Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
It is indeed an excellent read, Teacher317! Vazsonyi definitely connects the two revolutions to their respective "views of man," that is their respective systems of thought regarding the nature of man and the world.
He very usefully sees the glaring differences between them in terms of "Anglo-American" vs. "Franco-German" systems of thought. The two revolutions spawned, from their respective philosophical systems, wildly divergent outcomes. To my way of thinking, a look at the respective "results" tells you a lot about the quality and truthfulness of the underlying systems of thought.
Regarding "the French Connection" Vazsonyi wrote:
In order to trace the origins — and the curriculum — we must go back at least as far as the eighteenth century when political thinking in France laid the foundations for the monumental fiasco known as the French Revolution. In the same number of years it had taken in America to travel the road from the Declaration of Independence to the signing of the Constitution (1776–1787), the French went from beheading their king to the coronation of their new emperor (1793–1804). The mindless slaughter that filled the gap was the translation of French political philosophy into practice.The French line of thinking led to Marxism, socialism, communism, progressivism. The American line led to a system of ordered liberty under a written Constitution promulgating just and equal laws for all citizens alike — as individuals, not as members of some group, to be variously favored or disfavored as (manipulated) "public opinion" shifts.The words of the French Enlightenment affected people in ways that no set of ideas had, perhaps, since the Bible. The names Diderot, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau are forever enshrined in the minds of educated people. The twenty-eight volumes of Diderot's Encyclopédie became the new model for the systematized presentation of knowledge and thought. To Montesquieu we owe the articulation of separated powers in government. Voltaire, many still believe, was endowed with the clearest and most incisive mind of the age; and few remained unmoved by the power of Rousseau's pen.
Montesquieu derived his advocacy of the separation of powers from the British model. Voltaire unequivocally admired John Locke and Isaac Newton, attributing British successes to the freedom of political discussion and to the use of reason to evaluate empirical evidence. But it was Rousseau's Social Contract and his judgment of man as "corrupted and rotten to the core by society and its institutions" that came to dominate French prescriptions for the future....
Brilliant as Rousseau was, he failed to understand that one ought not to demolish without immediately reconstructing; one ought not to disseminate ideas which have no foundation in the human experience. But then, that was precisely the difference between the French Descartes and the English Locke, as Voltaire noted. The former advocated the application of reason before; the latter, after the event.
Apart from unparalleled self-importance, Rousseau's fatal mistake was the proposition that man was in need of, and capable of, perfecting, which was exacerbated by his emotive dismissal of institutions. Once man's need and ability to be perfected are espoused, the way is clear for those who "know just how to do it" — which is why the Anglo-Scottish approach always focused on the improvement of conditions and institutions, rather than of man. If, as Rousseau suggests, institutions, in and of themselves, are corrupting, their role has been permanently undermined.
And that is why the French Revolution of 1789 failed to accommplish a positive goal; it did not have one. It merely sought to demolish the existing. Man was still "in need of perfecting"; societal institutions were still the "source of corruption." Unsurprisingly, a cacaphony of ideas, agendas, events, and power brokers erupted. Consequently, it became a matter of transitory opinion whose head ought to be chopped off by the guillotine, and control of the executioner elevated to being the "next hope of the people." Danton countenanced the massacres until he was beheaded on orders of Robespierre, and Robespierre was himself beheaded a few months later. In the absence of workable institutions, it was only matter of time before a supreme ruler would have to restore order and govern France once again. Bonaparte crowned himself emperor in 1804.
Even more decisive for posterity, however, was the spectacle of mass executions in an effort to eliminate entire categories of people — clergy, royalists, aristocrats. The unprecedented bloodbath conjured up new ways of manipulating history. Marx was the first to recognize its unlimited potential. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot showed the world how it could be done on a truly massive scale. [p. 94ff]
Despite French prominence in the "Age of Reason," the events as they unfolded in France were determined by the rule of emotion. In America, the choice was determined by study, experience, and contemplation.
The French aimed to eliminate — the old order, the ruling class, the church. Americans, as soon as independence permitted, endeavored to build a society that would embody the noblest, time-tested, most successful principles known to man....
