Stifling your doubts…

November 28, 2015 in Philosophy

I am currently reading Carl Sagan’s ‘The Demon-Haunted World‘, and in it was quoted the following, written by William K. Clifford (the English mathematician and philosopher; 1845-1879) in an essay of his (Clifford) titled ‘The Ethics of Belief’:

“A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him.

He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts.”

A bit further in this essay he (Clifford) states the following:

“To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.”

This is so refreshing for me to read and to think about. I love it.


‘The Allegory of the Cave’

November 15, 2015 in Philosophy

In Plato’s ‘The Republic’ is written an interesting allegory, told in the style of a dialogue between Socrates (the mentor of Plato) and Glaucon (the brother of Plato); Socrates being the narrator. It is found in book VII of ‘The Republic’. It is an allegory I strongly identify with currently, and explains very well my own process the past year; or so it feels to me. It describes ones journey out of darkness (so to speak) and in to enlightenment.

Socrates describes the “idea of good” as the “parent of light”, “and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed”.

In a world where ignorance and superstition abound (in many different shapes and forms), despite the scientific progression we have made, it is interesting to see this allegory, written down in (approximately) 380 B.C., still very much applies today. Ignorance is a state of being uninformed, or a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education. Out of this lack of understanding, of the world around us, have grown countless mythologies, legends, doctrines and superstitions over the centuries. Many of these still very much persist today, and it is hard for most people to see through them (myself included). Carl Sagan said, in his book ‘The Demon-Haunted World‘ the following:

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: if we have been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. So the old bamboozles tend to persist as new ones arises.”

Socrates describes the journey to get that power back, painful as it is.

The Allegory of the Cave [‘den’ in this translation by Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893)]

“And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: –Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he ‘s forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?


Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.


He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

No question, he said.

This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

This dialogue continues, and is well worth the read! See either the iBooks link I posted above, or follow this link for viewing in a browser window.


‘Live a Good Life’

October 25, 2015 in Philosophy

About a week-and-a-half ago I shared the following quote on my Facebook account:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but…will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

This quote is widely attributed to Marcus Aurelius, and is plastered all over the web in memes galore:


I really liked this quote, and it got me interested to explore more of his writings. And I have to say on a side note, I have never really looked into Stoicism before; I didn’t even know/realize Marcus Aurelius was one of the great classic Stoic authors, and one of the few who’s writings have survived.

So I picked up two ebooks:

1. The Complete Works of Marcus Aurelius, by Delphi Classics (translation by C.R. Haines; 1915)

2. The Thoughts of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (translated by George Long; 1862)

First of all, I was really impressed by his writing. There is some great stuff in there (which I won’t go into too much in this post), and I can say that it was hugely inspirational. For instance, the following quote from book 2:8:

“Not easily is a man found to be unhappy by reason of his not regarding what is going on in another man’s soul; but those who do not attend closely to the motions of their own souls must inevitably be unhappy.”

But let’s get to his supposedly most famous quote of all. After having finished reading his writings (the two books are basically the same, just different translations; I read the C.R. Haines translation, and used the other to occasionally check things, to see what the differences were), I came to the conclusion that the ‘Live a Good Life’ quote was nowhere to be found (at least not the version so popular online). The only quote that came somewhat close, is found in book 2:11 (quoted here from both translations):

“Let thine every deed and word and thought be those of a man who can depart from life this moment. But to go away from among men, if there are Gods, is nothing dreadful; for they would not involve thee in evil. But if indeed there are no Gods, or if they do not concern themselves with the affairs of men, what boots it for me to live in a Universe where there are no Gods, where Providence is not? Nay, but there are Gods, and they do concern themselves with human things; and they have put it wholly in man’s power not to fall into evils that are truly such. And had there been any evil in what lies beyond, for this too would they have made provision, that it should be in every man’s power not to fall into it.”
Quoted from: Marcus Aurelius. ‘Delphi Complete Works of Marcus Aurelius’. iBooks.

“Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve thee in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of providence? But in truth they do exist, and they do care for human things, and they have put all the means in man’s power to enable him not to fall into real evils. And as to the rest, if there was anything evil, they would have provided for this also, that it should be altogether in a man’s power not to fall into it.”
Quoted from: Emperor of Rome Marcus Aurelius. ‘Thoughts of Marcus Aurelius’. iBooks.

I seems as if the popular ‘Live a Good Life’ quote has been re-written from this quote, by whom I do not know. If someone does, please let me know! I am curious to find out. Perhaps it is taken from a more modern translation somehow?

