#Man City are there by virtue of being better than Man United and therefore less intersting to me who wants to have a laugh | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

lawblrwithalcohol · 5 years ago

Text

A Modest Proposal for the Modern World

It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great nation, or travel to others, when they see the streets, the roads, and tenement-doors crowded with gig-workers of all kinds, found in three’s, four’s, or six’s, all in thrift-store-bought clothes, and refreshing LinkedIn every five minutes. These ... adults, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood and advance their careers, are forced to employ all their time searching for four hours labor to pay interest on student loans and rent on run down boarding houses, instead of being accountants, designers, speech-writers, historians, and musicians.

I think it is agreed by all parties, that this prodigious number of underemployed adults is due in no small part to the prodigious number of unintentially old adults, who, through no fault of their own, have lived far beyond what was once believed to be the natural life span of a man, and who, through their own mismanagement, have not the savings or security to retire the field and spectate on the great game that is our magnificent capitalist economy; and therefore whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these old adults give up their postings and leave for the young and hungry the incomes of their posts would deserve to have his statue made of finest stone and his placard inscribed in gold.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the old adults still reaping the benefits of their postings for the fifth decade: it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of adults past their seventy-third birthday, who now take safety and surety from the young either by holding on to positions of monetary reward or by claiming public benefits for more than one decade.

As to my own part, having turn my thoughts for many years, in between looking for gigs of my own, upon this important subject, and maturely weighted the several schemes of our projectors, both government and private, both liberal and conservative, I have always found those projections to be grossly mistaken in their conclusions. It is true, an aged man requires less food, space, and amenities than a young one, but the aged men I see do in fact elect to use more than even three young men! And I see no harm in allowing a period of years, certainly no more than ten, for a man to relax and enjoy the fruit of his labors while he still has strength of limb to do so. But it is precisely when this strength fails him, when all his prodigious wealth is turned to pills and potions and prolongings, that I propose he should instead think of how he might contribute to the betterment of society.

There is likewise another advantage to my scheme, that it will prevent that slow spiral and decay that all fear and which many know as The Long Goodbye: the loss of memory, of fellowship, of freedom that makes of a man a shell of who he once was.

The sheer number of souls in this land being usually reckoned upwards of 100 million, of these I calculate there may be 15 million so-known aged adults, from whom I would subtract two million as those who live with family and instead of being burdensome instead provide support in the form of cooking, child-care, cleaning, and other non-economic benefits, but this being granted, there will remain 13 million aged adults. The question therefore is, how this number shall be brought to see the common sense of their retirement, which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly to blame for the stagnation and infantilization of the young adults of the nation. For the young can neither gain entry to those fields for which they have been trained nor advance if they were lucky enough to receive an entry level position, often requiring a minimum of five years of relevant experience, without the removal of the top of the hierarchy so that those of middling age may advance and free up postings for the young.

I am assured by our bankers and economists, that a man of years, but no more than 60, is a valuable worker, a sharp mind, and a driver of the great machine of industry, but that a man beyond that is all too often trapped in his way, antiquated in his approach, and full of rust in his gears. He does not aid his employer or his field by remaining on the pitch and should instead be sent home to enjoy his last few days on this earth out in the fresh, which is just reward for spending so few of his days before then out of sight of his desk, calendar, and fluorescent-lit office.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing Chinese of my acquaintance in Seattle, that an old, decrepit man, is, at 73 years old, past his prime as a man and in his prime as kindling, his muscles having disappeared and his frame instead filled out with fat, for the fires of our power plants, though of course he must first be humanely put down and drained of all congealing fluid.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration, that of the 13 million aged adults, already computed, all may be be disposed of by exsanguination and immolation to decrease our reliance upon foreign energy suppliers and reduce the burden on our governmental support structures while increasing the availability of profitable and desirable postings for the young men and women of our nation.

I have reckoned that a man in this country will weigh 165 pounds upon retirement, most of that muscle and bone, but, if given ten years of leisure, he will weight 225 pounds and most of it will be burnable fat.

I grant that these men will be somewhat rare in more healthy climes, but those climes are well suited to supplying energy through solar or wind anyway and do not rely upon fuel-burning plants to create electricity.

The supply of these gentlemen will be guaranteed, as our country has very fine healthcare and is able to ensure that any man of standing is able to live to see 70 at the least, provided the man himself cooperates with his health and is not subject to fast living. This measure will also have the benefit of freeing our healthcare industry to more readily focus on those great problems faced predominantly by the young, who have no money with which to fund such research today, as opposed to those minor affections endured by the old, such as erectile dysfunction.

I have already computed the output of such a man’s frame, and have found it to be about the same as three gallons of foreign-bought oil; and I believe no gentleman would object to his own immolation if he knew it meant we would be free of foreign interest and beholden to none other. Thus our cities will be alight, our young burning with ambition, and our industry steaming along.

Those who are more lean, as some men become in their age instead of fat, may still take solace in knowing that in joining with all others, they have not failed their country, but instead carried out the finest duty we could ask of them.

As to the collection of these men, our hospitals and hospices are already equipped for the administering and transportation of them, and our doctors and nurses well know their needs and complaints. Have no fear, these men shall receive only the finest of treatment as their wick burns down.

A very worthy person, a true lover of his country, and whose virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased in discoursing on this matter, to offer a refinement upon my scheme, He said, that many wives of this nation, having lately been discouraged from cooking traditional, Julia Child-esque meals, might find new life and vigor in the knowledge that those meals would be most desirable by the government, and that cookbooks, programs, and community classes on preparing hearty and vigorous meals should be a priority of any scheme that seeks to make use of the old. I heartily agreed and thanked him for such enlightening advice, and assured him that I would roll out such an addendum the moment my scheme was adopted.

I have perhaps too long expounded on the potential of this scheme, and therefore shall return the the meat of it: I think the advantages my proposal are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.

First, as has already been observed, it will great reduce the number of underemployed gig-workers as the positions at the top will be emptied, soon to be filled by those in the middle, leaving open the middle for the bottom to grab, and opening the bottom postings for the young and hungry.

