Posted on 01/24/2016 12:01:54 PM PST by VitacoreVision
In an age in which "cultural relativism" seems an unchallenged standard in academia, Larry Siedentop's Inventing the Individual -- The Origins of Western Liberalism is a pleasant deviation from that norm. A political philosopher who served as a Fellow of Keble College, Oxford, Siedentop wrote Inventing the Individual as an apologia for the West as a civilization which is caught up in a "competition of beliefs, whether we like it or not." Siedentop identifies "Islamic fundamentalism" as a primary competitor for Western civilization, but it is impossible to avoid the obvious point that the most vigorous opponents of his central thesis -- the inseparability of modern Western liberalism from its Christian origins -- would come from the ranks of his fellow intellectuals. Still, Siedentop observes in his Prologue:
Today many people in the West describe themselves as Christians, without regularly going to church or having even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrine. Is this just hypocrisy or ignorance? Perhaps not. It may suggest that people have a sense that the liberal secular world they live in -- and for the most part endorse -- is a world shaped by Christian beliefs. If so, by describing themselves in that way, they are paying tribute to the origins of their moral intuitions.
Inventing the Individual is an insightful recounting of the intellectual history of the West from its origins in Greek and Roman antiquity through the early influences of Christianity in the pagan world through the so-called Dark and Middle Ages to give birth to the Modern Age. Siedentop thus traces from its biblical basis in the first century the advent and development of the concept of the individual -- that is, the individual as a discrete entity, created by God, and endowed with liberty by his Creator. Thus, for Siedentop, the Apostle Paul is an architect of the entire Western notion of equality under law: "In Paul's writings we see the emergence of a new sense of justice, founded on the assumption of moral equality rather than on natural inequality. Justice now speaks to an upright will, rather than describing a situation where everything is in its "proper" or fated place. Paul's conception of the Christ exalts the freedom and power of human agency, when rightly directed. In his vision of Jesus, Paul discovered a moral reality which enabled him to lay the foundation for a new, universal social role."
Siedentop understands that his thesis is anathema to many within the ranks of liberal academia:
The suggestion that belief in "equal liberty" appeared in early Christian apologetics will surprise many and irritate some. For the anti-clericalism which has been an integral part of liberal historiography does not lend itself to such a conclusion. Besides, the distrust of anything like teleological explanations in history -- or what is often called the Whig interpretation of history -- reinforces such scepticism. But texts are facts. And the facts remain. In the mid-second century Irenaeus of Lyon asked, "What new thing did the Word bring by coming down to earth?" For Tertullian, writing only a few decades later, the answer was clear. "One mighty deed alone was sufficient for our God -- to bring freedom to the human person."
Siedentop painstakingly recounts the various twists and turns in the development of the theology of the early and medieval Church in such a way as to render it comprehensible to a modern reader who may not be particularly well-versed in the history of Christian theology. Although a reader who is familiar with the details of this history may find occasions in which he would disagree with aspects of Siedentop's analysis, such disagreements do not fundamentally undermine the value of Inventing the Individual. Thus, for example, one may certainly disagree with Siedentop's seemingly-glowing evaluation of William of Occam's Nominalism as "the ultimate stage of a war which from its outset the Christian church had waged against polytheism"; Richard Weaver's magnum opus, Ideas Have Consequences (1948), is a vigorous defense of Realism against Nominalism as a bulwark of Christian thought. Nevertheless, Siedentop demonstrates that regardless of whether or not particular developments in Christian thought were the best expression of biblical teaching, they are the source of Western thought concerning the nature of the individual.
One implication of Siedentop's line of thought is that the elitism which was common in Renaissance thought (that is, the notion that the medieval Church had sorely neglected the treasures contained in ancient pagan philosophy) is revealed to be fundamentally misguided:
The view that the Renaissance and its aftermath marked the advent of the modern world -- the end of the "middle ages" -- is mistaken. By the fifteenth century canon lawyers and philosophers had already asserted that "experience" is essentially the experience of individuals, that a range of fundamental rights ought to protect individual agency, that the final authority of any association is to be found in its members, and that the use of reason when understanding processes in the physical world differs radically from normative or a priori reasoning. These are the stuff of modernity.