What is interesting (to me at least) and what attracts me to his writing, is that Marcus Aurelius personally definitely did believe in Gods, but believed man to be capable of rationally handling whatever comes across his path (regardless of the existence or non-existence of God(s)), and to use rationality and ‘the greatness of the mind’ as a way do decide his course in life, as the following quote from book 3:11 makes clear, and which resonates with me:

“For nothing is so conducive to greatness of mind as the ability to examine systematically and honestly everything that meets us in life, and to regard these things always in such a way as to form a conception of the kind of Universe they belong to, and of the use which the thing in question subserves in it; what value it has for the whole Universe and what for man, citizen as he is of the highest state, of which all other states are but as households; what it actually is, and compounded of what elements, and likely to last how long – namely this that now gives me the impression in question; and what virtue it calls for from me, such as gentleness, manly courage, truth, fidelity, guilelessness, frugality, and the rest.”
Quote from: Marcus Aurelius. ‘Delphi Complete Works of Marcus Aurelius’. iBooks.


OSNAPZ command AutoCAD

September 27, 2014 in AutoCAD, AutoCAD for Mac

The OSNAPZ command comes in so handy at times. Sometimes when you are trying to snap from an object/point that has a Z-coordinate, the Z-coordinate can mess things up, especially when you are working in a 2D drawing and you don’t care for the Z-coordinate.

For instance, you overlaid a 3D model over a plan drawing, snapping to that model will cause that line to not be parallel to the XY plane, but will get a Z-coordinate. Other instances could be when measuring in the XY plane in survey drawings (which will most likely always have a Z-coordinate for the surveyed objects); snapping from a surveyed point to any other object won’t give you the dimension in just the XY plane, especially when you have rotated your UCS as well (this happens a lot when working with multiple coordinate systems).

Well, there is an easy fix for this, with the OSNAPZ command. As explained in the AutoCAD User Documentation:

“Controls whether object snaps are automatically projected onto a plane parallel to the XY plane of the current UCS at the current elevation.

0 – Osnap uses the Z-value of the specific point
1 – Osnap substitutes the Z-value of the specified point with the elevation (ELEV) set for the current UCS”

So, by default OSNAPZ is set to 0, which means you will snap to whatever the Z-value of a specific point is. If you set it to 1 it will (by default) consider all Z-coordinates to be 0. Meaning you will always be snapping to the XY plane, and a 2D drawing, will stay a 2D drawing. You won’t be introducing weird Z-values in you drawing (which you might want to flatten in the end otherwise…).

The default elevation (Z-value) is set to 0 (for your current UCS), but you can change that as well with the ELEV command, if needed.

I use this very frequently. It saves me a lot of frustration in my workflow, and most especially, keeps my 2D drawings, two dimensional!


‘The Radicalism of the American Revolution’

August 30, 2014 in Books

The Radicalism of the American RevolutionThe Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. It turned out it’s scope was far more extensive than I had previously thought; which was a good thing. The book is laid out in three segments: monarchy, republicanism and democracy. It tells the story of how the enlightened generation (among them of course the Founding Fathers) went from a monarchical society into a republican one and how it transformed itself again into a democracy in the decades following the Revolution. Something many of the Founding Fathers viewed as a step backwards, and many saw the republican ideas of the Revolution change into something they were never intended.

The author quotes Thomas Paine:

“The mind once enlightened cannot again become dark.”

This shows the sentiment prevalent in 1776. They were on an upward path towards independence and freedom. Yet, in the years and decades after the Revolution things changed radically. As the author explains:

“Americans were reversing the civilizing process, going backwards in time, losing politeness instead of, as the revolutionaries had hoped, gaining it. Usually the first settlers of any country were barbarians who gradually in time became cultivated and civilized. ”The progress has been from ignorance to knowledge, from rudeness of savage life to the refinements of polished society. But in the settlement of North America the case is reversed. The tendency is from civilization to barbarism.” Under New World conditions ”the tendency of the American character is then to degenerate, and to degenerate rapidly; and that not from any peculiar vice in the American people, but from the very nature of a spreading population. The population of the country is outgrowing its institutions.” To some it seemed that the mind once enlightened could after all become darker.”

A comparison is also drawn between the French and the American Revolutions. As the title of the book implicates, the American Revolution was radical, but in quite a different way than how we might think of a revolution today.

