We are both convinced of, and this essay will take more or less for granted, that the political traditions of libertarianism and feminism are both in the main correct, insightful, and of the first importance in any struggle to build a just, free, and compassionate society. Libertarianism and feminism, when they have encountered each other, have most often taken each other for polar opposites. Many 20th century libertarians have dismissed or attacked feminism—when they have addressed it at all—as just another wing of Left-wing statism; many feminists have dismissed or attacked libertarianism—when they have addressed it at all—as either Angry White Male reaction or an extreme faction of the ideology of the liberal capitalist state. But we hold that both judgments are unjust; many of the problems in combining libertarianism with feminism turn out to be little more than terminological conflicts that arose from shifting political alliances in the course of the 20th century; and most if not all of the substantive disagreements can be negotiated within positions already clearly established within the feminist and libertarian traditions.
Staying on the subject of Dark Age myths: Historical consensus declares this a myth invented by New Atheists. The Church was a great patron of science, no one believed in a flat earth, Galileo had it coming, et cetera.
Roger Bacon was a thirteenth century friar who made discoveries in mathematics, optics, and astronomy, and who was the first Westerner to research gunpowder. It seems though records are unclear that he was accused of heresy and died under house arrest. But this may have been because of his interest in weird prophecies, not because of his scientific researches.
Michael Servetus was a sixteenth-century anatomist who made some early discoveries about the circulatory and nervous system. But this was because of his heretical opinions on the Trinity, and not for any of his anatomical discoveries.
City authorities arrested him for blasphemy, cut out his tongue, strangled him, and burned his body at the stake. He was arrested by the Inquisition and accused of consorting with the Devil.
He died before a verdict was reached, but the Inquisition finished the trial, found him guilty, and ordered his corpse burnt at the stake.
He was accused of consorting with the Devil because he was kind of consorting with the Devil — pretty much everyone including modern historians agree that he was super into occultism and wrote a bunch of grimoires and magical texts.
He also believed in heliocentrism, and promoted originated? He was arrested, tortured, and burned at the stake. Scientists got in trouble for controversial views on non-scientific subjects like prophecies or the Trinity, or for political missteps.
Scott Aaronson writes about the the Kolmogorov option suggested alternate title: Mathematician Andrey Kolmogorov lived in the Soviet Union at a time when true freedom of thought was impossible.
He reacted by saying whatever the Soviets wanted him to say about politics, while honorably pursuing truth in everything else. As a result, he not only made great discoveries, but gained enough status to protect other scientists, and to make occasional very careful forays into defending people who needed defending.
He used his power to build an academic bubble where science could be done right and where minorities persecuted by the communist authorities like Jews could do their work in peace.
They pursued their work in optics, astronomy, anatomy, or whatever other subject, but were smart enough never to go near questions of religion. Maybe they would give beautiful speeches on how they had seen the grandeur of the heavens, but the true grandeur belonged to God and His faithful servant the Pope who was incidentally right about everything and extremely handsome.
Maybe they would have ended up running great universities, funding other thinkers, and dying at a ripe old age. Armed with this picture, one might tell Servetus and Bruno to lay off the challenges. But Kolmogorov represents an extreme: For the opposite extreme, consider Leonid Kantorovich.
Kantorovich was another Russian mathematician. He was studying linear optmization problems when he realized one of his results had important implications for running planned economies. He wrote the government a nice letter telling them that they were doing the economy all wrong and he could show them how to do it better.
|Hamilton - Joe Posnanski||Strangely, the 5 on-the-scene military reports of the incident disappeared shortly after archived.|
|Share this page with other mortals!||Magic in North America Part 1: In Uncategorized by Adrienne K.|
|Quick Answer||What is tested on the MBE Exam?|
|What is the Bar Exam?||Ayn Rand Man is not the best of things in the universe. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library, p.|
Historians are completely flabbergasted that Kantorovich survived, and conjecture that maybe some mid-level bureaucrat felt sorry for him and erased all evidence the letter had ever existed.
He was only in his 20s at the time, and it seems like later on he got more sophisticated and was able to weather Soviet politics about as well as anybody. How could such a smart guy make such a stupid mistake? Kantorovich was a professor, he was writing about a very abstract level of economics close to his area of expertise, and he expressed his concerns privately to the government.
Surely there were some highly-placed professors of unquestionable loyalty who had discussed economics with government officials before. Even a savvier version of Kantorovich would have to consider complicated questions of social status, connections, privileges, et cetera.
The real version of Kantorovich showed no signs of knowing any of those issues even existed. Given enough time, such a person can become a savvy Kolmogorov who sees the censorship clearly, knows its limits, and understands how to skirt them.The Complex Hero in Beowulf - The story of Beowulf is one of the oldest examples of what society views as a hero.
Though the story was written in Anglo-Saxon times, the credentials one would need in order to be considered by society a hero remain the same.
The Business of War. By Wade Frazier. Revised July Introduction. The Business of War. The "Good War" Brown Shirts in America. A Brief History of Western Anti .
[First published April ] We all know someone who’s intelligent, but who occasionally defends obviously bad ideas. Why does this happen? How can smart people take up positions that defy any reasonable logic? This essay delves deeply into the origins of the Vietnam War, critiques U.S.
justifications for intervention, examines the brutal conduct of the war, and discusses the . He gains respect and is always remembered in good words so any one can be a hero in life. To be a real hero, a person must exhibit acts of bravery in times of need.
Braveness is a very important part of a hero’s life, so that he .
Put simply, a hero essay is one in which you describe someone you look up to or admire. This could be a family member, teacher, community leader, friend, celebrity, or even a random stranger who did a kind deed.