Click the link to Enter the reign of Augustus, Claudius, and Nero.
Socrates and his endeavor for authority.
Concern with authority is as old as human history itself. Eve’s sin was to challenge the authority of God by disobeying his rule. Frank Furedi explores how authority was contested in ancient Greece and given a powerful meaning in Imperial Rome. Debates about religious and secular authority dominated Europe through the Middle Ages and the Reformation. The modern world attempted to develop new foundations for authority – democratic consent, public opinion, science – yet Furedi shows that this problem has remained unresolved, arguing that today the authority of authority is questioned.
Socrates personified the attitude that culture subsequently be conceptualized as authority. His response to the competing projects to construct authority was to promote and ideal of moral authority through the celebration of moral expertise. Does that mean that he prevailed in his time? His exalted view of the moral superiority of the expert makes him potentially indifferent to the opinion of others. Indeed he seems to assume that such opinions are erroneous precisely because they are held by many people. Yet he was not uninterested in public opinion. It was precisely because he believed that through dialogue people’s opinion could be clarified that he spent conversing. For Socrates, dialogue was akin to midwifery and his aim was to assist others others to give birth to what “they themselves thought any how; to find the truth of their opinion.” Socrates invested his hope in persuasion to forge a genuine consensus and he therefore did not see the need for a distinct group of rulers. The importance that Socrates attached to dialogue and the pursuit of truth suggests that his statements on authority are that wisdom and truth authorise public behavior. He was hesitant about pushing the idea of a moral expert too far, and in numerous dialogues the “claim of statesmen and citizens alike to moral expertise” is repeatedly revealed as fiction. His belief in dialogue did not contradict his worth more than others.
Morality’s categorical imperatives point to its being non-relative.
People who start out with disparate moral views may see that in order to live together cooperatively they need to adopt a shared moral policy. Debate (on morality) is most likely to lead to convergence when convergence is itself seen to be a value to aim at. But when convergence is not of use–when there are two groups starting from disparate moral positions there will be no convergence. Reflection coupled with true belief leads to convergence over what the best course of action is, even when the parties in question are not interacting with each other.
The Knights Templar & the Protestant Reformation, which states that when Stanley Jones, a missionary, met with Mahatma Gandhi he asked him: Mr. Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower? Gandhi replied: Oh, I don’t reject Christ. I love Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ.
(Without wisdom, and without virtue liberty is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.)
Reign of Terror:-This image shows the guillotine surrounded by the heads it has been responsible for removing. Although the print is sinister, its caption states that the Terror is dreadful, but necessary. This was a commonly held belief in 1793-1794 when the guillotine was a means of purging France of those who were deemed a threat to national security. For more information on the guillotine click here.
Reign of Terror lasted from September 1793 until the fall of Robespierre in 1794. Its purpose was to purge France of enemies of the Revolution and protect the country from foreign invaders. From January 1793-July 1794, France was governed by the Committee of Public Safety, in which Danton and Robespierre were influential members. In the course of nine months, 16, 000 people were guillotined, but executions of those labeled “internal enemies” of France took place throughout the country.
During this time there was a shift in power within the committee from Danton to Robespierre. Danton had a strong physical presence and was an incredible public speaker, while Robespierre was less passionate. However, Robespierre was a hard worker who was very ambitious. He blindly believed in the work of Rousseau, who argued that men are all born good at heart and are corrupted by society. It was these beliefs that caused him to continue the Terror even when it was no longer necessary.
In 1794, the armies of France were very successful against their enemies, which meant that the Terror was no longer necessary. But Robespierre continued the Terror because he wanted to purge France of everyone who was corrupt. The killing ended when Robespierre was executed on July 28, 1794.
http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution/videos/robespierre-and-the-reign-of-terror click here for more fascinating videos on the topic.
Divest is usually used in reference to the relinquishment of authority, power, property, or title. If, for example, an individual is disinherited, he or she is divested of the right to inherit money Individuals may be divested of their citizenship for Treason. British actions regarding their refusal to grant sovereignty to MK Gandhi at the second roundtable conference in London, England can be considered treason. A law of value explained.
No doubt the responsibility in such a case is shared by those who ask for a thing. But if the thing is criminal, if, for instance, it is a licence to commit adultery, the person who authorises the act shares the guilt of the person who commits it. Here again what I have said is not in any way mysterious or esoteric. It appeals to no hidden code. It aims at no secret moral. It supposes nothing, and implies nothing but what is universally current and familiar. It is the common, even the vulgar, code I appeal to. I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Here are the greatest names coupled with the greatest crimes; you would spare those criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher for the sake of historical science. Quite frankly, I think there is no greater error. The inflexible integrity of the moral code is, to me, the secret of the authority, the dignity, the utility of History. If we may debase the currency for the sake of genius, or success, or rank, or reputation, we may debase it for the sake of a man’s influence, of his religion, of his party, of the good cause which prospers by his credit and suffers by his disgrace. Then History ceases to be a science, an arbiter of controversy, a guide of the Wanderer, the upholder of that moral standard which the powers of earth and religion itself tend constantly to depress. It serves where it ought to reign; and it serves the worst cause better than the purest. . . . My dogma is not the special wickedness of my own spiritual superiors, but the general wickedness of men in authority—of Luther and Zwingli, and Calvin, and Cranmer, and Knox, of Mary Stuart and Henry VIII., of Philip II. and Elizabeth, of Cromwell and Louis XIV., James and Charles and William, Bossuet and Ken. The greatest crime is Homicide. The accomplice is no better than the assassin; the theorist is worse. Of killing from private motives or from public, from political or from religious, eadem est ratio; morally the worst is the last. The source of crime is pars melior nostri, what ought to save, destroys; the sinner is hardened and proof against Repentance. Crimes by constituted authorities worse than crimes by Madame Tussaud’s private malefactors. Murder may be done by legal means, by plausible and profitable war, by calumny, as well as by dose or dagger.
John Adams Understood Barack Obama Was Inevitable.
Submitted by Donald R. May on January 7, 2013 – 1:36am.
John Adams understood human nature and knew the history of the pursuit of Liberty. Adams understood that politicians would one day buy votes by demonizing the rich and promising to steal from the rich and to subsequently give the stolen goods to their supporters. It is the story of the destruction of civilizations by politicians who seek power by theft rather than by serving their fellow citizens with hard work.
Adams accurately predicted the actions of Marxist politicians and how they could bring destruction and devastation to the United States. John Adams wrote the following on “Property” in 1787. I have bolded some words for emphasis.
Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.