tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post9186330851714783728..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Charles J. Reid on Brian Tierney Part 3Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45277898343085245512011-01-12T06:23:13.510-07:002011-01-12T06:23:13.510-07:00Thanks, secular square. That relieves me. You'...Thanks, secular square. That relieves me. You're not a "communist" :-).<br /><br />Of course, any humane person want to live in a society that does not prevent them from seeking and finding the "good". That is why I love this country. I think we take too much for granted.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31602440125490391182011-01-12T06:12:41.783-07:002011-01-12T06:12:41.783-07:00Wow. Not sure how to answer all those question.
Na...Wow. Not sure how to answer all those question.<br />Natural law commands that we seek the good and that reason identifies the particular goods sought. Maybe life, liberty,and pursuit of happiness? The latter phrase is an Aristotelian term "eudaimonia" which means "thriving" or "flourishing." That means seeking those things which are good for us. Human beings share the shame general biological and psychological goods or needs. Some basics include food, clothing shelter, education, and friendships. These are negative rights in that society is bound NOT to deprive people of their pursuit of these goods. They are NOT positive rights that require others to provide them for each individual.<br /><br />Ayn Rand . . . never read her.secularsquarehttp://secularsquare.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20731098942466661592011-01-11T21:54:29.702-07:002011-01-11T21:54:29.702-07:00The right to what is "good" for the indi...The right to what is "good" for the individual is "what"? Is this "good" a universal "good", or a personal character development "good"? Who is to define the "good"? one's family who needs that individual's good, or some "other authority" or anyone has a claim on another? If so, then who is to say that another has a claim, if one is not legally bound?<br />When people have equal "right" to not be obstructed in seeking to pursue their "need", is that need a universal need or a specified need? And is that "need" defined only as a survival need, or any need, such as emotional, social, etc.? Who is to determine whether they indeed have that need, or not? If one is not to obstruct that "need" then, is it a negative "right" and not a "positive demand" of "duty", or obligation? If it is a "duty", then who is to enforce such duty? Does every human have the right, then, to demand that all their needs be met, by Maslow's hierarchy of needs?<br />If so, then one benefits at the costs of the other, it seems to me.<br /><br />What is your opinion of Ayn Rand's view of self-interst as a beneficial system that maintains the tension between parties, benefitting both parties? Your analysis seems to demand "duty" to another, that I don't find to be especially formible. People choose thier relationships, unless one believes in "Planned Relationships". Such would be the case of the woman in Islamic society to marry the chosen "mate". It is her duty to marry the one chosen. They each have a natural right to have thier needs met. This sounds like co-ercive means of relating to another, which in our society isn't "kosher".Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83728343943894188562011-01-11T20:55:34.650-07:002011-01-11T20:55:34.650-07:00The promised philosophical aside:
I believe that ...The promised philosophical aside:<br /><br />I believe that natural rights can be more firmly established on the commands of natural law to seek good rather than on those “demonstrations” that natural law neither commands nor forbids. According to natural law, I have a duty to seek that which is good for me in order to fulfill my human nature. Because I seek my natural needs, this can serve as the basis for making a “rights claim” against others not to interfere with my pursuit of my natural needs and for the government to protect or create conditions under which I can pursue those needs. Those things which are good for me, because they fulfill my species specific needs, also are good for every other human being. They, too, have a duty to pursue their needs and possess claim rights against me not to obstruct their efforts. In this way, natural rights are universalized to apply to all.<br /><br />Consequently, the commands of natural law appear to be a much surer foundation for establishing natural rights than the “demonstrations,” or neutral sphere of personal choice “(p.445).<br /><br />Basing natural rights on “neutral sphere” I believe leads to Mill's utilitarianism. In this instance, a person claims the right to choose whatever leads to personal happiness in the sense of the psychological state that comes from getting whatever it is he wants. This kind of happiness differs, of course, from happiness in the Aristotelian ethical sense of getting what he needs.secularsquarehttp://secularsquare.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75299564947167139202011-01-11T18:20:41.534-07:002011-01-11T18:20:41.534-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48094425309746873662011-01-09T18:50:33.041-07:002011-01-09T18:50:33.041-07:00Joe,
Today, we understand that neuroscience affirm...Joe,<br />Today, we understand that neuroscience affirms that the brain is "encoded with memory". Therefore, one's environment affects one's understanding, or "frame".<br /><br />But, also, there must be some sort of "category" or concept that fits universal words, which differ as to language. Categories are universal, if there is to be communication, the understanding of these concepts and the importance of them differ from culture to culture, due to language. <br /><br />How did different languages develop? How did different emphasis' develop...due to "needs of survival", "environmental differences", etc.? Linguistics has the answer, I would assume.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25197907103695484812011-01-09T18:18:57.158-07:002011-01-09T18:18:57.158-07:00"Locke and Hume would disagree with an innate..."Locke and Hume would disagree with an innate moral sense, but the Founding era did not."<br /><br />Amos hits on this and makes a compelling case that this is simply not the case and is a misreading of Locke because of the ignorance of Canon Law theology. He quotes Tierney a lot and since Amos is a hot button I just started with Tierney but will get to this at some point. In short, the idea is that Locke believed in two types of reason. When he said that we were a blank slate some think he was talking about practical reason not God stamping the natural law on our hearts at Creation reason or whatever people want to call it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13525858551867530960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39789764523334720722011-01-06T22:30:29.613-07:002011-01-06T22:30:29.613-07:00Yes, King. Man's "innate goodness" ...Yes, King. Man's "innate goodness" is Rousseau, his "noble savage," that "society" somehow perverts.<br /><br />The Founding was not Rousseauean, it was from the Scottish Common Sense Enlightenment via Dr. John Witherspoon, the clergyman, head of what is now Princeton, and the teacher of many Founders including Madison. Witherspoon was also a signer of the Declaration of Independence.<br /><br />And as I just learned today, Scottish Enlightenment "common sense" was tied to the idea of an "innate moral sense," a topic and concept we have not discussed, but in which virtually all the Founders believed.<br /><br />Locke and Hume would disagree with an innate moral sense, but the Founding era did not. You can find it as a thread running through the Founding era literature. It was "in the air," and I would say it was a given. [It's a corollary of "natural law" theory, per Romans 1.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46238168457368924212011-01-06T18:55:25.417-07:002011-01-06T18:55:25.417-07:00Jon,
As I objected before when Fea's book was...Jon,<br /><br />As I objected before when Fea's book was previewed here: Total Depravity and Fallen can be considered two totally different things in some fairly main stream Christian thought.<br /><br />I think Fea has the most damaging challenge to the Secular Enlightment Founding idea when he states that the seeing man in at least some sort of fallen state goes completely against the Enlightenment idea of man's innate goodness.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44276605836839164802011-01-06T18:43:31.493-07:002011-01-06T18:43:31.493-07:00Jon stated:
"Joe,
This is a good series of ...Jon stated:<br /><br />"Joe,<br /><br />This is a good series of posts. I will look for something by Robert Kraynak that responds to Tierney and post on the main page."<br /><br />Thanks for the compliment. Look forward to the post on Kraynak.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15096703738668282682011-01-06T12:12:44.954-07:002011-01-06T12:12:44.954-07:00Thanks Tom. I'm not sure if I'll read tha...Thanks Tom. I'm not sure if I'll read that next or not; I’ll let you know if I do. I did just get done reading "The Founders and the Classics" by Carl J. Richard, which was in response to John Pappas' question in his post on Oct. 18, "There still the nagging question: what exactly did the Founding Fathers learn from reading Cicero? What can Cicero’s works tell us about the Founding generation?" <br />I'm not so sure the book can effectively answer those questions as much as I'd hoped, but it helped me with a topic I'm fairly new to. <br />As for the purpose of this post, Mark Noll has a short but valuable summary of the topic of "The Contingencies