Last night I attended an event graciously hosted by Allen Edmonds, who chose the classic/funky Norwood Club to show off its latest shoes.
Fred of Unabashedly Prep and I were the last to leave, having a long catch-up on the world of style blogging and the menswear industry.
As two guys from out west who came to New York later in life, we swapped tales about the curious denizens of this strange city, so many of whom eventually become apathetic, numb to the point “where they don’t know what’s cool anymore,” said Fred, or else have their innards all torn up by frustrated ambition and obsessive competition with their peers, as I noted.
I think when you come to New York in your thirties (including the final two weeks of your thirties, as I did), you’re just excited to be here and take the adventure of life as it comes. Arriving late to the party was more the result of an inward-driven life journey, and you’re here because it’s the best place to do your thing. This as opposed to those who come directly from school to take their place in an established system of rewards and failures, relentlessly evaluating whether or not they’re making it, according to the standards of the Manhattan fishbowl.
Anyway, for a guy who lacks the common sense to keep his feet warm in winter, Fred displayed a perspicacious grasp on the workings of the fashion industry, and I suggested he might be a great fit on the business side of the industry, not just the creative.
Time will tell, but in the meantime Fred continues to pull together tightly edited blog content, and as I’d been meaning to do a pointer post to his recent William F. Buckley tribute, sharing drinks last night seems the perfect peg.
Many of the WFB images will be familiar, but nevertheless they make for a compelling collage when grouped together. Buckley is a polarizing figure (not unlike Fred himself, or me, or anyone else who has the attention of an audience), but I hope that whether you’re red or blue, right or left, you’ll find the images enjoyable.
I’ll end with a telling WFB anecdote. Buckley had an Old Money penchant for understatement and an abhorrence of ostentation. He liked number-two pencils and peanut butter. Likewise, the friend of a friend once had a glimpse inside of Buckley’s suit coat, and was suprised, or maybe not so much, to find a label marked JC Penney. — CC
CC-whats your take on why Fred is usually hit with negative comments on this and other blogs? Seems like a decent enough dude to me-and a bit out of context: a while back you mentioned the need to change your shoes to wide sizes-whch brands have you had the best luck with?
Fred’s a fine fellow as you point out, but he’s a fashion guy and his style choices are too extreme for most. But he’s a big boy and knows what he’s doing. If you’re going to post pix of yourself on the web wearing daring outfits, you’d better be prepared for the snark (anonymous, of course, and therefore de facto cheap and cowardly). There’s an old adage about this involving heat and the kitchen.
I have shoes by AE, Alden and Crockett & Jones and they all fit fine.
I’m respectfully not buying the JC Penney bit: I completely understand Buckley’s devil-may-care nonchalance, but the man would have had no reason to frequent JCP. All the button-down oxfords are the real deal, and monogrammed, too. I have to imagine he got his suits from some place similar.
There’s a scene in “The Aviator” where DiCaprio as Howard Hughes can’t decide whether he should have an underling pick up a suit for him from JC Penney, Sears, or Montgomery Ward.
Just sayin’.
@AEV Thank you for commenting. I can turn off the stopwatch now.
Christian, this isn’t as bad as the certainty with which you assured us that Press jackets always featured 3 button cuffs.
Still, WFB Jr. wasn not Old Money. He was second generation Money. His parents moved the Buckley clan to rather fashionable CT community.
His father was a graduate not of Yale, but of the University of Texas. Before striking it rich in the oil business, he was–wait for it–small town Texas Sherriff.
True, this. Read the Judis biography. Research, old chap, research.
There’s nothing wrong with Texas, nor is there anything wrong with working as a small town Texas Sherriff.
Still, the Buckleyesque transatlantic accent deceives: his roots are Irish Catholic and Texan.
Okay, he ate peanut butter and used pencils. He also used fancy SAT words and challenged the old Northeastern WASP establishment, consisting of liberal Republicans and New Deal Democrats.
Also, who who writes books about sailing? Just sail the boat, for Christ’s sake. Don’t boast about how many bottle of wine you were able to bring aboard or how chummy you are with ambassadors and editors who join you. I don’t have a big dog in this particular hunt, but facts is facts: if embarrassment about one’s social position is paramount, modesty in all matters is a close second.
Still, he wore repp ties a lot. We can give him that.
Thanks for the corrections. Alas I’m afraid time does not allow me to read biographies in order to bang out web posts. Fortunately I have 50,000 of you to point out my errors. Can you also suggest a new headline?
And yet I recall his claiming that his first language was really Spanish, because of his nanny, I think. Where was mummy and daddy?
The headline just came to me, and I plead guilty to not knowing Buckley’s family background. For New Money, he sure embodied Old Money values. Played a mean harpsichord, too.
I guess in terms of re-making oneself, William F. Buckley and Fred Castleberry have a lot in common…of course then again, don’t we all re-make ourselves at least once in our lives…
Weird coincidences here. Norman Mailer is referenced in an upcoming post, and some woman I chatted with on the night at Barnaby Conrad’s art exhibit (which I recount in the previous post), said you have to reinvent yourself every 15 years. For some reason I remembered that.
Correct, MRS. We’d all sound like Buckley if our parents had sent us to boarding school in England.
Best I recall, the Buckleys did neither welcomed nor appreciated comparisons with another up-and-coming Irish Catholic brood who, because of shrewd business dealings on the part of the patriarch, purchased a hunk of New England coast and settled into a gentrified existence among the crusty-fusty Lost Money types.
D Bloom—Negative (and often inaccurate) comments, accusations, and over-arching disdain come with the territory of doing anything worthwhile. It’s nothing new…as Christian mentioned, it comes with the territory. And he’s right, I’m a “big boy”…now if only everyone else could be too.
With regards to Unabashedly Prep and FEC. To formulate your own opinion, review the recent post “Leaving Lincoln”. It will either resonate with you or it won’t. You will either show up to a serious meeting dressed accordingly….or you won’t.
Mr. Wyllys – I agree with you that we all do re-make ourselves and that can be a very positive thing. While I don’t like to make a habit of quoting hippies I think it is appropriate here.
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
-Kurt Vonnegut
WFB Sr. was never a sheriff, it was WFB Jr’s immigrant grandfather. WFB ‘s father was a a bureaucrat, romance language scholar and law student while in Austin. He made his real money in South American oil.
Fred Castleberry is embarrassing not because he’s a parvenu (I doubt very much many of the readers, commenters, or contributors of/on/to this site were born wearing 3/2 rolls) but rather because he has awful taste. He has, on a number of occasions, made me wince due to the garish colors, ridiculous 6″ of exposed ankles, laughable sunglasses, and incongruity (repp ties in Brooklyn?). We have several mutual friends and indeed he does seem like a normal, nice person. But he really should be abashed.
