Commenter Phil Johnson asks:
How would [The Founders] have dealt with the insult on which Barton is basing his claims in this suite he is taking to court?
As usual, Ben Franklin supplies the needed wisdom:
"... I have been at a loss to imagine any that may not be construed an infringement of the sacred liberty of the press. At length, however, I think I have found one that, instead of diminishing general liberty, shall augment it; which is, by restoring to the people a species of liberty, of which they have been deprived by our laws, I mean the liberty of the cudgel.
"In the rude state of society prior to the existence of laws, if one man gave another ill language, the affronted person would return it by a box on the ear, and, if repeated, by a good drubbing; and this without offending against any law. But now the right of making such returns is denied, and they are punished as breaches of the peace; while the right of abusing seems to remain in full force, the laws made against it being rendered ineffectual by the liberty of the press.
"My proposal then is, to leave the liberty of the press untouched, to be exercised in its full extent, force, and vigor; but to permit the liberty of the cudgel to go with it pari passu. Thus, my fellow-citizens, if an impudent writer attacks your reputation, dearer to you perhaps than your life, and puts his name to the charge, you may go to him as openly and break his head. If he conceals himself behind the printer, and you can nevertheless discover who he is, you may in like manner way-lay him in the night, attack him behind, and give him a good drubbing."
78 comments:
;-)! Terror of being sued leads to all kinds of protective behaviors that result in injurty to society, such as malpractice suits, which not only make doctors have hige insurance premiums, but also makes them liable to order tests that might not otherwise have been ordered, just to cover themselves from liability! Unneeded tests lead to unneeded bills that leave insurance companies raising premiums to all of us!!! Therefore, what one man does in seeking retribution, doesn't just limit free speech, but it also makes demands upon all of us to protect ourselves from our neighbor!!!
A rather modest proposal.
.
Not to take away from the influence it had on America's Founding, things were happening in Western Civilization during the eighteenth century that cannot define America as being a Christian nation. And, I'm quite sure society's traditions were as much accepted and practiced by atheists, doubters, and other waywards as they were by any Christians. But, and in fact, it seems to me that America's Founding was definitely an aspect of the diremption that separates the ages. America is definitely a child of Modernity. In my thinking, America is definitely in no way an evolution out of purely metaphysical tradition. Instead, America is grounded in Modernity.
.
I don't know that the Founding Fathers read or were influenced by Hegel, Kant, and others; but, they certainly were as well read as any current philosophers and capable of putting different ideas together for the formation of our societal system. I have to give the highest marks of intellectual prowess to our FF's thinking compared to any other contemporary of intellectual or philosophical note.
.
Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founders are excellent examples of modern man.
.
.
.
Phil, I'm not familiar with the Founders citing Kant, and Hegel wasn't born until 1770 and didn't publish his first book until 1807.
You keep claiming "America is definitely a child of Modernity" and the like, but need to make your case; saying it over and over doesn't make it true.
If you look at Thomas Paine's Common Sense
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-paines-common-sense-as-heard-by.html
the arguments are more often Biblical than "modern." [After the Founding, Paine is revealed as quite the "Modern Man," but this is not the Paine of the Founding, which is what's relevant.]
C'mon, brother, bring some facts to the table. I'm all ears, honestly.
.
I wrote, I don't know that the Founding Fathers read or were influenced by Hegel, Kant, and others; but, they certainly were as well read as any current philosophers and capable of putting different ideas together for the formation of our societal system. I have to give the highest marks of intellectual prowess to our FF's thinking compared to any other contemporary of intellectual or philosophical note.
I thought this conveys the idea that the FFs were as capable of coming up with original ideas as any contemporary philosopher and that I am looking for some investigatory insights regarding my supposition that America is a "Child of Modernity". The FF were highly capable philosophers who combined with each other and put their ideas into practice.
You ask for facts. What facts would satisfy you?
The idea that modernity presents a diremption in history and is grounded in itself is well documented. So, it seems safe to claim that the Enlightenment, itself, is a child of modernity. I attended a lecture given by an associate prof to Marshall McLuhan back in the seventies and he brought up the idea of how modernity presents us with events and ideas not grounded in antiquity--not facts--just ideas.
.
Ideas don't need proof that they exist--just expression. But, expression can rouse curiosity. My idea that America is a child of modernity is just an idea at this point. It needs to be worked up.
I wrote that I thought America might have been Founded as an attempt to unify the old (metaphysical traditions) with the new (modernity) and, further, that I would like to find others to help explore that idea.
.
Here's something Habermas has to say on the idea I would like to pursue:
"In 1802, when Hegel dealt with the systems of Kant, Jacobi, and Fichte from the standpoint of the antithesis between faith and knowledge, his aim was to burst the philosophy of subjectivity from within; nevertheless he did not proceed in a rigorously immanent fashion. He was tacitly relying on a diagnosis of the Age of Enlightenment; this alone entitled him to presuppose the absolute -- that is, to pose reason ... as the power of unification. (My bold)
.
Hegel talks about this interesting subject from which some of my thinking comes.
.
I'm all ears, honestly.
.
Do you want to continue on this angel? I would like that. Maybe you could start a blog on the ideas?
.
.
.
So, my hypothecation is that America was not founded to be a Christian nation; but, instead, was founded to unify Christianity with the other embodiments of experience; science, morality, and art--that is knowledge as an aspect of what modernity is all about.
.
.
Yes, pls continue, Phil. It is indeed interesting.
It depends on where we mark "modernity." Strauss marks it at Machiavelli [c. 1500], revealing the secrets of the ages as sort of a political "science."
Key in my view is the break with magic and superstition in favor of facts and science. There is a true break here. [We see perhaps the last gasp of magic and superstition in the witch trials.]
If you read Enlightenment apologist WEH Lecky [mid 1800s, winging dates here], you see the "modern" narrative, where all reason is credited to modernity and against religion, which gets left with the dregs: all man's evils and confusions, magic and superstition.
But as Aquinas said c. 1250,
“Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus” (Truth is the equation of thing and intellect), which he restates as: “A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality.”
About the same time, Roger Bacon begins the Western march of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon
So, the movement towards rationality is already on the march in the 1200s, with the Western rediscovery of Aristotle and the philosophy and science of the Muslim world reaching the West. [Christendom picks up the baton from the Muslim world, which stops advancing by 1200-1400 CE or so.] Modernity as we know it is nowhere in sight yet.
