EPTAlso refreshing with someone trolling with such a intelectual angle on things.
Moltke - Page 2
| Blogs > Boblion |
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
Also refreshing with someone trolling with such a intelectual angle on things. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Carry on please. | ||
|
Cpt Obvious
Germany3073 Posts
I've been wondering for years! A cookie for anyone who gets the reference. Oh and Moltke, go get laid please. You're getting on everyone's nerves  | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On June 29 2009 03:41 MoltkeWarding wrote: How ironic that a blog titled Moltke turns into a blog about Moltke. Carry on please. Hmm, quite. ![[image loading]](http://theophiliacs.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/pipe-smoking-man-2.jpg) | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
Indubidibly. | ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
On June 29 2009 03:41 MoltkeWarding wrote: How ironic that a blog titled Moltke turns into a blog about Moltke. Yeah, I expected a blog on icecream. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: I am just curious- of which system are you speaking? The early nobles of France (Frankish chieftains endowed with land by the Merovengian kings) were certainly not politically independent, but between the 10th and 16th centuries, the French aristocracy were highly independent political actors with loose feudal bonds to the central monarchy. Feudalism was a decentralized political system. While your statement is not wrong, it does not state anything but the obvious- society particularly in the aristocratic ages was composed of complex symbiotic relationships between the various classes, each of which performed a necessary function to society. Moltke if you can't understand that my main problem with monarchy is the "société de classe" with the clergé, noblesse and the tiers etat ( well this word is only used for the latest stage of the monarchy era here ), i'm sorry. So you basicly agree with me when i say that there was no thing such as "freedom of expression". On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: I am saying that your black/white view of censorship and freedom of expression are simplistic, and frankly, ignorant. The great century of formalism, rigid etiquette and restricted taste in France was the 17th century, not the 18th. The Paris of Louis XV was relatively libertine in comparison to that of his great-grandfather. Voltaire was the greatest celebrity of the age and no one could keep him out of Paris for long. Public opinion during the reign of Louis XV was already nigh-supreme. Yea people had more freedom under Louis XVI than under Louis XIV. But make a comparison with the Third Republic or today and you will understand why i said that the freedom of expression has increased. 1- Jewish people and protestants were HIGHLY discriminated during the whole monarchy era. ( hihi révocation de l'édit de Nantes, massacre de la saint Barthélemy etc On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: You are pressing on two overlapping but unidentical issues- monachism on one hand, and religious conflicts on the other. While not intending to whitewash Louis XIV's acquiescence in the revocation of Nantes, it is too simplistic to lay the entire blame on him. I never did that. But because of traditions and archaism of the monarchy as a political system, catholism was the State religion because the "legitimacy" of the king rely on "Droit divin". Hence the whole system couldn't be completly fair and tolerant with others religions. On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: The King, a devoted catholic but essentially humane man, was never made personally aware of the extent of abuses against the Huguenots in his Kingdom. It's ironically selective that you lay the guilt of the revocation of Nantes at the door of Louis XIV, while giving no credit to Henry IV, whose original promogulation of the Edict brought an end to the wars of religion in France and ushered in a period of religious tolerance. Moltke Henry IV did that because he was born protestant. He had to convert himself to catholicism to reign but because he was not a bad king ( and because he still liked his first religion ) he decided to create this law. However when Louis XIV ( an highly devoted catholic ) did the revocation, the persecution started again ( well they had already started but he made it legal ). Why ? Because this is the will of the king. The will of an absolute catholic monarch. On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: The history of the reformation shows that religious conflict for most nations began at the grassroots level, and later became politicized. This is important; had a National Assembly pontificated at the end of the Wars of Religion, there was no way that an edict of tolerance would ever have been issued. Moltke i have already said that this was a different era, people were more violent and intolerant. The concept alone of a "National Assembly" could not has been understood by people. And that's my very problem with your initial post: you are making comparisons between different countries at different times. On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: If you wish to see Republicanism in action during the era of Religious fervour, perhaps this shall be instructive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland i don't know a lot about the history of Ireland so i won't try to discuss this. You are missing the big picture, the overall evolution between a monarchy with a State religion and a société de classes and the latest forms of the Republique ( with elections, no State religion, increased freedom of expression and equality of rights between citizens ( they aren't "sujets" anymore ). On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: Kings rarely promogulated laws on arbitrary whim. Policies were pushed into the royal council by members of court factions, deliberated upon, and given royal assent. However, what this example highlights is not process but extent. In the middle ages, it may have been plausible for municiple councils to prescribe public dress codes, but Kings? Such a sweeping act would have been totally outside of his power to enforce. Moltke: 1- This law doesn't exist. It is a "study". 