According to Yahoo! Finance – “Coursera, Inc. operates an online educational content platform that connects learners, educators, and institutions”
Coursera
With a lot of the “history” classes – the instructor/presenter is an expert of the subject, teaches at a prestigious university, and has probably written a book.
SO the online coursera class becomes “marketing” for the university and professor. Which isn’t egregious – just pointing out that they aren’t engaged in 100% altruism.
No, I don’t get anything for mentioning them (edX is good as well, and Hillsdale College offers a lot of fine/free online classes for history enthusiasts).
The “Patrick Henry” class kept getting pushed aside for “other things.” I had actually forgotten about it, but when I logged in the other day – I received a gentle reminder that I hadn’t completed the course. SO after a “deadline reset” finishing the last week of the course was fun.
Honor
The “Patrick Henry” course was subtitled “forgotten founder.” “Spoiler alert” – the professor argues that Patrick Henry has been “forgotten” (as in “not held in as high regard as he deserves”) because Thomas Jefferson had a deep personal animosity towards Henry.
That thesis is easy to accept – considering that Thomas Jefferson seemed to “have issues” with most of the other founders – i.e. he had a long personal “feud” with John Adams (which was resolved before they died). The early history of the U.S. is often described as a contest between “Hamiltonian” and “Jeffersonian” philosophies (saying Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were “rivals” is an understatement).
What exactly Jefferson’s problem was with Patrick Henry is debatable – the Professor argues that Jefferson admired Henry early in his career (Henry was the “senior man” in Virginia politics). There was an investigation into Jefferson’s time as governor of Virginia – an investigation which Jefferson blamed on Henry –
So, (again the Professor argues) Jefferson probably took the investigation as an attack on his “honor” – and if you are a “Virginia gentleman” attacks on your honor are simply not acceptable.
My guess is that Henry was less concerned with Jefferson’s personal opinion than Jefferson was with Henry’s – but that isn’t my point today.
What struck me was that “personal slights” can have far reaching implications. Or maybe, it is easier to “love your neighbor” when that “neighbor” is a theoretical construct and not someone that you perceive as having “insulted your honor.”
I suppose we get thoughts like “normal is what people are, until you get to know them” and/or “you always hurt the ones you love” (not always intentionally – but that is probably another post) …
eye for an eye
I was ready to go on for a couple hundred words – but wikipedia summed up my thoughts ‘”An eye for an eye” is a commandment found in Exodus 21:23–27 expressing the principle of reciprocal justice measure for measure.’
“reciprocal justice” implies “The intent behind the principle was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss.” (also wikipedia).
Of course the key concept becomes “justice” as opposed to “vengeance” – which is really what gets glorified in the “modern world.”
greed
I’m fond of arguing that “greed” is always bad.
Of course “doing what is in your best interest” isn’t “greed.” Greed implies that you are depriving others of something, while you have more than you need.
SO seeking “justice” (as in fair compensation for injury) becomes “vengeance” when “greed” enters the equation.
e.g. the classic “he stepped on my shoe, so I shot him” example comes to mind. Obviously shooting someone because they stepped on your shoe is overreacting – “greed” comes into play when you consider “honor” the currency in the altercation – but if your honor is all important, the reaction becomes “understandable” if not “acceptable.”
Living well …
Saying “living well is the best revenge” always sounds profound – but may still short of the ideal reaction.
“living well” as a response falls short if it implies an indifferent/neutral response. e.g. in the “shoe stepping” incident – if the response boils down to “you are beneath my notice so I do not care what you do one way or the other” …
Meanwhile the ideal response is “outgoing concern” for the other person (in some appropriate form) – e.g. “why” did they step on your shoe in the first place? did they trip? was it an accident? were they shoved? do they need assistance?
Ok, obviously within reason and within your means – the story of the “good Samaritan” comes to mind …
ANYWAY
My guess is that Patrick Henry “lived well” overall – but I also get the impression that he PROBABLY could have “handled” Thomas Jefferson better.
Of course those were different times and values – so I don’t really intend negative criticism of either Henry or Jefferson – just making observations …