The “Leaving Lincoln” shot is among the most situationally-appropriate outfits I’ve seen Mr. Castleberry wear. By fashion week standards, that’s an almost rebellious level of conservatism! In all fairness though, I think his outfits have been getting more mature of late (the “Smart Bomb” and “Earn Your Stripes” shots come to mind).
@FEC: Lands’ End makes a dynamite pair of solid lemon yellow socks, OTC and Crew, on sale for $6. 🙂
The more important correction would have been that the first among the Buckleys to immigrate were Protestant, not Catholic.
But, yes. Indeed it was John Buckley who split his work week–working as a (part time?) rural sherriff and a sheep rancher. He lost most if not all of the fortune he made in Mexico. Future attempts proved successful.
The point stands, I think.
His mother was a Southerner. Louisiana. Her parents immigrated from Switzerland just before the Civil War.
My favorite memories of WFB, were those when he dressed down others with opposing opinions. I used to wonder if some were even able to comprehend his choice of vocabulary!
To support AEV, I must call attention to the 1965 debate (YouTube) between James Baldwin and WFB. Now, if I give WFB any credit within the context of Ivy Style, he religiously adhered to one of the cardinal rules of a true Prep…sameness. No lime down vests over his blue blazer.
It was Buckley’s delight in his quasi celebrity status that unnerves. And then there was the smirking exaltation of the ‘good life’ he wanted others to know he led. At Cruising speed, no less. (good god). There was something of the Fauntleroyish brat about him.
I’ve no idea what old line WASPs thought of the man. A few sources provide a glimpse.
His flippancy, showboating, and flaunting of his wealth–it’s all distasteful, and yet, in some ways, so very American.
The majority of my comment (except that of him moving toward a more mature look, which may be partially true) was tongue-in-cheek. I do admit that I know very little about what fashion week actually entails. I just assumed bloggers came out to photograph and be photographed in their most absurd outfits, while industry folks discussed the actual business side. I consider three inches of ankle and down-blazer-over-jacket-in-bone-chilling-weather to be crazy (and for me, a stale look), but not fashion week crazy.
“I’ve been on the hunt for yellow cotton crew socks for the longest time. I’d probably wear them with everything when it was below 40 degrees if I could find a decent supply of them.” This was the comment I was responding to about the yellow socks. Obviously, if Mr. Castleberry worked at RL, then I doubt he had a very hard time finding a good source for yellow socks. I wanted to tease him about this excuse, but in a friendlier way.
I’m glad “oxford cloth button down” thinks your comment section is “the best,” Christian, because it frustrates me no end that a post such as this (and Castleberry’s) simply cannot be read, and enjoyed, without reference to social or political issues. It’s a mark of intellectual inferiority that folks can’t divorce what someone is wearing from…well…from any other aspect of his character.
I worked with Buckley. For those who must include temporizing phrases like “as I recall” in their posts (before fulminating about the man as if you knew the man), stop it. If you don’t know, take the trouble to find out.
AEV (Andrew van Ostrand)—Ye hardly know me…yet you pretend as if you do. You claim to know my intentions (in all things apparently) and my manner, yet it is impossible because we have barely spent little more than a dinner together. Why so much time and energy spent on me? Do you not have worthwhile pursuits worthy of your time? Perhaps you have too much time on your hands as a lobbyist on Capitol Hill? Either way, speaking ill of me (or anyone else for that matter) does not garner a good reputation.
Let’s say a person reveals much of and about his life and beliefs and character (as Buckley did incessantly) by a variety of means. In his case, every form of media available to him. Are members of the viewing and reading public not permitted the privilege of arriving at certain conclusions about said person? Isn’t this what people who publish details about their beliefs, habits, hobbies, interests, loves, hopes, and concerns want? An audience. Who will decide.
The people who call “racist” are almost always liberals who are losing an argument to a conservative. It has become a meaningless, all-purpose insult, the point of which is to put the person so smeared on the defensive. It changes the subject, which is not a licit debate tactic.
It has yet to be demonstrated that homosexuality is an unqualified good, so that’s another put-down that is without content.
As for “evolution-denying,” you need to be more specific. Darwinism, which is what most people mean when they say “evolution,” is an unsustainable and self-refuting enterprise.
I don’t have a problem with you, or anyone else, disagreeing with WFB. What I have a problem with is mindless epithets.
Henry
Most will make blanket statements concerning WFB having never met him or read National Review over the many decades. Most don’t understand his evolution over the decades, he always admitted when he was wrong on an issue.
I’ll say this for Mr. Castleberry, I once sent him an email asking a question and he responded within twenty four hours…that counts for a lot with me, particularly so because he doesn’t even know me… Also…I’m still on the young side, but I’ve gone through many clothing phases…from wal-mart as a child to awful American Eagle as a teen, to nouveau prep to Ivy…I respect re-making oneself, as long as its for the better, as oxford cloth button down mentioned….as for WFB …well…I’ve never gotten along with conservatives…or with hippies
@AEV — (1) I don’t feel that WFB’s viewpoints must be avoided, I feel that YOUR viewpoints must be avoided. I don’t come here for jejune political commentary, I come here to learn about clothing. (2) I didn’t work for Buckley. (3) Nor do I support most of his views. (4) He did indeed have a long, clear record of opinion giving but not as long as yours, on this forum alone.
@S.E. — I’m not objecting to your opinions or anyone else’s, I’m objecting to the smugness and definitiveness with which they are delivered. I can find half a dozen factual errors in a 60-second scan of the comments here. Doesn’t this give you at least the slightest pause?
Actually I don’t care to much for what I said above…in re separating the world into conservatives and hippies. I don’t like dividing the world so easily…I support welfare and gay marriage…My father packed up and left, my mother got sick, so I went to work strait out of high school…So now I go to college at night and work during the day, to improve my lot in life. I also do take some goverment assistance…as little as possible, but I do…Some people misuse it, but, why throw the baby out with the bath water? As for gay marriage. If homosexual people want to fight that hard for family, I say, why not? I mean, them getting married isn’t going to magically turn me gay…but on the other hand, I also strongly support the death penalty, and I choke up during the national anthem…and I hate sandals…….Hmm, Canadian Club makes me contemplative…
Mr. Wyllys
Good luck with your pursuits. You’re right the world is not easily defined in black and white, especially without historical context, except for Belgium loafers and short jackets. 😉
I’m as liberal as they come so I definitely think WFB is doing more good as worm food than he ever did alive. I don’t think he’s racist but after reading God and Man at Yale, I absolutely believe he was and idiot with terrible ideas.
As for FEC, do what you do baby. I can see the fact that he’s learning the prep / trad ropes along with a lot of us yet presenting each discovery as if he knew it all along (akin to the child in class who, after another student gives the correct answer, frantically raises his hand exclaiming “teacher! Teacher! I was just going to say that!!” ) as a complete turnoff to most people. But the fact that he’s been able to parlay his ignorance into some sort of career regardless, earns my respect. It’s all about the hustle.
