(Y1 W47) A Drive-by by Edmund Burke

Happy Thanksgiving (or rather, Happy Black Friday, if it's been sainted into the ranks of a national holiday yet). We're starting two new authors this round - Aristotle and Hume. This will be the first and last of the Hume writings from the GBWW. Not so with Aristotle, not by a long shot. Keep in mind that one of these guys is way favored in the intellectual world today, while the other is way not. I'll let you figure out which is which.



Moby Dick - Herman Melville, Ch. 16-22: Ishmael seeks out a whaling ship for the two and comes to the Pequod. He talks with Captains Peleg and Bildad - part-owners of the boat, but not the ones to command her - and they accept him as a low-paying crewman. Captain Ahab will command, but he's sick now. Ishmael brings Queequeg by the next day. They don't like him because he's a cannibal and want him to become a Christian first. Ishmael says he's a born member of the "first Congregational Church"...of humanity. Peleg likes that and hires Queequeg on for a hefty pay because of his experience harpooning. Old "beggar-like" man, Elijah, warns them to find out about Ahab first. They ignore him. The ship is fixed up, the two go aboard early in the morning of departure, finding that Ahab came aboard last night but remains in his cabin. Rest of crew board. Peleg and Bildad order everyone around and cast off - no Ahab yet. When out at sea, the two disembark to another ship and wish them the best.  Ahab is still unseen. Very symbolic, especially with characters like Elijah "the prophet". Wonderful coupling the profundity of the Quaker language with the subject matter (more of that to come). There's still murkiness in his presentation of the religious side of the men, perhaps explained by statements like: "very probably he had long since come to the sage and sensible conclusion that a man's religion is one thing and this practical world quite another".


Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol - Edmund Burke: As a member of the British Parliment, he's writing about the last two acts passed concerning the war with America. He's grieved that the legislation "subverts the liberties of our brethren". Making American ships "pirates" is more dishonorable than making them traitors. Suspension of habeas corpus for some is worse than full suspension for all because latter wouldn't be stood for. Those calling for war "have all the merits of volunteers, without risk of person or charge of contribution...It is our business to counteract them". People won't submit without feeling a "great affection and benevolence toward them" by the sovereign, which we aren't giving America. In two bonded communities, the greater is always the threat. Beware unintended consequences. The end of government is the happiness of the people. If we are to last we must reconcile our "strong presiding power" with liberty. "Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist." Very Lockeian in the ends and limits of government, very Montaigneian in its temperance/admission of ignorance. Too bad we didn't get any more (or a response by his adversaries).

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding - David Hume, Sect. I-III: "Man is a reasonable being...but so narrow are the bounds of human understanding." We need both the accuracy of thinking and the beauty of sentiment. Much of metaphysics doesn't qualify as a discipline of study because of its obscurity. We must accept defeat here and "submit to this fatigue, in order to live at ease ever after". We need to subvert these abstruse philosophies with accurate and just reasoning, "and if we can go no farther than this mental geography...it is at least a satisfaction to go so far". But maybe we can discover more. Perceptions (impressions from our senses) are "lively", later memories of them (thoughts/ideas) are always less so. Analyzing our thoughts, we find all are derived from impressions, even the idea of God, there are therefore no innate ideas. There's always a connection between ideas in one of three ways: resemblance, contiguity, cause/effect. It's interesting to note that, at least for now, he's simply asserting that there's no innate ideas. Why couldn't one simply assert the opposite and land on equally shaky ground? Just because ideas might be conjoined from memories/impressions doesn't mean they were, and even if they were that doesn't mean they're false. One scientific way to get at this is through child psychology - and I know they've found some pretty remarkable suggestions of basic ideas in infants as young as a few months old ("objects shouldn't pass through each other, but collide", for example). It'll be good to get more into this, especially since many believe Hume is the major influencer in contemporary philosophy.