To sum up quickly, "modernity" to me is the French philosophes and Hume [Kant is transformed by Hume], who are conspicuously absent from the Founding-era talk.
Then it comes down to a tug-of-war over Locke. ;-)
.
Maybe you'd like to start a blog on the idea of how modernity influenced Aemrican Creation?
.
For a definition of Modernity, I line up with the idea that it is grounded in itself and not in any time or age prior to it. That's the idea of the diremption which claims the break between Modernity and all time before it. That break--diremption--is what make Modernity an age unto itself; otherwwise, the times would have just been a continuation of the middle ages--antiquity evolving with no break. And knowledge outside of the metaphysical epitomizes it. That probably has something to do with the resistance so many express regarding Modernity. I think there is something here that plays on the American Creation.
.
Modernity challenges the prior age. And, maybe that's why it is held in such disregard?
.
.
Maybe you'd like to start a blog on the idea of how modernity influenced Aemrican Creation?
No. I want you to back up the assertion that it did and how it did. You have the floor. Go for it.
I submit that "all men are created equal" is a metaphysical if not [Judeo-]Christian assertion, upon which all is built. Equality is the only reason to have a democracy in the first place.
I think modernity, discarding the metaphysical underpinning of human dignity and equality, is lost as a ship at sea. That's why I thought you'd found the right direction at last with
Metaphysical standards are based on firm foundations; whereas, liberty can be seen as having the shifting foundation of personal choice.
Of course modernity's relativistic understanding of liberty is "held in high regard." It means we can do whatever the hell we want!
_____________
otherwwise, the times would have just been a continuation of the middle ages--antiquity evolving with no break..
This doesn't give "medieval" thought enough props. It's not the Dark Ages, and it's not "antiquity" either. Classical thought is good, too, but Homer's Iliad and Dante's Divine Comedy are a universe apart. Few "moderns" know the difference, and this is the problem. See the quote from Cicero recently posted on the mainpage. The "modern" thinks he [and we] are smarter than anyone who ever lived. That's the hubris that beats all, Phil.
,
No. I want you to back up the assertion that [modernity influenced Aemrican Creation] and how it did. You have the floor. Go for it.
.
Heh heh. If America had been created as an act of Christianity and to be a Christian nation, there would have been no hesitation in the Founders to have made that claim outright. What I see is an effort of unification to bring Religion and Modernity together into a singularity without insulting the pillars of either. The fact that Jehovah God, Jesus, or any other specific divinity is not mentioned in the Founding documents, yet, that there is the implication of Faith, seems to be a tip of the hat to Christianity while, at the same time, it is also a tip of the hat to secularism.
.
This is an hypothecation on my part and not a theory. I have to work my ideas out. I'm hoping you and maybe some others will help. The idea of diremption seems to automatically create the problem of dissolution of any prior thinking. That would be anathema for society--it's what you claim in saying that modernity abolishes the metaphysical. The metaphysical cannot be abolished--it is built on the strong foundation of tradition and it is not going to go away. Neither is science going to go away. They both are present. That is the problem which Modernity expresses. The metaphysical cannot stomach the challenge.
.
In a way, Modernity has overcome the Metaphysical in a way that is almost a death blow. Was the world created six thousand years ago or was it created with the big bang almost 14 billion years ago? Was man created out of the dust of the ground or did man come into being through the process of evolution. These are only two of the challenging questions.
.
My hypothecation has it that it is in our American society that we can come to terms with these questions without destroying either foundation. Therefor, I'm saying that the American Creation is created to unify Religious Faith with Modernity. But, I'm not positing that it is being successful. The problem still ebbs and flows. Right now, it seems to be on the increase.
.
.
.
Liberty is THE value of our society.
We do not have blasphemy laws, because we believe that we have rights to free speech.
We do not have requirements about how our religious faith will be recognized, established, or negated, because we believe in the free right of individual conscience to choose what he will believe, what that will mean and how that will impact his life.
Modernity is the affirmation of the individual in his own right, apart from any sanction from "God" or State. This is because reason is the ability for man to reflect and rationalize; observe and hypothesize....the former has been the state of theology, from ages past, while the later is science's impact on man's understanding of the world.
In a way, Modernity has overcome the Metaphysical in a way that is almost a death blow.
Well, yeah. That's the crisis. What is left of unalienable rights endowed by our creator if you remove the creator? [And the limits placed on them by the laws of nature and of nature's god?]
Do not murder and Do not steal hold up pretty well, but after that it's a free-for-all.
Tom,
"A free for all"?
What about a social contract and how that is interpreted? The right to resist tyranny, and the right to be heard by "appeal to our courts". Isn't this what government is supposed to support, one's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Some say it means the same thing even if you get rid of the "creator" part. Some disagree.
As for all men being created equal, I don't think science can prove that. In fact, it's more likely to prove the reverse if you quantify the human animal. Therefore essential equality is a metaphysical claim, or a mere political assertion.
Modernity is the affirmation of the individual in his own right, apart from any sanction from "God" or State.
Or it's the hollow shell of a metaphysical claim, emptied of all foundational content.
Angie writes: Liberty is THE value of our society.
...
We do not have requirements about how our religious faith will be ...
...
Modernity is the affirmation of the individual in his own right, apart from any sanction from "God" or State. ...
.
We could argue the finer points; but, to what avail? The facts are that arguing these points exemplifies the diremption. I really don't see the problem so much as New Agers finding fault with the Old Agers as I see it is the Old Agers not wanting to give an inch, eg., "Those dinosaur fossils were put there by the Devil to make men think creation is older than God says it is." And that is to the point of my thought about America's creation being an effort to unify the two different sides.
.
Matbe the FF didn't use terms like New Age, New Class, Old Class; but, I think they would say they are appropriate words to use in discourse about the diremption.
.
Why should we not work toward reaching across the divide in an effort of unification rather than continuing the arguements?
.
.
.
.
Angie: Modernity is the affirmation of the individual in his own right, apart from any sanction from "God" or State.
.
Among other things Modernity elicits subjectivity by accepting experience as a teacher and it is therein that the affirmation of the individual takes place.
.
Tom: Or it's the hollow shell of a metaphysical claim, emptied of all foundational content.
.
I don't understand what you mean to be implying here, Tom.
.