Thank you for the detailed response, AEV. My main objection was to your use of anti-intellectual invective used by liberals to dismiss all non-liberal thought. Terms like “racist,” “homophobe,” and “hater” smear the target as having unreasonable opposition to whatever it is they oppose, and since liberals think that that opposition is emotional, rather than reasoned, the liberal feels justified in simply ignoring, rather than responding to, the other side. It’s the liberal canned response that relieves, in the liberal’s mind, any need to engage in thought-out rebuttal. This dismissiveness extraordinarily arrogant, really, and is disturbingly widespread.
To your substantive points.
Almost immediately after passage, civil rights legislation, which were supposedly laws for equal individual rights (a good thing), transmogrified into racial group equality of results, which can never be attained. In pursuing this chimera, we now have an unsustainable system of unconstitutional, anti-democratic racial preferences. WFB might not have foreseen the end results, but he was right to oppose the transformation of America into the monstrosity it has become.
Apartheid was wrong. However, have you seen what has happened in South Africa since the fall of the Boers? “Anarchy” is putting it kindly, and whites are being raped and murdered at rates high enough for the word “genocide” to apply. Apartheid was the lesser of two evils. Again, I don’t know the details of WFB’s thought, but certainly there was another way out of Apartheid that would not have resulted in the wide-scale murder of whites.
It seems that our host will not allow me to comment further upon homosexuality. That’s fine; it’s his site, and really, it is extraordinarily tangential to the topic of this site. Having said that, my views are the same as those found in nearly every society throughout nearly every time, a view that was unquestioned in America until about five minutes ago. If that’s not clear enough for you, please refer to Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:18-32; and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (for starters).
For the record, I don’t worship WFB, and I am far less familiar with his opus than you. However, I respect him for creating the modern conservative movement, even if he lost his principled opposition to modern liberalism in the last 25 years or so of his life. As a reactionary, I instinctively jump to the defense of nearly any target of a liberal’s invective.
Finally, WFB did apologize afterwards for his intemperate words; Vidal never did. In their many crossings, WFB came out ahead, as evidenced by Vidal’s payment of WFB’s legal fees in one of their mutual libel cases, and Esquire’s apologies and payments after publishing Vidal’s anti-Buckley vitriol. So Vidal was hardly the injured party here.
The bold print was effective. Wow. If all CAPS suggest the writer is SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS, then bold says “Now, I really do mean business. Seriously. I mean, really…I do.”
A colleague of mine who graduated from Yale in the late 60s recalls the underground conservative movement among some faculty and more than a few students. Fair or not, the debates spiraled downward–into a clash of personalities.
I wonder if Brewster won the day in large part because of his demeanor (is temperament a better word?) and impeccable manners–because he was, to put the matter clumsily, almost laughably WASPy. By most accounts I’ve heard and read, he was polite, earnest, reserved, serious, and unfailingly curious about how others’ opinions might be superior to his own. A true New England patrician (descendants who stepped off the Mayflower and such), I’ve heard it said that, had it not been for the vested flannel suits, he might have been mistaken for a janitor or low level administrator. He eschewed the limelight and looked for ways to broker agreements (find common ground) privately and discreetly.
Contrast this with the brash, flippant, haughty, I’m-always-correct persona that Buckley had nurtured, and it’s no wonder his efforts weren’t universally exalted.
Okay, so Buckley gave the conservative movement the intellectual muscle it so desperately needed. True. But he and his colleagues did something else: they reformed and even transformed the GOP into the party of conservative Christians (Catholics, evangelicals) and radical libertarians. Before, it was the party of fiscal responsibility–balanced budgets.
Henry, did you actually use a Leviticus reference to support an opinion? Oh my–)I take a second glance)–you did.
Shall we engage in a conversation about Levitical codes? Actually, let’s not. I’d much prefer chit-chat about worsted wools and Irish Poplin. But surely you know that, were we to accept and interpret and apply the Levitical codes and mandates with the literalness you seem to prefer, the world would be a bizarre, brutal, and uncivilized place indeed.
The Scriptures are received a canon. Don’t pick and choose to support views you cannot possibly know with certainty God affirms.
And, oh yes: Buckley did not “create” the modern conservative movement in America. He steered it in a particular direction. Read George Nash’s work on the history of the American conservative intellectual movement.
WFB and National Review provided the intellectual underpinnings that enabled the different existing strains of conservative political thought to unite, those strains being libertarian, anti-communist and traditionalist. Interestingly, he did it by eviscerating the Birchers and Randians. I haven’t read Nash for decades, I may have to dust off some books. As far as the movement is concerned, there is a reason that famous photo of BG, RR and WFB exists.(see the photo at CC’s link)
I haven’t always agreed with WFB on every issue, but the few times I met him he was always a gentleman with a sense of humor. I find it strange some consider him a “bully”, he very seldom, if ever invited intellectual light weights on Firing Line and they always seemed to enjoy themselves.
Homosexuality? I have the same opinion as I do on bondage or hunting for Bigfoot or collecting thimbles, none. Live and let live, but don’t get me gong on Belgium loafers and short jacket
I feel that my intelligence is being insulted when anybody quotes the Bible, of all books, to support their opinions as to how civilized, educated people should live in the year 2013.
I understand Leviticus also proscribes incest (18:6-18). Is that proscription also illegitimate because it is included amongst other commands we today find abhorrent?
The Bible, both Testaments, may be the only reason we still enjoy a partially civilized world in 2013. My education taught me to be tolerant, which is a great shield against being insulted. I’m even congenial to people who wear Belgium loafers or short coats, but I carry antacids for an antidote. 😉
The Scriptures are received a canon. Don’t pick and choose to support views you cannot possibly know with certainty God affirms.
umm no sweetheart, the old testament laws are superseded by the teaching of Christ – certain things are emphasized and others are retired or tempered. Thus, Jesus emphasizes the spiritual damage sin can do (he that sins is a slave to it) he clearly takes a strong stand on adultery (what God has joined, etc) but tempers the punishment (let ye who never sinned)
other things, like kosher laws,and strict adherence to the Sabbath, he ‘downgrades’
@BostonBean, care to explain why your ‘intelligence’ is being ‘insulsted’? The bible is one of the foundations of western thought and morality. IT is no accident for example, that infanticide was common in pagan rome, faded in Christian europe and has made a comeback in secularized Europe.
Google “William F. Buckley racism”
Oh yawn, that accusation? Do you guys ever tire of it? Apparently not.
Through the 60s, National Review fiercely rejected to any and all civil rights legislation.
Perhaps they saw the damage it would do. Lets face it, the left has never been sincere about its intentions, from gun control (awe gee, we just want to register fire arms) to ‘civil’ ‘rights’ (don’t worry we will NEVER have race quotas and this will ONLY be for five years)
So does my opposing affirmative action, and race quotas and set asides make me a ‘racist’?
