Reflections on the Psalms

The Psalms require an emotional, spiritual, and thoughtful response. Each psalm challenges humans collectively and individually. Each individual is engaged in a pilgrimage to know God and Self, to understand how the Self fits in with the whole of humanity and God’s Creation. My spiritual journey has been informed for many years by reflecting on the Psalms. I am of course by no means alone in using the Psalms in this way, as countless others do and have and will use the Psalms similarly. My offering in this book is a unique way to reflect on the Psalms. I advocate reading and reflecting on the Psalms by means of a personal dialogue with the past.

The Psalms purport to be written largely by David, the Hebrew king who lived three thousand years ago. David was warrior, poet, lover, judge, sinner, man of feeling, student of God’s creation. He knew much about himself because of his search to know God. His Psalms are reflective pieces that consider the distance between the Creator and the Creation, between the all-wise and good God and the limited sinful human. God is a shepherd to His people, David wrote, a Father to His children who are repeatedly errant and wayward. These poems are wonderful psychological portraits of the human search for peace and love in a world of conflict and hate.

The Psalms have been my prayer companions for many years. The Psalms are some of the greatest literature ever written. Their depth in terms of spirituality and human reflection has few counterparts.

The Old Testament Psalms are constant reminders of how easily humans forget God’s blessings and have to be renewed by daily prayer.

Posted in Christianity, Reflections on the Psalms | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Whither is Good Government? Reflections on Psalm 45

My tongue is a pen of a quick writer . . .

The Psalmist takes to honorific writing to praise the king, the anointed of God. God indeed anoints. And God’s will is known throughout the world. The Apostle Paul counseled his followers to obey kings and magistrates as the secular agents of God, who impose order and law on society, so that we may direct our hearts and minds from secular to spiritual things, and contemplate God and His works.

Because of truth and meekness and righteousness . . .

The Psalmist praises the king for these qualities for which God’s will is accomplished through the secular arm of rule. Truth, meekness, and righteousness appear oxymoronic compared to government–rather falsehoods, arrogance, and sinfulness seem to be the attributes of government. If only a philosopher-king, such as David, would appear among us!

The sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness . . .

Such is the will of God among his secular counterparts who govern society. God loves righteousness and law-abiding. What, then, has gone wrong? Why is the world filled with the exact opposite? Why are kings and prime ministers and governors so corrupt? God anoints the powerful with power, but after the ceremonies and parades, when the task of government becomes real, and the objective wielding of power is required, humans, weak and sinful, cannot abide by the will of God. If humans cannot abide by God’s will in their personal lives, how can they in public lives?

All her glory is within . . .

Such is the praise the Psalmist declares to the wife of the king, who appears in glory, and radiant clothes, and all her subjects worship her, as if she were the Lord. But of course she is not. Rulers and rulers’ families are the same as us all, for God loves equity, not only among humans, but among all life. Should the king or queen, the minister or magistrate, give the glory to God, not self, then perhaps equity and righteousness will be accomplished among human society.

The nations give thanks to thee for ever . . .

If the anointed, the king, rules according to the will of God, then yes, people will acknowledge the king as a great ruler. There have been so few, however. The problem with government and society is that riches anoint, power anoints, rather than God. Notwithstanding if the government is secular or religious, monarchy or democracy, government concerns itself with things of a day, with the present, never the past or future, hence government is shortsighted, and rarely sees beyond the power and riches of today. God sees yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Only when government adopts such a point of view, making all decisions according to the past, in anticipation of the future, acknowledging in the present the will of God, will government ever achieve the justice and equity that has eluded humans for millennia.

Posted in Christianity, Government, Reflections on the Psalms | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Democracy

            The idea of democracy, like the idea of capitalism, promises much, though the reality always falls short. The promise is of wide participation in government, free and open competition among diverse groups, self-determination. Democracy offers the vision of individuals working together to achieve their own particular goals, using similar means to accomplish collectively individual wealth and freedom. History offers few examples of really successful democracies, success being defined as actual structures of government and society that make concrete the image that the word democracy conjures up. Democracy, like liberty, freedom, equality, is elusive, visualized in the mind and a part of one’s dreams yet never quite fulfilled. That these concepts, democracy, liberty, freedom, equality, are linked to capitalism implies that capitalism itself is more image than reality.

            The word “democracy” is a combination of two classical Greek words from the fifth century BCE. The Greek deme was a tribe in ancient Athens; there were ten such tribes (demes) that comprised the city-state, or polis, of Athens. The demos was therefore the people of the ten tribes. The Greek word kratos implies power, strength, control–the attributes of government. Demos joined with kratos means to give the people the power, hence the English word democracy, the “rule of the people.”

            Around 500 BC, Athens had experienced centuries of government by kings (monarchy, rule by one), by the aristocracy (rule of the best men), and by tyrants (Greek tyrannos), which came to mean oppressive rule. But under the leadership of Cleisthenes the Greeks adopted a form of government that developed from the interchange of goods and ideas at the marketplace, the agora. Here the citizens of Athens met in assembly to vote on proposals offered by speakers at the rostrum. The Council of 500, composed of fifty citizens selected by lot from each of the ten demes, typically set the agenda for the assembly. The assembly of citizens passed legislation by acclamation, in time by secret ballot. Athenian citizenship was restricted to adult men; women had little power in Athenian society. Slavery was practiced at Athens as well. Hence the majority of people living at Athens did not exercise power–they were disenfranchised. However, it was remarkable that among the male citizens there was no property qualification for voting, nor even for addressing the assembly.

            The relationship of democracy and capitalism, seen in ancient Athens, is also exemplified in the Later Middle Ages and early Renaissance in European history. Medieval feudalism was the antithesis of democratic society and government. The Medieval manor, in which serfs worked the land of an aristocrat and warrior, the Lord, who was the sole authority and judge, was a closed system of few rights, fewer opportunities, and no government participation on the part of the landed serfs. As long as the Medieval economy was primitive, relying on agriculture and barter, lacking widespread surpluses, having few of the components and resources for trade, serfs had no outlet, no way to change their condition. A thousand years ago, various technological improvements in agriculture led to increasing surpluses, which generated wealth, trade, markets, and eventually market centers–villages, then small cities. This generation of a very limited capitalism provided the serf with the alternative to lifelong service on the Medieval manor. Market centers were places of diversity and transiency, where one could blend in, be anonymous, and start a new life. Trade has always raised the potential for newness, growth, and opportunity.

