Comments on: The Metaphysical Club, 1

By: Matt Streckenbach

Matt Streckenbach — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:28:46 +0000

I would also like to argue although I have never been in a War of any type. It changes there lives. Most of my uncles have a military background, and most have been deployed at some point in there lives. Its changes you, it makes you appreciate life that you have now more. Such as the life of my Uncle he at the age of 48 was called over too Iraq for a year, when he returned too the US it took him a period to adjust to life here. These people have seen thing’s they wish there children will never have to witness therefore, there writing’s are going to be scewed as such.

By: William Schwartz

William Schwartz — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:26:35 +0000

War is never what you think it is. Even back then people looked at war as something clamorous, until you experience it for your self. People wanted slavery to end, and had been willing to go to war for their believes. Everyone had good intention just like Holmes, until he experience the horror of war first hand. This would have a great impact on anybody who experienced war, and would make him look at life differently.

By: Chase Hedrick

Chase Hedrick — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:07:00 +0000

Attending Harvard in the years leading up the Civil War, Holmes undoubtedly noticed an immense hipocrisy defining many of the people around him: His fellow students, his father, and friends of his father. Unionist and Abolitionist both agreed and disagreed on the state of affairs. Holmes, who joined the union saw more confusion and disillusion when he went to war. At Ball’s Bluff he was shot just above the heart, and at Antietam, in the neck, then in the foot. Clearly Holmes was considerably lucky while certainly, many of his comrades were not. Also, Holmes believed in the war effort, while many of his comrades did not. Surviving the Civil War seemed to be no more than mere chance, and I am sure Holmes recognized that. I would argue that surviving that war, or any other war, makes many individuals adopt a skeptical perspective for at least some amount of time in their lives.

By: Josh Kasper

Josh Kasper — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:05:12 +0000

The reason why Holmes was drawn to abolitionism was from Emerson in his freshman year at college. Emerson struck a chord in Holmes because he believed that we take things into account for ourselves, but rather we look down on others. The political war over slavery was developing and Holmes was angered over Harvard faculty penalizing him. Holmes left college and looked at the war as a heroic event. Holmes believed he was doing the right thing to prove his ideas on abolition.

By: Jan Cheney

Jan Cheney — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:37:02 +0000

When Holmes dropped out of college to join the unionists, he was an idealist who believed that he would help put an end to slavery. Like many people who fight in wars, he ended up experiencing disillusionment toward the effort. The war taught him that killing one another for a cause could never be justified. According to Holmes: “Organized violence, at bottom, is just another form of oppression.”

By: Richard Baker

Richard Baker — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:33:23 +0000

Holmes wrote, “I think before long the majority will say that we are vainly working to effect what never happens - the subugation of a great civilized nation” which seems to point toward Emerson’s influence of antiinstitution and the exploitation of dissilusionment of reform through violence(war). The horrors that Holmes experienced certainly validated his view that “our reasons for needing reasons are always changing” and with just cause cannot be synonyous with “just because”. The preservation of union and the abolitionists’ tendency toward rightoeousness may have been no match fot Holmes when it came to the bloodiness of battle and waste of lives.

By: Eric Bansemar

Eric Bansemar — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:15:10 +0000

One of the items that struck me about the first part was the influence of Ralph Waldo Emerson on the young Oliver Wendell Holmes. Emerson’s teachings about the rejection of institutionalized religion seemed to lead Holmes to realize that he did not need a religious faith to lead his life in a satisfactory manner. Ultimately though, it was the life experiences of Holmes put together, Emerson included, that led him to repudiate religion as a necessary component of a good life, or that killing is justified if the cause being fought for is worthy enough.
To address the point of why Holmes lost faith in the war more specifically, it is fair to say the his faith was lost because the ideas in which he may have used to validate belief in its justification in the first place were not nearly strong enough to hold up to the realities of war, and the reality of what is might actually take to live up to certain ideals.

By: Meghan Winter

Meghan Winter — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:07:52 +0000

I have done a lot of research on the Civil War and was not at all surprised that Holmes became disillusioned with it — almost everyone who fought in the war did. Since he lost his belief in beliefs and saw many of his compatriots die, it is surprising that Holmes could have become such known intellectual after the war. But the country needed intellectuals after the war because, as Menand states: “it [the war] swept away the the whole intellectual culture of the North along with it.”
Holmes was only a part of a whole generation of veterans who lost their belief in beliefs, and Holmes was a outspoken figure. The entire country seemed to become pragmatists after the war.

By: Brian Knaak

Brian Knaak — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:53:37 +0000

Response to Question 1:Reading Guide

In the beginning of Menards book, “The Metaphysical Club”, he otlines what the civil war meant economically, intellectually, and politically. He stresses first the political impact of the Civil War. Politics were now to be dominated by the Republican party who endorsed a strong central government and industrialization. In essence, the point being made is that the Republican party, promoting industrialization, definately shaped Early America during this time period. Menard notes, “For more than thirty years, a strong central government protected and promoted the ascendence of industrial capitalism and the way of life associated with it-the way of life we call “modern.”
Another point he makes is that the Civil War had a profound impact on beliefs. He comes to the conclusion that the Civil War changed the entire intellectual movement of the North. As he stated, “The Civil War swept away the slave civilization of the South, but it swept away almost the whole intellectual culture of the North along with it.”
The fact of the matter is that each of the thinkers illustrated in this book were deeply effected by the Civil War. For they had lost their belief in ideas. Seeing the devestation wrought by the Civil War, they began to lose their faith in “ideas”. Essentially, they believed ideas were a “provisional response to particular and unreproducible circumstances that thier survival depends not on their imutability but on their adaptability.” I believe he is asserting that the economic, social, and political culture of the time influenced these thinkers by making them “adapt” their thoughts. Not only did the conditions of the time influence their thoughts, but it also allowed their thoughts to flourish. As Lois Menard states “they helped put Americans into a better relation with the conditions of modern life.”
Because ideas are simply provisional responses to unpredictable circumstances it is vital, they would argue, that “Ideas should never become ideologies.” The Civil war was fought on the notion of certain ideologies which only served to bring on death and destruction. Lois Menard goes on to note, “Those beliefs had not prevented the country from going to war…they seemed absurdly obsolete in the new, postwar world.” Perhaps a new understanding would be in order. It was this new type of understanding which would become the school of Pragmatism.