Siedentop is concerned for the defense of the West against those who attack it, both from within and without. The West depends on the continuation of a shared body of beliefs, and those shared beliefs are rooted in the Christian verity:
Like other cultures, Western culture is founded on shared beliefs. But, in contrast to most others, Western beliefs privilege the idea of equality. And it is the privileging of equality -- of a premise that excludes permanent inequalities of status and ascriptions of authoritative opinion to any person or group -- which underpins the secular state and the idea of fundamental or "natural' rights. Thus, the only birthright recognized by the liberal tradition is individual freedom.
Christianity played a decisive part in this.
Therefore, inculcating an ambivalence to the importation of adherents of Islam places the West in danger by arrogantly assuming that the implications of a fundamentally different worldview will be ignored by the adherents of a religion that is markedly different from the faith that shaped the modern West:
In Europe, massive immigration and the growth of large Muslim minorities have widened the range of non-Christian beliefs dramatically. And such beliefs have consequences. Quite apart from the acts of terrorism which invoke -- more or less dubiously -- the name of Islam, Muslims are frequently encouraged to look forward to replacing the laws of the nation-state with shariah "law". Islam seems to sit uneasily with secularism.
Siedentop's Inventing the Individual is worthy of careful study by those who believe the West's heritage of liberty and equality under law should be defended and maintained. The author of this important work is obviously aware of what is at stake if political correctness is allowed to push aside efforts to preserve a legal and theological heritage shaped over the course of 20 centuries.
Larry Siedentrop, Inventing the Individual -- The Origins of Western Liberalism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2014). Hardcover. 434 pages.
There is only one genuine way to practice Christianity.
The way YOU do.
Right?
Liberalism is like the opposite of nazi-ism. We should be gassing ourselves.
That should end this conversation.
“There is only one genuine way to practice Christianity. The way YOU do. Right?”
All Jews were expected by God to do certain things. If you didn’t do them you could not possibly be practicing genuine Judaism. It’s the same for Christians. If you don’t practice certain things, you aren’t really living the Christian life. Logically, there is no other possibility.
We’re against liberalism, so we should favor collectivization?
I see a Judeo-Christian culture, not just Christian or Christian-Greco-Roman.
Adam was an individual. Eve was an individual. Cain was an individual. Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Samuel, David, Jonah...Each one is celebrated (or not celebrated) for individual personal decisions and actions apart from the culture around them.
The concept of the “individual” - another fine Catholic development.
And the disease of collectivism is the result of mainly three major philosophers: Plato, Kant, and Hegel.
Jesus was the first to proclaim equal value of all individuals. This is the primary reason that liberal progressives and elites have hated Christianity for centuries.
Thanks for posting. I read the excerpt on Amazon and decided to buy the book.
That is what we are seeing now. Individualism taken to the extreme so that the zeitgeist of the day is "Whatever."
St. Paul also stressed the importance of the original small religious communities. Most of his letters were to churches and not individuals.
Society is not just an amalgamation of individuals, but an amalgamation of individuals and their relationships to one another, i.e. the families, churches, guilds, clubs, and other associations of which they are members.
Liberalism went off the rails when it hoisted individuals far above associations and delivered them into the hands of the superstate.
The author is making the point that even average Joes should be treated as individuals and not just playing bit parts in the stories of a few glorious individuals.
And you determine those certain things. Those who don't do the things you've determined, are not Christians, no matter what else they do. Right?
“And you determine those certain things.”
Nope. But I did notice that that is the second time in this thread you said something like that. Apparently you have an issue to deal with that is all your own.
“Those who don’t do the things you’ve determined, are not Christians, no matter what else they do. Right?”
That is not what I said. Note: I said “Nope” when you asked if I was the one who “determine[d] those certain things.”
The simple fact is what I said is absolutely true. Not everyone can do whatever they like and be “really living the Christian life.” I am willing to bet that even you believe that to be true. The issue then is discerning what is and is not essential. About what you posted in the beginning then: Is there any logical reason to believe that a man who isn’t “regularly going to church” or who lacks “even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrine” is in fact “really living the Christian life.” How does someone “really living the Christian life” without “even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrine”?
Can you make any logical argument for what you apparently opposed in your first post?
Look who's taking about logic while pretending to not understand what I'm pointing out.
WHICH Church, Mr. Logician? Do YOU consider all Christian churches equivalent? You most certainly do not. Yet the ones you dismiss have a bible, bible teachings, and people who consider themselves Christan practitioners. Yet, you not only dismiss their efforts, of their souls no less, as inadequate and unchristian, you'd therefore consider them as going to hell.