I guess the modern equivalent is opposing gay’ marriage’ =”homophobe” .
In my opinion, your side (and on the right the neocons with their claims of ‘defense’) have lost all legitimacy and do not deserve or warrant trust, because your intentions have always been more sinister.
virtually every atrocity committed by the West was justified by reference to the Bible.
really? Care to cite some evidence?
I know the slave trade was ended by biblical justification, the declaration of independence (endowed by our CREATOR with rights, and before locke, by a spanish friar who opposed the spanish slave trade, i know the scientific method and university and our greatest art arose out of Christian thought, but please, give me some specifics..
(i will beat you to the bunch on the crusades were an attempt to TAKE BACK not TAKE the holy land, and to protect Christian pilgrams.)
I am amused by the notion that the Holy Land belonged to the West rather than to its Middle Eastern inhabitants.
I am also amused that you credit Christianity rather than Judaism (or the Judeo-Christian tradition, or Greco-Roman culture) as being the source Western civilization.
I did attempt to stay out of this, but a clarification is due. The relevant snippet of text in the Declaration of Independence states “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Without launching into a grammar lesson, the “their” is deliberately placed in the document to signify the individual and their beliefs and not the collective/plural “our”. It’s a fairly important distinction. I suggest (to “just me”) going to an image of the Declaration of Indepence, enlarging it, and reading it.
I am amused by the notion that the Holy Land belonged to the West
Open a history book, then you wont’ be amused, you’ll just feel foolish. The Arabs, then Turks took it by force. Arabs are not indigenous to the Levant. They also conquered north africa by force.
Do you acknowledge this to be true, or not?
the “their” is deliberately placed in the document to signify the individual and their beliefs and not the collective/plural “our”.
how do you know? oh, that’s right you dont’.And it has nothing to do with the point. We believe we get our rights from God – you may not like that, but that is the source of our morality. Without it, life quickly becomes cheap, and truth and morality become relative, as it did in atheistic societies and, as I have pointed out, in secularized Europe, where infanticide has returned.
I am also amused that you credit Christianity rather than Judaism (or the Judeo-Christian tradition, or Greco-Roman culture) as being the source Western civilization.
Again you are also mistaken. Judeo-Christian is an invented term that started in FDR’s era, The influence of what is today called Judism is negligible… the religion of the ancient Hebrews is another story – and that had ‘off shoots’ one being Christianity, the other modern Judaism, which for example, has holy books and tradition that post-date Christianity and the gospels (The Talmud, in its various forms, for example)
and of course greek and roman thought and culture greatly influenced Christianity and western civilization. But for example, the university, modern hospital and scientific method are a result of Christian thought.
@just me. I’m going back to ivy/trad/etc with discussions about subject exclusively. I admit my strategy was wrong, though. I should have addressed the point solely that you used a text and misquoted it to what seems to bolster your arguement. Simply, you’re being disingenuous.
As for “We believe we get our rights from God – you may not like that, but that is the source of our morality.” I do take offense to that. I take my spiritual beliefs seriously, quietly try to live by them and have little tolerance for a snitty remark that insinuates otherwise (that crap might work with others). I will give Christian permission to pass my point of contact on to you if you would like to further discuss.
You do realize there are countless other blogs, forums, etc. for this arguement that you can enjoy with like minded commenters, right?
@Camford — In his work the historian Niall Ferguson argues not that the scientific method is the result of Christian thought — but that one of the essential tenets of the Christian faith (separation of church and state, as embodied in the phrase “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s etc.”) enabled the Enlightenment and then Scientific Revolution to take off in the West in a way that didn’t happen in theocratic civilizations of the East. To me, his argument is convincing, although one of course cannot know if it is right.
@dave t you may not like that, but that is the source of our morality.” I do take offense to that. I take my spiritual beliefs seriously,
I did not mean to offend, I did not know what your personal beliefs are, I was simply saying it as a matter of fact for those who expect some sort of absolute separation of ‘church and state’ it simply is not possibly because once you take away the morality , the government, rather quickly, becomes pretty nasty. (not that ‘christian’ governments cannot be)
@camford
time to stop believing enlightenment myths – of which there are many (the middle ages as ‘dark’ for example) http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Issues_Alexander2.php
” First, there seems little doubt that the concept of scientific laws was nurtured by the Christian belief that God has established moral laws for the universe and therefore, ipso facto, God must maintain similar laws that govern the physical world. The rational God of Christian theology provided a rationale for seeking intelligibility in the world, as expressed through laws. This is made explicit in the writings of early natural philosophers such as Descartes, Boyle and Newton.”
In short, the scientific method assumed an ‘order’ behind things and a rational creator…otherwise, if it were ‘irrational’ it would not be worth trying to rationally disect, get it?
A former physicist with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Scott Locklin works on quantitative finance problems in Berkeley, California
History’s first scientist was Robert Grosseteste,… It was Grosseteste who formulated the first description of the
scientific process. He was the first European in centuries to study
Aristotle’s works and the first to study Arab natural philosopher Abu
Ibn al-Haytham’s writings. From these thinkers he developed the idea
of “composition and resolution,” which is the scientific method in
itself. He advocated using mathematics to learn about reality. He also
developed the idea of peer review. He built upon the notion that one
could learn natural law’s general principles by studying specific
examples. He developed the all-important idea of falsification, to
separate true from false ideas.
Grosseteste was a deeply moral and pious man. He made sure the common
people had proper moral instruction in English and that everyone knew
the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments.
@ castleberry – as you said, you’ve chosen to put yourself out there so you deal with the consequences. But unless I’m mistaken, AEV has not. So why do you pointedly reference his name?
WFB was a gentleman, through and through. Over the years, I would write him and he wrote me back in-kind, even offering to meet for drinks when he was in town on book tours. He had no reason to do this, other than a pure sense of good manners and old school values. 5 years on, he is surely missed on the American intellectual landscape.
Hmmm. Interesting how the discussion evolved (no pun intended).
If there’s any ignorance I suppose it’s the side that has tried to bring up Biblical literalism as a “gotcha” card in the form of Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing (the dialogue is predictable when it comes to such matters – as with his “America is not great.”). I mean, are we talking to Baptists? Catholics? Non-denominational Christians? Just trying to prove that the Bible is a bunch of nonsense?
@ S.E.: You refer to West Wing. I refer to Edward Feser to get your feet wet.
@ Boston Bean: That’s rich coming from a man who lives in probably one of the most highly educated cities, given that MIT and Harvard are within striking distance from each other. Let’s not have ignorance make one out to be a fool. The irony.
I love that shot of WFB on the boat. The shirt, the sweater, the chinos, the watch,the flag, perfect.
I got a beige cashmere sweater from Brooks Brothers last year just so I could copy that WFB boat look.
