Making Man in Reason's Image

[George H. Smith]

Go here for my Amazon review of Making Man in Reason's Image: The Enlightenment and the Birth of Modern Humanity. This is a series of recorded lectures by James Schmidt, a professor of history and political science at Boston University.

This set of eight Cds appears to be out of print, but used sets are available for reasonable prices.

My review doesn't go into detail about why I like these lectures so much, but if anyone is interested, I will provide additional details. For now, suffice it to say that it takes a lot for me to get excited about recorded lectures.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

It seems that Phil wants our conflict to spill over to Amazon. He posted this comment on my review:

"You'd need to give us at least one or two reasons."

Since I want to keep this conflict confined to OL, I will answer Phil here: No, Phil, I don't need to give you jack shit. I have been reading Enlightenment literature for some 45 years now, and I have written and lectured extensively on the topic. If you don't trust my judgment in this area, then don't fork out the ten or twenty bucks for a used set of these superb Cds. It is your loss, not mine.

I had initially planned to write a more extensive review, but once I saw that the set is no longer in print (even Barnes and Noble no longer carries it), I didn't see the point. I would strongly advise Olers to snap up the used sets while they are available at reasonable prices.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

It seems that Phil wants our conflict to spill over to Amazon. He posted this comment on my review:

"You'd need to give us at least one or two reasons."

Very hard to believe, but not unbelievable. Why would he go there and do that? Oh, I just remembered.

--Brant

civility in action

[George H. Smith]

Here is the syllabus for James Schmidt's course on the Enlightenment:

Lecture...

#1: The Question of Enlightenment

#2: Europe in the 1680s: The Political Origins of the Enlightenment

#3: Scientific Inquiry, Religious Controversy, and Political Dissent

#4: Voltaire and the Campaign Against Fanaticism

#5: The Emergence of the Public Sphere I: Academies and the Quest for Useful Knowledge

#6: The Emergence of the Public Sphere II: Secret Societies and the Clandestine Book Trade

#8: Diderot and the Encyclopedia

#9: Dreaming Philosophers and Crazy Musicians: Diderot's Later Career

#10: New Worlds, Strange Peoples, and Peculiar Customs

#11: The Scottish Enlightenment and the Origins of Social Theory

#12: Enlightenment Theory in Germany: Lessing and Mendelssohn

#13: An Age of Revolutions

#14: The Legacies of the Enlightenment

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Here is the syllabus for James Schmidt's course on the Enlightenment:

Lecture...

#1: The Question of Enlightenment

#2: Europe in the 1680s: The Political Origins of the Enlightenment

#3: Scientific Inquiry, Religious Controversy, and Political Dissent

#4: Voltaire and the Campaign Against Fanaticism

#5: The Emergence of the Public Sphere I: Academies and the Quest for Useful Knowledge

#6: The Emergence of the Public Sphere II: Secret Societies and the Clandestine Book Trade

#8: Diderot and the Encyclopedia

#9: Dreaming Philosophers and Crazy Musicians: Diderot's Later Career

#10: New Worlds, Strange Peoples, and Peculiar Customs

#11: The Scottish Enlightenment and the Origins of Social Theory

#12: Enlightenment Theory in Germany: Lessing and Mendelssohn

#13: An Age of Revolutions

#14: The Legacies of the Enlightenment

Ghs

I purchased the sucker, new.

--Brant

$19 plus 3.99 s n h

[George H. Smith]

I purchased the sucker, new.

--Brant

$19 plus 3.99 s n h

Good move.

One thing that caught my attention about this course is the extent to which Schmidt covers the freethought strain in Enlightenment thought. For example, he discusses the importance of the deist John Toland (author of Christianity Not Mysterious), whereas you can read more extensive histories without encountering Toland's name at all.

Schmidt also has a rather lengthy analysis of a then mysterious and now obscure tract, The Treatise of the Three Impostors, i.e., Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. See the Wiki article.

