Are you a member of the Enlightenment or a member of the Romanticism movement?

[byzantine catholic]

Do you think rationalism or rational thought is above all or do you think human feeling and emotion is more important? The Enlightenment period as you know was where rational thought was above all "superstition" while atheism, agnosticism, and deism were all created during that period. Romanticism was a counter-movement to the Enlightenment that emphasized human emotion, love of nature, and organized religion. The Enlightenment thinkers were mostly elitists while the common people liked Romanticism.

[Dem]

Atheism was around much longer than the Enlightenment.

But yeah, I like rationalism.

Why do you ask?

[byzantine catholic]

Curious because no period in my opinon has such a profound change in Western Society. I am a Romanticist.:mrgreen:

[ChaosControl]

I'm both...

[Dem]

Well, now that I think about.

I like Romanticist art, and Rationalist thought and beliefs.

So I guess both.

[Marleysdaddy]

Do you think rationalism or rational thought is above all or do you think human feeling and emotion is more important?
That is the fallacy of false choice - they're both important parts of being human.

The Enlightenment period as you know was where rational thought was above all "superstition" while atheism, agnosticism, and deism were all created during that period.
1) There have been numerous other times (many before the Enlightenment) where rational thought was preeminent. Look at 5th century B.C.E. Athens, or several periods of the Ottoman Empire

The Enlightenment thinkers were mostly elitists while the common people liked Romanticism.
If you had ever read anything written by an Enlightenment thinker, you'd realize that sentence is hogwash.

The Declaration of Independence was written by an Enlightenment thinker...read it and then tell me if you think it sounds elitist.http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

I'll give you one hint - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"

[Apatriot]

Do you think rationalism or rational thought is above all or do you think human feeling and emotion is more important? The Enlightenment period as you know was where rational thought was above all "superstition" while atheism, agnosticism, and deism were all created during that period. Romanticism was a counter-movement to the Enlightenment that emphasized human emotion, love of nature, and organized religion. The Enlightenment thinkers were mostly elitists while the common people liked Romanticism.

Neither. I have some Enlightenment views (political) and some Romantic views (personal and religious). I think I'm post-post-Modern in thought.

[janer]

This argument usually gets distilled by the Jane Austen readers into "Who was right, Elinor or Marianne?", the sister heroines of "Sense and Sensibility". Elinor personified sense, rationalism, self-restraint; Marianne was all high emotion, romantic imagination, and self-indulgence.

[Stantz]

gonna have to go with Enlightenment

[angelicmadrigal]

I fall more under Transcendentalism which was influenced by several philosophies including Romanticism.

[grapabeaux]

Atheism was around much longer than the Enlightenment.

But yeah, I like rationalism.

Why do you ask?

The atheism as it is seen today - the belief that no deity exists at all - is a product of the enlightenment. What was referred to as "atheism" before that was merely the renouncement of the god or gods associated with one's own people.

[Quid]

I am a Rationalist when it comes to dealing with the nature of the world and universe and a Romanticist when it comes to personal interactions with other people.

Yes, the word “atheist” has had several meanings over time. The ancient Romans considered Christians to be “atheists” because they rejected the gods.

[byzantine catholic]

That is the fallacy of false choice - they're both important parts of being human.


1) There have been numerous other times (many before the Enlightenment) where rational thought was preeminent. Look at 5th century B.C.E. Athens, or several periods of the Ottoman Empire

If you had ever read anything written by an Enlightenment thinker, you'd realize that sentence is hogwash.

The Declaration of Independence was written by an Enlightenment thinker...read it and then tell me if you think it sounds elitist.http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

I'll give you one hint - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"The Ottoman Empire?:))The American Revolution was not fought for equality or democracy, but to be rid of British rule. Jefferson had said a "natural aristocracy" of talent and virtue should rule. Before the Civil War almost no American, and certainly not Abraham Lincoln, believed in social or political equality for Africans. Our Founders were also merchants and bankers so hardly common people of the day.

[biggles53]

The Ottoman Empire?:))The American Revolution was not fought for equality or democracy, but to be rid of British rule. Jefferson had said a "natural aristocracy" of talent and virtue should rule. Before the Civil War almost no American, and certainly not Abraham Lincoln, believed in social or political equality for Africans. Our Founders were also merchants and bankers so hardly common people of the day.

