RU-vid has removed my older answer to this question. It was a balanced answer and in no way defended Carlyle but merely compared what the Scott wrote to the modern phenomenon of sweatshop labour in desperate nations.. But still, a sensitive soul alerted RU-vid that a hater was in the midst! Very ironic. Why? When Orwell wrote about what we have today, no one believed him. What Orwell wrote was so original that it boarded on Sci fi, like Huxley's but not as far off into the eons. Here is my point. Before Owell, well, the time of George Orwell's grandparents, the idea of censoring thoughts was unimaginable (hence futuristic). So Orwell writes a novel about censoring thoughts. Again, was writing an impossible future.. Back in Victorian times, the Orwellian story was edgy. The Victorians had free speech and free thought, and even in Orwell's time this applied. But today we have lost what Orwell and Thomas Carlyle had. So today, a modern with no history can only ever see hate. So modern readers see a nasty pen at work. This may sound hateful, but free speech and free thought was the norm, always. It is we who are blind. So Orwell came up with a radical proposition no great philosopher, or even a poet like Dante, or, to borrow a line from Solztenitzn, no villain in a Shakespeare play could imagine. You can't teach the kids this today. We demonize the Victorians to deflect our attention to the Orwellian reality being constructed around our heads.. So those who call Thomas Carlyle a naughty boy, like Heffer did in his long biography, can't see the world we live in today. And A. N Wilson, from what I gather from his writings, will probably agree with me but he keeps silent, in other worlds, one must be an artful dodger and not say the wrong thing. With the policing of thoughts, you have to lie. Another prediction from George Orwell's famous novel. In Victorian times, one was not fearful of saying the wrong thing. This is what free speech looks like. Today, tragically, sensitive souls can't read Victorian authors without fainting.. God help us all! Only today, well, the last 2 decades has Orwell's fiction started to be fact. Today we are in a quasi-mental cage. We have Smart phones but we are hurt by ideas and we can't stand the past. But who writes these laws? we have a tyrant in the midst a Victorian would shudder at. So Thomas Carlyle was a product of his times. Thomas Carlyle was allowed to put paper to pen. What of it! I hope this comments doesn't get deleted. If you are a sensitive soul who will alert RU-vid of a hater, please be aware that one day you too will get deleted.
They didn’t know about censoring thought? So all those High Treason laws for disrespecting the King and blasphemy laws for speaking controversially about God were just for show? They had censorship in the past, just a different kind of censorship than we have today. The biggest difference being that unlike in the past it’s much easier to get your opinions out in the public domain now than it was then.
"It was a balanced answer that in no way defended Carlyle", why do you think defending him would be a valid reason to delete your comment?. No comments' should ever be deleted unless they break *laws* i.e threatening violence or inciting violence.
What a treat! Visiting Cheyne Row was an absolute joy, especially after having finished Sartor. To see Heffer - after his monumental Moral Desperado - taking a seat in the Sage's home is just fantastic!
@@2msvalkyrie529 I have never understood why people say women were really constrained in Victorian times. Many top female authors wrote and were known in Victorian times. Even Goethe's and Schopenhauer's mothers were famous authors! The list of successful women authors in the age of Carlyle is very long.
@@moesypittounikos Perhaps if she (Jane) hadn't been married to such an esteemed writer she may have had published works. Off the top of my head I can't think of another married couple of that time who achieved fame, the Shelley's - but he wasn't really famous during his lifetime.
Because we all understand he was a XIX Century writer and are bored by those who ignore everything else the writer wrote that made him original. And it's about his house, for God's sake.
لا اعرف اين يمكنني العثور على عرض وتحليل اكثر ...شفافية ...حول حياة (( مؤرخ العباقرة والعظماء )) توماس كارليل الذي تقول كل صوره الفوتوغرافية انه الرازح الابدي تحت الاسرار الحميمة الاكثر قسوة وغرابة ....كل تلك الطاقة على البحث والكتابة ...تبدو مثل الهروب الكبير مما يستعصي على المواجهة والحل ...
"To be insulted by this fascist is so degrading, and it's no game". He became a really bad boy reflecting an "I am OK, you are not OK" personality, characteristic of weak people. John Stuart Mill was the polar opposite and almost always right.
Those literary sages the Victorians venerated. My Great Uncle was named Carlyle in 1892 by his socialist father. And those Victorians had a sway up to the internet, and now no one is interested in Carlyle, by the number of lookers-in here and elsewhere. So is it's just me who is horrified at him? I knew he was into the 'great man' stuff, as indeed the Fabians seemed to have succumbed to with Stalin. But he was against democracy and the end of slavery. The Victorians thought that was a minor matter not worth holding against a cove. And so I look at my great grandfather differently. He was a ridiculous egomaniac like most of the early socialists but maybe he thought he was one of the 'great men' and had a right to mistreat lesser people around him.
Interesting video, however Mr Thomas Carlyle a legacy? For someone who wrote the essay "Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question", I feel the word "legacy" is not really an appropriate word for Mr Carlyle.
RU-vid has removed my older answer to this question. It was a balanced answer and in no way defended Carlyle but merely compared what the Scott wrote to the modern phenomenon of sweatshop labour in desperate nations.. But still, a sensitive soul alerted RU-vid that a hater was in the midst. Very ironic. Why? When Orwell wrote about what we have today, no one believed him. What Orwell wrote was so original that it boarded on sci fi, like Huxley's Brave New World but not as far off into the eons. Here is my point. Before Owell, well the time of George Orwell's grandparents, the idea of censoring thoughts was unimaginable. The Victorians had free speech and free thought. Those who call Thomas Carlyle a naughty boy, like Heffer did in his long biography can't see the world we live in today. Today we are in a quasi-mental cage. We have Smart phones but we have a tyrant in the midst a Victorian would be shiver at. Thomas Carlyle was allowed to put paper to pen. What of it! I hope this comments doesn't get deleted. If you are a sensitive soul who will alert RU-vid of a hater, please be aware that one day you too will get deleted.
If you disagree with him then publish your objections or debate them openly with his supporters ...if there are any.? The notion that that anything you personally dislike must be banned is intellectual cowardice and has no place in enlightened society . They tried it in DDR / EAST BLOC and it wasn't a success.
