Ch. 2 - The Way We Lived Then: Intellect and Ignorance...

Chris OConnor

Ch. 2 - The Way We Lived Then: Intellect and Ignorance in a Young Nation

Please discuss Ch. 2 here.

DWill · 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.

LanDroid · Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject: Mid-term exam question

Saffron · Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:34 am Post subject: Re: Mid-term exam question

ralphinlaos · 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

LanDroid · 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...

DWill · 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

LanDroid · 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?

LanDroid · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: Education

Chapter 2 also discusses early proposals for education.

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:12 am Post subject:

Landroid wrote:

DWill · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject:

Robert Tulip · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject:

ralphinlaos · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:15 am Post subject:

I agree, DWill, excellent question - and one still waiting to be answered.

Robert, are you saying that in order to be a good, decent human being, I must have faith? Faith in what? A higher power? My own abilities? What?

"Dominant forms of religion;" what are these? Catholics, Baptists, Methodists - these seem to be dominant forms of religion in the US, right? And "such a smart and free place as the USA." Well, I am a citizen of the US and I would argue that we are a lot freer than we are smart.

Ralph

LanDroid · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:03 am Post subject:

ralphinlaos, We could contrast the faith of Thomas Jefferson which inspired him to write the Jefferson Bible with fundamentalism. We could also contrast fundamentalists on one hand with Unitarians and Liberal Quakers on the other. I've attended a Unitarian Church that had an atheist minister, half of the congregation was atheist and the other half a conglomeration of new agers, Wiccans, etc. Some Liberal Quakers believe that if following your inner light leads one to Buddhism, that's an acceptable form of Quakerism. I doubt these extreme wings existed during the time of the founding fathers, but still the question is why did fundamentalism thrive under our system of religious freedom? I can't find the quote, but Jacoby wonders why this happened when even Unitarianism was too restricting for R. W. Emerson.

ralphinlaos · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:22 am Post subject:

Oh, LanDroid, you are way ahead of me. I didn't even know that Thomas Jefferson wrote a bible. He wrote one? Or translated one into English? Do you know of anywhere on-line where I could read a portion of Jefferson's bible?

I would enjoy comparing Jefferson's beliefs with today's fundamentalists. I'll wager there are more similarities than differences.

What did he really think about adultery? Theft? Has the "Sally Hemmings" story ever been proven or disproven? Is it a fact?

So, if someone asks me what religion am I and I reply, "Unitarian," it means nothing, right? Same with Quaker? I know that if I say "Methodist" or "Catholic," they'll have an idea of my beliefs.

My Buddhist friends here in Laos will be surprised to hear that they are practicing a form of Quakerism. Interesting!

Ralph


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT