Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Just War Theory; Or, How Aquinas Saved Christ

ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 2:24:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Written by Dylancatlow and I.

https://docs.google.com...
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 8:26:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
bump
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 8:33:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 7:58:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/22/2015 8:26:45 PM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
bump

did bossy ask you to bump this lol

it is possible
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 10:35:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 7:58:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/22/2015 8:26:45 PM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
bump

did bossy ask you to bump this lol

Shhh
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,844
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 10:47:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Studied this in PSC http://slantchev.ucsd.edu...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 2:28:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One little niggle is that Aquinas didn't rescue Aristotle, he mostly drew his references from Ibn Rushd (Averroes), whom he refferred to as 'The Commentator', and Ibn Rushd drew most of his references from works originally translated from Greek into Arabic at the Abbasid Court at Baghdad. It was the translation of his Commentaries into Latin which allowed Aristotle to reconcile Aristotle with Augustinian Christianity, an accomplishment far more momentous than just a simple translation, and an endeavor which met with great resistance within the Church. Averroism, in those days, was pretty much synonymous to atheism in the eyes of many prominent theologians.

As far as Just War Theory goes, I see it as a simplistic justification which wasn't even really followed. The Cathars were a sect which was completely and utterly pacifist, and the church launched a Crusade against them which ended up pitting Catholic against Catholic when the people of Languedoc refused to butcher their countrymen, and often family, who had converted to Catharism. The Hussite wars began when the Church lured Jan Hus to a council under the pretext of negotiations and then proceeded to burn him alive. The Fourth Crusade was really just a Venetian-backed sack of Constantinople. Theories meant to restrain war are, in my opinion, pretty pointless, because war is governed by supranational principles that cannot really be curtailed in any significant way. If anything, the attempt to do so highlights the fact that fusing a pacifistic religion with a government results in either hypocrisy and the erosion of the faith's prestige or the extinction of that government when it fails to defend itself.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 10:26:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 2:28:31 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
One little niggle is that Aquinas didn't rescue Aristotle, he mostly drew his references from Ibn Rushd (Averroes), whom he refferred to as 'The Commentator', and Ibn Rushd drew most of his references from works originally translated from Greek into Arabic at the Abbasid Court at Baghdad. It was the translation of his Commentaries into Latin which allowed Aristotle to reconcile Aristotle with Augustinian Christianity, an accomplishment far more momentous than just a simple translation, and an endeavor which met with great resistance within the Church. Averroism, in those days, was pretty much synonymous to atheism in the eyes of many prominent theologians.

- The distinction between the Commentaries on Greek Thought & Greek Thought is generally omitted in portraying the influence of Muslims on the West. The commentaries are the result of centuries of intense philosophical discourse within the Muslim community, starting by al-Kindi & ending with Ibn Rushd, including hundreds of philosophers of high caliber in between. Without these commentaries, the West would've spend at least the same amount of time muslims did (i.e 4/5 centuries of philosophical discourse) to get to them. Saying that these are just commentaries on Greek philosophers, thus not important is the same as saying that the entire western thought is a just a commentary on Plato thus not important, because it is a commentary, in the same sense, & it is important.

- One thing I noticed in the text is this:
> "he [Thomas Aquinas] identifies three essential conditions which a just war must satisfy: it must have "the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged", it must have a "just cause [...], namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault", and it must be so that those waging the war "intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance evil."
=> This is Islamic Law text book, which Ibn Rushd himself mentions in his famous compendium on Islamic Law. So, I am pretty sure there must be a connection to Averroism. Westerners generally avoid mentioning that Averroes was a Jurist, a renown one at that, & a Theologian.

As far as Just War Theory goes, I see it as a simplistic justification which wasn't even really followed. The Cathars were a sect which was completely and utterly pacifist, and the church launched a Crusade against them which ended up pitting Catholic against Catholic when the people of Languedoc refused to butcher their countrymen, and often family, who had converted to Catharism. The Hussite wars began when the Church lured Jan Hus to a council under the pretext of negotiations and then proceeded to burn him alive. The Fourth Crusade was really just a Venetian-backed sack of Constantinople. Theories meant to restrain war are, in my opinion, pretty pointless, because war is governed by supranational principles that cannot really be curtailed in any significant way. If anything, the attempt to do so highlights the fact that fusing a pacifistic religion with a government results in either hypocrisy and the erosion of the faith's prestige or the extinction of that government when it fails to defend itself.

- What do you think about Jihad? (here there is a fundamental difference, which is the fact that Jihad, or Just War, is sanctioned & regulated by the Prophet (pbuh) himself).
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 10:42:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:26:20 AM, Yassine wrote:
- What do you think about Jihad? (here there is a fundamental difference, which is the fact that Jihad, or Just War, is sanctioned & regulated by the Prophet (pbuh) himself).

I think that Islam was built to be a political system, and included instructions for both self defense and for waging a just war (where people are oppressed, etc.). I think that the constraints which Islam attempted to place on war ran into the same problems that it does everywhere when it came to actually following those guidelines, but that the faith never suffered the same erosion of prestige that the Church did over it.

The Reformation was completely devastating to Christianity politically, and shattered its power in ways which are probably irreparable. It happened because the teachings of Christianity are so idealized that they couldn't be adapted to harsh political realities, and so the Church, which acted in the political realm, couldn't help but appear hypocritical to detractors who followed radical biblical moral prescriptions. This lead to schism and the dissolution of power, and then the rise of nationalism and secularism.

Islam was always more practical from the outset, never banning violence in retaliation, and establishing a political framework very early on. This has caused political Islam to be extremely resilient to both oppression and schism, to the endless consternation of the West, which has tried its damnedest to stamp it out. The only historical example of Islam being successfully removed from a political body that I can recall is the Spanish Inquisition, and it did so by breaking every commonly accepted rule of decency and justice.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 11:12:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:42:58 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I think that Islam was built to be a political system, and included instructions for both self defense and for waging a just war (where people are oppressed, etc.). I think that the constraints which Islam attempted to place on war ran into the same problems that it does everywhere when it came to actually following those guidelines, but that the faith never suffered the same erosion of prestige that the Church did over it.

- I am not very familiar with the state of the Church & its historical relation to politics, so, what problems are you specifically referring to?

The Reformation was completely devastating to Christianity politically, and shattered its power in ways which are probably irreparable. It happened because the teachings of Christianity are so idealized that they couldn't be adapted to harsh political realities, and so the Church, which acted in the political realm, couldn't help but appear hypocritical to detractors who followed radical biblical moral prescriptions. This lead to schism and the dissolution of power, and then the rise of nationalism and secularism.

- This reminds me of a the Theory of Extremes, it's a general idea used by Muslims in many fields, originally a proverb that simply reads: "extremes in something lead to its opposite". Even today, muslim scholars speculate that the West is going to extremes in materialism to the point where a resisting force will emerge on the other side of the spectrum, which will eventually lead to the toppling of the system. You yourself have read Ibn Khaldun, he so often uses this idea in his demonstration of rise & fall of dynasties.

Islam was always more practical from the outset, never banning violence in retaliation, and establishing a political framework very early on. This has caused political Islam to be extremely resilient to both oppression and schism, to the endless consternation of the West, which has tried its damnedest to stamp it out. The only historical example of Islam being successfully removed from a political body that I can recall is the Spanish Inquisition, and it did so by breaking every commonly accepted rule of decency and justice.

- I agree, I've read LeBon, & he talks extensively about this particular point, he even brings up examples from Africa & India of evangelical efforts against muslims. Even today, the only Heritage/Tradition still not overrun by the West is the Islamic Tradition.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 12:36:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 2:28:31 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It was the translation of his Commentaries into Latin which allowed Aristotle to reconcile Aristotle with Augustinian Christianity,

Do you mean which allowed Aquinas to reconcile Aristotle with Augustinian Christianity?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 12:52:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:36:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2015 2:28:31 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It was the translation of his Commentaries into Latin which allowed Aristotle to reconcile Aristotle with Augustinian Christianity,

Do you mean which allowed Aquinas to reconcile Aristotle with Augustinian Christianity?

Yes, lol.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 12:53:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:37:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Also, "niggle" is my new favorite word.

It's one of my favorite British terms.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 11:12:20 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/25/2015 10:42:58 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I think that Islam was built to be a political system, and included instructions for both self defense and for waging a just war (where people are oppressed, etc.). I think that the constraints which Islam attempted to place on war ran into the same problems that it does everywhere when it came to actually following those guidelines, but that the faith never suffered the same erosion of prestige that the Church did over it.

- I am not very familiar with the state of the Church & its historical relation to politics, so, what problems are you specifically referring to?

The Church existed, generally, as a body politic centered in Rome around the Papacy, and as a scattered set of monastic orders which were the real spiritual heart of Catholicism and preserved most of its traditions. The political aspect of the church tended towards corruption of the idealized doctrines in order to maintain control, while the spiritual aspect was concerned primarily with living as Christ taught, and would step in to reform the political aspect when it got out of hand in cyclical fashion. This system is how Europe survived the collapse of Roman authority, the wandering of nations, and the Viking and Magyar invasions with some degree of unity and cultural coherence. The Reformation was, essentially, an interruption of this cycle; the political aspect of the church was deadlocked, so the northern reformist factions began to break away and then wars broke out, cementing the divide, and the Counter-reformation came too late.

The Reformation was completely devastating to Christianity politically, and shattered its power in ways which are probably irreparable. It happened because the teachings of Christianity are so idealized that they couldn't be adapted to harsh political realities, and so the Church, which acted in the political realm, couldn't help but appear hypocritical to detractors who followed radical biblical moral prescriptions. This lead to schism and the dissolution of power, and then the rise of nationalism and secularism.

- This reminds me of a the Theory of Extremes, it's a general idea used by Muslims in many fields, originally a proverb that simply reads: "extremes in something lead to its opposite". Even today, muslim scholars speculate that the West is going to extremes in materialism to the point where a resisting force will emerge on the other side of the spectrum, which will eventually lead to the toppling of the system. You yourself have read Ibn Khaldun, he so often uses this idea in his demonstration of rise & fall of dynasties.

I see nationalism and racial pride (basically Fascism) as what stepped in to fill the void. I don't think it's against materialism per se, as some of these forces (Stalinism) can be quite materialistic.

Islam was always more practical from the outset, never banning violence in retaliation, and establishing a political framework very early on. This has caused political Islam to be extremely resilient to both oppression and schism, to the endless consternation of the West, which has tried its damnedest to stamp it out. The only historical example of Islam being successfully removed from a political body that I can recall is the Spanish Inquisition, and it did so by breaking every commonly accepted rule of decency and justice.

- I agree, I've read LeBon, & he talks extensively about this particular point, he even brings up examples from Africa & India of evangelical efforts against muslims. Even today, the only Heritage/Tradition still not overrun by the West is the Islamic Tradition.

China and Russia, I think, have resisted to similar degrees. Russia can't be anything other than what it is, due to their geopolitical position, and China has been playing their cards close to their chest for the last few decades.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 5:52:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 1:02:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

The Church existed, generally, as a body politic centered in Rome around the Papacy, and as a scattered set of monastic orders which were the real spiritual heart of Catholicism and preserved most of its traditions. The political aspect of the church tended towards corruption of the idealized doctrines in order to maintain control, while the spiritual aspect was concerned primarily with living as Christ taught, and would step in to reform the political aspect when it got out of hand in cyclical fashion. This system is how Europe survived the collapse of Roman authority, the wandering of nations, and the Viking and Magyar invasions with some degree of unity and cultural coherence. The Reformation was, essentially, an interruption of this cycle; the political aspect of the church was deadlocked, so the northern reformist factions began to break away and then wars broke out, cementing the divide, and the Counter-reformation came too late.

- OK, but I fail to see how any of this relates to Islam? :/

I see nationalism and racial pride (basically Fascism) as what stepped in to fill the void. I don't think it's against materialism per se, as some of these forces (Stalinism) can be quite materialistic.

- I was forecasting about the future, because Materialism is plunging into its extremes in this post-modern era.

China and Russia, I think, have resisted to similar degrees. Russia can't be anything other than what it is, due to their geopolitical position, and China has been playing their cards close to their chest for the last few decades.

- Both Russia & China are following a western trend, maybe a slightly different one than Europe & America, but it's still western. & I didn't mean just politically. I meant more like Tradition in general, the two leading Traditions in the wold today are the Islamic Tradition, & the Western Tradition, although the former is much weakened compared to the latter. For instance, Legal Systems around the World are all some sorta of combination of either Wester Law (Common & Civil), or Islamic Law. This also applies to Logic, Philosophy, Education, Politics, Psychology, History. . . western influence in these areas are great among Muslims, & complete among non-Muslims, but the Islamic influence hasn't faded away, among the populace it's not that dominant, but among the scholars it's overwhelmingly dominant.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...