Dear Banjo,

I thought we already agreed to let Butterfield rest in peace. So here we go again:

When I wrote “one can have understanding for the first case (historical context that Butterfield stresses, i.e. no anaesthetics) but much less for the second”, the remark “historical context” applied, of course, to both cases, sorry for not making that explicit.

All that Butterfield claims - as I understand his quote “all our judgments are merely relative to time and circumstance” - is that you should not judge the two things happening in the Middle Ages as if they happened today. He does not say you should consider them equivalent, equivalently justifiable, just because TODAY amputation without anaesthetics is almost equivalent to intentional torture.

The person who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old is wrong irrespective of whether he lived in the 13th or 21st century, but a historian will form his “judgement” about him differently, since in the first case he is part of the mainstream, in the second case he is not.

The problem with social constructivists of science is that they confuse the two: from the fact that one has to judge the scientists’ methods“relative to time and circumstance” they seem to conclude that the same must be said about the “truth” of their theory. Perhaps there are also “social constructivists of ethics” who make similar conclusions about morality. I don’t think the quotes given here indicate that Butterfield was one of them.

OUG,
Herbert Butterfield ≠Jeremy Butterfield

Dear George,

As I tried to point out in reference to Paul, he was a reactionary influence. Some opinion of his time was against slavery and for equal rights for women. Some areas actually had equal rights for women. In some ways his views were against freedom.

I have read 1 Corinthians 13 and would like to comment. One element in love is consideration. I think we should have consideration for the feelings of other people whether we love them or not. Paul after the incident on the road to Damascus went into a synagogue of a differing sect and tried to push his views on them. I don’t think that was showing charity or love. Mohammed maintained there should be no compulsion in religion. It would be good if his followers and adherents of other religions would follow that. I have had Christian missionaries try to push their views on me. They had different reactions when I wasn’t interested. Some just accepted it. Others said they would pray for me, and some were angry at my ‘blindness.’ I find their honest anger less offensive than their prayers which seem phony to me. The Catholic church puts ads in publications inviting those interested in finding out more about the faith to answer the ads. I think that is the way it should be. Let people know you are there, and let them come to you if they are interested. Unfortunately some missionaries go out and expect a quid pro quo. They help others and expect others to accept their faith in return. Their charity is definitely not the charity that Paul means. At least I hope he regards charity as its own reward. If I had read 1 Corinthians 13 and had read nothing else about Paul I would feel differently about the chapter. Paul apparently means something different by love and charity than I mean by those words.

continued

continued

CO1 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

I think what Paul means by charity in the above is you must not only do the deed but do it with a certain feeling. I don't think charity should profit one. The deed should be sufficient. If a person sacrifices wealth to feed the poor and even sacrifices life that person has shown charity because, to me, the act is important. We have had a previous discussion on belief and practice. To me it is important what you do not what you believe or feel. The poor have been fed regardless of your motives. Last Saturday I volunteered to help Sunday Assembly make up stuff to distribute to homeless. Sunday Assembly is a group of people who meet once a month for socialising, singing and a talk. Although they are primarily atheists they welcome anybody regardless of religious belief. Bluecare, an agency of the Uniting Church, comes around to our house and has done things to make it easier for my arthritic wife. They are going to send someone around to help keep the house clean. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two atheists, are the biggest philanthropists in the USA. Charity is an act that both religious and non-religious people can practice.

continued

continued

CO1 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Here again I differ with Paul. I see nothing wrong in thinking evil. IMHO there is no wrong in thinking evil. It is wrong to do evil. It is unreasonable to condemn a person for evil thoughts. That is a recipe for unreasonable, neurotic guilt such as exhibited by Augustine when he kept on about stealing pears from an orchard as a teenager. That sort of thing is found in the new Testament, Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. I feel that is sick, sick, sick. I know a woman with a magnificent bosom. I shall never comment to her on its magnificence, never stare at it and certainly never touch it. I just catch glimpses of it out of the corner of my eye. I feel no guilt in thinking how it would feel to run my hands over it or to nibble at it. I can see it in my mind right now. I have thoroughly enjoyed my lust for her bosom, and my enjoyment has not harmed her.

CO1 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

I am sure Paul does not mean truth as something subject to verification. He means accepting his religious beliefs.

CO1 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

‘believeth all things’ sounds like a recipe for gullibility.

CO1 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I like the above. I don’t think Paul ever reached manhood in the sense I think of being a grownup. Being a man to me includes accepting that other people may disagree with you on things you feel important and still treating them with consideration and not harassing them with your unwanted opinions.

continued

continued

continued

CO1 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

In the above I partially agree with Paul. I prefer doubt to faith. From doubt and questioning comes knowledge. Hope can be comforting, but confronting reality is more reasonable. However, I feel charity is definitely preferable to hope and faith.

However, 1 Corinthians 13 is written beautifully. Perhaps one should be satisfied with the fine prose and not subject it to analysis any more than I should question the amount of fatty tissue in the bosom I referred to.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

« I thought we already agreed to let Butterfield rest in peace. »

Yes, I was surprised you raised the subject again, but that’s no problem. Please feel free to mention his name again if you wish. There is no need to ostracize him.

You then indicate:

« All that Butterfield claims - as I understand his quote “all our judgments are merely relative to time and circumstance” - is that you should not judge the two things happening in the Middle Ages as if they happened today. »

I have no problem with that, if that is what he means.

But, you also indicated in a previous post to AJ Philips (page 16):

[ “The study of the past with one eye upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries in history. It is the essence of what we mean by the word “unhistorical”. – Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (1931). ]

This does not necessarily mean, as you suggest, “as if they happened today” but, rather,” in the light of how they are judged today”.

Perhaps you will agree that today’s events contain the germs which will grow, develop, evolve and eventually blossom out into tomorrow’s history. Germs, of course, are invisible to the naked eye and rarely detected at birth. Their true significance and importance, can only be appreciated when placed in “historical perspective”, in time.

The storming of the Bastille in Paris on 14 July 1789 was seen, at the time, as just one event among many others. It was practically empty at the time, housing only seven old men annoyed by all the disturbance: four forgers, two "lunatics" and one "deviant" aristocrat, the Comte de Solages (the Marquis de Sade had been transferred out ten days earlier). It was not until 1880, almost a century later, that it was officially recognized as the symbol of the French revolution.

This was not because it was seen “as if it happened in 1880” but, rather, “in the light of how it was judged in 1880”.

.