Fantastic episode that I enjoyed listening to. Haven’t read this so it was much appreciated. One question for Richard, who said it has been “debunked” and discredited that the wars of religion and the Protestant reformation were inevitable, and that Schmidt seemed to be a product of his time and place by taking that position (that they were inevitable). When, where, and how was this debunked? I’ve never heard anyone discuss this in any other terms than inevitability, it seems an axiom of history that no one even debates or discusses the “inevitability” of any event, really, and I wonder if I’m misunderstanding the claim? Very interested in this, given the reading I’ve been doing recently on church history and western history (more focused on the conversion of the pagans of classical antiquity and German North at the end of the early Middle Ages, but the protestant reformation is a great point of interest as well).
I'm referring to the work of William T. Cavanaugh in particular which has become very influential. His most notable work was The Myth of Religious Violence, on the era of the "Wars of Religion" in Europe, but below is a 1995 article from him arguing similarly. He doesn't use the same arguments as elsewhere (see also Migrations of the Holy), but clear examples, such as Cdl Richelieu siding with the Protestants against Catholics, are ubiquitous at that time, revealing that these wars were more a matter of secular politics than religious zealotry.
Schmitt glosses over the Wars of Religion with strong language and assumes the reader takes it as fact, but he is a man of his time in that regard. I must disagree and believe this assumption of secularity is his Achilles' heel.
Who has his work influenced? I’ve heard this argument before, that the wars were really secular power struggles. I don’t know enough about that time period but it does seem rather coincidental that they happened after the reformation. Still I agree with his thesis that religion is all too often blamed for things it isn’t responsible for, or even better it’s only blamed for the bad and never the good (I just found your old podcast on this book and listened to a few minutes of it)
Fantastic episode, Schmitt truly is a must read for anyone looking to understand the complex machinations of today’s geopolitical landscape. Also the people want more Bataille!
Man this brings back to old Thamster days, Loved listening to you guys in senor high school\early college. Hopefully this the start for a renaissance in more intellectual discussions.
Fantastic episode that I enjoyed listening to. Haven’t read this so it was much appreciated. One question for Richard, who said it has been “debunked” and discredited that the wars of religion and the Protestant reformation were inevitable, and that Schmidt seemed to be a product of his time and place by taking that position (that they were inevitable). When, where, and how was this debunked? I’ve never heard anyone discuss this in any other terms than inevitability, it seems an axiom of history that no one even debates or discusses the “inevitability” of any event, really, and I wonder if I’m misunderstanding the claim? Very interested in this, given the reading I’ve been doing recently on church history and western history (more focused on the conversion of the pagans of classical antiquity and German North at the end of the early Middle Ages, but the protestant reformation is a great point of interest as well).
I'm referring to the work of William T. Cavanaugh in particular which has become very influential. His most notable work was The Myth of Religious Violence, on the era of the "Wars of Religion" in Europe, but below is a 1995 article from him arguing similarly. He doesn't use the same arguments as elsewhere (see also Migrations of the Holy), but clear examples, such as Cdl Richelieu siding with the Protestants against Catholics, are ubiquitous at that time, revealing that these wars were more a matter of secular politics than religious zealotry.
Schmitt glosses over the Wars of Religion with strong language and assumes the reader takes it as fact, but he is a man of his time in that regard. I must disagree and believe this assumption of secularity is his Achilles' heel.
https://www.ballyheaparish.com/resources/Communio/wars-of-religion-and-the-rise-of-the-state.pdf
Who has his work influenced? I’ve heard this argument before, that the wars were really secular power struggles. I don’t know enough about that time period but it does seem rather coincidental that they happened after the reformation. Still I agree with his thesis that religion is all too often blamed for things it isn’t responsible for, or even better it’s only blamed for the bad and never the good (I just found your old podcast on this book and listened to a few minutes of it)
I'm sorry to drop.in like this, but I don't understand your point.
Which one is it, secular politics or religious zealotry? In the 1st paragraph you seem to argue for fhe first, in the 2nd for the latter.
Also, Astral asked about the inevitability paradigm, which you didn't mention in your reply. Does the essay touch on that?
Is this on YT?
Nope
That's pretty unfortunate
Fantastic episode, Schmitt truly is a must read for anyone looking to understand the complex machinations of today’s geopolitical landscape. Also the people want more Bataille!
Lol, Did the Thiel Check not come through for you that you have to use the free version of Streamyard? LMAO EVEN!
Man this brings back to old Thamster days, Loved listening to you guys in senor high school\early college. Hopefully this the start for a renaissance in more intellectual discussions.
Yooooooo Thamster is back!