It was in France — not in America — that a giant experiment began, and continues in our time. America was established almost instantaneously — not as an experiment, but as a nation. (p. 98)
Vazsonyi is a true authority about what it's like to be on the "receiving end" of a revolution. Hungarian-born, he was there when Nazi tanks rolled into Budapest in 1944; he was then eight years old. In 1947, Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest — Vazsonyi charges FDR of having "ceded" Hungary to Stalin at Yalta. Then, in 1956, the aborted Hungarian Revolution, when Soviet tanks again rolled into Budapest. On each of these occasions, a couple hundred thousand people "took the long walk" (i.e., were murdered by their new "masters") — mainly the political class and intellectuals. Vazsonyi eventually managed to escape from Hungary, landing in America; he became a naturalized citizen in 1964. He also founded the Center for the American Founding; and is a world-class concert pianist.
In this book, Vazsonyi is warning us of what can happen here in America, if we don't get our political/philosophical thinking straight — by going back to the Founders and, in particular, to their timeless views of God, man, and society.
Vazsonyi writes, "It is astonishing and frightening how little time it took both in Russia and in Germany to accomplish [their murderous, collectivist goals]. Demolishing what centuries have built does not require even a single generation."
On that happy note, let me close with the observation that the reigning political elite in America and their enablers are most definitely on "the French model," not the Anglo-Scottish/American one. And most notably, that includes the sitting POTUS.
When are we going to throw out these bums?
Thank you so much, Teacher317, for recommending this wonderful book!
Those who deny the divinity of Jesus or the Trinitarian nature of God are not Christians. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarists, deists, agnostics, etc. are not Christians. Some of the key authors and players of the Declaration were known to fall into one of those groups.
the Revolutionary Act were founded on Christian values. They [Founding Fathers] should know. It is they who created it.
The Declaration is not specifically Christian, implicitly or explicitly.
Elsewhere in this thread you’ve declared that might always makes right
That's the way the world is, whether you understand it or not. Might prevails. If you have the might, you write the rules.
And, I must express my absolute astonishment that you seem unable to comprehend that the Founders’ expression ‘a more perfect union’ refers not to the impossible task of improving perfection, but simply means constructing a union more closely approaching perfection.
In a poetic sense, perhaps, but not in a legal document. Grammatically "more perfect" is an oxymoron . To form a more perfect union suggests the union that exists is already "perfect." If Jefferson wanted to say to form "an improved" or "better" or "more equitable" union or words to that effect, then he should have said so plainly.
With respect to Ayn Rand and your suggestion that we not go there because “the reality of life shows that such absolute statement are abjectly false, or just plain unrealistic,” I would ask you that do these abjectly false absolute statements include such absolutes as might always makes right?
In the real world we "settle" things by compromising with our adversaries and even enemies. Therefore a compromise with a nemesis is not always abject surrender to it. Only Christianity calls for abject surrender to evil by teaching that we "not resist the evil." [cf Mat 5:39]
On the other hand, might is right without exception, which can easily be demonistrated as the universal law.
Apparently, you are not aware that America is rapidly changing in the direction that favors the "French model" and that it has to do with the demographics. The American population is rapidly becoming alienated to the principles and beliefs of the Founding Fathers.
It is a mathematical certainty that in not such a distant future this country will be dominated by groups that traditionally favor the "French model" and seek to transform this country into the country that resembles the countries they left behind. Their goal is not to assimilate into something that is alien to them, but to take over—ironically, with the help of the system they seek to destroy.
Hi kosta!!! Except for the "mathematical certainty" part, I generally agree with this statement. This is what the raging culture war has been all about ever since the 1960s. That war is still undecided.
But if the "French model" finally wins, America as we know it will cease to exist. It's just that simple. The only system of liberty under just and equal laws on the face of the planet will die.
As inhospitable as the principles and values of the Judeo-Christian tradition are to you personally — and I think you've made that clear enough by now — American is founded on them. If that foundation is "gone," then so is America.
Thanks so much for writing!
p.s.: Balint Yazsonyi certainly did not come here to transform America into something resembling his native land of Hungary. He came here because he genuinely admired and respected the American system, and has probably done more to support and uphold it than most Americans these days. He definitely is not on the "French model...." He'd been victimized by it too many times already; he knows what an intellectual sham it is — though a mortally dangerous one.
