And the Reformation got started how?
Wanted to give a shout out to the article in the link.
The Reformation is a term used to describe a complex and lengthy period of history.
There are a few pivotal moments and the article describes one of them. It also draws attention to a modern day organization using the specific year in their name.
The Reformation is a term used to describe a complex and lengthy period of history.
There are a few pivotal moments and the article describes one of them. It also draws attention to a modern day organization using the specific year in their name.
- Martin Luther was a nasty piece of work. He condemned, correctly, one set of superstitious harmful nonsense and set up a new set - same same.
'The Reformation - a major event on the path to the open society we enjoy in the West today.' No. Martin Luther was a hateful bigot of the worst kind. Both his religion and the one he attacked fought tooth-and-nail against ideas on the worth and rights of the individual human.
A modern day political analogy: Someone pointed out to me the other day that the opposition in Venezuela is just as Socialist as Maduro. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
The salient point in the article for me is:
"Martin Luther did challenge the incumbent system. He challenged it at its very fundamentals, and to its very core. He felt that the practice of selling indulgences was contrary to the basic precepts of Christianity: that individual merit was to be found in faith in Jesus Christ"
If there can be an appeal to basic precepts and those basic precepts contain individual merit, then there is hope.
If there can be an appeal to basic precepts, such as the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or certain teachings of Christ that emphasize the paramount place of the individual, THEN reason may be utilized to fight against the tyranny of either a Martin Luther or Hugo Chavez or Elizabeth Warren or __
I didn't care whether the quote in the link was from Willy McPhilly or Martin Luther. Perhaps I should have.
I posted in response to a number of prior strings of comments that I don't think you have seen. They all had the theme of my advising away from all or nothing dogmatic commentary.
There was no such person, the story is myth. There are many explanations for the origins.
I like the one where it grew out of monasteries in the desert when Judea was occupied by Rome. A cult started, fanaticism emboldened by psychedelics enabled survival.
Then, in every age, cult leaders expropriated all the ideals of the age as originating from them.
Cult leaders persuaded the population that they had influence with a spirit world which they
invented, this gave them power to set and enforce rules in the interests of the leadership, rules from which cult leaders were generally exempt.
To use the expression 'the teachings of Christ' is a nonsense, there was no such person.
There is now a vast cult/cabal that serves its own interests with superstitious threats. To support it, to refer to it as having legitimacy, is to propagate superstition.
On a subsidiary point, that Luther challenged the then church so has some merit, I refer to the old Arab proverb The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Wrong, they are both enemies and bad.
Religion did not invent the concept of altruism but claims both invention and ownership,
communism makes the same claim. It was Rand (Objectivism) who explained the harm from that
sanctimony when applied by force and the danger from even voluntary but thoughtless generosity.
Kind of amazing how you are incapable of actually listening. You dismiss anyone who attempts to qualify or point out any incompleteness in your commentary, then have the audacity to present the same ideas as your own and they suddenly are the height of Reason.
"Who said what . . . is no longer relevant . . . What matters is the content of the ideas."
Willy McPhilly couldn't have said it better.
Religious beliefs in the supernatural and ethical dogmas are based on faith, not reason. Martin Luther was an open irrationalist who denounced reason.
As Leonard Peikoff describes in his Ominous Parallels, "The senses, concepts, logic: these are the elements of man’s rational faculty—its start, its form, its method. In essence, 'follow reason' means: base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relationships among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Identity). Since each of these elements is based on the facts of reality, the conclusions reached by a process of reason are objective.
"The alternative to reason is some form of mysticism or skepticism."
No one is stealing or copying your repetitive promotion of religious faith and the irrationalist Martin Luther, which have been dismissed for the reasons given several times; nor has anything else you have written been copied or stolen. You have not "attempted to qualify or point out any incompleteness in my commentary", I am not "incapable of actually listening", and do not "present" your "same ideas as my own". Those are gratuitous and false personal attacks which do not contribute to discussion and are contrary to the guidelines of this forum.
I know what I think, I am me. You are not.
In a defensive, non-response to a post on religious intellectual history that was not even addressed to him, he claimed "Reason for you is whatever you state". I then explained the concept of reason as used in the context of Ayn Rand's philosophy and in the general rejection of religious faith; that is not a distortion of his thoughts on the matter, whatever they may be, and is not what he calls "blabber". He did not state what ideas were allegedly attributed to him.
Galvin gratuitously and falsely accused me of "having the audacity to present [his] ideas as [my] own" and being "incapable of listening", both of which smears were rejected for what they are. That is not "distorting his thoughts"; it is his own words. He did not state what ideas of his he claims are stolen or not listened to.
Galvin falsely and gratuitously claimed that I "dismiss anyone who attempts to qualify or point out any incompleteness in your commentary", which assertion is also rejected for the vague smear that it is. He didn't say what "dismissals" he claims to be referring to or what "incompleteness" or "qualifying" he is talking about. His comments in this thread promoting Martin Luther are rejected for what they are, with reasons given. His idea of my alleged "incompleteness" apparently includes his vague appeals to "certain teachings of Jesus Christ" and the "Constitution", and injunctions about "advising away from all or nothing dogmatic commentary". Rejecting such false premises and smears is not "incompleteness" and not "dogmatic commentary".
If Galvin wants to post on this forum he should be discussing substantive ideas and stating what it is he thinks he's talking about instead of lashing out with vague assertions and insults in personal attacks.
Pointing out a pivotal event does NOT indicate an espousal or agreement with everything directly or indirectly associated with that event. The Who didn't matter. The particular core idea that I called out did. I clarified this, but you either missed the clarification or chose to ignore it.
In your extensive commentary regarding the Who, I gave you credit for some of your valid points, even though the Who didn't really matter. Later, you mention the Who is not relevant but rather the ideas, which was my viewpoint all along. Thus, the basis for my mockery of your "Reason".
Galvin's religious promotion of the Reformation, specifically emphasizing the irrationalist Luther in particular, fundamentally contradicts a philosophy of reason and individualism. It is the diametric opposite of Ayn Rand. Explaining the difference and rejecting the unreason is not "blather". Galvin did not "clarify a core idea" worthy of admiration, he openly promoted Luther and religion:
These are his own words: "The salient point in the article for me is: 'Martin Luther did challenge the incumbent system. He challenged it at its very fundamentals, and to its very core. He felt that the practice of selling indulgences was contrary to the basic precepts of Christianity: that individual merit was to be found in faith in Jesus Christ' If there can be an appeal to basic precepts and those basic precepts contain individual merit, then there is hope.".
Galvin's open promotion of "faith in Jesus Christ" as a "salient point" and a "basic precept" for "hope" while extolling Luther and the Reformation is an attack on reason in the age-old battle between reason and faith. The Reformation was a return to the primitive faith of Augustinianism and worse. Even Luther did not regard his opposition to the corrupt practice of "indulgences" as "fundamental" to his Reformation. He did not "challenge" the Catholic Church "at its very fundamentals and to its very core". He was theologically a faithful Augustinian monk who wanted to retreat to the earlier Dark Ages from the systematic philosophy of the Church under the influence of Acquinas, who had attempted to revive Aristotle. That is what the ideas of the Reformation were about.
Galvin misrepresents what he calls my "extensive commentary regarding the Who" "even though the Who didn't really matter" then says that only "later, you mention the Who is not relevant but rather the ideas, which was my viewpoint all along. Thus, the basis for my mockery of your 'Reason'".
All of my comments have emphasized the explicitly anti-reason and destructive ideas of Luther and the Reformation of which he was the intellectual leader, beginning with https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... There is no rational basis for Galvin's smears and open mockery of reason, and no one is copying his thoughts. His fixation on "indulgences" as the alleged "core" is not about the fundamental ideas of the Church and the Reformation. Galvin does not appear to understand the ideas and meaning of the Reformation at all.
Luther's Reformation is not a basis for individualism and freedom. It had no concept of the primacy of the individual that Galvin attributes to it. It extolled determinism over free will and overtly promoted anti-reason, insisting on renouncing the rational mind to be surrendered to individual subjective faith in the supernatural as the means to salvation in a supernatural realm. It embraced Protestant persecution of dissenters as badly or worse than the Catholic establishment, along with fervent advocacy of German nationalist statism. This is all the opposite of individualism. It was previously described at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... It is not "blather" to be ignored; it is essential to understanding the ideas and actions of the Reformation, and shows why Galvin's claims are not true.
The much later beneficial outcome, long after the Reformation, was the unintended consequences of the breakup of Church control, leaving room for a real individualism of the Enlightenment. The founding of this country was based on the reason and individualism of the Enlightenment, not the Reformation and faith in God as conservative revisionism on behalf of religion insists. It is important to understand the difference. Galvin's promotion of a mystical religious reformation along with his personal attacks and open mockery of reason as a substitute for discussion does not belong here.
and then . . .
Yo King, we the people are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Based on these Rights, we are telling you to get lost.
That the Reformation had the plethora of other atrocities and ideas that you point out is missing the point.
One cannot "appeal" to isolated political documents like the Constitution, let alone religious mysticism, as a basis to employ reason to argue against tyranny. That is backwards. Reason comes first. Political documents are not basic premises and mysticism is a false, destructive premise. The Constitution and the founding of this country were the result of the Enlightenment emphasis on reason and individualism. Conservative hunting through "traditions" of religion and historical political documents while attempting to avoid a philosophy of reason does not provide a principled basis for individualism and political freedom.
We used a vet for many years who was so good we traveled long distances. He would look at a dog or a test result and immediately know from experience what was happening and what should be done. For more advanced tests he knew where to send us. There they had lists of certifications and understood the modern technology very well, but didn't have the same kinds of practical insights even though they were genuinely motivated to help.
I don't see alphabet-soupers who are primarily feeling inferior; rather it seems to be the only way they are aware of to get what they need for their profession, where it often becomes a substitute for the real thing. Advanced and systematically comprehensive knowledge is important, especially with today's technology, but isn't enough by itself and I wonder how much they realize what else is missing and how to get it.
My complaint with many of the other outside "certifications" is that they do not have any oversight and represent themselves as specialists. There simply is no mechanism to determine if they really know what they proclaim to know. And given Diplomate status takes years of hard work to obtain the others don't want to give the effort.
For the vast majority of positions, I'd like to see higher education eliminated entirely. Why? Because at least half of a typical undergraduate program is re-learning stuff you should have learned in high school (those so-called "general education" credits) which is irrelevant to your chosen occupation! All you do is rack up debt and loans. It's a huge boondoggle. It also placed inordinate emphasis on a little piece of paper which only matters if you've never before held down a job. (Please note that I distinguish earned degrees from certifications - which can be relevant.)