Scan barcode
kevinboleyn's review against another edition
5.0
Wasn't what I'd expected; much better! "Empire of Reason...a nation that will have liberated itself from all forms of tyranny over the human mid. Call it the land f the free."
bupdaddy's review against another edition
4.0
The United States' founding fathers were not, as a group, Christians, as most even dilettante history readers know. If we want to paint with a broad brush, they were Deists, but there's really no need to paint with a broad br-
Oh, what's that? There is a need to do that? And "Deist," if you really know your stuff, actually means "atheist," so all the founding fathers were atheists? And you have to have someone super smart like Stewart to show you how different quotes actually secretly mean "I'm an atheist!"?
Or maybe Stewart has an agenda he's emotionally invested in.
I loved the first hundred pages, which were really about the founding fathers and the religious environment of the times, then found the next two hundred dense solipsistic sophism*, the questionable conclusion of which was the founders were all atheists who knew better than the rest of the citizens of the country they were founding, and kept their brilliance on this point secret because the world just wasn't ready for their awesomeness. I stuck with the book out of sheer consarnedness.
But I'm glad I did. It picked up again for the last hundred or so pages, and made a good case with a strong narrative about the separation of church and state, even if he pauses to say things like when George Washington mentions the nation being religious, he didn't really mean Religious religious, he was using a secret but obvious word that means morals based in atheism.
Oh, I went off on a tangent again. If one can mentally numb oneself to that sort of stuff, the peoples' own writings (who he, to his credit, uses liberally) show a questioning, even a dismissal, of many of the supernatural elements of Jesus, and the trinity, and shows people like Ethan Allen to have had surprisingly fertile brains.
It was also neat to hear people like John Adams speculating on how many other worlds there must be out in space, and how many inhabitants of those distant places there must be. I love it when John Adams does anything, you know?
*Yeah, I know. But I used the phrase dense solipsistic sophism with a chick I was trying to impress, and it seemed to work! Please indulge me.
Oh, what's that? There is a need to do that? And "Deist," if you really know your stuff, actually means "atheist," so all the founding fathers were atheists? And you have to have someone super smart like Stewart to show you how different quotes actually secretly mean "I'm an atheist!"?
Or maybe Stewart has an agenda he's emotionally invested in.
I loved the first hundred pages, which were really about the founding fathers and the religious environment of the times, then found the next two hundred dense solipsistic sophism*, the questionable conclusion of which was the founders were all atheists who knew better than the rest of the citizens of the country they were founding, and kept their brilliance on this point secret because the world just wasn't ready for their awesomeness. I stuck with the book out of sheer consarnedness.
But I'm glad I did. It picked up again for the last hundred or so pages, and made a good case with a strong narrative about the separation of church and state, even if he pauses to say things like when George Washington mentions the nation being religious, he didn't really mean Religious religious, he was using a secret but obvious word that means morals based in atheism.
Oh, I went off on a tangent again. If one can mentally numb oneself to that sort of stuff, the peoples' own writings (who he, to his credit, uses liberally) show a questioning, even a dismissal, of many of the supernatural elements of Jesus, and the trinity, and shows people like Ethan Allen to have had surprisingly fertile brains.
It was also neat to hear people like John Adams speculating on how many other worlds there must be out in space, and how many inhabitants of those distant places there must be. I love it when John Adams does anything, you know?
*Yeah, I know. But I used the phrase dense solipsistic sophism with a chick I was trying to impress, and it seemed to work! Please indulge me.
readermeginco's review against another edition
4.0
What a fantastic look at the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. A thorough understanding of western philosophy is a necessary prerequisite. I can easily see why this book was long-listed! This is a book I will re-read even more slowly.
mikecross's review against another edition
4.0
A 3 1/2 star book that is far more about philosophy than our founding fathers. I felt it went a little too much into the philosophical history of deism in order to establish a basis of Nature's God. However, Stewart is very well researched and reasoned, and he ties it all together.
sls0369's review
I really really wanted to get absorbed by this book, but I just couldn't get into it.
dngoldman's review
4.0
Stewart's book is a fascinating mix of the history, political theory, religion, and philosophy. His main point is that many of the important founders (Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Allen, Paine) were "radical Diest" - something is much closer to atheism (or at a minimum Universalism) than traditional christian religions. This philosophy deeply influenced the political structure of our early American republic which included the aim to protect the US from the influence of more traditional religious beliefs. Among his main points
- The founders' philosophy has a straight line connection Spinoza and Epicurus, who's influence on Locke is usually underplayed. This philosophy sees God as essentially equivalent to the laws of nature, with no active role to play in human affairs. His chapter on Epicurus is excellent and well worth reading on it's own.
