I think the Constitution would work if faith had been strong. Faith and reason seems to have been the working formula of the Middle Ages and I think it worked well. Two things worked against this. The constant attacks on faith causes it to weaken, plus that fanatical faith which opened Protestants to the Dark Side. Also the Constitution was never meant to be workable except for a certain kind of people--people that believed in the Bible. Most of it was modeled on the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina written by John Locke and there there was a requirement to be part of a church --any church. Plus, John Locke saw the danger of Islam and said openly not to let any of them in (in his Two Treaties).
I think this is a very significant election because it will determine if the American Republic can survive, or will be washed away by barbarian hordes. And if America falls to the barbarians, that is the end of Western Civilization.
I did not go much into John Locke but I do think his approach is right but with a kind of modification based on Kant. Kant and Locke have a lot in common but to defend Locke one would need the ideas of Kant.
Habermas also noted that John Locke needs "retuning." But he did not suggest anything. My suggestion is to go with Kant. Habermas himself just mentioned this in his critique on Rawl's theory of justice.
Still John Locke needs reworking from the standpoint of Kant. Kelley Ross has already done work in that direction. But for my part I just want to say that John Locke and Kant do have a point of agreement. That is to say: what is the main question on John Locke? It is that it looks like his political are ideas is based on his empirical viewpoint. The defense is that first of all John Locke's political ideas work even better in the framework of Kant--the self being the ding an sich. And besides that Kant defends empirical-ism from the aspect of phenomenon anyway. It is only wrong if you assume all knowledge has to come from empirical means
I think this is a very significant election because it will determine if the American Republic can survive, or will be washed away by barbarian hordes. And if America falls to the barbarians, that is the end of Western Civilization.
I did not go much into John Locke but I do think his approach is right but with a kind of modification based on Kant. Kant and Locke have a lot in common but to defend Locke one would need the ideas of Kant.
Habermas also noted that John Locke needs "retuning." But he did not suggest anything. My suggestion is to go with Kant. Habermas himself just mentioned this in his critique on Rawl's theory of justice.
Still John Locke needs reworking from the standpoint of Kant. Kelley Ross has already done work in that direction. But for my part I just want to say that John Locke and Kant do have a point of agreement. That is to say: what is the main question on John Locke? It is that it looks like his political are ideas is based on his empirical viewpoint. The defense is that first of all John Locke's political ideas work even better in the framework of Kant--the self being the ding an sich. And besides that Kant defends empirical-ism from the aspect of phenomenon anyway. It is only wrong if you assume all knowledge has to come from empirical means
