Some time reading the Constitution and US history might benefit anti-merc crusader Jeremy Scahill.
This week Bill Maher's increasingly far left and out of touch show featured repeat guest Jeremy Scahill, who launched into his usual righteous rant against Blackwater and the evils of hiring mercenary troops to augment American forces in our various ill-considered military deployments overseas.…
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments126 - Dave Nalle
And Cindy, I'm not avoiding you, I just have no idea where your posts are. I saw them once on my phone and haven't been able to find them since then.
Dave
127 - Cindy
Okay, I'll put them here.
128 - Cindy
Dave,
I am hoping you will factor this evidence into your theory.
Legal Prostitution in Australia a "Failure"
Ten years ago, Australia made a risky policy move it thought would help protect women and children: it legalized prostitution. Today, only 10% of the prostitution industry operates in Australia's legal brothels. The other 90% takes place in underground, illegal sex markets thick with forced prostitution and human trafficking victims.
129 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, Australia is hardly the only place prostitution is legal. Legalization seems to have worked much better in France and in Nevada.
The article you link to points out that there's a problem but doesn't offer any explanation of why that has anything behind it beyond the author's opinion, and her assumption that legalized prostitution has led to a growth in underground prostitution is incredibly speculative.
Regardless, none of this changes the fact that the slavery and exploitation are the real crimes, NOT the act of being a prostitute or going to a prostitute. It's just not right to punish all sex workers and oppress those who could operate legally becuase some they happen to be in the same industry as criminals.
It's like punishing all businessmen because Bernie Madoff is a criminal who happens to also be a businessman. Of course you DO believe in that, so your moral compass is completely out of whack anyway.
Dave
130 - Cindy
Dave,
I can see that we've made real progress tonight.
131 - STM
Roger, I would argue that The Enlightenment began in western Europe in Britain, with the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. That is not simply my view, however, but the view of many scholars.
I also believe the Declaration of Independence was part of the Englightenment.
In France, however, apart from all the hoo-haa, the empty rationalism and the baroque music, what you got were: decadent aristocrats who wouldn't give up their positions of wealth and power, a revolution that descended into a bloody terror and didn't even pay lip service to its supposed ideals of liberty and equality, followed very soon after by the rule of a bloody tyrant whose reign caused millions of deaths across Europe and who - as I've said before and strongly believe - tried to force his will on the populace at the point of a bayonet and wanted to set up vassal states across the continent wjo would be virtual slaves in service of France.
Not until the Treaty of 1814 and the Treaty of Paris a year later, mainly imposed by Britain and the coalition on France after Napoloeon's defeat at Waterloo (and imposed in a very magnanimous fashion considering what had gone on), could the rest of Europe seriously be said to have benefited from whatever changes to legal systems etc that Napoleon supposedly brought to the table.
Indeed, many serious scholars use either the French revolution or the start of Napoleon's reign to mark the END of the enlightenment.
Somehow, guillotines and bayonets just didn't fit the picture of an enlightened society.
Whereas in Britain, the Glorious Revolution ended the power of the King under constitutional monarchy and gave power to the people through their elected representatives in parliament based on anglo-saxon notions of personal liberty, while the American revolution gave power to the people through a republic under a constitution based on the very same principles.
It is the ultimate paradox here when talking political enlightenment especially that these two nations with near identical ideals were to come to blows. However, neither Britain nor the US paid lip service to freedom and liberal democracy; they actually did it. Unlike Dave or many Americans, I also see the principles upon which the US was founded not as something special, radical and unique, but merely an extension of western European liberal democratic ideals, picked up and plonked across the pond and set down in a document.
Americans should never look to France for an idea of where they came from: Indeed, the excesses of the French revolution and the plunder, burn and kill philosophy of Imperial France very nearly took Europe back to the dark ages.
And once again, it was the anglo countries that remained the beacon on the hill during the period. That is, the US and Britain.
So I don't agree with Dave's misguided premise at all; Napoleon was not a bringer of light in any way shape or form - he was a destroyer and a herald of darkness. And, with respect, I don't believe from what you've written here Rog that you really know that much about it and are therefore not really in an ideal position to argue the point beyond simple pontification based on erroneous belief.
