(Y1 W43) Beware silver bullets and your own conscience

Okay, as promised I'm posting earlier this week.  So be of good cheer.  I hope you're having as happy a time reading as I am.  Personally, I find the variety of reading each week to be a joy in itself. 

The Emperor Jones - Eugene O'Neill: Setting is a Caribbean island "dictatorship" run by former U.S. prisoner Brutus Jones - "Emperor" Jones. His black "subjects" have run off into the hills (a gesture of rebellion) and Jones is informed of it by white cockney trader, Smithers. The two dialog about the thugish situation of the island, Jones' "rule", and how he came to have it through an earlier rebellion. Jones makes his escape through the woods for the island's far shore, relying on his preplanned escape path and gun and silver bullet - both a luck charm and the "one thing" that can kill him. He enters the imposing forest at dusk, can't find his buried food cans and starts seeing haunting visions: a man he killed, a prison chain gang forcing him to work, an old-time slave auctioneer trying to sell him. He disperses them with shots of his lead bullets while his subjects' distant beating drum gets louder and louder. His last vision is a witch doctor who calls up the crocodile and motions for Jones to serve as its sacrifice. Jones fires his last bullet (silver one) at it. Both disappear images. The next morning, the rebels walk just inside the woods and shoot Jones dead with silver bullets of their own that they made the previous night as they cast spells. This was probably one of the strangest things we've read so far. It read less like a story than a philosophical treatise put to fictional events. Yet, it was a great display of the evil and stubbornness man is capable of, and how when pushed, an evil man is willing to use any means to meet his own ends, while still being undone in the end by his own guilt. On another note, it was a great display of written accents.

A Plea for Captain John Brown - Henry David Thoreau: Followup statement on behalf of John Brown after his failed attempt to start a slave uprising at Harper's Ferry in 1859. Thoreau knows John Brown only a little, but wants to defend him against the condemning opinions of newspapers. He had courage greater than a soldier - he was willing to face his own country when she was wrong. He had so few compatriots because he had such high standards. His plan was a good one, but people criticized it because it failed, wouldn't have if it succeeded. He is the seed of heroism; "when you plant, or bury, a hero in his field, a crop of heroes is sure to spring up". So many who call themselves Christian are lazy and cowardly, unlike him. Newspapers omitted any noble statements about him and replaced them with insults. Unjust government shows itself to be mere "brute force": "a government that pretends to be Christian and crucifies a million Christs every day!" Brown teaches us how to die because he teaches us how to live. His "insanity" so-called was more like a "spark of divinity". He pleads not for Brown's life, but his character..."so it becomes your cause wholly". Thoreau seems to display the full vent of a passion for justice that we can feel at various times in life, but it seems unlivable in reality. Lincoln distanced himself from Brown, unapologetically. But was Brown at least a kind of inspiration for men like Lincoln, as Thoreau suggested he could be? Were Brown and Thoreau wrong? Did Lincoln only distance himself from them for because he thought the political avenue was the only way to lasting change on the issue of slavery?

Letter to Herodotus - Epicurus: Writing to friend (no, not that Herodotus) and giving a basic distilling of his overall system. We must "keep all our investigations in accord with our sensations". The universe is an external, boundless "closed box" composed of only "atoms" and space, outside of which is nothing. Basic bodies are indivisible, can form limitless numbers of compounds but are themselves limited in number. They're always moving and form infinite worlds like ours. "Idols" (images) are emitted from them, stored as memories that can be confused together in people's minds causing error. Space is infinite. The soul is the material force driving the body. The heavens are not controlled or ordained by any gods. Science facts lead to our happiness because they dispel fear of the natural world. Man's main problem is believing in gods that are malevolent towards us, "but peace of mind is being delivered from all this." Learn and memorize these facts and they'll do you good. Boy, now I'm even less impressed with Lucretius. I knew he was drawing on Epicurus for his source material, but I didn't know he was just copying him jot and tittle like that. On a whole, it does seem that his (Epicurus') "atomistic"/naturalistic view of the world is a kind of logical solution to the problems presented by ancient Greco-Roman paganism in the way that Buddhism is the solution to the problems of Hinduism. That is, it makes most sense as a reaction, and not so much as a stand-alone system. Just an observation.

