If a ball 1 hits ball 2 and then ball 2 moves then the only logical explanation is that ball 1 hitting ball 2 is the cause of its moving. This explanation is a simple billiard ball explanation. Therefore since p and q are the only relevant differences between X and Y they are assumed to be the cause of the difference. So he concluded X and Y had different levels of violence and the different levels of violence are best explained by different underlying philosophies p and q. He went on to note that the French Revolution was much more violent than the American Revolution. He reasoned as follows: the American Revolution was primarily influenced by the Judeo-Christian philosophy and the Greek philosophical tradition whereas the French Revolution was influenced by the philosophy of Rousseau with his emphasis on the general will and Voltaire’s general scorn for tradition (ibid p. Shapiro argued that history performed a comparative experiment as to which form of Enlightenment was the superior one. On the one side was the American Enlightenment, based on the consummation of a long history of thought stretching back to Athens and Jerusalem, down through Great Britain and the Glorious Revolution, and to the New World on the other was the European Enlightenment, which rejected Athens and Jerusalem in order to build new worlds beyond discoverable purpose and divine revelation.” ( Ben Shapiro ‘The Right Side of History’ p. “The Enlightenment straddled two sides of a thin line. According to Shapiro the Enlightenment has two major strands: In his 2019 book ‘The Right Side of History’ Ben Shapiro made a causal claim about the nature of the Enlightenment. The overall conclusion of the blog-post will be that Shapiro’s argument doesn’t go through on either logical or empirical grounds. While in part 2 I will evaluate the empirical data Shapiro presents. In part 1 of the blog-post I will show that from a logical point of view Shapiro’s argument doesn’t prove what he thinks it does. In this blog-post I will evaluate Ben Shapiro’s claim that the different levels of violence in the French Revolution and the American Revolution can be accounted for in terms of the different underlying philosophies which motivated both revolutions. I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long years to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out.” (Charles Dickens ‘A Tale of Two Cities p. The left’s use of magical buzzwords places you in a corner, against supposed universal values that aren’t universal or universally held.“I see Barsad, and Cly, Defarge, The Vengeance, the Jury-man, the Judge, long ranks of new oppressors who have risen on the destruction of the old, perishing by this retributive instrument, before it shall cease out of its present use. And as for social justice, if social is supposed to be opposed to individual, then social justice is by definition unjust. They are anti-intellectual diversity, particularly in areas of American life in which they predominate that’s why they stifle conservatism on campus and in the media. The left is wildly intolerant of religious people and conservatives that’s why they’re interested in forcing Christian bakers to cater to same-sex weddings. Now, all these terms are – to be polite – a crock, if considered as absolute moral values. They are tolerant, diverse, fighters for social justice if you oppose them, by contrast, you are intolerant, xenophobic, and in favor of injustice. They have buzzwords they use to direct the debate toward unwinnable positions for you.
Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future Thus the obligation of tolerance leads inexorably to intolerance, turning the claim to be tolerant into a tautology, a statement that merely repeats itself-“I am tolerant except about those things of which I am intolerant.”
But the determined advocates of tolerance are not content with that and keep slipping back into making tolerance imply the necessity of respect. Thus we fall back on “tolerance,” which merely means conceding to people the right to be who they are, while withholding our respect. To be respectful of them would be to abandon all moral sense, so that a completely tolerant person would be totally passive, without a moral center.
We regard what they stand for as stupid, crazy, evil, or all three. It is much better to speak of “respect” or “empathy.” But that is precisely the problem-common sense tells us that there are people who cannot and ought not to command our respect or empathy. “Tolerance fails as a virtue, first of all, because it is in some ways demeaning to people.
0 kommentar(er)