Federalist Papers #78-79 - Alexander Hamilton: 78) Now proceed to the judicial department. We're seeking to improve previous errors in 1) mode of appointment; 2) judges' tenure; 3) judicial authority. Judges "are to hold their offices during good behavior". It is the weakest of the three branches and holds neither "the purse" nor "the sword", therefore it's in "continual jeopardy of being overpowered". Need complete independence of judiciary if it is to act to limit government actions according to the Constitution, of which they are an extension. Thus they are the people acting to limit the delegates of the people (legislative). Permanent appointments grants judges independence. Few will qualify for the job. 79) Need a "fixed provision for their support" to ensure their independence. Their salaries can't be diminished during their terms, but can be raised because they won't be corrupted by that because they already have permanent tenures. They can be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. Seems to imply he's only talking about the Supreme Court. I suppose subsidiary courts will come next. He also seems to have no concept of the "living document" method of Constitutional interpretation that is currently in vogue. Interesting.

On the Loadstone - William Gilbert, Book II, Ch. 1-7:  There are five types of magnetic movements: coition (attraction), direction, variation, declination, revolution - but now we're only talking about the first. There's a difference between the magnetic attraction of a loadstone and the electrical attraction of amber (and other stones when rubbed). Electrical attraction comes from humours trapped inside. "Loadstone attracts only magnetic bodies; electric attracts everything." Electric bodies "give" something to each other without touching and water enhances this. Magnets attract because of their "formal efficiencies or rather by primal native strength", not from primal emanations. Magnetic strength comes from outside and inside. Fire destroys this "form" of loadstone by "confusing" it, then it later is restored when cooled. "Poles are dominate in virtue of the force of the whole." Force always pulls (even internally) to the poles - right line at the poles, oblique elsewhere. This pull exerts equidistant around stone in all directions. Again, not the most concise. Interesting about amber - especially the theory of its origins: we find it on the beach so it must come from the sea - it has insects because it washed up once, trapped them, then out and back again. Distinguishing magnets from sources of static electricity seems a great place to start.

Politics - Aristotle, Book I: Mankind always seeks what they think is good; political communities seek the highest good. Government started from families, but is different in kind from families. Only man seeks morality, government. The state is prior to the family as the whole is prior to the parts. Justice is the bond of the state. Household management involves slaves and freemen - need property and "art of getting wealth". Slave is a living possession, belongs to another man by nature. Man naturally has superiors/inferiors and superiors naturally rule (i.e. slavery is "both expedient and right"). Rule over slaves is monarchy, over freemen constitutional rule. Art of household management is limited by needs of household; it's not the same as wealth-getting, which is limitless and guided by men's limitless greed. Retail trade/bartering is unnatural use of objects (i.e. shoes, which are made for feet, not exchange). Some trade is necessary, too much bad. Objects are too heavy to carry around so people coined objects of "intrinsic value" like iron, silver, etc. Father's rule over children is royal, over wife constitutional. All, including women, children, slaves, can be virtuous, but only freemen fully. Slave only virtuous in things that prevent him from failing in his duty. Amazing example of taking what existed (i.e. life in the ancient world), assuming it's normal, then applying a deductive teleological method to explain it all. Not very popular today (the latter really, not the former). The main problem, as I see it, is his assumption that the world he was seeking to explain was "normal" (as opposed to abnormal). If man is morally fallen, then entire social structures are going to be the product of that sin (i.e. slavery, the need for the state in the first place, etc.).

Here's next week's readings:

1. Moby Dick by Herman Melville, Ch. 23-39  (GBWW Vol. 48, pp. 48-77)
2. “The Power Within Us” by Haniel Long (GGB Vol. 6, pp. 246-261)
3. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume, Sections IV-VII (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 458-478)
4. Federalist #80-81 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 234-242)
5. On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies by William Gilbert, Book II, Chapters 8-39 (GBWW Vol. 26, pp. 43-59)
6. The Politics of Aristotle, Book II (GBWW Vol. 8, pp. 455-471)

(Y1 W46) Call Me Ishmael

We get to finish another volume this week, this time it's the tenth volume of the GGB set (philosophy). Not to fear, there's still lots left in the big set. Whew!