Federalist Papers #66 - Hamilton: Review of objections against the Senate performing impeachments. 1) It "confounds legislative and judiciary authorities in the same body." But separation of powers maxim is compatible with special case intermixing, and necessary for securing branches against each other. 2) "It contributes to an undue accumulation of power in that body". Vague objection. House is a proper counterweight for it anyway. 3) They would be too lenient on those they've helped appoint. But, president chooses, they only ratify. 4) They wouldn't condemn themselves in cases of ruinous treaties they helped create. Security against this "is to be sought for in the numbers and characters of those who are to make them," it being a joint venture with the executive. It's "essential to the freedom and to the necessary independence of the deliberations of the body that the members of it be exempt from punishment for acts done in a collective capacity." I wonder about the point on collective guilt. Should there be no recourse to address the collective guilt of a political body like the Senate no matter how egregious the consequences of their actions?

An Anatomical Disquisition on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals - William Harvey, Intro-Ch. V: Flowery introduction to King Charles I, then a more sober intro to his colleagues at the Royal College of Physicians. He starts by discussing previous opinions on the function of the heart. People think, with Galen, that the pulse and respiration have the same object, but this is wrong since one is related to the heart, the other to the lungs. Blood alone is carried in the arteries. I) He, like others, once thought only God could comprehend the issue, but then his experiments suggested an answer. II) Heart moves at one time and is still at another. This is an aid to pushing blood through when it contracts. III) All arteries of body pulsate via the contraction of the left ventricle. IV) Four motions involved: two auricles moving together, two ventricles doing the same afterwards. The first moves the blood into the ventricles. It's the auricles that are "first to live, last to die". V) After blood exits auricles, it enters ventricles. Contraction of right ventricle pushes blood into the lungs, left pushes blood into the aorta and the rest of the body - all performed harmoniously. Pulse is pushing of blood from the heart. The great point of confusion here is the fact that the heart and lungs are connected. Masterful experimental/observational reasoning, especially given their misunderstanding of how the air in the lungs could be connected with the blood (i.e. having no concept of modern chemical theory yet). It makes one wonder what such a person could do with more robust methods/background knowledge to draw from. Then again, it's folks like this that brought such advances around in the first place!

On the Nature of Things - Lucretius, Book V: He wants now to show the mortality of the world. Sun, moon, stars, etc. aren't divine bodies. Again, the world wasn't designed because it's not perfect. Both the heavens and the earth had a beginning and will have an end. Earth must have had a recent beginning, the brief history of man shows this. It came about by first-beginnings (particles) massing together. Streams of air cause the motions of the stars in the sky. Things in the sky are actually the size they appear to be. After the earth came plants, animals, then humans. Man used to be much stronger in constitution, but became weaker because of civilization. Before, we were like wild beasts and spoke language like animal sounds that later became more advanced. Fire first came from lightening. Men settled and made common laws because "grew sick of a life of brute force". We imagined the gods because the world was a scary place. Metals discovered, animals tamed. Clothing, farming, music learned from imitating nature. When better things came along, the earlier tools were cast aside. Development was inevitable for man. It's actually pretty impressive that he came up with an early version of the nebular hypothesis. It's ironic though that he's the naturalist defending a young earth against the supernaturalists that believed in an old earth. The progressivism of man seems to be spot on with current naturalism, though. I just had a random thought: this is a poem and all poems were sung (supposedly). It kind of cracks me up imagining Lucretius up on some stage stringing a harp and singing all this.


Here's this week's readings:

1. “The Lifted Veil” by George Eliot  (GGB Vol. 3, pp. 157-193)
2. “Pericles” by Plutarch (GBWW Vol. 13, pp. 121-141)
3. “A Letter Concerning Toleration” by John Locke (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 1-22)
4. Federalist #67-69 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 203-210)
5. An Anatomical Disquisition on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals by William Harvey, Chapters VI-XI (GBWW Vol. 26, pp. 280-292)
6. The Way Things Are (or On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, Book VI (GBWW Vol. 11, pp. 77-91)

(Y1 W42) Dostoevsky Broke My Heart

Sorry this is coming at a later day this week. We've had quite a busy schedule, which will hopefully lighten up over the next couple of weeks. I'll try to put posts up earlier in the week then, I promise!


