@@ncjhood Certainly. In the first chapter it is very noticeable that he recognizes the deleterious effect of abundance and modernity in his time, when surely almost nobody could see this. With the second chapter I have quite a difficulty understanding what his point is. One could interpret it as you can never escape the consequences of your actions whether you are an individual or a nation. Is writing style does make following it a bit hard, but adds a special charm.
It is fair to say his writing style can somewhat obscure his point. However, I think his position could be stated thus in the second chapter: any society which allows for its people to die out of a pursuit of wealth by the richest is unjust and, fundamentally, what matters is justice. The just man or woman has lived the best life, and so has something of much greater quality, something grounded in the very being of the universe. Thus, injustice is wrong, and as you say its consequences will be your eventual downfall. At least, that's how I read him! :)
I agree that's what he means... Maybe put more simply: reality will correct you harshly if you get some fundamentals about the world wrong. Weirdly I get the opposite take to Carlyle on the poor Irish family. We can try to move heaven and earth to stop people losing in life to such a degree, and it might seem like we've managed... But the consequences? What happens to societies that try to outlaw wealth disparity? Makes me think of the mouse utopia experiments too - all the material comforts the mice could ask for wasn't what they needed
15:05 "IN GOD'S NAME, NO!"
Bloody brilliant!
Thank you sir. Your reading is very good.
Thanks - glad you are enjoying it so far! Anything jump out at you from Carlyle's thoughts? - I'd be interested to know
@@ncjhood Certainly. In the first chapter it is very noticeable that he recognizes the deleterious effect of abundance and modernity in his time, when surely almost nobody could see this. With the second chapter I have quite a difficulty understanding what his point is. One could interpret it as you can never escape the consequences of your actions whether you are an individual or a nation. Is writing style does make following it a bit hard, but adds a special charm.
It is fair to say his writing style can somewhat obscure his point. However, I think his position could be stated thus in the second chapter: any society which allows for its people to die out of a pursuit of wealth by the richest is unjust and, fundamentally, what matters is justice. The just man or woman has lived the best life, and so has something of much greater quality, something grounded in the very being of the universe. Thus, injustice is wrong, and as you say its consequences will be your eventual downfall. At least, that's how I read him! :)
I agree that's what he means...
Maybe put more simply: reality will correct you harshly if you get some fundamentals about the world wrong.
Weirdly I get the opposite take to Carlyle on the poor Irish family. We can try to move heaven and earth to stop people losing in life to such a degree, and it might seem like we've managed... But the consequences? What happens to societies that try to outlaw wealth disparity?
Makes me think of the mouse utopia experiments too - all the material comforts the mice could ask for wasn't what they needed