Second, the ramshackle neighborhoods and dilapidated boarding houses will be done away with as those newly employed shall find newly vacated housing units in far nicer neighborhoods, leaving the slumlords to refurbish or demolish their slums.

Third, whereas it is always good to reduce our dependence on others for power, our use of foreign oil will go down and our global power will go up. For surely no harm ever came of disentangling ourselves from the business interests of other nations.

Fourth, the children of the aged will be relieved of the overpowering burden and heartbreak of The Long Goodbye and will instead know the day and time to make their farewells.

Fifth, the taxes exacted by our government shall decrease as there will no longer be a need to maintain a man’s livelihood for three decades after he is no longer working.

Many other advantages might be enumerated, should the time be taken to fully explore the ramifications of this proposal, but for brevity’s sake I will not do so here.

I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged, that a number of people will thereby much lessened in the nation. This I freely own, but as the population will decrease proportionately across all states, no state shall gain advantage and no seats of Congress will be reapportioned, saving perhaps those of Florida.

Therefore I ask that none talk to me of whatever faux destractions they may conjure for my plan, lest they have some other scheme that would do so much good for the nation.

I profess in the sincerity of my intentions, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing trade, providing for the young, reliving our tax burden, and giving some pleasure to those stuck in the middle. I have no grandparents. I have no children who would benefit from these measures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Damn this was fun to write! I claim no copyright, having lifted several sentences and passages from “A Modest Proposal”, but ask only that the internet not burn me at the stake for my attempt at comedy in these trying times.

@charmedatlaw I hope this made you laugh, or at the least, shake your ruefully.

#personal #writing

17 notes · View notes

bookofdan · 4 years ago

Text

Chuang-Tze, Idealist

The “return to Nature,” however, could not be so readily discouraged; it found voice in this age as in every other, and by what might be called a natural accident its exponent was the most eloquent writer of this time. Chuang-tze, loving Nature as the only mistress who always welcomed him, whatever his infidelities or his age, poured into his philosophy the poetic sensitivity of a Rousseau, and yet sharpened it with the satiric wit of a Voltaire. Who could imagine Mencius so far forgetting himself as to describe a man as having “a large goiter like an earthenware jar?” Chuang belongs to literature as well as to philosophy.

He was born in the province of Sung, and held minor office for a time in the city of Khi-yüan. He visited the same courts as Mencius, but neither, in his extant writings, mentions the other’s name; perhaps they loved each other like contemporaries. Story has it that he refused high office twice. When the Duke of Wei offered him the prime ministry he dismissed the royal messengers with a curtness indicative of a writer’s dreams: “Go away quickly, and do not soil me with your presence. I had rather amuse and enjoy myself in a filthy ditch than be subject to the rules and restrictions in the court of a sovereign. While he was fishing two great officers brought him a message from the King of Khu: “I wish to trouble you with the charge of all my territories.” Chuang, Chuang tells us, answered without turning away from his fishing:

“I have heard that in Khu there is a spirit-like tortoise-shell, the wearer of which died three thousand years ago, and which the king keeps, in his ancestral temple, in a hamper covered with a cloth. Was it better for the tortoise to die and leave its shell to be thus honored? Or would it have been better for it to live, and keep on dragging its tail after it over the mud?” The two officers said “It would have been better for it to live, and draw its tail after it over the mud.” “Go your ways,” said Chuang; “I will keep on drawing my tail after me through the mud.”

His respect for governments equaled that of his spiritual ancestor, Lao-the. He took delight in posting out how many qualities kings and governors shared with thieves. If, by some negligence on his part, a true philosopher should find himself in charge of a state, his proper course would be to do nothing, and allow men in freedom to build their own organs of self-government. “I have heard of letting the world be, and exercising forbearance; I have not heard of governing the world.” The Golden Age, which preceded the earliest kings, had no government; and Yao and Shun, instead of being so honored by China and Confucius, should be charged with having destroyed the primitive happiness of mankind by introducing government. “in the age of perfect virtue men lived in common with birds and beasts, and were on terms of equality with all creatures, as forming one family: how could they know among themselves the distinctions of superior men and small men?”

The wise man, thinks Chuang, will take to his heels at the first sign of government, and will live as far as possible from both philosophers and kings. He will court the peace and silence of the woods (here was a theme that a thousand Chinese painters would seek to illustrate), and let his whole being, without any impediment of artifice or thought, follow the divine Tao—the law and flow of Nature’s inexplicable life. He would be sparing of words, for words mislead as often as they guide, and the Tao—the Way and Essence of Nature—can never be phrased in words or formed in thought; it can only be felt by the blood. He would reject the aid of machinery, preferring the older, more burdensome ways of simpler men; for machinery makes complexity, turbulence and inequality, and no man can live among machines and achieve peace. He would avoid the ownership of property, and would find no use in his life for gold; like Timon he would let the gold lie hidden in the hills, and the pearls remain unsought in the deep. “His distinction is in understanding that all things belong to the one treasury, and that death and life should be viewed in the same way”—as harmonious measures in the rhythm of Nature, waves of one sea.

The center of Chuang’s thought, as of the thought of that half-legendary Lao-the who seemed to him so much profounder than Confucius, was a mystic vision of an impersonal unity, so strangely akin to the doctrines of Buddha and the Upanishads that one is tempted to believe that Indian metaphysics had found its way into China long before the recorded coming of Buddhism four hundred years later. It is true that Chuang is an agnostic, a fatalist, a determinist and a pessimist; but this does not prevent him from being a kind of skeptical saint, a Tao-intoxicated man. He expresses his skepticism characteristically in a story:

The Penumbra said to the Umbra: “At one moment you move, at another you are at rest. At one moment you sit down, at another you get up. Why this instability of purpose?” “I depend,” replied the Umbra, “upon something which causes me to do as I do; and that something depends upon something else which causes it to do as it does. . . . How can I tell why I do one thing or do not do another?” . . . When the body is decomposed, the mind will be decomposed along with it; must not the case be pronounced very deplorable? . . . The change—the rise and dissolution—of all things (continually) goes on, but we do not know who it is that maintains and continues the process. How do we know when any one begins? How do we know when he will end? We have simply to wait for it, and nothing more.