White Nights - Fyodor Dostoevsky:  A lonely young man has no real friends but is "friend" to all in St. Petersburg, in a way. Late one summer night ("white nights" refers to the near continuous sunlight that occurs during the mid-summer nights in this northern city), he sees a pretty girl all alone and crying. When a suspicious man walks by, the young man offers to escort her and she accepts. They become friends but she warns him not to fall in love with her. He relays how he's a lonely person who gets so caught up in his spontaneous fantasies he doesn't live a "real" life. She sympathizes, saying how her blind grandmother (with whom she lives) pins their dresses together when she misbehaves so she can't get away. Then she tells him about an older man who rented their attic room and how she fell in love with him, though he didn't return it. One year ago he was leaving, but when pushed by her he promised to return in one year and marry her. She had now been waiting for him for several nights, but he never came. The lonely young man helps her write a letter to Mr. Delinquent (to be delivered via some friends), then keeps waiting the next few nights with her for him to come, but he doesn't. When she despairs, the young man reveals that he's fallen love with her. Crying, she says, "well, I guess I love you too - why not?" and they start to plan their futures together. Then her mystery man actually shows up. She kisses the young man, then runs off with the mystery man. The young man later gets a letter in the mail: "Don't hate me. Can't we be friends?" But everything around him now looks old. He still wants the best for her, though, and wishes a moment of bliss could last forever. Dostoevsky, you broke my heart, you fiend! I shouldn't have fallen for it. I should have taken her advice in the beginning. I guess the American in me just needs a happy ending for the young man, too. Yet, maybe it's best to want the best for her as well. Wonderful verbalization of subtle psychological nuances.

The Character of Socrates - Xenophon: A personal recollection of Socrates. He always took pains to build up those around him. Wanted them to study things because of practical ends. Thought pursuits like trying to figure out the origin of the heavens and how they work couldn't be achieved and must displease the gods who wouldn't want us to pry into mysteries. Claims he was forewarned about his execution but welcomed it because of his old age. Saw his entire life as preparation for his trial. Their injustice would be a shame to them, not him. He was the most virtuous man one could aspire to be. Mostly consistent with the image of Socrates painted by Plato, except the comments on his affinity for divination.Wonderful eulogy. Something (mostly) to aspire to hear others say about you one day.

Second Treatise on Civil Government - John Locke, Ch. XVI - XIX: XVI) Conquest is never a substitute for consent, thus is never legitimate in itself. Conquerors never get power over other people's possessions and can't take away property from conquered man's family. All born with a double right: freedom, inheritance. There is, then, a right to rebel against an unjust conqueror. XVII) Usurper is never in the right without the people's consent. XVIII) King James (and Mel Gibson) said: tyrant thinks his kingdom is there for his pleasure; the righteous king thinks he's ordained to protect the property of his people. "Force is to be opposed to nothing but unjust and unlawful force." This principle hinders not the people but would-be tyrants. People can't pursue force if the grievance can repaired by an appeal to law. But force okay if "long train of acting show the counsels all tending that way" (i.e. the way of tyranny). XIX) Governments can be dissolved from within in several ways, leaving the people the opportunity to set up a new legislative because society has a right to preserve itself. This idea doesn't encourage rebellions more than any other ideas. Saying they can't ever rebel is like saying victims can't rebel against robbers. Even those believing in a divine right of kings agree a king can "un-king" himself when he becomes a tyrant. And here we come to the rub - the right of revolution. He's right in pointing out that agreement with the divine-righters on this issue is a mark in his favor. I actually think it gets much worse in that it's a lethal admission for the divine-right side: it admits people are the final earthly judges of proper authority.

