5. All of the works of Renaissance philosophy we have studied--i.e.

, by Pico, More, Machiavelli, and Montaigne--raise the question of what human nature is like, i.e., what kind of behavior is "natural" to humankind. Though they all raise the issue, they do not necessarily agree. Compare and contrast the views found on this issue in at least two assigned texts, using specific examples to illustrate your point. You may, if you wish, write your essay in the form of a conversation or a dialogue between two or more of the authors on this topic. The written philosophical works of the Renaissance tend to raise questions about human nature and what behaviors are natural to humankind. The different philosophers of this time period each present their own perspective on how humans function based on the environment they have been placed in. Through extensive thought and analyzation, these philosophers have written pieces of work that help the reader view a different perspective of natural human behavior. These works contain Pico is a Renaissance philosopher who is often described as an optimistic humanist. His work, Oration on the Dignity of Man, is often called a manifesto because he synthesized the Genesis story. He begins by describing Gods creation of the earth and all living creatures. At the end of his creation, God left room for one more creature he thought would complete his chain. Pico explains that this was Gods one mistake. Due to this mistake, free will was presented to the new creatures of the world; humans. People could now make their own decisions and live their lives according to their own free will. Although, knowing that Pico was a philosopher of the Renaissance, lets not forget the main ideas he possessed. Pico believed in humanity, and his views were more secular than those of medieval philosophers. However, with his description of the idea on the creation of the earth, he incorporated late medieval philosophy. He believed that since people had free will, they were now able to choose to cultivate things that will enable them to be closer to God. In Picos essay Oration on the Dignity of Man he makes a statement, and I quote, who does not wonder at this chameleon that we are, which, in a nutshell, describes creatures as so wonderful. The creature is not simply the chameleon, but humans. He uses this metaphor in order to explain how these humanistic creatures are much like chameleons. He refers to them as such because Pico believes they obtain the ability to change themselves in a way that no other creature can. Because of the free will God allowed us, we are able to change ourselves from a secular-focused form to a godlier like form. Pico goes on to describe how we can make ourselves equal to Gods angels. God didnt limit us to just one idea or form, but gave humans the ability to define what they want to be like. Because of this, humans will rise to the occasion and will choose to put their desires on a lower plane and get closer to God. The examples given are a clear way to understand Picos standpoint on human nature. The kind of behavior that is natural to human kind, for people living in the Renaissance era, is in relation humanism. Putting humans materialistic needs before religious ways was natural to humans through this idea and practice of secularism. However, Pico tries to manipulate their human nature by implementing the idea of containing the power to be closer to God, and thats what makes humans such wonderful creatures. From a different perspective, Michele de Montaigne voices his opinion on the subject of human nature through one of his well-known works. Montaigne was a highly

influential writer in the late Renaissance and was known for the various essays that he wrote during his time. One of his most influential philosophical literatures is called, Of Cannibals. In this essay he tells a story that paints a good picture of his view on human nature and behavior. In Of Cannibals, Montaigne explains in detail how he learned of this New World, or Antartic France, through a man who lived in his home. This traveler had resided in the New World for about a decade, and was freely discussing with him about the culture there. Montaigne defines how humans tend to describe certain behaviors as barbaric only if the irregular behaviors are not being performed in their own nations. In other words, everything that we do in our culture is what we believe to be correct, and everything else that other nations may practice is labeled as barbaric. A person engaging in barbarism is considered natural to humankind. In his essay he states, we have no other level of truth and reason than the example and idea of the opinions and customs of the place wherein we live: there is always the perfect religion, there the perfect government, there the most exact and accomplished usage of all things. This is a perfect example of how Montaignes purpose for this essay is presented. It is humanistic to believe that the world in which one lives in is the perfect one. That people living in other nations are foreign in ways that obtain many barbarism and imperfections. But in reality, by pointing this out he captures the audience, or European reader, by making it clear that the people in the New World are just as barbaric as themselves. In fact he tries to prove a point that they should not be looking at others flaws, but rather their own. He recognizes that in the New World cannibalism was seen as an ordinary thing; but he much rather involve himself in consuming a dead mans body than horribly tormenting a person alive for their wrong doings. In other words, Montaigne believed that different cultures have different morals, which should not be arbitrated or perceived as unnatural behavior. Montaignes definition of natural human behavior is tied to the theory of cultural relativism. He believes that the word natural is a subjective term that can only be defined according to each cultures own perspective. This is why he strives to tell his audience that using the term barbaric is not effective. For example, the Europeans did not believe such a thing like cannibalism to occur in their nation, but whos to say that cannibalism is wrong for existing at all? Europeans, like many other cultures, refrain from judging their own behaviors as barbaric due to ethnocentric tendencies. This causes the outlook of a behavior that may be deemed natural to one culture, barbaric to another. As a result, cultural relativism is created which can either create dilemmas or bring about tolerance. The challenge of creating tolerance and at times dilemmas can be very controversial. It may imply that nations may build up the tolerance and the ability to accept others differences. Thus, it can create dilemmas between them, which at times lead to war. Every culture has its own set of values that have been formed over time based on the environment, experiences, and transformations it has undertaken. This being evident, it is human nature to embrace ones own culture, and perceive that of others as barbaric. To add to the contrast between the two Renaissance philosophers on the topic of natural human behavior, there are similarities. Both Pico and Montaigne bring up new ideas of how naturalistic behaviors can be altered. Pico states that humans were given free will to be able to challenge themselves in creating a closer relationship to God; meanwhile Montaigne challenges Europeans to think beyond the idea of cannibalism in

the New World as just being barbaric. These new ideas arise innovative opportunities to think beyond their cultural relativism. So putting aside these specific examples, these philosophers came up with a new form of natural human behavior. Instead of following the ordinary beliefs or norms, they created the ability to think outside of the box and actually challenge themselves to new ideas. So as weve witnessed with Renaissance philosophers across time, the kinds of behavior that is natural to human kind varies. But if the audience digs a little deeper we also notice that it fluctuates in many cases the overall message being distributes is similar, and that creates change.