(Y1 W39): Flee the Mere Sight of the Fleet Son of Peleus

The Iliad - Homer, Books XVI - XVIII: Patroclus mourns the losses of the Achaeans. Achilles tells him to put on his (Achilles') armor and charge out against the Trojans...but don't win everything, just win a little. Trojans are in dismay and flee, thinking Achilles is attacking them. Patroclus is overeager and is beaten back by Apollo, then killed by Hector and another Trojan. Hector takes Achilles' armor and there's a big fight over Patroclus' body. Achilles hears about it, swears vengeance, then runs out (w/o armor) and shows himself - giving a fright to the Trojans. His goddess mother runs off to Vulcan and has him make Achilles some new armor. I'm having a hard time not comparing this to the Troy movie with Brad Pitt. It's interesting to see where they changed the story and try to guess why. Some of it is, of course, for time's sake (Achilles' new armor). Other things are for an uncomprehending American audience (all the "heroes" being kind of jerks, Achilles really caring that much about a heterosexual friend).

On Eduction - Arthur Schopenhauer: "General ideas arise by abstraction from particular observations". Natural education - have own observations and come up with own ideas. Artificial education - get "head crammed full of general ideas" from other people and "so it is that education perverts the mind".  Should instead seek to develop the child's own faculties of discernment. Aim of education - knowledge of the world. Must avoid "fatal tendency to be satisfied with words (and becoming prejudiced by ideas) instead of trying to understand things". No idea should be believed by child unless they can see it for themselves, then they will once and for all be "unbiased". Books are bad, primary experiences good. Philosophy and religion only after your 15. Until then, just "collecting materials", exercising memory. Mature mind is "when an exact correspondence is established" by experience alone. Novels bad...except his favorite ones. Confused article with some good identification of problems, but often goofy solutions. How to avoid philosophy/religion until they're 15 is a mystery. Why not avoid science and history as a source of "potentially serious error"? Why assume they're always soiled by being taught ideas, always perfected if "self-taught" by their own experiences? Overly deterministic idea of human development. Why must the grammar stage go so late? How and when do we teach them to abstract properly from experiences?

Second Essay Concerning Civil Government - John Locke, Ch. V-VI: V) God gives the world to men, and also gives reason to use the world for their "life and convenience...support and comfort". Our property starts with ourselves. Mix our labor with things and they are removed from the common ownership and become ours. Property capacity limited by our personal needs. Not used, goes back to common pool. Natural materials are "almost worthless" until worked with human labor. Most useful things are perishable, which is why we take (almost worthless) metals and make coins to stand-in for the useful perishables. VI) Mothers and fathers have equal parental power by both reason and revelation. Children born under parental control only because their reason is undeveloped. Once reason developed, children are free from parental authority and are free to go. Children belong to God, not to parents. Parenting: "inform the mind and govern the actions...til reason shall take its place". All children still honor parents by "inward esteem and reverence to be shown by all outward expressions". His property argument depends on the population size/density. What happens when the population gets too big? Also, it just seems that you can still have property while not using it, though there is something to "squatter's rights". His parental argument also highlights why the West doesn't have a strong patriarchal system like most of the world does.

Federalist Papers #58 - Hamilton or Madison: Last charge against the House: the number of representatives won't grow with the population. There will be a census every ten years and the reapportionment will be based on this, though not to exceed one for every 30,000 inhabitants. Senate has an interest in House and will help keep in check as the States are represented by both. Reapportionments and augmentations will balance each other. A warning though: too many representatives will distort the character of the House.  Passion will rule and the few will dominate the many. I'm convinced. Though it seems that today the real division isn't between states as much as it's between parts of states. 

