Paul Johnson, Intellectuals, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. First Perennial Library edition published 1990, 385pp.
In terms of quality of writing itself, Johnson’s Intellectuals makes for entertaining historical dream. The British author’s intent is to put to test several of the ‘intellectuals’ who exerted cultural and social influence during the Enlightenment period forward to our own time. Johnson writes,
“One of the most marked characteristics of the new secular intellectuals was the relish with which they subjected religion and its protagonists to critical scrutiny. How far had they benefited or harmed humanity, these great systems of faith? To what extent had these popes and pastors lived up to their precepts, of purity and truthfulness, of charity and benevolence? The verdicts on both churches and clergy were harsh. Now, after two centuries during which the influence of religion has continued to decline, and secular intellectuals have played an ever-growing role in shaping our attitudes and institutions, it is time to examine their record, both public and personal. In particular, I want to focus on the moral and judgmental credentials of intellectuals to tell mankind how to conduct itself.”
In this attempt to put the critics of religious morals to the acid test, Johnson begins with Rousseau, highlighting his self-centeredness, sexual perversity (“liked to be spanked” and was a public exhibitionist of his “bottom”), his ironic abandonment of his own children at birth, and his naive political status.
Moving onward, I found a moral failure in the life of the poet Shelly, who emphasized imagination for the transformation of society, but did not possess the imagination to put him in the place of another on a personal level, and hence was a great debtor and thief, adulterer, and truly without compassion.
Marx, I discover, was purely philosophical and academic, disliking the working proletariat, and an exploiter of others. Johnson fills us in on Tolstoy and Hemingway’s sexual infidelities and emotional abuses of their respective spouses, the shaky foundations of Bertrand Russell, and Sartre’s life of sexual and wasteful excess.
In short, much like the Protestant Reformers who preceded and indirectly encouraged the devaluation of all external sources of authority that came later, Johnson engages in a swift, persuasive and admittedly unfair ad hatefully attack on the newly crowned "popes" and "priests" of the Enlightenment. The idea is that if moral and cultural existence can be rooted within the span of the faculties of the human spirit, rejecting for the most part the claims of revelatory guides, how has this panned out practically in the lives of those who lead the charge?
Aristotle wrote on many subjects in his lifetime but one of the virtues that he examines more extensively is friendship. Aristotle believes that there are three different kinds of friendship: utility, pleasure, and virtuous friendships. He also argues that a real friendship should be highly valued because it is a complete virtue and he believes it to be greater than honor and justice. Aristotle suggests that human’s love of utility and pleasure is the only reason why the first two types of friendships exist. Aristotle also argues that humans only set up these types of relationships for personal gain. But when he speaks of the virtuous friendships, Aristotle states that it is one of the greatest attainments one can achieve.
Cicero, in giving his advice to his brother on how to achieve the highest power in the land, (consulship) pulls back the curtain on how Roman politics actually work and that friendship is key if one wants to become a consul. He defines friendship as “whosoever gives any sign of an inclination to you, or habitually visits at your house” (Cicero 37). Cicero believed friends were people you could use as leverage by building loyalty and connections to build one’s social structure to achieve the highest prize of them all: consulship. According to Cicero, friendship creates problems, stating, “Your exalted character has compelled many to pretend to be your friends while really jealous of you” (Cicero 42). What Cicero is implying is that everyone is jealous of everyone else, and by making friends to become consul you also attract enemies who also desire power. Cicero describes three of these opponents “First, those whom you have attacked; second, those who dislike you without definite reason; third those who are warm friends of your competitors” (Cicero 42). One cannot please all in Rome, Cicero recounts, and because of this bitter struggle over power and private ambition friendship breeds
Marx states that the bourgeoisie not only took advantage of the proletariat through a horrible ratio of wages to labor, but also through other atrocities; he claims that it was common pract...
Aristotle regards Virtue Friendship as perfect. He does not comment on the potential negatives, whereas Lewis more realistically presents possible dangers of his highest form of friendship. Lewis believes that the birth of friendship proper from companionship reveals friendship’s dark and idolatrous side. Lewis comments on the sense of inclusiveness between friends that can create an “us/them” tension that can be potentially dangerous. He believes there is danger in the sense that a partial indifference or deafness to the voices of the outside world may develop and morph into dangerous perversions of
Everyone in life develops at least one friendship in their lifetime, some stronger than others. In some cases a friend might ask for a favor that would be considered immoral. Cicero and Montaigne express their opinions toward this situation and how a true friend would act through the story of Blossius and Tiberius Gracchus. Both come to the same conclusion but they have different reasons as to why they hold that position.
Religion and opinions are both products of humans. Our intelligence gifts us with the freedom of thought and capability to apply it to our views on deep life questions. Intelligence provides us the right to believe in any sort of God, afterlife, or way of living. Brad Gregory describes the Protestant Reformation’s effects on the present society’s Christian qualities in a book he wrote titled “The Unintended Reformation.”1 (After my awareness of the outcome of the western history of the Protestant Reformation, I gained an opinion on today’s religious views that do not completely agree with Gregory’s valuation.) The Protestant Reformation was vital to the progress in the knowledge about the Christian faith.
