And as long as philosopher will refuse to dig a bit into mathematics or computer science for answers to questions they call "philosophical", I'll have a hard time being interested by philosophy.
Nice try troll. Philosophy plays a larger role in the lives of mathematicians than in the lives of natural scientists. Many mathematicians have domain expertise in philosophy. Your "philosopher" is a straw-man by comparison.
And as long as mathematicans will refuse to stop asserting that their holy science is the one and only correct answer to all problems on this earth, I'll have a hard time being interested in mathematics.
What a sloppy, ignorant brush with which to paint such a complex subject as abolition. Religion was, and is, used to justify slavery every bit as much as abolition. In the U.S. for example, every major southern church organization was founded explicitly for the purpose of supporting slavery; the Southern Baptist Convention didn't officially renounce this support until 1995.
To this day, religion continues to be a powerful driver of racism, classism, and slavery. In case you need examples, may I point you to the Hindu caste system and the Muslim doctrine of Dhimmitude.
Philosophy went nazi? No, nazism went philosophy, and poorly too. They raped Nietzsche's philosophy until it fit their needs, with the help of his decadent Missgeburt of a sister. Heidegger is perhaps a much more problematic case, but also not a matter of black-and-white.
Philosophers _produced_ logic? Wittgenstein is lolling at you in his grave right now.
> Philosophy went nazi? No, nazism went philosophy, and poorly too.
Yes, the Nazis looked for "intellectual" support, but you're ignoring that they got it. If you want to argue causality....
> They raped Nietzsche's philosophy until it fit their needs, with the help of his decadent Missgeburt of a sister.
Ah yes, the "Nazis were unpopular in Germany" defense.....
>Heidegger is perhaps a much more problematic case, but also not a matter of black-and-white.
Heidegger is "problematic" only if you choose to ignore his actual positions at the time in favor of post WWII revisionism. (In other news, early 1900s progressives were eugenicists and segregationists.)
We can argue about whether that alone make Nazism popular with philosophers of that era or they came to that support on their own, but to deny that there was widespread agreement is simply absurd.
To be fair, Nazism was very popular across all social classes in the 30s, so the intellectual support wasn't way outside the mainstream. My point is that isn't an example where the intellectual class got it right. Do you want to blame that on the influence of the rest of society? (They didn't at the time, but surely we shouldn't believe what philosophers say about their reasons.)
I'm not sure what anamax meant, but the abolitionist movements were highly religious. It's not just that they happened to be religious; their religion drove their activism. Wilberforce and Rankin are good examples.
I'm not sure this is what the parent meant, but in America at least, the antislavery movement was part of a broad social reform movement which was strongly tied to the popular Christianity of the day. For example, see the connections between Charles Finney (a prominent theologian) and Oberlin College (one of the first integrated universities). Also, look up the full lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic- it sounds like nonsense outside of the context of 19th century revivalism. The reform movement and its consequences make an interesting historical topic.
I found it misleading to praise religion for motivating the winners but not blame religion (in fact almost all of the very same denominations) for also motivating the losers. Also interesting because I still can't imagine how people used the same sources but got such wildly different answers.
> found it misleading to praise religion for motivating the winners but not blame religion (in fact almost all of the very same denominations) for also motivating the losers.
My comment was about what caused the change, and the losers didn't do that.
Why do you think that these losers deserve as much attention as these winners? Or, is this a general rule?
In other news, the folks pushing 3/5 person (or less) rule were the anti-slavery folks while the slave states wanted slaves counted just like everyone else. (That rule was part of how congressional representation was determined. The "not slave" states were trying to minimize the representation of the slave states and the slave states were trying to maximize their representation.) So, anyone who brings it up as evidence of "not valuing them as people" is either dishonest or ignorant....
Yes, and support for slavery was also strongly tied to the popular Christianity of the day.
The fact that religion so permeated debates in those times makes it easy for us to cherry-pick people and places to support our positions (this applies to me as much as you).