The Chemical History of a Candle - Michael Faraday, Lectures I-II: "Christmas Lectures" on science for kids in 1860. I) The topic of a candle is wonderful intro to the study of natural philosophy as it touches on almost all parts of physical science. Outlines various compositions of candles and how they are made. The shape matters because of the physics of burning, which is why fancy candles don't burn well. Wax fuel comes to top of wick by capillary action, but melted wax puts the flame out. Variations in the direction and shape of the flame. II) How does it burn? It emits a flammable vapor, which can be lit from a distance. Two different actions: production and combustion of the vapor. The heat of the candle is "curiously arranged". Substances burnt without going through the vaporous state become exceedingly luminous because of solid particles. Lime light, for example, is almost as bright as the sun. It's Mr. Wizard on steroids. Hard to imagine kids sitting through this. It certainly helped that he had live demonstrations of each point he discussed. His constant references to "you can try this at home" demonstrates his heart as a teacher and love of science.

On the Nature of Things - Lucretius, Book I: Will expound on Epicurus and discourse on "the most high system of heaven...and will open up the first beginnings of things, out of which nature gives birth to all things...[and] dissolves them back after their destruction." Wants to bring religion "under foot" and "us his victory brings level with heaven". First principle - nothing comes from nothing by divine power, all produced by fixed seeds, which are too small to see but are truly bodily because can be sensed. The "void" (i.e. space) must exist also for movement to be possible. So, the universe is made of these two things: "first bodies" and "void", and nothing else. All things have properties (which can't be disjoined) and accidents. First bodies/first beginnings must be solid and without void, though with infinite parts. Fire (air, water, earth) can't be the primary first bodies as some think. Matter in motion changes substances from one into another. Only senses give knowledge (empiricism). Natures beget like natures. New things produced out of new combinations of first beginnings. No limits to universe. All matter in ceaseless motion. Our world was produced by infinite combinations of first beginnings that yielded both us and the world around us. O, where be chemical theory? What else can you do before appropriate experimentation except something like this, really? Especially if you're in a pagan Roman society (hence, it's also hard to disagree with his disdain of "religion"). It is interesting that he admits that materialism is hard for people to swallow. Several authors have admitted that recently - William James comes to mind.

Here's the readings for next week:

1. The Iliad of Homer, Books XIX-XXI  (GBWW Vol. 3, pp. 233-263)
2. On War by Karl von Clausewitz, Ch. I (GGB Vol. 7, pp. 479-497)
3. Second Treatise on Civil Government by John Locke, Ch. VII-IX (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 42-54)
4. Federalist #59-61 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 182-188)
5. The Chemical History of a Candle by Michael Faraday, Lectures III-IV (GGB Vol. 8, pp. 390-414)
6. The Way Things Are (or On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, Book II (GBWW Vol. 11, pp. 15-30)

(Y1 W38) Fiddle While the Universe is Dying

The Iliad - Homer, Books XIII-XV: Zeus (fine, I'll call him 'Jove', even though my translation has slipped up at least once and called him 'Zeus')...Jove is distracted so Neptune starts whipping up on the Trojans. The battle rages on and Agamemnon wants to run away (again) until Ulysses rebukes him. Juno tricks Jove into sleeping with her while Neptune runs havoc. Hector is wounded and leaves the field. Jove awakens, realizes what's happened and rebukes Juno (who lies about it). Jove then foretells all that will happen and tells Neptune to stop. Hector healed and comes back to the fight, seizing a ship, but unable to burn it because Ajax keeps fighting off the guys carrying fire up. The virtue of the gods falls lower and lower each time. The men are more virtuous than the gods.