These problems, Chuang suspects, are due less to the nature of things than to the limits of our thought; it is not to be wondered at that the effort of our imprisoned brains to understand the cosmos of which they are such minute particles should end in contradictions, “antinomies,” and befuddlement. This attempt to explain the whole in terms of the part has been a gigantic immodesty, forgivable only on the ground of the amusement which it has caused; for humor, like philosophy, is a view of the part in terms of the whole, and neither is possible without the other. The intellect, says Chuang-tze, can never avail to understand ultimate things, or any profound thing, such as the growth of a child. “Disputation is a proof of not seeing clearly,” and in order to understand the Tao, one “must sternly suppress one’s knowledge”; we have to forget our theories and feel the fact. Education is of no help towards such understanding; submersion in the flow of nature is all-important.

What is the Tao that the rare and favored mystic sees? It is inexpressible in words; weakly and with contradictions we describe it as the unity of all things, their quiet flow from origin to fulfillment, and the law that governs that flow. “Before there were heaven and earth, from of old it was, securely existing.” In that cosmic unity all contradictions are resolved, all distinctions fade, all opposites meet; within it and from its standpoint there is no good or bad, no white or black, no beautiful or ugly, no great or small. “If one only knows that the universe is but (as small as) a tare seed, and the tip of a hair is as large as a mountain, then one may be said to have seen the relativity of things.” In that vague entirety no form is permanent, and none so unique that it cannot pass into another in the leisurely cycle of evolution.

“The seeds (of things) are multitudinous and minute. On the surface of the water they form a membranous texture. When they reach to where the land and water join they become the (lichens that form the) clothes of frogs and oysters. Coming to life on mounds and heights, they become the plantain; and receiving manure, appear as crow’s feet. The roots of the crow’s foot become grubs, and its leaves, butterflies. This butterfly is changed into an insect, and comes to life under a furnace. Then it has the form of a moth. The mother after a thousand days becomes a bird. . . . The ying-hsi uniting with a bamboo produces the khing-ning; this, the panther; the panther, the horse; and the horse the man. Man then enters into the great Machinery (of Evolution), from which all things come forth and which they enter at death.”

It is not as clear as Darwin, but it will serve.

In this endless cycle man himself may pass into other forms; his present shape is transient, and from the viewpoint of eternity may be only superficially real—part of Maya’s deceptive veil of difference.

“Once upon a time I, Chuang-tze, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of following my fancies as a butterfly, and was unconscious of my individuality as a man. Suddenly I awoke, and there I lay, myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming that I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming that I am a man.”

Death is therefore only a change of form, possible for the better; it is, as Ibsen was to say, the great Button-Moulder who fuses us again in this furnace of change:

“Tze Lai fell ill and lay gasping at the point of death, while his wife and children stood around him weeping. Li went to ask from him, and said to them: “Hush! Get out of the way! Do not disturb him in his process of transformation.” . . . Then, leaning against the door, he spoke to (the dying man). The Lai said: “A man’s relations with the Yin and the Yang is more than that to his parents. If they are hastening my death, and I do not obey, I shall be considered unruly. There is the Great Mass (of Nature), that makes me carry this body, labor with this life, relax in old age, and rest in death. Therefore that which has taken care of my birth is that which will take care of my death. Here is a great founder casting his metal. If the metal, dancing up and down, should say, “I must be made into a Mo Yeh’ (a famous old sword), the great founder would surely consider this metal an evil one. So, if, merely because one has once assumed the human form, one insists on being a man, and a man only, the author of transformation will be sure to consider this one an evil being. Let us now regard heaven and earth as a great melting-pot, and the author of transformation as a great founder; and wherever we go, shall we not be at home? Quiet is our sleep, and calm is our awakening.”

When Chuang himself was about to die his disciples prepared for him a ceremonious funeral. But he bade them desist. “With heaven and earth for my coffin and shell, with the sun, moon and stars as my burial regalia, and with all creation to escort me to the grave—are not my funeral paraphernalia ready to hand?” The disciples protested that, unburied, he would be eaten by the carrion birds of the air. To which Chuang answered, with the smiling irony of all his words: “Above ground I shall be food for kites; below I shall be food for mole-crickets and ants. Why robe one to feed the other?”

If we have spoken at such length of the ancient philosophers of China it is partly because the insoluble problems of human life and destiny irresistibly attract the inquisitive mind, and partly because the lore of her philosophers is the most precious portion of China’s gift to the world. Long ago (in 1697) the cosmic-minded Leibnitz, after studying Chinese philosophy, appealed for the mingling and cross-fertilization of East and West. “The condition of affairs among ourselves, “ he wrote, in terms which have been useful to every generation, “is such that in view of the inordinate lengths to which the corruption of morals has advanced, I almost think it necessary that Chinese missionaries should be sent to us to teach us the aim and practice of national theology. . . . For I believe that if a wise man were to be appointed judge . . . of the goodness of peoples, he would award the golden apple to the Chinese.” He begged Peter the Great to build a land route to China, and he promoted the foundation of societies in Moscow and Berlin for the “opening up of China and the interchange of civilizations between China and Europe.” In 1721 Christian Wolf made an attempt in this direction by lecturing at Halle “on the Practical Philosophy of the Chinese.” He was accused of atheism, and dismissed; but when Frederick mounted the throne he called him to Purssia, and restored him to honor.

The Enlightenment took up Chinese philosophy at the same time that it carved out Chinese gardens and adorned its homes with Chinoiseries. The Physiocrats seem to have been influenced by Lao-the and Chuang-tze in their doctrine of laissez-faire; and Rousseau at times talked so like the Old Master that we at once correlate him with Lao-tze and Chuang, as we should correlate Voltaire with Confucius and Mencius, if these had been blessed with wit. “I have read the books of Confucius with attention,” said Voltaire; “I have made extracts from them; I have found in them nothing but the purest morality, without the slightest tinge of charlatanism.” Goethe in 1770 recorded his resolution to read the philosophical classics of China; and when the guns of half the world resounded at Leipzig forty-three years later, the old sage paid no attention to them, being absorbed in Chinese literature.

May this brief and superficial introduction lead the reader on to study the Chinese philosophers themselves, as Goethe studied them, and Voltaire, and Tolstoi.

Our Oriental Heritage by Will Durant

Book Three: The Far East

Chapter III: Socialists and Anarchists

#quotes #will durant #our oriental heritage #chuang-tze #chuang tzu #zhuang zhou #tao

0 notes

geekprincess1 · 6 years ago

Text

President John F. Kennedy

Washington, D.C.

June 10, 1963

President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst's enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and the conduct of the public's business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation's thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.

Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.

"There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities--and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."

Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy--or of a collective death-wish for the world.

To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self- restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.

For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people--but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system--a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.

At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others--by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.

Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.

Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope-- and the purpose of allied policies--to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.

This will require a new effort to achieve world law--a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other's actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We have also been talking in Geneva about the other first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament-- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920's. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort--to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security--it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.

I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.

First: Chairman khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history--but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.

Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.

Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.

But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because the freedom is incomplete.

It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government--local, State, and National--to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.

All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights--the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation--the right to breathe air as nature provided it--the right of future generations to a healthy existence?

While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can--if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers--offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

0 notes

theathenianinspector · 7 years ago

Text

Sometimes the achievements in philosophy in the ancient world are worthy of applause, the methods and thoughts of Socrates and Plato come to mind. But other times, classical philosophy has been used to oppress minorities and justify political inequality. Aristotle’s work has been immortalized…for all the wrong reasons. His thoughts were used to defend slavery and created the doctrine that women deserved fewer political rights, despite them being equally as competent citizens as men.

Even before Aristotle, women and men had segregated social roles. Homer’s Iliad describes women as weaving at their looms and warming the beds of their husbands/masters. While fifth century Athens had women covering up and being confined indoors; sound applicable to a particular country today? Ancient Greece society was not known for women’s empowerment and Aristotle’s ideas were hardly novel at the time. He probably only intellectually formalized the misogyny of the period.

Athenian woman washing clothes.

His logic was simple:

Men and women are physically different in nature.

One is stronger, the other weaker respectively.

This difference is translated into segregated gender roles.

Men are warriors and citizens. Women are housewives and mothers.

Men are citizens and therefore have a role in defending the state. Therefore, they deserve political participation.

Women’s roles are confined to the house and they do not risk their lives for the state. They do not deserve political participation.

Everything natural is right.

Thus, women being prevented from political participation is right because their gender differences justify it.

This line of thought is flawed in many ways. Firstly, Aristotle derived his notion that women exclusively belong in the house from a false premise:

‘With all other animals the female is softer in disposition than the male, is more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive, and more attentive to the nurture of the young…The fact is, the nature of man is the most rounded off and complete, and consequently in man the qualities or capacities above referred to are found in their perfection. Hence woman is more compassionate than man, more easily moved to tears, at the same time is more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike. She is, furthermore, more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more void of shame or self-respect, falser of speech, more deceptive, and of more retentive memory.’ Aristotle, History of Animals 9.1.

So, women are just naturally softer and more compassionate than men, because nature decreed it be so? I don’t think Aristotle knew about the fact that hyena packs are led by females, or that female lions have been observed to grow manes to trick threatening males or the fact that elephant herds are led by a matriarch. While I don’t blame him for not knowing about the social structures of hyena communities, he probably should have done a smidge more work before trying to prove female docility and subordination through wildlife. He’s also wrong to think this applied to humans, there is evidence of women being just as courageous as men in the ancient world: think of Artemisia of Caria, Tomyris or Telesilla. Each of them was credited to have performed valiantly in their respective battles. Aristotle did observe that ��barbarian’ cultures did allow women into military and political leadership roles, but he claimed this was damaging to their societies and failed to mention that Greek women not fighting wars may have had something to do with them not being allowed to.

Notice as well that women of course are more cunning and prone to treachery, because men are never like that are they? They would never deliberately trick cities to open their gates to slaughter or build a deceptive Trojan Horse to totally eradicate a city from the map. Aristotle’s gender roles not only victimize women, but they cause problems for male behavioral expectations: men’s souls are more complete, but they have less compassion. I’d say compassion is a pretty important value that shouldn’t be excluded. Compassion in war is called mercy. Even warriors shouldn’t be exempt from basic human decency and kindness. By excluding this quality from the male sphere, Aristotle is just giving male aristocrats an allowance for being arseholes. These social expectations are damaging to men, even to this day.

Furthermore, men’s souls being perfect and complete, but women’s having incomplete ones is a common theme in his philosophy to rationalise women’s non-participation:

‘And all possess the various parts of the soul but possess them in separate ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part at all, and the female has it, but without full authority, while the child has it, but in an undeveloped form.’ Aristotle, Politics 1.1260a.

‘Hence it is manifest that all the persons mentioned have a moral virtue of their own, and that the temperance of a woman and that of a man are not the same, nor their courage and justice, as Socrates thought, but the one is the courage of command, and the other that of subordination, and the case is similar with the other virtues.’ Aristotle Politics 1.1260a.

‘those who enumerate the virtues of different persons separately, as Gorgias does, are much more correct than those who define virtue in that way. Hence, we must hold that all of these persons have their appropriate virtues, as the poet said of woman: “Silence gives grace to woman”, though that is not the case likewise with a man.’ Aristotle Politics 1.1260a.

