tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post3991962502079900948..comments2023-10-04T09:50:08.070-05:00Comments on Logismoi: Unexpected Communists in BooksAaron Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-83241023107894729912012-08-05T18:08:48.106-05:002012-08-05T18:08:48.106-05:00Of course, I should point out that the author of t...Of course, I should point out that the author of the above article is also concerned to acknowledge and explain the differences between the American Revolution and other upheavals that have gone by that name.Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-88267158501504946852012-08-05T17:59:17.716-05:002012-08-05T17:59:17.716-05:00Apropos of the cordial disagreement between Andrew...Apropos of the cordial disagreement between Andrew and myself above, I just read this article: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/repository/was-there-an-american-revolution/<br /><br />I thought it was pretty well argued, and if I read it correctly, it seems to support my characterisation of the American Revolution.Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-27126736687987548312012-07-05T18:21:55.674-05:002012-07-05T18:21:55.674-05:00Fr Jonathan> I don't know enough about eith...Fr Jonathan> I don't know enough about either Swinburne or Lenin to say for certain, but I would have thought that while Lenin had no love for bourgeois respectability, he would have thought the young, 'shocking' Swinburne to have been a decadent bourgeois, made no less so by his pose of rebellion and bohemianism. The real revolutionaries seemed to have an intensity and almost an asceticism that would have seen Swinburne's poetry as a dissipation of his strength and resources when there were proletarian masses to be saved.<br /><br />You are quite right about Fr Romanides. Whatever criticisms of him you want to make, he cared nothing for academic or ecclesiastical opinion, eh? I was just reading an article of last year from Fr Nicholas Loudovikos, where he writes of his former teacher:<br /><br />'What was remarkable in Romanides was, in my view, his proposal for an empirical ascetic envolvement to theology, aiming at bridging the gap between living Orthodox spiritual life and academic theology. I think that, as far as this is concerned, his <i>oeuvre</i> will remain as a sort of living prophetic heritage for the next generations.'<br /><br />However, Fr Nicholas also criticises him for 'his "spiritual" method, which left aside not only the sacraments but also such things as human thought and culture'.Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-20053242684767023812012-07-05T12:58:57.916-05:002012-07-05T12:58:57.916-05:00What an intriguing meeting: Swinburne and Lenin .....What an intriguing meeting: Swinburne and Lenin ... especially at a moment when Swinburne had become a lot more amenable to respectable sensibilities than he was before. Would Lenin have liked the guy who wrote the Sapphics?<br /><br />Anyhow, Fr. Romanides (whom I admire greatly) was never afraid to say sibboleth when everyone else says shibboleth.janotechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06935774383167060416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-67184282750187658562012-07-04T12:35:38.210-05:002012-07-04T12:35:38.210-05:00That should be 'among whom I count you and I&#...That should be 'among whom I count you and I'. Actually, it should probably be 'you and myself'!Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-33175424425992920652012-07-04T12:13:58.179-05:002012-07-04T12:13:58.179-05:00Thanks for the comment, Andrew. I wasn't sure ...Thanks for the comment, Andrew. I wasn't sure if anyone would even bother with this one!<br /><br />I think you might be right to say that the King was abandoning certain traditions, but I think it's still true in essence to describe the British government as a 'traditional' one. In other words, the institution of the British monarchy was one that dated back--whatever quarrels one might raise about the accession of the Tudor dynasty or William of Orange--essentially to the Norman Conquest. The American Revolution, rightly or wrongly, was a rebellion against a government that had been in place for 700 years, replacing it with a government that, however much it looked back, say, to Greco-Roman traditions, was essentially a 'new-fangled' thing.<br /><br />I think most Americans, at least, would see it that way and would say that that was a good thing. I doubt many but a few cranky paleo-conservatives, traditionalists, and other such oddballs (among I count you and I) would even be interested in describing American life in terms of 'tradition' rather than in terms of 'innovation'. ;-)Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-87481248593241902352012-07-04T11:47:39.151-05:002012-07-04T11:47:39.151-05:00Aaron,
interesting thoughts. The only nit I want ...Aaron,<br /><br />interesting thoughts. The only nit I want to pick is one phrase in the last sentence. The Americans were not, i would argue, rebelling against "a traditional government" but one which was itself abandoning the traditions that the colonists had come to live by. The radical, it can be argued, was George III and his parliament.Andrewhttp://www.circeinstitute.orgnoreply@blogger.com