Camillus - Plutarch: (446-365 B.C.) This early Roman was five times chosen dictator (which only lasts a short while), and is "styled a second founder of Rome". Furious (yes, Furious) Camillus wasn't born into a family of distinction, but raised himself to honor. Ended a siege of Veii by digging under the walls. Then became despised by the Romans by re-entering Rome in a pompous way. Then won war over Faliscans by endearing himself to the enemy (spared their children when their teacher betrayed them to the Romans), causing them to give up without a fight. Romans upset there were no spoils, Camillus goes into exile. Later, Rome is taken by the Gauls, Camillus comes to the rescue and is made dictator again. Defeats Gauls. Made dictator a third time in war against Latins; he won by sneaking up and firing their wood barricades. Goes to war again later, though now only advising younger general because he's too old. Has to take over anyway because younger guy's losing, leads to victory. Made dictator a fourth time to address issue of sedition, then fifth time to defeat Gauls (again). Dies in a plague outbreak and "more lamented than all the rest put together". So much war and chaos in this period; makes one long for the pax romana (peace of Roman rule). Camillus just seemed to be a very level-headed man who could think clearly in all the chaos. And this quote tickled me so I have to add it: "Manlius, a man of consular dignity, of strong body and great spirit..." If I ever invent a superhero I'd be tempted to call him 'Manlius' and put this as the intro to his Saturday-morning cartoon.

Second Essay Concerning Civil Government - John Locke, Ch. I-IV: Authority being derived from the "eldest" family in descent from Adam is an invalid justification for authority and just brings force and violence. Political power equals the right to make, execute laws. State of Nature: men have "perfect freedom to order their actions...within the bounds of the law of Nature". Man naturally equal to each other, but this freedom is not license. Law of Nature: reason, which "teaches all mankind... that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" because all men are God's property. This gives man two rights: 1) right to punish any criminal (Gen. 9 mandate and Cain's concern about universal retaliation); 2) injured parties can demand retribution. But this punishment will be uneven, hence God grants governments. State of war exists when one claims illegitimate authority over a person or their property. Slavery wrong because it perpetuates a state of war and men have no right to forfeit their whole lives like that because only God has that kind of generative power over man. Whence the fall? Again - as has been asked of many authors thus far - can't reason be abused? His notion of sentencing for crimes seems too vague as well, but maybe he's not shooting for particular principles though. I still don't get why there couldn't be a natural, legitimate heritable authority structure (a la Aragorn). I suppose the answer to that is in the first essay.

Federalist Papers #57 - Hamilton or Madison: Third objection to the House: it will only consist of elites. This is the "most extraordinary" objection because it strikes at the root of republican government. Aim of every political constitution: 1) find wisest, most virtuous rulers; 2) "take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous". People elect them and must be convinced by their character. Five reasons given as to why they're accountable to the people. Everyone can vote or run, no property/class/income limitations. The thrust and strength of the argument is that they're elected by the people, and that's the security to maintain the best representatives. But there are de facto limitations, even if there aren't in theory. What if the people have no problem with career politicians, or entire families of career politicians? Haven't they then become elites? How much money does it take to run a campaign today after all? On the other hand, at least there is more "media transparency" today than there was in the past (in theory, at least).

Beginnings and Endings - Sir James Jeans: The sun's constantly losing mass. Is the universe a cyclical system or a one-way system, like a stream? Cause of universe's animation is energy. First law of thermodynamics states the conservation of energy. But the second law shows that energy is (almost) always flowing downhill, being transformed. It can't go downhill forever and will eventually lose all capacity for change. Life is probably rare in the universe. Problems for life on earth could come about by gradual loss of sunlight, or a catastrophe if the sun goes nova. If, on the other hand, we as a species live on and learn virtually everything there is to know, we'll be bored and purposeless. But the future grants "almost endless possibilities and hope". Lot learned about novas since then. It's also both interesting and sad to see him try to work out the struggle between the oppressiveness of a vast mechanical universe without God, and the romantic leap of faith in the value of human productivity and the (groundless) "hope" for humanity. It's almost exactly what you'd see in something like Doctor Who. Star Trek will embrace the hope but won't admit the oppressiveness. But, if it's all going to end anyway, what's this hope business? Kudos to Doctor Who for being (somewhat) honest, but then they look foolish for the irrational leap of hope in a humanity that's doomed to die in the end. This is the dilemma of modernism; almost makes one sympathize with postmodernism. C.S. Lewis ends one of his books (I think the last in the Narnia chronicles) describing how heaven is an endless stream of new adventures from which we'll never get bored. Boredom is a symptom of a life without God.