2- just an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran http://books.google.fr/books?id=QErKNTFrZnkC&printsec=frontcover This was the religion of State so basicly the king had to enforce the discrimination of jews if the pope said so ( although later the kings were less dependant of the pope decisions ). On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: During the height of Napoleon's popularity, bread prices were higher than ever during the era of Louis XVI. I'm not a fan of Napoléon either. He was maybe a good general but he killed thousands of people for 15 years of self-glory On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: Nor could Louis XVI have raised millions of Frenchmen for his armies via mass conscription. But he could have send in prison or killed almost anyone in his country. Anyway you are talking about different times, the whole concept of "conscription" is linked to nationalism and citizenship, things that didn't existed at that time. Btw there is no more conscription atm and the president has not this power except for "période extraordinaire" ( From wiki ) Les pouvoirs du président en période extraordinaire L'article 16 permet au président dans des périodes de crise de concentrer presque tous les pouvoirs. Il fixe les conditions dans lesquels il peut être mis en application. Les institutions de la République, l'indépendance de la Nation, l'intégrité de son territoire, l'exécution des engagements internationaux doivent être menacés d'une manière grave et immédiate. Il a beaucoup été reproché à cette phrase son flou, laissant la possibilité d'une interprétation arbitraire. L'article 16 fixe cependant une autre condition qui donne une garantie plus importante contre l'arbitraire sans l'exclure totalement. Il faut que les circonstances aient pour conséquence d'interrompre le fonctionnement régulier des pouvoirs publics constitutionnels. Il existe aussi des conditions de formes peu contraignantes. Le président doit consulter le Premier ministre, les présidents des assemblées et le conseil constitutionnel. Il doit informer la Nation de sa décision. Le président se saisit alors des pleins pouvoirs. Il peut prendre toutes les mesures exigées par les circonstances. La constitution ne fixe aucune limite mais l'article 16 précise que ces mesures doivent être inspirées par la volonté d'assurer le retour à la normale dans les moindres délais. Se pose le problème de contrôle du président en période extraordinaire. En effet, si le parlement continue à se réunir, il n'a aucun pouvoir de contrôle car le président est irresponsable devant lui. Le président ne peut cependant ni dissoudre l'Assemblée nationale, ni organiser un référendum pendant toute la durée de la mise en application de l'article 16. L'article 16 n'a été mis en application qu'une seule fois, en 1961 après le putsch des généraux à Alger. La situation a été vite rétablie mais l'article 16 avait été maintenu pendant 5 mois. Pierre Mazeaud, ancien président du Conseil constitutionnel, le juge totalement obsolète. It happened only during 5 months during the last 50 years because of a military coup. On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: Nor could Louis XVI have raised extraordinary taxes without the consent of parliament (if Sarkozy and the National Assembly pushed their taxation on a 18th century public, they would be thrown out of office overnight.) There would be several demonstrations and their chances of being reelected as MP or president would be lowered. On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: Nor could he regulate healthcare, education, or even centralize the justice process within his Kingdom. A monarch could have at the worst exercised arbitrary and irresponsible power. He was institutionally incapable of exercising total power. You are still free to study in private schools or to go in a private hospital that the main difference. But maybe you are feeling a bit nostalgic about the "saignées" and you miss all those charlatans who were called doctors ? So basicly you agree that he was unpopular in 1792. Thanks. However i highly doubt that the "récits" of coronations are accurate. Even the worst dictators have their admirers and panégyristes. On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: Again, you alternatively lean on philosophy and history. If you admit that it's possible for a monarch to be popular, you would demand evidence. If you are shown evidence, you say that it's improbable. Moltke. I don't know if he was popular when he became king but your "evidences" aren't substantial. However he was clearly umpopular in 1792 ( hence the revolution ) On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: This is nothing more than ideological bias. Anyhow, mass jubilation at coronation were regular spectacles in modern monarchies. If millions could weep at Mao's death in 1976, why would you doubt that millions could rejoice at the coronation of Louis XVI, a man who was perhaps unduly preoccupied with pleasing the public? Maybe there was a majority of people who rejoiced at the coronation, maybe not. There was no opinion polls or surveys so nobody knows. However i have a different opinion. Yea so what ? Does it make the USSR of Gorbachev a "fair" state ? On June 29 2009 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: I see what your problem (and the problem of French politics) is: you are led by your revolution to expect a utopian state, and overthrow regime after regime when they fail to procure it for you. No since the Third Republic there is no need of revolutions here. Changes can happen democratically ( If you forget the interlude of Vichy ). | ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
