When a utilitarian attempts to speak about such matters he wants to claim that the government broke its own “rule based procedures for property allocation” (rule based utilitarianism), in order to conceal from himself his own intuitive knowledge that the government acted lawlessly. His rationalization is plainly false: The governments actions were a result of consistently applying the governments utilitarian rules on substandard housing. The hurricane had made everyone's housing substandard. The government obeyed their own unlawful rules, violating the rights of their subjects. The violent wrath of their subjects was so great, that the government back tracked and chose to respect the property rights of their subjects, in violation of their own “rule based procedures for property allocation.”
“The Dowager Duchess has modeled her Institute for the Cadets entirely on the plan prepared by the Order. That house is under our inspection; all its Professors belong to our Order; five of its members have been well provided for, and all the pupils will be ours.” [Zwack, on the progress of Illuminism; AB: 611, emphasis in original]
We can see then that although from one point of view the personalphilistinism of Hitler and Stalin is not accidental to the rolesthey play, from another point of view it is only an incidentallycontributory factor in determining the cultural policies of theirrespective regimes. Their personal philistinism simply adds brutalityand double-darkness to policies they would be forced to supportanyhow by the pressure of all their other policies -- even werethey, personally, devotees of avant-garde culture. What the acceptanceof the isolation of the Russian Revolution forces Stalin to do,Hitler is compelled to do by his acceptance of the contradictionsof capitalism and his efforts to freeze them. As for Mussolini-- his case is a perfect example of the of a realist in these matters. For years he bent a benevolenteye on the Futurists and built modernistic railroad stations andgovernment-owned apartment houses. One can still see in the suburbsof Rome more modernistic apartments than almost anywhere elsein the world. Perhaps Fascism wanted to show its up-to-dateness,to conceal the fact that it was a retrogression; perhaps it wantedto conform to the tastes of the wealthy elite it served. At anyrate Mussolini seems to have realized lately that it would bemore useful to him to please the cultural tastes of the Italianmasses than those of their masters. The masses must be providedwith objects of admiration and wonder; the latter can dispensewith them. And so we find Mussolini announcing a "new Imperialstyle." Marinetti, Chirico, ., are sent intothe outer darkness, and the new railroad station in Rome willnot be modernistic. That Mussolini was late in coming to thisonly illustrates again the relative hesitance with which ItalianFascism has drawn the necessary implications of its role.
Capitalism in decline finds that whatever of quality it isstill capable of producing becomes almost invariably a threatto its own existence. Advances in culture, no less than advancesin science and industry, corrode the very society under whoseaegis they are made possible. Here, as in every other questiontoday, it becomes necessary to quote Marx word for word. Todaywe no longer look toward socialism for a new culture -- as inevitablyas one will appear, once we do have socialism. Today we look tosocialism simply for the preservation of whatever living culturewe have right now.
The varying definitions of natural law are clearly consistent on the issue of individual violence. On the topic of collective violence, the questions of what are just grounds for making war, how may a just war be conducted, and what may a just victor do with an unjust loser, the various definitions of natural law often seem cloudy and contradictory. There are two reasons for this apparent cloudiness. One is that there is no natural definition of a collective entity, so it all depends on what gives the collective entity its substance and cohesion, how the individual is a participant in the acts of the collective entity. The Nuremberg trials contain extensive discussions of this point. The other reason is that there is a large difference between what the victor should do and what the victor may lawfully do. The victor should be magnanimous and lenient, as at Nuremberg, but may lawfully be strict and harsh. On the questions that most commonly arise in practice, all the different definitions of natural law give clear, consistent and straightforward answers: The usual reason for war is that one group defines another group as enemy, and then uses organized collective violence to seize the property of the members of that group, and to enslave or kill them. In such case it is open season on the aggressor because they constitute a clear danger to their neighbors. In a just war it lawful to napalm bomb enemy civilians in a defended city, though not to intentionally target enemy civilians, unlawful to bombard an open city, and unlawful to massacre prisoners under any circumstances, though individual prisoners may be executed for broad reasons. It is sometimes lawful to refuse to take prisoners, depending on the circumstances. The contradictions usually evaporate when we ask the questions that we are actually interested in, about the kind of situations that actually occur in practice. Arguments about whether a given military action was in accordance with the laws of war usually involve appeal to the facts, and arguments about the intentions and capabilities of the combatants, rather than appeal to differing concepts of the laws of war, indicating that our uncertainty concerning the laws of war is less than other sources of uncertainty.
