Anyway- the man suited his time.
On Jan 1, 1:20 pm, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 5:59 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I actually didn't know that much about his personal history. We know
> > him only through what may as well be Hollywood biopic. Great leaders
> > seem to need retrospective hagiography. How does this work on us and
> > why doesn't education really challenge any of it?
>
> The man's rhetoric was greater then the man. Inspiring. At least, I think
> so and I'm certainly not alone. The same can be said for other great
> leaders as well. Lincoln, Ghandi(oh yes I did, Vam) and *gasp* even Reagan.
> What you say(and write) is important. Later sometimes more then now. What
> you actually DID is of less importance. Look at the mythical pedestal most
> of America puts JFK on.
>
> I adore the myth of Churchhill. A bit of a scoundrel was he? I like him
> even more. I recall something about one of his daughter's in law. Help me
> out Rigs...didn't he encourage her to actually CHEAT on one of his boys
> while he was fighting the war to get intelligence? I think he did. That's
> chutzpa for you.
>
> dj
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 10:08 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > my my, he was born 8 months after they were married,, wonder what that
> > > has to say about good old winston
> > > Allan
>
> > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 2:35 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > He was half American- his mother was Jenny Jerome who lived a daring
> > > > life- you can probably Google her. His father was Randolph, I believe,
> > > > who married for money like other peers of the period. His gift was
> > > > "blah"- a spurring rhetoric. His histories are not respected by
> > > > history majors as he fudged the facts. Like Napoleon, he has many
> > > > admirers who disregard the terrible realities of their dances with
> > > > history.
>
> > > > Jenny, by the way, had two later husbands younger than her son. Her
> > > > death is a warning against high heels- a heel broke- she fell down the
> > > > stairs- the mend was botched- her leg was amputated- blood poisoning-
> > > > death. Amen.
>
> > > > On Dec 30, 6:31 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Two came with the house Allan. The one at the back blew down - pity
> > > > > as it was a nice mountain ash type of rowan. The one in the front is
> > > > > called a street rowan and serves no purpose other than to block out
> > > > > what little sun we get at the front. An odd squirrel or two use it.
> > > > > I know it's ours only because the Council wouldn't include it when
> > the
> > > > > thinned out some street trees last year. I have rather more against
> > > > > Churchill than the tree, but would like to replace it with something
> > > > > more colourful. Churchill is something of a heroic oak in our
> > popular
> > > > > culture, but led the country to bankruptcy in wars that suited the
> > > > > American Empire rather too well for me to believe it was accidental.
> > > > > He was hand-in-glove with JP Morgan and they now run our Post Office
> > > > > bank accounts!
>
> > > > > I feel the proof issues in matters like this are more likely to have
> > > > > relevance to why we have no democracy free of bankster-finance than
> > > > > speculation that god is proved by the fact the tree is in the
> > > > > quadrangle when we don't look.
>
> > > > > On Dec 30, 8:35 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Maybe a better question is why would you need a rowan tree Neil
> > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 8:46 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > Questions like whether the tree is in the quadrangle if no one is
> > > > > > > looking are classroom tricks aimed at getting some thinking
> > going.
> > > > > > > Frege had some ideas I've not seen discussed in here. For him,
> > ideas
> > > > > > > were not thoughts. Thoughts existed in a third realm. I'm
> > shaky on
> > > > > > > phenomenology - largely because a lot of it ends up in a complex
> > > > > > > lexicon of terms to describe itself. Heidegger suggested the
> > firm
> > > > > > > ground of our lives was a better place to consider thoughts and
> > > > > > > thinking.
>
> > > > > > > Ordinary objects like trees are problematic in philosophy - they
> > turn
> > > > > > > out to be some structure of atoms and so on. Some have
> > suggested we
> > > > > > > should exclude them. In language I can say that 'unheard trees
> > have
> > > > > > > been done to death' and most will get the drift, without
> > thinking I
> > > > > > > have been out beating unheard trees with my cricket bat.
> > Frankly, if
> > > > > > > the unheard tree stuff had an import we'd find illegal logging
> > > > > > > companies telling us about it when their sawmills were full and
> > our
> > > > > > > forests empty.
>
> > > > > > > More interesting to me is that I can say (truthfully) that there
> > is a
> > > > > > > rowan tree in my front garden. Confirming this is relatively
> > > > > > > straightforward. What I think we need to be better able to spot
> > as
> > > > in
> > > > > > > need of argument is stuff like the context of argument that
> > allows
> > > > > > > politicians to tell us the same lies over and over again. This
> > might
> > > > > > > help is to a better grip on what democracy is as a
> > theory-in-action.
>
> > > > > > > Let me cast this by saying I believe Winston Churchill was an
> > > > American
> > > > > > > spy and bag man for JP Morgan - against the fact that there is a
> > > > rowan
> > > > > > > tree in my front garden. It's easy enough for you to ask for
> > > > evidence
> > > > > > > to establish beyond doubt that the rowan tree is where I say it
> > is
> > > > > > > (however much we might discuss its atoms or whether it's there
> > when
> > > > > > > none of us is watching it). What we should ask is why the
> > Churchill
> > > > > > > thing is so much more difficult (I can't prove this to my own
> > > > > > > satisfaction as a fact - but what would be the grounds)?
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > (
> > > > > > )
> > > > > > |_D Allan
>
> > > > > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > --
> > > (
> > > )
> > > |_D Allan
>
> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário