On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:27:00 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.

"Elitist". Leadership or rule by an elite.

"Elite". The best or most skilled members of a group.

Of course I want the best possible people to run the country. I am
sorry if you disagree.


My second purpose was a bit more serious; that reading list is
considerable and represents an immense investment of time and preparation
for someone putting together such a seminar and a large investment of time
on the part of those participating in such a seminar. The first question
one should ask is what the purpose of such investment should be. Could this
not be distilled into an examination of the key teachings of marxist
doctrines along with an examination of the results of their attempted
implementation? Were similar seminars offered that delved with equivalent
depth into the bases of the representative democracy formed under the
Constitution? Was equivalent depth provided for the federalist and
anti-federalist papers, the writings of Locke, Jefferson, Madison and the
founders?

Here is the reading list for the course on Social and Political
Philosophy:


The Republic. Plato.

The Crito. Plato.

Politics. Aristotle.

The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli.

Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes.

The Second Treatise On Civil Government. John Locke.

The Social Contract. Jean Jacques Rousseau.

The Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson.

Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. Thomas Jefferson.

Letters. Thomas Jefferson.

On The Duty of Civil Disobedience. Henry David Thoreau.

On Liberty. John Stuart Mill.

The Doctrine of Fascism. Benito Mussolini.

Mein Kampf. Adolf Hitler.

Reconstruction In Philosophy. John Dewey.

Ethics. John Dewey (with James H. Tufts).

Non-Violent Resistance. M. K. Gandhi.




The various Federalist Papers were covered in a History course, rather
than a Philosophy course.


Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate.

(False analogy deleted.)



I'm no longer going to bother arguing with you. Your mind is closed.
You ask for proof and when it is presented with you, you simply
indulge in the same tired, reflexive rhetoric.

Why?

Because


YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!


(sorry Jack)



tom watson