All Episodes
Previous Next
May 22, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
36:46
1362 Freedomain Radio in the 17th Century

I am not the first Molyneux to found a philosophical society...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Defend Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I hope that you're doing very well. I wanted to share something with you that I thought is quite interesting.
My father sent me this book, William Molyneux of Dublin, the life of the 17th century political writer and scientist.
And I wanted to share with you a few things.
He is a direct ancestor Of mine, who has been around, well was around, quite a ways back in history.
And there are some interesting things, I think, in terms of parallels.
He was born in 1656, so that's quite a few moons ago.
I'll just read to the beginning because I think it's interesting.
Those who don't know me very well may know, or should know, I suppose, that I have founded Freedomain Radio, which is the largest and most...
It's a popular philosophy show in the world, really, reaching 50-60,000 people.
I've received some controversy for some of my stances, particularly against the abuse of children, because I'm very keen on the non-aggression principle, and the non-aggression principle is not something that Mike Tyson needs a lot of protection from in a bar, but helpless children in families do.
And so a commitment to voluntarism, to skepticism, to atheism, anti-centralized statism, and controversy, and dedication to philosophy is something that I share with William, my ancestor. And I think that's just kind of interesting.
Reading this, there's quite a lot of similarities.
Now, of course, there's lots of differences to what degree those are explainable by...
The different circumstances is obviously debatable, but I'll read a little bit about this.
William Molyneux made his mark in many ways.
To 18th century readers in England and further afield, he was known as the friend of the philosopher John Locke and as the writer of intelligent letters that made a substantial part of some familiar letters between Mr.
Locke and several of his friends. By Henry Grattan and his fellow patriots in Ireland, Molyneux was revered as the author of The Case of Ireland's Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, stated, the much-quoted textbook of colonial nationalism.
Philosophers still discuss the Molyneux problem of the blind man who gains his sight and is confronted by the sphere and cube that he has previously learned to recognize by touch.
In his lifetime, he was an enthusiastic devotee of the new learning, a fellow of the Royal Society of London, an amateur astronomer who gained the regard of Flamstein and Halley, Halley's Comet, a contributor to scientific journals in England and on the continent, the author of the first substantial book in English on the author of the first substantial book in English on optics in the Ireland of his time.
He was well known as an administrator and politician, and an indefatigable seeker after all kinds of knowledge, and as the founder and driving force of the Dublin Philosophical Society.
It's quite interesting, really. Which he established as a sister institution of the Royal Society.
And I thought that's quite interesting that he would have found it to be a driving force at the Dublin Philosophical Society, which I didn't actually know when I started.
I just read this book recently, like over the last week or two.
And here are some quotes about his life, which, again, it may be completely self-indulgent to me.
I find it very interesting. I hope you will too.
He is said to have been, quote, very curious in natural philosophy, and he became an excellent philosopher as well as a mathematician.
He enjoyed the possession of a good library to judge from the older books listed in the catalog when the family library was sold after his grandson's death.
His style of life was simple, directed to his own comfort rather than to the prevailing fashion.
Oh, I should have shaved. Well, I can certainly attest to that being quite genetic.
Um...
So among the administrators and academics in the local university were some men of culture and with a taste for intellectual inquiry and many of them were recruited by William Molyneux into the Dublin Philosophical Society.
Which I think is, again, quite interesting.
He seems to be being quite driven, very curious.
Certainly no Christian, more of a deist, which was probably the closest that a public figure in his day, or even today, could go towards atheism.
I'm not going to say whether he was secretly or not an atheist, we don't know.
But he certainly was a very skeptical deist when it came to Christianity.
He said in a letter to his brother, he said, And that is something that I also feel the same way about.
A highly verbose, post-modernist, Foucauldian philosophy has always turned my intellectual stomach, and I like to go with the simple, more primal, and I think factual, empirical, commonsensical Anglo-Saxon base-of-the-brain words for philosophy, and I hope that has helped.
So I'll just read you a little bit more from this book that I've noted, which I think will be interesting.
He was very close to some of the leading intellectuals.
