Am I a Renaissance Humanist?

Beliefs of Humanists

To start, I have rated “Control Own Life, Achieve Greatness” and “Education” as the two beliefs I agree with the most. Humanists believed that they could take control of anything in their lives and not be constrained by religious beliefs and so-called rules. I agree with this belief that Humanists had because nowadays, in the modern world, people always seek freedom to do whatever they like or enjoy, but in the meantime, not get bothered by any external factors or beliefs that are rigid and strict. For example, I usually obtain the right to decide what I want to do, like trying out for a sport, reading different books, etc. I could imagine how people lived under strict laws and rules before Humanism appeared when religious ideas sometimes restricted one’s actions.

I also agree with the importance of education because it could ultimately decide a person/society’s future and influence. Humanists took responsibility for their own lives and enjoyed being part of discoveries, seeking new knowledge, etc. Multiple famous figures were also brought up to realize the importance of education and gathered texts from all over Europe. By doing this, they have promoted art, languages, architecture, government, anatomy, etc., which has affected the education route. I believe education could make people more open-minded about situations, gain practical knowledge in future years, and possibly influence others.

I have rated a four (agree) on “Focusing on individual achievements over social class” and “Renewing classical texts/arts/ideas.” I believe people should be valued and graded on their achievements rather than their given social class at birth. Social classes shouldn’t be the frame of a person’s inner wealth and intelligence. What a person contributes positively to the society or their potential and power should be more critical.

Renewing classical works is also important to me because by improving on old classical texts, more modern ideas could be added to them, and people would see the contrast and difference within them, possibly combining ancient and modern ideas to create the best and definitive texts and theories that could influence the society better. For example, there might be a theory in the past about how governments should work. However, some ideas in that theory might be outdated and could not be accomplished within the setting now. Thus people could renew this theory, possibly keep a little of the core idea, and propose more information about how modern governments work.

Last but not least, the changes in government. The humanists separated the state and church, thus creating more chances to invite modern thinking about government and politics. I feel this is crucial because if people didn’t do this, it might take a while for modern thinking to appear in governments, which could have considerably changed the history of Humanism.

Overall, I agree with most ideas that humanists have believed. And this is why I gave myself the percentage of 99% humanist.

 

Mary had a Bloody Lamb…

Lamb To the Slaughter

 

“Lamb to the Slaughter” by Roald Dahl

I created this found poem by the actions of Mary, the protagonist (and possibly an antagonist because she killed her husband), in the story “Lamb to the Slaughter”. In the story, A challenge was exposed to Mary: her husband, shown slanting to the protagonist in the story, comes home after a busy day of work and acts odd by refusing all the proposes Mary makes; then, he announces that he will be leaving Mary because of some personal affairs. Mary is pregnant and has to care for an unborn baby by herself daily. Thus, Mary isn’t satisfied with this announcement because she does not want her husband to leave her, and here she encounters an external conflict between her and her husband. 

This conflict is shown in Paragraph 30: “And he told her. It didn’t take long, four or five minutes at most, and she sat very still through it all, watching him with a kind of dazed horror as he went further and further away from her with each word. This is also the rising action leading up to the conflict.

Paragraph 35: “Her first instinct was not to believe any of it, to reject it all. It occurred to her that perhaps he hadn’t even spoken, that she had imagined the whole thing…When she walked across the room she couldn’t feel her feet touching the Floor. She couldn’t feel anything at all — except slight nausea and a desire to vomit.” At this point, Mary has eventually decided to kill her husband, using a Leg of a lamb. Maybe this is the only way that Mary could keep her husband staying with her forever. (creepy)

After Mary has killed her husband, another internal conflict emerges. “It was extraordinary, now, how clear her mind became all of a sudden. She began thinking very fast. As the wife of a detective, she knew quite well what the penalty would be. That was fine. It made no difference to her. It would be a relief.”

On the other hand, what about the child? What were the laws about murderers with unborn children? Did they kill them both — mother and child? Or did they wait until the tenth month? What did they do? Mary Maloney didn’t know. And she certainly wasn’t prepared to take a chance.” As Mary killed her husband, there were two opposing forces inside Mary. One is to let the detectives and cops find out or try to obscure the weapon, fake everything, and act innocent. Mary was relaxed and didn’t worry much about getting caught, but thinking of the unborn baby inside Mary, she decided to act it all out. 

The artwork in my found poem could be easily understood. It shows the leg of a lamb, which portrays the wrong side of humanity and the potential selfishness, while the hand with scars reflects us humans being hurt, again and again, being forced to do something that we didn’t wish to at first. 

This shows both the virtuous and evil sides of humanity. Being selfish negatively affects things to bring benefits to oneself, and the importance of love and the motivation it grants to persevere.