Moby Dick - Herman Melville, Ch. 1-15: When Ishmael gets depressed, he goes to sea. He arrives in New Bedford and stays at the Spouter Inn, but the only bed available is one he can share with a harpooner. When he's in bed the harpooner comes in and Ishmael realizes he's a savage from the south Pacific - Queequeg's his name. He stays anyway (reluctantly) and goes to a local church the next morning (Queequeg's there also) where he hears a sermon on Jonah and the whale - highlighting the sin of all men and the responsibilities of the shepherds of God's people. Ishmael soon becomes good friends with Queequeg, sharing his pagan rituals with him because it's what Jesus would want. Queequeg tells how he was a prince on his island but stole aboard a passing ship because he wanted to see Christendom and learn its ways to benefit his people. When he sees how horrible the sailors act, he doesn't want anything more to do with Christianity. He goes with Ishmael aboard a ship to Nantucket when a sailor (angered at Queequeg) goes overboard. Queequeg dives in and saves him. They arrive in Nantucket and stay at an inn run by the last inn-keeper's cousin. Beautifully written. Flows better (I think) than Billy Budd. I'm trying to figure out what he's saying about Christianity. The sermon painted it in a favorable light, then everything with Queequeg (and Ishmael's responses) went the other direction. I'm wondering if the Jonah sermon is going to come back later.

Fabius and Pericles Compared - Plutarch: Pericles ruled in a time of peace and prosperity, Fabius in the most difficult of times. Pericles built and adorned, Fabius held up. Fabius had "strength of purpose more than ordinary". Pericles won more battles, but no action can be compared to Fabius' rescue of Minucius. Fabius was outstretched by Hannibal, Pericles had no such rival. Pericles had greater foresight of failure than Fabius. Both were unyielding to enemies. Pericles had an incorruptible nature, Fabius ransomed his troops with his own money. Pericles erected more great structures than Rome ever has. Good comparison as far as one can, it seems. Again, where's Hannibal?

The Energies of Man - William James: There's something real, but unexplainable in the idea of a "second wind". We all have untapped energy ("power") deposits that come out upon meeting with certain stimuli. Maximizing our everyday energy is a personal and national goal. Main questions: "1) What are the limits of human faculty in various directions? 2) By what diversity of means...may the faculties be stimulated to their best results?" Most people only use a fraction of their power habitually. "Habit neurosis" makes us stop activities. Stimuli to overcome this includes excitements, ideas, efforts. Certain ascetic practices (like Yoga) can habitually train us to use more of our power. You see early glimpses of things as diverse as the self-help movement and evolutionary psychology here. It is an interesting and worthwhile observation about "maximizing our potentials". It's also odd to see that even as early as the late 19th century, the intelligentsia is already running past naturalism to mysticism. Would they say that the mystic practices suggested fit comfortably into a naturalistic worldview...as natural phenomena?

Federalist Papers #75-77 - Alexander Hamilton: 75) The power to make treaties (executive with the advice and consent of the Senate) falls under neither the executive nor the Senate's stated duties - so, this combined approach is best. If the Senate has the power alone, the executive is taken out of foreign negotiations. The nature of treaties is better suited to one man, not a group. 76) If nominations of ambassadors, judges, etc. were left to the people it would be too much to ever get done. President wouldn't be tempted by bargaining in the way Senate members would be. Option for Senate to override executive is a good check on him. 77) Cooperation of appointments would give stability to administration. Changes due to new administration won't be so chaotic then. This setup restrains the executive, it doesn't give him extra power over the Senate. Another section exemplifying their concern for checks on potential corruption/incompetency.

On the Loadstone - William Gilbert, Preface and Book I: Not much known about the loadstone (magnet), though it's been consistently mentioned by philosophers since antiquity. Most of what they say is wrong, except for the mere fact of the magnet's attraction to iron. Magnets are dug up all over the world. A magnet has two poles by nature that are best discovered when the magnet is a sphere. The poles are north (N) and south (S), like those of the earth. The N of one attracts the S of another. Cut a magnet in half and a new N and S appear - each magnet retaining two poles. It attracts iron as well as smelted metal. Iron is the best, most available metal in the world. Iron can be magnetized, but can weakly attract other iron anyway. Most medical claims for magnets are wrong - except steel powder can serve as a "remedy in diseases arising from humour". Magnets and iron are one and the same thing. Earth is a giant magnet and spins in its orbit because of its magnetic properties. The magnet "contains the supreme excellencies of the globe". Good reasoning so far, even if his presentation is a bit pompous. Only a few experiments are given and the discussion isn't so dense...so far.

St. Thomas Aquinas - Henry Adams: He was born in 1226 or 1227 of Norman and Swabian families - "in him the two most energetic strains in Europe met". His Summa was never finished, like the Beauvais Cathedral. He was a Dominican who undertook to build a "Church Intellectual". He's been sainted and the Summa is now official Catholic doctrine. He built his new structure on Augustine and Aristotle. Said God must be concrete, not merely a human  thought, so He must be proved by the senses. Needed an "intelligent fixed motor" at the source of all things. At the foundation was evidence of design. God is Thought, Love actualized in the Trinity. God is the only real cause, no real secondary causes. A person is created anew - mind and matter at once; a fusion of unity/universal with multiplicity/individual. "The soul is measured by matter", thus angels are universals. What is man? Man is not an automaton. God is free before he acts. Society insists on both man's freedom and God's/reality's unity. Man not "free" in that he is unrestrained - lest he be God. Man "reflects" and thus acts as agent, but is impressed upon by God. God gives more "energy" (i.e. grace) to some. Hard not to call it pantheistic. Science itself seeks a pantheistic unity in its pursuit of unified principles. Thomas's work is reflected in the architecture of his day. Since then philosophy/theology has become disjointed by learning more about the complex world around us. I agree on the last part, but not necessarily on the cause. Like Santayana, Adams had complex and sometimes vague imagery. It makes one admire the lofty system Thomas created, but a bit cautious when you see the risks involved.

Here's this week's readings:

1. Moby Dick by Herman Melville, Ch. 16-22  (GBWW Vol. 48, pp. 31-48)
2. “Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol” by Edmund Burke (GGB Vol. 7, pp. 237-271)
3. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume, Sections I-III (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 451-458)
4. Federalist #78-79 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 229-234)
5. On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies by William Gilbert, Book II, Chapters 1-7 (GBWW Vol. 26, pp. 26-43)
6. The Politics of Aristotle, Book I (GBWW Vol. 8, pp. 445-455)

(Y1 W45) Lives of the Noble Carthaginians?

Hi. Sorry I'm late this week. Here's another happy summary of readings from this past week. Feel free to let me know your thoughts.

The Merchant of Venice - William Shakespeare: Antonio - the merchant - backs a loan to his friend Bassanio from Shylock the Jew - a bitter rival of Antonio. Bassanio uses the money to court rich heiress, Portia, who loves him in return. The kicker: if Bassanio defaults, Shylock gets to take a pound of Antonio's flesh. Antonio's hears his ships have all wrecked and he can't back the loan. Bassanio passes the tests to win Portia and they marry, but Shylock doesn't want the money to be paid back by them - he wants Antonio's flesh. Portia dresses up like a judge at the trial before the Duke and points out that it's his right to have the pound, but he can't take a drop of blood...and Shylock's guilty of conspiracy to murder. His life is spared but he must give an inheritance to his runaway daughter. Portia takes Bassanio's wedding ring as payment, then later (dressed as herself) scolds him for giving away the ring. Antonio says he'll back another one as his ships have now come in and she reveals that she was the judge all along playing a trick on everyone. Ha-Ha-Ha. Shakespeare loves to play dress-up confusion. It's like Three's Company meets Scooby-Doo, except it's the good guys that take their masks off at the end, not the bad guys. I know this is a controversial play, but it seems like it didn't have to be. If he just made Shylock a run-of-the-mill Venetian rival to Antonio instead of a Jew, the story still works (mostly). I wonder how this played into the stereotypes of the Elizabethan British. It's a great exploration of justice and mercy at any rate.