Until fairly recently, this notorious and influential tract was virtually unknown to historians, except to specialists in the history of freethought. (I first learned of it around 30 years ago, during a conversation with the great freethought scholar, the late Dr. Gordon Stein.) The fact that Schmidt discusses the tract in an overview course exhibits a perspective that freethinkers and Objectivists will find very congenial.

Ghs

Addendum: Later in the course, in response to a question, Schmidt calls Thomas Paine "a great man."

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Being Willing to Accept Criticism

> Phil wants our conflict to spill over to Amazon...No, Phil, I don't need to give you jack shit.[GHS]

It's not about a "conflict" and about it "spilling over". I read reader comments on Amazon regularly. Yours was one of the worst I've seen recently because you didn't bother to give reasons. Most Amazon commenters do. Instead you arrogantly gave the impression of posing as an expert. No one knows you or views you as an authority. You have not written books on the Enlightenment. Therefore I (politely, civilly) observed: " You'd need to give us at least one or two reasons."

That's not a slam or an 'undercutting' or attack. If you can't take and learn from even this minor a mildly-stated criticism, there is something seriously wrong with you!! What you should have done, instead of the emotional "jack shit"*** reaction is go to Amazon and reply: " Point taken. Here are two excellent things about the CD..."

*** Didn't you say recently that "asshole" was not a very sophisticated form of response? Not as elevated or precise as "jack shit", I suppose?

Edited March 16, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Now, are people going to recognize the validity of what I just said...or are they going to "pigpile" on George's side as usual???

[George H. Smith]

Subject: Being Willing to Accept Criticism

> Phil wants our conflict to spill over to Amazon...No, Phil, I don't need to give you jack shit.[GHS]

It's not about a "conflict" and about it "spilling over". I read reader comments on Amazon regularly. Yours was one of the worst I've seen recently because you didn't bother to give reasons. Most Amazon commenters do. Instead you arrogantly gave the impression of posing as an expert. No one knows you or views you as an authority. You have not written books on the Enlightenment. Therefore I (politely, civilly) observed: " You'd need to give us at least one or two reasons."

That's not a slam or an 'undercutting' or attack. If you can't take and learn from even this minor a mildly-stated criticism, there is something seriously wrong with you!! What you should have done, instead of the emotional "jack shit"*** reaction is go to Amazon and reply: " Point taken. Here are two excellent things about the CD..."

*** Didn't you say recently that "asshole" was not a very sophisticated form of response? Not as elevated or precise as "jack shit", I suppose?

It hurts me beyond description to know that my brief comment on Amazon did not measure up to your high standards. And perish the thought that you posted your remark for any reason other than to teach me how to be a better reviewer. There is so much I can learn from you, Phil, and I hope you will continue to serve as my guide and mentor as I struggle in my efforts to learn what I "need" to do when writing comments for Amazon.

After you finish your two-volume work on the rules of civility, perhaps you will honor us with a book on how to write blurbs for Amazon.

Ghs

[Selene]

Now, are people going to recognize the validity of what I just said...or are they going to "pigpile" on George's side as usual???

Phil:

Is this an attempt to prevent criticism by pre-judging any response?

Adam

[George H. Smith]

Now, are people going to recognize the validity of what I just said...or are they going to "pigpile" on George's side as usual???

Where there is a pig, there is always a pile. And, once again, you have given us a big steaming pile.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

A few years ago I posted the following comment on Amazon about a jazz album:

"Getz Meets Mulligan" was my favorite jazz album when I was 16, and it remains my favorite as I approach 60.

That about covers it, so far as I'm concerned.

Ghs

I was hoping that Phil, my guide and mentor, could help me add a lot of extra words to this "review." It is always desirable to say more than what needs to be said, especially when engaged in the highly technical business of writing comments for Amazon.

Ghs

[jriggenbach]

Instead you [Ghs] arrogantly gave the impression of posing as an expert.

Um, he is an expert, Phil.

JR

Edited March 16, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Selene]

Instead you [Ghs] arrogantly gave the impression of posing as an expert.

Um, he is an expert, Phil.

JR

"An expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of credential, training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage (Sophos). The individual was usually a profound thinker distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment."

