A Contrasting Analysis on the Theme of Reasoning in Pico della Mirandola's "Oration on the Dignity of Man" and Michel Eyquem de Montaigne's "Apology for Raimond Sebond"
This philosophical study will provide a contrast analysis on the theme of reasoning in Mirandola’s "Oration on the Dignity of Man” and Montaigne’s “Apology for Raimond Sebond.” Mirandola’s essay defines how God’s omnipotence provides human beings with free will and the powers of reasoning. This Neoplatonic perspective defines how human philosophers have the ability to ascend into an angelic state of mind, which makes them more “god-like” in this type of ascendancy. In contrast to this view, Montaigne retains the power of reasoning as being between human beings and animals as …show more content…
In contrast to this, Montaigne defines the skeptical view that human beings do not possess a superior rationality than animals, which refutes the theological premise of Mirandola's s humanism. Mirandola’s concept of free will is the humanistic view of Adam’s fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, which appears to provide highly subjective arguments a human beings unique capacity to choose between rationality and the intellect of a “lower animal.” Montaigne refutes this position by skeptically arguing against the absolutism and perfection of human reasoning, which is highly fallible in and unto itself. More so, Montaigne believes that human beings should not arrogantly place themselves above lower animals, since there is little evidence that either of God’s creations are of lesser or greater value in the natural world. In essence, these are the contrasting views of Mirandola and Montaigne that define the different views of Neoplatonism/Humanism and the skeptical perspective in the 15th and 16th
This philosophical study will provide a contrast analysis on the theme of reasoning in Mirandola’s "Oration on the Dignity of Man” and Montaigne’s “Apology for Raimond Sebond.” Mirandola’s essay defines how God’s omnipotence provides human beings with free will and the powers of reasoning. This Neoplatonic perspective defines how human philosophers have the ability to ascend into an angelic state of mind, which makes them more “god-like” in this type of ascendancy. In contrast to this view, Montaigne retains the power of reasoning as being between human beings and animals as …show more content…
In contrast to this, Montaigne defines the skeptical view that human beings do not possess a superior rationality than animals, which refutes the theological premise of Mirandola's s humanism. Mirandola’s concept of free will is the humanistic view of Adam’s fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, which appears to provide highly subjective arguments a human beings unique capacity to choose between rationality and the intellect of a “lower animal.” Montaigne refutes this position by skeptically arguing against the absolutism and perfection of human reasoning, which is highly fallible in and unto itself. More so, Montaigne believes that human beings should not arrogantly place themselves above lower animals, since there is little evidence that either of God’s creations are of lesser or greater value in the natural world. In essence, these are the contrasting views of Mirandola and Montaigne that define the different views of Neoplatonism/Humanism and the skeptical perspective in the 15th and 16th