Author: WyattPitts

The Congress of Vienna. According to Wikipedia “The Congress of Vienna of 1814–1815 was a series of international diplomatic meetings to discuss and agree upon a possible new layout of the European political and constitutional order after the downfall of the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte.” There were five powers in this meeting, Great Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. This meeting was to discuss and arrange order in France after Napoleon Bonaparte’s fall. 

According to Wikipedia, “The Carlsbad Decrees were a set of reactionary restrictions introduced in the states of the German Confederation by resolution of the Bundesversammlung on 20 September 1819 after a conference held in the spa town of Carlsbad, Austrian Empire.” according to Deutscher Bundestag, “The Carlsbad Decrees, adopted in 1819 at the instigation of Austria’s foreign minister, Klemens von Metternich, established a police-state regime of surveillance and repression, designed to keep a tight lid on any opposition activity.” 

According to Wikipedia, “Compulsory education refers to a period of education that is required of all people and is imposed by the government. This education may take place at a registered school or at other places. Compulsory school attendance or compulsory schooling means that parents are obliged to send their children to a certain school.” The first country to do this was Germany in the year 1592. 

Can the Remnant in one historical era become the majority later? Why or why not? According to the dictionary, remnant means “a small remaining quantity of something.” According to Merriam-Webster, a majority is “a number or quantity greater than half of a total“. 

If this question (Can the Remnant in one historical era become the majority later?) was rearranged it would say “Can the remaining quantity of something that happened in the past become very popular (or the majority) later in history?” The answer is yes. If something is very common now, but over the next few years not many people do it anymore, but then people hear of it then lots of people start to do it again. 

Peoples minds can change. Most of the time a large group of people have a large influence on a group of people. The smaller group almost never influences the larger group, but when it does their idea grows. 

Can the Remnant in one historical era become the majority later? Why or why not? My answer is yes. 

In what way did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism? According to Wikipedia, “Bernard Mandeville, or Bernard de Mandeville, was an Anglo-Dutch philosopher, political economist and satirist. Born in Rotterdam, he lived most of his life in England and used English for most of his published works. He became famous for The Fable of the Bees.” Mandeville was born on November 15, 1670, and died in January 21, 1733. According to Wikipedia, the main message of The Fable of the Bees is “As they abandon their desire for personal gain, the economy of their hive collapses, and they go on to live simple, “virtuous” lives in a hollow tree. Mandeville’s implication—that private vices create social benefits—caused a scandal when public attention turned to the work, especially after its 1723 edition.” 

According to Wikipedia, “Charles Robert Darwin was an English naturalist, geologist, and biologist, widely known for his contributions to evolutionary biology. His proposition that all species of life have descended from a common ancestor is now generally accepted and considered a fundamental concept in science.” According to Britannica, “Charles Darwin, in full Charles Robert Darwin, (born February 12, 1809, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England—died April 19, 1882, Downe, Kent), English naturalist whose scientific theory of evolution by natural selection became the foundation of modern evolutionary studies.” I don’t believe in evolution or Darwinism, but it is what most schools are teaching today. 

In what way did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism? Mandeville believed that every man should serve  himself and pursue their own interests and that this was crucial what to the economy and to the society. Darwin believed that people serving only themselves will lead to the best type of economy and society. 

According to Wikipedia “The Industrial Revolution, also known as the First Industrial Revolution, was a period of global transition of human economy towards more widespread, efficient and stable manufacturing processes that succeeded the Agricultural Revolution, starting from Great Britain, continental Europe, and the United States, that occurred during the period from around 1760 to about 1820–1840.” 

According to investopedia.com, “Standard of living generally refers to wealth, comfort, material goods, and necessities of certain classes in certain areas whereas quality of life is more subjective and intangible, such as personal liberty or environmental quality.” After the Industrial Revolution there was an increase in wealth, the production of goods, and the standard of living. The standard-of-living debate is whether the Industrial Revolution raised or lowered the general standard of living. I think it was raised. 

William Wilberforce was a key figure in the ablation of slavery in Britain. William and many others wanted to abolish slavery and the founded the Anti-slavery Society. In 1807 the Slave Trade Act was passed by parliament. Sadly this only banned slave trade, not slavery itself. In 1833 a new act was passed, but sadly William died three years later. This act banned slavery in Britain and a few other places too. 

According to Wikipedia, “Mary Wollstonecraft was a British writer, philosopher, and advocate of women’s rights. Until the late 20th century, Wollstonecraft’s life, which encompassed several unconventional personal relationships at the time, received more attention than her writing.” Her mast famous book is A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. According to Britannica, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is one of the trailblazing works of feminism. Published in 1792, Wollstonecraft’s work argued that the educational system of her time deliberately trained women to be frivolous and incapable.” She wanted to change lives for women because they weren’t treated as well as men. Thanks to her and others women are treated better.

