Points to Ponder:
[T]he tradition of today is the progress of yesterday and the progress of today is the tradition of tomorrow. [Jean Guitton]
Friday, October 26, 2007
On Being Fair to Historical Figures in General and Revisiting the Subject of Slavery in American History:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Last Minute Addition: In the news not long before the final touches were made to this posting was a story of the Democratic Congress attempting to undermine relations in the Middle East for purely partisan reasons. (It involves a retroactive condemnation of an event that happened nearly a hundred years ago.) This event makes the week-plus-in-the-drafting-post you have before you somewhat prescient as readers will see once they have finished reading it. Your host's low opinion of this stunt may well be dealt with in a later posting but it bears noting here in brief to point out how the principles we outline here at Rerum Novarum have both a contemporary as well as a timeless quality to them. -ISM]
When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him-at least, I find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. [Abraham Lincoln (circa August 21, 1858)]
I was originally going to post the link at the bottom of this post with the title as follows sans any additional commentary:
--Influential Nineteenth Century Black Intellectual Delivers Memorial Oration To Honour Slain Former White Supremacist President For Freeing The Slaves and Ending an Institution He Actually Wanted To Preserve
The problem with such attempts at sarcasm though is that they are often not seen for what they are -or at the very least run the risk of being seen that way by those who do not take a moment to actually ponder what they read before presuming to form a presumed "informed opinion" on it. And that is how the link would have to be titled if we were to espouse a not-so-uncommon revisionist view of Abraham Lincoln which permeates some circles. Now admittedly some of this revisionism is spun because of the mythology that surrounds Lincoln to some extent. However, I do not see how one sets right a particular set of myths with propagating another.
Essentially there are two extremes here which need to be avoided. The first is those who try to present without spot or wrinkle people from the past. The second consists of the converse; namely, those who try to present people as having nothing but spots and wrinkles. Both approaches are taken by those with agendas to push and the extent to which some persons are given the favourable over the unfavourable treatment depends a lot on the foundational presuppositions of the person in question.
I have found frequently in my life that those who have an agenda explicitly or implicitly of destruction generally go for the approach that presents their perceived "foes" in as flawed a fashion as they can while either ignoring or downplaying the flaws of their "allies" or otherwise extolling them in some form or another.{1}
The second approach noted above is usually done by those who in some form or another make the mistake of failing to assess someone historically within their time of living. They in other words commit the fallacies of the "whig historian" which we have noted a number of times on this very weblog.{2} But that is a complex subject to discuss in and of itself; ergo I want to note it briefly and then move onto additional exposition taking issue with the attempts at revisionism to the person and memory of Abraham Lincoln.
The idea that Abraham Lincoln was not a great man because his motives for freeing the slaves were not 100% pure (or that George Washington was not a great man because he actually owned slaves) shows a remarkable degree of blindness to the complex nature of historical situations. This is particularly problematical because many of those who would take these positions would refuse to turn a similar mirror onto particular favourite persons of theirs. The whole trying to unvarnish one set of heroes and whitewash another set of people to take their place is a classic example in spades of the law of non-contradiction and it highlights a problem many people have with presuppositional favouritism over any attempt at being genuinely and objectively fair to historical figures in general.
I know some of the people who would try to darken Lincoln's historical portrait but would then do everything they could to explain away the pox marks on records of people in history they liked or otherwise had some kind of intellectual dependence on for some issue or another. For example, I know of "distributivists"{3} who feel that America and the capitalist system are possessing of great evils or imbalances; ergo they do not have a problem with trying to combat this by seeking to belittle the giants in American history{4} who do not concur with their presuppositions. They then give a free pass to someone such as Hilaire Belloc who was an exponent of their particular economic weltanschauung which is in and of itself a violation of the law of non-contradiction. As I have both taken significant issue with what I see as logical and ethical flaws in Belloc's preferred system{5} as well as defended Belloc himself from those who try to blacken his memory by judging him by today's standards{6}, I am in the position here of showing consistency on the principle which I am outlining in this posting. And having defended Belloc on this basis previously, I will now do the same with Lincoln but in doing so some basic principles need to be accounted for first.
Ultimately, we should always strive to judge anyone from history equitably and that means not judging them by modern standards but instead in accordance with their own time and the presuppositions involved therein. I say this because views of what is right and what is wrong can change over time and the deeper the wrong, the more difficult it is to remove root and branch from public consciousness. In the case of slavery, as noxious as it is and as opposed to it and its many manifestations{7} by every fiber of my being that I am, I do not fault Americans prior to the Civil War for failing to completely eviscerate slavery. There is an importance to any civilization and society to have order and structure and those matters must come first and foremost. It is from there that movements can be made to seek to amend and put right various societal wrongs.
Those who would favour overturning an entire society to try and eradicate grave wrongs are no different than those whom wise spiritual writers have chastised at sundry times and in divers manners for making bad situations worse through well-intentioned but ultimately imprudent zeal. But that is neither here nor there as to go into that subject would detract from the purpose of this posting so I will note the principle briefly in a footnote{8} and then move on.
It would not have for reasons I have noted before{9} practical or logical to have banned slavery either at the start of the Republic or even during the Constitutional Convention. I also noted previously the fact that there were many Founders who were vehemently opposed to slavery -even some of which owned slaves incidentally- who recognised the need to compromise on the matter for the preservation of the Union.{10} The slavery system was deeply embedded in parts of American life and for a variety of reasons could not have been torn up wholesale at once when the Republic was young and vulnerable.{11} Abraham Lincoln himself explained the matter adequately in an 1854 response to Stephen Douglas on the repeal of the 1820 Missouri Compromise (which itself was intended to limit the expansion of slavery) so we will quote his words at this time on it:
[Slavery] is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers could not do; and more they would not do. Necessity drove them so far, and further, they would not go. But this is not all. The earlier Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.
In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave trade--that is, the taking of slaves from the United States to sell.
In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa into the Mississippi Territory--this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was ten years before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.
In 1800, they prohibited American citizens from trading in slaves between foreign countries--as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.