            The Commercial Revolution after 1100 AD continuing into the early Modern period represented the replacement of feudal with urban structures. The organic, static, unequal, monarchal, aristocratic Feudal society gave way to the independent, free and equal, republican and democratic European towns and cities. These towns were incorporated, that is, the residents joined together into a common self-governing cause where each person had certain rights and responsibilities incumbent upon citizenship. Such an open environment encouraged the self-made man and woman, who in turn knew that without towns, their freedoms, open markets, and mobility, such opportunity for personal success would be limited.

            Most of the Founders of the American Republic, it is true, were less supportive of democracy, fearing the disorder and possible anarchy of a people who exercised influence over the government without control. This was the theme of James Madison’s famous Federalist Paper #10, in which he argued against democracy, which would yield a tyranny of the majority. Madison supported instead a republican government of important, if controlled, freedoms. Madison, who wrote the draft of the Constitution, was joined by Alexander Hamilton in rejecting the first government of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, which allowed too many freedoms to states, localities, and individuals–for example freedom to determine the rules of interstate and international commerce. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce, which to some was an undue restriction imposed on the capitalistic inclinations of early Americans.

            Thomas Jefferson, the gifted tragic Virginian who was one of great liberal intellectuals of the eighteenth century yet was imprisoned to the system of slavery in the American South, was one of the strongest advocates of free trade in the early republic. Jefferson was heavily influenced by the thinking of John Locke, the English philosopher who argued that humans are naturally good, free, and equal; that government is not a requirement, rather a choice; that humans choose to join together into voluntary association, giving up some of their rights and freedoms for the overall goal of mutual survival and prosperity. Jefferson once told his friend John Adams, when both were in retirement reflecting upon the past, that the American Revolution was unfinished, and would continue uncompleted for generations to come, only reaching finality when freedom became “intuitive,” and Americans could exercise true self-government. Jefferson’s image of a pure democracy existing in the future depended in part on free trade.

            Free trade has been throughout American history the perceived foundation of American, and world, democracy. Free trade means trade without restrictions, without the encumbrances of tariffs, quotas, embargo, and other means to hamper trade. The principle of free trade eschews using trade as a means of political policy, or using trade as an incentive in diplomacy. The foundations of the ideology of free trade emerged during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. Adam Smith, for example, in The Wealth of Nations (1776) argued against the control of trade as practiced by the British imperial system of mercantilism. Smith applied liberal ideas to the economy. He argued that self-interest drives the economy and society. Benevolent altruism is not the stuff of capitalism, or of democracy.

The American experience of having trade controlled by the Navigation Acts and other forms of British mercantilism spurred American thinkers such as Jefferson to develop similar principles of American free trade. Jefferson believed that free trade would be an agent of the spread of the American system of self-government throughout a world that engaged in constant aggression and warfare, the origins of which often occurred because of trade restrictions. Free trade was the principle of the open mind and open society informed by reason and liberty rather than the narrow-minded, closed system of trade restrictions.

            During the whole of American history, even up to the present, free trade has been considered the agent of democracy. Free trade has been one of the primary cornerstones of American diplomacy. Right from the beginning, presidents have generally refused to engage in trade wars and restrictions. Americans responded to the wars between England and France of the late eighteenth and early nineteen centuries with proclamations of neutrality and free trade. Jefferson’s embargo of 1808 was an exception, and a failure–it completely contradicted Jefferson’s own principles of free trade. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was issued in part to promote free trade throughout the Western Hemisphere. Free Trade was the cornerstone of Woodrow Wilson’s post World War I plans and Franklin Roosevelt’s post World War II plans. Recently, American political leaders have supported such free trade programs as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).

            Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America observed, respecting nineteenth-century American society, that the typical American, without pretense to birth or social rank, engaged in lifelong entrepreneurship. The American commoner was restless, hardworking, always seeking something, especially a satisfactory amount of wealth, which was always just out of reach. Such characteristics formed the backbone not only of American capitalism but of American democracy as well. The aggressiveness of the American in business spilled over to local assemblies, state legislatures, and courthouses. Ideas of American justice, morality, and law had a pragmatic, business-like approach. The American democracy, like American business, involved controversy rather than conciliation, anger and argument rather than acceptance and apathy. Even in the twentieth century, in the wake of World War I and World War II, when traditional values were being challenged everywhere, and democracy was under attack from the left and the right, it was diversity rather than sameness, relativism rather than absolutism, that strengthened American democracy.

            After centuries of development, democracy is still the rule of the people. The people, however, rarely act in unison, rarely agree, but it is in disagreement and disunity that democracy thrives. American democracy is based on pluralism. If America ever becomes uniform, predictable, and at one with itself, it might still be an American society, but it will not be American democracy.

Posted in European history, General Essays, Government | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

From Modernization to Globalization

Modernization is a major social scientific theory that emerged in the 1950s to explain different levels of development in the world’s societies. Although the roots of modernization theory developed in the response of nineteenth-century American and European intellectuals to industrialization, social scientists in the immediate decades after World War II developed a precise theory to explain the transformation throughout the world, past and present, from traditional agrarian to modern urban societies. Modernization theory reached its peak in the 1970s, then declined thereafter; critics complained of the theory’s ethnocentrism and tendency to associate modernization with westernization; the theory lacked empirical evidence, was too abstract; and it simplified the diversity and complexity of change in both contemporary and historical societies. The world systems theory of Immanuel Wallerstein replaced the emphasis on modernization among social scientists in the 1980s. Recent scholars have developed a globalization paradigm that attempts to explain the relationship of modern developing and developed societies in terms of economic dependence and interdependence.

European Background

Modernization theory derived from the philosophic writings of Karl Marx, Jacob Burkhardt, Ferdinand Tonnies, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber. Karl Marx set the stage with his arguments, in The Communist Manifesto, German Ideology, Capital, and other works, that economic and social forces, especially those engaged in production, direct human institutions and behavior more than ideas and human consciousness. Burkhardt, a German historian, wrote in his 1860 publication The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy that modernity was the result of individualism brought by the origins of capitalism in Europe rather than feudal, communitarian thinking. Ferdinand Tonnies argued in Community and Association (1887) that the Industrial Revolution in Europe resulted in the diminution of traditional values and relationships, the community, replaced by impersonal relationships and values, the association. Max Weber echoed Tonnies’ lament of a deteriorating traditionalism in a modern context, citing rationalism as the prime culprit for the change. Emile Durkheim adapted Tonnies’ thought to social change and believed that the traditional community would transform into a great community in the modern world.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, then, European social theorists had identified a change that had occurred in the West during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries from one sort of society based on community and farming to another based on artificial associations and urban existence. This dichotomy of a traditional and modern society gained the status of a self-evident, a priori theory that required no real empirical proof. At one extreme of this social and historical polarity was the traditional (or peasant) society, characterized by a static existence focused on continuity and tradition, a product of a rural, agrarian existence where keeping the family name tied to the same parcel of land was of utmost importance. Religion and superstition rather than rational, secular thinking captivate the people. Organic institutions such as kin, family, and community orient the people; the group is more important than the individual. The modern society is the polar opposite. Family is disrupted and community is lost as the past is forgotten, traditional values give way to individual whim and artificial associations. Modernity’s search for progress, scientific knowledge, and the latest technology come at the expense of the old ways of doing things, faith, and reliance upon the natural environment. Social hierarchy gives way to social and geographic mobility. Society becomes fragmented, specialized, bureaucratic, urban, industrial, and secular.