He believed that the female soul is incomplete because it lacks the command aspect that men possess. Therefore, women must be relegated to command’s logical opposite: subordination. As we have already established, women can be in positions of leadership in the ancient world, this is even more evident in the modern world where we have female MPs and cabinet members. The metaphysical theorizing about the human soul is already incredibly abstract, too abstract to justify the deprivation of democratic rights. I’m certainly not proposing that men and women are exactly the same – but difference does not merit inequality. Especially when those premises of difference are themselves already empirically false or impossible to prove. Women can be leaders and warriors. Women can be braver and nobler than men. The idea that women can only have roles in the household and therefore they deserve no political representation apart from their husbands is leap of logic. Surely, women are still bound by the same laws as the state which prohibited their participation?

Aristotle, the intellectual father of misogyny.

But Aristotle’s logic was handed down and then a couple centuries worth of gender roles were cemented by his reasoning. Travel forward in time to the 19th Century when women were campaigning for suffrage and you’ll see these same arguments based on misguided premises being repeated:

‘The natural distinction of sex, which admittedly differentiates the functions of men and women in many departments of human activity, ought to continue to be recognised in the sphere of Parliamentary representation…The question: ‘Why should you deny to a woman of genius the vote, which you would give to her gardener’. You are dealing, not with individuals, but with the masses, in my judgement the gain which might result through the admission of gifted and well-qualified women would be more than neutralised by the injurious consequences which would follow to the status and influence of women as a whole.’ Henry Herbert Asquith, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1912.

This statement was issued in the House of Commons just over a century ago by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and British Empire, arguably the most influential and powerful man in the world. Misogyny wasn’t simply the belief of the uneducated masses who didn’t know any better. Asquith was a well-educated aristocrat and politician…who also coincidentally studied Classics at Balliol College, Oxford. It would not be unreasonable to say that he may have read his fair share of Aristotle. It was a genuine question that an educated woman lacked a political voice in comparison to uneducated men. And his answer is insufficient. An influx of women voting would not have destroyed the United Kingdom, because even working-class women would have had a similar standard of education as their male counterparts, who were actually politically represented. Just because they have different anatomical features, did not mean they lacked the same decision-making abilities as men. Asquith’s argument essentially can be boiled down to: Working-class women don’t deserve the vote because they are dumb, although working-class men are dumb as well, they get to vote. Also, surely it would have been more democratic to have allowed women the vote? After all, they were subject to the same laws voted through Parliament as everybody else yet had no say over their MPs. But Asquith was not the only voice against women’s suffrage:

“We believe that men and women are different – not similar – beings, with talents that are complementary, not identical, and that they therefore ought to have different shares in the management of the State, that they severally compose. We do not depreciate by one jot or tittle women’s work and mission. We are concerned to find proper channels of expression for that work. We seek a fruitful diversity of political function, not a stultifying uniformity.” Violet Markham, Social Reformer.

‘(a) Because the spheres of men and women, owing to natural causes, are essentially different, and therefore their share in the public management of the State should be different.’ Women’s National Anti-Suffrage League Manifesto.

Aristotle’s philosophy of depriving women of political representation was internalized by educated women as well to rationalize their own societal inequality. Whilst ‘political function’ should indeed not be uniform for every single individual; suffrage is a political right. Rights are by definition unvarying and applicable to all citizens, one of the reasons they’re rights. And all this stemmed from Aristotle writing in the fourth century BCE. All this from a false premise on female docility which ancient Greek society and gender roles either didn’t allow to be empirically disproved or exoticized it when it was. It took a world war before politicians in Parliament were persuaded that all women could perform the same traditional jobs as men in 1928.

Anti-Suffrage Propaganda, 20th Century.

Come to think of it, women as a collective have been able to vote for less than a century in the United Kingdom. Thus, whenever you hear people complaining that women are getting preferential treatment or they’re becoming ‘over-represented’ in politics and popular media because of a ‘feminazi agenda’. Just remember that until 1918 you couldn’t see a woman at a voting booth or at the dispatch box in the House of Commons. That wasn’t ‘ancient history’. The reason why they might be appearing too publicly prominent is because until now they’ve been invisible. Aristotle’s writings screwed over the lives of countless women from the 4th century BCE up till the 19th AD. But women and fair sense won out in the end, I suppose Aristotle has been defeated; this is progress, but not a total victory comforting though it is. Although there is much more still to be done, in our own countries and around the world, we’ve come a long way in a short time.

“And at Westminster, where suffragettes chained themselves to statues and hid in a broom cupboard on census night, the leaders of the House of Commons and the House of Lords are women. Black Rod, whose predecessor ejected suffragettes from the palace precincts, is a woman. A century ago the home secretary and director of public prosecutions were grappling with the direct action of suffragettes. Today, both those offices are held by women.” Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 2018.

Dan Tang

The Athenian Inspector

If you want to learn about the Romans, check out: https://romanimperium.wordpress.com/

The Aristotelian Roots of Anti-Suffrage Sometimes the achievements in philosophy in the ancient world are worthy of applause, the methods and thoughts of Socrates and Plato come to mind.

#Ancient Philosophy #Anti-Suffrage #Aristotle #Classics #Feminism #Misogyny #Opinion #Politics #Sexism #Suffrage #Voting #Women #Women&039;s History #Women&039;s History Month

0 notes

pamphletstoinspire · 7 years ago

Photo

THE PROPHECY OF OSEE - From The Douay-Rheims Bible - Latin Vulgate

Chapter 11

INTRODUCTION.

