I think that Renaissance humanist philosophy is often

misunderstood; and this mistake matters to me because I favor a revival

of the real methods of the humanists. The standard view is that Renaissance

humanists taught original doctrines, especially the "dignity

of man" that was the theme of Marsilio

Ficino‘s famous oration. They are thought to be "humanists"

because they believed in the centrality of human beings as opposed to

God.

In fact, Ficino was neither original (in the context of medieval thought)

nor especially influential. But Renaissance humanism did introduce a

revolutionary change. Medieval scholastic philosophy had involved a

particular style of writing. In the Middle Ages, philosophical works

were third-person treatises: systematic, abstract, theoretical, and

very logically sophisticated compared to anything written in the Renaissance.

They included concrete examples, but always extracted from their original

contexts to support abstract points. In contrast, Renaissance humanists

meant by "philosophy" the dialogues, speeches, and moralistic

biographies of ancient times, especially those written by Plato, Cicero,

Seneca, and Plurarch. Plot and character featured prominently in these

works. Humanist readers were mainly interested in philosophers (such

as as Socrates or Diogenes) as role models, as men who had demonstrated

virtues and eloquence in specific situations. The works they enjoyed

were also full of irony: for example, Plato did not speak except through

Socrates, for whom he probably had complex and ambiguous feelings.

In turn, Renaissance humanists wrote, not abstract treatises, but stories

told by and about literary characters in concrete situations. Often

these works were ironic. Utopia, the Praise of Folly,

and the Prince share a surprising feature: people have argued

for centuries about whether their authors were serious or joking. Utopia

and the Praise of Folly are narrated by fictional characters,

distant from their authors. And Machiavelli wrote the Prince for

a ruler who was likely to execute him if he spoke his mind. Its real

meaning may be ironic.

Today, mainstream moral philosophy is "scholastic": sophisticated,

aiming at systematic rigor and clarity, logical, abstract, and ahistorical.

But there are also works that try to make philosophical progress by

interpreting past works in all their literary complexity, ambiguity,

and original context. I’m thinking of Alasdair McIntyre’s After

Virtue, Martha Nussbaum’s Fragility of Goodness, Bernard

Williams’ Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, and Richard

Rorty’s Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. These authors have

no common theme or message, but they treat philosophy as a particular

kind of discipline. They place it among the humanities, not

the sciences. In this respect they are "humanist" philosophers

in the Renaissance tradition.