What Is More to Blame (Looking Back)

[Speaker to Animals]

I think the Enlightenment certainly had a lot of interesting and good ideas but of course there were dangerous ideas as well. But how did the Rights of Man, Locke, Kant etc. lead to nationalism per say?

Because western civilization was an organic balance of powers and responsibilities, based on subsidiarity and localized rule. Most of what the average liberal thinks of as the government's role was the role of what today we'd call NGOs. Those NGOs were sitting on a lot of property therein: university campuses, hospitals, monestaries, libraries, and all the land holdings bequeathed to the Church by the aristocracy over the centuries. The Reformation put ALL the power of society into the hands of the kings, which is why so many kings suddenly "realized" they were Protestant and promptly seized Church properties and started burning people who didn't go along with the program.

The Reformation was about the consolidation of power into the hands of kings.

The Enlightenment was the next logical progression in which the kings themselves were dethroned and the mob began to take control of these new nation states that were emerging.

The Enlightenment was not really about reason and liberty at all. Those things were developing just fine on their own across Europe and we'd still be a rational, scientifically-minded people had it never happened. The Enlightenment was about the rise of nation states controlled by demagogues. What they sell as freedom becomes compulsion and the liberty of the people becomes street executions of the former leaders.

One of the greatest chemists was a man named Antoine Lavoisier. The Jacobins executed him for being too cozy with the aristocracy and the former tax collectors. People complained at the verdict that it was crazy and he was one of the greatest scientific minds of the day. The judge replied: The Republic has no need of scientists or chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed.

I cannot possibly think of a better summery of what I think of the Enlightenment than what that judge stated.

Seems like everything that came into fruitition during the Russian Revolution was already developed in France in the late 1700s. Like these dandys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repr%C3%A ... en_mission pretty much a more flamboyant political commissar.

Makes me wonder when a real "counter reformation" will be if ever.

It might be too late, honestly. A new civilization will emerge from the ashes of the one forged by Northern Europeans in the high middle ages. It sucks, but I don't think we can turn it around any more than the people of the earlier classical civilization could have turned it around by times of the civil wars.

[GloryofGreece]

Looking at the Catholic Church and the European Kingdoms of the Middle Ages it seems like there was a balance of power there that is/was hard to replace. Like you mentioned between all the charities, organizations, orders, etc. and what the King officially controlled it appears to have worked in a symbiotic way. And when the Church lost most its power it mostly went to more individualized form of power in most cases. Idk it seems like the functioning of government could hypothetically be less corrupt b/c of the responsibilities were not all concentrated in the State.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's not really about the Church. It's about not consolidating power into a huge national government. It's about people controlling their own lives at the local level or allowing a giant nation-state to control them instead.

The Church simply filled the role of a counter-balance to the secular powers, and the secular powers were kept divided up according to subsidiarity.

But kings knew if they could nationalize their kingdoms, and raise massive national armies, they could gain more territory and become even more powerful. That's what the Reformation was about.

The Enlightenment was about the mob snatching that power away from the kings.

But the problem from day one was the consolidation of power in that fashion.

[Fife]

Because western civilization was an organic balance of powers and responsibilities, based on subsidiarity and localized rule. Most of what the average liberal thinks of as the government's role was the role of what today we'd call NGOs. Those NGOs were sitting on a lot of property therein: university campuses, hospitals, monestaries, libraries, and all the land holdings bequeathed to the Church by the aristocracy over the centuries. The Reformation put ALL the power of society into the hands of the kings, which is why so many kings suddenly "realized" they were Protestant and promptly seized Church properties and started burning people who didn't go along with the program.

The Reformation was about the consolidation of power into the hands of kings.

The Enlightenment was the next logical progression in which the kings themselves were dethroned and the mob began to take control of these new nation states that were emerging.

The Enlightenment was not really about reason and liberty at all. Those things were developing just fine on their own across Europe and we'd still be a rational, scientifically-minded people had it never happened. The Enlightenment was about the rise of nation states controlled by demagogues. What they sell as freedom becomes compulsion and the liberty of the people becomes street executions of the former leaders.

One of the greatest chemists was a man named Antoine Lavoisier. The Jacobins executed him for being too cozy with the aristocracy and the former tax collectors. People complained at the verdict that it was crazy and he was one of the greatest scientific minds of the day. The judge replied: The Republic has no need of scientists or chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed.

I cannot possibly think of a better summary of what I think of the Enlightenment than what that judge stated.

Do you see a direct analog (or maybe better put, a direct influence) between the Enlightenment and the Jacobins (not the Tennis-court-oathers, but the Jacobins)?