132 - roger nowosielski
I thought we might embark on a serious and interesting discussion, since the view your're presenting is definitely an interesting one and worth considering. And I definitely don't rule it out. In light, however, of your last remark, I find it useless to continue any further discussion. Apparently, Stan, you are more concerned about sticking to your version of history and history of ideas rather than having a fruitful exchange. And I have to look no further for evidence of your apparently fixed mindset than the closing of your otherwise interesting and thought-provoking comment. So do have a good day.
133 - Silas Kain
I thought we might embark on a serious and interesting discussion...
OK, now that I've stopped laughing hysterically...
...Napoleon was not a bringer of light in any way shape or form - he was a destroyer and a herald of darkness.
With all due respect I disagree. For Poles, Napoleon was a liberator. I think one needs to look at the totality of Napoleon. As a child I sang the Polish National Anthem every day in school and here is the English translation:
Cross the Vistula and Warta
And Poles we shall be;
We've been shown by Bonaparte
Ways to victory.
It's interesting. The French side of my heritage argues that Napoleon was an oppressor while the Polish side celebrates his role in freeing the oppressed.
134 - roger nowosielski
I'm not affected by any of that, Silas: true, Napoleon was considered by many nation-states to be a liberator, although he failed to deliver. But the notion of Enlightenment goes beyond the political realm; it's a notion of the advent of the Age of Reason and doing away with an Age of Faith. And with all due respect to Stan, that's the point that's being missed. And France, more than England, was the fertile ground because of the influence of Catholicism, whereas the English have long effected a separation of Church and State as institutions and in the realm of idea. We might even look to Descartes as a starting point, and the school of Rationalism. And in Germany, one might look to Kant. But what was the typical reaction from across the channel by the conservative Burke: one of suspicion: "We don't wan't none of that crap here." So I guess not much has changed. The Anglos are just too impressed with themselves to recognize that they aren't the only contributors. And so I say, let them.
We're still in the age of Enlightenment in that, more important sense -- the age of reason that is - although our suspicions are growing that the project has been a failure.
135 - Silas Kain
Every age is an Age of Enlightenment in my mind. As every civilization advances, change erupts -- not from the point of reason in many cases. The Dark Ages were the Church's last attempt to maintain a stranglehold on people. With the rise of "heresies" an Age of Enlightenment came into being. Things aren't that different today. Technological advances, education and "free" societies have caused people to question Dogma once again.
In my personal search for "enlightenment", I'm beginning to understand that "Natural Law" and God's Law" are very much one in the same. What's separating them right now is a set of interpretations which lead one to become more confused. I see the fundamental teachings of Christ as being consistent with Natural Law and explained from the point of view of the people to whom He preached.
For thousands of years before the rise of Judaism or Christianity there were other religions. They were developed to respond to the people of their times. The basic fundamentals are similar in many respects. Maybe in our intellect we've blinded ourselves to that which is most obvious. Is there a "force" which guides us? Yes, I think there is. But it is our own force, or energy. Once we die, we simply change our form of life. While death is final on this plain or in this realm, it does not negate the value of life. What we do in this short time on Earth will define our next step in the process. Is it reincarnation? Perhaps, I'm not in touch enough with the Divine to understand.
I think that's where we're at in our collective evolution. We are faced with issues that at times seem insurmountable -- but they are not. We have our intellects and common binds to guide us into the next stage. There are changes coming in this world. Some will be good, some catastrophic. That's the cycle of life. What we need to try and forge is a common understanding among all cultures that there is a Natural Law which guides us. In order for humanity to continue, we need to stop and assess where we are at and what it is that we are leaving behind for our descendants 100 years from now. We're so engaged in the here and now that we're forgetting we have a responsibility for future generations. It is incumbent upon each of us to try and leave this world in better shape than it was when we arrived. That's our common bond -- and moral obligation. Teddy Roosevelt understood that concept, that's why he is the godfather of conservation which, in all respects, is consistent with conservative fundamentals.
Basically, Roger, I've come to understand that Christ's "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." is at the basest level nothing more than common sense. We are such that we require some type of governmental oversight to maintain a just and peaceful society. I get that. And what is God's is quite simple -- it is everything. By rendering to Caesar what is his, we are actually carrying out God's work provided Caesar is a just and righteous leader. In Christ's time it was Caesar - the "king" of the Roman Empire. Today it is the collection of Presidents and Prime Ministers around the globe who share in Caesar's legacy.