Federalist Papers 64, 65 - Jay and Hamilton: 64) Why should the president have power to make treaties? Need the best qualified men to perform the task, and the manner most conducive to the public good. Office of president is best on both accounts. Secrecy will often be needed and a single person is better for that than larger bodies. Don't like that treaties have the force of law? Actions of judges and governors have the same weight. Treaties are also subject to amends and repeals. Corrupt treaties? "The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained." Nations would void such treaties anyway. 65) Should the Senate be in charge of impeachments? Impeachments will almost always divide the whole community, so need a "delicacy and magnitude of a trust" the Senate is most fit to fulfill. Who else could do it? Not Supreme Court or some third, non-governmental body. So, don't reject the Constitution because of imperfections; there won't ever be a perfect constitution. Looks good, mostly. But why wasn't the House considered for impeachments? Or how about governors? That may get into the impractical as well, though.

On Ancient Medicine - Hippocrates: Some think medicine proceeds under a single hypothesis of "hot, or cold, or moist, or dry, or whatever else they choose" as being the sole cause of disease. They are mistaken. Disease is primarily caused by diet. Humans have acquired a diet of "stronger" elements that are harmful. Those who first pursued medicine invented soups as remedies, which dilute and take these "stronger" elements out. Weaker diets are more beneficial. People's habits, constitutions differ in allowing what they can handle. Perfect diet is a mix of moderate elements, but things like temperature do affect us in different ways though. Remedies to ailments often involve "purging" aspect though, not heat/cold applications. Shapes of organs, etc. are also related to ailments. This is a great example of how one can have wacky ideas about phenomena that, in practice, have little affect on the phenomena. It seems that the theory ("strength" of diet) follows the result of tinkering with different diets as opposed to diet being predicted from some prior theory; this is tinkering, not science. In other words: diet affects health; no matter what bizarre theory you want to make up to explain it, it won't affect this basic observation for good or for ill. Kudos to Hippocrates and these old-time physicians, though, for working so hard with such limited methodologies. I wouldn't have the patience.

On the Nature of Things - Lucretius, Book IV: He teaches these things to save people from religion and puts the bitter message into sweet verse so they will swallow it down (hence the poetic form). Now he wants to look at "idols" (images) of things so we don't believe in ghosts or the afterlife. Pictures of things are emitted from their surfaces as thin layers of particles flung out in all directions at all times. Smells, sounds emitted in similar ways. Some of these experiences deceive you, but we must rely on sense data for knowledge so don't become a skeptic. The mind is impressed with these images and retains "thinner" versions as memories that can become confused (man image + horse image = centaur image). Organs came before their functions, so "shun the weakness" of believing they're designed. Images present themselves to the mind, the mind wills and affects the soul, the soul then acts throughout the body. Sleep comes when soul breaks down and part "withdraws to the inner recesses" of the body. Love is a wasteful, foolish trick of the body. "Venus mocks lovers with idols, nor can bodies satisfy them". Children are conceived of seeds mixed between parents and fertility is entirely natural, so praying for fertility is a waste of time. It's interesting, but just so much speculation (and more assertions against design). Not to be degrading, but it honestly sounds like a yarn my 4-year old would spin about how the world works, though a bit more fleshed out. That comes back to the limitation in biological/medical methodology again, I suppose. My real question, though, is who broke poor Lucretius' heart? I mean, he goes on for pages and pages about how horrible romantic love is. He's been reading Dostoevsky! The fiend.

If you're up for it, here's the readings for next week:

1. The Emperor Jones by Eugene O’Neill  (GGB Vol. 4, pp. 357-382)
2. “A Plea for Captain John Brown” by Henry David Thoreau (GGB Vol. 6, pp. 714-732)
3. “Letter to Herodotus” by Epicurus (GGB Vol. 10, pp. 216-229)
4. Federalist #66 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 200-203)
5. An Anatomical Disquisition on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals by William Harvey, Introduction-Chapter V (GBWW Vol. 26, pp. 267-280)
6. The Way Things Are (or On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, Book V (GBWW Vol. 11, pp. 58-77)

(Y1 W41) Bon Voyage Homer and Faraday

Yes, we're done with both of these fellows. That means that we're done with Homer's entire volume. And you thought we weren't reading very much...tsk, tsk. Don't worry, there's plenty more to be had.