Yep, Jeff, quite correct.

[9thdoctor]

Now, are people going to recognize the validity of what I just said...or are they going to "pigpile" on George's side as usual???

Are you calling for a vote? Will you admit you're wrong when you lose?

"It would take a while to explain the reasons for my enthusiatic praise, but take my word for it: This set (14 lectures on 7 Cds) is as good as it gets."

The only thing I find to criticize is the spelling of enthusiastic.

[Philip Coates]

As usual, the same old group posts on every other topic except simply acknowledging my point that when you go on Amazon to make a recommendation you should give some reasons.

The honorable thing if you are others would be to simply say "good point".

And then (if you are George) amend the post and offer a couple reasons.

(PS, One person said 'he is an expert'...the implication being what? That an expert doesn't need to give any reason and we should just believe people based on that claim?)

Edited March 16, 2011 by Philip Coates

[kiaer.ts]

blah, blah, blah

[Brant Gaede]

Now, are people going to recognize the validity of what I just said...or are they going to "pigpile" on George's side as usual???

Are you calling for a vote? Will you admit you're wrong when you lose?

"It would take a while to explain the reasons for my enthusiatic praise, but take my word for it: This set (14 lectures on 7 Cds) is as good as it gets."

The only thing I find to criticize is the spelling of enthusiastic.

How did JR miss that?

--Brant

[jriggenbach]

How did JR miss that?

He's trying to restrain himself.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

As usual, the same old group posts on every other topic except simply acknowledging my point that when you go on Amazon to make a recommendation you should give some reasons.

The honorable thing if you are others would be to simply say "good point".

And then (if you are George) amend the post and offer a couple reasons.

(PS, One person said 'he is an expert'...the implication being what? That an expert doesn't need to give any reason and we should just believe people based on that claim?)

Sounds more like stalking to me.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

As usual, the same old group posts on every other topic except simply acknowledging my point that when you go on Amazon to make a recommendation you should give some reasons.

The honorable thing if you are others would be to simply say "good point".

And then (if you are George) amend the post and offer a couple reasons.

(PS, One person said 'he is an expert'...the implication being what? That an expert doesn't need to give any reason and we should just believe people based on that claim?)

So if I don't amend my Amazon comments per your instructions, I am being dishonorable?

Unbelievable. You are a real piece of work.

Ghs

[sjw]

blah, blah, blah

[sjw]

Now, are people going to recognize the validity of what I just said...or are they going to "pigpile" on George's side as usual???

I bought my copy just now.

Reviews are supposed to be taken for what they're worth. Even if he'd given reasons that still wouldn't have objectively substantiated anything. He spent the amount of time he was willing to spend reviewing, it's not reasonable to demand that he spend a second more.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

> it's not reasonable to demand that he spend a second more.

It's reasonable to request (not 'demand') that he give concrete examples which is what I did. Politely and civilly.

It's also reasonable to point out that book recommendations unsupported by more than 'take my word for it' -- even by an 'expert' -- tend to be unpersuasive.

Anyone want to argue with those two points?

,,,,

PS, this, by the way, is a perfect example of why I get angry at the "Snark Pack" on OL:

You are frequently unwilling to acknowledge the smallest valid point of your enemies or intellectual adversaries -- whether it be me or ARI people.

And you vilify or ridicule your adversaries. Instead of treating them with a sense of justice. As in your false criticisms or snarky and sarcastic cracks about a simple request on Amazon for more information. You want to look under it and around it and psychologize about it. Instead of responding to it fairly.

Like Lindsay Perigo or Diana Hsieh at their worst: It's really enormously damaging to a philosophy of reason. So any names I call you are often richly deserved.

Conclusion: You should all be ashamed. Starting with George's initial response to me - and then those of you who have mindlessly supported him.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

I'm also amazed that not a single person outside the Snark Pack who reads/posts on Objectivist Living has had the courage or sense of fair play to stand up to George and say:

"Phil made a reasonable request for more information. George was off-base in attacking him for it."

Edited March 17, 2011 by Philip Coates