136 - roger nowosielski
Silas, you're stretching the term beyond its accepted usage and meaning, which makes it unusable for the debate at hand.
Which isn't to say I don't understand where you're coming from, but that's a wholly different topic.
137 - roger nowosielski
To add to the above, I'm less interested with individual growth, expanding one's consciousness, etcetera and etcetera, not because these topics aren't interesting but because we can more or less take then for granted. We each proceed along an arc, some more slowly than others.
My interests, however, lie with the status of the modern society, the unrealized hopes and dreams that the advent of the Age of Reason was being heralded as a promise. It is in this sense that the Enlightenment project still is of utmost importance because the questions remain unresolved.
138 - roger nowosielski
Silas,
The following remark to Cindy on another thread, #106, will give you some feel for the context.
139 - Silas Kain
I guess what I was trying to get at, Roger, is that I wonder if we really have entered the "age" of reason? Is it at all possible that we are at the precipice of the ultimate Age of Reason? Perhaps we have been deluding ourselves all these years.
140 - roger nowosielski
Yes, age of reason it was as originally conceived by Descartes and Kant (again, the proper contrast here is faith). But reason degenerated and become limited to instrumental reason, of harnessing and dominating nature(and dominating of men by men). So if you're pessimistic about the results, the unrealized hopes and promises welcome to the club. You're expressing a fairly common sentiment.
The question remains: What's next? Quo vadis?
141 - STM
Rog, you entered this discussion with me by suggesting that Napoleon might not have had much animosity towards the British, which, while you have certainly boned up nicely on the arts and philosophy, shows me that your knowledge of modern history might be a bit wooly.
The invasion of Russia - which Napoleon tried to couch in terms of a war of liberation for Poland - was in fact a direct result of Tsar Alexander, a one-time ally of Napoleon, breaking the French blockade of British trade to continiental Europe (which was sending Russia broke).
Napoleon was so incensed, he decided to attack Alexander.
Just before the invasion, he's on record as saying: "I know Alexander. I once had influence over him; it will come back. If not, let destiny be accomplished and let Russia be crushed under my hatred of England."
Silas: while Poland might have been freed temporarily by Napoleon from Russian, Austrian and Prussian influence, in the end the invasion of Russia led to the carving up of Poland.
Most alliances with Imperial France were done out of fear; he forced them on those he's vanquished or threatened to vanquish. Mostly, as the Emperor rampaged across Europe, he left no crops or farm animals for the populace as he fed his armies, and millions starved.
It's interesting on that score to note that those allied with Britain in Napoleon's eventual defeat were nations that had been forced into vassal-state alliances with France and were only too happy to be rid of him and his murdering, locust-like armies.
As for anglos feeling self-important, Rog, there's less of that than these is of feeling glad to be among a people who were instrumental in a) ridding Europe of both the excesses of revolutionary France and Napoleon's Imperial France (a tyrant's reign) b) fostering genuine modern liberal democracy on both sides of the atlantic, c) standing up to and defeating Prussian militarism d) crushing murderous Nazi ideology and murderous Japanese imperialism gone mad and e) standing up to and ultimately crushing communism.
All those ideologies (except democracy) are among the most hateful to emerge in the context of modern history and all are now in the dustbin of history, where they belong.
If that's "anglo" self-importance, then long may it continue.
Let's face it: Without it, you'd very likely not be where you are now (you and Silas). You'd at the very least still have your neck under a French boot - or worse.
Besides which, as Americans you are now part of the anglo heritage and beneficiaries of its freedoms.
142 - roger nowosielski
I was only posing a question - a hypothetical if you get my meaning, mate. And the discussion never turned on any denial of the English contributions. So long as these contributions went unquestioned, you could afford to show magnanimity towards lesser, poorer nation-states, like the second cousin, the French. But the cat surely got out of the bag once the British supremacy in all matters from politics to philosophy and arts appeared to be challenged. It was then that you took it personally and fell back on your English pride.
So be it. I'm not here to cure you of your ethnocentrism.
143 - STM
Not English pride, Rog. For a start, I'm not English.
Make that "Anglo" pride. That encompasses the whole of the English-speaking world, including America.
Let's not cloud the issue by talking only of the English. While I admire them, as an Aussie I'm no fan generally of "Englishness".
However, I do respect and love their love of enlightened liberal democracy and their willingness to stand up in defence of it, a love and a willingness that also spread to America - and of which you and I are beneficiaries.