Osee, or Hosea, whose name signifies a saviour, was the first in the order of time among those who are commonly called lesser prophets, because their prophecies are short. He prophesied in the kingdom of Israel, (that is, of the ten tribes) about the same time that Isaias prophesied in the kingdom of Juda. Ch. --- The chronological order is not observed in any edition. The Sept. very from the rest. They place the less before the greater prophets, and read some of the names rather differently, as Prot. do also, though they have nothing but novelty to recommend the change. We shall here specify the Prot. names, (H.) in the order in which these prophets appeared: (C.) 1. Hosea, 2. Amos, 3. Jonah, 4. Micah, 5. Nahum, 6. Joel, 7. Zephaniah, 8. Habakkuk, 9. Obadiah, 10. Haggai, 11. Zechariah, 12. Malachi. H. --- It is not known who collected them into one volume. but the book of Ecclesiasticus (xlix. 12.) speaks of the twelve; and 4 Esd. i. 39. specifies them as they are found in the Sept. Osee, Amos, Micheas, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Nahum, &c. as in the Vulg. C. --- Many other prophets appeared before these, (W.) but Osee is the first of the sixteen whose works are extant. He must have continued his ministry about eighty-five years, and lived above one hundred and ten, if the first verse speaks of him alone. But some take it to regard the whole collection, and may be added by another hand. C. --- The style of Osee is sententious and very hard to be understood, (S. Jer.) as but little is known of the last kings of Israel, in whose dominions he lived, and to whom he chiefly refers, though he speaks sometimes of Juda, &c. C. --- By taking a wife, and other parables, he shews their criminal conduct and chastisment, and foretells their future deliverance and the benefits to be conferred by Christ. We must observe that the prophets often style the kingdom of the two tribes, Juda, Benjamin, Jerusalem, or the house of David; and that of the ten tribes, Ephraim, Joseph, Samaria, Jezrahel, Bethel, or Bethaven; and often Israel or Jacob till after the captivity of these tribes, when the latter titles refer to Juda, who imitated the virtues of Jacob better than the other kingdom. W. --- Then all distinction of this nature was at an end. H.

The additional Notes in this Edition of the New Testament will be marked with the letter A. Such as are taken from various Interpreters and Commentators, will be marked as in the Old Testament. B. Bristow, C. Calmet, Ch. Challoner, D. Du Hamel, E. Estius, J. Jansenius, M. Menochius, Po. Polus, P. Pastorini, T. Tirinus, V. Bible de Vence, W. Worthington, Wi. Witham. — The names of other authors, who may be occasionally consulted, will be given at full length.

Verses are in English and Latin.

HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY

This Catholic commentary on the Old Testament, following the Douay-Rheims Bible text, was originally compiled by Catholic priest and biblical scholar Rev. George Leo Haydock (1774-1849). This transcription is based on Haydock's notes as they appear in the 1859 edition of Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary printed by Edward Dunigan and Brother, New York, New York.

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES

Changes made to the original text for this transcription include the following:

Greek letters. The original text sometimes includes Greek expressions spelled out in Greek letters. In this transcription, those expressions have been transliterated from Greek letters to English letters, put in italics, and underlined. The following substitution scheme has been used: A for Alpha; B for Beta; G for Gamma; D for Delta; E for Epsilon; Z for Zeta; E for Eta; Th for Theta; I for Iota; K for Kappa; L for Lamda; M for Mu; N for Nu; X for Xi; O for Omicron; P for Pi; R for Rho; S for Sigma; T for Tau; U for Upsilon; Ph for Phi; Ch for Chi; Ps for Psi; O for Omega. For example, where the name, Jesus, is spelled out in the original text in Greek letters, Iota-eta-sigma-omicron-upsilon-sigma, it is transliterated in this transcription as, Iesous. Greek diacritical marks have not been represented in this transcription.

Footnotes. The original text indicates footnotes with special characters, including the astrisk (*) and printers' marks, such as the dagger mark, the double dagger mark, the section mark, the parallels mark, and the paragraph mark. In this transcription all these special characters have been replaced by numbers in square brackets, such as [1], [2], [3], etc.

Accent marks. The original text contains some English letters represented with accent marks. In this transcription, those letters have been rendered in this transcription without their accent marks.

Other special characters.

Solid horizontal lines of various lengths that appear in the original text have been represented as a series of consecutive hyphens of approximately the same length, such as ---.

Ligatures, single characters containing two letters united, in the original text in some Latin expressions have been represented in this transcription as separate letters. The ligature formed by uniting A and E is represented as Ae, that of a and e as ae, that of O and E as Oe, and that of o and e as oe.

Monetary sums in the original text represented with a preceding British pound sterling symbol (a stylized L, transected by a short horizontal line) are represented in this transcription with a following pound symbol, l.

The half symbol (1/2) and three-quarters symbol (3/4) in the original text have been represented in this transcription with their decimal equivalent, (.5) and (.75) respectively.

Unreadable text. Places where the transcriber's copy of the original text is unreadable have been indicated in this transcription by an empty set of square brackets, [].

Chapter 11

God proceeds in threatening Israel for their ingratitude: yet he will not utterly destroy them.

[1] As the morning passeth, so hath the king of Israel passed away. Because Israel was a child, and I loved him: and I called my son out of Egypt.

Sicut mane transiit, pertransiit rex Israel. Quia puer Israel, et dilexi eum; et ex Aegypto vocavi filium meum.

[2] As they called them, they went away from before their face: they offered victims to Baalim, and sacrificed to idols.

Vocaverunt eos, sic abierunt a facie eorum; Baalim immolabant, et simulacris sacrificabant.

[3] And I was like a foster father to Ephraim, I carried them in my arms: and they knew not that I healed them.

Et ego quasi nutritius Ephraim : portabam eos in brachiis meis, et nescierunt quod curarem eos.

[4] I will draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bands of love: and I will be to them as one that taketh off the yoke on their jaws: and I put his meat to him that he might eat.

In funiculis Adam traham eos, in vinculis caritatis; et ero eis quasi exaltans jugum super maxillas eorum, et declinavi ad eum ut vesceretur.

[5] He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king: because they would not be converted.

Non revertetur in terram Aegypti, et Assur ipse rex ejus, quoniam noluerunt converti.

[6] The sword hath begun in his cities, and it shall consume his chosen men, and shall devour their heads.

Coepit gladius in civitatibus ejus, et consumet electos ejus, et comedet capita eorum.

[7] And my people shall long for my return: but a yoke shall be put upon them together, which shall not be taken off.

Et populus meus pendebit ad reditum meum; jugum autem imponetur eis simul, quod non auferetur.

[8] How shall I deal with thee, O Ephraim, shall I protect thee, O Israel? how shall I make thee as Adama, shall I set thee as Seboim? my heart is turned within me, my repentance is stirred up.

