"Voltaire (who is probably better defined as a pre/Enlightenment writer not philosopher)"
"If we are talking about the political thinkers and and philosophers which influenced the formation and foundation of The United States of America then I am still quite correct in their desire to have an orderly society based on rule of law (as derived from natural law and reason). I can list their names and treatises but it probably wouldn't matter. If however you are simply talking about some patchwork definition of the Enlightenment as you seem to be viewing and using it as, then I will admit you are probably correct."
Since your nationalistic definition of the Enlightenment appears to be only the philosophers who influenced the formation of the U.S. and the rest are some "patchwork," then yes, you are incorrect.
Mark in your typical ham-fisted mode of debating you fail to see other's points.
How about we define what we consider the Enlightenment as relevant to this discussion?
I'm afraid you are picking and choosing anyone you feel like from Plato to Voltaire (who is probably better defined as a pre/Enlightenment writer not philosopher), to make your argument.
If we are talking about the political thinkers and and philosophers which influenced the formation and foundation of The United States of America then I am still quite correct in their desire to have an orderly society based on rule of law (as derived from natural law and reason). I can list their names and treatises but it probably wouldn't matter.
If however you are simply talking about some patchwork definition of the Enlightenment as you seem to be viewing and using it as, then I will admit you are probably correct. Your vague meandering understanding can apply it to pretty much any viewpoint.
Further the phrase "... and a republican form of government" already makes it clear that these men were revolutionaries, so I think the things you said were in some way implicit in his full sentence.
But if you break the sentence in half, then you alter the meaning.
Also his statement included "... and a republican form of government" which is why I interpreted the first part of the sentence in the way I did.
I did not interpret his phrase "law and order" in the sense of contemporary american politics.
Rather I interpreted his statement to mean that these philosophers, to the extent that they were interested in governance, were also interested in law, or a new kind of law (Jefferson after all had something to do with the U.S. Constitution).
"'The enlightenment philosophers were very into law and order in society"
Actually, Vox was so far off it did not even warrant a response, but since he may influence others to believe the lie here is the reality: Many of enlightenment philosophers were very intent on breaking the law and create disorder of the dominant paradigm and lived in constant fear of the police and the kings' soldiers. Rousseau gave tacit and Voltaire and Wollstonecraft gave explicit support to the bloody French revolution and Locke gave tacit and Jefferson and Paine gave explicit support to the bloody American revolution.
"...very into law and order"? What a joke.
Keeping a Republican boot across the neck of the educational system in Georgia assures a continual flow of poorly educated citizens/voters. Dumbasses voting for total assclowns like Broun and Hice. And Deal.
"The enlightenment philosophers were very into law and order in society, and a [r]epublican form of government..."
What you say is true, but I think that the central point of Enlightenment was that affairs of men, with regard to scientific enquiry, law, governance, etc. should be decided in accordance with reason, as opposed to faith.
The founding fathers were also men of enlightenment, which is why they insisted on the separation of Church and State. The most religious was Adams, but even he did not wear his religion on his sleeves, not to mention that others including Jefferson were down right anti-religous.
Other presidents such as Lincoln, who may have been men of deep personal faith, made their low opinion of religion, or at least organized religion, quite clear, without any fear of voter backlash.
Up to mid twentieth century people like H. L. Mencken, who was the most famous and popular columnist of his day, would regularly deride religion in terms that are almost unimaginable today.
In this sense, the injection of religion into american politics, at least in such an overt way, is quite a recent phenomenon, and it all goes back to the basic question as to whether reason or faith should take precedence in governance, science, and other matters concerning men.
Vox, I think that Hice is only a symptom of a deeper problem, namely that his "base" does not seem to be aware of or respect the first amendment to the U.S. constitution, and the consistent way it has been interpreted throughout U.S. History. At least that seems to be what Hice is counting on to get elected.
"....enlightenment thinkers, not just the neoplatonics."
What does that even mean? And when did I bring up the 'neoplatonists'?
If you believe Enlightenment philosophical thought is the same as Neoplatonic philosophy I suggest you take a refresher Phil. 101 course.
"Why would a private investigator want emails about Cobb Braves deal?"
Uh because it's one of the most openly slap-to-the-face shady deals in recent history?
Also, cheers to Paul Howard! If those azzholes are found guilty in the case of those heinous murders, they should fckng die. And I know this sounds weird, but AGAIN, their executions should be shown to problem kids in high school because something needs to be done to at least make an effort to deter violent crime in the black community. EVERY NIGHT, there is more news about another black male using a gun on someone; pulling another armed robbery, or murdering someone. This is fckng ridiculous.
Come on guys, there's really no debating that what he said was at best buffoonish and at worst worrisome. Just another instance of a political hack shoring up their base (the same way Al Sharpton jumps the tracks on any possible racial controversy). He's a talk show host, that fact alone should show you that sensationalism is what he thrives on.
The less press he gets the better.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Back in 1789, We the People didn't want The Church of England, or any other religious body, to be the government-sponsored, tax-supported, official religion of the country. And we still don't.
Maybe this wannabe congressman ought to read the Constitution again.
Seriously, Jeffrey, you and Cobb county would be SO HAPPY TOGETHER! Please stop developing intown projects. :(
In that rendering, there is literally more parking for cars than there is park ground for the residents of those apartments.
"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.
All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.
At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... "
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State"
"Church and state are and must remain separate."
"Academia is not immune to corrupt money grubbing."
Yes, no body is perfect.
"I'm not going to name the college, the PI or the program officer at NSF. Are you kidding? I will tell you this though. It was an Atlanta University Center college whose president worked at NSF before becoming president of his Alma Mater in the mid 90s. It shouldn't take you much time to figure that out."
Actually, it doesn't take much to figure out
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation