0
   

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 02:24 pm
Good. So will I.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 03:15 pm
Well, with McTag and OE out of the way, I can take over the world.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 03:40 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:

This statement puzzles me a than a bit - until now I've thaught that the French «Siècle De Lumières» and the German "Aufklärung" were translated into English as "Age of the Enlightened".


Or simply "The Enlightenment" Certainly thinkers and writers from all over Western Europe contributed to it. However there were two distinct branches to it with detectably different emphasis in their ideas and writings.

The first, the French/German Enlightenment, began among others with Montaigne and later the Encyclopedists, particularly Diderot, and as well the works of Pascal, Descartes, Rosseau and Voltaire.

The second in England and Scotland was principally represented by the works of John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and even Edward Gibbon, author of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Among the French (perhaps excluding Pascal) there was a relatively greater emphasis on pure reason and more abstract conceptions. The English/Scottish Enlightemnment emphasized more concrete features of life and also concepts of personal virtue in social affairs that permeated the writings if its principals. The founding fathers of the American revolution were most influenced by the English Enlightenment; those of thee French Revolution, their own. The different results speak for themselves.

Quote:
When you name from Germany the Great, you certainly can't forget the others like , Lessing, Kant., Goethe, Schiller, Herder, Mendelssohn ... etc who all are in the same group of "outstanding examples of the Enlightenement as others.


You are correct and omitting them was an error on my part.

Quote:
Your naming of Catherine the Great and Napoleon as belonging to this period/group is a bit ... unusual.


Not at all. Catherine and Friedrich with whom she corresponded, and later on Napoleon were all intellectual consumers and admirers of Enlightenment thought, particularly the French/German branch. At the same time all were tyrants who did not practice the ideas they embraced on an abstract level. They were aristocratic hypocrites.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 03:49 pm
Lash wrote:
Well, with McTag and OE out of the way, I can take over the world.


Oh Lash, what would a2k be without you, really?

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 05:44 pm
Somehow, several pleasant adjectives come to mind... I refuse to contemplate it further.


Rascal.


<winks at the rascal>
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 07:30 pm
Re: Timber
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Poor Timber, maybe he had spelling lessons from Dan Quayle.

However, I could overlook spelling errors (I've made one or two on A2K :wink: ). I respect the Constitution. What scares me are those in power who insist on destroying the line between separation of church and state---just for starters.

BBB

Now just how do you arrive at the conclusion I favor any such thing as " ... destroying the line between separation of church and state"?
And I happen to respect The Constitution myself. I'm outraged by liberal activist judges who take it upon themselves to inflict decisions and laws in accordance not with what The Constitution says, but rather accordin' to their notions of what they preferred The Constitution said.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Timber, I'm curious. What is it you find so offensive regarding the Age of Enlightenment?

BBB

Again, just how do you come to the conclusion any such thing might be the case? That to which I object is not enlightenment, but irresponsible license.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 08:43 pm
Timber
Timber, asked and answered by your reponse.

BBB
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 09:22 pm
BBB -
I take it then that which is most convenient to your own personal prejudices, preconceptions, preferences, projections, and predilections transcends that which exists.


No epihany there.


I much prefer the real world.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 11:25 am
Quote:
To be sure, that politics makes strange bedfellows is not news. What is news is that the rising power of the religious right is leading to some unexpected victories for progressive causes. Deep political polarization makes traditional centrist bipartisanship treacherous. But, paradoxically, it can also produce unexpected cooperation between the core of the right and the core of the left. In other words, bipartisanship isn't dead; it has simply abandoned the political center for issues where it was once nowhere to be seen.

See for more HERE
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 05:58 am
Quote:

Link
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/17/2024 at 05:12:14