In 1803, they passed a law in aid of one or two States laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.
In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance, to take effect the first day of 1808--the very first day the constitution would permit--prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.
In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.
Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the principle, and toleration, only by necessity. [Abraham Lincoln (circa October 16, 1854)]
The purpose of the above response on Lincoln's part was to point out to those who opposed the abolition of slavery that the intention of the Founders was to see a toleration of slavery until such a time as it could be eliminated and taking gradual actions to arrest the further development of slavery in new territories to thus pave the way for an eventual extinction of the institution. Having noted those things briefly, let us now consider some of the ways that certain revisionists have sought to sully the historical memory of Abraham Lincoln. To start with, here is one reference to some of what Lincoln noted in one of his seven election debates in late 1858:
In the presidential debates of 1858, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races…[I] am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." [LINK]
It is a bit ironic perhaps that the above quotation was taken verbatim from an article talking about the importance of critical thinking skills. But that point aside for a moment, the "presidential debates" were in 1860, not 1858. In 1858, Lincoln was opposing Stephen Douglas for the United States Senate out of Illinois. Furthermore, there is a lot removed from that quote which is obviously fashioned to make Lincoln look as sinister as possible. Here is a broader quote used at times by some who try and make the claim that Lincoln was a "white supremacist." The words in the above quote will be underlined in the one to follow so that readers can see the degree of deception involved in such proof texting:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” [LINK]
There is of course a greater context still to this phrasing and I will now show the reader what it is -the above paragraph noted by underlining and the first quoting in italics to show the magnitude of the misrepresentation involved. Oh and the points noted as audience laughter were in the text being so referenced and were left in for reasons which will hopefully be evident to the reader:
While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.] I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject. [LINK]
I want to point the readers to a concept in the above paragraph that they may find odd today: the idea that someone would oppose the federal government being an engine of social manipulation. When you read Lincoln's words about being opposed to "producing a perfect equality between the negros and white people" that is what he is referring to: opposition of using the federal government to attempt to produce it. It may seem odd as well to modern eyes to see a major figure of the nineteenth century espousing the view that they believed that the differences between white and black people would make it not possible for the two races to live together "on terms of political and social equality." There was also some obvious sarcasm in the text as well in a number of spots -most notably the part where Lincoln said that he was not concerned that either he or any of his friends would marry negros even if there was not a law in Illinois against it but apparently Douglas and his supporters are afraid that they would if there was not such a law!!! There are in other words a lot of threads in the mosaic in other words and they all deserve to be carefully considered by someone interested in properly representing the thought of the late Abraham Lincoln.
It also bears recalling that the standing that blacks held in society at that time: in the south they were viewed as property and in the north they were viewed as a lower class of people generally speaking. The northerners opposed slavery but that does not mean that they supported equality of the races across the board. They often did not and this presupposition was itself based on a concoction of facts, presumed "scientific studies", personal observations, and assumptions drawn from those (and probably other) areas.
As unfortunate as we would view this outlook today, we have to remember that this was par for the course in all dealings of one group of people towards another which they were not well familiar. It used to be that people in any given group had a natural distrust of "outsiders" or those viewed as such on the basis of race, religion, creed, nationality, or whatever{12} -certainly such stances were often taken due to ignorance of the unknown. But is it true that such ignorance has itself been overcome even in our more presumably "enlightened" era??? Readers can consider the manner whereby many who are so scathingly critical of Lincoln respond to those they have an aversion towards and find their answer in the actions and statements made therein.
For those who would today berate people in past eras for being xenophobic based on religion, race, presumed "scientific studies", or other categories used in the past would do well to stop and consider if they are not similarly bigoted themselves. All one has to do is take a small tour of the web and they can find no shortage of sites where self-righteous so-called "progressivist" sorts who speak against those who do not agree with them in ways similar to any Klansman in eras past against certain groups the Klan found not to their liking (i.e. Jews, blacks, Catholics, Irish, etc).
In the current climate, animosity about present military involvements have a number of these sorts finding all sorts of ways to tag with intended labels of derision those who do not agree with them. This is why your host continually expects and even (at times) demands that those who attempt such things to explain their use of terms. This principle is at the heart of the ongoing "'neo-con' challenge" which we in recent years have issued a number of times -most recently HERE. Until those who use that term bother to define their terms, we view their derisive use of it no differently than white people who used to refer to blacks as "niggers" and I say that without the slightest hint of exaggeration whatsoever.
Consider furthermore how many of those who have tried overtly or covertly to tar and feather Lincoln as a "racist", those people should stop and ask if they do not themselves with the "welfare" policies they advocate putting the blacks and other minorities into defacto economic slavery which is itself a form of created class inferiority. There is after all more than one way to be a racist or to otherwise advocate "position[s] of superior and inferior." As far as your host is concerned, those who advocate increased welfare programs for minorities out of some misplaced belief that they need to be "taken care of" should consider whether or not their white man's burden approach is not itself a form of subtle racism.
Now I am of course hardly going to claim that the misdirected approach of those who advocate "welfare" for poor people or minorities is inexorably bound up in a form of "subtle racism." However, I do note that interpretation here merely as an instructive for those who would rashly try and discredit people of other time periods for attitudes not in vogue to contemporary sensibilities. But enough on that point and onto the overall impression that the full paragraph of Lincoln's speech above should convey to the reader approaching this matter with the intention of objective fairness. And certainly while more could be said than that, it cannot be denied that no matter how charitable of a construction is placed on the paragraph above, there are still some parts which would trouble many modern readers. But as shocking as some of this may be to read, it bears in mind that we cannot fairly reproach Abraham Lincoln on these matters for how we view them today.
We live in a different time and under different presuppositions. In Lincoln's time, there were few if any black intellectuals, there were few if any truly successful and free blacks. Compare that to today where there are a number of notable black intellectuals, business owners, and the like and the climate is a lot different. It has been that way since 1865 with each generation of blacks being more successful than their predecessors but such things were unheard of in 1858 -the year the above quote was taken from. (Yet another factor that bears careful consideration by those who would deign to speak on these matters with any pretense of both historical sensibility as well as intelligence.)
What was also hampering the contemporary views of the time was a widely held view that the differences in the races were intellectual as well as physical. This view as we understand it now is false but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was still a matter of open speculation. Lincoln noted the possibility that it was true which (i) is more than can be said for many who would have claimed that it was a certainty and (ii) also by logical extension included the possibility that it was not. When viewed through the lenses of his time, Lincoln's views while probably not radical were nonetheless quite progressive in the true sense of the term.{13}
Lincoln's opposition to slavery was constant throughout his political life and has earned him the rightful reputation as both The Great Emancipator by his actions as well as through his martyrdom which was a direct result of the cause itself. Many do not know that John Wilkes Booth's anger at President Lincoln and what drove the assassination attempt was Lincoln's more enlightened idea of extending the voting franchise to the educated blacks as well as the blacks who served as soldiers!!! That fact alone should shut the mouths of those who would berate President Lincoln for "not doing enough" as giving one's life for a cause is the most that anyone can do really.
However imperfect by modern standards, if we compare President Lincoln's views in April of 1865 (after General Lee's surrender) to the views expounded by senatorial candidate Lincoln prior to the Civil War, Lincoln showed in his revised position a remarkable capacity for adaptation to changed times and circumstances. There was also with all likelihood the influence of a certain person whom we will get to shortly who may have been the single biggest impression on Lincoln. (Thereby aiding him in making this paradigmatic shift from the outlook enunciated in the 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas.) Yes my friends, it is true that Lincoln did not originally believe that blacks should be in positions of societal responsibility; however, some of this may stem from an outlook coloured by the presuppositions we noted earlier in this posting -and a charitable person would put the best possible construction they could on these sorts of things. Furthermore, if those presuppositions were what Lincoln based his view on, it is obvious that he was willing to challenge his presuppositions and eventually revise to some extent. As the lions share of Lincoln's critics have not shown the same willingness to challenge their foundational presuppositions (instead treating them as defacto infallible), that is all readers of this humble weblog need to consider to understand why your host does not take these critics of Lincoln seriously as a rule.
Again, Lincoln's stature as a top tier abolitionist is clear and unmistakable to anyone who gives an objective reading of all the evidences supplied by history including the very words of President Lincoln himself in speeches spanning the entire length of his public political career. Now the moment those who are critical of Lincoln for not being as "perfect" on this issue as they would like are willing to give their lives for this cause or any other one of significance is the very moment that reasonable people can give some reasonable credence to their criticisms. But enough on that matter for now.
It seems appropriate after noting these things to take into account the assessment of President Lincoln that was given by one of his contemporaries -in this case the nineteenth century black intellectual and former slave Frederick Douglass. Douglass met Lincoln at the White House during the Civil War and would appear to have made quite the impression on him as I noted earlier. Here is the full text of an oration he delivered in memory of the fallen president on the eleventh anniversary of his assassination:
Oration In Memory Of Abraham Lincoln Delivered At The Unveiling Of The Freedmen's Monument In Memory Of Abraham Lincoln In Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C. -Frederick Douglass (April 14, 1876)
Whatever differences people of good will can take with some of the statements or positions of Frederick Douglass (may he rest in peace) in the above oration, one nonetheless cannot fail to appreciate his attempt to do justice to the whole of Abraham Lincoln and the results that came from the great events that Lincoln oversaw both during his presidency and also what was brought about in its aftermath. Would that more people today with biased agendas pertaining to Lincoln{14} and the events of his time would strive to be as equitable in their approach as Douglass was.
This writer asks that readers kindly give the above oration a complete and thorough read when they have the time. With that final note, this post will be ended now with some words from the Second Inaugural Address of the late President Abraham Lincoln (may he rest in peace) roughly five weeks before he was assassinated:
It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?
Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right--as God gives us to see the right--let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations. [President Abraham Lincoln: Second Inaugural Address (circa March 4, 1865)]
Notes:
{1} It is natural of course to feel an affinity for those we perceive to be our "allies" in a fight and even a kind of operative animosity towards those we believe are opposed to us. These tendencies however should never get in the way of trying as best we can to make as fair an assessment of persons and situations. Otherwise, there is a problem with approaching moral and ethical issues in a uniform standard and more often than not there is the use of double standards. Longtime readers of this weblog are well aware that your host has a serious problem with double standards being employed anywhere and at any time.
{2} Here they are in order from oldest to newest:
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on How Historians Should Treat Events and Situations of the Past (circa September 12, 2005)
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on Real Historical Understanding and How to Properly Approach the Past (circa September 20, 2005)
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Role of the Historian (circa October 14, 2005)
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian (circa October 17, 2005)
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Difficulty of the General Historian and the Whig Fallacy (circa April 22, 2006)
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on a Fallacy of the Whig Historian (circa May 30, 2007)
{3} Threads on Distributivism From 2007 (circa September 29, 2007)
{4} On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America (circa April 17, 2007)
{5} See footnote three.
{6} On Hilaire Belloc and the Problems With Being Fair to Past Generations (circa March 11, 2007)
{7} There are more ways to enslave people than just physically after all but also psychological and economic as well. I am opposed to all forms of enslaving others without just cause -either explicitly or by logical inference as a violation of one of their fundamental rights.
{8} In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak. [Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pgs. 153-158 (c. 1795) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa September 29, 2002)]
{9} See footnote four.
{10} See footnote four.
{11} I do not intend in this posting to go into that matter in any detail; however I probably will at some point down the road.
{12} We who are fortunate to live in a society where communication between people is potentially greater than at any time in history do well to remember that it was not always this way -indeed increases in communications technology has inexorably made it much harder than it once was to be as ignorant of other groups as was the case in past eras.
{13} All I will say here is that most who call themselves "progressivists" do not take positions on a number of their pet issues that actually are an improvement for humanity and society at large; ergo their application of the term "progressive" to themselves is a misnomer.
{14} I refer both to those sorts that (i) would proclaim Lincoln to be either sinless or (ii) without any redeeming qualities to his character whatsoever.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Last Minute Addition: In the news not long before the final touches were made to this posting was a story of the Democratic Congress attempting to undermine relations in the Middle East for purely partisan reasons. (It involves a retroactive condemnation of an event that happened nearly a hundred years ago.) This event makes the week-plus-in-the-drafting-post you have before you somewhat prescient as readers will see once they have finished reading it. Your host's low opinion of this stunt may well be dealt with in a later posting but it bears noting here in brief to point out how the principles we outline here at Rerum Novarum have both a contemporary as well as a timeless quality to them. -ISM]
When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him-at least, I find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. [Abraham Lincoln (circa August 21, 1858)]
I was originally going to post the link at the bottom of this post with the title as follows sans any additional commentary:
--Influential Nineteenth Century Black Intellectual Delivers Memorial Oration To Honour Slain Former White Supremacist President For Freeing The Slaves and Ending an Institution He Actually Wanted To Preserve
The problem with such attempts at sarcasm though is that they are often not seen for what they are -or at the very least run the risk of being seen that way by those who do not take a moment to actually ponder what they read before presuming to form a presumed "informed opinion" on it. And that is how the link would have to be titled if we were to espouse a not-so-uncommon revisionist view of Abraham Lincoln which permeates some circles. Now admittedly some of this revisionism is spun because of the mythology that surrounds Lincoln to some extent. However, I do not see how one sets right a particular set of myths with propagating another.
Essentially there are two extremes here which need to be avoided. The first is those who try to present without spot or wrinkle people from the past. The second consists of the converse; namely, those who try to present people as having nothing but spots and wrinkles. Both approaches are taken by those with agendas to push and the extent to which some persons are given the favourable over the unfavourable treatment depends a lot on the foundational presuppositions of the person in question.
I have found frequently in my life that those who have an agenda explicitly or implicitly of destruction generally go for the approach that presents their perceived "foes" in as flawed a fashion as they can while either ignoring or downplaying the flaws of their "allies" or otherwise extolling them in some form or another.{1}
The second approach noted above is usually done by those who in some form or another make the mistake of failing to assess someone historically within their time of living. They in other words commit the fallacies of the "whig historian" which we have noted a number of times on this very weblog.{2} But that is a complex subject to discuss in and of itself; ergo I want to note it briefly and then move onto additional exposition taking issue with the attempts at revisionism to the person and memory of Abraham Lincoln.
The idea that Abraham Lincoln was not a great man because his motives for freeing the slaves were not 100% pure (or that George Washington was not a great man because he actually owned slaves) shows a remarkable degree of blindness to the complex nature of historical situations. This is particularly problematical because many of those who would take these positions would refuse to turn a similar mirror onto particular favourite persons of theirs. The whole trying to unvarnish one set of heroes and whitewash another set of people to take their place is a classic example in spades of the law of non-contradiction and it highlights a problem many people have with presuppositional favouritism over any attempt at being genuinely and objectively fair to historical figures in general.
I know some of the people who would try to darken Lincoln's historical portrait but would then do everything they could to explain away the pox marks on records of people in history they liked or otherwise had some kind of intellectual dependence on for some issue or another. For example, I know of "distributivists"{3} who feel that America and the capitalist system are possessing of great evils or imbalances; ergo they do not have a problem with trying to combat this by seeking to belittle the giants in American history{4} who do not concur with their presuppositions. They then give a free pass to someone such as Hilaire Belloc who was an exponent of their particular economic weltanschauung which is in and of itself a violation of the law of non-contradiction. As I have both taken significant issue with what I see as logical and ethical flaws in Belloc's preferred system{5} as well as defended Belloc himself from those who try to blacken his memory by judging him by today's standards{6}, I am in the position here of showing consistency on the principle which I am outlining in this posting. And having defended Belloc on this basis previously, I will now do the same with Lincoln but in doing so some basic principles need to be accounted for first.
Ultimately, we should always strive to judge anyone from history equitably and that means not judging them by modern standards but instead in accordance with their own time and the presuppositions involved therein. I say this because views of what is right and what is wrong can change over time and the deeper the wrong, the more difficult it is to remove root and branch from public consciousness. In the case of slavery, as noxious as it is and as opposed to it and its many manifestations{7} by every fiber of my being that I am, I do not fault Americans prior to the Civil War for failing to completely eviscerate slavery. There is an importance to any civilization and society to have order and structure and those matters must come first and foremost. It is from there that movements can be made to seek to amend and put right various societal wrongs.
Those who would favour overturning an entire society to try and eradicate grave wrongs are no different than those whom wise spiritual writers have chastised at sundry times and in divers manners for making bad situations worse through well-intentioned but ultimately imprudent zeal. But that is neither here nor there as to go into that subject would detract from the purpose of this posting so I will note the principle briefly in a footnote{8} and then move on.
It would not have for reasons I have noted before{9} practical or logical to have banned slavery either at the start of the Republic or even during the Constitutional Convention. I also noted previously the fact that there were many Founders who were vehemently opposed to slavery -even some of which owned slaves incidentally- who recognised the need to compromise on the matter for the preservation of the Union.{10} The slavery system was deeply embedded in parts of American life and for a variety of reasons could not have been torn up wholesale at once when the Republic was young and vulnerable.{11} Abraham Lincoln himself explained the matter adequately in an 1854 response to Stephen Douglas on the repeal of the 1820 Missouri Compromise (which itself was intended to limit the expansion of slavery) so we will quote his words at this time on it:
[Slavery] is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers could not do; and more they would not do. Necessity drove them so far, and further, they would not go. But this is not all. The earlier Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.
In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave trade--that is, the taking of slaves from the United States to sell.
In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa into the Mississippi Territory--this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was ten years before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.
In 1800, they prohibited American citizens from trading in slaves between foreign countries--as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.
In 1803, they passed a law in aid of one or two States laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.
In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance, to take effect the first day of 1808--the very first day the constitution would permit--prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.