Why the scoffing concerning the Ottomans? Are you aware of some of the great thinkers which existed during those times?

And how does throwing off the yolk of British rule NOT constitute a fight for "equality or democracy"...?? How do you find Jefferson's words to be objectionable? Do you understand his use of the words "natural aristocracy"...?

[angelicmadrigal]

Why the scoffing concerning the Ottomans?

You'll find out very quickly around here that the only thinking that is worth anything to a lot of posters is Western thinking.

[Voxpopuli]

How do you find Jefferson's words to be objectionable? Do you understand his use of the words "natural aristocracy"...?

The O.P. already stated that he favored Romanticism over Rationalism. His objection to a "natural aristocracy" should be obvious. Political ideology derived from the Romantic era tends to reject the notion of a natural aristocracy. It is somewhat of a contrast between Locke and Rousseau and how they view the social contract.

What I find confusing is how the O.P. claims "Romanticism" and then has a sig line that advocates Paleo-conservatism which derives itself from Burke. Burke being more inline with Locke than Rousseau. Burke was the one who valued the organic history of society and it's traditions/customs, something Rousseau did not accept.

[Dragon1963]

I kind of tend to mix both as the situation demands.

[biggles53]

The O.P. already stated that he favored Romanticism over Rationalism. His objection to a "natural aristocracy" should be obvious. Political ideology derived from the Romantic era tends to reject the notion of a natural aristocracy. It is somewhat of a contrast between Locke and Rousseau and how they view the social contract.

Yeah, thanks, I get that. But his last post seems to insinuate that a "natural aristocracy" as voiced by Jefferson, was somehow antithetical to democracy. Have I read him wrongly....?

What I find confusing is how the O.P. claims "Romanticism" and then has a sig line that advocates Paleo-conservatism which derives itself from Burke. Burke being more inline with Locke than Rousseau. Burke was the one who valued the organic history of society and it's traditions/customs, something Rousseau did not accept.

He may not have thought as deeply about that as you..........

[byzantine catholic]

The O.P. already stated that he favored Romanticism over Rationalism. His objection to a "natural aristocracy" should be obvious. Political ideology derived from the Romantic era tends to reject the notion of a natural aristocracy. It is somewhat of a contrast between Locke and Rousseau and how they view the social contract.

What I find confusing is how the O.P. claims "Romanticism" and then has a sig line that advocates Paleo-conservatism which derives itself from Burke. Burke being more inline with Locke than Rousseau. Burke was the one who valued the organic history of society and it's traditions/customs, something Rousseau did not accept.Well but Enlightenemnt thinkers also emphasized changes in society as well like the French Revolution. I just might be in between those two categories.

[byzantine catholic]

Yeah, thanks, I get that. But his last post seems to insinuate that a "natural aristocracy" as voiced by Jefferson, was somehow antithetical to democracy. Have I read him wrongly....?



He may not have thought as deeply about that as you..........Well first of all this country is a republic not a democracy.

[Zanger]

Well first of all this country is a republic not a democracy.

Jefferson's point about a natural aristocracy probably runs to the idea that the common, generally uneducated person, should not be elected to the legislature.

[byzantine catholic]

Jefferson's point about a natural aristocracy probably runs to the idea that the common, generally uneducated person, should not be elected to the legislature.Yes that is the point. You know originally the Senate was voted in by the state legislature and not popular vote.

[Zanger]

Yes that is the point. You know originally the Senate was voted in by the state legislature and not popular vote.
And I think it was probably a good idea. In some states there are people elected to the state legislature who have never gone to college. Do you think that's a good idea? Should people who lack even a rudimentary education in important subjects like economics be placed in a position where they make decisions that affect an entire state? Furthermore, why should a person who lacks even the basic understanding of how judges interpret laws (due to their lack of even the simplest of legal education) write laws and vote on whether they should be passed?

[byzantine catholic]

And I think it was probably a good idea. In some states there are people elected to the state legislature who have never gone to college. Do you think that's a good idea? Should people who lack even a rudimentary education in important subjects like economics be placed in a position where they make decisions that affect an entire state? Furthermore, why should a person who lacks even the basic understanding of how judges interpret laws (due to their lack of even the simplest of legal education) write laws and vote on whether they should be passed?Amen. Remember that is what imperiled the Roman Republic, Julius and Augustus Caesar roused up the mob who were easily influenced.