The Iliad - Homer, Books XXII - XXIV: Achaeans approach Troy and Hector stays outside to fight. He reasons he wants to make up for his earlier failing, but runs away when Achilles approaches and chases him nearly 4x around the city until the gods trick him into stopping. They fight, Achilles wins and drags off his body. Achaeans lament Patroclus. Patroclus' ghost chides Achilles for not burying him yet. Achilles repents, buries him, and runs off to sack Troy (just kidding). No, Achilles repents then holds the traditional pre-funeral track-and-field games (of course). But that didn't cheer him up so he drags Hector's body around some more, which upsets the gods who plan for Priam to ransom him. Priam then comes (with Mercury's help), appeals to Achilles with gifts and sympathy, and takes Hector back to a wailing city. Parting shots: the story is moved along by the theft of two women and death of two men, the pervasiveness of the honor morality brings more astonishment around every corner (if there's nothing higher to fight for, all is self-serving honor), the gods have no inherent worthiness of being revered - they are only worth what you can bargain out of them. Goodbye, Homer. It was certainly interesting.

Address at Cooper Institute - Abraham Lincoln: Republicans ask as "our fathers, who framed the government under which we live" did that we mark slavery as "an end not to be extended, but to be tolerated" out of necessity. The only question is the rightness or wrongness of the issue. Washington bragged about limiting slavery, wished for its removal. Southerners say they are "conservative", but go against this and want more and more slavery. They brought up the issue by going counter to "our fathers", not us. Jefferson wanted gradual emancipation by slave-holding states themselves, and that's what we want too, not federal intervention. "But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights." Taking slaves into federal territories is not a constitutional right, a divided Supreme Court got this wrong (not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in Constitution). Republicans: live at peace if possible, but they won't allow this. They will push the issue until people are forced to agree with them. The only issue is whether it's right or wrong. So, let us stand by our duty, "fearlessly and effectively". A great piece of reasoning, such a distance from modern political rhetoric. I see parallels here between his assessment of the slavery issue and other major moral debates. Here's the pattern: two sides disagree about moral issue. One is condemned simultaneously by their conscience and the opposing side, so they push back to the extreme, even using power to force people to agree with them in private. Power replaces argument because their side is irrational. Yes, I'm talking about issues pushed by a moral-relativistic culture under the name "tolerance". Watch out for them.

Second Treatise on Civil Government - John Locke, Ch. IX - XV: (Sorry, this first chapter was supposed to be included last week!) IX) People submit to government for mutual preservation of their lives, liberty, and estates (in sum: their property), which is the "great and chief end" of government. Power of society can never extend beyond the common good. X) Commonwealth is not necessarily a democracy, but "any independent community". XI) "First and fundamental positive law of commonwealths is the establishing of legislative power", the supreme power. To be arbitrary is contradictory to its nature in resting on the people. Legislative can't take property without consent, can't tax without consent either. Can't trade its power to another. XII) Legislative should have diverse members, though all are subject to the law. Also need executive power to enforce those laws. People are above the legislative if government dissolved. Should be checks and balances between powers. Executive to employ common sense in application of law - "mitigating its severity" where needed (prerogative). XV) Parental power exists where child can't manage property; "political where men have property in their own disposal; and despotical over such as have no property at all." Locke seems to repeat himself a lot, which makes for faster reading and a clearer understanding of what he's driving at, I suppose. A lot of these sections also seem to be collections of arguments rather than a train of arguments (though that doesn't diminish them).

Federalist Papers #62-62 - Hamilton or Madison: 62) Questions concerning the Senate include: qualifications of Senators, appointments, equality of representation among States, number of Senators. The qualifications are more strict than those of the House. State appointment of Senators gives a double advantage of select appointment and giving States representation. Equality of representation gives a balance to the House in that each State has equal representation despite their size. A smaller Senate will be less prone to impassioned leanings, allow for more acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation, will check the "mutable policy" that will come from frequent turnovers in House representatives. 63) Senate will give "respect" to government. We want other nations to like us for 2 reasons: 1) it's good that we appear to be "offspring of a wise and honorable policy"; 2) other nations can be an "unbiased" input if we are stuck in impassioned division. Senate will also have sufficient permanency to balance frequent elections/turnovers elsewhere in government. Comparison with other contemporary and historic Senates shows that we need something to "blend stability with liberty". Don't worry, it won't become a kind of hereditary power grab. Some good arguments for the Senate to balance the House, but what about that 17th amendment that took State appointments of Senators away and gave them to popular elections? Wonder what they would say to that. And whence the "unbiased" nature of other countries in questions that we differ over internally? Is any nation ever really unbiased towards another? Maybe I'm cynical, but I sense here a kind of desire for approval from big brother (i.e. Europe - I mean let's be honest, they're not talking about China and India). Methinks Locke would disapprove.

The Chemical History of a Candle - Michael Faraday, Lecture V-VI: V) Why do air and oxygen burn the candle differently? There's another gas in the air that doesn't combust or react hardly at all - nitrogen. This nitrogen dilutes the oxygen in the air and makes it useful for us. Air has weight that can be calculated, also has elasticity that makes it capable of being manipulated. Another product of the candle reacts with lime water, but not with much else. It's carbonic acid (carbon dioxide and water), which is heavier than air. VI) Burnt carbon comes off as carbonic acid. Carbon sources such as charcoal burn as sparks, not flames. Carbon only burn as as a solid, afterwards ceases to be a solid - few things act like this. This burning of carbon is the same as what occurs inside us. A candle can't burn when surrounded with our breath because the oxygen is gone, replaced with carbonic acid. We eat and "burn" solid carbon food changing it into carbonic acid, which plants take and grow by, so God has made us dependent on each other. Different carbon substances burn at different temperatures. Some like ours burn at extremely low temperatures. Great way to use simple products/chemistry to explain vastly different parts of nature/science. Farewell Faraday. We wish more scientists today had your heart for education and integration.

On the Nature of Things - Lucretius, Book III: Now he wants to consider the mind and soul. Fear and ignorance of death urge men to sin. Mind is a physical aspect of the body in close unity with soul - "single nature". Mind reigns from the fixed region of the breast, soul is disseminated though the whole body and moves when inclined by the mind. Mind made of small round particles moving fast. Soul "consists of very small seeds and[is] in-woven through veins and flesh and sinews". Heat is also involved. A fourth part "transmits the sense-giving motions through the frame" (the "soul of the soul"). All parts work together. Heat/cold correspond to tempers in men and beasts. When soul torn apart, it perishes and the pieces rot - so the mind and soul are mortal and need the body. It is the structure of the whole mind, not the parts, that makes the mind - otherwise wherever the decomposed parts went, there would be mind (thinking/talking ground, animals, and plants, etc.). Because of this, death is nothing to be afraid of. There's no Hell waiting, only recycling, so stop worrying and whining about an afterlife. It's like a long sleep. Knowledge of Nature frees us from this fear of Hell. Interesting life application based on fear of death. This is why this and related issues are important - it's not just abstract mental gymnastics. On the flip side, he's indicating that if there is an afterlife, you better be prepared.

Here's the reading for this upcoming week.  Enjoy.

1. “White Nights” by Fyodor Dostoevsky  (GGB Vol. 3, pp. 276-319)
2. “The Character of Socrates” by Xenophon (GGB Vol. 6, pp. 223-226; Book IV, Chapters VII-VIII of Memorabilia)
3. Second Treatise on Civil Government by John Locke, Ch. XVI-XIX (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 65-81)
4. Federalist #64-65 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 195-200)
5. “On Ancient Medicine” by Hippocrates (GBWW Vol. 9, pp. 1-17)
6. The Way Things Are (or On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, Book IV (GBWW Vol. 11, pp. 43-58)

(Y1 W40) In Theory, With the Right Armor Pee Wee Herman Could Conquer Troy Too

Yes, 40 weeks down, several to go. I'd like to shorten the entries each week, but that will likely mean cutting out some of the summary. On another note, this upcoming week we'll be finishing one of the GBWW volumes (yea!). I'll let you figure out which one. 