of Christian Republicanism" as a response (alternative account) to Michael Zuckert's "Protestantism and the American Founding." I read it in hopes of shedding more light on the Bible/religion's role in the founding. While Noll states how “a number of impressive studies have begun to make the case for how that religious influence actually worked,” he doesn’t actually go into detail elucidating any of these mechanisms…he does provide full list of references though. <br />http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.luc.edu%2Fpoliticalscience%2Fengeman%2Fnoll.doc&rct=j&q=the%20contingencies%20of%20christian%20republicanism%20noll&ei=oA8mTcazNtSNnQeOg7DwAQ&usg=AFQjCNEYCYme2SSlUsxqCBYFo9qWLg6naQ&sig2=4CtRPKjEBZVfT00pVHwBtQ&cad=rjaTim Polackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15292479938965452296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72103957518237864782011-01-05T23:59:40.014-07:002011-01-05T23:59:40.014-07:00No one answered my questions about the "Tea P...<i>No one answered my questions about the "Tea Party".</i><br /><br />And I don't think we should, or will, Angie.<br /><br />The informal rule at this blog---which contributors and commenters alike honor---is NO current politics.<br /><br />It makes everything turn into shit in a bigtime hurry, and sets everybody at each other's throats. Sarah Palin and President Obama are OUT!<br /><br />[Mostly.]<br /><br />________________<br /><br />Anonymous, <i>God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution</i> by Thomas S. Kidd sounds interesting.<br /><br />Dr. Kidd is a professor at Baylor, which although sort of religious/Christian, is still seen as a legitimate scholarly institute, and so is Kidd. <br /><br />I've caught him on various media [print, TV], and think he's ace, and neither has the "scholarly academy" dismissed him yet. In fact, I featured one of his essays here:<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/11/tom-kidd-on-elections-baptists.html<br /><br />All in due time, in due time. And this blog regularly gives our mainpage over to guest bloggers, so if you have a review of the Kidd book, just contact one of us and if it's semi-literate, we'll put you out.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1161354841874395352011-01-05T21:58:49.631-07:002011-01-05T21:58:49.631-07:00I clicked off the wrong radio button...I clicked off the wrong radio button...Tim Polackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15292479938965452296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78993248562191047492011-01-05T21:56:41.447-07:002011-01-05T21:56:41.447-07:00The book looks interesting, I'll check it out....The book looks interesting, I'll check it out.<br /><br />Seems like this fairly new book would be good to look more closely at how the Bible "was in the air"? Though it doesn't cover the critical Constitutional period.<br />http://www.amazon.com/God-Liberty-Religious-American-Revolution/dp/0465002358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294287383&sr=1-1Anonymoushttp://(optional)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61933144012296745422011-01-05T20:19:30.861-07:002011-01-05T20:19:30.861-07:00Sorry to have another entry, but it may be pertine...Sorry to have another entry, but it may be pertinent to why I can't "read" what others are really meaning.<br /><br />Whenever virtue is discuess, I find myself withdrawing,as there must a defined definition that is agree upon. I think Joe referred to this as "the good". <br /><br />I have been a part of groups where the leaders had the 'idea in mind' about what virtue was, but had not overtly presented their view. These assumptions, though common and frequent, were the basis of much misunderstanding and conflict. <br /><br />As people do change their views, or come to change their values during the "seasons of life", there can also be a limitation to understanding this change, or allowing enough room for people to come to different outcomes and commitments than expected, etc.<br /><br />Perhaps, because of these experiences, I don't appreciate the talk about virtue. Virtue always smacks of another's judgment, which ends up being another's vision or purpose being imposed. Many parents can be so controlling of their child's development. And it hinders the child from finding their own way, and limits their ability to struggle with themselves, and those they respect, as they grow toward adulthood and into their own person.<br /><br />Autonomy has been dismissed as "wrong". Though there are limitations to autonomy, in that humans do need society to function in, different groups to meet different needs, values or passions, autonomy is not an absolute in one sense. But, autonomy is absolute in another sense of the human right to be a "person" that has come into his own, not another's image.