He was beloved of John Locke and they actually only met once later in his life, later in Molyneux's life.
When he criticized Haley, the astronomer, the episode is an example of astronomical infighting.
Trolls abound even in letters of the 17th century.
It shows Molyneux in a favorable light, treating the case on its merits, expounding his views logically and clearly, not hesitating to tell Haley what he thought of him.
Haley took the criticism in good part, and they remained firm friends.
Seems to have been an honorable and fair-minded and decent man.
Despite his interest in gunnery and politics.
But again, it's hard to say.
Now, as far as some of the stuff that I think is kind of interesting, he got involved in There was a book that was being written which was a description of all of the counties of Ireland.
And Molyneux drew on the account submitted by his correspondents to draft the description of Ireland for the atlas.
This is a pretty titanic undertaking.
But his labor was in vain as the English atlas was brought to a sudden halt after four volumes covering the northern part of continental Europe had been published.
Pitt, the guy who was writing it, had gotten into serious financial difficulties and was arrested on 13th April 1685.
Molyneux was disgusted and burned all that he himself had written.
Sorry, let me just turn that off.
Sorry, Molyneux was disgusted and burned all that he himself had written.
Fortunately, he kept communications he had received, hoping that someday the annals would be continued.
Historians have found much valuable material in Molyneux's collection.
I'm not quite that hysterical, but I certainly do have some inclinations towards that kind of emotionality.
So, but that's perhaps just because the science or psychology of self-knowledge has advanced quite a lot in the past few centuries.
And so that's, he got very interested in the founding of this philosophical society and made a great deal of, put a great deal of energy in.
He began to die away with his political career, which started later on in life.
So he writes, the establishment of the Dublin society seems to have involved more tension than appears from the euphoric correspondence.
Molyneux wrote to his brother in Holland, quote, how I have labored to bring it, the society, to what it is.
I will not say it would be a surprising relation to you to hear the several passages I have run through, but these I keep till I see you.
One subject of tension may have been the selection of the director.
It was not surprising that Petty, much the most celebrated member, should not have been chosen.
And when the title was changed to president at the end of the year, Petty was elected only on the second count after a tie with Willoughby.
But much progress was made during 1684, the first year of the society.
38 meetings were held, and at the end of the year there were 33 members.
However, Molyneux was conscious of the difficulty of keeping up the impetus with which the society...
Had begun, and he did work very hard to keep that moving.
At this, he was quite the, you could say, the Renaissance man.
I certainly aim to that the degree to which I hit it.
It's obviously not for mine to decide.
But during the first phase, Molyneux discoursed to the Society on twenty different subjects.
Nine of his papers were subsequently published in the Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society.
The subjects were extraordinarily varied, including optics, astronomy, the identification of a caterpillar, the dissection of a newt, unfortunately not Gingrich, and the allegedly petrifying qualities of low...
Sorry, I'm still working on my Gaelic.
In an age of versatile virtuosi, Molyneux was more versatile than most.
He was particularly proud of his feat in dissecting the newt and repeated his demonstration more than once.
The minutes of the society record that with the help of a microscope he showed the circulation of the blood as plainly as water running in a river and more rapidly than any common stream.
Which I think was pretty cool.
He was very interested in weather.
And this, some sort of petrification thing, he now asked whether this really had the power of petrifying and whether anyone had tested it by experiment.
It was a really relentless dedication to empiricism, which I certainly share.
This section was pretty good.
The life of a philosopher was more hazardous in the 17th century than in the present.
One of Molyneux's more dangerous experiments was with pulvis fulminans, a fearsome compound of nitre, sulfur, and tartar.
On the instructions of the society, he charged a pistol with the mixture, thrust the breech through the bars of a hot fire, and pointed the mouth of the loaded barrel at a post in front of it.
By good fortune, the weapon did not burst.
And the bullet penetrated the post in the same way as if gunpowder had been used.
That takes more stones than I think all the generations since has had.
I'm just not sure that I would practice with homemade explosives for that.
