Will the Stars Control Your Destiny?

It was so great discussing the various Renaissance themes with everyone in our "salon" yesterday.  In our second group, Susan quoted Shakespeare, who said, "The stars do not control our destiny, we do." It made me question what I am proactively doing with what I am learning/have learned here at BYU. All of our knowledge depends on what we do with it. What propelled humans forward in the Renaissance was their ability to connect [and implement] everything they had learned. They didn't let the stars control their destiny. 

Take Da Vinci and Machiavelli, for example. Their ability to follow Ad Fontes gave them greater humanistic understanding. They went back (quite literally) to the sources when they explored and studied cadavers to better understand the human body. Their Ad Fontes allowed them to see "what a piece of work" man was. Martin Luther also used Ad Fontes in his persuasive appeals to his audiences. He turned to the faithful examples of the Apostles to give his followers the strength and hope they'd need in the face of such horrific opposition.

The Gutenberg press also allowed for people to implement their knowledge because the Bible was available to everyone. This giant distribution armed the masses with knowledge, or as Thomas Carlyle said, it "was disbanding hired armies, and cashiering most kings and senates, and creating a whole new democratic world."  

I suppose you could say they just allowed the reformers to decide their religion for them; were it not for reformers' sprettzatura and their ability to preach with so much emotion, people may have never converted. Did all those "normal folk" just learn to read and instantly comprehend the Bible enough to understand it and question the Catholic church on their own? I'd like to think that followers took charge of their own destiny, but it'd be hard for an impressionable follower to resist Calvin's boldness or Luther's bravery. Much harder in fact to resist Erasmus' logic.

Shakespeare did say that we control our destiny, but in whose "stars" was it to control the black plague? Maybe the stars do play some role without our permission. If it hadn't been for that deathly disease, it's quite possible the royals wouldn't have devoided the royals of their power. And if it weren't for that change in demographic, the Renaissance and Reformation wouldn't have come when they did. 

I think there are some aspects of our destiny that are out of our control, but it is true that it is up to us--not the stars--to decide what we do with what we are given. Da Vinci and Michelangelo discovered artistic techniques and scientific theories; the masses took what they had studied and decided for themselves what their religion would be. And I, I have so much knowledge yet to obtain, and I understand more clearly that it will be up to me what I do with it. 

Gutenberg the Sprezzaturist

“He who first shortened the labor of copyists by device of movable types was disbanding hired armies, and cashiering most kings and senates, and creating a whole new democratic world: he had invented the art of printing.” – Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus

In the spirit of sprezzatura, I submit that a quote discussing a major figure of the Renaissance, even if the quote comes from a novel published in 1836, is significant enough to be counted for the quote requirement. Plus, this quote, shared by Madison P during our groups on Monday, helped enlighten me to an aspect of the Renaissance that I previously hadn’t thought of before. As Petrarch said in his essay “To Homer,” “I am very eager for knowledge,” and the Carlyle quote provided me with some knowledge. 

@GutenbergHumanist

I don't know about you, but I love social media. Whether it's Facebook, Twitter, blogs, or Instagram, I love how easy it is to hear and be heard. Nowadays, social media has become a buzzword of sorts. But what would you say if I told you this buzz started over 550 years ago? Thanks to Johannes Gutenberg, the ways we spread our thoughts around in the western world have been changing more and more since 1450.

In his post “From Gutenberg to Facebook?”, Sean M. argues that Facebook (and I’ll take the liberty here of applying his argument to all forms of social media) follows the legacy of the printing press in its spread of information. I couldn’t agree more. He then goes on to discuss how the development of social media has led to both greater connection and disconnection from those around us, asking the question “What would Gutenberg think?” I however, want to focus on the question of “why has the spread of information led to greater connectedness and disconnectedness simultaneously?”