Thus was begun the myth that has continued into our own time—the myth that the American Revolution was sober and conservative while the French Revolution was chaotic and radical. But only if we measure radicalism by violence and bloodshed can the myth be sustained; by any other measure the American Revolution was radical..”

The radicalism of the American Revolution didn’t lay so much in its bloody struggle with the British, as it did in their changing of every aspect of society as they knew it. The very foundations we torn down and build anew. The aristocratic and paternalistic society that existed was demolished and with it the most basic concepts known to the colonists at the time. One such definition that changed (radically), was the definition of ‘property’.

“Indeed, the entire Revolution could be summed up by the radical transformation Americans made in their understanding of property. In classical republican thought, property, landed property in particular, was not some special interest needing representation or protection. Rather, property had been considered in proprietary terms as part of a persons identity and the source of his authority. Such proprietary property was regarded not as the product of one’s labor or as a material asset to be bought and sold in the market but as a means of maintaining one’s gentility and independence from the caprices of the market. Landed property was the most important such guarantee of autonomy because it was the least transitory, the most permanent form, of property. Such proprietary property was designed to protect its holders from from external influence or corruption, to free them from the scramble of buying and selling, and allow them to make impartial political judgements. But by making landed property merely another ”interest” among all the other market interests to be promoted or protected, [James] Kent and the other Federalists unwittingly stripped property of its older sanctified, static meaning and turned it into a mere material possession or capital commodity. They therefore conceded the northern Republicans’ more modern understanding of property at the outset—that property was changeable, based on people’s labor, and ”essential to our temporal happiness”.

If property had become just an ”interest,” a mere material possession, just venture capital, then, the Republicans said, everyone had an equal right to acquire it, for ”the desire of acquiring property is a universal passion.” Such property could no longer be an intergal part of a person’s identity; instead it was ”only one of the incidental rights of the person who possesses it,” important no doubt, but scarcely requiring specific representation in a branch of legislature. In fact, ”compared with our other essential rights,” property was ”insignificant and trifling.”

America, after the Revolution, became the most commercialized nation on earth, which leveled the playing field for its inhabitants. The distinction of Gentleman vs (for example) Yeoman disappeared quickly, as ones social status became more and more dependable on ones own labor and ability to make money, instead of depending on the patronage of well to do Gentlemen.

“The idea of labor, of hard work, leading to increased productivity was so novel, so radical, in the overall span of Western history that most ordinary people, most of those who labored, could scarcely believe what was happening to them. Labor had been so long thought to be the natural and inevitable consequence of necessity and poverty that most people still associated it with slavery and servitude. Therefore any possibility of oppression, any threat to the colonists’ hard earned prosperity, any hint of reducing them to the poverty of other nations, was especially frightening; for it seemed likely to slide them back into the traditional status of servants or slaves, into the older world where labor was merely a painful necessity and not a source of prosperity.”

Labor thus became the source of their prosperity. Something it still is in the Western world today, generally speaking. Also, it was elevated in status, where people who would still be holding on to the old aristocratic ideas, were more and more looked down upon. Their positions became financially unbearable in many instances, because people who would want to uphold their Gentility, refrained from working to make money, as it was considered beneath them and would interfere with their ability to participate in politics and government without any form of alternate interests.

The meaning of the Revolution differed for people, but it was the common seed that bonded the American people together.

“Some found the meaning of the Revolution in the Constitution and the union it had created. Others discovered the meaning in the freedom and equality that the Revolution had produced. But many other Americans knew that such meanings were too formal, too legal, too abstract, to express what most actually experienced in being Americans. In concrete day-to-day terms invocations of the constitution meant the freedom to be left alone, and in turn that freedom meant the ability to make money and pursue happiness.”

What was most interesting to read about were how the original ideas and expectations of the Founding Fathers actually differed from what American society actually turned into. One of the main interests I decided to read this book. Most especially the advent of Democracy, unsettled many of the Founding Fathers:

“The founding fathers were unsettled and fearful not because the American Revolution had failed but because it had succeeded , and succeeded only too well. What happened in America in the decades following the Declaration of Independence was after all only an extension of all that the revolutionary leaders had advocated. White males had taken only too seriously the belief that they were free and equal with the right to pursue their happiness. Indeed, the principles of their achievement made possible the eventual strivings of others—black slaves and women—for their own freedom, independence, and prosperity.”

These strivings weren’t limited to North America either, for most of the principles and ideas advocated and developed at the time we can see (in some form or another) in most Western societies. It laid the groundwork for the modern concept of democracy.