Phil,
You speak of the biremption of what one believes about "origins". Is that THE issue, really? or are other issues just as important? Are you talking of the 'culture wars' in our country or are you referring to something different?
Metaphysics is 'natural philosophy", which is the "Old Agers", and it has to do with "natural law" and human rights, as supported by the Catholic Church (Aquinas). Some have attempted to integrate a "wholistic understanding" to "Old Agers" (natural law) and "New Agers" (physics), but with what results? (Is this understood as "Spinoza's God"?) Are these the "New Agers" you speak of?
"Political correctness" wins the day, when it comes to scientific policy! This is why Nobel Laureates resign from distinguished professional associations. And this is their right to personal values. Otherwise, government or other political entities hold power over the individual's life and liberty. Have these Nobel Laureates added to our "culture wars", or have they resisted being used by "power"?
Sectarian faith is the enemy to anything that revolves around life in this present reality. Therefore, what is the reason to continue to hold to such beliefs, unless adhering to such beliefs gives one some benefit? Supernaturalism is a way to resist the world as it is, as it tells a personal story that makes for a personal reality, apart from engaging reality itself. How would science, "proving" its theory, undermine such faith? It doesn't, as scientfic knowledge only deals with "what is". The pragmatic application of that knowledge has little to do with personal values. Personal values have to do with political liberty, not supernaturalism. We, in America, have political liberty to such knowledge and a right to hold personal values. So, is the "issue" about who is to win the "political power"? And that has to do with how one wants to answer politcal questions about policy, which has to do with a partcular vision. So, when one questons whether one will "help" alleviate the diremption, what is the political vision that one is attempting to implement?
.
You speak of the biremption ...
.
Unless you made a typo, you've misread what I wrote which was about Diremption.
.
Here's a quotation from this link: http://christianhubert.com/writings/modernism.html
"Habermas characterizes the various projects of modernity as a set of responses to the "problems of modernity's self-reassurance," the problem of an " anxiety caused by the fact that a modernity without models had to stabilize itself on the basis of the very diremptions it had wrought." (diremption: violent tearing apart)" (My bold)
.
All of which is to say that Modernity brought in a violent break from the Age of Faith to the time in which we are found. That tearing apart needs REdemption if society is not going to go into a self destruct. I'm thinking the American Creation was a major unifying force. Compare the French to the American Revolution.
.
I agree that the natural sciences might not see the implications of scientific knowledge....and scientific application of any hypothesis would be valued because it would promote the value of science itself. Human knowledge being used without rationale, or context to prevent abuses of power.
Scientific cleansing can be just a damning and damaging to the human community, as religious cleansing, as it "works on similar princples" of "right". Science and religion use different justifications for their "cleansing". But, both use political power to usurp individual right.
.
I don't think Modernity came to be in reaction to the Age of Faith. No, instead it came as a result of some heroic men like Copernicus each of whom most likely stumbled into scientific discovery--certainly there were no tradtions in the Age of Faith to lead men toward scientific discovery.
.
So, science does not and never did have an agenda to damn or do damage to Christianity. Even so, many in the Christian traditions saw (some still see) Modernity as the work of the Devil to damn and damage their traditions.
.
Not!
.
There is no purpose in Modernity to do damage to anything; only to discover what truth is available to be uncovered.
.
Phil,
I was not arguing the historical question about science's validity of granting man knowledge about the universe. I know that men have gained knowledge, but what has it promoted? I was arguing about the ethical implications of such.
Bio-ethics needs to be addressed, otherwise those with political power will do what they want with whom they want! This is most important with a universal healthcare plan...isn't it? And what about the "transforming" scientific experiements that questions about "what makes for the human", etc.? These are pertinant questions that must be asked and addressed!
Cost efficiency will be the prominant value of decision making when there is universalization, as government will control costs (or specified businesses under government contract). Such are always the case in any business endeavor, but what about defining "life" beforehand? Will government define 'life" or will individual's have the right to choose or determine within their own personal "space" and relational commitments? Or what about the questions concerning liberty of choice as a right to the individual, in the first place, apart from a "universal healthcare plan"!!!.
As to "faith", that is peripheial, but those that are "true believers" will fight to the end for "the faith, one delivered to the saints". This is unfortunate, as it undermines one's ability to embrace human knowledge from different disciplines. It sabatoges "faith" to a secluded place, where "faith" is really in the text or traditon, and not in life, knowledge or the human.
.
What I see in your latest comment, Angie, is that Modernity raises one heck of a lot of questions that bring about uncertainty; whereas, Faith brings about certainty. And, there you have the two solid foundations upon which these two separate ages are built.
.
My thought is that the American Creation is the major effort to unify the two different ways.
.
Further, I see Modernity providing humanity with subjectivity which blooms into a serious problem for traditional authority.
.
.
.
.
Tom, the first paragraph at this link sheds some light on what I'm trying to learn to articulate. It is the quotation I said I would post today.
Here's the link: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/fk/introduction.htm
.
.
Phil,
We ALL argue from our own personal values, as these define our identity, or reveal our priorities. This is a right in a free society, where ideas make for solutions, but also can make for problems, if they are presumptious or intrusive.
This is why I think arguing on "altruristic concern" or "Utopian ideals" are futile, because the real world does not work that way and the Founders knew it! Thus, they appealed to a balance of power and appeal to the 'rule of law", not power of the rulers! Ideals that seek an appeal to "God", but dissolve personal responsibility, accountability and the rule of law, as to equality itself would not be looked upon as "ideal" to the Founders. They believe in limited government, and individual responsibility.
Traditional religious authorities subvert individual rights for a 'higher principle or purpose". Such is a subversion of 'the rule of law" itself, as it circumvents the "rule of law" for other "higher ideals". I think this is what tyranny is about.
When individuals are allowed to pursue their own interests, form their own contracts with those they choose, then one has an "ideal" that is not based on "moral principles" that go beyond a particular human being and his right to own his own life. That is political liberty, not subversion of it!
.
Be back later.
.
Duty calls.
THIS Hegel quote, Phil?
"The Enlightenment, in its positive aspect, was a hubbub of vanity without a firm core. It obtained a core in its negative procedure by grasping its own negativity. Through the purity and infinity of the negative it freed itself from its insipidity but precisely for this reason it could admit positive knowledge only of the finite and empirical. The eternal remained in a realm beyond, a beyond too vacuous for cognition so that this infinite void of knowledge could only be filled with the subjectivity of longing and divining.
