Talk:Erasmus

From Theopedia

I'm curious to see how you define "humanist" in the context of Erasmus? -David 12:14, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Do you believe he wasn't a humanist? Or are you more interested in the potential definition in the context of the Reformation? JordanBarrett (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2006 (EST)

I think Erasmus was humanist in the sense that he was involved in the revival of liberal arts (much like Gomarus said). -David 22:18, 25 February 2006 (EST)

Doesn't it simply mean that he went "to the sources"? I see this as distinct from humanism, popularly understood. -Aaronshaf 12:50, 24 February 2006 (EST)

"Humanist" is a term found in numerous sources describing Erasmus. For reference, "Renaissance humanism" was a broad movement that affected the social, cultural, literary and political landscapes of Europe. Beginning in Florence in the last decades of the 14th century, renaissance humanism revived the study of the Latin and Greek languages; and caused the resultant revival of the studies of science, philosophy, art and poetry of classical antiquity. It is this sense that is in view with Erasmus. While today humanism is often associated with secularism and atheism, it is not antithetical to religion per se. Liberal Christianity is generally humanistic. Gomarus 12:51, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Thanks for the clarification. From my Western Civ. course (non-Christian, but fair in treatment of it), I gathered that Erasmus was "humanist" because he believed in advancement of the sciences and technology, etc...instead of confining studies to theological and scholastic enterprises. In modern terms, I think he'd be...progressive. :) -David 22:18, 25 February 2006 (EST)