Unfortunately, it is. After the early meetings of 1693, until the society again faded out about the end of 1697, there is no direct evidence of Molyneux's participation in the meetings, and his growing involvement with politics distracted him.
From natural philosophy.
However, he did not abandon his interest in scientific questions, and it is likely, for instance, that his paper on the effects of magnetic variation on surveys, which was published in the Philosophical Transactions in 1697, was previously read to the Dublin Society.
The fact that you can get more involved in politics than philosophy, that lesson has never been lost on me, and I think that's very, very important.
I like this, that when he went to, when his brother went to university, there were 700 or 800 students of many nationalities.
The professors did not insist on attendance at lectures or classes, so that for young students it was the worst university in the world.
But for those of riper years, especially for my own faculty, it is one of the best societies in Europe.
Now I took some time off between high school and university.
I was a gold panel in Prospector up north, in the north of Canada.
And I can tell you that doing that kind of work really gets you to appreciate the library, and I certainly threw myself more into my studies than anybody else I knew in university, which I think was great.
I like what he says about his brother.
The liberty of philosophizing being now universally granted between all men.
I am sure that a difference of opinion will be no breach of affection between two entirely loving brothers.
And I really like that we focus on truth, we focus on empiricism, we don't focus on sniping and bitching at each other at a personal level.
level, some lesson that we all need to remember.
Trolls!
I'm sort of fascinated by this because I've had my own battles with the headless beasts.
This fellow writes about, not my ancestor, but somebody who wrote about people who disagreed with him.
They are an odd sort of people that are not to be esteemed Christians, and a modest heathen would be ashamed of their way.
That creed is theirs, which serves their interest best, and such cattle are dangerous.
I love that.
Just think of that going up in a post in the modern age.
That would be quite cool. Some real tragedy.
His wife was struck by blindness, so they remained married and happily married, it would seem.
And there's this weird thing.
It's actually not that weird when you think about it, and I've got a podcast on this if you want to check it out in the 1300s, but...
Molyneux returned to Dublin to find that his son, born in the preceding April, right, so he had a son, and then he basically said, hey, and then he went on a tour for almost a year, I think it was, and fathers were very little involved in the raising of the children back then, at least when they were young. Molyneux had returned to Dublin to find that his son, born in the preceding April, had developed into a fine child, but his hopes were dashed in February 1686, when the child suddenly fell ill and died in a few moments.
He himself became ill and was troubled with fever and ague all that spring.
His wife gave birth to a second child in April 1867, a daughter who died within two days.
Such unbelievable tragedies in families prior to the rise of late 19th century medicine and particularly 20th century medicine.
They're just constantly ill and sick and in bed because basically you've got an infection.
either killed you or left you pretty permanently weakened.
So I'll just read you a few more things.
He wrote a very well-received book on optics which I think was quite interesting and entered into a very long and deep discussion with John Locke who is of course a very famous philosopher.
I really liked I really like the statement that he made.
So he singled out for special commendation, quote, the incomparable Mr.
Locke, who in his essay concerning human understanding has rectified more received mistakes and delivered more profound truth established on experience and observation for the direction of man's mind in the prosecution of knowledge than are to be met with in all the volumes of the ancients.
I just love that kind of language.
It really is beautiful.
It is courtly. It is courteous.
It is fantastic. And he said, Molyneux added a warning against attempts to assign causes to natural phenomena.
What is the cause of gravity is clearly unknown to us, right?
So I really do enjoy sharing with my ancestor that basic reality that if you don't know the cause of something, you say, I don't know, rather than God did it or the government should pass a law, right?
And I quite like that aspect of things, which I certainly share with him.
Unfortunately, the book doesn't go into why and how he ended up in politics.
It just sort of pops in that he was, because he's really more interested in his philosophical stuff.
And of course, that's interesting too, that a couple of hundred years later, they're really only interested in his philosophical contributions, which is interesting.
It's why you try and avoid a public life and work on ideas and virtues and values rather than other sorts of things which are going to be forgotten.
And I think this is very interesting as well, that Locke states, knowledge of the existence of all things without us, outside of us, except only of God, was to be had only by our senses.