On June 29 2009 03:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: Sorry, Cpt. I'm a bit more thrifty with my money than your average German. And also this: The point is none of these women are marriable. Pictures don't tell much about how attractive someone really is. How can you know whether you're attracted to a person or not until you know -Their religion, and respective piety -Their family and family history -Their socio-economic class -Their artistic and literary talents -Their sensitivity, romanticism and sentimentalism -Their patriotism, provincialism, and rootedness in their native culture -Their cooking, cleaning and other domestic abilities -Their mental and emotional stability -Their historical attitude and preferences regarding bourgeois family life -Their racial origins (if not already clear) -Their feminine virtues (virginity, modesty, etc) The above listed constitute 95% of the qualifications for any marriable and therefore attractive girl. Sorry just had to. Love that post so much. | ||
|
bN`
Slovenia504 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.defco.org/images/Jesus-Thanks.gif) | ||
|
SnowFantasy
4173 Posts
On June 29 2009 04:25 bN` wrote: I'd just like to point out the necessity and usefulness of intellectual discussions about French history over the internet. lol. you're pretty brave. edit: LOL WTF DID I SPEND MY 2k POST ON. vroom vroom im a tank. | ||
|
ilovezil
United States4143 Posts
On June 29 2009 03:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: Sorry, Cpt. I'm a bit more thrifty with my money than your average German. Oh damn, hahahaha | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Nice try, but no Being smart is not just about using big synonyms for short words. Again, another attempt to 'refute' something by attacking quality of language. Moltke's posts (and my own, if you were trying to take a shot at me) aren't just big words. There is a VERY SIMPLE observation that he made during the iran thread. In general you could boil his entire set of statements on the issue to one of evolutionary vs. revolutionary reform, with him sitting on the evolutionary side. His statements, however, preclude a lack of assumption about the nature and quality of democracy and monarchy that some people simply aren't getting around. No one's even touched these topics. No one's bothered to. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
The way you choose your words, however, hurts your point and distracts the reader because you're not using them properly (since you don't seem to understand their meaning). I didn't even analyse what you were trying to say because I assumed your point was that big words are unnecessary and confusing. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
A+ (L I <3 u) | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
In this case, he seems to have taken up a rather hard position to hold, though. If I'm understanding the argument correctly, Moltke is making the point that even ancient monarchs did not have as much power as modern heads of state--but surely this is not because they were monarchs but despite that fact. Their governmental system (monarchy) afforded them in theory much more power than a modern president or prime ministers: modern rulers have terms after which they must be reconfirmed, they can be demoted (within the framework of government--not through rebellion) even within those terms, and we do not have to swear allegiance to them. The fact that in many ways they have more power in a practical sense than ancient monarchs did, merely reflects the fact that modern society, more developed both technologically and organizationally allows government--any form of it--to wield more power than in former times. Moltke tries to distinguish between ancient monarchs and modern totalitarians, but in my opinion the key difference is not between "monarch" and "totalitarian" but between "ancient" and "modern". (This doesn't mean that there are no arguments in favor of monarchies or dictatorships, for that matter, but I don't think that Moltke's argument in particular holds water.) | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
1) I don't understand Boblion's attitudes toward the class system of (?) in all of French history prior to 1XXX (?) I might make some assumptions based on your ideological background, but since you have made no attempts to argue for, or even state what your position is, how am I supposed to understand anything? 2) Kings could not be religiously tolerant. On the contrary, Charles I, James II, most enlightened despots were relatively tolerant religiously. The English Republic, parliament during the era of the glorious revolution, the Jacobin republic, the Soviet Union were religiously intolerant. The one possible case you might make would be the relative intolerance of Charles V in the protestant Netherlands, as compared to the tolerant Dutch republic, but in the Netherlands the Duke of Alba clearly overstepped his legal boundaries, and revolt was by the law of the realm a legitimate one. 3) Kings had a general ability to act with arbitrary despotism, such as imprisoning or even executing individuals As I already indicated this was the worst a King could have done. Whether a King could have enacted something akin to the Jacobin reign of terror by the 18th century is doubtful. However discriminatory royal justice could have theoretically been (true for all forms of justice,) its reach was limited. Justice in France did not become centralized until 1804. Justice in the feudalized and even early-modern state was so decentralized and fragmented, that Royal courts rarely pontificated directly in the day to day handling of justice throughout the Kingdom. Justice was for the most part executed by baronal, clerical, or municipal courts, so the majority of carriages or miscarriages of justice in the Kingdom had nothing to do with the King. The particularity of justice in the middle and early-modern ages was not its arbitrary nature (there were diverse legal procedures in place very early on, handed down from various Roman and Germanic customs,) but its decentralization and overlapping jurisdictions of the various courts. The system may have been confusing, and occasionally with superstitious procedures thrown in, but it could hardly be compared to Stalinist justice. 