The Iliad - Homer, Books XIX-XXI: Thetis gives Achilles his shiny new armor (his buddies are afraid of it). Achilles calls the Achaeans, repents from his quarrel with Agamemnon (blames Jove for it). They all eat then head out to fight. Jove gives the word and all the gods rush to help each side. Aneas challenges Achilles but is saved by Neptune. Achilles berserks and pursues Trojans into river Xanthus killing all he can mercilessly. Xanthus (god) gets angry at Achilles for polluting him, then attacks with waves, chasing him off as a flood. Achilles prays to Jove, blames mother for "tricking" him into thinking he'll have a glorious end. Juno asks Vulcan to save him. Vulcan scorches Xanthus with fire and Xanthus repents. Gods fight on Olympus; Jove laughs. Minerva strikes Mars and vaunts over him. Juno beats Diana. Agenor challenges Achilles. Achilles saved (again) by his armor. Apollo saves Agenor and tricks Achilles into chasing him. The humans vaunt, the gods vaunt, Joves laughs at it all. Chaos. Achilles is saved, virtually every time, by the gods or by his armor from the gods. What is he without that? And why is gold stopping all the spearheads?  Gold is pretty but it's soft as all get out.

What is War? - Karl von Clausewitz: War is a large-scale duel, and "act of force to compel our adversary to do our will". Aim of war: disarming the enemy. Bad ideas of war proceeding from kindness of heart are the worst. Two elements to conflicts: hostile feelings, hostile intentions. Series of "reciprocal actions" occur by forcing the hand of the other, putting them at a disadvantage. Reality in war is different from theory and there's no magic solution to winning wars. War is never isolated from political situation, always has trade-offs. In practice, laws of probability take over from the "absolute" demanded by theory. Political objective always pushed to the forefront. One side ceases when other options are more to their advantage. Disparity between attack and defense, but the true polarity resides in the decision to act, not in the attack/defense themselves. Because of reliance on probabilities, element of chance enters through subjective factors like courage. Man is drawn to this uncertainty because we revel in the wealth of possibilities. In the end, war is just an extension of policy, a political instrument. The greatest act of judgment - realizing what kind of war we're in. "Strange trinity" of war: original violence, play of probabilities/chance, subordinate character of political tool. Problem is "keeping the theory poised between these 3 tendencies as between 3 tendencies of attraction." I found this hard to read, but quite good. I could have benefited from more concrete examples, though. It might be a translation issue from the original German. My Goethe, I Kant imagine having to Hegel with too many more German writers!

Second Essay Concerning Civil Government - John Locke, Ch. VII-VIII: VII) God gave man community so he wouldn't be alone and this begins in marriage. It's primarily about pooling resources and helping raise kids, which is why the husband needs to stick around. Husband's power limited by family's needs. The end of civil society is property protection. Commonwealths are given power to punish, and the individuals forfeit it - this is political society. Absolute monarchies aren't legitimate, no member of civil society is exempted from its laws. VIII) All must consent in order to be in a civil society. "Act of majority passes for the act of the whole" because "consent of every individual...is next to impossible". Hence the origin of societies. Objection 1) No historical instances of governments beginning this way. But, "government is everywhere antecedent to records". Early governments often lead by father out of a convenience, not out of right. Original people "never dreamed of monarchy being jure Divino". 2) All being born into government, no one can ever leave. But, if they couldn't, then there should be a one-world government, or all should be totally free. Men can't bind their sons to government. Men give "tacit consent" to be members of a society when they come to age and take possession or enjoyment in that dominion. Until then, they're free. Though foreigners can do this without becoming citizens. I'm fuzzy on the last part. It just seems that there is an implicit membership of youth in a society until they un-member themselves. Seems also like he's uneven on mixing descriptive history with prescriptive principles. Wouldn't the King of [insert unfriendly monarchy] be part of the history-made-prescriptive too? But that guy disagrees with Locke, so his example doesn't count?