The American and French Revolutions. These two were different and alike in many ways. The American Revelation was meant to be free of the Brittan’s. The French Revolution was meant the change France. America rebelled against Britain until The Declaration of Independence was signed. France was a disaster. Two of these things were the reign of power and Napoleon. Although both America and France wanted to escape their kings. 

Which promotes greater personal responsibility, the free market or the welfare state? According to Wikipedia, “In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority.” Basically this is when people trade with each other for a reasonable price. 

According to the dictionary, the welfare state is “a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.” This is when the government tries to fix the peoples problems for them. 

Which promotes greater personal responsibility, the free market or the welfare state? The free market. In the free market the people do almost everything. If the government gets involved then it’s less work for the people.

After Satan’s rebellion, Satan was motivated more by his envy of God than his jealousy of God: true or false? This past week I have been reading a book written by John Milton called Paradise Lost. According to Wikipedia, “John Milton was an English poet and intellectual. His 1667 epic poem Paradise Lost, written in blank verse and including over ten chapters, was written in a time of immense religious flux and political upheaval.” According to the British Library, “Paradise Lost is an epic poem (12 books, totaling more than 10,500 lines) written in blank verse, telling the biblical tale of the Fall of Mankind – the moment when Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan to eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, and God banished them from the Garden of Eden forever.” According to Britannica, “Many scholars consider Paradise Lost to be one of the greatest poems in the English language. It tells the biblical story of the fall from grace of Adam and Eve (and, by extension, all humanity) in language that is a supreme achievement of rhythm and sound.” 

After Satan’s rebellion, Satan was motivated more by his envy of God than his jealousy of God: true or false? What is the difference between envy and jealousy? Jealousy means “fiercely protective or vigilant of one’s rights or possessions”, and envy means “desire to have a quality, possession, or other desirable attribute belonging to (someone else).” True. Satan Wasn’t jealous of God, but envious of Him. He wanted what God has, which is power of everything. Because of this satan was kicked out of Heaven. 

What happened (involving the Third Estate) during the meeting of the Estates General that set the French Revolution in motion. According to Lumen Learning, “The Estates-General of 1789 was a general assembly representing the French estates of the realm summoned by Louis XVI to propose solutions to France’s financial problems. It ended when the Third Estate formed into a National Assembly, signaling the outbreak of the French Revolution.” 

The French Revolution. According to Wikipedia, “The French Revolution was a period of radical political and societal change in France that began with the Estates General of 1789 and ended with the formation of the French Consulate in November 1799.” The French Revolution began in 5 May 1789 and ended in 9 November 1799. 

Is the state the source of human rights? According to Wikipedia, “Human rights are moral principles or norms for certain standards of human behavior and are regularly protected in municipal and international law.” We as humans have rights to only three things. These are our life, liberty, and property. A lot of people think that we have rights to other things like food, water, and shelter. Those aren’t rights, they are needs. This is because we need these to survive. You don’t have a right to something unless you own it. If we had a right to food, we could go and get some free food anytime you wanted. If you had a right to shelter it would force the builder of the house to just give it to you. 

Is the state the source of human rights? According to OHCHR, “Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings – they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental – the right to life – to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.” So no. If the state was the source of our rights they could take it away whenever they wanted. They cannot take our rights away because we are humans and these are human rights. If ours can be taken away, it means theirs can too. 

Would any of Bacon’s essays have been more persuasive if he had talked about his own experiences? According to Wikipedia, “Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban PC, QC, also known as Lord Verulam, was an English philosopher and statesman who served as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England.” He was born on January 22, 1561 and died on April 9, 1626. He wrote several well known essays. According to Wikipedia, “Essays: Religious Meditations. Places of Persuasion and Dissuasion. Seene and Allowed was the first published book by the philosopher, statesman and jurist Francis Bacon. The Essays are written in a wide range of styles, from the plain and unadorned to the epigrammatic.” According to www.literaturemini.com, “Bacon’s essays are reflective and philosophical. The essay is a series of counsels, It is not an elaborate or discursive development of a particular subject. It is neatly direct and frankly didactic. He is moralist and his essays are meant for men of ambition in the Renaissance, which desired self-realization.” According to www.josbd.com, “His essays suggest us not to seek morality only by leaving practical idea. There is nothing wrong with the mixture of morality and the practical idea together. Just as no ornament is possible with pure gold, some crude metal should be added with it so only morality without practical concept of a thing cannot do.” 

Would any of Bacon’s essays have been more persuasive if he had talked about his own experiences? Yes. If he wrote about his own experiences he could have written better essays because he had those experiences. It would be much easier for him to write about his own experiences.