Lily Valley

November 2017: What was good this year?

65 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, polishgenius said:

but as a theologian (which is what he is when engaging on this subject, despite his claims to the contrary) he leaves a lot to be desired

Oh, I just so enjoy the Courtier's Reply...

Would you feel the need to immerse yourself in decades of astrological study to meaningfully engage in that subject?

In any event, Hitchens just does it better, with the appropriate mix of wit and scorn.

Edited by Infidel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Infidel said:

Ah, yes, the Courtier's Reply...

Would you feel the need to immerse yourself in decades of astrological study to meaningfully engage in that subject?

No, but I'd at least read a book or two about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zorral said:

November's books:

Ackerman, Kenneth D. (2003)  Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President  James A. Garfield

The 1880 Gilded Age Presidential election and nominating convention in exquisite, exhausting, granular detail.  Don't forget Grant!

Chesnut, Mary; edited by C. Vann Woodward. (1981) Mary Chesnut’s Civil War.
Won the History Pulitzer in 1982.  This is a fifth re-read, so maybe doesn't count.

Epstein, Daniel Mark (2017) Loyal Son: The War in Ben Franklin’s House. Not necessarily entirely flattering to either Benjamin or his illegitimate son, the Tory governor of New Jersey, William.  They did things differently back then.

Strausbaugh, John (2016) City of Sedition: The History of New York City in the Civil War.
 
Wharton, Edith (1920) In Morocco.
I thought about the book while watching the lovely vacuity that is Hertzog’s Queen of the Desert, though, despite what Queen of the Desert's film locations may suggest, Bell never mounted a camel on the dunes of Morocco.  For her, it was all the hard stone pans of the Middle East, not the soft sands of Mediterranean Africa. Yet Bell and Wharton have more in common than might seem immediately evident, starting with being critical of the class of people within which they are born, but reaping all the benefits of their birth privilege, as they take advantage of, and manipulate those benefits for themselves to accomplish things as women that women generally are prohibited by that social circle from doing.  Both retain their class presumptions and behaviors intact.

 Wharton surely was aware of Bell! This journey is taken after WWI ended, and Bell was indeed in all the newspapers and newsreels as Europe partitioned the old Ottoman Empire. Perhaps, vice versa ttoo, Bell aware of Wharton?

Wharton alternates between congratulating herself for traveling in this exotic place, with all the luxury a woman of her class travels with, where others do not  / have not gone, while bewailing that the others will come and ruin it.  Others just like her.  I expected better of Wharton, actually.

Wilson, Peter H. (2016) Heart of Europe: A History of the Holy Roman Empire. Harvard University Press
Good thing I’d brushed up Merovingian, Carolingian and Capetian eras back last fall and winter -- not to mention the Sicilian Vespers.  A major work.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/01/holy-roman-empire-peter-wilson-europe-charlemagne

Three of these I listen to during work-outs (and two of which had been started last month). One of them we read aloud before bed. The others I just, well, read, you know, by holding the physical book, running my eyes down the text and turning pages. :read: :cheers:

Peter Wilson's History of the Thirty Years War is a book I have been meaning to read for a long time, but I have never gotten around to it. Its a huge work. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Andorion said:

Peter Wilson's History of the Thirty Years War is a book I have been meaning to read for a long time, but I have never gotten around to it. Its a huge work. 

 

 

This is a work I too must get to!  Thank you for reminding me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Infidel said:

Oh, I just so enjoy the Courtier's Reply...

Would you feel the need to immerse yourself in decades of astrological study to meaningfully engage in that subject?


If I tried to engage on astrology, but completely got wrong the principles on which its proponents think it functions, they'd be quite as right in dismissing my argument as bad. Like Darth Richard says, if you're gonna properly engage with things, try to at least have a basic knowledge of them.


To give you a little actual something if you insist: he tries to refute Aquinas' five ways by pointing out that they don't prove the existence of a Christian God, completely failing to note or apparently even realise that they were never meant to: they were Aquinas' baseline argument, that some beginning and guiding principle to the universe must exist, that we call God; it was only later that he built on them to try to prove that it must be the Christian God. Dawkins doesn't even note that.
He also dismisses the fifth argument by using argument against design/watchmaker theories via evolution, but that's not what the fifth way is, and evolution in no way dismisses what Aquinas is arguing- that all things have a final end (an acorn is meant to grow to become an oak tree is his example) and while intelligent beings can set their own aims in their behaviour, the fact that non-intelligent things have ends too suggests something must be setting those ends. Dawkins could have gone 'evolution and the fact that it is continuing today suggests that there are no final ends on a long scale' but he doesn't, because he misunderstands the argument, and instead says 'evolution proves that we need no designer to get to the universe we have', which in failing to remove the endpoint just gives Aquinas' argument a longer scale on which to function.


I'm not saying that Aquinas is unarguable with. Heck, just going 'I don't see why we need an umoved mover' is at a basic level fine by me. Hume for example argued with Aquinas fine. Dawkins doesn't.

Edited by polishgenius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now