a belief.

These ideas of Utopia are very symbolic and certainly complicate the idea of humanism. More seems to be stating that in order to have any kind of perfectly run society, man can’t be allowed any freedom, or free-will. He is thus implying that expression must be exhumed and/or controlled by certain laws or there could be so much fluctuation that the society would be in total chaos. This is definitely a bit extreme, but it works to present the point that elucidates the flaws within the humanist philosophy. Human being’s natural, societal tendency is to stay in packs, in tribes, to conform. The humanist philosophy bases itself on extreme individualism but the groups of humanists, ironically enough, are all just conforming to an alternate philosophy. The humanist philosophy also puts far too much reliance on seeming good faith. It not only allows all people to base their life on complete idiosyncrasy but it encourages it which is putting all of the weight of a system on something as fallible as the ‘goodness’ of man. Reality will always be a place filled with ambiguity and imperfections because not everyone makes ‘good’ choices.

Here, Book 1 represents reality whereas II does represent a specific Utopia. At the end, as Hythloday is symbolically moved back into reality, a utopia is shown to be impossible without some kind of meshing, amalgamation, or compromise between reality and an imperfect fantasy, ultimately complicating the humanist ideal.

Another work that edifies the flaws of humanism is a play written and published by Edward White, a play based on a true to life event: a murder. Edward White’s Arden of Faversham shows the ultimate duplicity in people and events as it accurately re-tells a true story while giving multiple cultural views of society and reality.

The play’s catalyst for disaster is the event that usually works to symbolize stabilization in renaissance literature: marriage. In Whites work, the marriage between Alice and Arden works towards de-stabilizing the social structure and society around them. This is a play about the fallibility of man. From the very beginning, there is tension between Arden and Alice. Alice is in love with another man, Moseby, and they are plotting to kill Arden because he keeps getting in their way. Alice, metaphorically, doesn’t want to be governed by anyone. She is lying to Arden about their love and may wind up having Moseby killed as well because she is a very free individual. In this play, Alice alone helps to enumerate the flaws in the humanist philosophy.

Alice lives in a society essentially based on reality. We view Alice as a humanist due to her intense individualism in thought and action. She exercises her free-will at every turn and she winds up dead. In this society, we basically see what happens in a mini-humanistic experiment within the life of Alice and Arden where there are seemingly no rules and no laws. Here, free-will runs awry. Almost all of the characters in this play are incredibly duplicitous in one way or another and they are all easily duped into conforming to Alice’s plan to murder her husband. Blackwill and Shakebag both make the ‘choice’ to lend their services to Alice and Moseby for a price to attempt to kill Arden. Michael and Greene both join in and conform for different reasons in the plan to try and murder Arden. These characters’ actions completely exemplify the fallibility of man in society. They all easily conform and the humanist assumption that incredibly idiosyncratic free-will will lead to ‘good’ choices is defeated.

The most powerful argument about the events of the society within this play is simply that it is based on a real event. This is a dramatic reenactment of a true story. Not only does this play completely outline and highlight the fallibility of the ‘goodness’ of man, but it also points out the necessity for law in a functional society. Eventually, the bad news bears do wind up killing Arden and they are almost immediately captured. Everyone involved, even the most insignificantly involved, is either killed or imprisoned. This works as a metaphor for a greater moralistic kind of punishment and also the re-ordering of society as it is seems to be proven that in the world of man, there is an insatiable need for law and order. Arden of Faversham also brings to light what happens when you purposefully step out of a social construct (Alice), as well as the consequences of man’s tendency to conform in action (Moseby, Michael) and the overall fallibility of man in making holistically good choices, overall edifying the blatant flaws within Pico’s humanist philosophy of man.

The humanist philosophy in general is an incredibly egocentric, idealistic idea in which its flaws are powerfully exacerbated in the culture of everyday reality. Even within Pico’s own piece, The Dignity of Man, there are essential seeds of doubt and contradiction. There is a section of the text where Pico, without mincing words, describes man as ‘divine’ and uses many archaic symbols of religion and Christianity to exemplify his point. This text, without making a direct claim, is intrinsically blasphemous. The work seemingly deifies man to a point where he is better than God, which in reality, is absolutely un-realistic and prepares all followers for a downfall. This flaw, as well as the ‘good choices’ flaw, work together within the piece to plant seeds of doubt in the reader’s mind as to whether or not humanism is truly a feasible school of thought. After reading Pico’s humanist philosophy, seeing the contradiction within his own doctrine, and internalizing its flaws exemplified within different cultural contexts in More’s Utopia and White’s Arden of Faversham, the popularity of this ideal is surprising. The ideology is admittedly logical considering the time in which it was proliferated-science then dictated that Earth, that man himself, was the true center of the universe. Thus, as art mimics science and science roves ever-toward self-glorification, the humanist philosophy placed man on an indefensible pedestal. Humanism is a wonderfully idealistic, yet inexcusably egocentric philosophy, for it condones the basic cultural needs of man’s functioning society.