4) A democratic society naturally tends toward several virtues, including freedom of expression, equality, and elections. Any argument on a subject this general is destined to be incomplete, and produce unforeseeable tangents This is a complex subject, because it deals with the nature of democracy itself. Complex because what democracy is is difficult to define (contrary to election slogans, the people never really "speak" in modern democracies, much less "govern.") Complex because any incarnation of any political system cannot but bear unique cultural features. Also complex because we live in a democratic age, where the entire fabric of political thought has been unrecognizably altered by yawning normative assumptions. As some people may know, Tocqueville's Democracy in America, volume 2 even more than 1, is a kind of bible for me. At the risk of appearing fawningly dependent, I will attempt to summarize some ambiguities which it imparted to me. That democracy is the epoch where the masses of men tend toward increasing equality is a given. That equality is not necessarily compatible with liberty was known by our aristocratic ancestors better than by our generation (Tocqueville predicted that if forced to choose, men of the democratic age would choose equality over liberty.) That ages of equality produced novel kinds of dangers to civilization and to individuals was also better understood by them than by us. Tocqueville, who saw the future more clearly than most aristocratic conservatives of his time, differed from their critiques of democracy in several ways: The majority of anti-democratic conservatives of his generation saw in the age of equality a tendency toward intellectual and social anarchy; they saw a mass of men, each with self-important opinions and ideas, grappling in contest with a sea of other individuals. In these circumstances all social institutions must break down before the uncontrollable chaos of individual diversities. Tocqueville saw differently, that the danger which confronted democratic minds was not anarchy, but conformity. He saw like his peers the inflated appetites of every individual in a democratic age for intellectual distinction, but he also saw other things: he foresaw the impatience of the mobile, democratic man, who would be more prone to intellectual shortcuts than his aristocratic ancestor. He saw the fondness of democratic mind for vast generalizations. He saw that the coming weakness of the individual in the age of mass sovereignty would prod the individual toward forms of collective thought. He foresaw the democratic propensity to deny free will, and to move toward certain mechanical forms of thought and living. He saw the possibility of a new kind of tyranny emerging upon the shoulders of mass sentiment, degrading the individual without tormenting him. He would have recognized Kierkegaard's lamentations on the democratic mutations of speech and thought: The people demand freedom of speech as a substitute for freedom of thought which they rarely exercise. Yet for all this, Tocqueville cannot be called an anti-democrat, and contrary to Boblion's indictment, neither can I. Nonetheless, it must be recognized that for all our intellectual "freedom," the democratic, uncensored world has yet to produce a Shakespeare or Dante, or even a Voltaire or Johnson. For "freedom," our minds are in some ways more confined, our horizons more myopic, our capacities for concentration weaker, than the educated men of aristocratic times. That our generation has a weaker ability to deliver those rare but awesome geniuses of the aristocratic or semi-aristocratic ages is obvious. On the matter of elections, there is not much to be preferred of an elective monarchy over a hereditary one. The degeneration of modern elections from popularity contests to publicity contests, with the simultaneous elevation of executive powers and the breakdown of traditional constitutional mechanisms of checks and balances is the consequence of accidental democratic and populist pressures, rather than of sober design. Minding the world in which I live, I would have no complaints against a traditional kind of constitutional monarchy, with powers balanced among the monarchial, aristocratic, and democratic elements of society. It is alas, too late for that. Having said that, I do not oppose or even resist the prevailing democratic age. I was born into it, and it is integral to who I am. At the same time, I must be honest in evaluating the past, and cannot join in the parade of discrediting our ancestors by simplistic cliches and knowing remonstrations. Alongside our gains, I must at least try to remember our losses. I cannot view monarchies, particularly in the proper historical context, as something detrimental to progress. At the risk of making a vast generalization, the institution of monarchy was at least, a historical necessity, and at its best, a fundamental pillar of western civilization. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