Yes; of the animal kingdom.... "Survival of the fittest" and all that jazz.
Your observation strikes me as a great pretext for the long-predicted "war of all against all".... "Nature bloody in tooth and claw," etc., etc., ad nauseam. The law of the jungle in the Public Square....
French Revo Redux.
Do you really think human beings should be regarded exclusively as animals? If you do, then how could you ever account for the fact that, though an animal in his physical nature, man is also "ensouled," and is rational; he has mind; he thinks, and he communicates his thoughts in complex natural languages. No animal other than man is capable of doing this.
Are we going to have to drop this fact down the old memory hole, just so your thesis — which implicitly calls for the total reduction of the human being to the purely physical — can be correct?
Oh, it is a mathematic certainty, betty boop. By 2050, mere forty years from now, white (European) Americans will no longer be a majority, but will dip to 46% of the population. By contrast, in 1960, mere fifty years ago, white (European) Americans comprised 85% of the American population.
Right now, the American birth rate is below replacement rate, and almost 90% of population growth is due to the immigration. One in eight (12.5%) babies born in the US is a US citizen (by birthright) whose parents are illegal immigrants.
It is also a fact that the groups that have the highest natality rates (Hispanics and blacks) traditionally vote for the progressivist and liberal candidates and the political philosophy that generally is closer to the "French model" than to the Founding Fathers' model.
This is what the raging culture war has been all about ever since the 1960s. That war is still undecided.
The outcome is pretty certain; we are just marking time. There are no signs of any dramatic change in the course this country has taken to change that fact.
But if the "French model" finally wins, America as we know it will cease to exist.
That seems to be the direction in which we are moving. The progressivist left doesn't even hide the fact that it embraces the "French model."
As inhospitable as the principles and values of the Judeo-Christian tradition are to you personally — and I think you've made that clear enough by now — American is founded on them
America was founded on the principles of Enlightenment which are broad enough to incorporate Christian values but is not specifically, implicitly or explicitly, Christian. In fact, I personally find a lot in common with the Founding Fathers' attitude towards religion and God, as well their views of the Bible and even Paul! :)
The progressivists are already rejoicing over the death of America. As Simon Talley of the Daily Iowan writes in "The 'browning' of America", it is a "done deal":
"For those who fear the “browning” of America or the loss of some Anglo-Saxon 'cultural' identity, all I can say is, sorry. Between now and 2050, the vast majority of population growth will come from racial minorities. By 2050, the America that many on the right are so nostalgic about will be a thing of the past."
No, betty boop, might is right in all cases, including human. The strong prevail and they get to write what is right.
Your observation strikes me as a great pretext for the long-predicted "war of all against all".... "Nature bloody in tooth and claw," etc., etc., ad nauseam.
Now you are just being a drama queen. I never suggested any of that.
French Revo Redux
Hardly.
Do you really think human beings should be regarded exclusively as animals?
Not at all. That doesn't change the fact that might prevails in all instances and for all times and in all things.
If you do, then how could you ever account for the fact that, though an animal in his physical nature, man is also "ensouled,"
Being "ensouled" is a postulate and not a fact.
and is rational; he has mind; he thinks, and he communicates his thoughts in complex natural languages. No animal other than man is capable of doing this.
I agree. Man is much more developed that other animals in that regard.
Are we going to have to drop this fact down the old memory hole, just so your thesis — which implicitly calls for the total reduction of the human being to the purely physical — can be correct?
I don't remember making such a "thesis". I was merely observing that might prevails and sets the rules and can be said to be one of those "universal laws" for all times.
And yet it is a fact that human beings have for millennia believed that humans have souls, that there is an afterlife, and Dike — Justice — is the fundamental law of the universe. As evidence for this, may I mention the anonymous text, "Dispute of a Man, Who Contemplates Suicide, With His Soul" — from the Egypt of the First Intermediate Period (c. 2000 B.C.), an early literary reflection on the experiences of life, death, and immortality.
And then I could mention the Pamphyllian Myth, the Myth of Er, of Plato's Republic, in which a man descends into Hades, and sees the judgment of souls going on there; and then is permitted to return to the world to tell his fellow men of what he has seen.