American Modernizationists

American social theorists, students of urbanization and community, political scientists and sociologists, such as Jane Addams, Robert Park, Louis Wirth, and Talcott Parsons, embraced modernization theory as a way to explain changes in America from 1850 to 1950. Louis Wirth studied the city and discovered the replacement of “primary relationships,” such as would be found in a traditional community, with “secondary relationships,” those of a modern, anonymous, mass society. Talcott Parsons, in several books published in the 1950s, developed a theoretical framework for analyzing social systems, expanding upon Tonnies’ dichotomy of community and association. Parsons argued in The Social System (1951) that a traditional society is characterized by a willingness to express feelings (affectivity), a focus on self, a belief in moral and religious absolutes (universalism), and personal strength and individual achievement. A modern society, however, demands counterparts such as a cold rational approach to feelings (affective neutrality), an orientation toward the group, relativity toward morals and beliefs (particularism), and behavior ascribed by society.

During the decade of the 1960s and 1970s social scientists tried to being empirical substance and more concrete definitions to Parsons’ theoretical construct. W. W. Rostow, for example, examined modernization according to stages of economic growth. Alex Inkeles used a survey of thousands of people living in Third World countries to determine characteristics of a modern personality. Cyril Black, The Dynamics of Modernization (1966), discussed the transition of a traditional to a modern society in terms of a transfer of leadership as the entire social structure changes as the economy transitions from rural-agrarian to urban-industrial. Samuel Huntington attempted to provide a clear definition of modernization: “The essential difference,” he wrote in “The Change to Change: Modernization, Development, and Politics” (Comparative Politics, 1971), “between modern and traditional society . . . lies in the greater control which modern man has over his natural and social environment. This control, in turn, is based on the expansion of scientific and technological knowledge.”

Increasingly during these years American historians began to embrace modernization as a means of describing and analyzing American history. The “new social history,” “new urban history,” and community studies movement advocated by scholars such as Darrett Rutman, Kenneth Lockridge, and John Demos provided social-scientific theory along with empirical evidence based on statistical analysis of tax, land, census, and town records to document the transition from a traditional to a modern society from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries in America. Richard Brown epitomized this synthesizing approach toward early American history in Modernization: The Transformation of American Life, 1600-1865 (1976). The community studies movement among social scientists during the 1960s and 1970s was a reflection of the concern during those years particularly among youth that traditional American values of community and reliance upon the natural environment were being lost to urbanization and artificial relationships and the mindset of environmental exploitation. To study the early American community was to capture the material and spiritual bases of a time that was forever fading into the distant past. This longing for the ideal traditional community reflected fear that modernization was bringing about an irrevocable society that nobody really wanted.

World Systems Theory and Globalization

The increasingly development of the economies and technological sophistication of “Third World” developing countries added to the revolution in communications inaugurated by digital technology and the internet, along with the fall of the Soviet Union and the apparent triumph of capitalism, led many scholars to question the legitimacy of a theory of development dependent on the traditional-modern model as well as a West-East dichotomy. Immanuel Wallerstein inaugurated a revolution of sorts among social scientific theorists with the publication of The World System. “World systems theory” advocated looking at the world according to developing systems leading eventually to one world system wherein core countries exploit economically peripheral countries. Wallerstein predicted that a world socialist system will eventually dominate the world’s economic, political, and social structures. Many scholars have disagreed with Wallerstein’s assessment, arguing that capitalism will not fall to the wayside, rather will continue to become an integrative, universal force leading to one global economic system. Globalization implies that capitalism might come full circle, realizing the dream of Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1776) that free trade might dominate the world’s peoples, bringing enlightened political ideas in its wake.

Posted in European history, General Essays, Government | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Liberalism

          Liberalism refers to a system of thought that focuses on the good of the whole of society as opposed to its neglect in the service of the restricted few. Liberalism began at a time of rejection of traditional feudal values, structures, and institutions; the opposition to hierarchical forms of government; and the attack on aristocratic privilege. Liberals, the adherents of the philosophy of liberalism, have supported modernizing change as leading to increased freedoms for the individual, the establishment of democratic governments worldwide, and the development of the idea of government as a guide and protector of human happiness. 

          Liberalism’s first great apostle was the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). Conflict, crisis, and civil war dominated the political history of England during the seventeenth century. In 1660 after over a decade of exile Charles Stuart was restored to power in England as King Charles II. Thomas Hobbes the English philosopher defended the Restoration of the monarchy in England. Humans, sinful by nature, require the strong imposition of government authority, Hobbes argued. Strong central government is necessary to corral the passions of humans, to impose order upon chaos. Hobbes’ vision was fulfilled during the reign of Charles II. It was a different story for his successor James II. Parliament, representing the English people, forced James from power in what the English called the Glorious Revolution. A new king, William, agreed to limitations upon his power. Centuries of struggle by the English people had come to a conclusion in the conquest of royal oppression and the accession of law as the true ruler of England.

          John Locke was the philosopher of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Locke had experienced the vast changes that England underwent during the seventeenth century, not only in politics, but in the English economy and thought as well. The power of the landed English aristocracy was slowly waning in light of the continued expansion of manufacturing and trade. Merchants involved in rudimentary corporations employed workers intent on achieving material success. The English economy was breaking away from a landed, agrarian base toward a money economy rich in opportunity for entrepreneurs willing to take risks with capital to invest and to build. Some investors supported colonies in America and Asia; hard-working commoners traveled to such far away places to make their fortune. Political philosophers worked out the theory of mercantilism to justify colonial expansion, arguing that colonies would provide raw materials and serve as markets for English goods. Capitalistic expansion and the consequent attack on the old aristocratic, feudal structures was reflected in politics. After centuries of struggle the English Parliament of the seventeenth century, representing the people of England, stood equal to the King.

