What Is More to Blame (Looking Back)

[Speaker to Animals]

LMFAO

It's autism day, I guess.

[Hastur]

LMFAO

It's autism day, I guess.

It's like there's some people who just assume you're wrong all the time. This time you aren't. That list wasn't thought out enough.

Political science has been around since always. It in some of the oldest texts we know. Our western version starts with Plato and Aristotle, continues through the different Roman thinkers like the Stoics. Then you got to Christianity with Jesus, Saint Paul, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas and the medieval synthesis.

What I was thinking about originally was Machiavelli's The Prince, published in 1532. That was a start of sorts, but not of Political Science as a field of study.

[BjornP]

Was the Reformation and the breakdown of the power of the Church ultimately more responsible for the world we live in today, or was the French Revolution even more impactful by pushing forth the destruction of organized religion and establishing leftist ideology overall?

The Reformation probably legitimized, though not so much via Luther himself as the kings and princes who implemented his ideas into their realms, the notion that one could question the legitimacy of ancient institutions of power, of what authorities themselves declared their "natural" power. Not sure what "leftist ideology" is meant to be. Leftism is usually simply radicalism, breaking with established social structures. What was politically radical in the 18th century is usually not radical today. Before the rise of the Christian Church, when it was nothing more than a Jewish cult avoiding persecution in the Roman empire, it was a radical, new beliefs aimed at overthrowing the ancient establishment in Rome. Can't say the same at it today, though. Marxism is an ideology. Liberalism is an ideology and liberalism was leftist in all absolute monarchies of Europe, yet today is on the right in these same states. To be on "the left" is not an ideology, given that what is on the right in one culture can be on the left in another, and vice versa.

Yet, in terms of the values, freedoms, liberties and democracy of today is concerned, it is the Enlightenment, or rather the American independence and the French revolution that paved the way for Enlightenment values across the West. Without the philosophers of the Enlightenment, no value would today be put on a notion of freedom of religion, nor freedom of speech, nor individual sovereignty. And I'm also fairly certain that had US independence fight been lost, and only France's revolution been the example of the practical application of Enlightenment Age values, more intellectuals and political leaders throghout Western history might have decided that liberty, democracy, seperation of powers, freedom of speech, etc. were nothing more than a disastrous fluke.

So, thank you for that.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'm also fairly certain that had US independence fight been lost, and only France's revolution been the example of the practical application of Enlightenment Age values, more intellectuals and political leaders throghout Western history might have decided that liberty, democracy, seperation of powers, freedom of speech, etc. were nothing more than a disastrous fluke.

So, thank you for that.

Much as I'd like to give credit for that to my ancestors, I don't think this is the case. Once the Catholic monopoly on spirituality was broken, the lid was truly removed for human progress. The advance of objective thought could never have allowed these notions to be suppressed forever. We might have moved the timetable forward, but the idea of human equality was being birthed across the world, regardless. We just put it in some really good documents.

If not the US, then the Indians, or another British colony would have taken the credit for it. Also, the British could never have hoped to hold an entire continent for long. The Second American Revolution would have been a few decades down the road. If it failed, the Third would be along shortly.

Trends and Forces, always.

[StCapps]

What is left and what is right should not change based on which country you are in or what year it is, it should be ubiquitous across place and time, not relative to the current or former status quo. This definition of left and right being proposed on this thread page just muddies the waters, call it something other than left-right and stop confusing people needlessly.

Aboslute Monarchy is on the far right, communism is on the far left, regardless of place and time. That's a left-right spectrum that actually makes sense, don't call your newer spectrum "left-right" when there is an older and better spectrum already called that. It's time folks called the other spectrum something else and quit being so lazy.

[TheReal_ND]

Leftism is usually simply radicalism, breaking with established social structures. What was politically radical in the 18th century is usually not radical today.

Uh... it got pretty radical back then dude

[StCapps]

Leftism is usually simply radicalism, breaking with established social structures. What was politically radical in the 18th century is usually not radical today.

Uh... it got pretty radical back then dude

If a nation is heavily left-wing and social reform is proposed, that could theoretically move that nation to the right of the spectrum, so obviously radicalism has nothing to do with the left, the only reason people think radicalism is the left is because folks were radicalized against an absolute monarchy during the French Revolution, radicalism could be a shift towards absolute monarchy and away from communism in a different context though, that's what they forget. This newer "left-right" spectrum is simply nowhere near as useful as the older one, and simply confuses political neophytes.

[TheReal_ND]

Whatever we have is all on the left anyway. Free trade, free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, all on the left.

[StCapps]

Whatever we have is all on the left anyway. Free trade, free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, all on the left.

Indeed America is on the left of the real left-right spectrum, someone gets it. The only people who think America is on the right are those who think what is left-right is based on a person's willingness to accept social change, regardless of the changes being advocated, in other words, people who don't know what they are talking about and always think the current status quo is far right and complete change from the status quo is the far left.

These folks are too lazy to come up with another name for that spectrum, so they try to hijack a term that already has much better established usage, it's pretty lame. Not only that, but some of these folks actually know about the real left-right spectrum and yet believe it to be some archaic outdated concept that needs to be replaced by their version of "left-right", these folks are extra annoying and obtuse, you just can't talk sense into these people, no matter how well you explain it to them. It is almost as if the better you explain it to them, the more likely they are to dismiss what you are saying, feeling like they are in the right is more important to them than actually being correct.

[GloryofGreece]

I'm also fairly certain that had US independence fight been lost, and only France's revolution been the example of the practical application of Enlightenment Age values, more intellectuals and political leaders throghout Western history might have decided that liberty, democracy, seperation of powers, freedom of speech, etc. were nothing more than a disastrous fluke.

So, thank you for that.

Much as I'd like to give credit for that to my ancestors, I don't think this is the case. Once the Catholic monopoly on spirituality was broken, the lid was truly removed for human progress. The advance of objective thought could never have allowed these notions to be suppressed forever. We might have moved the timetable forward, but the idea of human equality was being birthed across the world, regardless. We just put it in some really good documents.

If not the US, then the Indians, or another British colony would have taken the credit for it. Also, the British could never have hoped to hold an entire continent for long. The Second American Revolution would have been a few decades down the road. If it failed, the Third would be along shortly.

Trends and Forces, always.

Weren't most if not all the universities Catholic/Religious during the Middle Ages? I see a lot of what the "State" became and operated as first having some of the kinks worked out by the Church. One of the most well oiled machines was the Catholic Church after the Inquisition, Reconquista, and Counter Reformation. There were actual men that put forth that work. Ignatius Loyola and Richelieu. I'd argue most of what the Modern Nation State is basically bureaucracy and technocrats. Not so much Enlightenment ideas or philosophy as "technique" would be what Jacques Ellul would call it and author John Ralston Saul of this perversion of the "Enlightenment".