The Philosophy of Common Sense - Voltaire: "Dictionary" entries - basically his views on various topics. Arts: recent birth of arts doesn't prove recent formation of the earth. Astrology: sometimes right, but nobody abandons it when it's wrong. Authority: "never seek to use authority where it is only a question of reason". Authors: if you want to write, write something new or charming, otherwise don't. Concatenation of Events: universe is determined, "the present is pregnant with the future." Equality: all men equal by natural capacities, would be equal in fact if not for needs. "All men born with...violent liking for domination, wealth, pleasure." Friendship: only between virtuous people; "the wicked have only accomplices". Laws: no country has good laws because situations always changing. Novelties: "'the mind is carried away by novelty'...motto of the human race." Reason: tell everyone (religious leaders, it seems) the truth and they'll just punish you. Self-love: all have it; "instrument of preservation". Truth: "Pilate had very little curiosity." Truth is correspondence. Can't know anything about history? Tyranny: one tyrant better than many. Some good things here.  He tends to get wacko vindictive and even irrational when he's talking about religion. What in the world happened to this guy when he was young?

Here's the readings for this week:

1. The Iliad of Homer, Books XVI-XVIII  (GBWW Vol. 3, pp. 189-233)
2. “On Education” by Arthur Schopenhauer (GGB Vol. 7, pp. 197-203)
3. Second Treatise on Civil Government by John Locke, Ch. V-VI (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 30-42)
4. Federalist #58 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 179-182)
5. “The Chemical History of a Candle” by Michael Faraday, Lectures I-II (GGB Vol. 8, pp. 368-390)
6. The Way Things Are (or On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, Book I (GBWW Vol. 11, pp. 1-15)

(Y1 W37) Why Not Just Eat the Poor? Problem Solved.

The Iliad - Homer, Books X-XII: Agamemnon, Menelaus, and the Achaean gang can't sleep, so they dare someone to go spy on the Trojans. Hector does likewise and sends Dolon, who meets Ulysses and Diomed coming from the Achean camp. Dolon gets caught, reveals weak points in Trojan camp. Ulysses and Diomed raid, kill, pillage Thracians, and return as heroes. Next day Zeus riles Achaeans to attack. Hector rages. Many Achaeans injured/killed. Nestor suggests Patroclus go into battle with Achilles armor on. Hector rages some more, tears battlements off the Achaean wall, breaks the gate down with a big rock. Achaeans scream and run to their ships. You can only get so far into it before a question dawns on you: why do these gods even care about humans? Why have they interbred with humans and spent so much of their lives concerned with human affairs? It's a good indicator that the myth is man-made. It seems that petty finite gods like this wouldn't care a lick for real humans.

A Modest Proposal - Jonathan Swift: So many poor people in Ireland, what to do with them all? How about eating the poor souls when they reach one year of age? Advantages: 1) it will "lessen the number of papists"; 2) the poor will earn something; 3) the nation as a whole can make money; 4) "constant breeders" will "be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year"; 5) local taverns will benefit; 6) will be "a great inducement to marriage" and tender parenting. Ask the older poor if they wouldn't rather have been eaten while an infant and avoided their life of poverty. He'd contribute a baby or two but, darned it, his wife is past child-bearing years. Wonderful example of satire. I used to have a buddy that used this "overshoot" method to show the absurdity of his opponents' arguments. The end result here is that it forces the reader to consider the Irish as actual valuable human beings and not devalued abstractions.
Characters - La Bruyere: Descriptive character sketches of various fictitious archetypes. "Arsene" is arrogant and lofty-minded, thinking little of those outside his circle, though his worth is based only on self-assessment. "Cleante" is a polite gentleman, his wife a perfect lady. They're getting a divorce because "some merits are not made to go together". Champagne is a self-indulgent bureaucrat who's heartlessly removed from the plights of others. "Giton" is big and bold, always talking with little thought of others, whom he controls at his whims. "Phedon" is a fearful, timid man who avoids others and thinks little of himself, though he has bursts of caustic opinions in private. "Demophile" laments the slightest bruise and perceives it to be fatal, never believing more modest assessments and always preparing for doom. Hard to summarize these as they're already so short and dense. Wonderful for fiction writers to read and should also be a good exercise to try.