          John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government provided the philosophical underpinning for the dramatic political, social, and economic changes occurring in England. Locke sought from the beginning to distance himself from the thinking of his predecessors, particularly Thomas Hobbes, who in Locke’s words believed “that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition, and rebellion.” On the contrary, Locke argued that government is not an angry paternal authority, rather an extension of the goodness of human nature itself. Humans in the state of nature, Locke believed, are competitive but not violent toward one-another. They discover soon enough that by joining together they can more successfully take what they need from nature to survive. This mutual need for greater survival, even happiness, is the basis of government. Humans don’t absolutely require government; rather government is a choice, a voluntary association, which is formed by rational people who realize it is in their own best interest. Humans do operate according to self-interest, yet working for the self does not have to mean warfare, chaos, and competition requiring constant government intervention. Humans, rational by nature, join together into a compact for mutual protection and happiness. Naturally one among their number is chosen to manage the whole. And as long as this one leader, or king, works for the interests of the people, they will obey; otherwise the compact, the association or government, will be dissolved.

          Locke’s theory of property was as follows: He believed that God the Creator endowed the world with sufficient resources to care for all humans. Locke thought that humans should use care with the creation, practice economy with the world’s resources, use only what is necessary and spare the rest for another’s use. Private property was one of Locke’s natural rights (the others being life, liberty, and health). Since humans are inherently free and equal, the resources of creation are therefore equally available for the use of all humans. When, however, a person forages for an item of food, such as acorns, which are initially in this “public domain,” upon retrieving the acorns by one’s own labor, the acorns become a possession of the one who retrieved them. Labor toward the accumulation of goods that are initially open to all human use is the basis of private property. The entrepreneur is the one who expends the most labor to accumulate the most goods. But Locke was adamant that one must labor to achieve only what is necessary, and nothing more.

          England’s Glorious Revolution, as Locke understood it, stood for freedom, equality, liberty, the open society, the good of society and of man, and a government that works for the people rather than to accentuate its own power. These were precisely what Thomas Jefferson, the early American philosopher, third President of the United States, founder of the University of Virginia, and author of the Declaration of Independence, believed about the rights of Americans living under the British government. Jefferson and other Americans believed that King George III and the English Parliament had by 1776 generally rejected the principles of its own government as defined by John Locke and implemented during the Glorious Revolution. Jefferson followed Locke’s thinking closely when he proclaimed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” There is no better statement of liberal philosophy than these words of the Declaration of Independence.

          Actions do not, however, always follow the precise meaning of grand words. Jefferson, for all of his great ideas, was a slave owner throughout his life, not manumitting his slaves until his death fifty years later in 1826. More striking is the example of the French Revolution. French thinkers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau were inspired by Locke to press for a government and society in France based not on the privilege of birth, but on human equality. The French people broke the compact with the French monarchy in 1789, creating in time a government based on the principles of equality. “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen,” echoing Jefferson and Locke, proclaimed that “men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be based only upon the common good.” Freedom, unfortunately, can sometimes reduce itself to anarchy, as American and French conservatives often feared. The French Revolution in time degenerated into a power struggle and blood bath that had hardly anything to do with the rule of law, so dear to Jefferson and Locke.

Liberalism in England continued to focus on the ideas of Locke even as Great Britain fought to retain its empire. Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher who wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, argued that self-interest among humans resulted in healthy competition that did not need government regulation. This was in contrast to the British mercantilist system of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the advocates of which believed in strict government supervision of trade.

Nineteenth-century liberals continued to voice the concerns and develop the ideas of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. In England, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill expanded on the moral thinking of Adam Smith, creating the philosophy of utilitarianism, which sought the greatest good for the greatest number in a society. The Industrial Revolution and new technology deriving from changing ideas of science inspired the same sense of optimism and dedication toward continued progress among nineteenth-century thinkers that had defined previous expressions of liberalism. Liberal thinkers generally embraced the opportunities for social and cultural change suggested by the new philosophies of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The social and behavioral sciences became important professional fields for those who sought ways to reform social structures, institutions, and human behavior. The challenges of the Industrial Revolution-such as the increasing poverty; class disparity between bourgeosie and proletariat; and urban crowding, filth, crime, and pollution-were treated as challenges incumbent upon the process and progress of modernization. Socialists such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Progressives such as Jane Addams and Woodrow Wilson, and Humanists such as Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, embraced new ideas and their implications for society. Naturalism, the philosophy inspired by Charles Darwin; behavioralism, inspired by Sigmund Freud; materialism, the product of Karl Marx; relativism, the offshoot of the theories of Albert Einstein; existentialism, the vague catalog of ideas identified with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche; and the dada movement and other such nihilist philosophies, tended toward the aim of the common good, social justice, free will and freedom, a rejection of traditional ideas and assumptions, and the value of diverse, open societies.

Politics and economic policies reflected the changes in modern society. In both England and America, conservative politics (signified by the Republicans in America, and the Tory party in Great Britain) gave way after the turn of the century to the liberal politics of reform-the Democrats in America and the Labour party in England. “Laissez-faire” economic policy was slowly discarded as liberal politicians such as David Lloyd George and Ramsay McDonald in England and Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt in America adopted interventionist policies wherein government would have a more direct role in economic development and bring government into the fight of the common person for good wages, good working conditions, help when ill or aged, and the general promise of a satisfying material existence.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, for example, began decades of social and economic reform conforming to a liberal agenda of broadened government policies and agencies to help the poor, disadvantaged, unemployed, retired, and disabled. The New Deal was in direct response to the Great Depression, which caught the Republican Hoover administration by surprise. The Democrat Roosevelt further implemented the initial liberal policies of Woodrow Wilson to fight the depression of the 1930s. Roosevelt’s consequent “alphabet soup” of acronyms for a dizzying number of social and economic programs still inspires today’s liberal politician. The New Deal churned out the Banking Act, creating the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to back investor’s deposits in case of bank runs and closures. Farmers were helped with the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which paid farmers to destroy crops and increase land lying fallow so to lessen agricultural supplies and raise farm prices. The New Deal helped the unemployed with a variety of programs. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) brought young men out of the urban areas into the countryside to work on conservation and forest projects in return for a bed, three square meals a day, and a little money. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Public Works Administration (PWA) provided government funds to employ men in public works projects, helping to build the infrastructure of America and helping the confidence of fathers and husbands who were glad once again to bring home good wages to wives and children. The Social Security Act (SSA) created the Social Security Administration (and the Social Security Number and Social Security Card) to protect America’s senior citizens from ever knowing the same degree of want as had older Americans during the Great Depression.

          Subsequent liberal presidents were so inspired by the New Deal to continue its policies and programs. Truman’s Fair Deal and Kennedy’s New Frontier culminated in Johnson’s Great Society, which brought to America the liberal vision of civil rights. These Democrat presidents were not so successful in foreign policy. Johnson’s decision to escalate the war in Vietnam resulted in the dawn of the New Left, the venue for which were America’s college campuses, the members of which were largely student radicals.