In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.
Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the principle, and toleration, only by necessity. [Abraham Lincoln (circa October 16, 1854)]
The purpose of the above response on Lincoln's part was to point out to those who opposed the abolition of slavery that the intention of the Founders was to see a toleration of slavery until such a time as it could be eliminated and taking gradual actions to arrest the further development of slavery in new territories to thus pave the way for an eventual extinction of the institution. Having noted those things briefly, let us now consider some of the ways that certain revisionists have sought to sully the historical memory of Abraham Lincoln. To start with, here is one reference to some of what Lincoln noted in one of his seven election debates in late 1858:
In the presidential debates of 1858, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races…[I] am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." [LINK]
It is a bit ironic perhaps that the above quotation was taken verbatim from an article talking about the importance of critical thinking skills. But that point aside for a moment, the "presidential debates" were in 1860, not 1858. In 1858, Lincoln was opposing Stephen Douglas for the United States Senate out of Illinois. Furthermore, there is a lot removed from that quote which is obviously fashioned to make Lincoln look as sinister as possible. Here is a broader quote used at times by some who try and make the claim that Lincoln was a "white supremacist." The words in the above quote will be underlined in the one to follow so that readers can see the degree of deception involved in such proof texting:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” [LINK]
There is of course a greater context still to this phrasing and I will now show the reader what it is -the above paragraph noted by underlining and the first quoting in italics to show the magnitude of the misrepresentation involved. Oh and the points noted as audience laughter were in the text being so referenced and were left in for reasons which will hopefully be evident to the reader:
While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.] I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject. [LINK]
I want to point the readers to a concept in the above paragraph that they may find odd today: the idea that someone would oppose the federal government being an engine of social manipulation. When you read Lincoln's words about being opposed to "producing a perfect equality between the negros and white people" that is what he is referring to: opposition of using the federal government to attempt to produce it. It may seem odd as well to modern eyes to see a major figure of the nineteenth century espousing the view that they believed that the differences between white and black people would make it not possible for the two races to live together "on terms of political and social equality." There was also some obvious sarcasm in the text as well in a number of spots -most notably the part where Lincoln said that he was not concerned that either he or any of his friends would marry negros even if there was not a law in Illinois against it but apparently Douglas and his supporters are afraid that they would if there was not such a law!!! There are in other words a lot of threads in the mosaic in other words and they all deserve to be carefully considered by someone interested in properly representing the thought of the late Abraham Lincoln.
It also bears recalling that the standing that blacks held in society at that time: in the south they were viewed as property and in the north they were viewed as a lower class of people generally speaking. The northerners opposed slavery but that does not mean that they supported equality of the races across the board. They often did not and this presupposition was itself based on a concoction of facts, presumed "scientific studies", personal observations, and assumptions drawn from those (and probably other) areas.
As unfortunate as we would view this outlook today, we have to remember that this was par for the course in all dealings of one group of people towards another which they were not well familiar. It used to be that people in any given group had a natural distrust of "outsiders" or those viewed as such on the basis of race, religion, creed, nationality, or whatever{12} -certainly such stances were often taken due to ignorance of the unknown. But is it true that such ignorance has itself been overcome even in our more presumably "enlightened" era??? Readers can consider the manner whereby many who are so scathingly critical of Lincoln respond to those they have an aversion towards and find their answer in the actions and statements made therein.
For those who would today berate people in past eras for being xenophobic based on religion, race, presumed "scientific studies", or other categories used in the past would do well to stop and consider if they are not similarly bigoted themselves. All one has to do is take a small tour of the web and they can find no shortage of sites where self-righteous so-called "progressivist" sorts who speak against those who do not agree with them in ways similar to any Klansman in eras past against certain groups the Klan found not to their liking (i.e. Jews, blacks, Catholics, Irish, etc).
In the current climate, animosity about present military involvements have a number of these sorts finding all sorts of ways to tag with intended labels of derision those who do not agree with them. This is why your host continually expects and even (at times) demands that those who attempt such things to explain their use of terms. This principle is at the heart of the ongoing "'neo-con' challenge" which we in recent years have issued a number of times -most recently HERE. Until those who use that term bother to define their terms, we view their derisive use of it no differently than white people who used to refer to blacks as "niggers" and I say that without the slightest hint of exaggeration whatsoever.
Consider furthermore how many of those who have tried overtly or covertly to tar and feather Lincoln as a "racist", those people should stop and ask if they do not themselves with the "welfare" policies they advocate putting the blacks and other minorities into defacto economic slavery which is itself a form of created class inferiority. There is after all more than one way to be a racist or to otherwise advocate "position[s] of superior and inferior." As far as your host is concerned, those who advocate increased welfare programs for minorities out of some misplaced belief that they need to be "taken care of" should consider whether or not their white man's burden approach is not itself a form of subtle racism.
Now I am of course hardly going to claim that the misdirected approach of those who advocate "welfare" for poor people or minorities is inexorably bound up in a form of "subtle racism." However, I do note that interpretation here merely as an instructive for those who would rashly try and discredit people of other time periods for attitudes not in vogue to contemporary sensibilities. But enough on that point and onto the overall impression that the full paragraph of Lincoln's speech above should convey to the reader approaching this matter with the intention of objective fairness. And certainly while more could be said than that, it cannot be denied that no matter how charitable of a construction is placed on the paragraph above, there are still some parts which would trouble many modern readers. But as shocking as some of this may be to read, it bears in mind that we cannot fairly reproach Abraham Lincoln on these matters for how we view them today.
We live in a different time and under different presuppositions. In Lincoln's time, there were few if any black intellectuals, there were few if any truly successful and free blacks. Compare that to today where there are a number of notable black intellectuals, business owners, and the like and the climate is a lot different. It has been that way since 1865 with each generation of blacks being more successful than their predecessors but such things were unheard of in 1858 -the year the above quote was taken from. (Yet another factor that bears careful consideration by those who would deign to speak on these matters with any pretense of both historical sensibility as well as intelligence.)
