respond
joeph2
respond_101.docxRespond 101
please make your responses at least 200 words apiece, and comment on at least two items in each paper
Early in the spring of 1604, trouble brewed in the capital of England, London. Robert Catesby, from Northamptonshire, first came up with the idea to blow up the House of Lords on the opening day of parliament in an effort to kill King James VI, his eldest son Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales and several other key government officers. Mark Nicholls, in his article titled The Gunpowder Plot explains how Catesby set the plot in motion by first recruiting his cousin Thomas Winter and acquaintance John Wright. The group expanded to include Henry Percy and Guy Fawkes, a soldier who was personally recruited by Winter in Flanders. According to Nicholls, “The traditional explanation is that, following the years of Elizabethan persecution, English Catholics had looked to King James…to lack the persecution of priests, and forego the heavy fines for recusancy (non-attendance at services of the established church).” Catesby stockpiled gunpowder in a rented house in Lambeth, which was later ferried at night across the Thames to a room below parliament. Catesby planned to kidnap the king’s eldest daughter, Princess Elizabeth, kill the king and ride a victorious Catholic army into London. An anonymous letter was sent to the king warning of the plot to destroy the Parliament resulting in the death of several key members and the capture of Fawkes and Winter. Fawkes was taken to the Tower of London where he was tortured to reveal additional names and later found guilty of treason. Fawkes and a few co-conspirators’ were pulled from the Tower of London on January 31, 1605 to the Old Palace Yard, Westminster, where he was quartered.
Rocco A. Astore, in his article titled Examining Free-Will Through Spinoza and Descartes (2016) takes a look at two early Rationalists: Spinoza (1632-1677) and Descartes (1596-1650). Astore cites, “According to Spinoza, for something to be entirely free it must be uncompelled in all ways and also the cause of itself” (Astore, 2016). Astore explains that Spinoza held to the belief only one substance that causes itself, God. Astore suggest, “Spinoza claims, the illusion of free-will derives from one’s desire to their being insofar as they understand it at the moment” (Astore, 2016). In regards to Descartes, Astore opens by stating; “According to the philosopher Descartes, there is one infinite substance which can create anything due to its completely free will” (Astore, 2016). Astore informs the reader that Descartes held to the belief that “…one asserts their free-will through choosing not to do what one deems to be disagreeable to who they are, and because of that, free-will could be also be understood as a faculty” (Astore, 2016). Astore concludes that to Spinoza, innate thoughts do in truth justify the existence of God, however may not necessarily include the existence free will. Astore deduced Descartes considered one’s ability to state their freedom originates from them being independent substances made in the image of God, and thus as God’s essence is free, it follows that people are free as well.
Respond 102
The Guy Fawkes Plot
This article attempts (with great detail) to answer the question of motive and strategy for the Gunpowder Plot, a.k.a. the Guy Fawkes Plot. The question posed was whether the conspirators thought logically, or just planned an isolated attack. The mastermind behind the plot was not Guy Fawkes, but rather, a man by the name of Robert Catesby. He strategically assembled a team of individuals, as proven by this article, to complete his vision for a restoration of a Catholic England. The “master” of this plan was believed to be Thomas Percy, while the “servant” of the regime was Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes was military trained and had skills that were vital for the destruction of the House of Lords. There was a lot of speculation and dialogue as to the motive for the attack, but nonetheless, the author finalized his conclusion by stating that the plot was more advanced and politically charged than most reports give credit. The author of this article cited historical examples of similar uprisings. Guy Fawkes was the most popular name connected to the plot because Catesby, Percy, and Wright (three men in the “inner ring”) were killed in a rebellious skirmish and not subject to interrogation. The Guy Fawkes Plot was a concerted effort to thwart Protestant expansion as a “pragmatic pursuit of assassination (of King Jame VI & I), mayhem, rebellion, and, ultimately, a Catholic England.”
Nicholls, Mark. "Strategy and Motivation in the Gunpowder Plot." The Historical Journal 50, no. 4 (2007): 787-807. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20175128
Seventeenth-century rationalism (1600–1699)
Susan Rosa started this article with an excerpt from Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which a beautiful building must be deconstructed (thus stripping her of beauty) to fortify its foundation. This article discusses seventeenth century rationalism with an evaluation of a work written by notorious Jesuit Vitus Erbermann in 1659 called “Dialogues among a Lutheran theologian, a Jesuit, and a Chinese Philosopher.” The general idea of this article’s contribution to understanding seventeenth century rationalism is the relation between reason and faith. Since the Catholic and Protestant churches both ascribed to the same “one” truth, this proposed the notion that both beliefs were contradictory toward each other and thus seem illogical. One of the best summary quotes from this article was a citation that states rationalism “problematized religion, making it something to think about rather than to think with.” This era was one in which religious criterion was not exempt from being defended on the basis of logic and reason, and certain figures of the time such as Louis XIV would be used as models to intellectual conversion.
Rosa, Susan. "Seventeenth-Century Catholic Polemic and the Rise of Cultural Rationalism: An Example from the Empire." Journal of the History of Ideas 57, no. 1 (1996): 87-107.
Either deism or pietism
This was an interesting article that not only defines Pietism but accentuates the challenges, or opposition to its structure. Pietism “refers to the ecclesial renewal movement emphasizing the fundamental necessity of an inward personal relationship with God as the source of spiritual renewal for both church and society.” Pietism was a contributor to the Reformation if only by the basis of answering the orthodoxy of the church, and the lack of zeal among believers. The greatest argument against pietism was that of subjectivism, and individualism. This article chronicled the tutelage of G.W.F. Hegel’s analysis regarding pietism. Though Hegel is often critical, he adequately defends means-to-an-end approach of Pietism. The crux of this article is that Pietism’s focus on the human heart being the meeting place for God, the human must disengage themselves from the world to the reengage for the sake of the world. The onus of pietism is in its pursuit to embrace the mantra proposed by August H. Francke that Christian’s live for God’s glory, and the good of one’s neighbor.