Thus what used to be regarded as the death of philosophy, that Reason should renounce its existence in the Absolute, excluding itself totally from it and relating itself to it only negatively, became now the zenith of philosophy. By coming to consciousness of its own nothingness, the Enlightenment turns this nothingness into a system."
OK, run with it.
"My general reaction to your statements is that we are poles apart. The root of the question is I suppose the same as it always was, that you are convinced of the truth of Hegel (Marx) and I am not. You have never given me an answer to my questions: a) was Nietzsche not right in describing the Hegelian-Marxian end as "the last man"? and b) what would you put into the place of Hegel's philosophy of nature?"
---Strauss, Letter to Kojeve
.
I'm all for this discussion as it could provide me with information that will help me learn what I am seeking to know.
.
So it is wrong for others to think that I have concluded anything one way or another regarding my thoughts. Perhaps there exists a sense in academic circles that only completed conclusions are worthy to be put into any discussion. That kind of thinking seems stultifying to me and it is a blot against honest inquiry.
.
Just to make sure others understand that my thoughts are at the hypothetical level here. I expect that is acceptable?
.
.
Well, lately you've been buzzing near the bullseye than flying off again.
You've reached the nub of Strauss vs. modernity. Strauss believes, along with the ancients, that man's problems are permanent and perennial. "Ahistoricity."
The Hegelians believe in "historicism," in human progress, that the problems change and therefore whatever we can say about them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Koj%C3%A8ve
That's why Strauss prints is correspondence with Alexandre Kojeve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Koj%C3%A8ve
a Hegelian and philosophical father of the European Union, in Strauss' "On Tyranny." It's a fundamental discussion of the ancient vs. the modern; more precisely the permanent vs. "historicism."
Below, a link to Kojeve, Strauss, and an interesting thinker, Eric Voegelin. Perhaps slow going at first, but what worthy philosophers have in common is the ability to communicate with each other, to evolve a common language. That's the first step in discussing any of this. Strauss, Kojeve, and Voegelin were able to understand each other and discuss, despite their diverse views.
http://www.lsu.edu/artsci/groups/voegelin/society/2009%20Papers/Barry%20Cooper2.shtml
Good luck. I used to think philosophy was easy and could be approached just with a good native intelligence. Nope. You're approaching the greatest minds who ever lived, and their best ideas at that. A certain humility is in order.
.
And more to the personal note. I turned 80 this past July 3rd. So, the mere fact that not only am I still learning; but, I think that I have an itching desire to learn new things is a pretty good sign. I hope every one of you will be as curious about life when you reach this milestone.
.
Don't forget about subjectivity. There's a lot in life to our personal experience--it counts for much of what we knoow.
.
.
Angie writes, >We ALL argue from our own personal values, as these define our identity, or reveal our priorities. . Well, yah, at least for the most part. Some of us try so hard to live above our own experience that we kinda get lost as to who it is we really are. I feel for those and always have.
.
I think I'm getting a pretty good grasp on what the problem is that faces our society. And, I think I have caught sight of a certain class whose members have lifted themselves far above the rest of us so that they look down on us. They put themselves outside the framework of society.
.
Do they see themselves as our rulers? Huh? Do you think?
.
.
.
OK. Run with it.
.
If you're asking me what I think he means with that, he's just talking about the short understanding philosophers had at that time about the Enlightenment and the greater Modern Age. This plays into a lot of other philosophers since then who have talked about the need we have to put meaning into our life. In his book, The Evolving Self, Robert Kegan claims that human beings are Meaning Making Machines. Modernity takes the solid foundation of Faith out from underneath the New Agers and leaves them with a sense of negativity. I think this is just a temporary thing as there is still more to learn. In fact, we've probably just touched on the tip of the iceberg of reality.
.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolving-Self-Problem-Process-Development/dp/0674272315
.
.
.
I've given Strauss a lot of thought. He's pretty much our contemporary and I don't see him as some kind of ultimate authority on anything except for his own experience as learned as he was. I go along with--not stuck on--the Hegelian idea of historicism; but, just because the sun has come up every morning for as long as we can know, doesn't mean it's going to come up tomorrow. Even so, it will come up; but, based on other reasoning.
.
I don't know about Marx; but, he was a brilliant light.
.
.
.
. A certain humility is in order.
.
Definitely so.
.
But, that doesn't mean we can't clash swords with them. Otherwise we could end up being in a cult like the Objectivists who genuflect almost at the mere mention of Ayn Rand, sic, mention Frau Blucher in Young Frankenstein and the horses whinny. There's a great many of them amassing in our own time under the banner of the Tea Party.
.
Yet, if you strain yourself and look above them far enough, you will see the Koch brothers in their self anointed apotheosis. That's the "certain class" I made mention on in a previous post.
.
.
Well, actually, it's not the Koches, it's who Thomas Sowell refers to in "The Vision of the Anointed." I've been hitting that one hard.
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/timkowal/2011/09/15/global-warming-consensus-minus-one/
As for Strauss, I have a fundamental disagreement with him precisely on natural law and God-given rights. So there.
;-P
But the point is that he achieves a common vocabulary with Kojeve and Voegelin and they can discuss stuff.
As for the Hegel quote, I read it as a complete indictment of Angie's Randian pontifications and of the Enlightenment of the philosophes [Hume and the French], that the language of politics and liberty gets emptied of its metaphysical underpinnings, as we discussed above.
"By coming to consciousness of its own nothingness, the Enlightenment turns this nothingness into a system."
Which was pretty much what I've been saying.
I doubt I'm a Hegelian but I can agree with a brilliant man in a brilliant critique of the Enlightenment project, just as I agree with Strauss' critique of modernity without embracing his version of Platonism.
.
Again, well, yah.
.
But, when we're hypothecating we don't depnd on others for our authority. Instead, we have to make sense of our own thoughts--we need to be as specific as we can. So, just because I'm not so good at articulating my thoughts, I'm still stuck on the idea that America's creation was a most serious effort to unify the old and the new ages of Western Civilization.
.
Your take on Strauss is that he was more of a traditionalist than a new age person? Or was it that just because he was seeking a peaceful solution to any of society's struggles, he wanted to settle on the ancients for order? Strauss as a practicalist?
.
.
