In a previous Uncommon Knowledge interview, Jaffa discussed his classic Crisis of the House Divided. In this interview, Jaffa returns to discuss the sequel, A New Birth of Freedom.
He begins by making a critical point: whereas the Founders had expected slavery simply to wither away, by the middle of the nineteenth century the peculiar institution had done no such thing. The Civil War, Jaffa insists, was a necessary war—an unavoidable war -- not a war of choice. When the war broke out, anyone who had engaged in a cool calculation of the odds would have put his money on the Confederacy, not the Union.
Commenting on contemporary America, Jaffa points out the distinction between the "immutable principles of private morality" that President Washington spoke of and the "fundamental American values" that President Obama speaks of today.
"Values are moral choices, which have no object or basis," Jaffa asserts. "The value is a subjective desire, not an objective truth. A hundred years ago, nobody would have spoken about our principles as being values."
Harry V. Jaffa, a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute, is the author of numerous articles and books, including his widely acclaimed study of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (University of Chicago Press, 1959).
Jaffa is Professor Emeritus of Government at Claremont McKenna College and the Claremont Graduate School. He received his B.A. from Yale, where he majored in English, in 1939, and holds a Ph.D. from the New School for Social Research.
Peter M. Robinson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits the Hoover Institution's quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover's television program, "Uncommon Knowledge."
Robinson is also the author of three books: How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life; It's My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP; and the best-selling business book Snapshots from Hell: The Making of an MBA.
Can a Rational Individual believe in God ?
In other words:
Can God be atheist, governed by scientific laws?
Because if God exists, he must work in Absolute
Reference Frame and have a set of Physical/ Mathematical
laws to create everything
And if we find this God’s Absolute House
then we can understand Cod’s Physical Laws
Has God known the formula: E=Mc^2 ?
If God has known the formula why HE / SHE /IT
didn't write it in His Bible?
The people created a God.
No one knows what the external characteristics
of this God are, a God who made himself known
with the name " I am who I am ".
Is it enough for us in the XXIc ?
Why didn’t the formula E=Mc^2 write in the Bible?
Each religion uses a system of symbols
(images, metaphors, ancient myths and legends ,
beautiful stories) to explain its truth.
But Bernard Shaw wisely remarked :
“ There is only one religion,
although there are a hundred versions of it.”
It means that the source of all religion is one.
And I try to prove this idea with the formulas and laws of
physics. I don’t invent new formulas. I use simple formulas
which ,maybe, every man knows from school.
Is it possible? Is it enough?
Yes. Because the evolution goes from simple to the complex.
So, in the beginning we can use simple formulas and laws.
For this purpose I explain what the first law of Universe is,
and second law is and ...........etc.
Step by step I create a logical system of the Universe.
============= . .
Science and Religion: Is there a conflict ?
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
/ Albert Einstein. /
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
/ Albert Einstein. /
Science and Religion: Is there any conflict?
Or maybe there isn’t any conflict.
Religion or Physics ? Faith or Knowledge ?
Or maybe our stupidity asks these questions.
If I were God, I would give chance to Human
to understand who I am by analyzing the physical
formulas, equations and laws. Because to create Everything
I need them. So, logically, catching the thread of the physics
Human can understand Me and My Work.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
Le Corbusier, that's interesting information about the amount of Sweden's charity. Do you think the amount would be different Sweden had to provide for it's own defense? If Sweden has a military incident you guys will probably (along with the rest of Europe) rely on the US military won't you? The Swedish military is only 12,500 people, but I guess the Swedish military might not be necessary since you guys aren't strategic in any way and you haven't been involved in a major war since 1814. Perhaps one might argue that you were involved in supplying the Hitler with iron, but I meant involved in the sense in which one fights for something, rather than the sense of profiteering. I don't know if that's immoral necessarily to supply Hitler with the means to effectively wage war on the world. Maybe it's amoral. And maybe that's what poses a threat to democracy.
I would remind you that you all have pledged to abide by the Fora.tv community rules. These video's are not compulsory and if you find them displeasing you may either stop watching them or converse with others via the message option. As we on Fora.tv desire elevated discourse I exhort you all to prefer reason over assertion. Also, I urge you to abide by your stated agreement to the first community: "Do not post content that is deliberately hostile and insulting." Thank you for your civil participation.
I agree, this was indeed a very strange clip.
I'm guessing my own dear homeland Sweden is just the kind of immoral place he fears the world will turn in to.... i wonder if it's the fact that we're one of the countries that give most of our BNP to international aid every year or if it's our public healthcare for the underpriviliged that pose the greatest threat to democracy?
I also wonder if George Washington wouldn't have told this man to generally "f off" and stop confusing his calls for private morality with thoose for public piety?
Moral judgements are the direct result of neurological processes, so in that sense morality must be subjective. I donno what exactly this guy is on about. Just because the possible outcomes of such a conclusion are objectionable, does not make them untrue . The imaginary anecdotal argument was utter fail.
although i don't feel he was overly articulate...i do appreciate his connection between moral objectivity's connection and democracy. I have heard other experts on Marxism state that the moral conscience of individuals a group or society was ultimately the downfall of Marxist societies. However, I do find it a stretch to state that our countries turn towards a relative idea of morality necessarily means that we are turning from democracy.
by the way. i would have to say that the previous post is rather moronic itself and quite naive. there is a plethora of material that gives us insight into the morality of both Lincoln and Jefferson and others from centuries ago. Should we not learn from them?
Well, that was insipidly moronic. Judeo-Christian thought lends itself to democracy about as readily as hunger lends itself to flight. Trying to whitewash Lincoln and Jefferson into some religious moralists is disingenuous. And, at best, any thoughts on some sort of strict objective morality from people centuries ago comes across now as patently naive.