Federalist Papers 55, 56 - Madison or Hamilton: 55) How about the number of representatives in the House? It's the least precise issue for a representative legislature. Ratios shoud represent populations. Lower limit needed to "secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion," but also need an upper limit. Objection 1) against the number proposed in the Constitution (65): "so small a number can't be safely trusted with so much power". This isn't a concern because the people and the States will keep them in check. 56) Objection 2): "The number is too small to possess a due knowledge of the interests of its constituents." But they only need to know the relevant info: commerce, taxation, militia. They will know it for their own constituents, will learn about other States. The real argument is that it's the system that elects the representatives and defines their powers - not how many there are - and that protects against corruption.

On Mathematical Method - Alfred North Whitehead: The study of math is often disappointing. Mostly it's because its fundamental ideas aren't ever disentangled from the technical procedures used to express those ideas in particular circumstances. Explanations of order of events tends to become mathematical because of this law-like generality, which is "the controlling idea of modern thought". Ideas of "any" and "some" first used in Greek geometry, later in algebra as variables. Idea of "variable" more important than idea of "unknown quantity". Interactions between two variables can be graphed, put into formula. These formulas are indifferent to real-world facts, so don't get confused on this point. Need to have clear ideas of the connection between formula and phenomena. People have always seen "regularities" in nature; applying it to abstract theory is the key to understanding it though. That's why the Chinese developed the compass millenia ago, but Westerners developed electromagnetic theory only recently. Problems of "practical" man. Story of Archimedes killed by Roman soldier because lost in thought over geometry problem is symbolic of these two types of cultures.  Greek - abstract; Roman - practical. "No Roman was ever killed for being lost in abstract reflection". Good piece, but not tight; you can tell it's part of a larger book. Great observations on the inherent problems on being a "practical man" - "a man who practices the errors of his forefathers." Ouch.

The Sentiment of Rationality - William James: How is a philosopher to realize his own rationality? Must have marks - a "feeling of the sufficiency of the present moment" - what he calls the "Sentiment of Rationality". Philosopher seeks universality and has passion for making distinctions (need to balance these tendencies). The mystic man seems to have found the "mystery of absolute existence", but we can't systematize mysticism. What about the practical side? 1) "must...banish uncertainty from the future"; your ideas must tell us about the future by eliminating surprises. 2) must be "[congruous] with our spontaneous powers...must not be one that essentially baffles and disappoints our dearest desires and most cherished powers." Materialism fails on this one, so it won't ever win over the crowds. Theories must answer needs sensed by people ("powers"). The value of the idea of faith - "belief in something concerning which doubt is still theoretically possible", "working hypothesis". Can't get certainty, which is why the positivists are wrong. The desires of these subjective "powers" being answered by faith is a good thing. People won't always agree, so the ultimate philosophy "must not be too strait laced in form". I see pragmatism, materialism, or agnosticism at best. Not sure what Christian apologetics he's been reading. I found this hard to read, partly because of the ideas, partly because - and I'm going to go out on a limb here - but I don't think James is a very good writer. The clarity aspect was low.