.
.
I see that the FF were quite aware of their differences--no doubts about that.
.
But, the project (that's what it was) to form a new government of, by, and for the people required skills at compromise (is that the best word?) in order to unify the society that was forming. It was very obvious to all that a great deal of division existed. That's what the separate colonies were all about--except maybe for William Penn's operation which itself might be seen as a study in unification.
.
I'm thinking about it.
.
Well, I think Strauss is a fatalist, somewhere between the Old Testament and the Iliad.
It's a different view than Christianity's---Christ being Incarnated was a "historicism" in that not only did He bring the New Testament with how to live together in love, but a real promise of salvation, a happy afterlife. The "Good News."
As you may know, the afterlife isn't a big feature for many or most Jews, and the Greek view of the afterlife was pretty dingy.
As for politics, the young Leo Strauss saw the democratic Weimar Republic descend into the horror of Nazism. Same country, same people. So much for modernity's talk of human progress ["historicism"], especially of the political kind.
So sure, Strauss liked our democratic constitutional republic of the USA, but saw the human heart of darkness ready to return just as it did in Germany. Man's problems remain permanent because human nature remains permanent, immutable.
In this way, Calvin's dim view of human nature, "total depravity," was very useful in constructing our system, which anticipates the ills of human nature rather than ignores them and hopes for our innate goodness---which was the optimistic view of the continental Enlightenment types like Rousseau, that man is a "noble savage" and that it's society that screws him up, not his immutable heart of darkness.
You can hardly blame Strauss for having no faith in fellow man or in political systems after what happened in Germany in the 1930s.
And so, this is Strauss vs. modernity and "historicism" in a nutshell.
As for the rest, is equality for the black man a "new" idea or finally a fulfillment of the Founding's ideals? This gets into whether
America's creation was a most serious effort to unify the old and the new ages of Western Civilization.
To me [and Strauss, and Hegel in this quote] "modernity" is an empty fiction. What is good isn't "new" as much as a fulfillment of the promise of the old: yes, repairing the errors and banishing the superstitions of the past, but more like understanding better and living better the wisdom of the ages. Because Plato understood human nature better than the moderns do; it has a very dark side, and it hasn't changed. In this way, human "progress" is a fiction, "historicism" is the error.
.
I keep thinking you are a traditionalist, Tom. I don't mean that any way other than to say it seems you like to rest on traditional thought. Am I wrong?
.
Anyway, the idea that Modernity is an empty fiction seems quite naive to me. Certainly it is empty--that's the point, Tom. Duhuh.
.
Why is that so? I'm sure you know the answer very well. Modernity is not grounded in the past; therefore, the question should be, "On what is it grounded?" And, the answer is, "On nothing except itself." Modernity is grounded in itself and that is what causes it to be so maligned by persons stuck in the past like Platonists, and like so many more who follow in history as it unfolds. The opponents of Modernity speak of man being his own judge, etc.. Why be an opponent of Modernity? It is a fact of life--we exist in Modernity.
.
It's the old Mary Baker Eddy puzzle about matter and mind, "What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? Never matter."
.
So, Modernity is what you make of it. Outside of Modernity in the Age of Faith, for example, Faith is not what a person makes of it. Instead, Faith is something that is given in the foundations of the Age of Faith, ie., Christianity in Western Civilization.
.
I think Heidegger talks about the clearing up ahead--the place in our future that hasn't yet been uncovered. That's Modernity. It is an age of discovering that which has, as yet, not been learned. It is open and honest inquiry into our reality unencumbered by the solid facts of knowledge that are found in the absolute of the Age of Faith.
.
So, yes, Modernity is an empty fiction. Empty and fiction until scientific research and testing proves new claims to be truthful.
.
So, I don't agree with your view of how the beliefs of the past are more acceptable than those being uncovered in the here and now of Modernity.,
.
.
Modernity is not grounded in the past; therefore, the question should be, "On what is it grounded?" And, the answer is, "On nothing except itself."
...
So, yes, Modernity is an empty fiction. Empty and fiction until scientific research and testing proves new claims to be truthful.
This is precisely Strauss' critique, because science can tell us nothing of values, of what it good beyond our basic physical needs.
So too, Hegel:
"Through the purity and infinity of the negative it freed itself from its insipidity but precisely for this reason it could admit positive knowledge only of the finite and empirical."
You're buzzing around the bullseye: it's only your faith in "modernity" [as the counterweight to faith-as-religion, which you reject] that keeps you making excuses for its inherent emptiness.
For to know quantum physics but not that a sunset is beautiful is to know nothing.
____________
As for ahistoricism, it's not "grounded in the past," it's grounded in the permanent, whatever was true then and there is true here and now. Neither is something true today that wasn't always true.
[Philosophically speaking, but even scientifically speaking: quantum physics is the same as it was billions of years ago; it's only our understanding of it that has changed.]
You're buzzing around the bullseye: it's only your faith in "modernity" [as the counterweight to faith-as-religion, which you reject] that keeps you making excuses for its inherent emptiness.
.
I don't reject the Age of Faith. I know it is based on the solid foundation of the metaphysical, in Western Civilization that is Christianity.
.
I don't put any faith in Modernity per se; but, I have home in humanity. It has always been a human being who has brought us their interpretations of what they are experiencing or have experienced.
.
As for eternal truths, a.k.a. the Absolute, suchlike belongs in the Age of Faith. Does that mean that I reject it? No.
.
I have brought up the idea of the Diremption which you seem to want to ignore, yet, you continue to balk about Modernity. Do you see where that puts you in the Diremption?
.
.
ERATA
.
I have home in humanity
.
Should have read I have HOPE in humanity
.
Sorry about that.
.
Phil, how much more shall I invest in you, drawing all the threads of our past 3 years together that you've written so you might make some sense of them? I'm the only one here who actually reads what you write and you know that's a bareass empirical fact. Everybody else, you kiss their ass and they don't even notice.
"Diremption"? An obscenity even worse than Cartesian duality. Schizophrenia, more like. There is only one reality. If there's a God, I imagine he loves us despite our foolishness and would rather we treat each other decently. If there isn't a God, then fuck it. We're wasting our time on this stupid blog because life's a bitch and then you die. And there you have it, brother Phil, because otherwise I wouldn't give you the time of day unless I knew that God loves you. So I do do, too. Peace.
.
