Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They very much ceased the be educated humans about 200 years ago.
So why do we still study the political sciences which includes many ideas from 200+ years ago?
In fact...in all my poli-sci classes, the majority of concepts were directly from or derivative of 200+ year old ideas. Granted, some came from just 100+ years ago.
I'd say you'd be really spot on if we shifted this to economics.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So why do we still study the political sciences which includes many ideas from 200+ years ago?
Because we fetishize the past and because it is useful to see the progression of thought that lead to various beliefs in order to understand them. Unless you think there has been no political thought in the last 200 years they're blatantly uneducated in politics.
They're also uneducated in mathematics, economics, medical science, agricultural science, social theory, military theory, and specific realplolitik that defines the interaction of the nation toward other nation and the states toward other states. They don't even know how many states there are.
I'm about as interested in the thoughts of the founders as I am in the thoughts of a Big Man from an aboriginal tribe. What they have to say is interesting but not automatically useful or relevant. They are from an utterly alien culture. Being intelligent doesn't cause their writings to be updated over time or help them to translate across culture.
Now if they were physically here in our world, a pure thought experiment with absolutely no relation to reading their writings, it would take them a decade to catch up. At that point they would probably have good insights into our world but no better than any other smart political analyst of high ranking military official would. They're not demi-gods, they're not even the greatest humans ever to live. They're just smart and successful.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because we fetishize the past and because it is useful to see the progression of thought that lead to various beliefs in order to understand them. Unless you think there has been no political thought in the last 200 years they're blatantly uneducated in politics.
No no, not quite. Lemme rephrase: "So why do we still study the political sciences, which are directly attributable and applicable to what we actually do and practice today in almost every single modern nation on the planet, which includes many ideas from 200+ years ago?"
In other words, it is an inexorable truth that no one can deny. The question I asked is not really answerable and the rhetoric is logically irrefutable (that won't stop people from trying to refute it, though, right?). The political philosophies of 200+ years ago directly shape almost every political facet of the modern world. It's just how it is. Unless, of course, a new political movement comes along and completely subsumes the current modern political systems, we are stuck with having to learn many political sciences from many many years ago to directly understand how our current system.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They're also uneducated in mathematics, economics, medical science, agricultural science, social theory, military theory, and specific realplolitik that defines the interaction of the nation toward other nation and the states toward other states. They don't even know how many states there are.
Wrong on all of those. Almost all of them were educated in all of those to some degree. It is the degree and modernity of those subjects that would be an issue. I chose economics because economics seems to have made the most radical changes since their time that now plays a role in what we do that would be completely alien to them (for only a few weeks...until they understood it). Now, we employ supercomputers in economics that help us model "things" that did not exist in their time. That would be so completely foreign to them that I think it would take the longest for them to understand (but not necessarily learn...for me, there is a difference).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm about as interested in the thoughts of the founders as I am in the thoughts of a Big Man from an aboriginal tribe. What they have to say is interesting but not automatically useful or relevant. They are from an utterly alien culture.
You're obviously speaking for yourself; I'd like to point out that their culture is far from alien to me.
But I'd also like to say that you are educated enough that I could reasonably state, with a high level of certainty, that their culture is not alien to you, either. You're underestimating how much you know.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Being intelligent doesn't cause their writings to be updated over time or help them to translate across culture.
Yeah, the part about their being intelligent had little to do with that and everything to do with what I stated it had to do with:
"Their political philosophies are still relevant and useful." That statement is true mostly because we literally still use their political philosophies in a direct way.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Now if they were physically here in our world, a pure thought experiment with absolutely no relation to reading their writings, it would take them a decade to catch up.
No, what I said: just a year or two. 😄
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
At that point they would probably have good insights into our world but no better than any other smart political analyst of high ranking military official would. They're not demi-gods, they're not even the greatest humans ever to live. They're just smart and successful.
That's fair.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's possible that the Founders would never adjust to modern standards of racial...equality.
Since it was a very relevant and heated debate directly had by the founding fathers regarding the question of "slavery", that is unlikely. The Continental Congress actually argued and debated this very point in the Declaration of Independence. And the actions of the government shortly after it was formed seemed more anti-slave than pro-slave.
One of the results of this perpetual debate was the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Some of the Founding Fathers were directly involved in anti-slavery movements and legislation following the formation of the US (or Articles of Confederation).
So, no, race would not be as big of a deal as other things. Consider that many of the major world powers had already abolished slavery or had made movements in that direction before 1800 and you’ll see my point. It was tolerated due to the South’s supposed economic dependence upon slave labor. That would be more apt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1700.E2.80.931800
They were definitely educated on foreign affairs: they were aware of the various movements around the world and those arguments were used.
The idea of racial equality was literally and directly debated in the Declaration of Independence (because Jefferson thought the "negro" deserved those same freedoms discussed in the DoI).
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's possible that the Founders would never adjust to modern standards of...gender equality.
lol I cannot disagree with this.
I mean...damn...they were sexist. They would probably be quite offended at how naked our women are.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
nor to the fact that it's no longer feasible for a country like the United States to remain isolated from world affairs,
I...don't think the early US was an isolationist nation. Consider that they just fought a war with the French before they fought the war of Independence. Then consider that they fought another war after becoming a nation, with France. Then Tripoli and Morroco. Then the British Empire (again). This was all before 1820.
Also consider that they literally had ambassadors in many countries shortly after becoming a nation.
Then consider that the early US made it a point to improve European trade relations.
Then the notion that the early US had an "isolationist foreign policy", specifically as it applied to world affairs (but more broadly, as well), makes little sense. That would be quite wrong.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
or that states are no longer treated like semi-autonomous entities.
Well…yeah...they still kind of are. It is just a degree of how autonomous they are compared to how they were then. I bet you they'd be pissed at how strong the federal government is. But reserved powers still significantly exist.
DDM: your poli-sci courses really focused on pre-enlightenment thought? were they mostly history-of-western-politics-type courses? I don't ask critically, I just remember from my own electives, poli-sci stuff tended to be more relevant to modern times (ie: politics of Quebec, Politics of the Canadian/American/French constitution in modern times, etc), but I'm not American, and I actually wouldn't be surprised if they biased toward the enlightenment. I suppose I'm just surprised you would have poli-sci courses that ignored everything from Marx to Foucault, Rand to both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism... as those are the things my politics courses focused on...
EDIT: I'd also suggest the necessity of educating the founders in modern history, politics and society sort of illustrates why their opinions might not be relevant today. Sure, maybe they could have a relevant opinion, but after years of education they'd be no better than a smart undergrad.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No no, not quite. Lemme rephrase: "So why do we still study the political sciences, which are directly attributable and applicable to what we actually do and practice today in almost every single modern nation on the planet, which includes many ideas from 200+ years ago?"
Because we fetishize the past and because political change is either slow or bloody.
Originally posted by dadudemon
the rhetoric is logically irrefutable
All rhetoric is logically irrefutable because it relies on rhetoric not logic, it doesn't care about being true.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The political philosophies of 200+ years ago directly shape almost every political facet of the modern world. It's just how it is. Unless, of course, a new political movement comes along and completely subsumes the current modern political systems, we are stuck with having to learn many political sciences from many many years ago to directly understand how our current system.
Sure, we use a political system that had its inception about 250 years ago. Unfortunately much of it it is a common law system that relies on judicial precedent and the rest is a mutable system of laws open or explicit revision of reinterpretation by the judiciary. American law and political theory is significantly different now than it was 250 years ago. For example: There have been 17 ratified amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong on all of those.
"Mr. Washington how many states are there?"
"Thirteen, of course, I helped them win their freedom in the Civil War you know."
"WRONG!"
"Mr. Franklin how does WWII affect US relations toward Japan?"
"I'm sorry I . . ."
"WRONG!"
"Mr. Jefferson would you say that black people are childlike and nearly subhuman?"
"Yes, that's why we have to stop mistreating the poor souls."
"WRONG!"
"Mr. Adams does the Constitution say that states must provide equal protection under the law to all people."
"Nope, I've read all of it!"
"WRONG!"
Originally posted by dadudemon
Almost all of them were educated in all of those to some degree. It is the degree and modernity of those subjects that would be an issue.