144 - Cindy
Basically, Roger, I've come to understand that Christ's 'Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.' is at the basest level nothing more than common sense. We are such that we require some type of governmental oversight to maintain a just and peaceful society. I get that. And what is God's is quite simple -- it is everything. By rendering to Caesar what is his, we are actually carrying out God's work provided Caesar is a just and righteous leader. In Christ's time it was Caesar - the "king" of the Roman Empire. Today it is the collection of Presidents and Prime Ministers around the globe who share in Caesar's legacy.
"Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, 'We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king.' " (Luke 23:1-4)
145 - roger nowosielski
Well, count the days then, because they're all crumbling from under the stress. The political system will hold on for only a while the remaining aspects, which contribute to ever greater concentration of power and control, are taking over.
The crisis is facing all post-industrial societies (though Australia may be the last to go) - the crisis of legitimation in the sciences, in the political system which fails to deliver, in our political and other institutions. Perhaps you're too removed from the scene of the action, isolated in a sense from the rest of the world; hence your sense of security and the resulting perception that all is well. I don't happen to share this view, neither do many Americans, and certainly not the Europeans, the UK residents included.
And it's for that reason, mainly, that I don't care to get into one-upmanship, valorizing one nation-state over another. It's old thinking which will get us nowhere.
You may think the liberal democracies have done such a great job, but a great many would disagree. For my part, I'll take a pass and watch the history unfold.
146 - roger nowosielski
Cindy,
I'm missing the reference of #144. What are you connecting this to?
BTW, I posted a citation concerning the narrative concept as used in the current polemics. Did you find it?
147 - Cindy
Biblical support for the following argument:*
"...argue[s] that Kingdom people are called to pledge their allegiance to God alone, not to any nation, government, political party or ideology. Because Kingdom people are under the rule of God alone, they are not under any other rule."
Leo Tolstoy wrote: "Not only the complete misunderstanding of Christ’s teaching, but also a complete unwillingness to understand it could have admitted that striking misinterpretation, according to which the words, ‘To Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s,’ signify the necessity of obeying Cæsar. In the first place, there is no mention there of obedience; in the second place, if Christ recognized the obligatoriness of paying tribute, and so of obedience, He would have said directly, ‘Yes, it should be paid;’ but He says, ‘Give to Cæsar what is his, that is, the money, and give your life to God,’ and with these latter words He not only does not encourage any obedience to power, but, on the contrary, points out that in everything which belongs to God it is not right to obey Cæsar."
The Forgotten Politics of Jesus’ Rule of Love (pdf)
(*info courtesy of Irene)
148 - roger nowosielski
Who is contesting anything? I don't remember ever being a part of this argument.
149 - Cindy
One last quote, from the pdf above:
"Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified." â€" Leo Tolstoy
150 - Cindy
Roger,
This is just some information for Silas (or any other Christian) to consider if he'd like. I am placing another interpretation of the Render unto Caesar koan for him to consider.
(It's just some info I give to all nice Christians I meet.)
151 - roger nowosielski
OK them; I thought you were making a connection with anything we talked about.
152 - Cindy
146- Thanks for posting that, Roger. I found it and I'll read it tomorrow. It's now time to settle down with a book on CD. Exhausting day with my family at a water park. (It's better exercise than a gym and really fun! I recommend it if you have one nearby.)
Nite nite. :-)
Have a good night.
153 - STM
Rog, I'd reply if I could work out what you're trying to get at here.
Valorising nation states? No, more like valorising good ideology over bad. I'll make no apology for that, especially in any discussion of the murderous tyranny of Napoleonic France. They were hardly enlightened, unless bayonets count.
That's your problem Rog ... everything's going nicely, then you read things but you don't read them, and then you "read" your own stuff into it, make a judgment, lose sight of what's being said and write puffed up answers that don't appear to address anything except your own intellectual vanity - which all serves to distort the issues beyond repair.
154 - roger nowosielski
You're beginning to sound like you know who.
No intellectual vanity, Stan. It is you who are reading things into context for the simple reason you fail to understand that your ideas and interpretations just won't wash with everybody, as clearheaded and incontrovertible as they may appear to you.
As I've told you, I have no stake in disputing the merits of the ideology you're so beholden to because it's my conviction it's bankrupt. But you're thinking I'm just throwing it in because you presented me with a dilemma.