If there isn't a God, then fuck it.
.
You gave that as an example of the complaints Old Class hold outs use against Modernity. It is typical as though we'd all be dogs at each other's throats if it weren't for the clergy. Pshaw! Most people are moral persons without having to worry about somebody watching over their shoulder to keep them on the straight and narrow.
.
We can't be held responsible for academe's dislike of critical discourse. Sometimes we can get so wrapped up in our reliance on source authority for specifics that we lose our ability to critical thinking on expansive thinking. Some things require source referencing and some things require critical thinking--that is especially true in honest inquiry and the discovery of new ideas. Everyone doesn't walk around with a sheepskin hung on their neck.
.
So, throwing mud at Modernity doesn't cut it,Tom.
.
I'm not cvomplaining, but resorting to name calling to rally support from the peanut gallery, etc., when your argument is otherwise weak is not becoming.
You've tasked me here and I appreciate that, Tom. But, as far as what others think or read? That's up to them.
.
I was hoping we could stay away from that kind of hogwallory.
.
.
But, enough caterwauling. Let me begin to make my case.
.
"We the People...." Who? The ones wanting to be recognized for their personal worth--Americans.
.
"In order..." How's that? A People brought together in an orderly formation--no rabble.
.
"To form a more perfect union..." A union? That's people unified for a common cause, right?
.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
.
This is all about unification of the People. This would have been the ideal place to say, "In order to form a more perfect form of the Christian Faith..." But, no, our FF wanted to bring the diverse peoples together under one banner. These men were much closer to the people that any of our leaders are today. The creation of America was a purposeful move to redeem people separated by different denominations and beliefs.
.
I haven't got it so well worked out. And, there is much more work to be done. But, I'd like to see my hypotensis knocked down and out.
.
.
.
Knocked down and out with honest criticism.
.
That should be easy. IF it can be done.
.
.
"Diremption"? An obscenity even worse than Cartesian duality. Schizophrenia, more like. There is only one reality.
.
This has to be the ultimate cry of the Old Class fuming against Modernity.
.
Don't get me wrong, Tom. I understand your dilema. We see just how deeply indoctrinated you haved been by your teachers; so, it is almost impossible for you to accept the idea that human beings have the ability to think for themselves. I understand how a person could be so tied up in the bonds of authority. It happens.
.
The Holy Bible; Matthew 11:5
.
.
Another waste of my time.
.
Another waste of my time.
.
Yes, it was. You just couldn't get anyone else in to buttress your weakness.
.
But, never the less, you have helped me work out some of my thoughts. I have found support for my hypothecation in the Preamble.
.
I could say a lot more about your behavior on this one; but, to what avail?
.
Have a nice day, Tom.
.
.
In any event, Tom, thanks for the time you gave me.
Modernity. Feh.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277693/why-young-americans-can-t-think-morally-dennis-prager
Tom,
I intend to read some of the other posts, tonight! But, I wanted to interject into the conversation about your last "news story"!
It is unnecessary to propose "God" for moral behavior! What young adults need are parents that have been invested in developing thier children! There are studies that prove such.
It seems more likely that those that want to propose such thinking are either affiliated with "the Church" or want to "prove" Kant's categorical imperative, and the need for social conditioning to affirm morality in the human animal!
Social conditioning happens by osmosis, and our society has been affected by Protestantism, whch allows for conscience, otherwise, the "Moral Policemen" of Authoritative Spiritual/Moral Authorities play "God" over human beings.
I believe that going down this road subverts many of the values that America affirms, and one of them was in the Washington Post today; private property! Is it immoral to own "more than the basics" when others have need? Not according to Catholicism! or globalist agendas!
I believe that such a proposal leads right to a totaltalitarian State where individuals cease to have rights, because someone other than the person makes a decision!
Many "sins" happen because of unmet emotional needs, so "feelings" are more prominant in today's society, NOT because of a lack of "Church", but a lack of an affirming and caring envrionment! And that happens for many reasons; stress from job, family or money problems, divorce, lack of time or money management, ETC.!
But, to suggest that there is a uniform way to understand "life" is confining of diverse values, which don't have anything to do with "feelings", but with personal interests and choice!
.
There is a distinct characteristic of those who cannot speak for themselves when they are involved in any critical discussion. Always trying to mimic the credentialed by using sourced material rather than speaking for themselves. It's as though they are fearful they might be held accountable for what they say. tsk tsk
.
If someone has something to say about Modernity, they should go ahead and say it using their own words--takiong responsibility for what they think and say. Hiding behind some source can be an act of cowardice.
.
But, Modernity is as varied and complex as any human being. It's only been around for about 500 years whereas the Age of Faith has been around for as far back in antiquity as one can go--forever since the beginning. It took a long time for the Age of Faith to mature--the Catholic Church being one of its greatest happenings. Some of us are mired back in the Age of Faith, some have one foot there and the other here, while others have both their feet firmly on new ground. It takes courage to go against the flow. I expect Modernity will grow and mature over a period of some time. Who knows how long it will take. One of the things to be overcome is the struggle between those stuck in antiquity and those who are living in the present.
.
Modernity is not in the business of trying to prove itself.
.
America is one of the greatest happenings to be born of Modernity.
.
America is one of the greatest happenings to be born of Modernity.
Yes you keep saying that without proving it. Back to Square One. peace, I'm out.
It seems more likely that those that want to propose such thinking are either affiliated with "the Church" or want to "prove" Kant's categorical imperative, and the need for social conditioning to affirm morality in the human animal!
Actually, Angie, the key quote is from Richard Rorty, a modernist, and atheist.
One key reason is what secularism does to moral standards. If moral standards are not rooted in God, they do not objectively exist. Good and evil are no more real than “yummy” and “yucky.” They are simply a matter of personal preference. One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”
In fact, the entire linked essay is a rebuttal to the stuff you write interminably here: there is no root to it, just the snake eating its tail, liberty is good because it's good, an end in itself.
But that tells us nothing really about what is good. Even Hegel noticed that, see quote above.
So basically, you and Phil talk in circles, around each other, and around yourselves. So go back to what you were doing, but try to wait until a thread has had some time for comments that are actually relevant to the original post.
Please. There was an interesting post the other day I wanted to comment on, but you and Phil had already eaten up the first half-dozen comments with your round-and-round, and it wasn't even worth writing a comment, since it was buried before it was even born.