What was also hampering the contemporary views of the time was a widely held view that the differences in the races were intellectual as well as physical. This view as we understand it now is false but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was still a matter of open speculation. Lincoln noted the possibility that it was true which (i) is more than can be said for many who would have claimed that it was a certainty and (ii) also by logical extension included the possibility that it was not. When viewed through the lenses of his time, Lincoln's views while probably not radical were nonetheless quite progressive in the true sense of the term.{13}
Lincoln's opposition to slavery was constant throughout his political life and has earned him the rightful reputation as both The Great Emancipator by his actions as well as through his martyrdom which was a direct result of the cause itself. Many do not know that John Wilkes Booth's anger at President Lincoln and what drove the assassination attempt was Lincoln's more enlightened idea of extending the voting franchise to the educated blacks as well as the blacks who served as soldiers!!! That fact alone should shut the mouths of those who would berate President Lincoln for "not doing enough" as giving one's life for a cause is the most that anyone can do really.
However imperfect by modern standards, if we compare President Lincoln's views in April of 1865 (after General Lee's surrender) to the views expounded by senatorial candidate Lincoln prior to the Civil War, Lincoln showed in his revised position a remarkable capacity for adaptation to changed times and circumstances. There was also with all likelihood the influence of a certain person whom we will get to shortly who may have been the single biggest impression on Lincoln. (Thereby aiding him in making this paradigmatic shift from the outlook enunciated in the 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas.) Yes my friends, it is true that Lincoln did not originally believe that blacks should be in positions of societal responsibility; however, some of this may stem from an outlook coloured by the presuppositions we noted earlier in this posting -and a charitable person would put the best possible construction they could on these sorts of things. Furthermore, if those presuppositions were what Lincoln based his view on, it is obvious that he was willing to challenge his presuppositions and eventually revise to some extent. As the lions share of Lincoln's critics have not shown the same willingness to challenge their foundational presuppositions (instead treating them as defacto infallible), that is all readers of this humble weblog need to consider to understand why your host does not take these critics of Lincoln seriously as a rule.
Again, Lincoln's stature as a top tier abolitionist is clear and unmistakable to anyone who gives an objective reading of all the evidences supplied by history including the very words of President Lincoln himself in speeches spanning the entire length of his public political career. Now the moment those who are critical of Lincoln for not being as "perfect" on this issue as they would like are willing to give their lives for this cause or any other one of significance is the very moment that reasonable people can give some reasonable credence to their criticisms. But enough on that matter for now.
It seems appropriate after noting these things to take into account the assessment of President Lincoln that was given by one of his contemporaries -in this case the nineteenth century black intellectual and former slave Frederick Douglass. Douglass met Lincoln at the White House during the Civil War and would appear to have made quite the impression on him as I noted earlier. Here is the full text of an oration he delivered in memory of the fallen president on the eleventh anniversary of his assassination:
Oration In Memory Of Abraham Lincoln Delivered At The Unveiling Of The Freedmen's Monument In Memory Of Abraham Lincoln In Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C. -Frederick Douglass (April 14, 1876)
Whatever differences people of good will can take with some of the statements or positions of Frederick Douglass (may he rest in peace) in the above oration, one nonetheless cannot fail to appreciate his attempt to do justice to the whole of Abraham Lincoln and the results that came from the great events that Lincoln oversaw both during his presidency and also what was brought about in its aftermath. Would that more people today with biased agendas pertaining to Lincoln{14} and the events of his time would strive to be as equitable in their approach as Douglass was.
This writer asks that readers kindly give the above oration a complete and thorough read when they have the time. With that final note, this post will be ended now with some words from the Second Inaugural Address of the late President Abraham Lincoln (may he rest in peace) roughly five weeks before he was assassinated:
It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?
Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right--as God gives us to see the right--let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations. [President Abraham Lincoln: Second Inaugural Address (circa March 4, 1865)]
Notes:
{1} It is natural of course to feel an affinity for those we perceive to be our "allies" in a fight and even a kind of operative animosity towards those we believe are opposed to us. These tendencies however should never get in the way of trying as best we can to make as fair an assessment of persons and situations. Otherwise, there is a problem with approaching moral and ethical issues in a uniform standard and more often than not there is the use of double standards. Longtime readers of this weblog are well aware that your host has a serious problem with double standards being employed anywhere and at any time.
{2} Here they are in order from oldest to newest:
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on How Historians Should Treat Events and Situations of the Past (circa September 12, 2005)
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on Real Historical Understanding and How to Properly Approach the Past (circa September 20, 2005)
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Role of the Historian (circa October 14, 2005)
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian (circa October 17, 2005)
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Difficulty of the General Historian and the Whig Fallacy (circa April 22, 2006)
Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on a Fallacy of the Whig Historian (circa May 30, 2007)
{3} Threads on Distributivism From 2007 (circa September 29, 2007)
{4} On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America (circa April 17, 2007)
{5} See footnote three.
{6} On Hilaire Belloc and the Problems With Being Fair to Past Generations (circa March 11, 2007)
{7} There are more ways to enslave people than just physically after all but also psychological and economic as well. I am opposed to all forms of enslaving others without just cause -either explicitly or by logical inference as a violation of one of their fundamental rights.
{8} In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak. [Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pgs. 153-158 (c. 1795) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa September 29, 2002)]
{9} See footnote four.
{10} See footnote four.
{11} I do not intend in this posting to go into that matter in any detail; however I probably will at some point down the road.
{12} We who are fortunate to live in a society where communication between people is potentially greater than at any time in history do well to remember that it was not always this way -indeed increases in communications technology has inexorably made it much harder than it once was to be as ignorant of other groups as was the case in past eras.
{13} All I will say here is that most who call themselves "progressivists" do not take positions on a number of their pet issues that actually are an improvement for humanity and society at large; ergo their application of the term "progressive" to themselves is a misnomer.