CC-whats your take on why Fred is usually hit with negative comments on this and other blogs? Seems like a decent enough dude to me-and a bit out of context: a while back you mentioned the need to change your shoes to wide sizes-whch brands have you had the best luck with?
Fred’s a fine fellow as you point out, but he’s a fashion guy and his style choices are too extreme for most. But he’s a big boy and knows what he’s doing. If you’re going to post pix of yourself on the web wearing daring outfits, you’d better be prepared for the snark (anonymous, of course, and therefore de facto cheap and cowardly). There’s an old adage about this involving heat and the kitchen.
I have shoes by AE, Alden and Crockett & Jones and they all fit fine.
JC Penney used to have good stuff. My father took me there probably in the ’70s for my first adult sport jacket, a barleycorn Harris Tweed.
I’m respectfully not buying the JC Penney bit: I completely understand Buckley’s devil-may-care nonchalance, but the man would have had no reason to frequent JCP. All the button-down oxfords are the real deal, and monogrammed, too. I have to imagine he got his suits from some place similar.
@EC
There’s a scene in “The Aviator” where DiCaprio as Howard Hughes can’t decide whether he should have an underling pick up a suit for him from JC Penney, Sears, or Montgomery Ward.
Just sayin’.
@AEV Thank you for commenting. I can turn off the stopwatch now.
Christian, this isn’t as bad as the certainty with which you assured us that Press jackets always featured 3 button cuffs.
Still, WFB Jr. wasn not Old Money. He was second generation Money. His parents moved the Buckley clan to rather fashionable CT community.
His father was a graduate not of Yale, but of the University of Texas. Before striking it rich in the oil business, he was–wait for it–small town Texas Sherriff.
True, this. Read the Judis biography. Research, old chap, research.
There’s nothing wrong with Texas, nor is there anything wrong with working as a small town Texas Sherriff.
Still, the Buckleyesque transatlantic accent deceives: his roots are Irish Catholic and Texan.
Okay, he ate peanut butter and used pencils. He also used fancy SAT words and challenged the old Northeastern WASP establishment, consisting of liberal Republicans and New Deal Democrats.
Old, New England Money? Well.
Also, who who writes books about sailing? Just sail the boat, for Christ’s sake. Don’t boast about how many bottle of wine you were able to bring aboard or how chummy you are with ambassadors and editors who join you. I don’t have a big dog in this particular hunt, but facts is facts: if embarrassment about one’s social position is paramount, modesty in all matters is a close second.
Still, he wore repp ties a lot. We can give him that.
@SE
Thanks for the corrections. Alas I’m afraid time does not allow me to read biographies in order to bang out web posts. Fortunately I have 50,000 of you to point out my errors. Can you also suggest a new headline?
Ivy Aesthetic.
Nice touch, and you’re welcome for the setup.
SE should note that WFB’s accent was also influenced by living in England as a young boy for boarding school.
And yet I recall his claiming that his first language was really Spanish, because of his nanny, I think. Where was mummy and daddy?
The headline just came to me, and I plead guilty to not knowing Buckley’s family background. For New Money, he sure embodied Old Money values. Played a mean harpsichord, too.
Christian – read Reid Buckley’s book for a good history of the Buckley upbringing. Hilarious Norman Mailer anecdote, as well.
I guess in terms of re-making oneself, William F. Buckley and Fred Castleberry have a lot in common…of course then again, don’t we all re-make ourselves at least once in our lives…
Weird coincidences here. Norman Mailer is referenced in an upcoming post, and some woman I chatted with on the night at Barnaby Conrad’s art exhibit (which I recount in the previous post), said you have to reinvent yourself every 15 years. For some reason I remembered that.
Correct, MRS. We’d all sound like Buckley if our parents had sent us to boarding school in England.
Best I recall, the Buckleys did neither welcomed nor appreciated comparisons with another up-and-coming Irish Catholic brood who, because of shrewd business dealings on the part of the patriarch, purchased a hunk of New England coast and settled into a gentrified existence among the crusty-fusty Lost Money types.
D Bloom—Negative (and often inaccurate) comments, accusations, and over-arching disdain come with the territory of doing anything worthwhile. It’s nothing new…as Christian mentioned, it comes with the territory. And he’s right, I’m a “big boy”…now if only everyone else could be too.
With regards to Unabashedly Prep and FEC. To formulate your own opinion, review the recent post “Leaving Lincoln”. It will either resonate with you or it won’t. You will either show up to a serious meeting dressed accordingly….or you won’t.
Christian – Your comment section is the best.
Mr. Wyllys – I agree with you that we all do re-make ourselves and that can be a very positive thing. While I don’t like to make a habit of quoting hippies I think it is appropriate here.
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
-Kurt Vonnegut
WFB Sr. was never a sheriff, it was WFB Jr’s immigrant grandfather. WFB ‘s father was a a bureaucrat, romance language scholar and law student while in Austin. He made his real money in South American oil.
Fred Castleberry is embarrassing not because he’s a parvenu (I doubt very much many of the readers, commenters, or contributors of/on/to this site were born wearing 3/2 rolls) but rather because he has awful taste. He has, on a number of occasions, made me wince due to the garish colors, ridiculous 6″ of exposed ankles, laughable sunglasses, and incongruity (repp ties in Brooklyn?). We have several mutual friends and indeed he does seem like a normal, nice person. But he really should be abashed.
The “Leaving Lincoln” shot is among the most situationally-appropriate outfits I’ve seen Mr. Castleberry wear. By fashion week standards, that’s an almost rebellious level of conservatism! In all fairness though, I think his outfits have been getting more mature of late (the “Smart Bomb” and “Earn Your Stripes” shots come to mind).
@FEC: Lands’ End makes a dynamite pair of solid lemon yellow socks, OTC and Crew, on sale for $6. 🙂
The more important correction would have been that the first among the Buckleys to immigrate were Protestant, not Catholic.
But, yes. Indeed it was John Buckley who split his work week–working as a (part time?) rural sherriff and a sheep rancher. He lost most if not all of the fortune he made in Mexico. Future attempts proved successful.
The point stands, I think.
His mother was a Southerner. Louisiana. Her parents immigrated from Switzerland just before the Civil War.
My favorite memories of WFB, were those when he dressed down others with opposing opinions. I used to wonder if some were even able to comprehend his choice of vocabulary!
To support AEV, I must call attention to the 1965 debate (YouTube) between James Baldwin and WFB. Now, if I give WFB any credit within the context of Ivy Style, he religiously adhered to one of the cardinal rules of a true Prep…sameness. No lime down vests over his blue blazer.
It was Buckley’s delight in his quasi celebrity status that unnerves. And then there was the smirking exaltation of the ‘good life’ he wanted others to know he led. At Cruising speed, no less. (good god). There was something of the Fauntleroyish brat about him.