Here's the readings for the upcoming week:

1. The Iliad of Homer, Books XIII-XV  (GBWW Vol. 3, pp. 148-189)
2. “Camillus” by Plutarch (GBWW Vol. 13, pp. 102-121)
3. Second Treatise on Civil Government by John Locke, Ch. I-IV (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 25-30)
4. Federalist #57 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 176-179)
5. “Beginnings and Endings”by Sir James Jeans (GGB Vol. 8, pp. 585-596; Chapter VII of The Universe Around Us)
6. “The Philosophy of Common Sense” by Voltaire (GGB Vol. 10, pp. 453-474)

(Y1 W36) Eat, Drink and Be Merry for Tomorrow We Die (especially if Zeus is involved)

The Iliad - Homer, Books VII - IX: Hector and the Trojans are on the attack. At the manipulation of the gods, Hector challenges Achaeans to single-man combat. He fights Ajax to a draw because "it's getting dark out" and all go home for supper. Trojans want to give up Helen and end war. Paris will have none of it: "Your words are not to my liking". More fighting and Agamemnon wants to go home. Diomed berates him. Nestor encourages him to appease Achilles so he'll win war for them. They try, but Achilles will have none of it. Can Paris be any more of a brat? His keeping Helen would be a weak plot point in itself, but Zeus's intervention strengthens it some. Achilles isn't much better; his two motives: stubborn vengeance and honoring his own name. Where is a good man to be found?


Of Experience - Michel De Montaigne: We all want knowledge, "where reason is wanting we therein employ experience". Laws and interpretations of books abound, over-complicate life. Better to "feel" the "law of the world". Need to learn enough to know that you're ignorant and need to learn more. Need to be open to criticism (very hard). Discusses his personal habits and medical concerns. Obey your appetites. Be adaptable to everything nature throws at you. "We must learn to suffer what we cannot evade." Our conduct and living is more important than accomplishments. Pleasure of the moment is to be sought and cherished, ignore "fancies" and future worries. "Love life and cultivate it." All is good, inevitable, the only thing is what we do with it. Quite Stoic in its emphasis on temperance, which always seemed to me to be sort of fatalistic: "the course of nature is both good and inevitable, so don't fight it." Start with Christianity, then take the face off Nature (though he talks about God some), and make it somehow unfallen (normal instead of abnormal). It's like he sees the value of suffering for soul-building, but doesn't really see nature and suffering within it as an abnormal situation. Then again, maybe he does.

The Republic - Plato, Book X: The ideal State must reject imitative poetry, art, etc. as "ruinous to the understanding of the hearers". For example, there are three beds: the true bed in the Platonic heaven (the form), the bed from the carpenter, and the image of a bed from a painter. The imitative painter is bad because: 1) there is no truth in his imitations; 2) he is prone to imitate the bad parts of life (especially the poet). Imitative artists do the opposite to people's passions than they should - "she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled". Soul is immortal and justice is best for the soul. All things will work together for good for the the just man, but curses will catch up to the unjust man.  All get their just recompense. Myth of souls in afterlife picking new bodies for next life. Injustice always brings them to make bad choices, which then lead to the next life, etc. Critique of imitator seems to be too tight. Doesn't the carpenter need to draw up a blueprint, or at least imagine how the thing works? Doesn't the imitator know something of how the thing works, at least how it looks and what impressions it gives to viewers? Just seems too harsh a criticism. As for justice being good for the soul - doesn't that argument fall apart if the myth isn't true?

Federalist Papers #54 - Madison or Hamilton: Should taxes and the number of appointed representatives to the House be based on the same census numbers? Yes. Why does this matter? Because of slavery. The Southerner want their slaves considered to be both property and persons (thus, they'd get more representatives). Lest the solution be extreme (i.e. slaves don't count at all), let them be considered "as divested of 2/5ths of the man". Hence the 3/5ths compromise. Seems like non-slavery states would want to oppose any counting of slaves in the census either for purely competitive reasons or as a moral punishment. It's such a crazy compromise though. Surely they didn't think that such an unprincipled solution would stand the test of time. Also crazy to think that the North was forced to call slaves non-persons while the South would want to affirm their personhood.

