1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Wittaler [7]
3 years ago
5

What were the circumstances of the lisbon earthquake of 1749, and what trauma did it pose for both orthodox christian theology a

nd philosophical optimism? (what features are in common between the two outlooks, that you infer that voltaire is hostile to?)?
History
1 answer:
viva [34]3 years ago
5 0

I believe you are referring to the 1755 Lisbon earthquake.

On November 1, 1755, the greater area of Lisbon was destroyed by an earthquake, which was followed by a tidal wave which destroyed the shipping in the river Tagus. Around sixty thousand people have lost their lives.

This occurrence sparked a lot of discussions involving both religious and philosophical questions. Two main point of views are Voltaire's and Rousseau's.

Voltaire examined evil and suffering related to the disaster. He had made the connection before, pondering onto previous earthquakes, such as prior earthquakes in China, Lima and Callao. He thought that God's rules were not meant for man's best good, asking if it has been the will of God or if could it have been vengeance. He also reflected on why Lisbon, if Lisbon was worse than other cities and if there were worse sins or more evil in Lisbon than other cities. Finally asking if god is the culprit of these catastrophes, even though he is supposed to be love and kindness.

Rousseau on the other hand had more systematic views of the world and man. Rousseau believed man is good by nature but is corrupted in contact with other men, the only solution being to return to nature. Rousseau represented the optimism views and and considered Voltaire's poem on the Lisbon earthquake both a personal attack on him and a lack of understanding and distortion of God's preponderant action.

The common ground is that neither one of them were atheists, both believed that God existed, but diverged on the nature of naturally good (Rousseau) and evil (Voltaire).

You might be interested in
Which of the timelines above accurately depicts the order of historical events during the Rwandan genocide of 1994?
timurjin [86]

The correct answer is C. Three (3)

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did the make-up of the Roman Senate change over time?
vladimir1956 [14]

First it's important to think about the complications involved with the word “empire.” Rome was an empire (country ruling over other countries) before the first emperor, but the word derives from imperator, the name used by Augustus. But it meant “wielder of military power,” a kind of uber-general and was specifically not supposed to connote the idea of an emperor as we think of it today (the goal was to avoid being called a king or being seen as one). Earlier, Augustus was known as <span>dux </span>(leader) and also, later <span>princeps </span>(first citizen). As far as I know, in the days of the republic, Rome called the provinces just provinciaeor socii or amici, without a general term for their empire unless it was imperium romanum, but that really meant the military power of Rome (over others) without being a reference to the empire as a political entity. It didn’t become an empire because of the emperors, and the way we use these words now can cloud the already complicated political situation in Rome in the 1st century BC.

The point is this: the Roman Republic did have an empire as we conceive it, but the Senate was unwilling to make changes that would have enabled it to retain power over the empire. By leaving it to proconsuls to rule provinces, they allowed proconsuls, who were often generals of their armies whether they were actually proconsul at any given time or not, to accrue massive military power (imperium) that could be exerted over Rome itself. (This, by the way, is in part the inspiration behind moving American soldiers around so much—it takes away the long-term loyalty a soldier may have toward a particular general.)

So the Senate found itself in no position to defy Caesar, who named himself the constitutional title of dictator for increasing periods until he was dictator for life, or Octavian (later named Augustus), who eventually named himself imperator.

The Senate had plenty of warning about this. The civil wars between Sulla and Marius gave plenty of reason for it to make real changes, but they were so wedded to the mos maiorum (tradition of the ancestors) that they were not willing to address the very real dangers to the republic that their constitution, which was designed for a city-state, was facing (not that I have too many bright ideas about what they could have done).

To finally come around to the point, the Senate went from being the leading body of Rome to being a rubber stamp on whatever the imperator wished, but there was no single moment when Rome became an empire and the Senate lost power, and these transformations don't coincide.

For one thing, the second triumvirate was legally sanctioned (unlike the informal first triumvirate), so it was a temporary measure—it lasted two 5-year terms— and the time Octavian spent as dux was ambiguous as to where he actually stood or would stand over the long term (in 33 BC, the second term of the second triumvirate expired, and he was not made imperator until 27). When he named himself imperator, he solidified that relationship and took on the posts of consul and tribune (and various combinations of posts as time went on).

If we simplify, we would say that the Senate was the leading body of Rome before the first emperor and a prestigious but powerless body afterwards, though senators were influential in their own milieus.

One other thing to keep in mind is that Octavian’s rise to Caesar Imperator Augustus Was by no means peaceful and amicable. He gets a reputation in many people’s minds as dictatorial but stable and peaceful, but the proscriptions of the second triumvirate were every bit as bloody and greedy as those of Sulla. Ironically, it was Julius Caesar who was forgiving to his former enemies after he named himself dictator. Augustus did end widespread killings and confiscations after becoming imperator, but that was only after striking fear into everyone and wiping out all his enemies, including the likes of Cicero<span>.</span>

6 0
3 years ago
Affirmative action policies begin to be enforced by the federal government in the 1970s to help
antiseptic1488 [7]
<span>solve the problems of economic and educational discrimination

</span>
7 0
3 years ago
Why was it important that Maryland stay in the control of the Union
masha68 [24]

The people of Maryland had a long tradition of slave-holding andties to the south. They wanted to secede from the Union, butPresident Lincoln would not allow it. Maryland surrounded thecapital of the US on three sides and if they seceded, the capitalwould have to secede also.

8 0
3 years ago
In the 1900 how much did the average worker make per hour?
hoa [83]

Answer:

I think it was 37 cents an hour.

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What did the tang dynasty do to make history?
    6·1 answer
  • Which invention by eli whitney increased interest in slavery? r?
    15·1 answer
  • Ramses II presided over an era of prosperity in the New Kingdom. Which most significantly reflected his prosperity
    15·1 answer
  • What is the largest complaint from the delegates with Randolph's opening plan also known as the Virginia Plan?
    9·1 answer
  • Help Me Plzzzzzz...........
    8·1 answer
  • What did people do for a living in the Indus Valley?
    10·2 answers
  • As a result of ____________, many Mexican settlers owned land in Texas. a. the Homestead Act b. Spanish and Mexican land grants
    14·1 answer
  • According to STOKELEY Carmichael’s, black power meant that African Americans should
    14·1 answer
  • William T. Sherman's March to the Sea can best be described as
    8·1 answer
  • Which statement accurately explains the limitations of electing a governor?
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!