So yes, I'm operating with another, larger context in mind, and I haven't lost sight of anything. It's just that discussing the issues at this level I don't consider fruitful. How much more tactful can I be?
But you're free, of course, to put whatever spin on this that you like.
155 - STM
Oh, what, just so you don't lose face, it you that's shafting me, now is it? Nothing if not transparent.
You are unbelievable. I've just remembered why I stopped answering your posts previously.
And, ah, who is you know who?
156 - Dave Nalle
Napoleon paved the way for the glories of the French cultural renaissance of the 19th century, plus Carlyle thought he was almost as cool as Frederick the Great. So there.
Dave
157 - roger nowosielski
Stan,
I have no fear of losing face, not in real life, not online, and certainly not in the context of an intellectual argument. Especially in the latter, because so much more depends on asking questions and having a dialogue than anything else. There's no other way of breaking a new ground, so yes, intellectual humility is an essential aspect of intellectual growth.
So let's rehash the exchange in question.
I started by positing a proposition about Napoleon, for discussion's sake. You argued to precisely the opposite conclusion, never mind the rather questionable and one-sided radical position.
I really have no stake one way or another about Napoleon - the discussion, remember, was about the relative merits or demerits of the French civilization and culture (vis-a-vis that of the British). So I changed the topic on moved on to Enlightenment, arguing that we owe great deal of it to the French.
In a typical fashion, you argued to the contrary, and although your argument was interesting and worth considering, you in effect denied my point, closing your argument with ad hominem.
I have no use for these kind of conversations, because they lead nowhere, so I posted a reply, trying to explain that the notion of enlightenment you were operating with was a narrow one, that the proper, more comprehensive notion, transcended immediate results in the political arena and referred to a change in the Western mindset, reason and rationality becoming the spring of human thought and action rather than faith. And France, more so than England, was a more fertile ground for the new mindset to germinate and take hold. And in that, more comprehensive sense, the Enlightenment is still with us, rather than having come to an end, as you claimed, whenever. Obviously, it should have made it apparent that we were operating with two different notions. But rather than taking this into consideration and expanding the universe of discourse, you keep on harping about the evils of Napoleon and the virtues of Queen and country. When I tell you that continuing discussion at that, parochial level, is of no interest to me, that it's petty and fails to recognize the kind of problems which affect all post-industrial societies, you accuse me of muddying the discussion in order to save face, or in the name of intellectual vanity or some other such thing.
The problem is, Stan, you seem intolerant of intellectual disagreement, or perhaps you just can't handle ideas that don't fit neatly into your organized mind. I have no idea about your formal education - you're certainly an articulate, well-informed and cogent enough person. And yet ... you do seem unable to tolerate exchange of ideas. And if there's anything that any prolonged exposure to an intellectual environment - such as college or university - ought to instill in one, it is precisely this kind of tolerance, tolerance to a much greater level than is found among the less well-educated ones. I don't mean it as an insult, mate, because higher education doesn't mean anything in and of itself: there are fools with all kinds of degrees, as well as first-class a ....s. But the ability to tolerate stress when divergent opinions are exchanged ... this quality, Stan, is the quality the human mind. So don't get personal on me, mate, and perhaps we can make some headway now and then. It's up to you.
158 - roger nowosielski
#156, Dave -
The excesses of the French Revolution - the Reign of Terror - also had to figure in as a factor, Dave: the idea of restoring order and normalcy. (In fact, the French themselves couldn't stay indifferent to Napoleon; they either hated him or loved him.)
But for the life of me, I've never come across an account of Bonaparte as the kind of Anglophobe that STM portrays. I'm gonna have to look it up.
159 - Silas Kain
Interesting points to ponder, Cindy. I never quite had that take on Christ's message. I must ponder these points and share my in-conclusions once the process is complete.
160 - STM
Dave: "Napoleon paved the way for the glories of the French cultural renaissance of the 19th century."
Yep, he paved the way all right. By disappearing. What they'd have had if he'd stuck around is anyone's guess but it wouldn't have been a cultural renaissance. There wouldn't have been any culture left ... just a nation of widows and orphans chewing on breadcrusts and grass soup.
Even then, they couldn't get rid of his influence in a hurry ... or his relatives.
So there ...
161 - Dr Dreadful
Even then, they couldn't get rid of his influence in a hurry ... or his relatives.