On a Piece of Chalk - T. H. Huxley: There's a layer of chalk underneath England, as well as most of Europe and part of the Middle East that is in fact an ancient seafloor. On top of it is a layer with the remains of trees and large mammals that don't exist in those places (or at all) any longer. This chalk layer also extends under where Eden would be (i.e. "The chalk is vastly older than Adam himself"). Different species of animals such as crocodiles in the different layers. Why not assume the gradual natural processes that brought about the geological changes also brought about changes in the animals themselves? Because to think any different would be a "wild fancy". And if one group of animals came about this way, "it seems folly to deny that all may have arisen in the same way". Why assume there's a difference between geological changes and biological changes? Because we haven't been given any reason to connect the two. Not even an attempt. Is this the presentation of Darwinism that Western civilization was won over by? An old earth doesn't just get you Darwinism; it's necessary but by far not sufficient. Unlike purely physical/geological features, life forms are essentially digital information-processing systems - that's what sets them apart and that's what needs to be explained but that's what's completely equivocated on here. Even if you prove the adaptation of crocodiles into separate species, that says nothing about the origins of crocodiles in the first place. Sorry, I could go on and on. Not a good way to be a Darwinist, if one were so inclined.

The Process of Thought - John Dewey, Ch. XIX: Certain things need to be balanced in education. Implicit with explicit information. Explain former too little, students will be confused on terms; explain latter too much students will be bored. Ideally, students will be conscious of ends and means, unconscious of "personal attitudes and procedures". Both play and work are concerned with ends, play only less so. If no ends are in mind, play is "fooling". Work without ends in mind is "drudgery". Both are to be avoided. Ideally, students will have balance of work/play attitude. Interest should be in the "unfolding of the subject on its own account", "interest in truth for its own sake". Artist is good example of this harmony of work/play. Test of ideal teacher as this artist is whether they can impart this love of subject in their student. Mix also needed between new and foreign to remove boredom. The novel needed to stimulate imagination. Seems like the harmonies he's arguing for aren't just the "happy mean", but the actual proper functioning of a finite person as they were created to operate and learn about the world - big difference. It'd be "teaching as it should be", not just randomly the most efficient strategy. His description of mental "incubation" is basically what Poincare was describing last week.

Here's the reading for this week:

1. The Iliad of Homer, Books X-XII  (GBWW Vol. 3, pp. 111-148)
2. “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift (GGB Vol. 7, pp. 42-49)
3. “Characters” by Jean de la Bruyère (GGB Vol. 6, pp. 102-105)
4. Federalist #55-56 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 172-176)
5. “On Mathematical Method“by Alfred N. Whitehead (GGB Vol. 9, pp. 51-67; Chapters I-III of An Introduction to Mathematics)
6. “The Sentiment of Rationality” by William James (GGB Vol. 10, pp. 58-87)

(GB Y1 W35) It's Good to be the King, Slavery to be the Tyrant

The Iliad - Homer, Ch. IV-VI: The gods decide the two armies need to duke it out and provoke a foolish Trojan to break the pact. Achaeans swear vengence, Diomed rages and even hurts Venus, then taunts her. Then he wounds Mars himself, who runs whining to Zeus. Hector runs back to encourage everyone to pray and gather up his cowardly brother, Paris. Such a chaotic world, indeed chaos is at the root (the gods). It's also hard to "enjoy" the fighting when Homer lets you "get to know" each person just before they die. Is Homer actually anti-war, or is this just an expression of fatalism?