And that, of course, is very interesting.
The exception, except God, is because Locke was an empiricist, a rationalist of that, sorry, an empiricist of that kind.
So here Molyneux proposed, so Molyneux, I guess my ancestor had quite a lot of input, actually a very large amount of input into Locke's work.
Molyneux proposed that the chapter on the existence of God, Book 4, Chapter 10, should include a rebuttal of the view that the world had existed from eternity.
Quote, That rely much on this hypothesis that even Hobbes himself does somewhat allege that the same arguments which are brought against the eternity of the world may serve as well against the eternity of the creator of the world.
Locke, however, did not pursue this point.
How did Molyneux come to know a pack of philosophical atheists?
There do not appear to have been any overt declarations of atheism published up to the end of Molyneux's life.
It is possible that during his law student days in Restoration London, he may have listened to the talk of uninhibited skeptics.
so what that means is that he couldn't have known any atheists really, certainly not because books simply couldn't be published without right atheism in it I like this as well Molyneux was dissatisfied with the attribution of sin to want of understanding rather than to depravity of will Quote, it seems harsh to say that a man shall be damned because he understands no better than he does.
And I think that is a very good point, right?
A man should not be condemned to hell because he simply doesn't understand virtue in the way that God would like if he simply hasn't been exposed to that kind of stuff.
Also like this, again, very, very interesting similarities.
Locke proposed to add a chapter on Malebranche's hypothesis of seeing all things in God.
Some critics had traced Locke's ideas to Malebranche and he wished to make it clear that he thought Malebranche's view unsound, but he had so little love of controversy that he had not fully made up his mind to add such a chapter.
Molyneux was all in favor of a chapter on Malebranche's hypothesis.
He looked upon Malebranche's notions, or rather Plato's, as perfectly unintelligible.
Locke's treatment of ideas and knowledge was confirmed by experience and observation.
Quote, Plato's fancy has no foundation in nature, but is merely the product of his own brain.
And again, I've always had, from the very beginning, an intense dislike and distaste and horror of Plato, and it sounds like I share this, I'm sure, somewhat coincidentally with my ancestors.
So, yeah, this is the case of Ireland being banned by exit parliament in England.
This was a very, very good book.
Now, sorry, very interesting book.
I haven't read it. I just read a synopsis of it in here.
Now this, I think, is very interesting.
As those who know me know, I've written a book called Universally Preferable Behavior, a rational proof of secular ethics, the most ambitious philosophical work that really can be imagined.
I think it has succeeded.
It's been out a couple of years now.
Some people think not so much, but I hold by what I have proven.
And if you want to listen to it or read it, it's completely free.
Just go to freedomainradio.com forward slash free.
Scroll down, UPB. It's a great audiobook.
I tried to make it interesting and entertaining.
I think it's well written, enjoyable to follow.
And so, give it a shot.
Now, in his first letter, Molyneux had pressed Locke to publish a treatise on morals...
Quote, drawn up according to the hints you frequently gave in your essay of there being demonstrable according to the mathematical method, which is the logical method.
But, though the essay maintained that morality was capable of demonstration as well as mathematics, it also pointed out that moral ideas were more complex than mathematical ideas and were not susceptible of the same diagrammatic treatment.
In his reply to Molyneux, Locke said that he thought morality might be demonstrated, but doubted his ability to do so.
However, he promised to consider the matter.
Molyneux reminded him of his second category of the sciences, Ars Practica, in which the chief head was ethics.
The seeking out, quote, the seeking out those rules which lead to happiness and the means to practice them.
And that again, the purpose of philosophy is happiness, the same way the purpose of medicine is health.
He added that he had aroused the hopes of his friends by telling them that Locke was considering a work on ethics.
However, he recognized that Locke was fully occupied with revising the essay here.
He would not press him on ethics in the meantime.
But it was not long before he brought the subject up again.
He asked Locke what things he had, quote, on the anvil, I think on deck, and hoped he would not forget to include his thoughts on morality.