Late one evening, curled up in her nest, Harriet lay thoughtfully reading the last of Aristotle’s model of friendships: the perfect friendship. Though no secret to Harriet, Aristotle presents the idea that it is the most desirable and genuine of the three forms. The foundation of this friendship is not trivial, but instead the relationship is built on a common good and virtuous nature. As Aristotle explains, “those who love for the sake of utility love for the sake of what is good for themselves, and those who love for the sake of pleasure do so for the sake of what is pleasant to themselves.” Aristotle continues, “Perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good, and alike in virtue; for those wish well alike to each other qua good, and they are good in themselves.” (concluding sentence or two...)
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. Prominent, influential, relevant and most important of all as human as they come, Jean Jacques Rousseau was truthfully, brilliant. Rousseau was born in Geneva Switzerland to a watchmaker in 1712, lacking of a formal education his father taught him to read, exposed him to literature and he managed to educate himself while living with Madame Louise de Warens,in the kingdom of Sardinia, modern Italy. Jeans childhood was far from easy “His autobiographical Les Confessions (1783) offers a thorough account of his turbulent life in her household, where he spent eight years studying nature and music, and reading English, German, and French philosophers. He also pursued the study of mathematics and Latin and enjoyed the theater and opera” (Hager 1). After leaving de Warrens in 1744, Rousseau eventually made his way to Paris, where he befriended French philosopher Denis Diderot who actually invited him to contribute to the Encyclopedie a major work of the enlightenment period, which he did, Rousseau wrote articles on music and political theories. Then in 1750 he wrote A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts. Where he claimed Human beings were naturally good, he argued; it was only the corrupt institutions of civilization that led them to do evil. Rousseau continuously returned to that theme in his subsequent writings in fact he stated A new-born he thought was intrinsically perfect: all society could do was to limit his views and maim his mind. Hence, the more civilized, the worse. A savage was nearer perfection than a philosopher. Yet he was a philosopher but Rousseau's own view of philosophy and philosophers was firmly negati...
This is particularly interesting with reference to the aforementioned passage, as there is no reference to which form of justice Aristotle is referring when he says “when men are friends they have no need of justice” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155a). Earlier in the text, Aristotle delineates two forms of justice: a justice that is “a part of virtue”, or “particular justice”, and a justice “that is not part of virtue but the whole of virtue [...] but their essence is not the same” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1130a-b). The second form of justice is a more universal form of justice, differentiated from virtue as the exterior consequence of an interior quality of being virtuous. When Aristotle says that “when men are friends they have no need of justice”, he is likely referring to the first form of justice, the particular justice, which is itself broken down into four other types: distributive, rectificatory, reciprocal and equity. All four of these types of justices explain how it is that people should engage in transactions with one another, and how these transactions and engagements should be corrected. When people are friends, the idea that they have no need for justice simply means there is no need for a corrective form of justice, as all transactions made between friends—individuals who share concern and wish well-being for one another—should innately be done in a just fashion. Aristotle does not suggest that “when men are friends they have no need for [universal] justice”, nor does he suggest that abiding by the particular form of justice is unnecessary in the basest forms of
Mapes-Martins, Brad. “Karl Marx.” Class lectures, Modern Western Political Theory from University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, WI, 11/12/13, 11/14/13, and 12/19/13.
Welcome to CHSBS! | Central Michigan University. Karl Marx. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/fattah/COURSES/modernthought/marx.htm
Various times in Rousseau’s Confessions we see the power of affections in determining one’s personality. We see the control affection has on Rousseau in his misconduct and thieving as a child. Rousseau says of himself, “My passions are extremely strong, and while I am under their sway nothing can equal my impetuosity.” (Pg. 44) This self-analysis shows the importance of passions in Rousseau’s life as a child. Through his slavery to passion Rousseau is “amenable to no restraint, respect fear, or decorum” he is “cynical, bold, violent, and daring” (Pg. 44).
...nd analyzing the writing of Pope Francis it allowed me to further my understanding of not only his particular style of teaching, but also of the various issues surrounding Christian ethics. Reading his book, changed my perspective on a few issues and had an impact on me in regards to my life as a Christian. By writing this paper, I was able to identify the main focuses of Christianity in order to become more effect, relevant, and credible. In addition, I was able to further my understanding of the issues surrounding Christian ethics, which will allow me to help others more effectively by following in Jesus’s footsteps. Overall, I enjoyed the assignment and it opened up my eyes to the different issues surrounding the four areas of concern mentioned in The Joy of the Gospel, which are the new idolatry of money, option for the poor, inequality, and common good/peace.
Tucker, Martin. Moulton’s Library of Literary Criticism. Volume 4. Frederick Ungar Publishing Company. New York. 1967.
Pretty much as should be obvious paradise in light of the fact that his face clouds her view, her point of view of hellfire is bound to being without him. In the event that she were spared and he were lost, then she would be in damnation without him, and on the off chance that they were both spared, yet spared separated, then that would likewise be hellfire. In splendid quest for the finish of this radical contention, which has become perpetually unthinkable as she pursues it, she enthusiastically declines to trust that there is an option where they are both spared together or both denounced. The last stanza acts basically like the last couplet of a piece, completing the contention, however leaving an inquiry for the peruser to consider. On the other hand, even as she shuts the contention, it opens up a bit, in light of the fact that in this sadness she has discovered a sort of sustenance, however under supporting it is. There is something sacred about this sort of despondency, and "white" appears to be additionally to be "brilliant," as though in losing her desire for life following death, she has discovered another natural dedication to supplant it, and after that raised it to divine