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10746690600848787292011-01-05T19:35:17.802-07:002011-01-05T19:35:17.802-07:00No one answered my questions about the "Tea P...No one answered my questions about the "Tea Party". Because government leaders were acting as if the American people did not know what was best for them, there has been an uprising. Is this because of "passion"? or egoism/identity issues? or a sense of being duped and used? For whatever the real reason is, the American people have woken up, and they are sick and tired of government not acting accountable to the people/as representative. <br /><br />Paternalistic government acting as if its "reason", as to social issues, is beyond reproach, and yet, unethical in their dealing with the American people as a whole, are not to be trusted in public office. Government is also to be accountable by tranparency, not obstruction, confiscation, and manipulating the population through propaganda, limited information, and black-balling/black-mailing those that don't go along with their "goals".<br /><br />It seems that there is real concern on this blog about 'virtue". Virtue must first be seen in our public servants, so the they set an example of honesty, integrity, and overal ethical behavior, otherwise, they don't need to pretend they will influence America "for the good".<br /><br />Reason, as I am using it, is according to one's interest, whether that is to intelletucal commitments, or personal commitments. Is this a passion, mis-directed? Or is man to not have liberty in these regards?<br /><br /> Men always have passion about their interests, and the liberty to pursue those 'ends' is what our country values in liberty of conscience. We all will not be interested in the same things. That is to be expected. <br /><br />Depravity or deprivity is the argument that is being posed. Didn't the Founders for the most part believe that man was not to be trusted with absolute power? This was there purpose in balancing power? Self-governance isn't to be trusted? Why? If we are not self-governing, then who is to be our authority? Isn't this the definition of tyranny?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4953829527603912422011-01-05T18:44:56.288-07:002011-01-05T18:44:56.288-07:00Jon, I'm not claiming the Calvinist view was n...Jon, I'm not claiming the Calvinist view was normative. It was not.<br /><br />And neither does the Calvinist "total depravity" amount to a negation of reason. Max Calvinist preacher Jonathan Edwards was one of the most reasonable, sophisticated, and well-read men of the pre-Founding era!<br /><br />I'm quite willing to stick with Hume, John Adams, etc. They're on record with their distrust of "pure" human reason.<br /><br />Jon, the "natural law" argument is impossible without the use of reason. No one is arguing that scripture alone holds truth. <br /><br />Madison in Federalist 10:<br /><br />"As long as the reason of man continues to be fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed..."<br /><br />And from Federalist 55, on virtue [and depravity]:<br /><br /><br /><i>As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.</i><br /><br />Actually, as Peter Lawler argues, the confluence of the Enlightenment's adoration of reason and the Calvinst's utter distrust of it led to a synthesis that amounted to a Thomistic ["Catholic"] semi-Pelagianism!<br /><br />http://patrickdeneen.blogspot.com/2008/09/peter-lawlers-america-rightly.htmlTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48518118855352926982011-01-05T17:52:19.025-07:002011-01-05T17:52:19.025-07:00I suppose we need to revisit the Founding era'...<i>I suppose we need to revisit the Founding era's distrust of "pure" reason. Not only did the Calvinists see man's reason as "fallen" but if you take a look at David Hume, who was pretty much atheistic, you see that he saw reason as a slave to man's passions as well.<br /><br />On this subject, all POVs were in rough agreement. We've popped through a number of Founder quotes like John Adams', but I admit I forget where they are at the moment. But we gotta think 18th century, not the 21st.</i><br /><br />I don't think this is right and I think I've been letting you get away with saying something like this for too long.<br /><br />"Pure reason" creates a straw man. The FFs most certainly DID NOT, as a consensus, view man's mental faculties as "totally deprived" like the Calvinists did either.<br /><br />As per James Wilson, they saw, "reason," "the senses" and "revelation" all working together. And "revelation" was not qualified, as some would have it, as an inerrant, infallible biblical canon. God spoke to man, thru Nature and, perhaps through an errant, fallible, incomplete Bible, with reason, guided thru common sense, as his guide.<br /><br />That's as much as I'd give you for Wilson to speak on behalf of the FFs as a "consensus."