Law derives from our right to defend ourselves and our property, not from the power of the state. If law was merely whatever the state decreed, then the concepts of the rule of law and of legitimacy could not have the meaning that they plainly do have, the idea of actions being lawful and unlawful would not have the emotional significance that it does have. As Alkibiades argued, (Xenophon) if the Athenian assembly could decree whatever law it chose, then such laws were “not law, but merely force”. The Athenian assembly promptly proceeded to prove him right by issuing decrees that were clearly unlawful, and with the passage of time its decrees became more and more lawless.
Senghor's poems such as "Joal," which captures cultural memories of his childhood and ancestral lands, are interspersed with anti-colonialist rage. Others make an appeal for reconciliation and God's forgiveness for France's dehumanization of blacks through enslavement and colonization. Senghor's influence and example were very important in encouraging African intellectuals to devote themselves to literature, poetry, and the arts.
As the Eighteenth Century came to a close Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755), Denis Diderot (1713-1784), Voltaire (1694-1778), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794), Comte de Mirabeau (1749- 1791), David Hume (1711-1776), Adam Smith (1723-1790), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) were famous in their own time. The instrument of reason became a new faith, no less susceptible to its own breed of dogmatism. The philosophers of the Enlightenment reasoned that the physics of Newton might become applicable in all fields of endeavor: the fundamental cosmic laws of nature could transform society and man himself into a “noble savage.”
(37- 43) a heavenly maid with a zither
(42-43) lingering impression
(44-54) a visionary concept of a "true" paradise
explanation of lexemes / paraphrase of the text
(1) Title: Kubla Khan is a man of great power, bearing the title of an Asian ruler (see background; also for information on the subtitle).
(1-5) Kubla's resides in Xanadu, a place, town, area, country, etc.
How much Manet knew of Pre-Raphaelism, I can't tell. But hetoo, ten years or so later than they, when he was starting out,became profoundly dissatisfied with the kind of painting he sawbeing done around him. That was toward the end of the I850s. Buthe put his finger on what dissatisfied him more "physically"than the Pre-Raphaelites had, and therefore, as I think, to morelasting effect. (From the seventeenth century on the English anticipatedever so much, in culture and the arts as well as in politics andsocial life, but usually left it to others to follow through onwhat they'd started.) Seeing a "Velazquez" in the Louvre(a picture now thought to be by Velazquez's son-in-law Mazo),he said how "clean" its color was compared to the "stewsand gravies" of contemporary painting. Which "stewsand gravies" were owed to that same color-muffling, grayingand browning shading and shadowing that the Pre-Raphaelites hadreacted against. Manet, in his own reaction, reached back to anearer past than they had in order to "disencumber"his art of those "halftones" responsible for the "stewsand gravies." He went only as far back as Velazquez to startwith, and then even less far back, to another Spanish painter,Goya.
Wagner was secretly infatuated with Mathilde Wesendonck, a poet and author, and——a real beauty. It remains a matter of debate whether their affair was ever consummated, but either way Mathilde was one of the most significant women in Wagner’s life. It was their thwarted romance that inspired the composer to create Tristan und Isolde, a passionate and tragic love story based on a of a king’s vassal, Tristan, and his love for Isolde, who is betrothed to marry the king.
Innovation, newness have gotten themselves taken as the hallmarkof Modernism, newness as something desired and pursued. And yetall the great and lasting Modernist creators were reluctant innovatorsat bottom, innovators only because they had to be -- for the sakeof quality, and for the sake of self-expression if you will. It'snot only that some measure of innovation has always been essentialto aesthetic quality above a certain level; it's also that Modernistinnovation has been compelled to be, or look, more radical andabrupt than innovation used to be or look: compelled by an ongoingcrisis in standards. Why this should be so, I can't try to accountfor here; it would take me too far afield and involve too muchspeculation. Let it sufffice for the moment to notice one thing:how with only a relatively small lapse of time the innovationsof Modernism begin to look less and less radical, and how theyalmost all settle into place eventually as part of the continuumof high Western art, along with Shakespeare's verse and Rembrandt'sdrawings.