Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
While I probably agree with Thomas more than Scalia (they usually agree on decisions), I think that Scalia has some of the most colorful and compelling arguments of any I have read. Of course, Scalia says that he likes Justice Robert Jackson.
Another great jurist is Learned Hand.
Jurists in my dog house include Brennan, Thurgood Marshall (especially in the area of criminal procedure), and David Souter.nemesisenforcer wrote:It’s instructive that so many of the villians from “history” that come to mind when we think of that term are from the 20th century.
True...probably because only in modern times have people had the capabilities of murdering so many people.
I have heard that Stalin killed between 40 and 70 million of his own people. When you have a discrepancy of 30 million murders, you know it's catastrophic.Yes, nemesis, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Another quick example - in the novel Robinson Crusoe, the main character tries to bring his cannibal friend to Christianity; in the 1997 movie, he starts to do this, but then says to himself that he's not even sure whose deity is the right one - his or the cannibal's. A very modern answer for someone living in the early 18th Century world.DonaldBaker wrote:The Declaration of Independence removed the king as mediator between God and the masses. It was a bold new egalitarian approach that diluted sovereignty down to the common people where it had never been before.
Sounds like the natural progression after the Great Awakening. 😀
I think you've seen my other site, Great-Awakening.com, where I talk about that:
Rather than believing that God's will was necessarily interpreted by the monarch or his bishops, the colonists viewed themselves as more capable of performing the task. The chain of authority no longer ran from God to ruler to people, but from God to people to ruler. The children of revivalism later echoed this radicalism and popular self-righteousness in the American Revolution, when self-assertion turned against the tyrannical ways of George III.
I believe the relationship of events between the Glorious Revolution to the American Revolution (via the GA) is evident.Have you seen the film about Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons? I would imagine you have, but if you haven’t you should see it. It’s one of my all-time favorite movies (I forgot to add it to the list).
DonaldBaker wrote:We have to be careful. The American Revolution was the most radical egalitarian movement ever undertaken…..that is untill the French Revolution surpassed it and self-destructed. The Revolution was therefore a liberal movement in the sense that it was “progressive” in its outcome.
I think what you're referring to here are traditional notions of conservativism and liberalism - that of maintaining the status quo vs. brining about change. In that sense, one could say the Revolution was "liberal". However, in my original post regarding de Tocqueville, I discussed liberalism and conservativism pertaining to modern notions of the two differing viewpoints. The label "conservative" has a different connotation than it did at the time of the Revolution.
That said, I argue that the modern "conservative" is one who thinks that in many cases, local control is better than non-local control. In that way, he is more like the early American whom de Tocqueville admired.DonaldBaker wrote:Erasmus wrote to More while he was imprisoned in the London Tower for not bowing to James’ religous expectations.
Do you mean Henry VIII's expectations?
A few months ago I read an interesting description of Thomas More by Erasmus. You can read at least part of it here.
Yes, Thomas More is one of my favorites, but he'd fall more into the Renaissance category. I'm no fan of Voltaire's philosophy, either, and perhaps we should start a thread detailing our criticisms.I have a different perspective on this – it’s my understanding that it wasn’t the primarily the Pope who was responsible for the downfall of the Knights Templar, but Philip the Fair, who wanted the Templars’ money. As I touched on earlier, the Templars’ means by which they sustained themselves was quite efficient and must have given them financial independence. The popes had much more temporal power back then, but I don’t know that the Templars were used for anything other than to protect pilgrims in the Holy Land and related activities. Today, the popes do not hold temporal power as they did back then; I think that Central/South American countries can and do disagree with the popes (look to the Cristero War and persecution of Catholics in Mexico during the 1920s as an example of this).
As for the Inquisition - I think it was different in the sense it was a more internal directive to combat heretical influences (Albighensianism, etc). The Crusades were not meant to destroy Islam (they did not continue into the Middle East/North Africa as I'm aware), but centered on the Holy Land. Spain used the Inquisition as a means by which political traitors were caught (in that age, one's religious group meant political loyalty).
I'm not trying to get into a religious argument here, but thought I'd share my perspective.It just occurred to me that Luke and Leah kissed in one of the episodes…kind of reminiscent of the whole Oedipus scenario.
I think it’s fairly clear that Hitler invaded Russia not for any stragtegic reasons (Russia and Germany signed a non-aggression pact and carved up Poland and the Baltic states remember) but for his own personal reasons. he hated Russia, Russians, Communists and Jews, all of whom were in Russia in copious quantitites. He was driven to this act by his own psychosis and race-hatred.
But I wonder about the timing. I believe his hatred of the Communists long preceded the War, yet he made a pact with them nonetheless to keep his Eastern flank stable. I guess my question would be - why did Hitler attack in 1941? He must have seen some strategic opportunity in this; otherwise, he would not have signed a pact with the USSR to begin with.I actually wonder how much Lucas was influenced by Greek poems in his writing of the original script for the movie. It certainly seems like there may have been. Think of a storyline like Oedipus – where O’s father kidnaps an enemy, the enemy’s father curses Oedipus, and Oedipus eventually kills father/marries mother. In Starwars, I don’t think it’s actually a tragedy since there is a heroic ending, though there are tragic events that pass in order to arrive at the heroism (i.e. Vader dies precluding father and son from permanent reunification and from partying together at the cheesy Ewok shindig at the end of ROTJ).
I suppose there's also the prophecy in Starwars about Anakin Skywalker bringing balance to the force. This was akin to the prophecy of the Oracle at Delphi.
So where does Yoda fit in? I'm sure there are some parallels, but my knowledge of Greek poems has faded enough that I can't draw any offhand. Nevertheless, best line - "Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."Donnie, I would have to agree that fighting a war on two fronts did it in for Germany. I’m still uncertain as to why Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Union, other than perhaps a) he knew he’d have to fight them sooner or later, b) he thought the time was ripe for a surprise attack, and c) his maniacism was getting to him and convinced him his armies were invincible. Germany was advancing technologically at a pace that made for some close calls; fortunately, the V-2 was only available toward the end of the War, and I believe that better aircraft like the Heinkel He 162 wasn’t able to be produced fully because it was released just before Nazis were getting pounded. Had Hitler waited on attacking the Soviet Union, he may have had enough time for R&D and for the manufacturing of these advanced weapons.
It’s interesting where we might differ somewhat – my feelings toward Scholasticism are influenced by Catholic theology and based on my past studies which have been heavily influenced by Aquinas. I might have to get back to you about Augustine (of whom I am a fan), but I did want to say that I’m not sure the Scholastics influenced Hume and French Enlightenment thinkers at all, unless by influence we mean a reaction against. Whereas the Scholastics would point to the harmony between faith and reason, and that the former naturally completes and perfects the latter, I think the Enlightenment philosophes would tend to see the two as completely independent of one another.
Anyway, it's interesting to hear your thoughts on this. 💡