<br /><br />But this moderate Enlightenment view placed a great deal MORE confidence in man's reasons (and "the senses") to figure things out than the Calvinists "total depravity" did.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37657005148922602912011-01-05T16:29:47.451-07:002011-01-05T16:29:47.451-07:00Angie, the fundies of 2010 aren't really relev...Angie, the fundies of 2010 aren't really relevant.<br /><br />I suppose we need to revisit the Founding era's distrust of "pure" reason. Not only did the Calvinists see man's reason as "fallen" but if you take a look at David Hume, who was pretty much atheistic, you see that he saw reason as a slave to man's passions as well.<br /><br />On this subject, all POVs were in rough agreement. We've popped through a number of Founder quotes like John Adams', but I admit I forget where they are at the moment. But we gotta think 18th century, not the 21st.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37148376210302664682011-01-05T16:06:31.650-07:002011-01-05T16:06:31.650-07:00Does anyone correlate the "Tea Party" mo...Does anyone correlate the "Tea Party" movement with the conservatism of the Founding Fathers? And is the "Tea Party" a revolution of the "masses" for being disrespected regarding some important issues of national and personal interests? If so, then haven't the intellectual elite been guilty of creating our "culture wars"?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33003824496236022232011-01-05T15:59:13.149-07:002011-01-05T15:59:13.149-07:00Jon,
I would be interested in reading a post on Ro...Jon,<br />I would be interested in reading a post on Robert Kraynack...if it differs from Tierny...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48024889504706827352011-01-05T15:57:34.763-07:002011-01-05T15:57:34.763-07:00@ Joe,
Thanks for the recommendation.
@ Tom,
Tha...@ Joe,<br />Thanks for the recommendation.<br /><br />@ Tom, <br />Thanks for the reference and summery.<br /><br />I am not arguing that reason is some sort of "lone ranger" objective ideal, but that reason is a person's reasoning within his givennes (innate nature, and personality). So, while every human has a "mind", each mind is different. And these differences, are NOT just cultural, environmental differences (Blank Slate), but are diffferent in kind.<br />How else can two people who grow up in the same family, differ so vastly? It is genetic determination.<br /><br />But, I don't think reason within the context of genetics is determinative, either, as I do believe that we do become what we are exposed to...therefore, I did NOT say that inpsiration ccmes from revelation, BUT, that revelation cames from inspiration!<br /><br />The fundies or evangelical types are those that believe that texts are revelation and that the "holy spirit" speaks through the text or that the "holy spirit' has spoken through the text...<br /><br />I believe that revelation (education about oneself) comes through inspiration (encouragment and environmental).Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33091871606281987802011-01-05T14:55:21.112-07:002011-01-05T14:55:21.112-07:00Tom, I only partially agree that it was in the air...<i>Tom, I only partially agree that it was in the air. It certainly was part of the fabric of culture, but the strength of rationalist and Whig thought at that time became quite heavy as well. </i><br /><br />Well, the first thing is the question "Which Enlightenment?" It all gets lumped together, Hume, Voltaire and Rousseau along with Locke, Sidney, and the Thomist and Calvinist political theologies. For instance, the Calvinist clergyman and political theologian John Ponet, of whose work John Adams wrote:<br /><br /><i>"[it] contains all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards dilated on by Sidney and Locke..."</i><br /><br />As a starting point, Gertrude Himmelfarb, perhaps. You need not agree, but her argument should have a place at the table.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/09/politics.societyTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9626277446426415812011-01-05T14:50:14.156-07:002011-01-05T14:50:14.156-07:00Joe,
This is a good series of posts. I will look...Joe,<br /><br />This is a good series of posts. I will look for something by Robert Kraynak that responds to Tierney and post on the main page.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91474532511994751032011-01-04T15:32:00.674-07:002011-01-04T15:32:00.674-07:00Angie,
Much of property law came from Canon Law. ...Angie,<br /><br />Much of property law came from Canon Law. Like or not it started from imago dei and worked itself from there. Tierney follows this evolution. I suggest reading the book review at very least and perhaps buying and reading the book. The first part is free on google books.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13525858551867530960noreply@blogger.com