 Stannum wrote: |
|
This is why I find it extraordinary and ironic at the most intellectual level I have ever seen irony demonstrated {your locked Locke thread should be a case study for a couple of PhDs} at such a deeply philosophical angle. I doubt that it is possible to be more philosophically ironic than to censor debate on the opinion that no truth is self evident. |
|
Having thought about it I strongly suspect that the John Locke quote is only locked because it is pinned at the very top of this forum as a shining beacon of reasonableness. We are debating him in this thead and it has not been censored!
| Stannum wrote: |
|
What a happy coincidence for John Locke that the political usurpers shared his views on freedom of discussion as this is rarely the case. |
|
To answer that I need to get in a debate about the Glorious Revolution. I restrict myself to saying that the Kings and Queens of England were not absolute monarchs compared to their counterparts in, say, France and Russia. On the whole, kings were not deposed if they did a moderately good job. It tended to be the weak or mad kings who were deposed. The Stuarts were an annoyance as they believed in the divine right of kings. As to being "usurpers" that raises the question of the legitimacy of the "usurped". We can, for an instance, go back to Henry VII whose claim to the throne was pretty weak. Further back, William the Conqueror won the throne by a trick.
| Stannum wrote: |
|
This makes his use of such circumloquotus language so puzzling to me. Why cloak his opinion in such conflbulative language if he was free to write his own opinion? |
|
He was writing three centuries ago.