My mistake for trying to introduce some relevance into this. Sorry, I won't do it again. But please, try not to clog the first few comments with stuff that doesn't relate to the original post.
Tom,
I was referrring to YOUR posted referece to the article in the National Review!!! That "moral sense" has to be affirmed withint Church confines!
I argued that the family was the primary place to learn "how to behave"! and that a family doesn't have to be Christian to teach their children! That was my only pount, besides taking a swipe at aurhoritarianism!
Sorry, you didn't find my comments of value or worthy of your input I've enjoyed theis blog, maybe too much, as I did feel free to post my opinion, though ill informed comapared to most! But, I did feel welcomed And I thank everyone for that!!!
The Richard Rorty part WAS from the National Review article. That's the point, the Judeo-Christian ethos, not the religion itself. He's a modern and an atheist.
Phil thinks I'm trying to sell him religion or something, and that everybody thinks for themselves except me, who's been indoctrinated.
For the record, my serious studies of history and philosophy began only 5 or so years ago, with a fresh outlook. I started with Plato via Leo Strauss and ended up with religion and the Founding because it's where "rights" emerge as the number one thing in human politics.
If I argue for the role of the Judeo-Christian ethos and against the emptiness of the Enlightenment, as Strauss and Hegel [and Rorty somewhat] do, it's not for religion but utility. Phil's 80 yrs old and I can't tell him anything about God he hasn't heard [or at least I wouldn't bother trying because he's not buying]. That's his lookout and I'm no preacher.
As for comments to this blog, at this point I'm only asking to keep the first few comments relevant to the original post or else leave room for somebody else to. That's not too much to ask, and frankly to not respect that request is an abuse of our hospitality.
OK?
From prior posts:
Tom: "I'm all ears, honestly."
.
Phil: "Do you want to continue on this angel? I would like that. Maybe you could start a blog on the ideas?"
.
.
September 18, 2011 7:31 AM
Phil Johnson said...
.
"So, my hypothecation is that America was not founded to be a Christian nation; but, instead, was founded to unify Christianity with the other embodiments of experience; science, morality, and art--that is knowledge as an aspect of what modernity is all about."
.
.
September 18, 2011 8:17 AM
Tom Van Dyke said...
"Yes, pls continue, Phil. It is indeed interesting.
I suggested on different occasions that Tom start another blog; but, he insisted we keep it here.
Here's Tom's latest comment: "So basically, you and Phil talk in circles, around each other, and around yourselves. So go back to what you were doing, but try to wait until a thread has had some time for comments that are actually relevant to the original post.
Please. There was an interesting post the other day I wanted to comment on, but you and Phil had already eaten up the first half-dozen comments with your round-and-round, and it wasn't even worth writing a comment, since it was buried before it was even born.
My mistake for trying to introduce some relevance into this. Sorry, I won't do it again. But please, try not to clog the first few comments with stuff that doesn't relate to the original post.
.
.
Can you beat that?
.
So, what's all this bullroar about Angie and I abducting your blog, Tom?
.
.
.
"As for comments to this blog, at this point I'm only asking to keep the first few comments relevant to the original post or else leave room for somebody else to. That's not too much to ask, and frankly to not respect that request is an abuse of our hospitality.
OK?"
.
Come on, Tom. The posts are all there to be read. You are the person responsible for the direction the comments to this blog have taken. I repeatedly suggested you start a new blog; but, you insisted we keep it in this blog.
.
And, now you accuse Angie of abusing your hospitality?
.
Gimme a break!!
.
.
Whatever, brother. Hegel reinforced my point, not yours. The rest, pls try to use your posting privileges courteously, as above.
Richard Rorty is a postmodern multiculturalist.
I'd rather base my understanding on the modern paradigm as it is not "feeling based", and doesn't undermine "the rule of law"!
I enjoy other cultures very much, but not as my own! I think cultural exchanges are important, and it is important for children to be exposed to the "greater world", so they won't think "their way" is the only way!
We have "done things this way" since the beginning It is called diplomacy, NOT missions!
Missions are not what I am interested in...but that is always the interest of the Church!
So, though our country is tolerant to other cultures, America is the best paradigm of Modernity, as it is based on individual reason/rationale/consciousness that is protected by civil liberties. But, America is also based on the itnerests of innovative, business goals that have prospered our nation. Science is a major driver of our prosperity. So, Pinky is right, in that sense!
,
Tom addressing me: ...Hegel reinforced my point, not yours.
.
Is that so? Then you should be able--in your own words--to explain how that is so.
.
In the meantime, you might want to clean up your discussion skills.
.
You could leearn something here: http: //www.autodidactproject.org/other/gouldner2.html
"... critical speech forbids reliance upon the speaker's person, authority, or status in society to justify his claims"
.
You are an odd duck to tell others to mind their manners.
.
.
I don't give Hegel the authority to define my ideas. They are my own.
.
But, he opens my mind to understandings I might not get from any other person of renown in his field of expertise. So, just because he is a bright light regarding the study of Modernity, that does not mean that I agree with any conclusions he might make.
.
The same with any other person who provides valuable information. I can't be a sycophant to anyone outside of my own being. That is a real life definition of subjectivity and that comes to us from Modernity. Before subjectivity, we were bondsmen to what was handed down to us by persons of authority.
.
Nothing can be more true about America than the main line in the movie, Field of Dreams, when Kevin Costner is told, "Build it and they will come." America is the Field of Dreams held by our Founding Fathers. They built the structure using our Constitution, its preamble and the amended Bill of Rights--and our ancestors came to fill this Field of Dreams.
.
How are we doing?
.
,
A rather modest proposal.
Since the love fest is still going, did anybody get the reference, a modest proposal?
Swift. Nice.
I was reminded of Swift when I got to the last paragraph of Ben's statement.
.
Only to set the record straight:
.
I wrote, "Maybe you'd like to start a blog on the idea of how modernity influenced Aemrican Creation?", and Tom responded with "No. I want you to back up the assertion that it did and how it did. You have the floor. Go for it. And, followed up in the same post with several standard complaints about Modernity as though there could be no good in it.
.
So, there were two themes running since Tom's request that I give some facts to back up my thoughts; 1. Tom's diatribe against Modernity, and 2. My attempt to uncover my thoughts.
.
