tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post116624184780564444..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: The Nature of Man, or: I'm feeling a little abolished latelyHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1166653576066945252006-12-20T17:26:00.000-05:002006-12-20T17:26:00.000-05:00Good point on geocentrism. I think Aquinas wanted...Good point on geocentrism. I think Aquinas wanted to claim Aristotle and therefore reason for Christendom. Some people took it all too literally.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1166554221828427602006-12-19T13:50:00.000-05:002006-12-19T13:50:00.000-05:00Of course, the wholesale subscription of the Roman...Of course, the wholesale subscription of the Roman church to the "science" of the classical Greeks led to unbiblical notions such as the earth being the center of the universe and the opposition to Galileo. <BR/>The Bible is the ultimate opponent to those who ask "What is truth?" when The Answer stands right in front of them.Evanston2https://www.blogger.com/profile/09851967034946400308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1166495683756312452006-12-18T21:34:00.000-05:002006-12-18T21:34:00.000-05:00Aha!Now we know why Aquinas loved Aristotle so muc...Aha!<BR/><BR/>Now we know why Aquinas loved Aristotle so much, and in fact based his whole philosophical system on him.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1166474612186230032006-12-18T15:43:00.000-05:002006-12-18T15:43:00.000-05:00And in this light, the Bible is the ultimate anti-...And in this light, the Bible is the ultimate anti-modern treatise and truly radical document in this age of so-called "enlightenment."Evanston2https://www.blogger.com/profile/09851967034946400308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1166316102434587262006-12-16T19:41:00.000-05:002006-12-16T19:41:00.000-05:00I don't see it. "Moderns" is a shorthand, of cour...I don't see it. <BR/><BR/>"Moderns" is a shorthand, of course, and only useful in contradistinction to "classical." Hobbes is not Derrida.<BR/><BR/>But the disconnect comes at the possibility of the perfectability of man, and what we might mean by virtue. The classicals see our nature as inherent and therefore permanent. To improve man, you can only foster his virtue, virtue being something they consider real and definable, and not just a product of culture and opinion.<BR/><BR/>The modern-moderns think we are more products of our environment. Change the environment, the culture, change man. A more perfect society will produce more perfect people.<BR/><BR/>As to what we might change them into, and what his virtues (let alone vices) might be, subjectivity and multiculturalism forbid agreeing on it at all. To do so would be intolerant.<BR/><BR/>Therefore virtue and vice become indistinguishable, and freedom becomes an end in itself to pursue either, depending on your opinion about which is which. Nature becomes irrelevant, and is replaced by the will.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1166296127196084622006-12-16T14:08:00.000-05:002006-12-16T14:08:00.000-05:00Tom,If the moderns think we are "getting better" i...Tom,<BR/>If the moderns think we are "getting better" it seems as if they assume negative things exist within/or about us, as a human race, that should change. We know that the classical school had a long list of the negative aspects of humanity (virtue and vice). Is there any overlap or commonality in what these 'traditions' see as the negative side of us or what they hope will change?mthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175360506805356285noreply@blogger.com