tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post1709108804688369816..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Jefferson vs. PlatoUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-51989695323840228102020-06-08T14:54:43.957-04:002020-06-08T14:54:43.957-04:00The Rule of Reason - Jefferson and Adams founded o...The Rule of Reason - Jefferson and Adams founded our American Republic on a Representative form of Government where power was in the hands of the individual, and selectively delegated to the three branches of government. The inalienable rights of the individual were upheld by those in government taking an oath to uphold these unalienable rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence which was the foundational document upon which they formulated the US Constitution and later spelled out in the Bill of Rights. <br /><br />Plato did agree philosophically with the American founders in so far as Democracy being a danger to a well run society. Democracy has been equated with mob rule; the emotional whims of the majority. However he shared no commonality with the founding principles of America. Plato believed in a cast system of laborers (workers), guardians (soldiers) and the ruling Philosopher/Kings, who possessed qualities of self control, wisdom and intelligence that mere mortals did not possess. He believed in the breeding of Philosopher/ Kings who were raised communally and outside of their family as he proposed for the soldiers. None of this was congruent with the Judeo-Christian principles that the early American settlers practiced. In fact early settler William Bradford realized that communal living was suicidal to Plymouth and he instituted free enterprise. <br /><br />In conclusion, Plato's philosophy was more congruent with Fascism and the likes of Hitler and Stalin and the Communist philosophies of Hagel and Marx than with the principles of liberty that the political minds like Jefferson and Adams birthed in the United States of America; principles that have lived on for the past 240 years; whilst dozens of other philosophies and systems of government have come and gone.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17732384460968483134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-32835957639331390062018-06-04T15:19:36.122-04:002018-06-04T15:19:36.122-04:00Very interesting!
Re. "it required a mind......Very interesting!<br /><br />Re. "it required a mind... that was not shackled by altruism... to assert that selfishness indeed must be a virtue if men are to own their own lives and live free of duty to others."<br /><br />It didn't require anything except a mind that could read Plato and Aristotle, since both of them argued that virtue was, in fact, selfish. Both insisted that "the good" was a single category, and that there could be no separate category of "good for the individual". This is collectivist, but it isn't altruistic. That which was good for the community, they argued, was always the same as that which was good for the individual.<br /><br />(You can see echoes of this today in the frantic efforts of evolutionary biologists to deny the reality of group selection, and to insist instead that selection at a single level produces all morality.)<br /><br />The founding myth of ancient Greek civilization was the Iliad, and the Iliad is about the question of altruism. In it, the Achaeans have the forces to overpower the Trojans, who stole Helen, but they can't do it because they keep fighting among themselves over the women they stole from the Trojans. The basic question of the Iliad is: How can we get enough men together to keep other men from stealing our women (and to steal their women), without fighting among ourselves over women?<br /><br />The answer the Iliad gives is unique among ancient myths: It relies on selfishness. Achilles learns to sacrifice his own life, not out of altruism, but out of self-interest, because eternal glory is better than long life.<br /><br />Greek civilization, according to this myth, is built on the belief that some things are eternal, because only by holding out an eternal reward could they convince selfish men to cooperate. This paved the way for Plato and Christianity.Bad Horsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10735227563256689679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-70175145525991591642008-12-29T16:35:00.000-05:002008-12-29T16:35:00.000-05:00I have not been a regular reader of this blog but ...I have not been a regular reader of this blog but now it's at the top of my list. Excellent work!Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01186004124653419949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-77793299192131636262008-12-25T07:15:00.000-05:002008-12-25T07:15:00.000-05:00Ed -I hope you will read up on Epicurus. And don'...Ed -<BR/><BR/>I hope you will read up on Epicurus. And don't take my word for it -- take Thomas Jefferson's from his William Short letter:<BR/><BR/>"Their great crime was in their calumnies of Epicurus and misrepresentations of his doctrines; in which we lament to see the candid character of Cicero engaging as an accomplice. Diffuse, vapid, rhetorical, but enchanting. His prototype Plato, eloquent as himself, dealing out mysticisms incomprehensible to the human mind, has been deified by certain sects usurping the name of Christians; because, in his foggy conceptions, they found a basis of impenetrable darkness whereon to rear fabrications as delirious, of their own invention." <BR/><BR/>From: http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/Jefferson.