Formation of the Self-Made-Man Idea in the Worldview of the Renaissance and Reformation

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Formation of the «Self-Made-Man» Idea in the Worldview of the Renaissance and Reformation

O.M. KORKH

V.Y. ANTONOVA

University of Customs and Finance (Dnipro, Ukraine)

Анотація

О.М. КОРХ, В.Ю. АНТОНОВА, Університет митної справи та фінансів (Дніпро, Україна).

Становлення ідеї «Self-Made-Man» у світогляді Відродження та Реформації.

Мета даного дослідження полягає в осмисленні шляхів філософської легітимації ідеї «Self-made-man» у світогляді доби Відродження та Реформації.

Теоретичний базис. Основоположними для даного дослідження стали історичний, компаративний та герменевтичний методи. Дослідження базується на роботах М. Кузанського, Д. Піко делла Мірандоли, Н. Макіавеллі, М. Монтеня, Е. Роттердамського, М. Лютера, Ж. Кальвіна, а також сучасних дослідників цього періоду.

Наукова новизна. Проведений аналіз дозволяє зробити висновок, що ставить під сумнів до цього часу поширену думку, за якою виникнення ідеї «Selfmade-man» локалізоване процесом формування американського культурного коду та ідейною спадщиною Бенджаміна Франкліна. Показано, що становлення цієї ідеї є результатом тривалого процесу, що зароджується ще в античному світі та набирає особливого розмаху в добу Відродження та Реформації. Саме в культурному контексті останніх антична інтенція на визнання права індивіда на самовизначення та самоврядування, яка в надрах християнської теології набуває лише потенційно універсального характеру, стає не просто припустимою, але і, в контексті світогляду протестантизму, єдино прийнятною, фактично облігаторною життєвою настановою індивіда.

Висновки. Гуманістичні та реформаційні ідеї цілком природно привели до подальшої світоглядної легітимації ідеї людини, що створює себе сама. Ця легітимація відбувалася в ході складної взаємодії численних чинників культури Пізнього Середньовіччя, а також успадкованих від Античності ідей та інтенцій. Ключовими серед них були поступове формування нового суспільного устрою, у своїй сутності байдужого до патерналістських рудиментів, а також відповідної йому етики протестантизму. Остання не лише легалізує, але, де факто, сакралізує переорієнтацію індивіда від сподівань на синергію Божої благодаті та власної свободи волі у справі особистого спасіння до розрахунку на власні сили та особисті зусилля, усвідомлення персональної відповідальності за свою долю як ключові принципи концепту «Self-made-man».

Ключові слова: ідея «Self-made-man»; особистість, що самовизначається; світоглядна легітимація; доба Відродження та Реформації.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is the reflection on ways of philosophical legitimation for the «Self-made-man» idea in the worldview of the Renaissance and Reformation.

Theoretical basis. Historical, comparative, and hermeneutic methods became the basis for this. The study is based on the works of Nicholas of Cusa, G. Pico della Mirandola, N. Machiavelli, M. Montaigne, E. Roterodamus, M. Luther, J. Calvin together with modern researchers of this period.

Originality. The analysis allows us to come to the conclusion that casts doubt on the still widespread belief according to which the emergence of the «Self-made-man» idea is localized by the process of forming the American cultural code and the ideological heritage of Benjamin Franklin. It is highlighted that the formation of this idea is the result of a long process that originated in the ancient world and gains a special impetus in the Renaissance and Reformation. Precisely in the cultural context of the latter, the ancient intention to recognize the individual's right to self-determination and self-government, which in the depths of Christian theology acquires only a potentially universal character, becomes not only acceptable but also, in the context of Protestantism worldview, the only admissible, in fact, individual's obligatory life guidelines.

Conclusions. Humanistic and reformation thoughts quite naturally led to further ideological legitimation of the person's idea of who is creating oneself. This legitimation was during the complex interaction of numerous factors of culture in the Late Middle Ages, as well as ideas and intentions inherited from Antiquity. Key among them was the gradual formation of a new social order, in essence, indifferent to paternalistic rudiments, together with the ethics of Protestantism corresponding to it. The latter does not only legalize but, de facto, sacralizes the individual's reorientation from hopes for the synergy of God's grace and own free will in personal salvation, toward the self-reliance and personal efforts, awareness of personal responsibility for the own fate as key principles of the «Self-made-man» concept.