Locke promised to try, although he thought the attempt might exceed his strength.
Several of his English friends had also pressed him on the subject.
As soon as the second edition of the essay came out in the summer of 1694, Molyneux again asked Locke to think of a work on morality, quote,"'This, you will say, is a cruelty in me, that no sooner you are rid of one trouble, but I set you on another.' Molyneux was supported in his demand by Burridge, who considered that Locke would write an excellent book of offices or moral philosophy.
The fine strokes, which he has frequently in his essay, made me think he would perform it admirably.
I wish you would try his inclinations.
You may assure him I will cheerfully undertake the translation of it.
Locke answered that he had not altogether given up the idea, but he doubted whether it would be prudent in one of his age and health to undertake such a task.
Ah, sadly. In any case, the gospel contains such a perfect body of ethics that reason might be excused from the inquiry and leave the field to revelation.
Gospels! Did it again!
But I think that's fascinating that even hundreds of years ago, my ancestor was pressing John Locke about a scientific or rational proof of ethics.
I hope that I have done the bloodline proud in the work that I have written and produced.
This, I thought it was interesting.
Locke was pretty harsh around child raising.
Molyneux's only reservation was that Locke was too severe in pronouncing that children should never be allowed to have what they crave, particularly if they cried for it.
Molyneux saw no reason to deny children Sorry, the same liberty of declaring their wants to their parents as their parents enjoyed of declaring their wants to God.
Locke protested that he was as much in favor of innocent diversions as Molyneux was.
Children could ask, but must take care not to ask for anything of which their parents would not approve.
Molyneux said that he was satisfied with Locke's answer, but added, quote, I was not the only person shocked at that passage.
I find several stumble at it as taking little playthings that children are very apt to desire and ask for to be matters of fancy and affectation within your rule.
Locke was all for bringing children up to be hardy.
Clothing should not be too warm, shoes should let in the wet, washing should be in cold water.
Molyneux had not applied these rules to his son, because he came from a tender and sickly mother.
The boy was healthy, but not very strong.
Locke advised gradual hardening of the boy beginning in the spring.
He quoted the example of Lady Masham's son, who had been, quote, almost destroyed by a too tender keeping.
But was now, under Locke's guidance, able to bear wind and weather in his feet and the cough which threatened him under that warm and cautious management has left him.
Unfortunately, my ancestor treated his child much better than Locke suggested.
Is that related?
I don't know. Certainly, I have had some criticism for positive ways of treating children.
I like this. This was my ancestor William Molyneux talking about his son.
Next year, Molyneux wrote to Locke, quote, were it not too nigh approaching to vanity, I could tell you of extraordinary effects your method of education has had of my little boy.
This is intellectual, not this other education.
Later that year, Molyneux reported that the boy was now six years old.
When he was five, besides being able to read, he could point out all the noted parts, countries, and cities of the world on globes.
When he was five and a half, he could understand latitude and longitude, differences of time, and the antipodes, all done by way of recreation without rebuke or punishment.
He had been three months at Latin and the tutor was as nice as he can following Locke's method of teaching it.
The boy had been shown some docs dissected and can give some little account of the grand traces of anatomy.
His character was completely satisfactory.
He was obedient and observant to the nicest particular and at the same time sprightly, playful, and active.
It is a relief to know that this intensive upbringing had no ill effects on Samuel Molyneux in his later life.
This is very interesting. He was all taught by way of recreation without rebuke or punishment.
And the degree to which I am trying to educate people without rebuke and punishment, I hope that has taken as well.
Molyneux's religious attitude was similar to Locke's, a belief in an all-wise providence with the minimum of doctrinal accompaniments, which I think is probably as close as you could get at the time.
And again, I don't want to go too long.
It's worth reading the book if you're interested.
I just love these little biographies.
Whether he's an ancestor of mine, I love this window.
A book is a chance to try someone else's life on for size.
And Locke was very, very affectionate.
I think that's very interesting.
He says, towards the end of 1694, he returned to the subject of Molyneux visiting him in England.