{14} I refer both to those sorts that (i) would proclaim Lincoln to be either sinless or (ii) without any redeeming qualities to his character whatsoever.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Proposing for Use and Future Definition the Terms "Rational Nominalism" and "Selective Rational Nominalism":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
A post of defined terms or solidified key concepts would ordinarily be posted to my Miscellaneous BLOG where I have come over the years to categorize key concepts that inform my operative presuppositions.{1} The problem is, I have not come up with precise definitions for these words yet. The concepts have been percolating in my mind as I have considered them and the purpose of this posting is to set some of them down in expository format both for later codification and because it is late in the day and it is a birthday indulgence of ours essentially.{2}
One of the reasons we at Rerum Novarum have often emphasized at sundry times and in diverse manners the importance of definitions{3} is because respect for definitions is at its core a respect for reason and logic. Conversely, those who do not take this matter seriously have a corresponding lack of respect for reason and logic{4} regardless of pretentions they might make to the contrary. Ironically, most of those who fall into the latter camp involve themselves in a kind of rational dualism in that they give every appearance of recognizing the importance of definitions in some contexts but not in others.
I have at times thought of them as rational dualists and on rare occasions have thought of using that term as a way of trying to get through to them their inconsistencies so they would be aware of them. But that is neither here nor there, the intention with this posting to sketch the outline of a couple of terms as a kind of shorthand way to explain a phenomenon I have witnessed for years on end.{5}
As often is the case, one can only stand by and watch the same insanity over and over again before sensing the need to define a key concept when so many others show by example that they do not understand it. That is what I intend to do at some point with the post you are reading an outline of key concepts intended to provide the benefit of those who want a ready point of reference for this phenomenon whenever they see it.{6} But before getting to the terms to be defined, I need to explain the root common to both of them and that is the concept of nominalism.
Nominalism is a subject I have discussed explicitly and implicitly many times over the years in a variety of forums and applicable contexts but in nearly all of them, the context was to some respect philosophical in nature. It is indeed through this medium that the outlook in question first became explicitly manifested. Nominalism in philosophy is a foundational presupposition that denies the existence of universal concepts as well as refusing to admit that the intellect is capable of forming and expressing such concepts and words intended to denote such things have no intrinsic meaning in and of themselves but are merely designations of words which could be made anywhere and everywhere.
For example, in the nominalist weltanschauung the word "dog" could apply to a "dog" or we could apply it to a "cat" or a "house" and "person" could be applied to a "goldfish" and vice versa. The underlying result of this outlook is that reasoning and logic are rendered impotent and we are no better than the animals who are incapable of reasoning and logic. All sources of knowledge available to us are immediately rendered worthless by this irrational outlook and it makes sense why those who respect reason and logic would be so merciless in their attack on those who would devalue this important reflection of the image of God within us as well as all things in known existence.
Having noted at the outset the concept of "nominalism" and the staunch opposition of that outlook that every fiber of my being contains, it hopefully makes clear to the reader what is necessary to combat this intrinsic evil: the requirement that terms used to describe something actually be given a meaning so that there is a point of reference common to all. It is a failure to do this which is at the heart of the terms I will now propose for future codification. Here is what I am toying with at the moment as outlines for the terms in question:
Rational Nominalism: A mindset or foundational presupposition which wholeheartedly embraces the nominalist concept of using words in a variety of ways without concern for any universal or underlying coherency across the continuum of words, phrases, subjects, etc.
Selective Rational Nominalism: A mindset or foundational presupposition which selectively embraces the nominalist concept of using words in a variety of ways without concern for any universal or underlying coherency on certain arbitrarily selected words, phrases, subjects, etc.
And of course the derivative terms from the ones so outlined above are "rational nominalists" and "selective rational nominalists."
To use a term is to have a degree of accountability for it and without a proposed meaning, there is no accountability. This enables the "rational nominalist" or the "selective rational nominalist" to hide behind their chosen terms or use them in broadbrush and at times contradictory ways. The easiest way to notice such people are when they throw out terms they do not bother to explain via definition or other means and then are obstinate when challenged to explain their use of terms.
The reason you will know these kinds of people are either fullblown "rational nominalists" or arbitrary "selective rational nominalists" is by their overall actions and statements as patterns of thought provide what can be called motives of credibility for determining which of the above terms is applicable to the person or group in question.
The "rational nominalists" have a defect in ability to utilize reason and logic and will manifest this across a broad continuum of subjects. The "selective rational nominalists" evince in other situations evidence that they possess the ability to properly utilize reason and logic but have a defect in will to on certain select subjects, persons, etc. which they have a partiality towards or against. Your host for one has an easier time tolerating those who fail to manfest the ability to use reason and logic properly than those who manifest the capablity but are instead (on certain pet issues) are intellectually too lazy or disingenuous to.
Unlike with virtually every term{7} your host has used which he has provided a definition for, there is no past usage of the term in question to provide the reader with examples of how the term was applied in actual situations to facilitate a crystallization of the term into a defined form. That is the reason for this posting where the concepts surrounding these terms are explained and tentative meanings proposed -though I may well after more thought and some usage of these terms in actual situations come up with better ways to eventually define them than the meanings tentatively proposed above.
Notes:
{1} From time to time both as the terms take on a discernable shape in how they are used in a series of circumstances and as I judge it as opportune to give them precise meanings.
{2} Though the bulk of this posting was framed in draft form back on the sixteenth of the month we are posting it at the end of the day at it happens close to the very time that we came into this world many years ago today.
{3} This was recently manifested in a Rerum Novarum weblog posting which can be viewed here. There are numerous others in the archives but we are not inclined to do a search for them at the present time.
{4} This is an example of another core principle required for proper reasoning but I do not have time to go over it at the present time -though I am sure in time I will either out of the mood to or the necessity of a given circumstance in the future.
{5} And the older I get, the less tolerance I generally have for obstinate sorts who repeat this defect in their interactions either with myself or others.
{6} And indeed they will not have to look far in the arena of ideas to see it under many forms of dress and manifestations.