Being 200 years out of date does make you pretty much completely uneducated on those topics. I'm not going to read Aristotle if I want to learn about mechanics.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're obviously speaking for yourself; I'd like to point out that their culture is far from alien to me.
You own slaves, have no internet or running water, travel by horse, expect to die before seventy, and are still coming to grips with the idea of not being a citizen of the British Empire? The America you live in is currently under threat from French imperial ambitions and angry native tribes? You have good reason to expect that your children will die in their first year and that your wife will die while giving birth? The pinnacle of military force projection in your world is 1000 ton ship with 100 cannons on it?
Our culture is ridiculously unlike theirs.
Originally posted by dadudemon
"Their political philosophies are still relevant and useful." That statement is true mostly because we literally still use their political philosophies in a direct way.
The only reason we pretend their thoughts have special relevance is because we fight about interpretation of their official writings which laid the groundwork for our legal and political systems.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Some of the Founding Fathers were directly involved in anti-slavery movements and legislation following the formation of the US (or Articles of Confederation).
"A Pew poll early this week found that at least some Congressmen say they're not fans of slavery on philosophical grounds and on account of how it exploits an inferior race but will tolerate it for economic reasons."
Nah, that sounds weird. I think our views of race have more forward a lot.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Since it was a very relevant and heated debate directly had by the founding fathers regarding the question of "slavery", that is unlikely. The Continental Congress actually argued and debated this very point in the Declaration of Independence. And the actions of the government shortly after it was formed seemed more anti-slave than pro-slave.One of the results of this perpetual debate was the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Some of the Founding Fathers were directly involved in anti-slavery movements and legislation following the formation of the US (or Articles of Confederation).
So, no, race would not be as big of a deal as other things. Consider that many of the major world powers had already abolished slavery or had made movements in that direction before 1800 and you’ll see my point. It was tolerated due to the South’s supposed economic dependence upon slave labor. That would be more apt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1700.E2.80.931800
They were definitely educated on foreign affairs: they were aware of the various movements around the world and those arguments were used.The idea of racial equality was literally and directly debated in the Declaration of Independence (because Jefferson thought the "negro" deserved those same freedoms discussed in the DoI).
Remember that they were aristocrats at heart with aristocratic upbringings, and while they embraced enlightenment philosophy and high-minded rhetoric they also had a great fear of people outside their own socio-economic and cultural spheres, and when Benjamin Franklin swore that he would not prevent a "Mosulman" from living in America it was considered a radical statement, and IIRC a lot of his colleagues thought he was making a hilarious joke.
I...don't think the early US was an isolationist nation. Consider that they just fought a war with the French before they fought the war of Independence. Then consider that they fought another war after becoming a nation, with France. Then Tripoli and Morroco. Then the British Empire (again). This was all before 1820.Also consider that they literally had ambassadors in many countries shortly after becoming a nation.
Then consider that the early US made it a point to improve European trade relations.
Then the notion that the early US had an "isolationist foreign policy", specifically as it applied to world affairs (but more broadly, as well), makes little sense. That would be quite wrong.
Well…yeah...they still kind of are. It is just a degree of how autonomous they are compared to how they were then. I bet you they'd be pissed at how strong the federal government is. But reserved powers still significantly exist.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You should note that there's a big difference between being an abolitionist and believing that all races are equal. In some historical cases, a huge difference. Racism could actually be a motive for abolitionism (if you really hate blacks you don't even want them in America as slaves). I think even the best among them would have "old timey" outlooks on blacks, and they'd say things like
"Barack Obama? Don't let the lips and nose fool you, he's a canny fellow."Remember that they were aristocrats at heart with aristocratic upbringings, and while they embraced enlightenment philosophy and high-minded rhetoric they also had a great fear of people outside their own socio-economic and cultural spheres, and when Benjamin Franklin swore that he would not prevent a "Mosulman" from living in America it was considered a radical statement, and IIRC a lot of his colleagues thought he was making a hilarious joke.
These are the are the Founders are discussing: not the common man. So you'd get a mixture of extreme racists and people that strongly thought of them as equal and capable. Jefferson and Franklin were the latter. Jefferson liked the Ebony so much...he made the nasty. From what I read, the majority were opposed to slavery. In one of my classes, one of the reasons discussed for wanting to separate from the crown was the desire to end slavery.