The Republic of Plato, Book IX: Two irrational principles in man ("angry" and "appetitive"), and one rational. All men have this wild "lawless" irrational beast raging within us. The democratic man gives into these irrational principles and becomes tyrannical.  The Tyrant himself is the worst of this group. Tyranny is the worst, most enslaved, most vulgar, most miserable form of government. Monarchy is the best. Three kinds of men arise from the three principles: lovers of honor, gain, wisdom (philosophers). Philosopher's the best. Distinction between pleasure, pain, and "lack of pain". Men confuse "lack of pain" for pleasure. Real pleasure is with the pure, immortal. Monarchy closest to this purity, tyranny furthest away. Ideal state need not be "real". I don't know about the division of the soul into the three principles. Seems like the rational principle always gets off the hook somehow. Isn't the mind fallible like everything else? Would he say that the conscience is speaking through the mind? On the flip side, can't anger and desire be righteous?

Of Youth and Age - Francis Bacon: Usually the older is wiser than the younger.  Younger men more fit to innovate, invent, execute, start new projects, but err in taking on too much, not considering means and ends, having no sound principles. Older err in objecting too much, adventuring too little.  Need to "compound employments of both...because the virtues of either age may correct the defects of both". Question: is there a way to retain the inventiveness/adventure of youth, or at least set yourself on the right course early on?

Federalist # 52, 53 - Hamilton or Madison: 52) Examination of nature of House of Representatives. Qualifications of electors and elected. House is and ought to be dependent on the people. 53) Further justifications for term length. Fear of longer term: tyranny. "Where annual elections end, tyranny begins." Tricky subject. They didn't seem concerned with number of terms an elector has served though. A "life-long" representative is still elected and thus accountable to the people. Perhaps they'd say this is sufficient to avoid the tyranny threat.

Mathematical Creation - Henri Poincare: If math is just an extension of common sense, why can't everyone do math with ease? Part of the problem is that, when working on a math problem, people forget the earlier steps and thus screw up the answer. More than that though, there's a real, though unconscious, "mathematical intuition" that mathematicians use and not everyone has. This intuition is "working" on the problems (i.e. going through all varieties of "combinations" that could be the right answer) the person was last thinking about while they're now off doing other things. The person later has a "sudden illumination" where they consciously recognize and "select" out the right answer based on its elegance and usefulness to the problem (which is the same thing: it's elegant because it's useful). Sounds right.  Don't know about the "dual ego" aspect. It seems like this would apply to a variety of fields/aptitudes, not just to math. I know I've experienced this kind of eureka moment myself and I'm sure many others have as well, even if we're not doing higher mathematics.

The Process of Thought, Ch. XVI - XVII - John Dewey: Language is not thought, but it's necessary for it. Language is fundamentally anything employed as a sign. Artificial signs work better than natural signs. Language selects, retains, and applies meanings where needed to understand the world (fence, label, vehicle). Meanings taught to students must be relevant to their existing experiences. Language is primarily for "influencing the activity of others", though later used as vehicle for thought. Students need to be gradually led from former use to the latter. Active (speaking) vs. passive (comprehending) vocabulary distinguished. Reading can cause gulf between the two. Students need to form "habits of consecutive discourse" (speaking coherently about the subject). Goal for observation is "desire for expansion". Students need a problem to solve, a "plot interest" to be fully invested. Roles of direct observation (watching plants grow, etc.) vs. communicating (most subject matters). Is language's primary use to influence activity of others? As a Christian I'd question if that's what Adam's primary use for language was. I guess it's true at least as far as children are concerned though. Good explanation of need for getting students to talk during instruction. Socratic method anyone?


Here's this week's readings:

1. The Iliad of Homer, Books VII-IX  (GBWW Vol. 3, pp. 77-111)
2. “Of Experience” by Michel de Montaigne (GBWW Vol. 23, pp. 559-587)
3. Plato’s Republic, Book X (GBWW Vol. 6, pp. 427-441)
4. Federalist #54 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 170-172)
5. “On a Piece of Chalk“by Thomas H. Huxley (GGB Vol. 8, pp. 205-222)
6. How We Think by John Dewey, Chapter XIX (GGB Vol. 10, pp. 205-213)