I'll say.
Took 'em until the late 1950s and de Gaulle coming out of retirement before they finally hit on a political and governmental system that worked properly.
162 - STM
Rog: "And France, more so than England, was a more fertile ground for the new mindset to germinate and take hold."
This is simply untrue and is not backed by historians.
Why is it then that the vast majority of learned scholars believe the enlightenment began with the end of the divine right of kings during the Glorious Revolution (some say it was further back, during the English Civil War but I'd disagree), around the time of Newton's Principia, John Locke's writings ("tabula rasa") or in the years closely leading up to it, and ended either with the French Revolution or the coming to power of Napoloeon??
The enlightened thinkers of France who are credited with being part of it came a bit after the late 1600s. As late as 1730 to be precise. Voltaire was exiled to England in the early 1700s and became an avid reader of Locke and Newton. Voltaire himself believed that collective liberal thought in England made it a better, and possibly a more advanced, society than France at the time (Letters Concerning The English Nation, published in 1733). In France, there's no dispute that the enlightement began around the time of Voltaire's return (about 1730 or so) and became centred on the arts (writing included), music and philosophy, while in England it remained focused heavily on liberal thought and religious, political, scientific and economic change.
This is perhaps where people mistakenly believe that it only ocurred in France. The oppostite is true: it began elsewhere.
The American Revolution, too, was forged on the anvil of The Enlightenment, but owing far more to liberal English thought than to French. The French Revolution, in contrast, became the twisted, bastard child of The Enlightement in the hands of lunatics like Robespierre and Marat. It was almost inevitable, however, that this would happen - because the enlightement in France had focused on areas other than religion and politics, where absolutism still ruled. (This aspect of French society caused Voltaire himself much grief). Its bloody outlet - especially at the guillotine - was like a volcano, full of pent up frustration and anger. The ideal of liberty through revolution is all very well, but it's preferable for those seeking such liberty that they can all take part equally such a revolution without losing their heads (literally) in the process.
Nevertheless, Yale and Harvard might be interested in your new theory of how the enlightenment owes everything to France.
Given the ease with which you fit in to an intellectual (academic?) environment, they might even give you an honorary doctorate :)
On a serious note: When you discover through your reading the depth of Napoloeon's hatred of the English and how it drove him in the end to his defeat both in Russia and in Iberia and western Europe, I hope you'll at least realise that if I can be right about certain things, I can also be right about others.
This, however, has nothing to do with Queen and country as you suggest. As an Australian, I could only be regarded as nominally "British", and only by an association that is slowly petering out to become nothing more than a link of shared tradition and heritage. I recognise the failings and triumphs of all people. My view of history is not purely anglocentric, even if I am on occasion. If I'm anglocentric, it's because there's a lot to admire, when you start digging around, that has benefited us all. But it's more about the truth of history and the need for everyone, especially Americans now given their current place in the world and their anglo background at the time of the declaration of independence and the writing of the constitution (which wasn't plucked out of thin air), to have some genuine, honest understanding of it all.
Sometimes to shift a viewpoint, one needs to think outside the square and seek the truth.
Those who think they know everything and thus believe they have nothing further to learn have already lost the capacity for intellectual thought.
Puffery can sound good, but it often ain't saying much.
163 - STM
Doc: "Took 'em until the late 1950s and de Gaulle coming out of retirement before they finally hit on a political and governmental system that worked properly"
G'day good doctor.
So true ... it's the one area, for all their "cultural enlightenment" (and I won't dispute that aspect), in which they have struggled dreadfully. Upheaval and fall of governments became the norm, even up to the post-war period with the crisis in Algeria.
The evidence is there for all to see: the fourth and fifth republics.
164 - Dr Dreadful
Indeed, Stan. De Gaulle may have been an ungrateful bastard (hated the fact that he'd had to ask the Brits and the Seppos for help to liberate his country) and an insufferable snob, but purely for the fact that thanks to him France has a stable government - for the first time since the end of the monarchy - he counts as perhaps the greatest Frenchman.
In the long run, he did far more for his country than Napoleon ever did.
(And Bonaparte wasn't even French, anyway...)