- As such, once those laws of nature are established, human reason can be used to figure out the rest.
- Stewart provides the Spinoza/Epicurus roots of many of the self evident trues and concepts such as the pursuit of happiness (which can be done only through living a virtuous life, which can be found through reason).
- Often the founders' language sounds religious. This is basically a function of different language of the time (e.g. Nature's god was a clear reference to a pantheistic god, not the judo/Christian one, but if sounds very religious today ) and the skill of founders' of avoiding direct chritism from more traditional religionists . According to Stewart, these writings were seen at the times as heretical, atheistic by the religious community.
- Traditional religion does a have role - to help the undeducted masses live a more life. But the founders saw traditional religion as basically a tool, not something true in itself.
The book does have some important weaknesses. Stewart focuses on a handful of founders (Jefferson, Franklin, Allen, Paine). While very important, there were other key players, and it leaves open the question about the intent of founders as a whole. Also the chapters often seem repetitive and disorganized.
Overall the book is a fascinating read for those who like the intersection of ideas and history.
- The founders' philosophy has a straight line connection Spinoza and Epicurus, who's influence on Locke is usually underplayed. This philosophy sees God as essentially equivalent to the laws of nature, with no active role to play in human affairs. His chapter on Epicurus is excellent and well worth reading on it's own.
- As such, once those laws of nature are established, human reason can be used to figure out the rest.
- Stewart provides the Spinoza/Epicurus roots of many of the self evident trues and concepts such as the pursuit of happiness (which can be done only through living a virtuous life, which can be found through reason).
- Often the founders' language sounds religious. This is basically a function of different language of the time (e.g. Nature's god was a clear reference to a pantheistic god, not the judo/Christian one, but if sounds very religious today ) and the skill of founders' of avoiding direct chritism from more traditional religionists . According to Stewart, these writings were seen at the times as heretical, atheistic by the religious community.
- Traditional religion does a have role - to help the undeducted masses live a more life. But the founders saw traditional religion as basically a tool, not something true in itself.
The book does have some important weaknesses. Stewart focuses on a handful of founders (Jefferson, Franklin, Allen, Paine). While very important, there were other key players, and it leaves open the question about the intent of founders as a whole. Also the chapters often seem repetitive and disorganized.
Overall the book is a fascinating read for those who like the intersection of ideas and history.
jbjcubs's review
3.0
This book reminds me, in so many ways, of a long-period comet.
At many points along the 'journey' the reader can see quite clearly a glowing core of radical (Enlightenment) thought that exists in the writings of many of America's Founding Fathers and their contemporaries.
This core burns brightest, in my opinion, as Stewart's account moves within the wider orbits of seventeeth- and eighteenth-century discussions of freedom and the coequivalency of the terms 'nature' and 'God'; discussions which themselves evolved from the Pre-Socratics and ancient Hellenistic schools. The juxtaposition of quotes and philosophical contexts found throughout the chapters show that the first Americans were indeed the intellectual children of Bruno, Gassendi, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza and Locke on these important points.
Yet, long-term comets also spend a considerable amount of time heading away from the Sun, and so too does This book. Page upon page is devoted to the larger questions of seventeenth-century philosophy: the mind-body relationship, materialism, immortality of the soul, and the nature of revealed religion (to name but a few). Still more distance between the main subject and these 'satellite' subjects appears in the heavy examination of the era's reception of ancient, and particularly Epicurean, philosophy.
These lengthy passages left me longing for a return back to the book's main consideration. Chapter Three, 'Epicurus's Dangerous Idea', is a particularly good example of where too much of the history of philosophy crowds out the main concern, leaving the American question far behind and fading into the deep background on seemingly every page. Less may very well be more in instances such as these.
There are some bold claims made throughout and two particularly caught my attention:
First, 'Spinoza is the principal architect of the radical political philosophy that achieves its ultimate expression in the American Republic, and Locke is its acceptable face. So- called Lockean liberalism is really just Spinozistic radicalism adapted to the limitations of the common understanding of things.'
This is, in many ways an extension of Jonathan Israel's strong thesis, which posits, contra the history of philosophy in the Anglo-American tradition, that Spinoza is the pivot on which the seventeenth and subsequent centuries turns. Stewart takes the next step by extending the argument to the American colonies. It's a bold extension to be sure but Stewart sells the case convincingly through close textual readings and knocks Locke's contributions down a few pegs in the process.
Second, 'Liberalism became possible only after it was understood that souls do not have rights.'
A move to link an emergent political philosophy with the wider discussions taking place around the world regarding the soul and the afterlife. This is a claim that is worth considering, for as Stewart argues, if the soul is immortal then governments and religions, which often make claims to owning them in some capacity, can never truly surrender their sovereignty and man can never have any useful notion of freedom to direct his own earthly affairs.
In sum, this was a good but long-to-read book and not quite written as advertised. The influence of radical thought is discernible throughout, and the reader will take away that the Founders' God is certainly not what most either assume it is or have been told it is. But like the long-term comet, I felt the discussion strayed far away from the central premise for extended periods, and that as a result, I began to wish that the conversation would quickly return again to where it shone brightest, namely the American reception of radical philosophy.
At many points along the 'journey' the reader can see quite clearly a glowing core of radical (Enlightenment) thought that exists in the writings of many of America's Founding Fathers and their contemporaries.
This core burns brightest, in my opinion, as Stewart's account moves within the wider orbits of seventeeth- and eighteenth-century discussions of freedom and the coequivalency of the terms 'nature' and 'God'; discussions which themselves evolved from the Pre-Socratics and ancient Hellenistic schools. The juxtaposition of quotes and philosophical contexts found throughout the chapters show that the first Americans were indeed the intellectual children of Bruno, Gassendi, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza and Locke on these important points.
Yet, long-term comets also spend a considerable amount of time heading away from the Sun, and so too does This book. Page upon page is devoted to the larger questions of seventeenth-century philosophy: the mind-body relationship, materialism, immortality of the soul, and the nature of revealed religion (to name but a few). Still more distance between the main subject and these 'satellite' subjects appears in the heavy examination of the era's reception of ancient, and particularly Epicurean, philosophy.
These lengthy passages left me longing for a return back to the book's main consideration. Chapter Three, 'Epicurus's Dangerous Idea', is a particularly good example of where too much of the history of philosophy crowds out the main concern, leaving the American question far behind and fading into the deep background on seemingly every page. Less may very well be more in instances such as these.
There are some bold claims made throughout and two particularly caught my attention:
First, 'Spinoza is the principal architect of the radical political philosophy that achieves its ultimate expression in the American Republic, and Locke is its acceptable face. So- called Lockean liberalism is really just Spinozistic radicalism adapted to the limitations of the common understanding of things.'
This is, in many ways an extension of Jonathan Israel's strong thesis, which posits, contra the history of philosophy in the Anglo-American tradition, that Spinoza is the pivot on which the seventeenth and subsequent centuries turns. Stewart takes the next step by extending the argument to the American colonies. It's a bold extension to be sure but Stewart sells the case convincingly through close textual readings and knocks Locke's contributions down a few pegs in the process.
Second, 'Liberalism became possible only after it was understood that souls do not have rights.'
A move to link an emergent political philosophy with the wider discussions taking place around the world regarding the soul and the afterlife. This is a claim that is worth considering, for as Stewart argues, if the soul is immortal then governments and religions, which often make claims to owning them in some capacity, can never truly surrender their sovereignty and man can never have any useful notion of freedom to direct his own earthly affairs.
In sum, this was a good but long-to-read book and not quite written as advertised. The influence of radical thought is discernible throughout, and the reader will take away that the Founders' God is certainly not what most either assume it is or have been told it is. But like the long-term comet, I felt the discussion strayed far away from the central premise for extended periods, and that as a result, I began to wish that the conversation would quickly return again to where it shone brightest, namely the American reception of radical philosophy.
More...