More nonsense from my Humanities class discussion boards…

Some programmed little student in my humanities class turned a discussion on what makes a Renaissance man into feminism, the “wage gap”, and needed to “spread the wealth” around.  The question was, “What does the phrase "Renaissance man” mean to you?  To whom might the phrase apply today?“

*SIGH*

Paraphrased straight from the class textbook:

The Renaissance period was all about the individual, what the individual human was capable of.  The Renaissance man was a man (women had their own ideals, but that doesn’t matter in today’s age) who sought to improve himself and be a warrior, an artist, a humanist, an athlete warrior, and fluent in Greek, Latin, and the vernacular.  They wanted man to be all that man was meant to be, above angels and only beneath God Himself.

Part of this, interestingly enough, was to avoid a tyrannical government.  If there was a large portion of the population (ei the merchant class), not just the ruling elite, that were intellectuals and capable fighters, then the governors would rule justly.  If they didn’t, they might have to contend with these great individuals who could sway the masses.  If the population was docile, uneducated, and didn’t cultivate a sense of individuality, then the rulers would be cruel.

This was in the text.

She didn’t read the text, or use it if she did, she just wanted to push in her agenda.

I’m so glad this class was online so I didn’t have to contend with her.