165 - roger nowosielski
You're ignoring the points I made, namely that in France there was a reason to rebel - against religion. Properly speaking, Enlightenment, which signifies the Age of Reason, is best contrasted with the Age of Faith. Disregarding for now the different field of application you're alluding to, the key development was a brand-new methodology - namely, relying on reason and rationalism as the main tool by which to understand the natural world. Applications came later, the revolution was in the mode of thought. Your chronology can also be disputed, but it's less important really, because in a manner of speaking, Descartes could be considered the philosophical founder. Which isn't to discount events in other countries, because there is such a thing as serendipity. So as to the first point of my contention, I will argue that French events were just as significant as anywhere else, if not more so, because of the area of applications: Voltaire and his clique dealt with ideas, with liberation, not just the limited field of liberal political democracy which, granted, was a peculiarly English institution. What in fact I would argue that the arc in the development of political thinking and political philosophy, and whatever instututional changes have transpired as a result, would have proceeded in England regardless, because of the tradition and the simple fact that institutions evolve over time at any rate. It was besides mostly local in character, of local importance, less dramatic as to the impact as the ideas of Rousseau, for example, or the Liberté, égalité, fraternité slogan which had literally fired the world.
So it all, depends, Stan, not so much on the facts of the case (not to say they're unimportant) but more so, in a case like this, on your concept of what enlightenment means and represents. And the way I envisage the Enlightenment Project (which, contrary as you've argued earlier, had come to an end), it is still very much alive (though on its deathbed), according to some of the most contemporary philosophers and historians and men of ideas.
I do appreciate your input about the English contributions and participation: it does offer an interesting, and, as I said earlier, challenging viewpoint; and I do intend to look at it more closely. But for the time being, these are my thoughts. Between you and I, I don't have that much at stake where and when the goddamn thing started; my interests lie in the present-day problems which are still traceable to the Enlightenment Project: the reason, the sciences, and yes, even the liberal democratic societies are on trial - because the rule of reason failed to deliver. This is the current debate among the thinkers of today and that's where my interests lie.
For future reference, however, I will not be responding to you anymore unless you clean up your mode of discourse and stop resorting to personal aspersions. There's nothing puffy about my views, these are my views, and you have to convince me that I am mistaken; and you're mistaken if you think you're contributing anything to your argument by making stupid digs. It tells more about you than anyone else.
Again, I have no problem with being mistaken, because being mistaken is a human condition and the only we can grow. So if you abide by those rules, I'm game and we can have a go. If you can't, then count me out and it was nice chatting with you.
Again, the decision is yours.
166 - roger nowosielski
Forgot to mention. Definitely the philosophy of John Locke was more instrumental in providing the basis of constitutional government in the US. No one argued to the contrary. But it does stand to reason, because we are talking here, in a manner of speaking, an offshoot of the English system of government.
167 - Cindy
Dave,
Australia is hardly the only place prostitution is legal. Legalization seems to have worked much better in France and in Nevada.
It's only preliminary (because I am still looking for 'best' evidence), but from the info I am reading, the assertion you made could be wrong.
Do you have any evidence for your claim, Dave? Being the rational fact-based person I take you to be, I assume you have actually researched what you claim and that you will give me some evidence for your statements, so I can inform myself of the facts.
TIA, Dave
168 - STM
Rog: "You're ignoring the points I made, namely that in France there was a reason to rebel - against religion."
Actually, that point is very strongly addressed in that post.
This is the problem, Rog, and why people get frustrated with you.
We suspect you only read a bit of the posts before answering.
169 - STM
And Descartes is generally not considered part of the Enlightement. You could possibly throw up a case for it, I daresay, but I was always taught that he was one of the prime movers of the scientific revolution.
170 - STM
Lastly, in what is likely to be the final correspondence between your good self and I, I believe all your views on the enlightement to be misguided and wrong, completely arse-about, and seemingly fuelled by a desire to believe what you want to believe rather than any desire to believe what is right, historically accurate - and generally accepted.
It's fine to challenge, but the facts of history cannot be disputed. They are the bedrock.
171 - roger nowosielski
Stan, you did not address the conflict between religion and reason. England wasn't particularly exercised by that. Not to mention another thing I failed to mention. France was more in the grip of the feudal tradition and social order than England was - and what I mean of course is the French aristocracy and rather absolute monarchy. To my mind, these two elements make for the more fertile ground, as I had termed it.
As to Descartes, the claim I admit is rather far fetched. But on the other hand, why don't you name an English philosopher or man of letters who gave the full expression to the Enlightenment idea.