The way you choose your words, however, hurts your point and distracts the reader because you're not using them properly (since you don't seem to understand their meaning). I didn't even analyse what you were trying to say because I assumed your point was that big words are unnecessary and confu They're all perfectly valid uses of the words I used. I could give you less complex words, but then you miss some of the precision in the meaning I wanted to convey. For instance, if I said Moltke's logic was simply unrivaled instead of untrammeled, you'd assume that I meant he was the apex of logic, in a sense. Undisputable. Ultimate. But that's not what I suggested; I merely stated that the best possible routes of coherent disagreement have not been taken. To use untrammeled in that instance is to show that his logic is rather unrestrained, which if you looked at my analysis of his the interaction between the logic presented and pre-held assumptions, is rather true. His logic is unrestrained on the level of conception, on the level of opposition. The duality of this statement makes it far more worth reading than a simple moral judgement ("Moltke's argument is good") because it exposes fundamental and structural qualities. Orwell once wrote that the greatest attack on the English language was simplifying it so that writers did not need to think before putting words down on a page, and at the time I somewhat laughed it off because he was nuts, but I've come to understand why he advocated doing so. Writing with a critical eye for meaning helps you live with a critical eye for meaning. I hope that clears up some misconceptions it seems you're having. (L I <3 u) I <3 u 2If I'm understanding the argument correctly, Moltke is making the point that even ancient monarchs did not have as much power as modern heads of state- This is not his argument in the least. It is a somewhat tangential branch. His point is that government systems who have scruples about smashing dissent have historically been wiped out, so its rather predictable that Iran might fire on its own citizens. This is a somewhat barebones version, but that's where the France tangent spun off from. | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On June 29 2009 06:50 L wrote: They're all perfectly valid uses of the words I used. I could give you less complex words, but then you miss some of the precision in the meaning I wanted to convey. For instance, if I said Moltke's logic was simply unrivaled instead of untrammeled, you'd assume that I meant he was the apex of logic, in a sense. Undisputable. Ultimate. But that's not what I suggested; I merely stated that the best possible routes of coherent disagreement have not been taken. To use untrammeled in that instance is to show that his logic is rather unrestrained, which if you looked at my analysis of his the interaction between the logic presented and pre-held assumptions, is rather true. His logic is unrestrained on the level of conception, on the level of opposition. The duality of this statement makes it far more worth reading than a simple moral judgement ("Moltke's argument is good") because it exposes fundamental and structural qualities. Orwell once wrote that the greatest attack on the English language was simplifying it so that writers did not need to think before putting words down on a page, and at the time I somewhat laughed it off because he was nuts, but I've come to understand why he advocated doing so. Writing with a critical eye for meaning helps you live with a critical eye for meaning. *sigh* You're not writing poetry, L--you're writing prose, and if you think that that long explanation was implicit in the one word "untrammeled" as you originally used it, I beg to differ. I'll refrain from criticizing your tone, because it's easy to get that wrong when reading text-only communication, but IMO you should write with a critical eye not just for meaning, but for conveying it. Even in this last post, you write: "To use untrammeled in that instance is to show that his logic is rather unrestrained" without quite explaining what normally restrains logic, or what is restraining other people's logic. Then you refer the reader to your previous post (on another page) to read "an analysis of the interaction between the logic presented and pre-held assumptions". It's all very hard to slog through, and gives me the impression that the writer is trying to use big words, vague expressions, and unelaborated references in order to win points by intimidation. I'm not suggesting that this is the case; only offering constructively that rewording your posts to be a little more plain would not be a bad thing. This is not his argument in the least. It is a somewhat tangential branch. His point is that government systems who have scruples about smashing dissent have historically been wiped out, so its rather predictable that Iran might fire on its own citizens. This is a somewhat barebones version, but that's where the France tangent spun off from. Maybe so. I didn't read through most of the thread where the argument spun off. As best I could follow the part that was spun off in this blog, he was making the point that modern democratic leaders have more power than ancient monarchs, and drawing (or at least implying) conclusions about the relative merits of democracy and monarchy. If I am wrong about the argument in this blog, please correct me. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
You can't slog through clicking back 1 page? Wow. At least you're upfront with your laziness. I guess I could attack you for using big words in your attempt to show that "unelaborated references = intimidation" too. Instead I'll just note that in doing so you've admitted you're afraid of large words. Boo! As for your interpretation of what prose is, go read some kafka and tell me what you think about his prose style. I specifically brought up Orwell's critique of the braindead use of simplifying language to show that the your preference isn't shared by more lucid writers, and by extension thinkers. Maybe so. I didn't read through... so go do it. :3 | ||
| ||