Federalist Papers #59-61 - Alexander Hamilton: 59) Objection to national legislature regulating its own elections as a last resort. This is good, though, because "every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation. If it were solely in hands of States, they could "annihilate it" at any moment if no other oversight. State governments can be bad too, you know. Rotating nature of House/Senate is also a safeguard. 60) What of danger from the Union side? Allege that it will favor classes of men. Almost no chance this could occur at a given time, though. If it did, the people would revolt. Which classes anyway? Not agricultural, nor mercantile, nor the generic "wealthy and well-born" because they don't live any one place and voting isn't restricted to property-owners. 61) Some want to add a qualifier stating that elections be held in counties where electors reside. But wouldn't do much. If people are to lazy to travel to vote, the distance of traveling won't matter. So, Hamilton died in a duel. Reading him, you can see how he could ruffle a few feathers. Consider: "Of all chimerical suppositions, this seems to be the most chimerical...".  "If those who are inclined to consult their jealousy..." Can't imagine Washington talking this way. To his points though: I'm wondering if the final say in legislative elections couldn't be from another federal branch.

The Chemical History of a Candle - Michael Faraday, Lectures III-IV: III) Water is a product of a burning candle. It changes volume/density as it changes states, but still same water. Water is not in a candle, but produced from combustion. Shows that production of iron vapor has "taken something out of steam" and left hydrogen gas. Can make hydrogen gas in other ways, for example a "philosopher's candle". IV) What's the other substance in water? Demonstrates color change with electrical currents and platinum. A second gas is produced, combined with hydrogen gas and lit, it explodes and produces water drops. This other substance is "taken from the air" by candle. Puts gas tubes on either pole of water battery and measures characteristics of gas produced. Yep, it's oxygen. Calculate the (known) molecular weights and find that water has one part oxygen, two parts hydrogen. Oxygen accelerates combustions of all kinds. I'm always so nervous something will explode. Maybe that's why I'm not into physical chemistry at all! I am glad he addressed that at one point, though. Wonderful step-by-step exposition of such basic scientific advances. Lucretius, eat your heart out (okay, that's not fair).

On the Nature of Things - Lucretius, Book II: First-beginnings are in restless motion by own weight or others. They form denser aggregations according to shapes of first-begs. We only sense the larger aggregations. There's no design in nature because there are defects in nature. There's an infinite number of first-begs. Compositions and sensations are determined by shapes of first-begs (smooth/round=tasty, rough=not so much). All larger things are a mix of first-begs. Yet can't join in any way to form chimeras, must follow "law" that keeps them within limits. First-begs don't have color, sound, taste, etc. Sensed only after form bigger aggregates. Death breaks unions of first-begs, forms into new unions. Must be "other combinations of matter like this" elsewhere in the universe, "other earths and various races of men". Nature thus "free at once and rid of her haughty lords is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without the meddling of the gods". All living things die, as will the world. It's amazing how persistent and straightforward the conclusions of a materialistic worldview are whether you're considering it in ancient Rome or modern England. Also an amazing example of the persistence of the materialistic attack against design in the universe (no, Dawkins isn't terribly original here). "The universe doesn't fit my ideal of a universe, therefore it isn't designed." Really? Does that mean the El Camino isn't designed either?  I mean, have you seen that thing? Please.

Here's this week's readings:

1. The Iliad of Homer, Books XXII-XXIV  (GBWW Vol. 3, pp. 263-306)
2. “Address at Cooper Institute” by Abraham Lincoln (GGB Vol. 6, pp. 737-746)
3. Second Treatise on Civil Government by John Locke, Ch. X-XV (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 55-65)
4. Federalist #62-63 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 188-195)
5. “The Chemical History of a Candle” by Michael Faraday, Lectures V-VI (GGB Vol. 8, pp. 414-439)
6. The Way Things Are (or On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, Book III (GBWW Vol. 11, pp. 30-43)