          Today’s liberal continues to embrace issues and actions that conservatives find offensive and controversial, but which to the liberal seems appropriate for people concerned with individual rights and government leadership of social and economic reform. The liberal continues to embrace modernization and its consequences, finding in relativism and secularism opportunities for continued human progress.

Sources:

Aaron, Daniel. Writers on the Left. New York: Avon, 1961.

Berman, Ronald. America in the Sixties: An Intellectual History. New York: Free Press, 1968.

Hartz, Louis. The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1955.

Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: time Incorporated, 1962.

Locke, John. Treatise of Civil Government. New York: Irvington Publishers, 1979.

Posted in American History, European history, General Essays, Government | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Laissez Faire

Laissez-Faire, a French phrase that means literally “let do” meaning “let a person alone,” was applied to economics by English and French thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The phrase generally applies to the same conditions in modern as in pre-modern times. Proponents of laissez-faire believe that government controls on economic behavior-trade, companies, prices, wages-curtail the freedom of the individual, not just in his economic life, but in all aspects of life, since economics are often closely tied to social status, moral behavior, and religious beliefs. Laissez-faire philosophy has been associated with both liberal and conservative political philosophies depending on whether it is the liberal or the conservative thinker of a given time who puts the most emphasis on liberty in economic matters.

                The origins of the phrase are unclear save that it was apparently in use by the time Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Indeed, Smith become of the early proponents of the doctrine. Previous to Smith, one finds isolated remarks by English and French observers that mercantilism hampers natural liberty. Mercantilism was (and is) the doctrine that a government imposes rules on trade, particularly international trade. A famous example of mercantilism involves the control of the trade of the British-American colonies in the colonial period before 1776. The British government passed a series of Navigation Acts that curtailed the freedom by which an American producer could export his crop. As a result farmers in the American south were forced to sell their produce to English merchants at a reduced price. Clearly such restrictions seemed to curtail economic potential and the freedom of the individual producer to exchange goods for the best price. Under mercantilism, the British were less apt to restrict domestic trade, which could reveal to any insightful observer the advantages of such liberty.

                John Locke (1632-1704) the English philosopher of the Glorious Revolution anticipated Adam Smith, the greatest proponent of laissez-faire economics, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. Locke argued that humans, though concerned with self-interest, tend to do good, and join together into governmental or economic associations for mutual benefit, but not at the expense of natural liberty. The earth is as it were a public domain set aside by God for all humans to enjoy equally. The apparently endless plenty of nature allows for each person to acquire sufficient materials for his needs. Excess is against the plan of the Creator, hence immoral. Competition among humans for their share of the public domain is natural, yet not harmful, as long as there is more than enough to satisfy every person’s needs. Private property, one of Locke’s fundamental natural rights shared by all humans, derives from a person putting forth labor to acquire goods from the public domain. Private property is therefore not evil, rather a good, as is the competition and labor that results in its acquisition.

                Another group that anticipated Adam Smith was the group of diverse intellectuals known as the Physiocrats. During the mid-eighteenth century the French economy was still very much beholden to the old regime economy of aristocratic land owners and peasant laborers. The Physiocrats believed that such a dominant almost feudal structure limited the exchange of goods and use of capital in the French countryside. Part of the problem they identified was the extensive impositions of the French government on trade and the heavy taxes imposed on farmers. By removing restrictions and reducing taxes, that is by the government accepting a “hands off” or laissez-faire policy, exchange of goods and capital would flow more freely in France; economic liberty would be commensurate with more political liberty.

                Adam Smith observed as much, agreed with the Physiocrats that government policies should give way to the natural liberty of economic production and trade, and agreed with Locke that private property is a sanctified right as a consequence of human labor, and that competition, even for private interests, is valuable and good. Smith despised the contrast of mercantilist policies with free trade. Adam Smith (1723-1790) was a Scottish intellectual who taught at the University of Glasgow. He was essentially a moral philosopher who published The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759. Smith believed that human self-interest is not a barrier to altruism because humans use reason to temper their acquisitiveness. This rational self-interest meant that economic competition would occur according to natural laws of human behavior instructed by reason. There was no justification, therefore, for government to impose restrictions on economic behavior. Such restrictions would be necessary only if humans irrationally engaged in destructive competitive behavior, which was clearly not true to the Enlightenment mind of Adam Smith.

                Smith is usually identified as a proponent of economic liberalism, because he combined his optimistic view of economic competition and restrained self-interest with the liberal assumptions of man’s inherent goodness and collective goal to work for the interests of the common good. Unlike modern liberals, Smith believed that economic behavior did not require government intervention to achieve the maximum good for society. Said goodness could not be imposed, rather would be a natural consequence of human behavior.

                The eighteenth-century American counterpart to the John Locke, the Physiocrats, and Adam Smith was Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). Jefferson was the epitome of the Renaissance man, talented in architecture, music, philosophy, government, history, literature, and so on. He was one of the most complex men of his time, being simultaneously one of the great liberal thinkers of all time yet a slave owner, a proponent of laissez-faire economics yet the president who pushed for the trade embargo of 1808, a believer in limited government yet one of the architects of the United States of America. Jefferson epitomized eighteenth-century economic liberalism in his advocacy of limited government involvement in economic affairs, proponent of free trade among all nations, opposition to protectionism and tariffs, and firm supporter of the agricultural way of life. To Jefferson, as he wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1784), the farmer is the most virtuous of humans because of the inherent liberty of the farming way of life. The farmer pursues self-interest but not at the expense of the common good. The farmer is the best republican because he votes his mind and believes that what is good for him is good for the whole. Jefferson feared the Industrial Revolution because he feared a nation of entrenched urban wage-earners who could not exercise their natural liberty in economic matters and who would become aggressively self-interested without a thought for the common good because of the intense competition waged for limited resources.

                Jefferson’s powerful ideas came to be adopted by many nineteenth-century liberals in America. “Jeffersonianism” became synonymous with laissez-faire liberalism. It must be said, however, that Jeffersonian philosophy was altered over the course of the nineteenth century. The aggressive competition and exploitation consequent upon the Industrial Revolution in Europe and America resulted in a host of philosophies that contradicted classic economic liberalism. Karl Marx (1818-1883), for example, reacted to the perceived class competition between the proletariat and bourgeoisie by advocating (in the Communist Manifesto, co-written with Friedrich Engels in 1848) the destruction of the free market and the embracing of government controls over the economy. At the opposite spectrum, English and American philosophers reacted to Darwin’s theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest by developing a theory to explain human competition. “Social Darwinism” advocated the notions of the free market and the common good built upon the victory of the strongest and fittest over the weakest. Some Social Darwinists, such as Andrew Carnegie, tempered these ideas by arguing that the strongest, hence wealthiest, should eventually give back to the community by means of philanthropic behavior.