I’ve no idea what old line WASPs thought of the man. A few sources provide a glimpse.
His flippancy, showboating, and flaunting of his wealth–it’s all distasteful, and yet, in some ways, so very American.
AEV: Chomsky>A liberal, anarchist, and anti-capitalist. Not a great patriotic American in my humble opinion!
AEV,
The majority of my comment (except that of him moving toward a more mature look, which may be partially true) was tongue-in-cheek. I do admit that I know very little about what fashion week actually entails. I just assumed bloggers came out to photograph and be photographed in their most absurd outfits, while industry folks discussed the actual business side. I consider three inches of ankle and down-blazer-over-jacket-in-bone-chilling-weather to be crazy (and for me, a stale look), but not fashion week crazy.
“I’ve been on the hunt for yellow cotton crew socks for the longest time. I’d probably wear them with everything when it was below 40 degrees if I could find a decent supply of them.” This was the comment I was responding to about the yellow socks. Obviously, if Mr. Castleberry worked at RL, then I doubt he had a very hard time finding a good source for yellow socks. I wanted to tease him about this excuse, but in a friendlier way.
I’m glad “oxford cloth button down” thinks your comment section is “the best,” Christian, because it frustrates me no end that a post such as this (and Castleberry’s) simply cannot be read, and enjoyed, without reference to social or political issues. It’s a mark of intellectual inferiority that folks can’t divorce what someone is wearing from…well…from any other aspect of his character.
I worked with Buckley. For those who must include temporizing phrases like “as I recall” in their posts (before fulminating about the man as if you knew the man), stop it. If you don’t know, take the trouble to find out.
AEV (Andrew van Ostrand)—Ye hardly know me…yet you pretend as if you do. You claim to know my intentions (in all things apparently) and my manner, yet it is impossible because we have barely spent little more than a dinner together. Why so much time and energy spent on me? Do you not have worthwhile pursuits worthy of your time? Perhaps you have too much time on your hands as a lobbyist on Capitol Hill? Either way, speaking ill of me (or anyone else for that matter) does not garner a good reputation.
Let’s say a person reveals much of and about his life and beliefs and character (as Buckley did incessantly) by a variety of means. In his case, every form of media available to him. Are members of the viewing and reading public not permitted the privilege of arriving at certain conclusions about said person? Isn’t this what people who publish details about their beliefs, habits, hobbies, interests, loves, hopes, and concerns want? An audience. Who will decide.
AEV,
The people who call “racist” are almost always liberals who are losing an argument to a conservative. It has become a meaningless, all-purpose insult, the point of which is to put the person so smeared on the defensive. It changes the subject, which is not a licit debate tactic.
It has yet to be demonstrated that homosexuality is an unqualified good, so that’s another put-down that is without content.
As for “evolution-denying,” you need to be more specific. Darwinism, which is what most people mean when they say “evolution,” is an unsustainable and self-refuting enterprise.
I don’t have a problem with you, or anyone else, disagreeing with WFB. What I have a problem with is mindless epithets.
Henry
Most will make blanket statements concerning WFB having never met him or read National Review over the many decades. Most don’t understand his evolution over the decades, he always admitted when he was wrong on an issue.
I’ll say this for Mr. Castleberry, I once sent him an email asking a question and he responded within twenty four hours…that counts for a lot with me, particularly so because he doesn’t even know me… Also…I’m still on the young side, but I’ve gone through many clothing phases…from wal-mart as a child to awful American Eagle as a teen, to nouveau prep to Ivy…I respect re-making oneself, as long as its for the better, as oxford cloth button down mentioned….as for WFB …well…I’ve never gotten along with conservatives…or with hippies
@AEV — (1) I don’t feel that WFB’s viewpoints must be avoided, I feel that YOUR viewpoints must be avoided. I don’t come here for jejune political commentary, I come here to learn about clothing. (2) I didn’t work for Buckley. (3) Nor do I support most of his views. (4) He did indeed have a long, clear record of opinion giving but not as long as yours, on this forum alone.
@S.E. — I’m not objecting to your opinions or anyone else’s, I’m objecting to the smugness and definitiveness with which they are delivered. I can find half a dozen factual errors in a 60-second scan of the comments here. Doesn’t this give you at least the slightest pause?
Actually I don’t care to much for what I said above…in re separating the world into conservatives and hippies. I don’t like dividing the world so easily…I support welfare and gay marriage…My father packed up and left, my mother got sick, so I went to work strait out of high school…So now I go to college at night and work during the day, to improve my lot in life. I also do take some goverment assistance…as little as possible, but I do…Some people misuse it, but, why throw the baby out with the bath water? As for gay marriage. If homosexual people want to fight that hard for family, I say, why not? I mean, them getting married isn’t going to magically turn me gay…but on the other hand, I also strongly support the death penalty, and I choke up during the national anthem…and I hate sandals…….Hmm, Canadian Club makes me contemplative…
Call anyone a crypto-Nazi on national TV, see how it turns out. Also, WFB was a devote Catholic, Catholics aren’t creationist.
Mr. Wyllys
Good luck with your pursuits. You’re right the world is not easily defined in black and white, especially without historical context, except for Belgium loafers and short jackets. 😉
I’m as liberal as they come so I definitely think WFB is doing more good as worm food than he ever did alive. I don’t think he’s racist but after reading God and Man at Yale, I absolutely believe he was and idiot with terrible ideas.
As for FEC, do what you do baby. I can see the fact that he’s learning the prep / trad ropes along with a lot of us yet presenting each discovery as if he knew it all along (akin to the child in class who, after another student gives the correct answer, frantically raises his hand exclaiming “teacher! Teacher! I was just going to say that!!” ) as a complete turnoff to most people. But the fact that he’s been able to parlay his ignorance into some sort of career regardless, earns my respect. It’s all about the hustle.
Thank you for the detailed response, AEV. My main objection was to your use of anti-intellectual invective used by liberals to dismiss all non-liberal thought. Terms like “racist,” “homophobe,” and “hater” smear the target as having unreasonable opposition to whatever it is they oppose, and since liberals think that that opposition is emotional, rather than reasoned, the liberal feels justified in simply ignoring, rather than responding to, the other side. It’s the liberal canned response that relieves, in the liberal’s mind, any need to engage in thought-out rebuttal. This dismissiveness extraordinarily arrogant, really, and is disturbingly widespread.
To your substantive points.
Almost immediately after passage, civil rights legislation, which were supposedly laws for equal individual rights (a good thing), transmogrified into racial group equality of results, which can never be attained. In pursuing this chimera, we now have an unsustainable system of unconstitutional, anti-democratic racial preferences. WFB might not have foreseen the end results, but he was right to oppose the transformation of America into the monstrosity it has become.
Apartheid was wrong. However, have you seen what has happened in South Africa since the fall of the Boers? “Anarchy” is putting it kindly, and whites are being raped and murdered at rates high enough for the word “genocide” to apply. Apartheid was the lesser of two evils. Again, I don’t know the details of WFB’s thought, but certainly there was another way out of Apartheid that would not have resulted in the wide-scale murder of whites.
It seems that our host will not allow me to comment further upon homosexuality. That’s fine; it’s his site, and really, it is extraordinarily tangential to the topic of this site. Having said that, my views are the same as those found in nearly every society throughout nearly every time, a view that was unquestioned in America until about five minutes ago. If that’s not clear enough for you, please refer to Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:18-32; and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (for starters).
For the record, I don’t worship WFB, and I am far less familiar with his opus than you. However, I respect him for creating the modern conservative movement, even if he lost his principled opposition to modern liberalism in the last 25 years or so of his life. As a reactionary, I instinctively jump to the defense of nearly any target of a liberal’s invective.
Finally, WFB did apologize afterwards for his intemperate words; Vidal never did. In their many crossings, WFB came out ahead, as evidenced by Vidal’s payment of WFB’s legal fees in one of their mutual libel cases, and Esquire’s apologies and payments after publishing Vidal’s anti-Buckley vitriol. So Vidal was hardly the injured party here.
Sorry about the bold; I forgot to put the closing tag in after “un.”
The bold print was effective. Wow. If all CAPS suggest the writer is SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS, then bold says “Now, I really do mean business. Seriously. I mean, really…I do.”
A colleague of mine who graduated from Yale in the late 60s recalls the underground conservative movement among some faculty and more than a few students. Fair or not, the debates spiraled downward–into a clash of personalities.
I wonder if Brewster won the day in large part because of his demeanor (is temperament a better word?) and impeccable manners–because he was, to put the matter clumsily, almost laughably WASPy. By most accounts I’ve heard and read, he was polite, earnest, reserved, serious, and unfailingly curious about how others’ opinions might be superior to his own. A true New England patrician (descendants who stepped off the Mayflower and such), I’ve heard it said that, had it not been for the vested flannel suits, he might have been mistaken for a janitor or low level administrator. He eschewed the limelight and looked for ways to broker agreements (find common ground) privately and discreetly.
Contrast this with the brash, flippant, haughty, I’m-always-correct persona that Buckley had nurtured, and it’s no wonder his efforts weren’t universally exalted.
Okay, so Buckley gave the conservative movement the intellectual muscle it so desperately needed. True. But he and his colleagues did something else: they reformed and even transformed the GOP into the party of conservative Christians (Catholics, evangelicals) and radical libertarians. Before, it was the party of fiscal responsibility–balanced budgets.
Henry, did you actually use a Leviticus reference to support an opinion? Oh my–)I take a second glance)–you did.
Shall we engage in a conversation about Levitical codes? Actually, let’s not. I’d much prefer chit-chat about worsted wools and Irish Poplin. But surely you know that, were we to accept and interpret and apply the Levitical codes and mandates with the literalness you seem to prefer, the world would be a bizarre, brutal, and uncivilized place indeed.
The Scriptures are received a canon. Don’t pick and choose to support views you cannot possibly know with certainty God affirms.
And, oh yes: Buckley did not “create” the modern conservative movement in America. He steered it in a particular direction. Read George Nash’s work on the history of the American conservative intellectual movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
WFB and National Review provided the intellectual underpinnings that enabled the different existing strains of conservative political thought to unite, those strains being libertarian, anti-communist and traditionalist. Interestingly, he did it by eviscerating the Birchers and Randians. I haven’t read Nash for decades, I may have to dust off some books. As far as the movement is concerned, there is a reason that famous photo of BG, RR and WFB exists.(see the photo at CC’s link)
I haven’t always agreed with WFB on every issue, but the few times I met him he was always a gentleman with a sense of humor. I find it strange some consider him a “bully”, he very seldom, if ever invited intellectual light weights on Firing Line and they always seemed to enjoy themselves.
Homosexuality? I have the same opinion as I do on bondage or hunting for Bigfoot or collecting thimbles, none. Live and let live, but don’t get me gong on Belgium loafers and short jacket
@Henry
I feel that my intelligence is being insulted when anybody quotes the Bible, of all books, to support their opinions as to how civilized, educated people should live in the year 2013.
S.E.
I understand Leviticus also proscribes incest (18:6-18). Is that proscription also illegitimate because it is included amongst other commands we today find abhorrent?
The Bible, both Testaments, may be the only reason we still enjoy a partially civilized world in 2013. My education taught me to be tolerant, which is a great shield against being insulted. I’m even congenial to people who wear Belgium loafers or short coats, but I carry antacids for an antidote. 😉
The Scriptures are received a canon. Don’t pick and choose to support views you cannot possibly know with certainty God affirms.
umm no sweetheart, the old testament laws are superseded by the teaching of Christ – certain things are emphasized and others are retired or tempered. Thus, Jesus emphasizes the spiritual damage sin can do (he that sins is a slave to it) he clearly takes a strong stand on adultery (what God has joined, etc) but tempers the punishment (let ye who never sinned)
other things, like kosher laws,and strict adherence to the Sabbath, he ‘downgrades’
@BostonBean, care to explain why your ‘intelligence’ is being ‘insulsted’? The bible is one of the foundations of western thought and morality. IT is no accident for example, that infanticide was common in pagan rome, faded in Christian europe and has made a comeback in secularized Europe.
Google “William F. Buckley racism”
Oh yawn, that accusation? Do you guys ever tire of it? Apparently not.
Through the 60s, National Review fiercely rejected to any and all civil rights legislation.
Perhaps they saw the damage it would do. Lets face it, the left has never been sincere about its intentions, from gun control (awe gee, we just want to register fire arms) to ‘civil’ ‘rights’ (don’t worry we will NEVER have race quotas and this will ONLY be for five years)
So does my opposing affirmative action, and race quotas and set asides make me a ‘racist’?
I guess the modern equivalent is opposing gay’ marriage’ =”homophobe” .
In my opinion, your side (and on the right the neocons with their claims of ‘defense’) have lost all legitimacy and do not deserve or warrant trust, because your intentions have always been more sinister.
Christian, get out another post!!!!! Any further time spent on WFB may bring charges of necrophilia. We have truly F’ed this topic to death!
I always thought Belgian loafers were like saddle shoes…for women…you mean males wear them too? haha
@just me
@MAC
Apart from Belgian loafers and short jackets, virtually every atrocity committed by the West was justified by reference to the Bible.
Belgian waffles are great.
I just call them Venetian loafers and use them to justify my prejudice against Italians. 😉
virtually every atrocity committed by the West was justified by reference to the Bible.
really? Care to cite some evidence?
