Unfortunately, almost all of the men you name were far from "unique" individuals turning the world upside down. While the historical school known as Whig History tended to look at human progress as the accomplishments of "great men," it has long ago been discredited. Almost every figure you name merely took the next step to make discoveries or theories that would have been made without him (Newton is probably the only figure that fits your argument). Einstein expanded on the mathematics of Minkowski, Feynman coalesced the ideas of his time in a new way (he also had a gift for promotion), Christ... ever heard of Mithraism? Humanity advances by slow evolutionary processes, not because some superman miraculously steps in and reinvents everything.
On the contrary, I greatly respect and appreciate the efforts of my ancestors, especially the struggles that they had to overcome the traditions and "morals" of their generation. It used to be "immoral" to doubt the word of a king who was gods appointed. Thank "God" my ancestors rebelled and cast down those evil institutions put in place by "GOD."
You continuously connect tradition with repression (a classic leftist non sequitur), and yet you ignore the repressive qualities of rationalism. Marxism was nothing if not the ultimate rationalistic philosophy, the same for socialism. The idea that the human mind can "order" society better than the traditions passed down through the ages is the basis of their construction. Just because they do not support your position doesn't mean you can ignore their kinship to your ideology. And they are kin, as they are based in the same fallacy that the works of the individual mind can replace the accumulated knowledge of the past. No one here is advocating a theocracy (to defeat your strawman), but many of us would say that the time-honored definition of marriage rests on more than your "intellect" can possibly justify.
Well, how about WILLIAM d'ALBINI for the Magna Charta.
You need a better history book. The Magna Carta simply bound the king to the tenets of common law, that recent rulers had ignored in an attempt to impose their own will. It forced King John to recognize the traditional rights of the nobility, and it was only later evolutionary development that extended these rights to the common man, and later to all men. Far from being the product of rationality, the Magna Carta is the ultimate enshrinement of the desire to preserve tradition against an individual's usurping of power.
While I agree that they are not unique men I disagree with your disparagement that they merely took the next obvious step in progress. The amazing thing about genius and insight is that it is so obvious in hindsight. History tends to look obvious in hindsight too : )
If natural progression is so crashingly obvious why don't you explain the Unified Field Theory. I am sure it will be obvious to me once you explain it.
You continuously connect tradition with repression (a classic leftist non sequitur), and yet you ignore the repressive qualities of rationalism. Marxism was nothing if not the ultimate rationalistic philosophy, the same for socialism. The idea that the human mind can "order" society better than the traditions passed down through the ages is the basis of their construction. Just because they do not support your position doesn't mean you can ignore their kinship to your ideology. And they are kin, as they are based in the same fallacy that the works of the individual mind can replace the accumulated knowledge of the past. No one here is advocating a theocracy (to defeat your strawman), but many of us would say that the time-honored definition of marriage rests on more than your "intellect" can possibly justify.
So you set up a strawman comparing "rationalization" to Natural Law and then try to claim that even though the majority of governments in the past were theocracries or at least backed by GOD my using them is a strawman argument. Prior to the 17th century how many governments weren't Ordained by GOD? Not many I would guess.
And as far as marriage goes, what do Tradition and Morals have to say about it? As far as I can tell arranged marriages, plural marriages, old men marrying young women, old women marrying young men, serial polygamy (people swapping partners through divorce), etc. doesn't leave many forbidden forms of marriage does it?
You need a better history book. The Magna Carta simply bound the king to the tenets of common law, that recent rulers had ignored in an attempt to impose their own will. It forced King John to recognize the traditional rights of the nobility, and it was only later evolutionary development that extended these rights to the common man, and later to all men. Far from being the product of rationality, the Magna Carta is the ultimate enshrinement of the desire to preserve tradition against an individual's usurping of power.
The Magna Charta started the process that broke kings right to rule by decree and bound them to obey rules and laws that that were created by "Common Men." That is what common law means, laws for the commoners as opposed to nobility. Tradition for millenia had taught that rulers were superior to "Common Men" free to govern without any rules or constraint. Tradition is simply the powerful trying to retain the status quo. If that is your definition of a conservative then I guess I am a liberal by your standard.
May I suggest a book, "Constitutional Chaos" by Napolitano. He shows that even today our government does not live by the same rules and regulations it imposes on us "commoners." I guess tradition supports the governments viewpoint :)