"Soul" may be a "postulate" to you, given the basic form of your thinking (reductionist and skeptical). But your thinking does not determine reality — even though you might like it to.
Another fact: If you are right about the non-existence of souls, then some seven millennia of human history — experience, thought, artistic creations of all descriptions, etc., regarding this issue — is WRONG. And we all had to wait for you to come along to set the record straight — at last.
You wrote:
...might prevails in all instances and for all times and in all things.If that were true, Hitler would still be in power. Or at least he would have been until his death by natural causes.... After his death by suicide, Hitler's "truth" fell apart. The point is Justice is stronger than might. Right is stronger than might.
Truth is incalculably more powerful than might. It is also more powerful than opinion — doxa — including your opinion.
All the collective might of the human race past, present, and presumably future, cannot eradicate the truth of the human soul. Only a fool would try.
Have to go eat dinner now; but I'll be back....
It is true, because ultimately more might came against Hitler, than he could muster.
This argument is the argument for consciousness and it simply dethrowns materialism. Karl Popper said, (paraphrasing) that the brain is a magnificent piece of equipment we carry for life which allows us to access the physical world. As C.S.Lewis said when asked if he had a soul, he responded, "No, I am a soul, I have a body."
Yet those very men whose Christianity you deny, themselves declare Christian values to be the foundation of the Revolutionary Act, and of the document they created. But, you seem to believe that you know better than they what was in their minds. A man, who apparently believed similarly as you, turned on the American people, betrayed their trust by denouncing everything they held sacred, in the mistaken thought that he could sway them to any way of thinking he wished, discovered he could not, and died with their scorn and in disgrace. Would that no better fate should await you, but I defer to the Lord’s will on that issue.
Despite the Founding Fathers’ declarations, no curiosity is aroused in your thoughts, no wonderment disturbs your mind, over the blatant discrepancy between what you assert and what the Founders themselves declare. One must think that you should pause to consider so blatant a contradiction in your construct, but seemly not.
Even John Adams, the very epitome of what you trumpet to be an example of the Unitarian denial of Christianity, embarrasses you:
“. . . The general principles On which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. “And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united; and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all these young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature, and our terrestrial mundane system. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles . . . ” (letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh Editor, in 19 volumes).
So you plow straight ahead, head down, eyes averted, propounding an absurdity so preposterous that even the old Latins had no name for the fallacy.
“The Declaration is not specifically Christian, implicitly or explicitly.”
Yet the men who wrote it and voted on it (and the people who sent them to Independence Hall) declare the document to be explicitly Christian. Whom would you have me believe?
“That's the way the world is, whether you understand it or not. Might prevails. If you have the might, you write the rules.”
Did the Romans write the rules for the Christians? Who prevailed? . . . Roman might? . . . or Christian faith? It’s people like you (and Rand Paul) who encourage people to believe that resisting evil is futile. You remind me of the Amsterdam lady who announced, “all war is stupid.” I asked her if that included the Dutch war for independence from Spain. I asked her if we stupid Americans should not have sent our General Eisenhower and several million GIs over to liberate Western Europe in 1944. The lady had no answer, but I could tell from her eyes that no amount of instances would sway her from her belief. Just as I an sure none can sway yours.
“In the real world we "settle" things by compromising with our adversaries and even enemies.”
In the “real world” some political compromises are possible, though I can think of none presently that offer any hope for success. In the “real world” I asked you if abjectly false absolute statements such as Rand’s included absolutes like “might always makes right.” You had no answer.
That makes it a belief, not a fact. Just as I said. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it exists.
But your thinking does not determine reality — even though you might like it to.
Neither does yours. I do, however, differentiate my beliefs from facts.
Another fact: If you are right about the non-existence of souls, then some seven millennia of human history — experience, thought, artistic creations of all descriptions, etc., regarding this issue — is WRONG.
I did not say souls did not exist; I said that enosoulment is a postulate, not a fact. There is a huge difference.
You wrote: ...might prevails in all instances and for all times and in all things. If that were true, Hitler would still be in power
No, because Hitler was opposed by a greater might. The might of the Allies prevailed.
Truth is incalculably more powerful than might
Nonsense. The victors write the truth; their version of it.
It is also more powerful than opinion — doxa — including your opinion.
Then we are in the same boat, because it is more powerful than your opinion as well. And "doxa" means a lot more than just opinion. It actually means praise as in orthodoxa, the right praise, not the right opinion.
All the collective might of the human race past, present, and presumably future, cannot eradicate the truth of the human soul. Only a fool would try.
The truth of the human soul is that it is a postulate. Show me a soul and then call it a fact. Just believing in Santa doesn't make Santa real, except in the minds of naive children—and apparently some childish adults.
kosta50, the color of the skin is irrelevant.
The issue is how Americans see themselves. As Condi Rice pointed out in a wonderful convention speech, Americans must see themselves as individuals.
The unalienable Creator-given rights apply to the individual. We each, individually, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And by extension, the individual freedom of religion, speech, bearing arms and so forth.
Whether learned by their culture or a state religion (or non religion) or whether by having it drilled into their heads in our K-12 public education system, the individuals who surrender to a hive-mind are the problem - particularly if the hive sees itself as a victim class.
Just my "two cents" ...
Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration, re-wrote the New Testament, threw out what he didn't like, called Paul the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus, etc. Do you really think one can reject Paul, two thirds of the New Testament, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinitarian God, and still be a Christian? Ridiculous!
Jefferson tells me what was in his mind, and the 2 billion mainline Christians tell me what is Christianity. Thomas Paine tells me what was in his mind and he was no Christian. Just as Glenn Beck tells me he is a Mormon, which means he is no Christian because as a Mormon he believes God the Father used to be a man and has a body, that Jesus and Satan are brothers, that one can baptize the dead, etc.
How gracious of you. All this because I state a simple fact that there is nothing Christian, implicitly or explicitly stated, in the Declaration. If you can find one reference to the Bible, Christ or the Holy Trinity in it, please be so kind to point it out to me.
And what's this veiled threat and the presumptuous condemnation about? Are the Founding Fathers infallible? Is it against the law to interpret them individually? You make it sound as if having a different opinion of the Fathers is treason if not blasphemy? Get hold of your emotions and pipe down your presumptuous attitude.
You quote Adams but conveniently ignore Jefferson, or Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and others, and amazingly fail to see that their private correspondence is one thing and what they wrote into the Declaration is another.
As for Adam's Christianity, yes, the Unitarists consider themselves Christians, and so do Mormons, and Arians, and Donatists, and Bogomils, and Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
Christianity is a belief in Jesus being the divine Logos (John 1:1). Anything other than that is not Christianity but a Christian cult.
Adams writes to Jefferson " I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united...and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence" and I ask you where are those principles spelled out in the New Testament?
But they don't say what is specifically Christian about it! You can believe whomever you want, critically or uncritically, that is your prerogative. I am not asking you to believe me; I am stating my opinion and you yours. No one is after you, twisting your arm and washing your brain, persecuting you. If you feel someone is after you, perhaps a medical consult might be helpful for that condition.
Yes, as a matter of fact they did. It was the power of the imperial Roman decision that made Christianity a state religion and prohibited all other religions.
No, actually it's Jesus who says "do not resist the evil." (Mat 5:39).
Well, you have interesting dissociative associations, it seems. Maybe you can point me to where I assert such a ridiculous thing. I am a retired Naval officer and neither I nor the people I served with thought war was something "smart." Necessary,yes, but not smart. Only someone truly stupid could say war is something smart, or stupid for that matter.
I answered you. Rand's "choice" was no choice, so the question is not valid. My statement that might is always right is not a choice but a simple fact: might always prevails.
It can be relevant or irrelevant. It's a factor. What we do with it is what matters.
As Condi Rice pointed out in a wonderful convention speech, Americans must see themselves as individuals
They do, but they also see themselves as members of a particular group, as well as members of a particular nation. So, the collective image is just as important, if not more important, to some for a variety of reasons. When 95% of a certain group vote as a block it is pointless to speak of individualism. It is hive-mind at work.
kosta50, the color of the skin is irrelevant
The only reason I mentioned demographics was not to emphasize skin color but in response to betty boop's observation that the only country with liberty will disappear in the near future and be replaced by the "French model."
The commentary by the upbeat New Iowan syndicated columnist only reiterated betty boop's prediction, except as something eagerly awaited by the new and presumably "open minded" generations. The nostalgics were basically told "sorry, losers, too bad, so sad."
America was ethnically 85% of European origin, Protestant faith, and Ango-Saxon culture, just 50 years ago, and as such the thinking was in line with the thinking and the culture of the Founding Fathers. It was a fertile ground for such system to grow and sustain itself.
In less than a century, this country will be 46% European in origin. Simple regression analysis shows that by 2156 there will be no one Europeans left here. The prevailing cultures that seem to be gaining ground are not fond of European roots but rather see them as the source of oppression that are to be discarded the sooner the better and replaced by their own.
Looking at countries where these groups come from, and the tenacity with which these cultures refuse to assimilate, should give us a glimpse of what will replace the founding principles on which this country was built.
The writing is on the wall. It has nothing to do with individualism or inalienable rights, A-G. It has to do with a mathematical certainty of the changes set in motion by what betty boop correctly called "culture wars" and the might is right inevitable outcome.
At this point, it is not them who are expected to assimilate but those who have been here all along. Native Americans may get vicarious satisfaction observing that what goes around comes around, that the very people who once cleansed this continent of the Natives are now being pushed out themselves by a new wave of newcomers and may end up living in reservations of their own, or completely disappeare as another culutre vanquished and relagated to the dusbins of history.
no one Europeans = no Europeans
dusbins = dustbins
It is a fact that the universal "default position" of the human race during the historical period (~7 millennia and counting) is belief in God (or the gods), and belief that human beings have souls. The evidence for this is overwhelming. For instance, among other things already pointed out in my last, funerary rites are a universal phenomenon among humans of all cultures. Even today.
What exact distinction do you draw between the existence of the soul and "ensoulment?" You say the latter is a "postulate." You wrote, "I did not say souls did not exist." Okay; does that mean you are prepared to say that they do exist? And if they do, does there not need to be a process of "ensoulment" of the body?
Is it simply that you dismiss soul as a fiction — because it cannot be directly observed? — and therefore rule out "ensoulment" in principle — one cannot instantiate a fiction??? Is this what you're driving at? If so, what's the point? Your view is completely anhistorical and counter to the evidence of human experience.
Why are you "right" about this, and all humanity that lived before you "wrong?" Are you Darwinist enough in your thinking to believe that human evolution means that man is "smarter" today than he was, say, back in the first millennium B.C.? And therefore, you must be "smarter" than, say, a Pythagoras, a Plato, an Aristotle? Because you are more evolved, and therefore more "fit?"
I wrote that if it were true might prevails in all instances and for all times and in all things, Hitler would still be in power. And you replied that Hitler was removed by greater might (i.e., the Allies), and therefore "might makes right."
But this obvious fact masks the point I was trying to make: The might of Hitler leveled an historically Christian nation, with an established Church no less, to a state of barbarism in just a couple of years. Does this mean that Hitler was "right," because he had the "might?"
You wrote: "The victors write the truth; their version of it." Jeepers, kosta — you cogitate like a commissar! You are straight out of the French Revolution.... LOL!
There is no such thing as a version of truth. There is only ONE Truth, for the universe is ONE. "Versions" of truth that depart from this one Truth would be false in principle. The falsity can be upheld only by force, by might. But this only further corrupts the world of human experience, of human society. So how can might be right?
You wrote:
And "doxa" means a lot more than just opinion. It actually means praise as in orthodoxa, the right praise, not the right opinion."Doxa" is the Greek root for the English word "doctrine." Orthodoxa means "right or correct doctrine." I'm unaware the Koine word doxa denotes "praise." Though I do recognize that Greek words can be pretty "compact symbols," carrying multiple cognate meanings. But to Plato, it's clear "doxa" meant "opinion," and usually false opinion. My own view follows Plato's.
"Doctrine" (doxa) is a formulation or codification of Truth seen — it is not the Truth itself. Because it is not, it can be false. But Truth never is false.
In any case, accepting your translation, there is never any "'right praise" for a lie.
Good grief, I gather from your last paragraph that you regard me as some kind of "childish adult" because I do not agree with you that the soul is a "postulate."
You want me to "show you a soul?" Why don't you try looking inward and see if you can find one there? :^)
THX THX for the ping.
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.