ReliStuPhD wrote:
I believe this is exactly what Immanuel Can is saying historians have been pushing back against. I'm not well-versed in the literature on the topic, so I'll won't do more than dip a toe in the water, but my sense of the emerging scholarship is that it is no longer tenable to hold that science and human rights were somehow placed on pause from the 5th to 15th centuries.
I think I am saying something a bit different to Immanuel. The beginnings of human rights and science only took place at the back end of what he calls the "Dark Ages". I am wanting to say that most of that 1,000 year period was actually on pause.
Esolen is trying to in include the contribution of the early Renaissance scholars so as to "soften" the image of the Dark Ages. When Esolen draws on Pre-Renaissance scholars he portrays them as doing science. They were not doing science, they were actually doing metaphysics. More correctly a revised Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics that sanctioned a rigid hierarchical religious and social order that had nothing to do with human rights or science.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
thedoc wrote:You seem to be confusing 'Love" and 'Trust', Just because you are to Love your enemies does not mean you should turn your back on them and let them do what they want. You are told to Love them but still resist when they seek to harm you, at least that's my understanding.
There are a number of interpretations, but what do you make of Matthew 5:39?
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Take that precept, "Love your enemies." A "humble" interpretation is that it refers to *all* enemies, regardless of how opposed or why they are opposed.
Humble. Pfft.
A person would be rather stupid to love an enemy. We are to love and care for those who believe in reciprocity. If you love you enemy as you love those who deserve it, then the ones who deserve it are no better to you than those who do not so you reduce the status of your loved ones by elevating those who do not deserve it.
Would you have told the Jews to love the Germans as the S S pushed them into the ovens?
Your saying is useless rhetoric that only fools would follow.
Regards
DL
You seem to be confusing 'Love" and 'Trust', Just because you are to Love your enemies does not mean you should turn your back on them and let them do what they want. You are told to Love them but still resist when they seek to harm you, at least that's my understanding.
Do you not trust your mate, assuming you love him or her? Sure you do.
That being the case, love your enemy is as I stated. Useless rhetoric that cannot be applied without a lot of qualifiers like the one you just added.
I will love my enemy but only after I make him my friend which means, and rightfully so, that we should love our friends and not our enemies.
thedoc wrote:
You seem to be confusing 'Love" and 'Trust', Just because you are to Love your enemies does not mean you should turn your back on them and let them do what they want. You are told to Love them but still resist when they seek to harm you, at least that's my understanding.
Do you not trust your mate, assuming you love him or her? Sure you do.
That being the case, love your enemy is as I stated. Useless rhetoric that cannot be applied without a lot of qualifiers like the one you just added.
I will love my enemy but only after I make him my friend which means, and rightfully so, that we should love our friends and not our enemies.
Regards
DL
I love my mate but I don't consider her as my enemy, so that is irrelevant.
I have no reason to try to make my enemy my friend especially if he is unwilling, so I can still love him without trusting him. I have no need to make him my friend before I can love him. That was your qualifier, not mine, your assumptions are incorrect.
ReliStuPhD wrote:
I believe this is exactly what Immanuel Can is saying historians have been pushing back against. I'm not well-versed in the literature on the topic, so I'll won't do more than dip a toe in the water, but my sense of the emerging scholarship is that it is no longer tenable to hold that science and human rights were somehow placed on pause from the 5th to 15th centuries.
I think I am saying something a bit different to Immanuel. The beginnings of human rights and science only took place at the back end of what he calls the "Dark Ages". I am wanting to say that most of that 1,000 year period was actually on pause.
Esolen is trying to in include the contribution of the early Renaissance scholars so as to "soften" the image of the Dark Ages. When Esolen draws on Pre-Renaissance scholars he portrays them as doing science. They were not doing science, they were actually doing metaphysics. More correctly a revised Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics that sanctioned a rigid hierarchical religious and social order that had nothing to do with human rights or science.
I see your point. Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not convinced it's accurate to refer to a "pause," but as I've said, this is not an area of expertise on my part, so I'll defer to you experts.
ReliStuPhD wrote:
I believe this is exactly what Immanuel Can is saying historians have been pushing back against. I'm not well-versed in the literature on the topic, so I'll won't do more than dip a toe in the water, but my sense of the emerging scholarship is that it is no longer tenable to hold that science and human rights were somehow placed on pause from the 5th to 15th centuries.
I think I am saying something a bit different to Immanuel. The beginnings of human rights and science only took place at the back end of what he calls the "Dark Ages". I am wanting to say that most of that 1,000 year period was actually on pause.
Esolen is trying to in include the contribution of the early Renaissance scholars so as to "soften" the image of the Dark Ages. When Esolen draws on Pre-Renaissance scholars he portrays them as doing science. They were not doing science, they were actually doing metaphysics. More correctly a revised Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics that sanctioned a rigid hierarchical religious and social order that had nothing to do with human rights or science.
I see your point. Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not convinced it's accurate to refer to a "pause," but as I've said, this is not an area of expertise on my part, so I'll defer to you experts.
Yes, on second thought you are right. The use of the word "pause" is too strong.
thedoc wrote:
You seem to be confusing 'Love" and 'Trust', Just because you are to Love your enemies does not mean you should turn your back on them and let them do what they want. You are told to Love them but still resist when they seek to harm you, at least that's my understanding.
Do you not trust your mate, assuming you love him or her? Sure you do.
That being the case, love your enemy is as I stated. Useless rhetoric that cannot be applied without a lot of qualifiers like the one you just added.
I will love my enemy but only after I make him my friend which means, and rightfully so, that we should love our friends and not our enemies.
Regards
DL
I love my mate but I don't consider her as my enemy, so that is irrelevant.
I have no reason to try to make my enemy my friend especially if he is unwilling, so I can still love him without trusting him. I have no need to make him my friend before I can love him. That was your qualifier, not mine, your assumptions are incorrect.
Your points do not apply.
Love takes two to be true love.
You cannot love all by yourself. A valentine needs a recipient.
Greatest I am wrote:
Love takes two to be true love.
You cannot love all by yourself. A valentine needs a recipient.
Regards
DL
Romantic, but untrue and unnecessary. Or do you qualify a one-sided love as something else? From my own experience, a person can love another person without that love being returned.
What is the difference between 'Love' and 'True Love'?
Greatest I am wrote:
Love takes two to be true love.
You cannot love all by yourself. A valentine needs a recipient.
Regards
DL
Romantic, but untrue and unnecessary. Or do you qualify a one-sided love as something else? From my own experience, a person can love another person without that love being returned.
What is the difference between 'Love' and 'True Love'?
Unrequited love is just infatuation.
If your love for your favorite singer is the same as those you share love with then I pity those you say you share love with as it would not be any better love than the unrequited type.
Love takes two to create it. One is just something else and a cheep imitation.
Love tales actions and deeds. If you never do anything for those you say you love, then you are not defining love accurately.
As one who is loved, you would expect something in the way of works and deeds, even if just the words and without them you would not likely return love to make it complete.