{7} The one exception prior to this is the term "Carter Corollary" which had no actual precedent of usage by your host either in the blogosphere or elsewhere before it was defined and (by its nature) does not readily admit of much in the way of actual usage in normal circumtances.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
A post of defined terms or solidified key concepts would ordinarily be posted to my Miscellaneous BLOG where I have come over the years to categorize key concepts that inform my operative presuppositions.{1} The problem is, I have not come up with precise definitions for these words yet. The concepts have been percolating in my mind as I have considered them and the purpose of this posting is to set some of them down in expository format both for later codification and because it is late in the day and it is a birthday indulgence of ours essentially.{2}
One of the reasons we at Rerum Novarum have often emphasized at sundry times and in diverse manners the importance of definitions{3} is because respect for definitions is at its core a respect for reason and logic. Conversely, those who do not take this matter seriously have a corresponding lack of respect for reason and logic{4} regardless of pretentions they might make to the contrary. Ironically, most of those who fall into the latter camp involve themselves in a kind of rational dualism in that they give every appearance of recognizing the importance of definitions in some contexts but not in others.
I have at times thought of them as rational dualists and on rare occasions have thought of using that term as a way of trying to get through to them their inconsistencies so they would be aware of them. But that is neither here nor there, the intention with this posting to sketch the outline of a couple of terms as a kind of shorthand way to explain a phenomenon I have witnessed for years on end.{5}
As often is the case, one can only stand by and watch the same insanity over and over again before sensing the need to define a key concept when so many others show by example that they do not understand it. That is what I intend to do at some point with the post you are reading an outline of key concepts intended to provide the benefit of those who want a ready point of reference for this phenomenon whenever they see it.{6} But before getting to the terms to be defined, I need to explain the root common to both of them and that is the concept of nominalism.
Nominalism is a subject I have discussed explicitly and implicitly many times over the years in a variety of forums and applicable contexts but in nearly all of them, the context was to some respect philosophical in nature. It is indeed through this medium that the outlook in question first became explicitly manifested. Nominalism in philosophy is a foundational presupposition that denies the existence of universal concepts as well as refusing to admit that the intellect is capable of forming and expressing such concepts and words intended to denote such things have no intrinsic meaning in and of themselves but are merely designations of words which could be made anywhere and everywhere.
For example, in the nominalist weltanschauung the word "dog" could apply to a "dog" or we could apply it to a "cat" or a "house" and "person" could be applied to a "goldfish" and vice versa. The underlying result of this outlook is that reasoning and logic are rendered impotent and we are no better than the animals who are incapable of reasoning and logic. All sources of knowledge available to us are immediately rendered worthless by this irrational outlook and it makes sense why those who respect reason and logic would be so merciless in their attack on those who would devalue this important reflection of the image of God within us as well as all things in known existence.
Having noted at the outset the concept of "nominalism" and the staunch opposition of that outlook that every fiber of my being contains, it hopefully makes clear to the reader what is necessary to combat this intrinsic evil: the requirement that terms used to describe something actually be given a meaning so that there is a point of reference common to all. It is a failure to do this which is at the heart of the terms I will now propose for future codification. Here is what I am toying with at the moment as outlines for the terms in question:
Rational Nominalism: A mindset or foundational presupposition which wholeheartedly embraces the nominalist concept of using words in a variety of ways without concern for any universal or underlying coherency across the continuum of words, phrases, subjects, etc.
Selective Rational Nominalism: A mindset or foundational presupposition which selectively embraces the nominalist concept of using words in a variety of ways without concern for any universal or underlying coherency on certain arbitrarily selected words, phrases, subjects, etc.
And of course the derivative terms from the ones so outlined above are "rational nominalists" and "selective rational nominalists."
To use a term is to have a degree of accountability for it and without a proposed meaning, there is no accountability. This enables the "rational nominalist" or the "selective rational nominalist" to hide behind their chosen terms or use them in broadbrush and at times contradictory ways. The easiest way to notice such people are when they throw out terms they do not bother to explain via definition or other means and then are obstinate when challenged to explain their use of terms.
The reason you will know these kinds of people are either fullblown "rational nominalists" or arbitrary "selective rational nominalists" is by their overall actions and statements as patterns of thought provide what can be called motives of credibility for determining which of the above terms is applicable to the person or group in question.
The "rational nominalists" have a defect in ability to utilize reason and logic and will manifest this across a broad continuum of subjects. The "selective rational nominalists" evince in other situations evidence that they possess the ability to properly utilize reason and logic but have a defect in will to on certain select subjects, persons, etc. which they have a partiality towards or against. Your host for one has an easier time tolerating those who fail to manfest the ability to use reason and logic properly than those who manifest the capablity but are instead (on certain pet issues) are intellectually too lazy or disingenuous to.
Unlike with virtually every term{7} your host has used which he has provided a definition for, there is no past usage of the term in question to provide the reader with examples of how the term was applied in actual situations to facilitate a crystallization of the term into a defined form. That is the reason for this posting where the concepts surrounding these terms are explained and tentative meanings proposed -though I may well after more thought and some usage of these terms in actual situations come up with better ways to eventually define them than the meanings tentatively proposed above.
Notes:
{1} From time to time both as the terms take on a discernable shape in how they are used in a series of circumstances and as I judge it as opportune to give them precise meanings.
{2} Though the bulk of this posting was framed in draft form back on the sixteenth of the month we are posting it at the end of the day at it happens close to the very time that we came into this world many years ago today.
{3} This was recently manifested in a Rerum Novarum weblog posting which can be viewed here. There are numerous others in the archives but we are not inclined to do a search for them at the present time.
{4} This is an example of another core principle required for proper reasoning but I do not have time to go over it at the present time -though I am sure in time I will either out of the mood to or the necessity of a given circumstance in the future.
{5} And the older I get, the less tolerance I generally have for obstinate sorts who repeat this defect in their interactions either with myself or others.
{6} And indeed they will not have to look far in the arena of ideas to see it under many forms of dress and manifestations.
{7} The one exception prior to this is the term "Carter Corollary" which had no actual precedent of usage by your host either in the blogosphere or elsewhere before it was defined and (by its nature) does not readily admit of much in the way of actual usage in normal circumtances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)