Quote, Will you not pardon so lawful a desire in one that loves you?
If I ask, shall I never have the happiness to see you in England?
And he did end up making the journey, but then died shortly afterwards, which was quite tragic.
There's a lot of political stuff in this which is, you know, not that interesting because, again, I'm really only focusing on the philosophy.
I think that it's interesting to see the amount of economic boondoggling and statist boondoggling that was going on under the groaning yoke of British imperialism.
This is a pressing problem that engaged the attention of both Locke and Molyneux related to Irish textiles, one of the most gripping subjects in the world.
It had long been English policy to regulate the Irish woolen trade so as to reserve Irish wool for the English market and prevent it going to foreign competitors, so they could pay worse.
Previous legislation on the subject had been reinforced in 1662 by an act of the English parliament declaring it to be a felony to export wool from Ireland to foreign countries.
And this goes back and forth, right?
Because fewer competitors means that you can pay less, right?
Because other people won't outbid you.
So, Molyneux spent the early months of 1698 in producing his most celebrated book, The Case of Ireland's Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, stated, he offered his justification for venturing to challenge the proceedings of the formidable English Parliament when others remained silent, his belief that Parliament's sense of justice and his conviction that if its members were fully informed of the Irish case, they, as assertors of their own liberties and rights, would refrain from encroaching upon those of a neighbouring country.
He claimed that he was acting not only on behalf of Ireland, but of mankind generally.
It is the cause of the whole race of Adam that I argue.
Liberty seems the inherent right of all mankind.
Which I think is a very good way of putting it.
Although not proven, but still.
Molyneux then distinguished later in the book between an unjust conquest which gave no right to force men to part with their birthright of being governed by consent, and a just conquest which gave the conqueror absolute power over the lives and liberties of those who had opposed him.
Not exactly where I would go, but again, the guy was in the Irish parliament.
What's he going to do? So...
I won't get into all of the political.
The claim to legislate without consent was a direct attack on property.
Quote, from my ancestor, To tax me without consent is little better, if at all, than downright robbing me.
I am sure the great patriots of liberty and property, the free people of England, cannot think of such a thing but with abhorrence.
And I think that is very interesting, right?
Taxation equals theft in the absence of consent.
It has taken some more modern philosophizing to recognize that the consent is impossible to grant to a state.
So I'll just read you one or two things more, which I think is interesting.
He got into a lot of trouble from this book, and it was used by Irish nationalists for a couple of generations afterwards to argue against being banned by acts of Parliament.
So anyway, you can read it if you want.
And his book found its way into the libraries of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
My ancestor's book was read by these men, which I think is kind of interesting.
Samuel, let's see, Benjamin Franklin sent a copy of this edition of my ancestor's book to a Boston friend referring to the preface and adding, quote, Our part is warmly taken by the Irish in general, there being in many points a similarity in our cases.
Samuel Adams referred to the book in a letter to the Boston Gazette, quote, We shall esteem the arguments of so sensible, and it may be justly added, so learned a gentleman as Mr.
Molyneux, especially as he had the approbation of his friend Mr.
Locke, to be valid.
So I think that's interesting as well.
Nice to know that we're sort of woven into the Founding Fathers as a gene pool.
And let me just get to the end of his life.
Thank you for your patience. Hope this is interesting to you.
So he had a wonderful visit with Lark in England.
There's no record of it, unfortunately.
When he got back to Dublin, Molyneux wrote to express his appreciation of Lark's hospitality.
Quote, I cannot recollect through the whole course of my life such signal instances of real friendship as when I had the happiness of your company for five weeks together in London.
Tis with the greatest satisfaction imaginable that I recollect that what then passed between us and I reckon it the happiest scene of my whole life.
This suggests that the controversy was buried and the differing opinions on the relations between England and Ireland were avoided in favour, perhaps, of philosophy.
Locke answered with equal cordiality,"'I lived with you and treated you as my friend, and therefore used no ceremony, nor can receive any thanks, but what I owe you doubly, both for your company and the pains you were at to bestow that happiness on me, if you keep your word and do me the same kindness again next year.' I shall have reason to thank you, to think you value me more than you can say, though you say more than I can with modesty read.