And on your new point about "equality", I strongly disagree.
Read a crap ton of quotes which are rife with religious notions of equality under God (of all places: Christian Answers, lulz):
http://christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html
When they agreed to the "all men are created equal", they meant it. Sure, some of them dissented and they signed away for other reasons. But most were on board. That was actually one of the compromises they had to Jefferson's awkward handling of that topic.
My opinion is: the majority of the FFs would be pleased with how things are, today.
I'll give you that Jefferson thought the African slaves were so different from the European colonists that they should not live in the same area (partly because of the racism of those around him and partly for cultural reasons). That's obviously very racist by today's standards. Me thinks he would be very pleased to see how "black culture" mixed quite well in the US. 😄
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I shouldn't have said "isolationist", because you're right, that's too strong a word. They did engage in tariffs and attempted embargoes and tried to push their weight around on the world stage, but things like NATO and probably the UN would worry them. Until the Second World War America avoided any long term alliances with other countries, and it wasn't until the end of the 19th century that they started to actually project power overseas (I don't count the Monroe Doctrine because up to that point the British Empire had actually enforced it).
If you didn't mean isolationist, then there is another word for it. It is what Ron Paul calls himself when he is accused of being an isolationist. I cannot think of the term, at the moment...and I am google'd out, right now.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think they'd be disappointed in the comparative lack of state-pride in modern Americans.
I don't know, man. In some ways, I think that state pride has grown. It gets pretty heated in Okie-land when a discussion turns to a "Oklahoma vs. Texas" debate. Our laws this, our people, that, our schools are these.
Edit - I cannot believe I spelled most things correctly in that post. I do not have autocorrect as I am forced to use IE. 🙁
Originally posted by dadudemon
Jefferson liked the Ebony so much...he made the nasty. From what I read, the majority were opposed to slavery. In one of my classes, one of the reasons discussed for wanting to separate from the crown was the desire to end slavery.
They disliked slavery because it happened to fit poorly with the work of some enlightenment thinkers and they were afraid of eventual retaliation by slaves. Jefferson has a well known essay laying out why he believes blacks are inferior by nature.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They disliked slavery because it happened to fit poorly with the work of some enlightenment thinkers and they were afraid of eventual retaliation by slaves. Jefferson has a well known essay laying out why he believes blacks are inferior by nature.
He would have loved the 40s. 🙂
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
By the way, I'm taking your decision not to engage me in angry debate as a sign of victory.
Why? 🙂
You just restated something I pretty stated already.
Observe:
Originally posted by The Man, The Myth, The Legendary dadudemon[/i]And that idea was followed up with another idea: Jefferson would get over it quite readily because he can clearly observe that his ideas on segregation are wrong. 🙂
Jefferson thought the African slaves were so different from the European colonists that they should not live in the same area (partly because of the racism of those around him and partly for cultural reasons). That's obviously very racist by today's standards.
So I see nothing to discuss. 313
Originally posted by dadudemon
So why do we still study the political sciences which includes many ideas from 200+ years ago?In fact...in all my poli-sci classes, the majority of concepts were directly from or derivative of 200+ year old ideas. Granted, some came from just 100+ years ago.
I'd say you'd be really spot on if we shifted this to economics.
By this logic, we should listen to Aristotle's teachings on science, because we still follow his teachings on logic. 😕
That some ideas from centuries ago still survive today (albeit in this context, in the highly questionable field of political science) doesn't conceal the orders of magnitude greater quantity of ideas that don't survive to this day, many of which the founding fathers once held.
You know, while the founders were typically more progressive in terms of slavery, freedom and all that than most people of their day, they'd still be considered vastly backwards and racist by today's standards. They also held backwards views on women, poor people, homosexuality, etc.
They were great men for their time, and we owe them our respect and gratitude for what they did for us...but that doesn't mean we should give a damn what they thought. Some of their ideas and theories were correct and can be independently supported through logic independent of the founders' say-so.
Basically, if we need to judge the men by their times, what makes you think their ideas are any different? And why not rely more on accomplishments of modern great persons?