Why are "truth" and "reality" relevant to epistemological inquiry?

[Insula Dei]

I'm reasonably sure that the term 'Renaissance' should under no circumstances be used unironically.

Ditto 'Enlightenment', of course.

Well, perfectly usable term is perfectly usable. Presumably you would say 'Holy Roman Empire'.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There would be a certain temptation to go with 'Holy' 'Roman' 'Empire', actually.

[The Mikado]

There would be a certain temptation to go with 'Holy' 'Roman' 'Empire', actually.

For much of its existence, a simple "The Empire" usually suffices (at least in circumstances where confusion with the Byzantines isn't possible).  

EDIT: As a geographical term, of course, for comparisons of "France" or "England" vs "the Empire."  None of those terms are perfect at their period (though England is more useful than the other two in the first few centuries of the second millennium).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm reasonably sure that the term 'Renaissance' should under no circumstances be used unironically.

Shorthand, Al, Shorthand. 'Renaissance' era Humanism was a thing though as multivaried as it was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Something like that but the role of a) markets (when talking about printed books) and b) the willingness to accept ideas and, in certain cases, see their utility is important. Darwinian Evolutiuon was accepted by many because it fitted into already accepted ideas about biology (Darwin was not the first to come up with the idea of Evolution after all) but the same is true of Social Darwinism and Specerian Sociology. Will post more later.