What I'm pointing out is that most people use their religion to exclude nonmembers, including Christians. There's a breathtaking lack of humility towards beliefs, and an overabundance of those, like you, who know exactly what Jesus meant and exactly how everyone should worship him.
That's my point. If you need to personalize it according to Alinsky's tactical setup, that's an issue all your own. But people like you keep millions away from Christianity. You see, their innermost hearts relationship with the mercy of Jesus might not measure up to your stringent examination. From that, from you, they then generalize Christians and become liberals.
No, its not a stretch. Ask ANY liberal why they aren't Christians and that is what they will tell you. Yet as the uniform response from you and people like you is indifference towards someone therefore bound for hell, well then, everything makes sense, doesn't it?
Except that Jesus also said something about it being better to tie a stone around your neck and cast yourself into the sea, than to harm a hair on the heads of HIS little ones. So who's really going to hell, eh?
“Look who’s taking about logic while pretending to not understand what I’m pointing out.”
To accuse someone of “pretending” is to engage in mind reading. I asked you a specific question about what YOU wrote precisely because it is NOT clear what you are “pointing out”.
“WHICH Church, Mr. Logician?”
Since you cannot make the first thing you are “pointing out” clear you had probably deal with the first issue first. Thus, is there any logical reason to believe that a man who isn’t “regularly going to church†or who lacks “even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrine†is in fact “really living the Christian life.†How does someone “really liv[e] the Christian life†without having “even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrineâ€?
“Do YOU consider all Christian churches equivalent?”
Whether I do or not at this stage is irrelevant since we have not even ascertained whether or not you believe there is any logical reason to believe that a man who isn’t “regularly going to church†or who lacks “even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrine†is in fact “really living the Christian life.†How does someone “really living the Christian life†without “even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrine�
To ask questions about what I believe about “churches” makes no sense when we don’t even know what you really believe about what you yourself said in your first post. YOU were sure to ask about “YOU’ (meaning VitacoreVision) but then you refuse to answer simple questions about whether or not you believe there is any logical reason to believe that a man who isn’t “regularly going to church†or who lacks “even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrine†is in fact “really living the Christian life.†How does someone “really living the Christian life†without “even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrineâ€?
“You most certainly do not. Yet the ones you dismiss have a bible, bible teachings, and people who consider themselves Christan practitioners.”
And the ones I supposedly DON’T dismiss also have “bible[s], bible teachings, and [are] people who consider themselves Christ[i]an practitioners.” So?
“Yet, you not only dismiss their efforts, of their souls no less, as inadequate and unchristian, you’d therefore consider them as going to hell.”
Actually, no. I don’t mind you attacking what I believe, but why on earth would you make up things I’ve never said and don’t believe? You seem to be very emotional about this. Why? You’re apparently emotional enough that you even invent things I never did and never thought. Why?
“What I’m pointing out is that most people use their religion to exclude nonmembers, including Christians.”
Jesus said He was the way, the truth and the life. Do you think that sounds exclusive to atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, etc? I bet it does. The simple fact is - on one level - the truth is always exclusionary because it can’t include error. This isn’t a slight to people. It’s just how reality works. 2 + 2 = 4 is sure exclusionary to 5 and 3, but it is undoubtedly true.
“There’s a breathtaking lack of humility towards beliefs, and an overabundance of those, like you, who know exactly what Jesus meant and exactly how everyone should worship him.”
So are you claiming you have no idea whatsoever “what Jesus meant and exactly how everyone should worship him.” See, I’m willing to bet you have definite beliefs as to “what Jesus meant and exactly how everyone should worship him” while claiming it’s wrong for anyone else to do it. In other words, you do the same thing you accuse VitacoreVision of doing - even though he actually didn’t do it. He merely posted an article. Yet you said “YOU” to him as if he had done something other than simply posting an article.
“That’s my point. If you need to personalize it according to Alinsky’s tactical setup, that’s an issue all your own.”
That’s a fascinating attack considering your very first post in the thread - the very first post by ANYONE in the thread other than VitacoreVision - says “There is only one genuine way to practice Christianity. The way YOU do. Right?” I guess that log sticking out of your eye is hard to get through doorways, huh? And yet in this post you speak of “a breathtaking lack of humility towards beliefs, and an overabundance of those, like you, who know exactly what Jesus meant and exactly how everyone should worship him.” Kettle. Pot. Alinsky.