The amount of research that has gone into this book must have been enormous. The author has woven all this research into a very readable narrative. Informative, educational and most of all very enjoyable!

View all my reviews


‘Lawrence in Arabia’

August 20, 2014 in Books

Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle EastLawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East by Scott Anderson
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

T.E. Lawrence remains an illusive figure to most people. Most people (including myself) have first learned of him through the 1962 movie by David Lean. This book is certainly about T.E. Lawrence, but will cover far more ground and characters. It places the story of Lawrence in it’s historical context, in which the modern day Middle East was given the shape we are familiar with today.

It describes the conflict inside him in the roles he was playing, first on behalf of the British government, but later more and more on the side of the Arabs, and how in the end this conflict of interest would tear him up on the inside.

What is most interesting today (as it has been 100 years since the outbreak of WWI), is to see how the imperial powers of that time schemed and lied in order to pull of “The Great Loot” for the remains of the Ottoman Empire. Much of the turmoil and conflicts of today in that region stem from the decisions made during and immediately following WWI. About this the author writes:

“Certainly, blame for all this doesn’t rest solely with the terrible decisions that were made at the end of World War I, but it was then that one particularly toxic seed was planted. Ever since, Arab society has tended to define itself less by what it aspires to become than by what it is opposed to: colonialism, Zionism, Western imperialism in its many forms. This culture of opposition has been manipulated—indeed, feverishly nurtured—by generations of Arab dictators intent on channeling their people’s anger away from their own misrule in favor of the external threat, whether it is “the great Satan” or the “illegitimate Zionist entity” or Western music playing on the streets of Cairo.”

It remains pure speculation to ponder what would have happened had Lawrence’s vision for Arabia actually been realized. Lawrence himself was a changed man, after everything he had fought for vanished. About this the author writes:

“this was an experience that left him [Lawrence] utterly changed, unrecognizable in certain respects even to himself. Victory carries a moral burden the vanquished never know, and as an architect of momentous events, Lawrence would be uniquely haunted by what he saw and did during the Great Loot.”

The book has been an absolute pleasure to read! The narrative is gripping and it just flows. Hard to put down once you start reading it.

View all my reviews


Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’

July 17, 2014 in Books

Common SenseCommon Sense by Thomas Paine
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

There isn’t a single (good) book about the American Revolution in existence, that doesn’t mention Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ in some way or another. And rightfully so, as the effects of this pamphlet were great. Historian John Ferling, in his book ‘Almost a Miracle’ wrote the following:

“His [Thomas Paine] electrifying polemic captured what most Americans—if not most congressman—felt. He opened with a a nearly unanswerable assault on the folly of hereditary kingship, and indeed on monarchy itself, that drove the last nail in the coffin of monarchical rule for the revolutionary generation.”

It was published at a perfect time, when the Continental army was demoralized and the Continental congress was debating whether or not to send another plea for reconciliation to king George. Within days of the appearance of this pamphlet that motion was voted down and a motion for independence adopted instead.

Biographer Ron Chernov, in his book ‘Washington, a Life’ described it as follows:

“Beyond its quotable prose, Common Sense benefited from perfect timing. It appeared just as Americans digested news of the Norfolk horror as well as George III’s October speech to Parliament in which he denounced the rebels as traitors and threatened to send foreign mercenaries to vanquish them. The historian Bernard Bailyn has noted that ‘one had to be a fool or a fanatic in early January 1776 to advocate American independence,’ but Paine’s work—’slapdash as it is, rambling as it is, crude as it is’—produced that magical effect.”

Besides the great boost to moral the pamphlet provided, Thomas Paine donated the proceeds of his pamphlet to the Continental army, which was strapped for cash at the time.

Having read quite a few quotes from this pamphlet, as quoted by different historical authors, I had to read it myself in its entirety. It was a very readable text. The interesting thing about this pamphlet, is that is was written for the common man. This dragged the ‘common’ man into politics. Something that wasn’t the norm at the time. Before one was to engage himself into politics, one had to first distinguish himself as a ‘gentleman’. Benjamin Franklin for instance only deemed himself a ‘gentleman’ after he retired as a businessman. The common man, at the time, was not suppose to involve himself with politics. This custom was broken when Thomas Paine published his pamphlet.

I enjoyed reading it and it helps to better understand the revolutionary era. Thomas Paine said it best himself, when describing this most remarkable of times in history:

“…we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months.”

View all my reviews