                On of the strangest distortions of laissez-faire philosophy involved the Populists of the 1890s. The Populists were a political party made up of farmers of the American south and midwest. Suffering from the exploitation of railroad monopolies that set high prices for transporting farm produce, the Populists advocated government intervention to establish a society and economy consistent with Jeffersonian principles and economic liberalism. In other words, the Populists believed that economic self-interest among farmers resulted in activities for the common good, but corrupt industrialists, monopolists, and politicians were thwarting traditional American economic liberalism. The situation could be remedied only by involvement of the federal government into the economy by means of government ownership of railroads and other utilities, a rejection of the monetary Gold Standard, and the adoption of a national income tax.

                The Populist political program only succeeded with the rise to political power and socio-economic influence of the Progressives. The Progressives possessed the heritage of American economic liberalism but at the same time realized and wanted to address the varied problems brought about by the Industrial Revolution. It was under the influence of the Progressives that the first two decades of the twentieth century in America witnessed the onset of the income tax, legislation putting restrictions on business practices and monopolies, a constitutional amendment to make United States senators more directly answerable to the people, the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the achievement of women’s suffrage.

                Similar occurrences marked English politics of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), the two most important English utilitarian philosophers, mitigated the classical laissez-faire theory of Adam Smith to take account of industrialization and its negative consequences. The utilitarians believed that private interest working for the common good–the essence of laissez-faire economics–should continue to be the driving principle behind the relationship of government to the economy. But sometimes the common good demanded government intervention to aid the plight of the poor, to restrict unfair corporate practices, and the like.

                The ironic twist that laissez-faire took around the turn of the century is best illustrated by the example of American political parties. The Republicans, formerly the Whigs and before that the Federalists, had long advocated government involvement in the economy. Alexander Hamilton, for example, proposed the federal support of investment in the economy, the accumulation of federal debt (assuming it from the thirteen states), and the promotion of manufacturing. The Whigs of the 1830s advocated the American System of federal investment in America’s infrastructure. Abraham Lincoln and the early Republicans promoted the interests of American corporations and sought a strong and united economic union. But industrial changes and the growing protests of wage-earners and the poor put the Republicans into a defensive posture, so that they increasingly returned to a defense of laissez-faire economic policy to prevent government restrictions on American capitalists. The hands off policy of the American government reached a climax during the 1920s and the Republican administration of Calvin Coolidge.

                The Democrats, on the other hand, who had long promoted the interests of the individual and the state, by 1900 demanded the tempering of laissez-faire economics with government intervention. The initial programs of the Populists and Progressives bore fruit during the 1930s with the Roosevelt administration. The Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who cut his political teeth on Progressive and Wilsonian politics, realized that the Great Depression symbolized the bankruptcy of laissez-faire economics. The New Deal of the 1930s followed by the Fair Deal of the 1940s and 1950s, and the New Frontier and Great Society of the 1960s, revealed the commitment of the Democratic party to government taking over the pursuit of the common good. Twentieth-century philosophers like John Maynard Keynes declared that the once positive assumptions of economic liberalism had fallen short, that private interest did not somehow miraculously work for the common good, that it was up to government to temper private interest for the good of all people.

                The Great Depression of 1929 and after was the watershed in the history of laissez-faire economics. The Depression caused such panic and anxiety, weakened and destroyed the economies of great nations, that no Western industrial government would advocate a return to the principles of laissez-faire. Even the conservative Republicans of American politics and the Tories in Great Britain were forced to concede the failure of economic liberalism. Pure laissez-faire economics had come to an end.

Sources:

Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Time Incorporated, 1962.

Ekelund, Jr., Robert B. and Robert F. Hebert. A History of Economic Theory and Method. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Notes on the State of Virginia.” In The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Modern Library, 1944. Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to FDR. New York: Knopf, 1981.

Posted in American History, General Essays, Government | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Conservatism

Conservatism is a system of thought that focuses upon upholding traditional values, social structure, government, and economic systems. Conservatives hold specific views about the role of government in the economy and the value of democracy. Conservatives have sometimes been suspicious of change in a modernizing world, and usually try to support to traditional institutions.

 
The origins of conservatism occurred in seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe and America. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, author of “Leviathan,” argued that government is necessary to provide order that is typically lacking among humans subject to the consequences of original sin. For Hobbes, “all men in the state of nature have a desire and will to hurt” because they are all seeking the same thing, power. The solution, Hobbes believed, was that the English should “confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, onto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person.”


A century later another English philosopher Edmund Burke, reacting to the astonishing changes brought about by the French Revolution, sought to promote the stability of past tradition and absolute, unchanging values. Revolution is about utter change, chaos, ideas and institutions never before seen. Burke attacked the ideological program of the French revolutionaries, who worked to destroy the hierarchy of church and state and the aristocratic belief in human inequality. Burke was shocked by the revolutionary program to create a secular state, to abandon divine providence, to substitute traditional morality with humanistic values, to embrace modern capitalism and all of its implications. Burke feared the impact of laissez-faire economics and the rejection of landed property as the traditional basis of society, economy, and government.


Leading conservatives in America at the time of the American and French revolutions included John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. Adams and Hamilton were leaders of the Federalist political faction that strongly advocated the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. These American conservatives were heavily influenced by the writings of Thomas Hobbes. Adams and Hamilton did not go as far as Hobbes, defending the English monarchy, but they accepted his pessimistic assessment of human nature, and assumed that government must impose order upon its people. They applauded the Constitution for circumscribing the liberties of the American citizen within the structure of an orderly, rational government. American conservatives feared the disruptive consequences of the American Revolution, and sought to prevent anarchy and chaos by the overwhelming influence of the best men, that is, the economic, social, and cultural elite. Adams, for example, believed not in an aristocracy of birth (as did Burke) but in an aristocracy of talent and merit. This “natural aristocracy” represented the very few in America, who should inevitably supervise the liberties of the majority. Such was the reasoning behind the Electoral College, which would mediate the popular vote with the influence of the elite Electors. Hamilton, the first Secretary of Treasury, advocated an economic program that made the federal government very influential in the credit and banking structures of the United States. He encouraged the government to promote manufacturing, international trade, policies favoring the rich, and investment in the American economy.


The Industrial Revolution, new technologies, and the dominance of scientific thinking in the nineteenth century forced conservatives to reassess their ideas and policies. Conservative programs of continued government involvement in the economy during the early nineteenth century, such as Henry Clay’s American System, gave way in the post Civil War era to a view that embraced laissez-faire economics. Republicans advocated limited government involvement in the economy, and opposition to labor and trade unions and other such reforms that would impede unlimited economic progress. They advocated economic policies that supported the wealthy, big-business, and manufacturing interests, which in turn would benefit the entire economy, and all Americans, rich as well as poor. The maintenance of a limited money supply, which supported creditors over debtors, brought opposition to the Republican administrations of, for example, William McKinley, from liberal reform groups such as the Populists. Industrialists such as Andrew Carnegie spoke for the majority of conservatives in “The Gospel of Wealth,” arguing that competition dominates economic and social existence; those who compete the best also thrive the best. Social Darwinists such as William Graham Sumner applied the implications of Darwin’s theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest to humans: inequality is the natural state of things; the poor serve a purpose–performing the drudgery of human labor; likewise the rich serve a purpose–directing the application of labor to the infrastructure of society.


In the early part of the twentieth century American conservatives such as Irving Babbitt and Paul Elmer More, who led an intellectual movement called the New Humanism, feared the rise of the masses, the typical American and his rude habits and uncultured jargon, the anti-intellectualism in American life. The New Humanists believed modern society was under attack from the new ideologies of pragmatism, naturalism, materialism, behavioralism, and liberalism. Babbitt, More, and other New Humanists believed in the moral presence of decorum and order existing within the human soul, which by cultivation and intuition can be accessed–but only a very few can do so. The New Humanists were not alone in responding with concern that the post World War I era would bring new democratic, liberal forces to the world. The “Roaring 20s” in America included a conservative reaction to the war in the forms of prohibition, the Red Scare, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and the Republican administrations of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.


Late nineteenth- early twentieth-century American conservatives were clearly influenced by their European counterparts. In 1889, German intellectual Ferdinand Tonnies argued that the impact of modernization upon a traditional society had caused artificial associations to replaced the organic institutions of family and community; close-knit society and orderly class structure were giving way to a new middle class and working class with completely different moral assumptions, economic concerns, and social habits. Other European conservatives such as Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Auguste Comte examined past societies to question the validity of modern change upon medieval, communitarian institutions.


Conservatism after World War II was of two types. First, there was the intellectual conservatism of thinkers such as Russell Kirk, author of The “Conservative Mind” (1953). Kirk’s brand of conservative thought was similar to that of nineteenth-century conservatives in his focus on absolute truth and morality, elitism, and opposition to modern relativism and secularism. The horror of the madness of Hitler and the use of atomic bombs during World War II led to a confused and fearful response in America. Added to such uncertainty was the triad of tragedies in 1949 and 1950: the Soviet Union’s acquisition of the A-Bomb, the fall of China to Communism, and the attack of communist North Korea against South Korea. Anxiety about communism led to fears of espionage and the emergence of Joseph McCarthy to public attention. Many American conservatives rallied around McCarthy and his ideas of anti-communism and anti-liberalism–in short, opposition to anything that appeared un-American. Such was the mentality that William Buckley touted in starting the magazine, the “National Review,” in the 1950s.

The second expression of post war conservatism has been represented by the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 1964 against Lyndon B. Johnson, became the spokesman for a new political conservatism embracing the economic principles of laissez-faire. Goldwater, author of The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), argued for a vastly reduced federal government and deregulation of economic and social policies in favor of turning power over to state and local governments. Conservatives, according to Goldwater, opposed the rights of labor, the fight for civil rights, and government intervention into the economy. He supported individual freedoms and the sanctity of private property. He saw the federal government as having a limited role, involving itself in maintaining public order and involvement in foreign affairs. Goldwater’s stance on the cold war and the spread of communism in Europe, Asia, and Africa was that of a “hawk.” He believed in aggressive military and economic containment and confronting the Soviet Union and its communist satellites with vast superiority of nuclear weapons.

Although Goldwater lost to Johnson, his ideals found new life during the Republican administrations of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Both Nixon and Reagan endorsed Goldwater’s run for president, and both gained important influence in supporting a lost cause. Nixon rode his conservative reputation to the White House in 1968, while Reagan became a leading conservative spokesman and governor of California. As a two term president from 1981 to1989, Reagan continued to be the point-person for the conservative movement.

Today, conservatism is still an important political philosophy focusing on government restraint, the free market, individual freedoms, and strong defense of American values both at home and abroad.

Sources:

Lora, Ronald. Conservative Minds in America. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1979.

Guttmann, Allen, The Conservative Tradition in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Diggins, John P. Up from Communism: Conservative Odysseys in American Intellectual History. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

Hoeveler, Jr., J. David. The New Humanism: A Critique of Modern America, 1900-1940. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1977. Hobbes Selections. Edited by F. J. E. Woodbridge. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930.


(A version of this essay was originally published in the “Encyclopedia of Capitalism,” Facts on File)

Posted in American History, Christianity, European history, General Essays, Government | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Science in the Ancient World: From Antiquity through the Middle Ages

            Ancient science was the intellectual pursuit to understand the origins and workings of nature and humanity. Science is a term that encompasses many methods and varied disciplines over time. Science has engaged human thought for millennia. The questions that scientists ask tend to remain largely the same even as the answers differ according to time and culture. The strange and sometimes simple explanations that the ancient Greeks and Romans gave for natural phenomena appear less absurd to the modern mind when one considers that the answers of today may appear ridiculous to observers a thousand years from now. Among ancient scientists–the Mesopotamians, Persians, Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Africans, Americans–the Greeks were far and away the leaders in scientific inquiry because they asked the most penetrating questions, many of which still elude a complete answer.             There is a temptation to view the past according to the standards and precepts of the present. The historian encounters countless similarities when comparing modern and ancient science; clearly the building blocks of today’s science were formed two to three thousand years ago in the ancient Mediterranean. Nevertheless, the development of ancient science occurred in a pre-industrial age before the dawn of Islam or Christianity, during a polytheistic, superstitious time. Magic and astrology were considered as legitimate as medicine and astronomy. The earth was the center of a finite universe; the planets twinkled like gods watching from above; the moon governed the fertility of nature and woman. Fertility symbols and statuettes of priestesses and mother goddesses dot the archeological finds from the dozens of millennia BCE, reminding us of the power women once had in ancient societies before the coming of male gods reflecting male dominance. Rhea, Cybele, Artemis, Hera, Isis, and Ishtar were early fertility goddesses who represented the universal mother image who brought life, love, and death to her children the humans.

