4 ms·

If you twist your glasses enough, you can make history into whatever you wish it to be. That's why it's called revisionism. In your case, you are going overboar

If you twist your glasses enough, you can make history into whatever you wish it to be. That's why it's called revisionism. In your case, you are going overboard to show that Protestantism was the driving force behind much of the renaissance (which started well over a century prior the Reformation) and later, the enlightenment, all to support what I find to be a flawed theory on power dynamics. The only argument that will find any support in the sources is that enlightenment-era political and philosophical thought was in some way made possible by a split in the Church. But Descartes and others were highly influential and have little relationship with this. Religious schism had little to no bearing on the sudden development of trade and exploration in the renaissance, both of which opened the New World. And if there was a watershed moment that enabled what would follow, it was clearly the discovery of the Americas, not what Luther had to say. I don't know who you think you are fooling by typing walls of text that subtly, and later overtly, alter your original thesis. I often see these long threads end with "oh, we really agree!" and ASCII smiley faces. Abusing history to support some jaded idea you have about the startup scene earns no sympathy from me.

michaelochurch 14y ago
I'm not attributing superior contribution to the Protestants or the Catholics, but to the dialectic. I'm not saying that the Protestant Reformers were more or less virtuous than the Catholic Church of the time. I'm saying that the intractable schism within what might (not necessarily "would") otherwise be a more unified European elite had progressive effects over the long term. Of course, something other than religious reformation could have had a similarly elite-divisive effect. My real point has nothing to do with the Reformation per se, so much as the overarching truth that competition within an elite leads to progress and social mobility, while in-elite collaboration is stagnant and toxic.
zosima 14y ago
> Religious schism had little to no bearing on the sudden development of trade and exploration in the renaissance, both of which opened the New World. The spanish fight against the moslems was certainly immediately temporally connected. That fact is definitely relevant. But the most important part of the argument is not that the struggle between elites were of religious origin, but that there was an intense struggle between elites. In fact Columbus' travels were probably supported by Isabel of Spain exactly because Spain had made an agreement with Portugal of not sailing in the southern atlantic waters. The discovery of the Americas did likely not have a great impact before much later. I don't know if Luther's exact words ever were very important. I don't think so. But the excuse they gave many small kings to separate from the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic church and to go on crusades inside of Europe certainly put fuel to the fire of european history. The thirty year war had much greater impact on european philosophy in the 17th century than America did.

michaelochurch 14y ago

I'm not attributing superior contribution to the Protestants or the Catholics, but to the dialectic. I'm not saying that the Protestant Reformers were more or less virtuous than the Catholic Church of the time. I'm saying that the intractable schism within what might (not necessarily "would") otherwise be a more unified European elite had progressive effects over the long term. Of course, something other than religious reformation could have had a similarly elite-divisive effect. My real point has nothing to do with the Reformation per se, so much as the overarching truth that competition within an elite leads to progress and social mobility, while in-elite collaboration is stagnant and toxic.

zosima 14y ago

> Religious schism had little to no bearing on the sudden development of trade and exploration in the renaissance, both of which opened the New World. The spanish fight against the moslems was certainly immediately temporally connected. That fact is definitely relevant. But the most important part of the argument is not that the struggle between elites were of religious origin, but that there was an intense struggle between elites. In fact Columbus' travels were probably supported by Isabel of Spain exactly because Spain had made an agreement with Portugal of not sailing in the southern atlantic waters. The discovery of the Americas did likely not have a great impact before much later. I don't know if Luther's exact words ever were very important. I don't think so. But the excuse they gave many small kings to separate from the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic church and to go on crusades inside of Europe certainly put fuel to the fire of european history. The thirty year war had much greater impact on european philosophy in the 17th century than America did.