Quomodo dabo te, Ephraim? protegam te, Israel? Quomodo dabo te sicut Adama, ponam te ut Seboim? Conversum est in me cor meum, pariter conturbata est poenitudo mea.

[9] I will not execute the fierceness of my wrath: I will not return to destroy Ephraim: because I am God, and not man: the holy one in the midst of thee, and I will not enter into the city.

Non faciam furorem irae meae; non convertar ut disperdam Ephraim, quoniam Deus ego, et non homo; in medio tui sanctus, et non ingrediar civitatem.

[10] They shall walk after the Lord, he shall roar as a lion: because he shall roar, and the children of the sea shall fear.

Post Dominum ambulabunt; quasi leo rugiet, quia ipse rugiet, et formidabunt filii maris.

[11] And they shall fly away like a bird out of Egypt, and like a dove out of the land of the Assyrians: and I will place them in their own houses, saith the Lord.

Et avolabunt quasi avis ex Aegypto, et quasi columba de terra Assyriorum : et collocabo eos in domibus suis, dicit Dominus.

[12] Ephraim hath compassed me about with denials, and the house of Israel with deceit: but Juda went down as a witness with God, and is faithful with the saints.

Circumdedit me in negatione Ephraim, et in dolo domus Israel; Judas autem testis descendit cum Deo, et cum sanctis fidelis.

Commentary:

Ver. 1. Away. The last kings of Israel lived in the midst of troubles. H. --- Osee, though one of the best, brought ruin on the nation. C. --- Son: Israel. But as the calling of Israel out of Egypt was a figure of the calling of Christ from thence; therefore this text is also applicable to Christ, as we learn from S. Mat. ii. 15. Ch. Julian pretends that the apostle has abused this text. But it speaks of both events. S. Jer. --- Eusebius (Dem. ix. 3.) thinks that S. Mat. refers to Balaam; (Num. xxiv. 8.) and S. Jerom does not reject this opinion, (in Mat. ii. C.) to avoid "wrangling," though he repeatedly alleges this text as a proof his version being more accurate than that of the Sept. which has his children. This reading the best editions retain; so that it may seem a matter of surprise, that Fabricius should give this verse as a specimen of Origen's Hexapla, and still print my son, taking it, as he says, from the Barbarini copy, the London Polyglot, and Cave. Bib. Gr. iii. 12. The first column has the Heb. text, and the second the same in Greek characters, &c. The reader may form a judgment of this work from the following specimen: 1. Heb. (which we shall express) karathi bani. 2. Gr. karaqi bani. 3. Aq. ekalesa ton uion mou. 4. Sym. keklhtai uioV mou. 5. Sept. keklhtai uioV mou. 6. Th. kai ekalesa uion mou. If any other versions were added, to form Octapla, &c. they were placed after Theodotion, who, though prior to Symmachus, is placed after him, because his version was not so unlike that of the Sept. and the deficiencies were chiefly supplied from him. In the Rom. and Alex. edit. instead of the above we find, metekalesa ta tekna autou. "I have recalled his children." H. --- This is literally spoken of Israel, (styled God's son, Ex. iv 23.) and mystically, (W.) though no less (H.) truly, of Jesus Christ, as the inspired evangelist shews. W.

Ver. 2. They called: viz. Moses and Aaron called: but they went away after other gods, and would not hear. Ch. --- Sept. "As I called them back, or (repeatedly; metekalhsa. Grabe has, "he called;" meaning any of God's ministers) so they rushed away from my presence." H. --- This sense appears preferable to the Heb. C.

Ver. 3. Healed them. My laws were designed to counteract idolatry. H. --- I treated them with the utmost tenderness. Deut. i. 31. and xxxii. 11.

Ver. 4. Adam. I placed my people in a sort of paradise, (C.) like the first man; and as they have imitated him, they shall suffer accordingly. Rufin. Haimo. --- But Sept. &c. render, "of a man." They shall be treated like the rest. C. --- Grace draws man by sweet means. His free-will is not destroyed, nor is he impelled, like beasts, by force or fear, (W.) though the latter is often used for the most salutary purposes. --- Yoke, or muzzle, which prevents them from eating. H. --- I furnish them with manna. Can it be suspected that I wish to oppress them? C.

Ver. 5. Egypt. Many went, contrary to this prohibition. H. --- Yet they did not prosper, as they expected. The Hebrews had also often murmured in the desert, and threatened to return to Egypt.

Ver. 6. Heads. Heb. "counsellors." Civil war desolated the kingdom, and made way for the Assyrians. Sept. "they are devoured on account of their projects." C. --- They are at a loss what to do.

Ver. 7. Off, for a long time; and indeed Israel never recovered its former state, after the captivity. H. --- Then they became more docile. Heb. is very ambiguous. C.

Ver. 8. Adama, &c. Adama and Seboim were two cities in the neighbourhood of Sodom, and underwent the like destruction. Ch. --- God punishes, like a father, with regret.

Ver. 9. Not man. I am not actuated by the spirit of revenge, nor do I fear lest my enemy escape. C. --- I punish in order to reclaim, (S. Jer.) and reserve eternal vengeance only for those who die impenitent. --- Holy one. If there be a just man in Israel, I will spare the nation; (Gen. xviii. 32.) or there are some just, like Tobias, and therefore a part shall be reserved; or, (C.) I am the just (H.) God. S. Jer.

Ver. 10. Lion. His power is most terrible, and his commands must be obeyed. C. --- All nations shall permit the return of Israel. H. --- They shall come from the sea, of from its islands.

Ver. 11. Egypt. Some returned soon; others not before the reign of Alexander, or perhaps later. C. Diss.

Ver. 12. Denials; refusing to adhere to my worship. H. --- They wished to unite it with that of idols. 3 K. xviii. C. --- Saints. The priests and temple are preserved in Juda. Ezechias brought the people to serve God faithfully, while Israel was led captive. Sept. "the house of Israel and Juda with impiety. Now God hath known them lovingly, and it shall be called the holy people of God." Thus both kingdoms were criminal, and God exercised his mercy towards both. H. --- The Jews relate that when their ancestors were pursued by the Egyptians, and the people were desponding, Juda signalized his courage by entering the bed of the sea. S. Jer. - These traditions are suspicious. C.