Or, to pose a different questions, do you see Montesquieu, generally, as being a direct influence on the Jacobins?

And, another question: is there any (partial or otherwise) analog between the Jacobins and Madison/Hamilton (by naming them I mean to reference the Federalists -- the winners of the American Counter-Revolution of 1787) vis-a-vis the Enlightenment (generally) or Montesquieu (specifically)?

[Speaker to Animals]

Because western civilization was an organic balance of powers and responsibilities, based on subsidiarity and localized rule. Most of what the average liberal thinks of as the government's role was the role of what today we'd call NGOs. Those NGOs were sitting on a lot of property therein: university campuses, hospitals, monestaries, libraries, and all the land holdings bequeathed to the Church by the aristocracy over the centuries. The Reformation put ALL the power of society into the hands of the kings, which is why so many kings suddenly "realized" they were Protestant and promptly seized Church properties and started burning people who didn't go along with the program.

The Reformation was about the consolidation of power into the hands of kings.

The Enlightenment was the next logical progression in which the kings themselves were dethroned and the mob began to take control of these new nation states that were emerging.

The Enlightenment was not really about reason and liberty at all. Those things were developing just fine on their own across Europe and we'd still be a rational, scientifically-minded people had it never happened. The Enlightenment was about the rise of nation states controlled by demagogues. What they sell as freedom becomes compulsion and the liberty of the people becomes street executions of the former leaders.

One of the greatest chemists was a man named Antoine Lavoisier. The Jacobins executed him for being too cozy with the aristocracy and the former tax collectors. People complained at the verdict that it was crazy and he was one of the greatest scientific minds of the day. The judge replied: The Republic has no need of scientists or chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed.

I cannot possibly think of a better summary of what I think of the Enlightenment than what that judge stated.

Do you see a direct analog (or maybe better put, a direct influence) between the Enlightenment and the Jacobins (not the Tennis-court-oathers, but the Jacobins)?

Or, to pose a different questions, do you see Montesquieu, generally, as being a direct influence on the Jacobins?

And, another question: is there any (partial or otherwise) analog between the Jacobins and Madison/Hamilton (by naming them I mean to reference the Federalists -- the winners of the American Counter-Revolution of 1787) vis-a-vis the Enlightenment (generally) or Montesquieu (specifically)?

Yes.

Yes.


Sort of/Not totally sure.

[Fife]

I'd like to read a comparison of the philosophical bases of the Federalists and the Jacobins; and to what extent the Enlightenment (or more narrowly, Montesquieu) was some kind of common thread.

Anybody seen that anywhere?

Thomas Paine is a contemporary figure directly in both timelines; otherwise I'm thinking now of where to locate something along those lines. With as much ink has been spilled on both broad subjects, there has to be something comparing the secondary revolutions.

[TheReal_ND]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

EVERY FUCKING TIME

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/arti ... -the-jews/

[Fife]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

EVERY FUCKING TIME

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/arti ... -the-jews/

Clever!

http://www.hoover.org/profiles/diana-schaub : She is the author of Erotic Liberalism: Women and Revolution in Montesquieu's “Persian Letters” (1995)

I'm not sure I'm ready for "Erotic Liberalism" in my show-notes section just yet.

[GloryofGreece]

I'd like to read a comparison of the philosophical bases of the Federalists and the Jacobins; and to what extent the Enlightenment (or more narrowly, Montesquieu) was some kind of common thread.

Anybody seen that anywhere?

Thomas Paine is a contemporary figure directly in both timelines; otherwise I'm thinking now of where to locate something along those lines. With as much ink has been spilled on both broad subjects, there has to be something comparing the secondary revolutions.

Not sure if this is exactly what your talking about but its tangentially realated and well done.
https://www.audible.com/pd/Bios-Memoirs ... 630&sr=1-8

Paine was a revolutionary but so was Burke to some extinct. It seems like whether its Hamilton, Jefferson, or Robespierre its just really a matter of degree how "radical" they are. Really they're all children of the Enlightenment and pretty damn radical compared to most the aristocracy at the time. Not many wanted a meritorious King and most all wanted more equality just not as much as the communist later on.

[Hastur]

Just like the founding fathers were all Englishmen the reformers were all solid Catholics from the beginning. The reformation and enlightenment all grew out of the core of Christianity. The search and reverence for truth. The Catholic Church was getting to rigid and corrupt. Some thickers out in the periphery didn't have the patience to wait for Rome to catch up.
If you want to blame someone blame Gutenberg and the printing press.