            In some ways ancient scientists would be scarcely recognizable to contemporary, twenty-first century scientists. The scientists described and portrayed in this book were priests, government officials, kings, emperors, slaves, merchants, farmers, and aristocrats. They wrote history, biography, essays. They were artists, explorers, poets, musicians, abstract thinkers, sensualists. The demands upon scientific study then were different than today. The study of astrology was necessary to know one’s fate, the future. Astronomy and mathematics were essential to forming calendars to fit the cycles of nature and seasons of the year. The ancient scientist was often seeking a practical result rather than pursuing scientific thought for its own sake. At the same time, the ancient scientist was something of a wise person, a community savant who was expected to know–or at least to have thought about, or investigated–all things natural, spiritual, and human. The Greeks called such a thinker polumathes, which is the origin for our word polymath, someone who is learned in many fields of knowledge.             At the same time ancient scientists pursued some of the same goals as their modern counterparts. Modern physicists and chemists seek to know the basic particles that comprise matter in the universe; ancient Stoics and Epicureans hypothesized the same particles and sought the same knowledge of the movement and patterns of atoms. Albert Einstein the theoretical physicist wanted to know the mind of God, the ultimate secrets of the universe, which was a continuing search inaugurated three thousand years before in the ancient Mediterranean. Einstein would have liked Plato; Neils Bohr the twentieth-century Danish physicist would have found a friend in Aristotle. What are the abstract patterns present in the universe? Mathematicians today and millennia ago have been united in the quest to find out, to impose the rational human mind upon the most complex and least concrete inquiry. Psychologists today still work in the shadow of the great psychologists of the past, though the present concern to know the human mind and the nature of personality is a more secular pursuit than it once was. Political scientists today still rely on the initial systematic inquiries into human government that Plato and Aristotle made in the fourth century BCE. Students at modern medical schools take the Hippocratic Oath, recognizing that if the techniques of medicine have changed from the days of Hippocrates and Galen, the ultimate goals and humanitarian concerns have not. In short, the college arts and science curricula and professional scientific careers of today are not a recent development. Rather the moderns in pursuit of knowledge of man and the universe continually ascend the intellectual and methodological building blocks constructed during antiquity.

(From the Introduction, Science in the Ancient World: From Antiquity through the Middles Ages, published by ABC Clio, 2021).

A new affordable paperback version of the book is available on Amazon Jan. 22, 2026. Find it at: https://www.amazon.com/Science-Ancient-World-Antiquity-through/dp/B0FSW74DKZ/ref=books_amazonstores_desktop_mfs_aufs_ap_sc_dsk_0?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=6oCC7&content-id=amzn1.sym.299f645c-0a78-440a-94a2-fb482e7cb326&pf_rd_p=299f645c-0a78-440a-94a2-fb482e7cb326&pf_rd_r=142-5197957-8175817&pd_rd_wg=Erb81&pd_rd_r=7cdd0d6a-0a38-49cf-a2ba-a1a0959be396

Posted in books, European history, History of Science | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Idols

Idols

The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the works of men’s hands . . .

Statues straight, statues tall, supporting those who fall, propping up those who feel down, giving peace without a sound. For “they have a mouth, but they cannot speak.” They mirror the dreams of humans, and stone and marble give hope to those who are empty, lonely, full of hate, mind and body a terrible state. They have a mouth, eyes, ears, noses, hands, feet, but cannot speak, see, hear, smell, touch, and walk.

Let those that make them become like them . . .

“Beautiful idol destroy our fears,” they pray to stone, “through clouds and darkness make it clear,” they ask, “tell us what is true, what is fact, how we should be and act.” Can stone tell us what to perceive, reveal to humans what to believe.? Can stone tell a person if what they see is an accurate reflection of what they see?

. . . and all who trust in them . . .

And those who trust in idols ask them: “Tell me that you are real, that the confusion I feel, deep inside, within my being, is false, since not the same as seeing the matchless beauty of human art, marble complement to the human heart. No need for God, no need for Scripture, all I need is a secular mixture of stone from the soil and the sculptor’s toil–To produce a heavenly deity, wrought from earthly fealty.”

Rather than idols, the Lord.

They that fear the Lord trust in the Lord . . .

“He is their helper and defender,” the Psalmist says. “The Lord has remembered us, and blessed us.” The Lord blesses not only humans but the Creation as well. And yet He puts the Creation in human hands. Such an apparent contradiction has a subtle purpose, a truth, that evades the philosopher and theologian. David says also, mistakenly that the dead do not praise the Lord, when in fact the dead have the loudest voices of praise to the Creator of the Creation.

Bless the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

Posted in poetry | Tagged | Leave a comment

Who is the King of Glory?

The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof . . .

Thousands, millions—countless—creatures die every day due to fire, floods, drought, heat, cold. But why? Why does God allow His creation to die, often en masse? Why are the young taken, sometimes before they are born? Why are the weak and helpless the first to go? Why are the strong and healthy enabled to live longest? Where is the compassion? Where is the mercy? The answer is found in the words of Psalm 24.

The world and all who dwell therein . . .

In the act of Creation God grants life: however long, it is still life. As Marcus Aurelius once said in Meditations, the longest and the shortest lives are in the end the same: duration doesn’t matter, rather the simple fact—the gift—of life. God is a plentiful God. His creativeness knows no boundaries. The Creation is full, and this fullness is an expression of compassion and love.

Who shall go up to the mountain of the Lord? . . .

The Psalmist, having established God’s sovereignty over the Creation, asks a sudden and astonishing question. Who will join with, be with, the Creator, in life and in death? When God creates, and when His creation dies, does that departed individual cease to exist, does it return to dust, to the primal elements?

He that is innocent in his hands and pure in his heart . . .

The Psalmist responds that the innocent and pure will be with God in His holy place. And yet who is innocent? Who is pure? How can any created being be truly innocent and pure? What are the standards for such status?

Who has not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully to his neighbor . . .

Vanity and deceit: these are the detractors from innocence and purity. What creatures are vain and deceitful? What creatures are full of themselves, so sure of their own power, so tied to the mirror, so convinced that they are in fact gods? What creatures are deceivers, who refuse the truth, refuse to surrender themselves to what is real, who embrace the false, who create idols by which to deceive themselves and others? These are the creatures, says the Psalmist, that will not ascend to God’s holy place.

He shall receive a blessing from the Lord . . .

The brute creatures, the forms of life that humans despise, control, destroy–these, says the Psalmist, will ascend to the Lord’s holy mount. They are innocent and pure. And humans? What of them? They have a choice. What will they embrace? What code will they live by? Who will they join? Who will they worship? Who will they allow to enter their dwellings, their public buildings?

Lift up the gates, . . . and the King of Glory shall come in . . .

Open the gates to the city and its establishments, the doors to dwellings and homes, the access to the human heart and mind, so that the King of Glory shall enter.

Who is this King of Glory? The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of Glory.

Posted in Christianity, Reflections on the Psalms | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment