Alex > Recent Status Updates

"Many of his subjects, however, found Fatih Mehmed’s rule harsh and repressive. By continuing his campaigns into the winter months, he exhausted his troops. To finance expansion, Fatih Mehmed had raised taxes and transferred revenue from the religious classes to the armed forces, causing significant discontent."
Mehmed II also wiped out contenders to his throne.

"And it is quite manifest that in this matter there can be no infinite regress of causes, seeing that the question raised respects not so much the cause which once produced me, as that by which I am at this present moment conserved."
How did all the Descartes-commentators miss his elaborate proof of God in this book?

He has presented a different proof of God now, and I like it. Why didn't Feser include Descartes' proofs?

Not sure if Descartes hasn't been one of the few philosophers who hasn't fared well against modern science, in particular neuroscience. He seems to be the default position the physicalists take and then refute.

Still, I cannot say I don't like him, in a way.

His proof of God seems interesting, but incomplete.

"Hence it is that I cannot in any degree approve of those restless and busy meddlers who, called neither by birth nor fortune to take part in the management of public affairs, are yet always projecting reforms; and if I thought that this tract contained aught which might justify the suspicion that I was a victim of such folly, I would by no means permit its publication."

He also does injustice to spontaneous orders.

I also don't think he does justice to philosophy, particuarly moral philosophy.

The foreword was beautiful, although I do not agree with his assessment of the science of history.

"Umur Bey (d. 1348), for example, the ruler of the principality of Aydin further south on the west coast of Anatolia, did such damage in naval raids in the Aegean between 1330 and 1344 that he provoked a Venetian-Byzantine-Hospitaller expedition, which conquered his capital, Smyrna (Izmir)."

Interesting description of the Ottoman millets.

"The most extreme Sufis asserted that through their spiritual exercises they could obtain not only intimate knowledge of, but unity with, God, eliminating the separation between creator and creation that mainstream Muslims regarded as fundamental. Such emphatic public utterances as al-Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj’s (d. 992) “I am the Truth,” which led to his execution, deviated from general standards of propriety."

"Only two major polities, the Almoravids and Almohads in the western extremities of the Islamic world, opposed Sufism in general as a matter of policy. Most others, including the Timurids, Aqquyunlu, and Mamluks, patronized Sufism."

"Nur al-Din ibn Zangi (r. 1146-1174) and his subordinate and then successor Salah al-Din (Saladin) Ayyubi (r. 1169-1193) restored jihad to prominence."
It also played a huge role for the Mamluks.

"Jihad was no longer a primary concern of the regime or an essential element of legitimacy, though popular sentiment did support it. By the tenth century, however, it had receded in importance. [...] Neither the Saljuqs nor the Fatimids responded to the crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 as a major emergency."

There's a ton of philosophy in here: Order v. Chaos, something that sounds like an early defense of natural law, divine retribution in the form of the storm, and of course the hellenic fixation on the bodily remains of the dead.

The Abbasid empire probably splintered because climate change made taxation impossible. It makes sense in context.

"Divine kingship, in which the king himself is a god, developed in Egypt. Sacral kingship, in which the king is an ordinary mortal who receives a divine mandate to rule, developed in Mesopotamia."

The book is off to a good start, with a discussion of the sources, and then linking islamic political theor, and governance under the Abbasids to the "Circle of Justice" of Sasanidian political theory.

"Taxing them for the support of the laws, on the assumption that they are in favor of the laws, and at the same time refusing them the right, as jurors, to judge of the justice of the laws, on the assumption that they are opposed to the laws, are flat contradictions."
Now arrived at the appendix. This treatise was at times tedious, but very good.

Not sure if that part is historical, but apparently, there was an annual ritual of stepping on a Christian icon to demonstrate that you're not a Christian.

"“The truly sad thing is that Christianity in the past collaborated in those invasions. That makes it completely reasonable for the Japanese to reject Christianity. We have to do something to dispel their misapprehension of us. We must acknowledge our mistakes as mistakes.”"
I love Shūsaku Endos honesty.

"Each time he heard those listless, monotonous tones, Petitjean felt an indescribable sorrow and emptiness. The never-ending repetition of the same notes. The relentless reiteration of that tedious cadence! “This is the ‘nothingness’ that Buddhism teaches about,” the Christian missionary thought. He had the feeling that a listlessness resembling the sound of the samisen permeated every part of Nagasaki."