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-59683978541665580992008-12-24T21:20:00.000-05:002008-12-24T21:20:00.000-05:00C. August asked: "Did Aristotle feel the same way ...C. August asked: "Did Aristotle feel the same way about the "foggy mind" of his teacher?"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Aristotle had some "negative" comments on his mentor, Plato. I regard his work, however, as his answer to Plato, and that was his way of contradicting Plato's "foggy mind" and seeing things through mists. Remember that much of Aristotle's work has been lost or destroyed. Perhaps there was a treatise he wrote that directly answered Plato.<BR/><BR/>EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-76033449483544454652008-12-24T21:16:00.000-05:002008-12-24T21:16:00.000-05:00Dear Epicurus Champion:Have read your comments on ...Dear Epicurus Champion:<BR/><BR/>Have read your comments on the other blog site. I don't know that much about Epicurus, and perhaps what you say about him is true, but I'd need to read up more on his life and philosophy. <BR/><BR/>EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-8171229566645794572008-12-24T08:20:00.000-05:002008-12-24T08:20:00.000-05:00Ed: I commented on this post over at the Objectivi...Ed: <BR/><BR/>I commented on this post over at the Objectivismonline.net page at this location.<BR/><BR/>http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=14912&hl=<BR/><BR/>I'd be very interested to hear your opinions on Epicurus.<BR/><BR/>thanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-32287393449623528992008-12-23T23:19:00.000-05:002008-12-23T23:19:00.000-05:00"I tend to believe, with no hard evidence to back ..."I tend to believe, with no hard evidence to back it up, that he was an actual person..."<BR/><BR/>I used to think that too until I read Doherty, Price and Wells. I can't really do justice to the overwhelming evidence to support the arguments that there was no historical Jesus. I feel that this has the potential to become mainstream thought if the culture should ever become more rational. I feel that the mythical Christ theory is entirely in line with Rand's epistemology. This really means that Christianity was created from whole cloth from the start. This makes Christianity the biggest con game ever played on the human race.<BR/><BR/>"I'll try to find a copy of Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle" and read it on your recommendation."<BR/><BR/>If this subject really interests you, I am very confident you won't be disappointed. Doherty has a web site loaded with material. Here is the link:<BR/><BR/>http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>MadmaxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-73290169459663891542008-12-23T14:00:00.000-05:002008-12-23T14:00:00.000-05:00Jefferson's open contempt for the "sophisms, futil...Jefferson's open contempt for the "sophisms, futilities, and incomprehensibilities" of Plato was quite interesting to read about. And it made me wonder...<BR/><BR/>Did Aristotle feel the same way about the "foggy mind" of his teacher?C. Augusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05860759500684485756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-32799641322750795772008-12-23T12:33:00.000-05:002008-12-23T12:33:00.000-05:00Doug asked: "Do you know if Jefferson ever wrote a...Doug asked: "Do you know if Jefferson ever wrote any explicit commentaries on the political works of Aristotle? If so, do you know what Jefferson had to say and where one can find his writings on this topic?"<BR/><BR/>No, except for passing comments in reply to other correspondents' remarks, Jefferson never wrote a paper or letter devoted exclusively to Aristotle. I do however recommend the two Jefferson titles mentioned in the endnotes of the article. One thing I might have commented on was that if Jefferson found Plato's whimsies and puerialities taxing his reason, reading anything by Kant or Hegel would have had him tossing the book out the window. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous noted: "But I would like to draw your attention to some works on the subject of the historicity of Jesus. This has been a subject I have always had an interest in. Whether or not Jesus was a real person is a highly debated point and, as you would guess, Christian apologists of every variety will fight to the end to say that he was a real man and a real God."<BR/><BR/>I know there is a debate going on among believers and non-believers over whether or not Christ was an actual historical person. I tend to believe, with no hard evidence to back it up, that he was an actual person, and probably not the only "prophet" or "messiah" to have appeared in that period of Roman history, and that if he was actually crucified (and that practice of the Romans has been definitely confirmed), Christ was likely not the only one to suffer that fate for preaching resistence against Roman rule or blasphemy against Jewish customs and beliefs or whatever else the Roman government would have treated as treason or rebellion. If he was an actual person, then the Church "fathers" simply chose him from among a list of candidates on which to promulgate and agitate for the new religion and around whom to weave a myth. I'll try to find a copy of Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle" and read it on your recommendation.<BR/><BR/>Ed ClineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-74131215313397243642008-12-23T09:41:00.000-05:002008-12-23T09:41:00.000-05:00one of your best articles ever.without presumptuou...one of your best articles ever.without presumptuousness, i would say i would have said the same things you said,only i wish i could write like you.<BR/> three cheers for great ed.thank youpomponazzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15650762047420820104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-35917876498391570062008-12-22T21:06:00.000-05:002008-12-22T21:06:00.000-05:00Fascinating post Ed! Do you know if Jefferson ever...Fascinating post Ed! <BR/><BR/>Do you know if Jefferson ever wrote any explicit commentaries on the political works of Aristotle? If so, do you know what Jefferson had to say and where one can find his writings on this topic?<BR/><BR/>While we are recommending books on the history of Christianity, if you are interested, Charles Freeman's <I>The Closing of the Western Mind</I> is a fascinating intellectual history of early Christianity. Specifically, he goes into how St. Paul produced interpretations of various accounts of Jesus (e.g., Jesus was the son of God; Jesus died for our sins, etc.) as well as how Saint Augustine synthesized St. Paul's clutter of interpretations with Platonism to get Christianity, an early systemic religious philosophy. I highly recommend this book!DarkWatershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05148630809538552374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-67699081620685448122008-12-22T18:41:00.000-05:002008-12-22T18:41:00.000-05:00Ed,This was one of your best posts. The subject of...Ed,<BR/><BR/>This was one of your best posts. The subject of the Founder's philosophical errors is a fascinating one. I hope more Objectivists turn their attention to it in the future. <BR/><BR/>But I would like to draw your attention to some works on the subject of the historicity of Jesus. This has been a subject I have always had an interest in. Whether or not Jesus was a real person is a highly debated point and, as you would guess, Christian apologists of every variety will fight to the end to say that he was a real man and a real God. <BR/><BR/>But there are a group of critical scholars that have, in my opinion, utterly destroyed the idea of a historical Jesus and made an extremely convincing argument that Jesus was originally a mythic tradition, one of many in the ancient world, revolving around a savior son who would redeem a sinful people and lead them to a perfect world at the end of days. These ideas were everywhere in the Greco-Roman-Near Eastern world. But the reality was Jesus was not a real man who was a preacher and had a ministry. He was a commonly held decentralized legend figure that eventually became controlled by the Catholic Church and its Platonistic philosophers. <BR/><BR/>There are great authors to read on this subject and they are not Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris who both concede the historicity of Christ. If you are interested, I will recommend three principal scholars whose works are both fascinating and revolutionary. They are Earl Doherty, Robert Price and G.A. Wells. They differ in some of the details but they all agree that there was not a historical Jesus and that Jesus and the rest of the New Testament was a work of literature created most likely by the Gospel author we know as Mark (as he was the first).<BR/><BR/>All of the books of these men are great reads but if I had to recommend just one then it would be Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle'. You will never look at Jesus and Christianity the same way again after reading that book. If you read all the books by these men, then you will often feel a sense of pure shock and disgust that Christianity, which is nothing more than a storybook, came to dominate the West in the way it does as it was literally cobbled together from countless different traditions of the ancient world. Its nothing more than a composite of the worst elements of ancient thought. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, all these authors make interesting comments that mythic embellishment is a very common phenomenon. It seems that the same process of creating a founder tradition applied in the case of the Spartan Lycurgus, the Chinese Confucius, and possibly even Mohammed. <BR/><BR/>I can't recommend these sources enough for anyone interested in the beginnings of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>MadmaxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-60865603846340275572008-12-22T15:56:00.000-05:002008-12-22T15:56:00.000-05:00Just to let you guys know, I commented on this sam...Just to let you guys know, I commented on this <A HREF="http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2008/12/jefferson-vs-plato.html" REL="nofollow">same_article</A> over at the Infidel Bloggers Alliance.Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02691850040385670009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-7387335217957366392008-12-22T15:45:00.000-05:002008-12-22T15:45:00.000-05:00Will correct.Ed the Proofreader needy.Will correct.<BR/><BR/>Ed the Proofreader needy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-42652267880607800272008-12-22T14:40:00.000-05:002008-12-22T14:40:00.000-05:00Typo Alert:"I believe it was a psychological barri...Typo Alert:<BR/><BR/>"I believe it was a psychological barrier, was (s/b "as") well."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com