tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post7015906028199902383..comments2024-02-26T19:22:15.069-06:00Comments on Lex Christianorum: Freedom and Law: Pope Leo XIII's Libertas praestantissimum, Part 7Andrew M. Greenwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-35202566577637390402011-02-03T14:05:59.604-06:002011-02-03T14:05:59.604-06:00I agree with you that the Enlightenment was probab...I agree with you that the Enlightenment was probably rather the opposite of Enlightenment. To a lesser extent, the same may be said for aspects of the Renaissance. I personally am fascinated by this topic. I see the huge turning point (in religion) as Protestantism and (in philosophy) as the so-called "epistemological turn" of Descartes. The problem, in my mind, seems to have been a rejection of Aristotelian/Thomistic moderate realism and, progressively, the rejection of any sort of metaphysical thought. I agree that "nature" and "reason" and "natural law" mean different things to someone bred in Enlightenment thought versus someone who is Thomistic/Aristotelian in philosophical outlook. Very generally, post-Enlightenment natural law thought IS NOT the same as the natural law thought prior to the Enlightenment (I say generally because there are exceptions and there are thought was not monolithic either before or after the Enlightenment and the suppositions of the Enlightenment took a while to develop, as it subsisted on inherited intellectual capital.) By and large I believe the Catholic Church, especially in its initial reaction, preserved the pre-Enlightenment natural law (though modernly, among some of her theologians, especially post Vatican II there seems to be some confusion and sloppy language and perhaps and overemphasis on "rights" without regard to "duty" and an acceptance or at least greater tolerance of liberal ideas), while the post-Enlightenment natural law has pretty much dissipated or degenerated into Liberalism. I have a hard time believing that Pius IX and Leo XIII were affected by the Enlightenment thought, except as reacting against it. Especially the latter was Thomist through and through. (And this does not even address the papal doctrine of infallibility which would preserve them from any error in faith and morals in ex cathedra teaching.)<br /><br />I'll look at the texts you mentioned. Israel's work looks intriguing. I have long-term plans on addressing Michiavelli and the natural law. I googled all three of your suggested texts and they seem fascinating reading.<br /><br />Thanks for your reading suggestions, and thanks for pointing out the error in numeration.<br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br />AMGAndrew M. Greenwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-49312104316356407512011-02-03T09:17:09.841-06:002011-02-03T09:17:09.841-06:00Do you notice that you have two articles labelled ...Do you notice that you have two articles labelled "6"? <br /><br />I really think you need to take an hiatus to research the natural law of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Right now, I'm doing research in this period. I know for a fact now that the term 'republic' was changed. Machiavelli advocated it. Also have come to the revelation that the term 'philosophy' was also changed during this time. Much of the technical language of Aristotle and Plato were changed to fit Epicurean and Democritus's views of atomism and materialism. This was the movement in the Renaissance. Epicureanism and Democritus's movement was cojoined to Hebraic politica, the Law of Moses, and the Kabbalah. All the movers and shakers of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were onto this. Many were atheists. Right now, I'm running into where the "natural Law" comes from the Hebrews and Moses, not from Plato or the Doric Greeks. It doesn't come from 'nature' at all. <br /><br />I really do counsel that you take an hiatus and read Jonathan Israel's <i>Radical Enlightenment</i> and <i>Enlightenment Contested</i>, Eric Nelson's <i>The Hebrew Republic</i> and Paul A. Rahe's <i>Against Throne and Altar</i>. Things are NOT what they seem and much of the terminology is defective! The Enlightenment was NOT about Europe or the West, but about transformation, of supplanting, of destroying Western/European culture and institutions and putting something else in its place. Shakespeare said, in a sense, "Trust no one". It would be wise if you do the same. Just like philosophy was redefined into meaning materialism, I am running into circumstances that the Natural law was also redefined in this period. I think you need to do some serious research before accepting Renaissance/Enlightenment Church material. In Christ.W Lindsay Wheelernoreply@blogger.com