Keywords: «Self-made-man» idea; self-determined personality; ideological legitimacy; Renaissance and Reformation

Introduction

Prominent among the trends of the modern world is the gradual spread of a new type of man, the so-called «Self-made-man», that is, a person who has made oneself. In this regard, it is quite natural that both writers and scientists, including philosophers, pay attention to various aspects of the «Self-made-man» phenomenon. Certainly, important among the latter is the historical and philosophical analysis of this phenomenon, which allows identifying its socio-cultural origins and metamorphoses, explicating its essence, possible consequences, and historical perspectives, therefore, creating a basis for certain strategies in relation to it not only from the side of culturologists, psychologists, teachers, coaching specialists, etc., but also ordinary individuals who build their own worldview. The latter is especially relevant for societies that became on the way to modernization, including Ukraine.

One of the key issues for the actual historical and philosophical analysis of this phenomenon is the question concerning the historical origins and ways of philosophical-legal legitimation in the «Self-made-man» idea. Its relevance is connected with the still widespread, but, in our opinion, somewhat simplistic thought, according to which the origins of this idea are localized by the process of forming the American cultural code and the ideological heritage of Benjamin Franklin. In return, we believe that the formation of the «Self-made-man» idea begins far beyond the aforesaid location. Already ancient culture, despite the cross-cutting dominance of the destiny idea (logos, doom, fate, necessity, etc.), demonstrates a clear intention to at least formal recognition of the ability and right of the individual to create their own destiny. And this intention in the conditions of the Christian Middle Ages, with its characteristic theocentrism, providentialism, and fatalism, does not disappear at all, as it follows from the still widespread assessments of that time as the «Dark Ages». On the contrary, at least in the depths of Christian theology, it becomes potentially universal, after all However, this intention is perceived differently, sometimes from diametrically opposed positions in the ideological context of the Renaissance and the Reformation, from which, in fact, the modern world was born. We are talking about, in particular, the former controversy between E. Roterodamus and M. Luther concerning the relationship between the individual's free will and God's providence. Or, concerning the highly negative assessment of the individual's free will in the thoughts of Calvin. The latest example is notably illustrative that precisely Calvin's ideas were the basis of the English Reformation in general and its most radical version, Puritanism. However, the Puritans exactly are considered to be the main center of Puritan education and «ethics of Protestantism» (M. Weber) with their cruel and uncompromising orientation of the individual toward the actually sacralized own forces and personal efforts diligence, thrift, rationality, stubbornness in achieving goals, fearlessness in the face of the fate challenges, etc. Various aspects of this clearly ambiguous attitude to the problem of the relationship between the individual's free will and God's providence are comprehended in a number of modern domestic and foreign studies. Thus, in particular, R. Parkhomenko (2014, pp. 228-229), analyzing the idea of freedom in the Renaissance and the New Age, argues that the founders of Protestantism brought the idea of God's providence of late Augustine to the «logical extreme», but consistent adherence to this idea led them to contradiction associated with the need for ontological substantiation of the very fact of human activity (Bazaluk, 2020). Richard Muller also addressed this issue in his work «Grace and Freedom: William Perkins and the Early Modern Reformed Understanding of Free Choice and Divine Grace». He analyzes the problem of correlation between «free choice» and «divine sovereignty» from the viewpoint of the Reformed theologian William Perkins (late 16th early 17th centuries). Importantly, in the latest case, the Perkins' works directly influenced the formation of English Puritanism (Muller, 2020), and thereby the formation of the American cultural code in general and B. Franklin's thought in particular.

Purpose.

However, how exactly, did the transition from at least real but still rather sporadic intentions of the Middle Ages to the recognition of the synergy of God's grace and man's free will in determining own destiny, to their unexpectedly radical explication in the views of ideologues of the Renaissance and followers of the Reformation go? In this regard, the main purpose of this study is to understand the ways of philosophical legitimation of the «Self-made-man» idea in the worldview of the stated period.

Statement of basic materials

As for the historical-philosophical level of this issue, the mentioned transformation took place primarily in close connection with the subsequent philosophical and theological legitimacy of the ideas of Christian anthropocentrism and humanism, which became the typological feature of the Renaissance. Thanks to this, man increasingly was positioned rather as the most perfect embodiment of all that is inherent in him/her, including freedom than as a useless part of the Universe. The latter, in doing so, was increasingly seen not just as a condition for justifying the Almighty for the imperfections of the world, but as the main condition to achieve God by the human being and the very path to Him. Such an emphasis is clearly present in one of the greatest thinkers of the time, Nicholas of Cusa, according to whom a man is a microcosm that folds and unfolds the whole world. Thus, she/he reproduces the general essence of the divine and appears as an absolute, one and only. And since one of the defining characteristics of the divine is freedom, the Almighty not only allows but requires man to be free, that is, to belong to himself/herself and to be ourselves (Nicholas of Cusa, 1985). Freedom is in fact identified with creativity. Hence the completely natural syllogism according to which, since God is creativity (deus creatus), and man is created in his likeness, then man is creativity. A few decades later, following this syllogism, Pico della Mirandola came to the conclusion that if God created himself, then his image and likeness the men also must create themselves.

The logical consequence of the thesis, conforming to which exactly freedom and creativity, and not humility and passive contemplation brings a person closer to God, was the gradually growing conviction that the person salvation's largely depends on one's own virtues and personal activity, raised to the level of «heroic enthusiasm» (J. Bruno), to the overly self-confident and important realization that the personal mind and free will of the individual give someone the possibility to be not only an instrument of continuation of divine creation but also the creator of oneself. This idea was especially sharply and uncompromisingly expressed by the already mentioned Pico della Mirandola. In consonance with him, God did define for a man neither the boundaries nor the ways of his/her life. Therefore, he/she is doomed to independently position own place and role in the world, ways and boundaries of own activity (Pico della Mirandola, 2013).

So, on behalf of the Almighty, a person is deprived of previously unconditional dependence on his/her destiny and is endowed with the previously unthinkable privilege of «be whatever they want to be». The possibility of such a privilege is derived from a new interpretation of the relationship between divine providence and the individual's free will. In the concrete, the unconditional domination of the former is gradually limited by the more intensive introduction of the concept of fortune. In contrast to the archaically rooted fate, symbolizing the inevitable dependence of human destiny on completely external forces, the humanists' Fortune presented rather social necessity, manifesting itself through an incomparably wider range of eventualities, and thus, it created a wider range of opportunities for the individual «chances for winning». After all, Fortune is known to spin its famous wheel randomly and even blindfolded. To an even greater extent, human destiny is freed from its previously fatal beforehand certainty thanks to Machiavelli's rethinking of the concept of «virtu». Pursuant to Machiavelli, people who are helped by God must have a virtu. However, the famous Florentine essentially refuses the traditional Christian interpretation of this concept primarily as «virtue», associated with stoic humility, obedience, and hope in accepting fate. And returns to its original Greco-Roman understanding. The latter has numerous connotations, well illustrated in John Pocock's (2020, chap. 2) «The Machiavellian Moment». Nevertheless, in our opinion, its essence is best conveyed in the concept of «valor», which means above all personal courage, boldness, prudence, activity in mastering, and not just stoic acceptance of one's own destiny. Thanks to such a «deconstruction», the rather intuitive feeling is further strengthened that the person's fate depends not only on the whims of blind Fortune. In particular, from the origin of men, namely, the social status inherited by them. But also from own valor personal abilities, activity, and perseverance. So, de jure without denying the role of traditional determinants of human destiny, Machiavelli argues that their power is not unlimited and can even be calculated. He asserts in «The Prince (Il Principe)» that Fortune controls only half of our actions, while it allows us to control the other half by ourselves. After all, it is subservient to those who not only want success in achieving personal interests, but also actively, boldly, and stoutly fight for it, relying on their own minds and strengths, and not only on Divine Providence and Fortune. humanistic worldview ancient world

Humanistic innovations in understanding the problem of personal self-determination were further developed in «Experiences» by M. Montaigne. First of all, we are talking about the fact that Montaigne managed to overcome the anthropocentric euphoria of the humanist predecessors, which reached the so-called «titanism», namely, overly self-confident belief in the omnipotence of man and the boundlessness of own possibilities. From Montaigne's viewpoint, which is in tune with the postmodern paradigm, our mind is not omnipotent, since it is always limited in its claims to absolutely reliable knowledge. It is these claims that support our overconfidence and secure trust in customs and traditions. And that is why a considerable part of his «Experiences» is devoted to demonstrating that thoughtless orientation on habit and tradition is harmful and even dangerous. According to Montaigne, this danger lies, in particular, in the fact that certainly based on tradition, the individuals destroy by own hands their own ability to independent views, decisions, and actions.

To end this, it is necessary to break the fetters of tradition and become independent in one's view. Indeed, we can only be truly wise by our own wisdom (Montaigne, 2005, p. 218). Following Epicurus, the philosopher argues that self-reliance is necessary because God does not care about us. Therefore, a person, unfortunately, does not rely on anyone but oneself. One must leave all paternalistic hopes and habits and determine every step of own's life.

The possibility of such independence is based on the fact that each person, according to Montaigne, is a kind of microcosm, which has everything that is inherent in the entire human race. That is why the individual can be autonomous and guided by one's own mind. At the same time, Montaigne, long before Wilhelm von Humboldt, emphasizes that the individual's ability to personal autonomy is inseparable from his/her uniqueness and originality. A truly free individual is always unique and, conversely, originality is one of the prerequisites and forms of freedom manifestation. Hence, there is the requirement for a tolerant attitude to everything unusual and unique, to other people's customs, views, beliefs, and luck. All this is the main source of the development of another, society as a whole. Montaigne's position, therefore, is to substantiate the ideal one of an autonomous, independent of obsolete traditions and social institutions, an outstanding personality who actively defends one's own right to self-determination.

The polemics between E. Roterodamus and M. Luther apropos the ontological basis of human self-determination freedom of will had a powerful influence on the further ideas generation of personality, which is self-determined. Despite the obvious difference in the very formulation of the relevant issue reflected in the title of their major treatises on this point «On Free Will» by E. Roterodamus and De Servo Arbitrio «On the Enslaved Will» or The Bondage of Will by M. Luther, the thoughts of the great philosopher and great reformer eventually led to greater rooting in the Western cultural space of ideas expressed precisely in the «Self-made-man» concept.

Rotterdammer is based on the ideas of Italian humanism. Among them, there is the statement according to noble persons are not born, but become themselves through their own efforts. And there is the idea of the inherent value of every person who has the right to self-determination. At the same time, he does not share the prevailing opinion from the time of Augustine concerning the insurmountable weakness of man, who, seemingly, is absolutely incapable of anything without Divine help, at least a good one. He is clearly more impressed by the position of Pelagiy, in consonance with the Grace of the Lord is bestowed to one or another person, not because of unreasonable divine arbitrariness, but thanks to one's own efforts and merits. After all, it is these efforts that lead to the further perfection of man and the world. And this is why they are pleasing to God and, accordingly, generate His grace. Only in this case this grace becomes deserved, and God is just. Unlike the heartlessly/callously indifferent God Augustine. It is clear that all these efforts and merits are possible only with the free will of the individual. After all, goodness done against one's will loses its moral essence. Rotterdammer repeatedly emphasizes that if the choice is imposed on the individual from the outside, if his/her will is not free, then he cannot be blamed for sin, because if there is no freedom, then there is no sin. If the will was not free, it would not be possible to blame sin, because if there is no freedom, then there is no sin (Roterodamus, 1987, p. 233).

Thus, the free will of the individuals is (in the words of Erasmus) the main prerequisite for the morality of their actions and the reasonableness of the divine grace given to them. Without recognition of this freedom, as well as taking into account one's personal merits and transgressions, God's justice, and mercy become at least doubtful. Eventually, a person deprived of free will is not able to get rid of the feeling of apathy and mobilize oneself for the realization of God-given abilities, that is, to stand on the path of continuing the Divine creation. Hence the conclusion that definitely motivates independent self-determination and self-realization there is nothing that man would not be capable of with the help of divine grace (Roterodamus, 1987, p. 274). In this way, Erasmus provides a further justification, and not just declaring the possibility and necessity of free self-determination of the individual, which forms the ontological basis of the «Self-made-man» position.

Luther's underlying assumptions in understanding human free will is even more fatalistic than those of Augustine. True free will is an attribute of the Almighty. Everything else depends solely on God's grace, which is absolved according to His immeasurable will. It is it which plans and directs everything regardless of the man's will, who, on the contrary, is not free, but is called to be a slave of Divine Providence (Luther, 2006). So, our will is nothing if there is no grace of God.

However, this thesis, which is quite traditional for Christianity, about human impotence and lack of freedom is not a reason to consider Luther a «doctrinal fatalist». The fact is that the key feature of true, and not apparent faith, against which Luther's teaching was directed, is voluntariness, that is, the freedom of the individual in everything that relates to his relationship with other people. The recognition of this voluntariness is as fundamental as the recognition of the human destiny dependence on the Divine world order. After all, according to Luther, the only thing that an individual can hope for at least to some extent in her/his own main striving for salvation is sincere and unconditional faith (Sola Fide). Not the «good deeds» acquired by the church and devout Christians, and not the personal merits of the believer (following rites, worship of saints, sacrifices, indulgences, etc.), but exceptionally sincere, without redemption or satisfaction faith in the Lord, His suffering, death, and mercy us to righteousness (Luther, 2006). Precisely this the unequivocal and unconditional faith in God, wisdom, justice, and mercy are counted toward the individual as the biblical Abraham and brings him/her out of the power of human laws, making him free from external worldly coercion. Consequently, it encourages extremely difficult but independent thoughts, assessments, choices, and voluntary rather than forced actions, and ultimately, one's own responsibility for their consequences. So, de facto, Luther's Lord does not demand of man anything but unconditional faith and repentance but endows with virtually unlimited freedom and independence. Moreover, since every baptized person is endowed with the right to personal communion with God and judges better about one's own salvation, he/she is also given the right to independently interpret the basis of human existence the Holy Scriptures. Hence the demand for an individual's spiritual autonomy and religious-communal life is quite logical. As a result, the real results of Luther's critique of Erasmus' views went far beyond its author's intentions. Man received unprecedented freedom of self-determination and self-realization.

In the teachings of John Calvin, which, according to English researcher Barbara Pitkin (2020), had an extremely powerful influence on the fundamental doctrines of Protestantism, the idea of universal predestination became even more rigid. Indeed, according to Calvin (1986), everything that exists, including the intentions and will of people, is directed by God towards a goal determined by Him. His God foreordained the destiny of each, dividing all people into the accursed and the chosen. And no one is allowed to change this decision. Seeing that, the human will in itself is not able to do anything (Calvin, 1986, p. 43). Everything people do come from God's mercy, not from ourselves.

At the same time, Calvinism is characterized by a desire for a paradoxical combination of what remains incompatible in the Bible. As Barbara Pitkin (2020) rightly argues, Calvin's interpretation of the Bible leads him to unusual, unprecedented, and sometimes controversial exegetical conclusions. In particular, it is a combination of so-called «monergism», under which salvation depends exceptionally on God alone, and «compatibilism», which, as explained by English researcher Stephen Paynter (2022) «God's sovereignty over the actions of people is compatible with people being held accountable for those actions» (р. 20).

The latter does not mean, the author emphasizes, that man has freedom that is beyond God's control (Paynter, 2022, p. 20). But even a person who is completely controlled in his/her intentions and actions bears full responsibility for his/her actions. All this resulted in a feeling of inner loneliness and isolation of the individual, unheard of at that time. However, the awareness and experience of this loneliness and isolation, many times aggravated by the position that one cannot trust anyone except God, again required to focus solely on their own strength in solving all problems of their existence, aroused a sense of personal responsibility for their own fate and the fate of loved ones, still characteristic of peoples with a Puritan past.

The «Self-made-man» concept has another aspect, which is expressed in its interpretation as a person who has succeeded through their own efforts. The focus on success in temporal affairs, for the time being, unacceptable from the viewpoint of Christian orthodoxy, is also being rethought in the context of the provisions of Protestantism. This is facilitated by the introduction of the «universal priesthood» principle which in fact leveled the importance of unworldly asceticism. As a consequence, religious asceticism passes into the secular system. Herewith, the main means of its realization is proclaimed not by traditional contemplation, self-denial, and poverty, but by hard work, personal success, and wealth as evidence of their «godliness». That is, work loses the characteristic (traditional for Christianity) as God's punishment and, in fact, becomes for the individual the main means of somehow pleasing the Almighty and making sure at least in the «godliness» of their activities. And since the main criterion that this activity is pleasing to God is the life success in the form of wealth as its material embodiment, the persons' striving for success, concern for their own business interests and their own benefit is not condemned but is also assigned to them as a direct responsibility. Of course, if this success does not involve immoral acts and consumer waste. Eventually, persistent, effectively organized, and morally unimpeachable work and success become the main human calling, in fact, the meaning of one's earthly existence.

Thus, founded by Luther's understanding of faith and ways of personal salvation had the logical consequence of an even more radical embodiment of the individualistic intentions from previous epochs. The key provisions for him are those where the true believer has the sovereign right to one's own freedom and God helps those who help themselves, further reorienting the individual to self-knowledge, self-condemnation, and self-purification, «pulling out» them both from secular communities and ecclesiastical catholicity. As a result, he received a religiously sanctioned right and even an obligation to self-determination and self-realization, success in life, and, most importantly, personal responsibility for one's own destiny. Moreover, this right extended not only to the Protestant but to each individual as such, according to which the specified right was also recognized (Malivskyi & Khmil, 2019). What, in the future, became the main spiritual «catalyst» for the formation of the American cultural code with its, of course, the central concept of «Selfmade-man», and even a more global cultural paradigm in general. After all, in fact, there is a significant part of truth in a position in consonance with the whole meaning of the history of Christianity that is reduced to what is now we call liberal-Protestant teachings (L. Shestov).

Originality.

The analysis allows us to draw a conclusion that casts doubt on the still widespread belief according to which the emergence of the «Self-made-man» idea is localized by the process of formation of the American cultural code and the ideological heritage of Benjamin Franklin. In our opinion, the formation of this idea is the result of a very long process that originated in the ancient world and is gaining special momentum in the Late Middle Ages the Renaissance and Reformation. Namely, in the cultural context of the latter, the ancient intention to recognize the individual's right to self-determination and self-government, which in the depths of Christian theology acquires only potentially universal character, becomes not only acceptable but also the only admissible, in fact, obligatory life guidelines of the individual.

Conclusions

So, humanistic and reformation ideas quite naturally (though, probably, it is not always expected for their authors) led to further worldview legitimizing the idea of a person creating oneself. This legitimation occurred in the course of the complex interaction of numerous factors of the Late Middle Ages culture, as well as ideas and intentions inherited from Antiquity. The key factors among them were the gradual formation of a new social order, in its essence completely indifferent to paternalistic rudiments, as well as the ethics of Protestantism corresponding to it. Exactly the latter that not only legalizes but also de facto, sacralizes the reorientation of the personality from hopes for the synergy of God's grace and personal free will in the matter of personal salvation, relying primarily on one's own strength and personal efforts, awareness of personal responsibility for their own destiny as key principles of «Self-made-man» concept.

References

1. Antonova, V. Y., & Korkh, O. M. (2021). Formation of the «Self-Made-Man» Idea in the Context of the Christian Middle Ages. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (19), 117-126. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.15802/ampr.v0i19.236055 (in English)

2. Bazaluk, O. (2020). Origen's and St. Augustine's Ideas on Education. Studia Warmihskie, 57, 129-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31648/sw.6010 (in English)

3. Calvin, J. (1986). Institutes of the Christian Religion (J. Schulha, Trans.). Atlanta-Toronto: Ukrainian Evangelical Alliance of North America. (in Ukrainian)

4. Luther, M. (2006). The Bondage of the Will (J. I. Packer & O. R. Johnston, Trans.). Fleming H. Revell Company. (in English)