#prophecy of osee

1 note · View note

pleasantdinosaurblaze-blog · 7 years ago

Text

On Moto Z's Modular Future As well as The Maker Neighborhood.

She said it was actually Fate when Mama had actually discovered Evangeline all those years earlier. Criminals functioning in valid outlets could set up untrue PIN pads that gather your info, but certainly never send this to your bank. Some folks presume that simply the President wields real electrical power, however our team're receiving a civics lesson now about just what can, and can not, be actually performed when certain people reside in essential locations in the Us senate. Like http://ascendentidefrumusete.info , folks are enticed to those who have the characteristics they believe are missing in themselves, discusses psychoanalyst Ross A. Rosenberg in She Drives a Mercedes, He Rides a Harley: Why Our company Are actually Brought in to Opposite Personalities" for Huffington Post. On the whole, Idea X commonly confirms to become most reliable in relations to consistency of work. I think you can possibly do just about anything you put your mind to. I presume your thoughts is actually awful thing you may utilize as a reason to refrain from doing one thing. As well as given that there are actually right now additional individuals with a telephone compared to accessibility to tidy water in sub-Saharan Africa, this will not long suggest nearly everyone on our significantly crowded world are going to not manage to get away the discrimination. A brand new 13.3-inch dimension between the 12.5-inch ThinkPad Doing yoga 260 as well as ThinkPad Yoga exercise 14-inch 460, integrating the lift-and-lock keyboard from the latter. In 2001, individuals were actually glued to their TV sets when revolutionaries took down the Twin Platforms in New York Area. Furthermore, I make that crystal clear to staff member that plan modifications can be made if they are actually disappointed after beginning a brand new job. I don't think much could produce me appreciate Mackenzie's personality, but the flimsy reason for her actions certainly didn't produce me appreciate Mackenzie. Things is actually, they ARE ACTUALLY comical, however after a certain number of times, and also I am actually mosting likely to say that number is about 2, most people aren't going to laugh out loud at the precise same account. Back, when our experts began to perform the stargazing programmes on the BBC, one of the reasons to perform this was actually only to obtain folks to search for from time to time. Allow me uncover values where I had actually not anticipated all of them, and talents in folks who I had actually not thought to have any kind of. The Bitwalking manager for Malawi, Carl Meyer, has established the 1st two Bitwalking centers in Lilongwe as well as Mthuntama where regional folks will definitely be actually trained effective ways to trade the BW$ online for US$ or even the regional unit of currency, Malawi Kwacha. All of us recognize Lolita is actually supposed to be shocking, revolting even, many people unable to finish it. Sexy, serious fiction about pedophilia is actually the very clear edge from the fictional pouch, something disallowed in various areas, also today. I am actually 67, therefore typically I receive factors for individuals that age, and there are terrific jobs that would certainly never have existed even 10 years earlier. Howevered, this is still plainly recognizable as a ThinkPad at 100 rates, coming from the squared-off black covering to the overly busy keyboard along with the famous aiming embed the center. Cryptococcus neoformans mostly has an effect on folks with damaged immune systems and also could additionally influence pet dogs including pussy-cats as well as pet dogs. Gazing aimlessly out the window is actually as significant to imagination as logging on to Facebook to view the latest image of your youthful nephew then coming back to do work in a better, lighter, extra effective state of mind. I believe in the hr I participated in SA, I easily found a higher energy gatling gun which, again, encourages KoS mentality. People marketing this game always keep mentioning footwears on the ground," very likely to still the enthusiasts flipping out regarding Call of Role turning into a space game. First and foremost there are some folks that obviously are actually tied the knot to the notion that individuals are entirely reasonable. At that point along arrived Geralt of Rivia, riding atop The Witcher 3: Wild Pursuit with a positive swagger, all set to give The Senior Scrolls a really good knocking. The advantage of picking up from your other trainees is actually likewise extremely important - the conversations you get into when you are actually encompassed by people examining various subject matters as well as going after different pathways are going to provide you brand-new methods to take a look at the planet around you. You can easily change factors, however that really doesn't matter that you removal the tree is or even that you go somewhere new on X-mas Eve. Offer the ThinkPad Tablet computer 2 a sidewards glance while this rests in its own dock and also you could only believe this was actually a laptop. The government has given the personnels at Kaziranga remarkable powers that give them significant protection against prosecutor if they shoot and also eliminate individuals in the playground. Once you are actually adapted to the exercise, you can easily make an effort incorporating some body weight lifting this is actually very importan especially for ladies (the bone tissue density reduces along with age or even a lot more if you are taking prednisone), you must begin along with the lower body weight (2 pounds or even canned meals can easily operate also). These self-appointed sensors were actually (fairly paradoxically, if you think about that) aiming to be actually nothing lower than the self-appointed Catchers in the Rye, securing our childish virtue coming from falling victim to The Catcher in the Rye. It pisses me off that Religious still assume he deserves to simulate a gigantic asshat. Yet if you resemble me and also you prefer authors to cut to the chase, make their aspect, then leave you along with a massive large appendix if you have an interest in the regression study from how many freshmen will enjoy a person choke to fatality given that they assume another person will certainly relate to the saving, then this publication is actually except you. Given that if you wish to, you possess to know that it may be a less consistent way of living be in research study, then you are depending on a ton of smooth money and also gives. Our team showed German-English bilinguals video clips from activities with a movement in all of them, like a lady strolling in the direction of an automobile or a man biking towards the food store and then inquired to illustrate the settings. Other primary benefits consist of individuals living longer lifestyles as well as low unlawful act fees because of individuals being actually commonly excellent. As I heard that, the Soviet assaults will go in three waves: first would be primary military/population/communication/ combinations-thereof cities, as well as a second wave of attacks would target major whatever-else-you will- think-was-on-the-first-list-but-wasn' t urban areas.

0 notes