Please find some brief quotes very wise modern Buddhist Sage or Spiritual Master.
"Always remember that your inherent heart-disposition wants and needs Infinite, Absolute, True, Eternal Happiness".
"Evert living being has the instincts and the Destiny of Infinite Life"
"Eternal and total Freedom, Wisdom, and Happiness are the primary needs and ideas of Man (male & female"
"Sin is hell or samsara or un-enlightenment or un-happiness. The pursuit of heaven, nirvana, enlightenment, or re-union with God is itself a form of sin, since it is based on and motivated by the prior and present presumption of separation from happiness or or prior condition of Sat-Chit-Ananda.
All the conventional acts and states and experiences of the presumed separate self are sinful, hellish, tormented, samsaric, un-enlightened, un-happy, and Godless."
"Collectively sinners always create hell on earth"
I love the last one especially. That's actually the theme of C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce. Or as Peter Kreeft said in a lecture on Augustine that I used in my class last year: "In the end, everyone gets what he most loves, either God or something else. Therein lies the difference between Heaven and Hell."
Of course, not knowing your politics precisely, I wouldn’t want to preach, but of course Jaffa was unimpressed, underwhelmed, to put it mildly, with supposedly ‘originalist’ strict-constructionist jurists, holding that these men were not nearly ‘original’ enough:
Aristotle's account of what he calls politike is the ground of the idea that human life has a rational end or purpose, and that it can be ruled by reason, in great matters as in lesser ones. The highest end of human action is happiness, and the political philosopher is the architect of the structure of a life culminating in happiness. The telos of any building is the purpose of the life to be lived within it, and how that life contributes to the larger purpose of life. Just as the plumber and carpenter are workmen ruled by the architect, the architect is himself a plumber or carpenter in the service of that greater architect. According to Aristotle—and by the very nature of human existence— all the other arts and sciences, like that of the plumber and carpenter in relation to the architect— are inherently subject, within the polity, to the judgment of politike.
[Philosopher Leo] Strauss's rhetoric is designed to give effect to the Aristotelian doctrine of life as a rational enterprise. Consider now that happiness appears within the Declaration of Independence, first as a natural right of individuals, and then as the collective right of those same individuals joined by the social contract. We have confirmation of this in the inaugural address of George Washington, as first president of the United States, in which he declared "that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality ... since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." It is difficult to imagine a more succinct or pithy Aristotelianism. It is clear that for Washington and for the aristoi here represented, the pursuit of happiness, both privately and politically, meant the pursuit of virtue. Political philosophy is accordingly the architecture of virtue as it leads to happiness. This is what Strauss meant by calling for its recognition as the queen of the social sciences. In the unity of this argument, all dualisms would seem to dissolve. The ignorance of this argument, or its treatment as at most romantic antiquarianism, is among the profoundest symptoms of the crisis of the West.
This is one of 2 key points that separate the modernists from the ancients: does man have purpose. Under naturalistic materialism (which has been our philosophy since Bacon) the answer has to be "no". For man to have a purpose he must have a creator.
“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”
Sorry for the late reply, but I didn't see this when you wrote it, Dan. I think my answer would be to quote C.S. Lewis: "when walking down the wrong road, the most progressive man is the one who turns around first."
“[George] Washington spoke of ‘an indissoluble union of virtue and happiness.’ Aristotle couldn’t have put it any better. And when Washington said that, he was telling us that ‘the pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence didn’t mean radical individualism. It meant the pursuit of virtue.”
Dan, where is that quote from? I would love to use it with my civics students. This posting is basically a written version of part of one of my civics lectures.
Please find some brief quotes very wise modern Buddhist Sage or Spiritual Master.
"Always remember that your inherent heart-disposition wants and needs Infinite, Absolute, True, Eternal Happiness".
"Evert living being has the instincts and the Destiny of Infinite Life"
"Eternal and total Freedom, Wisdom, and Happiness are the primary needs and ideas of Man (male & female"
"Sin is hell or samsara or un-enlightenment or un-happiness. The pursuit of heaven, nirvana, enlightenment, or re-union with God is itself a form of sin, since it is based on and motivated by the prior and present presumption of separation from happiness or or prior condition of Sat-Chit-Ananda.
All the conventional acts and states and experiences of the presumed separate self are sinful, hellish, tormented, samsaric, un-enlightened, un-happy, and Godless."
"Collectively sinners always create hell on earth"
I love the last one especially. That's actually the theme of C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce. Or as Peter Kreeft said in a lecture on Augustine that I used in my class last year: "In the end, everyone gets what he most loves, either God or something else. Therein lies the difference between Heaven and Hell."
Of course, not knowing your politics precisely, I wouldn’t want to preach, but of course Jaffa was unimpressed, underwhelmed, to put it mildly, with supposedly ‘originalist’ strict-constructionist jurists, holding that these men were not nearly ‘original’ enough:
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-disputed-question/
See also:
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/rehnquists-court-and-the-living-constitution/
Okay, here is the longer relevant quotation, which you can find here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=g_q0bG-rjcwC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=%22Aristotle%27s+account+of+what+he+calls%22+politike%22&source=bl&ots=pbdncaEttD&sig=ACfU3U1e9SchLQvcUIKzzHSVQ5nyJsKUpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPi-fqwJCHAxXHMNAFHfUUA4MQ6AF6BAgPEAI#v=onepage&q=%22Aristotle's%20account%20of%20what%20he%20calls%22%20politike%22&f=false
Aristotle's account of what he calls politike is the ground of the idea that human life has a rational end or purpose, and that it can be ruled by reason, in great matters as in lesser ones. The highest end of human action is happiness, and the political philosopher is the architect of the structure of a life culminating in happiness. The telos of any building is the purpose of the life to be lived within it, and how that life contributes to the larger purpose of life. Just as the plumber and carpenter are workmen ruled by the architect, the architect is himself a plumber or carpenter in the service of that greater architect. According to Aristotle—and by the very nature of human existence— all the other arts and sciences, like that of the plumber and carpenter in relation to the architect— are inherently subject, within the polity, to the judgment of politike.
[Philosopher Leo] Strauss's rhetoric is designed to give effect to the Aristotelian doctrine of life as a rational enterprise. Consider now that happiness appears within the Declaration of Independence, first as a natural right of individuals, and then as the collective right of those same individuals joined by the social contract. We have confirmation of this in the inaugural address of George Washington, as first president of the United States, in which he declared "that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality ... since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." It is difficult to imagine a more succinct or pithy Aristotelianism. It is clear that for Washington and for the aristoi here represented, the pursuit of happiness, both privately and politically, meant the pursuit of virtue. Political philosophy is accordingly the architecture of virtue as it leads to happiness. This is what Strauss meant by calling for its recognition as the queen of the social sciences. In the unity of this argument, all dualisms would seem to dissolve. The ignorance of this argument, or its treatment as at most romantic antiquarianism, is among the profoundest symptoms of the crisis of the West.
"human life has a rational end or purpose"
This is one of 2 key points that separate the modernists from the ancients: does man have purpose. Under naturalistic materialism (which has been our philosophy since Bacon) the answer has to be "no". For man to have a purpose he must have a creator.
Great article BTW. Thanks.
Calvin Coolidge on the Founding:
“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”
Sorry for the late reply, but I didn't see this when you wrote it, Dan. I think my answer would be to quote C.S. Lewis: "when walking down the wrong road, the most progressive man is the one who turns around first."
S i r ~
Greetings! That succinct summation of Jaffa’s thought is found here:
https://www.forbes.com/2009/07/16/henry-jaffa-lincoln-douglas-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
But there’s a longer quotation I almost posted instead. Let me go dig that one up again too
I just found this article and book.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/176443822-the-pursuit-of-happiness
https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2024/06/an-indissoluble-union-between-virtue-and-happiness-a-review-of-the-pursuit-of-happiness/
I have not read it, but I'm getting a copy from my library. (And I guess this means I can't write this book. Darn.)
Harry Jaffa:
“[George] Washington spoke of ‘an indissoluble union of virtue and happiness.’ Aristotle couldn’t have put it any better. And when Washington said that, he was telling us that ‘the pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence didn’t mean radical individualism. It meant the pursuit of virtue.”
Dan, where is that quote from? I would love to use it with my civics students. This posting is basically a written version of part of one of my civics lectures.
> “the common good” is really just another term for our collective definition of goodness.
Interesting. Note that these days "the common good” is usually interpreted in a Utilitarian "the good of the many" kind of way.