|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2004 : 05:34:33
|
In the matter of slavery Lincoln was the basic politician. On this very important issue he was difficult to pin down on specifics. He was quite capable of leaving any audience with the impression that he, Lincoln, agreed with him, the voter, whatever was his view.
One could parse his various speeches and determine the nub of his thinking if one tried hard enough. Regarding the matter of slavery Lincoln did not favor bringing about a society wherein there was social and political equality of the races. He did not favor making voters or jurors of Negroes. Nor did he favor intermarriage. He reasoned that there was a basic difference between the races. He accepted the basic prejudice of his times that the white race was superior to the black. However, he did not think this meant that the black man be denied everything.
Lincoln was a politician who could reason his way to a fundamental position, a position in which he knew exactly what the truly important issue was and was willing to give ground on less important issues to gain acceptance of this fundamental issue, the nub of the matter. He was noted, in his law practice, of concentrating fiercely on the main point at issue and to concede ancillary matters as required.
Regarding Negro intellectual ability Lincoln was an agnostic. This was a popular “liberal”view that there was no way to prove the difference in intellect between white and black and thus Lincoln refused to allow this matter to become entangled with the very practical matter of political equality. Nevertheless Lincoln was convinced that it was wrong to treat any human being as property.
Lincoln further reasoned that if the black man owns himself he thus is entitled to the product of his labor. Lincoln often quoted the biblical text “in sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” as the sardonic right of the Negro. This was a telling argument because of the adherence to the bible that was characteristic of so many Americans. Lincoln constantly argued that one couldn't own human beings and one should not be in a position to be king over human beings.
The Declaration of Independence became a tactical weapon for Lincoln as a means around the prejudice of the population. The population in general was prejudiced in favor of slavery and also prejudiced in favor of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln attempted to convince them, in various round about ways, that for consistency sake they must abandon one prejudice or the other. Senator Douglas argued that such a choice was not necessary. Douglas argued that the Constitution countenanced slavery and the Constitution, not the Declaration, was the law of the land.
It is at this point that Lincoln set up the statement that the Declaration was a statement of a permanent ideal of American democracy and that the Constitution represented a “first cut” at the practical implementation of that ideal. The Declaration was a metaphysical statement of what our democracy must strive for even though we may never exactly meet our ideal.
Lincoln felt that the Declaration established an ideal for all men and that all men should attempt to establish a government that attempts, even though unsuccessful, to meet that ideal. The Declaration is a pledge “to all people of all colors everywhere”.
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 06:10:13 [Permalink]
|
Uhhhhh, and?
Thanks for the history lesson?
Now to give you one yourself:
quote:
He was quite capable of leaving any audience with the impression that he, Lincoln, agreed with him, the voter, whatever was his view.
Not true at all, many people (especially southerners) hated Lincoln, which is why the south broke off just because he was elected. He hadn't even done anything as president yet!
quote:
Regarding Negro intellectual ability Lincoln was an agnostic. This was a popular “liberal”view that there was no way to prove the difference in intellect between white and black and thus Lincoln refused to allow this matter to become entangled with the very practical matter of political equality.
Now I'm not sure on this, but I believe the popular stance that people who wanted to free slaves was that slavery is wrong, but having free negros in the country is also wrong, so we should ship them back to Africa. I know this was a popular stance amoung people, but not 100% sure if I have the right time period. Anyways, the popular "any" view was that negros were an inferior race. There were very, very, few people that thought otherwise (besides black people of course).
quote:
The Declaration was a metaphysical statement of what our democracy must strive for even though we may never exactly meet our ideal.
Are you still talking about the Declaration of Independance? I'm sure it was many things, but the one thing it wasn't was metaphysical... Unless somehow you think that it was bsed on speculative or abstract reasoning? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
 |
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 08:14:17 [Permalink]
|
| The book "Lincoln at Gettysburg" by Gary Wills received two awards. That is the source for my statement regarding the metaphysical quality of the Declaration. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 10:47:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
The book "Lincoln at Gettysburg" by Gary Wills received two awards. That is the source for my statement regarding the metaphysical quality of the Declaration.
And the fact he has won two unnamed awards makes his assertation compelling....how?
I do not see the basis of his claim of a list of greivances and some esoteric subjects to be metaphysical in nature.
The DOI deals primarily with governments and the percieved rights of the governed. It lists esoteric subjects in the heading such as the persuit of happiness, but inferentially references them as being impeded by the offenses listed by the DOI.
Just because a writer believes it to be so, does not make it so. If the aforementioned writer offered any rationale for his assertion, it would be helpful to know.
Link to the DOI for reference
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 11:39:47 [Permalink]
|
Wills points out in his book that Jefferson, being a philosophical materialist, considered the Constitution to be the working law of the land and the Declaration was of much lesser significance. Lincoln, because he was of a romantic age, placed a different emphasis on the two documents. This period of Lincoln was the period of Emerson and Transcendentalism.
Lincoln, in contrast to Jefferson, was more influenced by German Idealism. He saw the Declaration as an Ideal that transcended the materialism of the Constitution. Lincoln saw the Declaration as the embodiment of a transcendental ideal that as such had an essence beyond the material world. Lincoln is speaking of an ideal that is beyond physical reality. I am neither an Idealist nor a poet and have problems with these types of descriptions. However, I think I understand the meaning.
As I understand it the Constitution is a materialistic attempt to meet the standard defined by the Declaration. The Declaration is a metaphysical statement that sets an ideal that can at best be emulated. The Declaration is a guide and an example of what is ideally possible. This is a change in perspective between the two documents that did not exist before the Gettysburg Address and continues to this day in the view of those who consider metaphysical statements have a reality that materialist find unacceptable.
This book by Wills gives several interesting views of Lincoln's Address. For those who love the structure of words into rhetoric this book provides a great deal to think about. I am sure your local community college library will have a copy of the book. It is also out in paperback. One wonderful aspect of a hobby like self-learning is that you do not need to be a wealthy person to indulge yourself shamelessly.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 11:50:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
Wills points out in his book that Jefferson, being a philosophical materialist, considered the Constitution to be the working law of the land and the Declaration was of much lesser significance. Lincoln, because he was of a romantic age, placed a different emphasis on the two documents. This period of Lincoln was the period of Emerson and Transcendentalism.
Lincoln, in contrast to Jefferson, was more influenced by German Idealism. He saw the Declaration as an Ideal that transcended the materialism of the Constitution. Lincoln saw the Declaration as the embodiment of a transcendental ideal that as such had an essence beyond the material world. Lincoln is speaking of an ideal that is beyond physical reality. I am neither an Idealist nor a poet and have problems with these types of descriptions. However, I think I understand the meaning.
As I understand it the Constitution is a materialistic attempt to meet the standard defined by the Declaration. The Declaration is a metaphysical statement that sets an ideal that can at best be emulated. The Declaration is a guide and an example of what is ideally possible. This is a change in perspective between the two documents that did not exist before the Gettysburg Address and continues to this day in the view of those who consider metaphysical statements have a reality that materialist find unacceptable.
This book by Wills gives several interesting views of Lincoln's Address. For those who love the structure of words into rhetoric this book provides a great deal to think about. I am sure your local community college library will have a copy of the book. It is also out in paperback. One wonderful aspect of a hobby like self-learning is that you do not need to be a wealthy person to indulge yourself shamelessly.
Here's the problem, the stance the writer takes is unsupported by the text of the DOI. He doesn't, in your telling of it, reference the document at all, but rather offers an opinion on the DOI as a listing of ideals. And that these ideals are somehow transendental. Yet he does not explain how these earthly complaints rise to the level of transendentalism.
The DOI as it is written is not a listing of ideals. It lists real grievances. Greivances that the Constitution sought to correct. The main differance being the DOI did not have force of law. Lincoln may have been speaking of the DOI as an unobtainable goal but something to be strived for. It does not change the earthly nature of the complaints, rather, it acknowledges the liberties that governments sometimes take against the governed. This does not make it metaphysical or transendental in any stretch of the words.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 12:11:07 [Permalink]
|
coberst wrote:quote:
The Declaration is a guide and an example of what is ideally possible. This is a change in perspective between the two documents that did not exist before the Gettysburg Address and continues to this day in the view of those who consider metaphysical statements have a reality that materialist find unacceptable.
This does not follow. You appear to be saying that any statement of goals or ideals is, by its nature, metaphysical and thus repugnant to materialists. I've got to say that this materialist has no problem whatsoever with "to-do" lists, business plans, political platforms or any of a number of other such allegedly "metaphysical" statements. Actually, I'm thinking you're simply misunderstanding the term "metaphysical." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 13:44:33 [Permalink]
|
Dancer
I am afraid that you may have to take that matter up with the author. I am not qualified to respond to your arguments. |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 13:49:01 [Permalink]
|
Dave
I am afraid that the word "metaphysical" has many meanings to many people and I am not as qualified in philosophy as I might like to be. I think, however, that you may wish to read the book for yourself. You may discover that I have misunderstood the matter. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 18:07:21 [Permalink]
|
| Yet, you felt qualified enough to post a long essay about the Declaration and metaphysics, based (apparently) on that one source, coberst. You're just tossing "critical thinking" out the window when it suits you, and now you ask me to do your "self-learning" for you. Again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 20:27:50 [Permalink]
|
Is it just me? Am I the only one who doesn't get what coberst is trying to say? What is the point he's trying to communicate with his "essays"?
Does he even have a point other than to deliberately provoke harsh criticism? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2004 : 04:54:45 [Permalink]
|
Dude said: quote:
Does he even have a point other than to deliberately provoke harsh criticism?
Whoa Dude, I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is a form of bulletin board masochism 
|
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2004 : 06:22:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
Dancer
I am afraid that you may have to take that matter up with the author. I am not qualified to respond to your arguments.
Then I must conclude from your lack of defense for this assertation that the source you quote (based on a syntactial analysis) is invalid.
I have studied metaphysics. What the author suggests is not metaphysics.
From Dictionary.com
met·a·phys·ics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mt-fzks)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.
The complaints contained in the DOI contains no law, no philosophy which merges the concrete with the abstract, no speculation, little if any subtlety. They are testable, concrete greivances.
You claim to be an advocate of critical thinking, yet you throw up your hands at the first challenge claiming that you are not qualified and suggest that I take my exception up with the author.
This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Not a sign of critical thinking. In a later response to Dave W's critique of the assertations, you claim the word metaphysical has many meanings to many people (almost giving it equivocation to faith) and again, claim that you are not qualified in philosophy. Before taking up a philosophy on a subject and presenting it, don't you think you should examine it fully to see if it meshes with your own personal philosophy? There are many philosophies in the world, one need not be an expert on philosophy in it's entirety to comment on ones own philosophy. Just be prepared to defend your beliefs. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2004 : 13:02:00 [Permalink]
|
I read books that inform me that most American citizens are philosophical Idealists. An Idealist is one who is conscious of a dual reality. There is matter and there is spirit. Thought, especially theoretical thought, is a characteristic activity of spirit. Consciousness is a property of spirit. Consciousness can be detached from the concrete human subject. Matter is not and cannot be considered as the ultimate reality.
Spirit as I have defined it above and as I understand it to be accepted by large segments of the community is a metaphysical reality. The thought of the ideal--as the author spoke of and as Lincoln certainly believed in--and which the Transcentendalist of that day accepted can certainly be regarded as metaphysical for Idealists.
If you are a materialist you do not accept the dual reality of the Idealist and would not accept the metaphysical character of anything I guess. I find that I do not accept it as possible to know anything to be metaphysical. This ideal is metaphysical for those who are philosophical Idealist.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
