3 ms·

I consider universalism to be an enlightenment principle. The principle of: “if it’s true here than it’s true everywhere” is actually a relatively new concept i

I consider universalism to be an enlightenment principle. The principle of: “if it’s true here than it’s true everywhere” is actually a relatively new concept in human thought. It contributes to thinking that ideology can unite us (i.e. universal principles like freedom, etc).

eesmith 9y ago
Okay, then in the context of the US history, are you referring to natural law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism refers to "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature." While I can see it as encompassing natural law as a subset, the existence of slavery based on race/skin color and the lack of woman's suffrage in the late 1700s make me think that you are projecting an idealistic quality on US history which didn't exist.
- hacknat 9y ago
  Not so much that it ever existed, though I think the aspiration has been, but just the myth of the Universalism itself (i.e. city on a hill, the first republic). I had a friend say once that the founders were arrogant, because they thought they could architect us into a perfect system, but the fact that they thought that actually lead to a pretty good system. I’m willing to criticize the US for its sins as much as anyone else, they are numerous, but as the most diverse society on the planet it is impressive how much reconciliation and almost no reprisals have occurred.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    What you describe sounds much more like justifications for American exceptionalism than an accurate description of history. "The first republic" .. well, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States points out, the US created its own definition of "republic", so it got to be the first to meet that definition, and exclude earlier republics like the Roman Republic, The Messin Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Metz#The_Messin_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Metz#The_Messin_Rep... ) and the Mahajanapadas republics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahajanapada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahajanapada ). I've read too much Howard Zinn to believe the founders "thought they could architect us into a perfect system." Unless by "perfect" you mean one that would keep the powerful in power. And "most diverse society"? How do you measure US diversity vs, say, the diversity in India, Indonesia, South Africa, the UK, or Canada? The Jim Crow laws are some pretty big reprisals. During those decades there was what, one lynching each week on average for decades?

eesmith 9y ago

Okay, then in the context of the US history, are you referring to natural law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism refers to "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature." While I can see it as encompassing natural law as a subset, the existence of slavery based on race/skin color and the lack of woman's suffrage in the late 1700s make me think that you are projecting an idealistic quality on US history which didn't exist.

hacknat 9y ago
Not so much that it ever existed, though I think the aspiration has been, but just the myth of the Universalism itself (i.e. city on a hill, the first republic). I had a friend say once that the founders were arrogant, because they thought they could architect us into a perfect system, but the fact that they thought that actually lead to a pretty good system. I’m willing to criticize the US for its sins as much as anyone else, they are numerous, but as the most diverse society on the planet it is impressive how much reconciliation and almost no reprisals have occurred.
- eesmith 9y ago
  What you describe sounds much more like justifications for American exceptionalism than an accurate description of history. "The first republic" .. well, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States points out, the US created its own definition of "republic", so it got to be the first to meet that definition, and exclude earlier republics like the Roman Republic, The Messin Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Metz#The_Messin_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Metz#The_Messin_Rep... ) and the Mahajanapadas republics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahajanapada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahajanapada ). I've read too much Howard Zinn to believe the founders "thought they could architect us into a perfect system." Unless by "perfect" you mean one that would keep the powerful in power. And "most diverse society"? How do you measure US diversity vs, say, the diversity in India, Indonesia, South Africa, the UK, or Canada? The Jim Crow laws are some pretty big reprisals. During those decades there was what, one lynching each week on average for decades?