5. Malivskyi, A., & Khmil, V. (2019). «The Passions of the Soul» by R. Descartes as an Explication of the Anthropological and Ethical Project. Studia Warmihskie, 56, 149-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31648/ sw.4413 (in English)

6. Montaigne, M. E. de. (2005). Essais (A. Perepadia, Trans., Vol. 1). Kyiv: Dukh i Litera. (in Ukrainian)

7. Muller, R. A. (2020). Grace and Freedom: William Perkins and the Early Modern Reformed Understanding of Free Choice and Divine Grace. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197517468.001.0001 (in English)

8. Nicholas of Cusa. (1985). On Learned Ignorance (De Docta Ignorantia). Minneapolis: The Arthur J. Banning Press. (in English)

9. Parkhomenko, R. N. (2014). Ideya svobody v epokhu Vozrozhdeniya i Novoe vremya. Filosofiya i kultura, (2), 227-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7256/1999-2793.2014.2.8107 (in Russian)

10. Paynter, S. E. (2022). Calvinism: An Introduction and Comparison with the Main Historic Christian Alternatives. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302905138_Calvinism_An_Introduction_and_ Comparison_with_the_Main_Historic_Christian_Alternatives (in English)

11. Pico della Mirandola, G. (2013). Promova pro hidnist liudyny. Vsesvit, (11-12), 44-63. (іп Ukrainian)

12. Pitkin, B. (2020). Calvin, the Bible, and History. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/ 9780190093273.001.0001 (in English)

13. Pocock, J. G. A. (2020). The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (T. Pirusskaya, Trans.). Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (in Russian)

14. Roterodamus, E. (1987). Filosofskieproizvedeniya (Y. M. Kagan, Trans.). Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian)

List of reference links

1. Antonova V. Y., Korkh O. M. Formation of the «Self-Made-Man» Idea in the Context of the Christian Middle Ages. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research. 2021. No. 19. Р. 117-126. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.15802/ampr.v0i19.236055

2. Bazaluk O. Origen's and St. Augustine's Ideas on Education. Studia Warmihskie. 2020. Vol. 57. P. 129-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31648/sw.6010

3. Кальвін І. Інституція або Навчання християнської релігії / пер. пастор Ю. Шульга. Атланта-Торонто: Ukrainian Evangelical Alliance of North America, 1986. 238 с.

4. Luther M. The Bondage of the Will / trans. by J. I. Packer, O. R. Johnston. Fleming H. Revell Company, 2006. 322 p. Malivskyi A., Khmil V. «The Passions of the Soul» by R. Descartes as an Explication of the Anthropological and

5. Ethical Project. Studia Warmihskie. 2019. Vol. 56. Р. 149-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31648/sw.4413

6. Монтень М. Проби / пер. з фр. А. Перепадя. Київ: Дух і Літера, 2005. Кн.1. 365 с.

7. Muller R. A. Grace and Freedom: William Perkins and the Early Modern Reformed Understanding of Free Choice and Divine Grace. Oxford University Press, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/ 9780197517468.001.0001

8. Nicholas of Cusa. On Learned Ignorance (De Docta Ignorantia). Minneapolis: The Arthur J. Banning Press, 1985. Пархоменко Р. Н. Идея свободы в эпоху Возрождения и Новое время. Философия и культура. 2014. № 2. С. 227-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7256/1999-2793.2014.2.8107

9. Paynter S. E. Calvinism: An Introduction and Comparison with the Main Historic Christian Alternatives. 2022. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302905138_Calvinism_An_Introduction_and_Comparison_ with_the_Main_Historic_Christian_Alternatives

10. Піко делла Мірандола Д. Промова про гідність людини. Всесвіт. 2013. № 11-12. С. 44-63.

11. Pitkin B. Calvin, the Bible, and History. Oxford University Press, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/ 9780190093273.001.0001

12. Покок Д. Г. А. Момент Макиавелли: Политическая мысль Флоренции и атлантическая республиканская традиция / пер. с англ. Т. Пирусская. Москва: Новое литературное обозрение, 2020. 888 с.

13. Роттердамский Э. Философские произведения / пер. Ю. М. Каган. Москва: Наука, 1987. 704 с.

Размещено на Allbest.ru