“But people like you keep millions away from Christianity.”
Actually, no. You have no idea who I am - although that doesn’t stop you from making some pretty big erroneous assumptions apparently - but I have - if I am to believe the cards, letters, emails, gifts, invitations to weddings and baptisms - brought quite a few people closer to God and deeper into Christianity. I have helped a number of people become Christians, become Catholic Christians and can’t count quite a few people who have told me that I have helped them learn more about God and draw closer to Him. Tomorrow I’ll be helping 70 people in a town 90 minutes from me learn more about Christianity. I do that all the time. Just before Christmas someone who I have been helping gave me a Christmas card with this written inside [I’m going to change all the personal details because you have no right to those and I have enough anti-Catholic stalkers issuing death threats as it is]:
begin paste:
Dear [vladimir998],
I just want you to know that in [what she does] for 32 yrs. and all the [teaching in the Faith] we’ve gotten it doesn’t hold a candle to [...] you are giving us.
I have used so much of what you have given us in my [work and faith sharing]. [People I work with and share my faith with] have been given a new inspiration to read the Bible and integrate it to their [...] lives.
You have been an inspiration to me and my faith. Thank you so much.
Have a blessed Christmas,
End paste.
I get the same sort of thing, by the way, from Protestants I know.
“You see, their innermost hearts relationship with the mercy of Jesus might not measure up to your stringent examination.”
Again, you apparently know NOTHING about me. All the time I am asked to help someone with a problem - including Protestants - because people who actually know me know I can and do help them. Not too long ago a woman I barely know poured out her heart to me about how she was distraught that her Methodist parish decided to accept homosexual marriages. She was devastated because that church - that parish - had been hers since she was a child. Yeah, I see their innermost hearts - when they share them with me.
“From that, from you, they then generalize Christians and become liberals.”
No. Since we know there are Liberals who are Christians, it’s obvious people do not necessarily become Liberals from “generalizing Christians”. There are people who call themselves atheists who say they are conservatives. Are they lying?
“No, its not a stretch. Ask ANY liberal why they aren’t Christians and that is what they will tell you.”
No, it is not what “ANY liberal” would say. Different people reject Christianity for different reasons.
“Yet as the uniform response from you and people like you is indifference towards someone therefore bound for hell, well then, everything makes sense, doesn’t it?”
Again, you’re completely making up something that I have never said nor believed. Why do you do that?
“Except that Jesus also said something about it being better to tie a stone around your neck and cast yourself into the sea, than to harm a hair on the heads of HIS little ones. So who’s really going to hell, eh?”
So are you hurting children? I’m not? And if neither of us is hurting children - I will assume for the moment that you’re not hurting any - then what does your example have to do with what we’re talking about? The only possible connection would be what Jesus says first: “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble,”. No one who knows me would say that about me. Ever. In fact, what is said is the exact opposite. But look again at your first post: “The way YOU do. Right?” You attack when you were not attacked. Couldn’t that make someone stumble? Not so much VitacoreVision, but you yourself.
Now, since you - as I said before - seem to be very emotional about this (when I am not being emotional in the least) you sure seem to be creating your own stumbling so I suggest you don’t hang a large millstone around your neck and throw yourself into the sea, but rather start thinking logically.
Thus, the question is: Is there any logical reason to believe that a man who isn’t “regularly going to church†or who lacks “even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrine†is in fact “really living the Christian life.†How does someone “really liv[e] the Christian life†without having “even a rudimentary knowledge of Christian doctrine�
If you can’t answer those simple questions, and since you are apparently very emotional about all of this, perhaps you should just pray instead of posting.
Sorry, that's a lie. Which means the rest of your taunting book isn't worth reading either. Bye.
Quite apart from the acts of terrorism which invoke — more or less dubiously — the name of Islam,
I’m really getting tired of this. What’s so dubious about it?
“Sorry, that’s a lie.”
No, it is not a lie. You seem desperate.
“Which means the rest of your taunting book isn’t worth reading either.”
There were no taunts - just logical points and questions. And if you didn’t read it, then you can’t say what’s in it. I guess right there we see who is telling the truth and who isn’t, huh?
“Bye.”
And it ends as was expected. You apparently can’t answer what I asked - and if that is the case the reason why is obvious - so you run away. And the beat goes on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.