[Zanger]

Amen. Remember that is what imperiled the Roman Republic, Julius and Augustus Caesar roused up the mob who were easily influenced.
Yea, I was thinking about the horrors of mob-rule earlier today and I'm glad there are basically two ways for laws to come into existence in this country.

[byzantine catholic]

Yea, I was thinking about the horrors of mob-rule earlier today and I'm glad there are basically two ways for laws to come into existence in this country.Indeed and our Founders also knew of the dangers of a military dictatorship as shown by Julius Caesar which is why a civilian President is the Commander-In-Chief.

[biggles53]

Jefferson's point about a natural aristocracy probably runs to the idea that the common, generally uneducated person, should not be elected to the legislature.

You couldn't be more wrong.....

RE: Thomas Jefferson on the Natural Aristocracy & Its Role in the Government.
"... I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy. On the question, What is the best provision, you and I differ.... You think it best to put the Pseudo-aristoi into a separate chamber of legislation where they may be hindered from doing mischief by their coordinate branches, and where also they may be a protection to wealth against the Agrarian and plundering enterprises of the Majority of the people. I think that to give them power in order to prevent them from doing mischief, is arming them for it, and increasing instead of remedying the evil. For if the coordinate branches can arrest their action, so may they of the coordinates. Mischief may be done negatively as well as positively. Of this a cabal in the Senate of the United States has furnished many proofs. Nor do I believe them necessary to protect the wealthy; because enough of these will find their way into every branch of legislation to protect themselves. From 15 to 20 legislatures of our own, in action for 30 years past, have proved that no fears of an equalization of property are to be apprehended of them.

"I think the best remedy is exactly provided by all our constitutions, to leave the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi, of the wheat from the chaff. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them; but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams (1813).

Read the emboldened section in particular......

[biggles53]

Well first of all this country is a republic not a democracy.

It's both.

It's a republic, the government of which is determined by the citizenry acting through a democratic process.......

[byzantine catholic]

It's both.

It's a republic, the government of which is determined by the citizenry acting through a democratic process.......You want mob rule because that is what democracy is. There cannot be both. It is either a republic or a democracy.

[Zanger]

You couldn't be more wrong.....

Read the emboldened section in particular......
My assertion doesn't disagree with what Jefferson wrote. Jefferson was a champion of education, starting plans for one of the first state universities where tax payers would basically pay for the education of those who were intelligent but otherwise lacked the funds to pay their own tuition.

In fact, he believed that an educated people was the best defense against tyranny and oppression. Given that, it could be inferred that Jefferson would equate intellectual superiority as a factor of being a 'natural aristocrat'. I am sure being intelligent was necessary, but not sufficient, to being a member of the 'natural aristocracy'.

All Jefferson meant by 'natural' aristocracy was to differentiate it from the landed, primogeniture-based birth-right aristocracy of Europe, and such 'natural' aristocracy would be based on ideals of virtue and wisdom instead of income.

[biggles53]

You want mob rule because that is what democracy is. There cannot be both. It is either a republic or a democracy.

Nonsense. It (democracy) is simply a system of representation whereby representatives are elected by popular vote. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that Gt Britain, Canada, Australia, Greece, Sweden, etc are ruled by "mobs".....??

[biggles53]

My assertion doesn't disagree with what Jefferson wrote. Jefferson was a champion of education, starting plans for one of the first state universities where tax payers would basically pay for the education of those who were intelligent but otherwise lacked the funds to pay their own tuition.

In fact, he believed that an educated people was the best defense against tyranny and oppression. Given that, it could be inferred that Jefferson would equate intellectual superiority as a factor of being a 'natural aristocrat'. I am sure being intelligent was necessary, but not sufficient, to being a member of the 'natural aristocracy'.

All Jefferson meant by 'natural' aristocracy was to differentiate it from the landed, primogeniture-based birth-right aristocracy of Europe, and such 'natural' aristocracy would be based on ideals of virtue and wisdom instead of income.

In other words, he was making a parody of the word "aristocracy". In fact, what he DID advocate was the input of the "common" man into the electoral process........

[Zanger]

In other words, he was making a parody of the word "aristocracy". In fact, what he DID advocate was the input of the "common" man into the electoral process........

He also hated intelligent women and thought they shouldn't have the right to vote. ;)

[byzantine catholic]

Nonsense. It (democracy) is simply a system of representation whereby representatives are elected by popular vote. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that Gt Britain, Canada, Australia, Greece, Sweden, etc are ruled by "mobs".....??Um actually they are ruled by socialists. Ever heard of the mob rule of Athenian democracy. Of course not because you were taught liberal revisionist history.

[biggles53]

Um actually they are ruled by socialists. Ever heard of the mob rule of Athenian democracy. Of course not because you were taught liberal revisionist history.

Excuse me...????

Have you ever cast your gaze beyond your own shores? Those countries are ruled by socialists!?? Where do you get your information from...?? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[putputpanorama]

Do you think rationalism or rational thought is above all or do you think human feeling and emotion is more important? The Enlightenment period as you know was where rational thought was above all "superstition" while atheism, agnosticism, and deism were all created during that period. Romanticism was a counter-movement to the Enlightenment that emphasized human emotion, love of nature, and organized religion. The Enlightenment thinkers were mostly elitists while the common people liked Romanticism.

Not I says I.

[Voxpopuli]

Well but Enlightenemnt thinkers also emphasized changes in society as well like the French Revolution. I just might be in between those two categories.

Perhaps you are still looking?

[byzantine catholic]

Excuse me...????

Have you ever cast your gaze beyond your own shores? Those countries are ruled by socialists!?? Where do you get your information from...?? :rolleyes::rolleyes:Hmm...well China is a communist country but the way they act on trade is actually fascistic, um most countries in Europe have universal health care which is socialism, and they all have income taxes which was supported by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto.

[byzantine catholic]

Perhaps you are still looking?Yeah I get what you are saying but you have to admit both Romanticism and Enlightenment thinkers believed in rapid changes in the society.

[biggles53]

Hmm...well China is a communist country but the way they act on trade is actually fascistic,

That would be "fascist". And what exactly does China have to do with those democratic countries that I mentioned...!????

um most countries in Europe have universal health care which is socialism, and they all have income taxes which was supported by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto.

"Um" right back at ya...... YOUR country also has income tax! Going to claim now that the US is a "socialist" country....!???:wall::wall::wall:

[byzantine catholic]

That would be "fascist". And what exactly does China have to do with those democratic countries that I mentioned...!????



"Um" right back at ya...... YOUR country also has income tax! Going to claim now that the US is a "socialist" country....!???:wall::wall::wall:Yes I think the U.S. is already there as a socialist country unfortunately. Where do you live?

[biggles53]

Yes I think the U.S. is already there as a socialist country unfortunately.

Wait a minute.....wait a goldarn minute!

Just follow the flow of your argument...

You claim your country is a republic, not a democracy.

I say it's both.

You say no, because those countries with democratic processes are under "mob rule".

I give you a list of these so-called "mob rule" countries (including my own - Australia), and challenge you to show they are "socialist".

You tell me that only "socialist" countries have income tax!

Your country has (and has had for a very, very long time!) income tax.

You now claim it's "socialist" too!

From "republic" to "socialist" in just a half dozen lines!

Can you see why people may have difficulty following your....ahem...logic?

[Voxpopuli]

Yeah I get what you are saying but you have to admit both Romanticism and Enlightenment thinkers believed in rapid changes in the society.

Yes, they were living in a time where the "contradictions" in history were being temporarily resolved. What is your view on rapid changes in society? I ask because of your "paleo" leanings.

[Voxpopuli]

Hmm...well China is a communist country but the way they act on trade is actually fascistic, um most countries in Europe have universal health care which is socialism, and they all have income taxes which was supported by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto.

I am not following you on how China is fascist based on their trade practices. Could you explain?

As mentioned earlier, most nations have an income tax. Also, just because Marx advocated an income tax does not make the income tax communist. An idea held by Marx does not necessitate the idea to be communist. For example, Marx called for the abolition of inheritance, but then Jefferson also called for a similar removal of inheritance, a removal of primogeniture. It wouldn't follow that Jefferson was a communist nor his ideas having communist tones.

By the way, it sounds like you are conflating social democracy with Socialism. Not really the same thing.