I love these courtly declarations of bromance.
It's beautiful. Ah, but within a month of his return to Dublin, Molyneux was dead.
He died on the 11th of October, aged 42, after an illness of only two days.
It appears that the strain of the journey had brought on his chronic kidney trouble.
I'm 42, actually, this year, and...
It's interesting to think that my ancestor's life came to an end this year that I'm living.
Molyneux's last year was full of drama.
The publication of the book that was to make him famous, the traumatic experience of severe condemnation by his king and by the English parliament, that's why he was afraid to travel.
The excitement and pleasure of the long awaited visit to Locke.
It is not easy to imagine how he would have developed had he lived.
Molyneux had a strong, radical streak, unusual in the Conservative Society of Protestant Dublin.
Which I think is quite true.
It is difficult to assess Molyneux's attitude to the church.
Some of his best friends were bishops, but he distinguished between the liberals and the illiberals on the bench.
He appears to have borne all the signs of a conscientious Christian, but his Christianity was that of Locke, rational and with a minimum of dogma.
He was clearly attracted by Toland, but the author of Christianity Not Mysterious, which is a rational work on Christianity, was writing in the role of a Christian, and we do know how Molyneux would have regarded the later deist or pantheist.
In an autobiographical letter to his brother, Molyneux several times adopted a specifically Christian attitude to his troubles.
It pleased God to give him Christian submission to the tragedy of his wife's blindness when his first child died.
It pleased God to blast all...
His hopes and joy in him, when civil commotion banished him to Chester in 1689, he was comforted by an entire reliance on God and by diverting his thoughts with his usual studies.
And this is the summation of his life.
Molyneux combined high intelligence with naivety and an insensitivity to the effect his opinions and actions might have on others.
That I share. I mean, I think I'm smart, obviously.
Naive? Absolutely.
I suffer from that curse.
I mistake the benevolence of myself or the benevolence of the world.
Naivety and an insensitivity to the effect my opinions have on others.
Absolutely, that is true for me as well.
I'm still working on that. To continue, but he was thoroughly likable, with great charm and without guile, and much was forgiven him, though Flamsteed's patience was eventually exhausted.
In contrast to the timid Locke, Molyneux showed courage in putting his name to the case, which was regarded as dangerous and subversive by English politicians, and in Ireland was deplored as indiscreet and harmful by many of those who privately shared his opinions and whose cause he had endeavored to promote.
Yeah, I view many libertarians and freedom thinkers as particularly tepid and pretty timid.
They don't take on the non-aggression principle where it could do the most good, which is in the family.
I take that on with gusto and with caution sometimes, but I believe that you've got to put your rubber where it meets the most road, and this is where we can have the most effect.
His interests were Sorry, but many of those who regretted the publication of the book tried to protect the author from what they considered to be the natural consequences of his folly, and they bore him no ill will.
His interests were very diverse.
Mathematics, astronomy, optics, natural history, philosophy, and the structure of society.
Absolutely. Mathematics, no.
Astronomy, yes. Optics, not so much.
Natural history, yes. Philosophy and the structure of society, totally for me.
He showed great energy in their pursuit, but was prone to switch from one line of inquiry to another.
He was ambitious both for himself and for his family, of which he was proud, and to which he was eager to add luster.
His endurance of occurring pain, his patient concern for his wife in her affliction, his care for his motherless son after she died were the characteristics of a warm-hearted and strong personality.
His relations with his father and brother were harmonious and affectionate and marked by a common bend for intellectual inquiry and experiment.
He was clearly not regarded as a statue of Latver or Berkeley, but his mental power, the frankness with which he expressed his opinions, his organizing capacity, and his industrious pursuit of what he had set his hand to, had a significant effect on the intellectual and political life of his own day, and made an unexpectedly persistent impact on later times.
And that is not a bad summation for anyone's life, and if I achieve that much, I will be more than happy.
Thank you so much for watching.
▲
Export Selection