Fabius - Plutarch: (c.270-203 B.C., Roman): Born of a distinguished family. He disciplined himself for war and public oration. Was five times consul. When Hannibal - the famous Carthaginian general - invaded Italy, his advice: taunt him, but don't engage him - he'll always win ("let the force and vigor of Hannibal waste away and expire"). Flaminius falls to Hannibal, Fabius chosen as dictator. He is criticized for his strategy and called a coward, but Hannibal understood it and sought to engage him. Fabius almost got him when he made a mistake and got himself into a compromised position, but he escaped at night with a clever plan of tying torches to cattle and stampeding them. Fabius' Roman rival gets an equal command with Fabius and leads a foolish attack against Hannibal. Fabius rescues him in a daring expedition and he repents and submits to Fabius. Varro attacks Hannibal, but is engulfed and wiped out by his half-moon formation. All this, but Hannibal refuses to attack Rome itself: "You know, Hannibal, how to gain a victory, but not how to use it" says his men (and history). Fabius has some more minor victories but opposes Scipio's plan to attack Carthage itself in Africa. Romans go with Scipio; he leaves and attacks with a small band, Hannibal recalled to Africa but is defeated by Scipio. Fabius dies a poor man before it's all over. Why wasn't this story entitled "Hannibal"? Fabius is fine, but clearly Hannibal's the star here. Was it a Roman prejudice or did Plutarch just want to stick with the Grecians and Romans? Again, we see here how Plutarch values moderation under stress.

The Study of Mathematics - Bertrand Russell: All activities deserve the question: "What is its purpose and ideal?" This is lost in the instruction of many subjects in favor of rote memorization - math included. Math "possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty - a beauty cold and austere". One chief aim in math instruction is to "awaken the learner's belief in reason" (gives his thoughts on teaching algebra, geometry, calculus). The idea of "unity in method and systematic development of a central theme" must be relayed, not getting bogged down in mere "curiosities". Symbolic logic of the nineteenth century gave more substantial underpinnings to mathematics. Math is not subjective, but reflects a reality outside our own minds, and is therefore a safeguard against skepticism. We're also independent of math as particulars are independent of generalities. Utility of math is secondary. Great pep talk for teachers to keep focus on why they're teaching math. Echos concerns of earlier writers we read about math as a means only, and the idea of the general vs. the particular.

Federalist Papers #70-74 - Alexander Hamilton: 70) A feeble executive means feeble execution. What are the ingredients that make up the executive's vigor? Need unity - can't have sharing of the office or subjecting it under another branch/group. This would destroy both noble aspirations and accountability. 71) Executive needs duration of his term to enact agendas. Short duration would make him dependent on the whims of the people and be a weak counterpoint to the legislative. 72) Administration of government mostly comes down to the executive branch. If executive's office is short-lived, so are the terms of all the administrators he appoints, which would be chaotic. Don't want to lose their experiences either. 73) Legislature has no power over a current executive's salary, etc. He also has a veto power over their bills. 74) War, of all things, needs a single commander-in-chief. Pardons "should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed" because responsibility is largest "in proportion as it is undivided". The style of the age sometimes gets wordy, but this is good reasoning. I see a great and continuous emphasis on the fact that anyone can become corrupted. I do wonder that if the Constitution was written today this would be lost on people who primarily are thinking about limiting the opportunities of their culture-war adversaries.

Motion of the Heart - William Harvey, Ch. XII-XVII: XII) Arteries don't receive blood from veins. Blood flows in continuous cycle to all extremities. People faint from blocked blood flow. XIII) Valves exist in veins, but not in arteries. They open in one direction and have two parts that meet in the middle. They're there to let blood flow only from greater to lesser veins - they help veins bring blood to the heart. XIV) It's necessary to conclude that blood circulates by means of the pulse - "sole and only end of the motion and contraction of the heart". XV) Heart is the "principle of life". It brings nutrition, "energy", and heat to the extremities. XVI) Poisons, bites, etc. pass throughout body by circulating blood as do topical applications. Returning blood also carries impurities to the liver. XVII) Not all animals have a heart, larger ones do to propel blood. Fibrous bands are within the heart that help it contract - called "neurons" by Aristotle ("contracting elements"). Their strength and density varies greatly in people, but is always stronger on the left. Arteries differ from veins in thickness so they can sustain the shock of the pulse. Heart and lungs are the "storehouse and the workshop of the (blood's) last perfection". Given that last point, he never really got to the function of the lungs. He constantly exhibits a trust in the existence of a function for everything - "thus nature, ever perfect and divine, doing nothing in vain". How crucial was that to his studies and wherever did he get this idea from?