I know the slave trade was ended by biblical justification, the declaration of independence (endowed by our CREATOR with rights, and before locke, by a spanish friar who opposed the spanish slave trade, i know the scientific method and university and our greatest art arose out of Christian thought, but please, give me some specifics..
(i will beat you to the bunch on the crusades were an attempt to TAKE BACK not TAKE the holy land, and to protect Christian pilgrams.)
@just me
I am amused by the notion that the Holy Land belonged to the West rather than to its Middle Eastern inhabitants.
I am also amused that you credit Christianity rather than Judaism (or the Judeo-Christian tradition, or Greco-Roman culture) as being the source Western civilization.
Langthorp
Concerning the Crusades, who invaded who first, who posed an existential threat first?
You are correct, “just me” knows this, Christ was a revolutionary Jew.
I did attempt to stay out of this, but a clarification is due. The relevant snippet of text in the Declaration of Independence states “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Without launching into a grammar lesson, the “their” is deliberately placed in the document to signify the individual and their beliefs and not the collective/plural “our”. It’s a fairly important distinction. I suggest (to “just me”) going to an image of the Declaration of Indepence, enlarging it, and reading it.
I am amused by the notion that the Holy Land belonged to the West
Open a history book, then you wont’ be amused, you’ll just feel foolish. The Arabs, then Turks took it by force. Arabs are not indigenous to the Levant. They also conquered north africa by force.
Do you acknowledge this to be true, or not?
the “their” is deliberately placed in the document to signify the individual and their beliefs and not the collective/plural “our”.
how do you know? oh, that’s right you dont’.And it has nothing to do with the point. We believe we get our rights from God – you may not like that, but that is the source of our morality. Without it, life quickly becomes cheap, and truth and morality become relative, as it did in atheistic societies and, as I have pointed out, in secularized Europe, where infanticide has returned.
I am also amused that you credit Christianity rather than Judaism (or the Judeo-Christian tradition, or Greco-Roman culture) as being the source Western civilization.
Again you are also mistaken. Judeo-Christian is an invented term that started in FDR’s era, The influence of what is today called Judism is negligible… the religion of the ancient Hebrews is another story – and that had ‘off shoots’ one being Christianity, the other modern Judaism, which for example, has holy books and tradition that post-date Christianity and the gospels (The Talmud, in its various forms, for example)
and of course greek and roman thought and culture greatly influenced Christianity and western civilization. But for example, the university, modern hospital and scientific method are a result of Christian thought.
@just me. I’m going back to ivy/trad/etc with discussions about subject exclusively. I admit my strategy was wrong, though. I should have addressed the point solely that you used a text and misquoted it to what seems to bolster your arguement. Simply, you’re being disingenuous.
As for “We believe we get our rights from God – you may not like that, but that is the source of our morality.” I do take offense to that. I take my spiritual beliefs seriously, quietly try to live by them and have little tolerance for a snitty remark that insinuates otherwise (that crap might work with others). I will give Christian permission to pass my point of contact on to you if you would like to further discuss.
You do realize there are countless other blogs, forums, etc. for this arguement that you can enjoy with like minded commenters, right?
@just me
The scientific method is the result of Christian thought?
Pure unadulterated hogwash, sir.
LOL as I’m reading the above! From WFB and JC Penny suits to religion and the Declaration of Independance! 74 comments and I loved them all!
@Camford — In his work the historian Niall Ferguson argues not that the scientific method is the result of Christian thought — but that one of the essential tenets of the Christian faith (separation of church and state, as embodied in the phrase “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s etc.”) enabled the Enlightenment and then Scientific Revolution to take off in the West in a way that didn’t happen in theocratic civilizations of the East. To me, his argument is convincing, although one of course cannot know if it is right.
@dave t
you may not like that, but that is the source of our morality.” I do take offense to that. I take my spiritual beliefs seriously,
I did not mean to offend, I did not know what your personal beliefs are, I was simply saying it as a matter of fact for those who expect some sort of absolute separation of ‘church and state’ it simply is not possibly because once you take away the morality , the government, rather quickly, becomes pretty nasty. (not that ‘christian’ governments cannot be)
@camford
time to stop believing enlightenment myths – of which there are many (the middle ages as ‘dark’ for example)
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Issues_Alexander2.php
” First, there seems little doubt that the concept of scientific laws was nurtured by the Christian belief that God has established moral laws for the universe and therefore, ipso facto, God must maintain similar laws that govern the physical world. The rational God of Christian theology provided a rationale for seeking intelligibility in the world, as expressed through laws. This is made explicit in the writings of early natural philosophers such as Descartes, Boyle and Newton.”
In short, the scientific method assumed an ‘order’ behind things and a rational creator…otherwise, if it were ‘irrational’ it would not be worth trying to rationally disect, get it?
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1011-locklin
No Catholic Church, No Scientific Method
October 2011By Scott Locklin
A former physicist with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Scott Locklin works on quantitative finance problems in Berkeley, California
History’s first scientist was Robert Grosseteste,… It was Grosseteste who formulated the first description of the
scientific process. He was the first European in centuries to study
Aristotle’s works and the first to study Arab natural philosopher Abu
Ibn al-Haytham’s writings. From these thinkers he developed the idea
of “composition and resolution,” which is the scientific method in
itself. He advocated using mathematics to learn about reality. He also
developed the idea of peer review. He built upon the notion that one
could learn natural law’s general principles by studying specific
examples. He developed the all-important idea of falsification, to
separate true from false ideas.
Grosseteste was a deeply moral and pious man. He made sure the common
people had proper moral instruction in English and that everyone knew
the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments.
The belief that I take seriously is my belief that Ivy style is superior to all other styles.
@ castleberry – as you said, you’ve chosen to put yourself out there so you deal with the consequences. But unless I’m mistaken, AEV has not. So why do you pointedly reference his name?
WFB always looked like he needed to wash his hair.
WFB was a gentleman, through and through. Over the years, I would write him and he wrote me back in-kind, even offering to meet for drinks when he was in town on book tours. He had no reason to do this, other than a pure sense of good manners and old school values. 5 years on, he is surely missed on the American intellectual landscape.
“Buckley had an Old Money penchant for understatement and an abhorrence of ostentation.”
If only there were a way for “New Money” to learn this….
Hmmm. Interesting how the discussion evolved (no pun intended).
If there’s any ignorance I suppose it’s the side that has tried to bring up Biblical literalism as a “gotcha” card in the form of Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing (the dialogue is predictable when it comes to such matters – as with his “America is not great.”). I mean, are we talking to Baptists? Catholics? Non-denominational Christians? Just trying to prove that the Bible is a bunch of nonsense?
@ S.E.: You refer to West Wing. I refer to Edward Feser to get your feet wet.
@ Boston Bean: That’s rich coming from a man who lives in probably one of the most highly educated cities, given that MIT and Harvard are within striking distance from each other. Let’s not have ignorance make one out to be a fool. The irony.