| BookTalk.org News |
| • If you are having trouble with logging into your account or making posts please know that we are working to resolve this issue. Please delete your temporary Internet files and cookies (at least those for our site) and stay tuned to see if that resolves the issue. If not our web designer believes he can find the code that is causing the issue. |
| Show us where you live! |
 |
| Donate & Support BookTalk.org |
Please support our free community by making a credit card donation through our secure PayPal account. We appreciate and depend on the generosity of our members. Thank you!
•
See who supports us
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Chris OConnor 
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 6849
Gender: 
Location: Florida
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: Ch. 2 - The Way We Lived Then: Intellect and Ignorance...
|
 |
|
Ch. 2 - The Way We Lived Then: Intellect and Ignorance in a Young Nation
Please discuss Ch. 2 here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DWill
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 379
Gender:
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Jacoby seems to idealize, and maybe idolize, the founding fathers. But I think only a relative few of them (though an important few) can be called Enlightenment rationalists. They tried against great odds to make their vision for the country stick, but they were overwhelmed by the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalists and those who were against serious attempts to provide public education. This is my quickie summary of her argument.
Rationalism is to be admired, of course, but it doesn't hurt to point out that it's not all a person needs. Jefferson might be our ultimate rationalist, but he has qualities that are fully as disturbing as a lack of rationality. He was a hypocritical slave owner, financially profligate, and probably a swindler (according to a recent book). He was one of our great Americans.
I enjoy a good polemic, which is what Jacoby is writing. Most polemics probably lack nuance and simplify complex matters, which is true of this book so far in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LanDroid
Senior
Silver Contributor
Joined: 27 Jul 2002
Posts: 384
Gender:
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject: Mid-term exam question
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| It is the greatest irony, and a stellar illustration of the law of unintended consequences, that the American experiment in complete religious liberty led large number of Americans to embrace anti-rational, anti-intellectual forms of faith. p. 46 |
 Why did this happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saffron
Senior
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 369
Gender: 
Location: Northern Virginia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:34 am Post subject: Re: Mid-term exam question
|
|
|
| LanDroid wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is the greatest irony, and a stellar illustration of the law of unintended consequences, that the American experiment in complete religious liberty led large number of Americans to embrace anti-rational, anti-intellectual forms of faith. p. 46 |
Why did this happen? |
It seems to me and this is just a stab in the dark, The Puritans and other groups that came to this continent to practice their religions in freedom were practicing religions that were anti-rational and anti-intellectual. My question is, how did we get so damned intolerant? Was it always so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ralphinlaos
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 161
Gender:
Location: Thakhek, Laos
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:58 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Saffron -
Will you (or anyone else) please elaborate on this theme? What religions were they practicing which were so anti-rational and anti-intellectual?
And wouldn't you say that all religions are anti-intellectual? There are even those who would say that all religions are anti-rational.
But were our founding fathers more irrational or less intellectual than we are today? That's a big, resounding "NO!," isn't it?
Ralph |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LanDroid
Senior
Silver Contributor
Joined: 27 Jul 2002
Posts: 384
Gender:
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Yes, this did have something to do with the Puritans. Jacoby describes them "...Puritans who had left England for the New World in order to obtain religious liberty for themselves but who did not wish to extend the same privilege to others."
ralphinlaos, One could say all religions are anti-rational or anti-intellectual, but some are worse than others. The Puritans believed in predestination (whether or not you are saved from Hell is determined before you are born), that minor sins such as disobeying your parents are just as bad as murder, every word of the Bible is literally true, etc.
However, there were other faiths competing for converts that were more rational and intellectual such as Methodists, Quakers, and Unitarians. Jacoby is asking why, given our religious freedom, America chose more fundamental forms of faith over others. I'm not going to answer this, we need to dig into Chapter 2 for Jacoby's thoughts... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWill
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 379
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
[quote="LanDroid"] Jacoby is asking why, given our religious freedom, America chose more fundamental forms of faith over others. I'm not going to answer this, we need to dig into Chapter 2 for Jacoby's thoughts...
Statistically, I'm not sure we could say fundamentalists were a majority, though, or even that this modern distinction has much meaning for those times. I've seen "evangelical" used and would prefer that, I think.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that religion is incompatible with intellectualism and rational thought. There have been many, many people worthy of the name intellectual who nevertheless operated from within the framework of a religious tradition. It is impossible for anyone to be open to all ideas, so the fact that someone doesn't entertain all notions can't disqualify him/her.
Do you agree with the statement that no matter what quality is being discussed, it is possible to overvalue it? I'd say rationalism/intellectualism is not an exception. Some people who are quite rational apparently choose to use a different part of their mind to participate in their religion. This alone doesn't make them anti-anything, though.
Just wanted to try to keep the middle of the road in sight...
Will |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LanDroid
Senior
Silver Contributor
Joined: 27 Jul 2002
Posts: 384
Gender:
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jacoby does mention evangelicals and contrasts them with fundamentalists. She is not saying all believers are anti-rational, but she is interested in why fundamentalism is so strong in America. Again, given our religious freedoms, why didn't less superstitious forms of faith become stronger? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LanDroid
Senior
Silver Contributor
Joined: 27 Jul 2002
Posts: 384
Gender:
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: Education
|
|
|
Chapter 2 also discusses early proposals for education.
| Quote: |
| In the 1790s, Madison and Jefferson had stood nearly alone in their advocacy of general taxation for schools, then thought to be the responsibility of parents who wanted education for their children and were willing and able to pay for it. p. 49 |
A rather surprising attitude, education as a luxury?
Another interesting development resulted from schools becoming more pluralistic, with children from a wide variety of (Christian) denominations. This was actually a force for secularization of schools as parents did not want their children indoctrinated by other denominations...
A sad discussion of the differences in education between the North and the South...
| Quote: |
| By the 1830s, it was already clear that urban areas would have better schools than rural areas, that wealthy communities and states would have better schools than poor ones, and that the most literate, best educated citizens would finance better schools for their children than their less literate and educated fellow citizens. Above all, it was clear that the North would have better schools than the South. p. 52 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ophelia
Beyond Awesome
Fiction Moderator
Book Discussion Leader
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 1192
Gender:
Location: France
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:12 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Landroid wrote:
| Quote: |
Chapter 2 also discusses early proposals for education.
Quote:
In the 1790s, Madison and Jefferson had stood nearly alone in their advocacy of general taxation for schools, then thought to be the responsibility of parents who wanted education for their children and were willing and able to pay for it. p. 49
A rather surprising attitude, education as a luxury? |
Yes, in 1790 Madison and Jefferson's attitude would have been revolutionary.
In France, free, compulsory and secular primary school education (until age 14) was only implemented in 1882 with the Jules Ferry laws.
But then all schools got exactly the same funding. This was seen as very progressive at the time I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
