2. Rejection of compartmentalization of knowledge implies that individuals have significance:
a. The Renaissance examines particulars, and generalizes about them. We no longer look for universals, but generalizations. Note that this moves the point of tension between metaphysics and epistemology, toward the latter. The two issues are -- what is there? and How do we know it? Traditionally, the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. For instance, if you get your epistemology straight by positing universals that are the object of knowledge, then you have a hard time accounting for their existence. If, on the other hand, as happened in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, you get your metaphysics straight by not talking about these universals, you have a hard time knowing how we know anything. It was easy for Plato and Aristotle. In both cases, we know the form. The only question is where it is located. For the Renaissance thinkers, we don't know what grounds our knowledge. Generalizations don't have the same form as universals; they shift, they lack certainty. So how can you focus on anything so transitory?
b. Reformation suggests that God deals with individuals, that individuals can approach God, and that individual freedom has to be taken into account when constructing a religion.
c. In both cases, the state in the modern age must take into account individual desire. Individuals do not have an obligation to obey an irrational or unjust state, or at least an argument has to be made why they must. States are reconfigured so that either there is individual representation, or there is a justification of a system that provides the most freedom for individuals (e.g., Hobbes). In either case, the new political and social reality is the individual and his or her personal will and knowledge.