My point here is that Tom shouldn't be running away from this thread as the issue deals with the American Founding as it was as aspect of Modernity and not as anything to do with the goodness or evil of Modernity.
.
Our America was Founded to be the UNITED States of America and not as the Holy American Empire. My thoughts are highly respectful of the influence Christianity had on the Founding even though, I am sure, most of the Founding Fathers recognized the need for UNITING the people with their different understandings of what it meant to be a Christian.
.
By the way, I have not claimed my thoughts are the truth--only that they are a developing hypothecation. So, I have a hard time understanding why there is such an attempt to put an early death to what I'm thinking. But, whatever....
.
.
.
And, IF my thoughts have been refuted by reliable investigative research that anyone knows of, just give the link and point to the specifics. I would like to know the evidence.
.
Thankee Kindlee
.
.
.
By the way, I have not claimed my thoughts are the truth--only that they are a developing hypothecation. So, I have a hard time understanding why there is such an attempt to put an early death to what I'm thinking. But, whatever....
As per usual, ideologues seem prone to appear as though they are wining the day by walking away from the discussion or argument when the going is getting tough for their stand.
,
And, so, Tom has shown himself to be an ideologue here. I don't know that it is bad to be such.
.
So what is the ideology to which you hold on so dearly, Tom. Is it what you call Thomism, i.e., the teachings of Aquinas?
.
Phil,
You bold typed "UNITED", so I suppose that this is an emphasis you desired.
The UNITED states has impliicatons of centralization, which the conservative resists. Conservatives tend toward the liberty of State choice, as it balances power. Centralization tends to systemize and create problems that crush individual liberty.
I believe the historical background is from the Civil War when Abrahma Lincoln unified the states. The South thought that thier right to own slaves was an economic question, not a human rights one, while the North was more industrialized that didn't depend on slaves to do their "dirty work". The North didn't depend on slave trade to gain an economic advantage, but on "industry". Such is scienctific discovery today! The more scientific discovery is advanced, the more society has liberty of choice.
Order calls for organizational hierarchy. But, such ordering does not say much about attitude, but position. Hierarchy is not a problem, unless there is no liberty within such organization for choice. Slaves did not have the right to liberty and that was the issue for the North. Manumission was useful to liberate some.
Both sides, I believe have their strengths. But, today, racial or religious rights seem to divide the liberal/conservative. Today, when race, religion and "rights" tend to dis-unify our nation, America is torn when its greatest needs are at hand. We should all understand, as Americans, that what has made us great have been our diversity! not our conformity! We should learn to appreciate the differences that are allowed in America. It is a sign of liberty! And liberty is the basis of justice, where all are 'equal under law'. None are considered "less" than another American! And one group does not trump another group's right to equality under law! I wish that groups were not identified by rights, personally, as I think this is what makes for division.
Identity should be centered in being human, then what one chooses, as far as group involvement that give one a more defined identity makes for a choice of value. Free association is a right in a free society, where individuals are not determined, and law protects those rights.
.
From Nexis Lexis a site of Loyala University:
"From the Age of Discovery in the early fifteenth century to the Great War at the beginning of the twentieth century, the West (first, Europe and later North America) experienced the growth, development, and maturation of what is now called modernity. Modernity has many characteristics: ... the capacity of the autonomous individual to govern self ... By the time of the eighteenth century Enlightenment, western civilization's image of itself was
... of a civilization founded on scientific knowledge of the world and rational knowledge of value, which places the highest premium on individual human life and freedom, and believes that such freedom and rationality will lead to social progress through virtuous, self-controlled work, creating a better material, political, and intellectual life ...
(My bold)
.
Here's the link.
.
EXACTLY, Phil!
The value of the autonomous individual to govern self...was Kant's also!
Therefore, what we affirm and value is "beyond" religious values (the group's conformity). It is liberty of "the personal".
.
Angie wrote: "But, today, racial or religious rights seem to divide the liberal/conservative.
.
Have you read enough of the comments thread to understand my hypothecation?
And, not knowing how much of the comments thread you read, I must say that the quote I gave from Hegel is applicable to your comment here. It's the story that the vanquished (the American South) "shall rise again" thing. It doesn't mean the victor remains the victor for ever. (Is America being forced to refight its Civil War all over again? Did not the North finally sever the vitriolic snake's head off?)
.
.
.
.
EXACTLY, Phil!
.
And, so my hypothecation is that America's Founding was an aspect of Modernity and created for the purpose of UNITING both sides of the diremption caused by the advent of this new age.
.
.
The Founding of America was an attempt to heal the rift of the diremption in Western Civilization.
.
.
.
TVD calls the diremption an obscenity and appears to refuse to address my point--only seemiongly to want to denigrate Modernity as some kind of abhorent evil.
.
Phil,
Everyone has the right to make value judgments and prioritize their life accordingly, as long as they are within the bounds of lawful behavior!
Some might choose to be a police or military officier, enforcing the law against those that want to usurp the peace and order of society. One does it at the local or State level, while the other does it at the national level. These are boundaries that are maintained by our laws.
Others might fight for human rights in "equal justice" and become lawyers defending the rights of those discriminated against.
Still others will seek to pursue interests of "human interest" abroad in pursuing international positions, becoming a foreign service officier, diplomat/ambassador, or peace corps volunteer. Still others will value their nation's sovereignty enough to pursue interests in national security!
All of these interests seem to be "at odds", but really are important in maintaining a free and open society and pursuing what is considered "the humane" approach of living on this planet!
Hegel's view, if I am remembering correctly, is the progress of history. That could be affirmed if one looks only at technological advancement, but what of the "problems" of ethics, when it comes to questions of life and liberty? Will machines have as much right under our laws as the human being? and other such questons
.
"Everyone has the right to make value judgments and prioritize their life accordingly, as long as they are within the bounds of lawful behavior!"
.
Of course, you are right on.
.
I don't think that is at issue. But, what is at issue in this thread has to do with tradition versus liberty--given that this is one way of stating the idea being debated. Do we give our person over to the possession of the authority of tradition or are we able to express our liberty to be self governed as a people? In a certain perspective that is what modernity is all about--the liberty of the individual to think for him or her self.
.
And, it feeds back in to the original point of the blog posted by Tom. Barton's litigations are about tradition versus liberty. He sees himself as an authority who gets direction from the higher source of certain authority. How can you beat that?
.
.
Post a Comment