Yes, I admit I do read only bits and pieces of many posts, so if I did miss anything, please point it out. I don't believe I have and, besides, I was responding more to the general tenor of your thought rather than the details - in particular, your propensity to view and interpret history from the English perspective. As I said, I'll be the last to argue against their contribution to civilization - the most important of which I consider the language - but your way of seeing things strikes me as overly propagandist; I have no respect for that. It has no place in any honest intellectual discourse. Which is one main reason, to tell the truth, why I don't pay your remarks the total attention they no doubt deserve. And yet, correct me if I'm wrong, I did acknowledge that your position merits looking into. At any rate, it's unavoidable that both participants to a discourse will use their judgement what features to focus on and what features to ignore. So now you know where I'm coming from. Yes, perhaps I'm guilty here of a willful omission.
Lastly, let me cite from your remark:
"This is the problem, Rog, and why people get frustrated with you."
Which people are you talking about now. Yourself, Chris Rose, name some more. I'm a far more frequent participant in these debates on BC than you have been of late. So do name please some names so as to arrive at a contingent.
And again, who is the royal "we" in the "we suspect ..." closing line. But that's just a variation on the theme.
172 - roger nowosielski
Facts of history, Stan, facts in any subject matter in fact - even in hard science - are always subject to interpretation and re-interpretation. It's not the facts that rule but ideas, ideas by means of which you connect the facts.
And by the way, there is no such a thing as "right" when it comes to characterizing interpretations of history or even any theory in the hard sciences like physics. But historical accuracy, yes: but all means it is of critical importance.
173 - STM
Quite unquote (from my post: "The French Revolution, in contrast, became the twisted, bastard child of The Enlightement in the hands of lunatics like Robespierre and Marat. It was almost inevitable, however, that this would happen - because the enlightement in France had focused on areas other than religion and politics, where absolutism still ruled. (This aspect of French society caused Voltaire himself much grief)."
I rest my case, especially in regardes to you not reading the whole post.
English philosphers of note, off the top of my head: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke for starters, and the Scots James Mill and David Hume. And if you are going to stretch backwards to Descartes, I'll stretch forward to J.S.Mill, the London-born son of James Mill, and his work of the mid 19th century: On Liberty.
The Scottish Enlightenment deserves a mention here too.
174 - roger nowosielski
Correct, you do make allowances for receptivity (which I called "fertile ground"); but in the negative, which is why I felt it was necessary to hammer the point.
Hobbes still represents old thinking and Locke's work can be looked at as a reaction to Hobbes. And John Stuart Mill, of course, in the libertarian tradition - most concerned with what he felt were the excesses of the Industrial Revolution and other vital issues of the day, such as emancipation. It's arguable, besides, that in Mill's case we're dealing with aftereffects (or fallout, shall we say), rather than a precursor. However, Mill stands as a very significant figure in the English milieu precisely because one of the few liberal thinkers (excluding Locke) against the predominance of the conservative voices. Of course it was different among men of letters in general - Byron, Shelley, etc - the exponents of Romanticism. These were the voices which clamored vs. the Industrial Revolution.
David Hume wasn't really that much caught up, to the best of my knowledge, in those issues: his main work was in epistemology and the thrust was the opposition of Descartes' rationalism: a/c to Hume, all we had were sense impressions, sense-data, called later - which gave rise to the school of British Empiricism. (Locke was in the same camp insofar as epistemology was concerned, but Hume's version is the most radical, resulting in almost total skepticism as regards our knowledge of the external world); also of note are Hume's poignant critiques of religions and religious beliefs.
Perhaps there is to much being made here of the French Revolution. Though certainly one of the consequences of enlightenment, it was but a mob response to philosophical and high-minded ideas. The Reign of Terror is indeed a dark page in French history, but I wouldn't judge the fruits of enlightenment by these event.
It would be like attributing the excesses of the Bolshevik Revolution or Stalinism to Marx's theory of history. Although I'm certain there are many who would do so without hesitation.
175 - STM
Yes, many of at the forefront of the enlightenment on the English side of the ditch felt that French enlightenment was foundering on empty rationalism.
Perhaps there's some truth to it when you look at the result. That's not to denigrate the input, but I always have the sense that because of the political and religious situation in France, there was a lot of a sense of tilting at windmills about the whole thing.