Protagoras - Plato: Socrates recounts a conversation with the sophist, Protagoras. He visits a friend's house, whom Protagoras is going to instruct, and asks Protagoras if virtue can be taught, thinking himself that it can't. Protagoras gives the myth of Prometheus as the origin of both fire and the mechanical arts, but Zeus kept political wisdom for himself.  He did give everyone "reverence and justice" to order the cities so it can be taught by everyone, like language. Socrates asks whether virtue is a whole - of which justice, temperance, holiness are only parts - or whether they're just different names for the same thing. He answers that they are parts to a whole like the parts of a face - five there are, but only four are similar to each other and the fifth (courage) is different because a bad person can be courageous in evil. Socrates shows evil people can't be courageous - only the virtuous, and that is based on knowledge. And because it's based on knowledge, virtue can be taught. To my modern eye, this one was sorely in need of an editor's scalpel, mostly where the "rules of the discussion" dragged on. It is interesting how cordial, yet tense the conversation was. So, people are viceful because of ignorance. What if someone just doesn't want to be virtuous? What if they're happy with their viceful pleasure, no matter how ignorant you (Socrates) tell them they are?

Here's next week's readings:

1. Moby Dick by Herman Melville, Ch. 1-15  (GBWW Vol. 48, pp. 1-31)
2. “Fabius and Pericles Compared” by Plutarch (GBWW Vol. 13, pp. 154-155)
3. “The Energies of Men” by William James (GGB Vol. 7, pp. 157-170)
4. Federalist #75-77 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 222-229)
5. On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies by William Gilbert, Preface and Book I (GBWW Vol. 26, pp. 1-25)
6. “Thomas Aquinas” by Henry Adams (GGB Vol. 10, pp. 422-461)

(Y1 W44) Separation of Church (Authority) and State (Authority)

The Lifted Veil - George Eliot: An old man predicts his upcoming death and looks back over his life. Was a second child, unloved by his father who didn't understand his sensitive nature. But he was a "poet without a poet's voice". Visited in school by his father when he starts having visions of things to come, including meeting a young girl. He later meets the girl - Bertha - and faints. She is the neighbor's niece who is expected to be engaged to his brother. The boy becomes infatuated with her though, partly because she's the only one whose mind he can't read (literally). She doesn't help much by frequently (sarcastically) flirting with him. He then has a vision of a "moment of hell" where they're married in the future and she hates him. His brother dies and he ends up marrying her. He stays "in her power" because he can't see beyond "the veil" to read her mind, always imagining it to be something of great depth. Later the veil is lifted and he sees into her mind that "the darkness had hidden no landscape from [me], but only a blank prosaic wall"; yep, she really is a horrible person. They slowly grow apart. When their maid lays dying she reveals Bertha was planning to kill him. They've since lived separately. Beautiful writing; horrible people! I wasn't quite as shocked by the ending as maybe Eliot's contemporary readers might have been. Here's a lesson to young men overly taken with a pretty face: if anyone ever says something like, "a little quiet contempt contributes greatly to the elegance of life," RUN! Don't stop to try and figure it out (same goes for the girls).

Pericles - Plutarch: We want to study great men because they teach us virtue. Pericles born of the noblest birth on both sides around the time of the Persian wars. Early on given "weight" and elevated in Athens by Anaxagoras. Some say he was pompous. He joined the "party of the people" and then intentionally became aloof because "in intimate familiarity an exterior of gravity is hard to maintain". Superior orator, out-spoke Thucydides. Rivalry with him and Cimon that later balanced Athens' two parties: party of the People and party of the Few. He "let loose the reins of the people" so they would like him and later sent Athenians out to colonize to "discharge the city of an idle...busy, meddling crowd". He built great public buildings and works amid accusations. Finally threw out his rival, Thucydides, and held all power. Then he became more strict. He had a "manifest freedom from every kind of corruption". Tensions rose with Lacedaemonians. Pericles had success in war but wouldn't let it become lust for Athenian foreign conquests. Peloponnesian war broke out after he conquered the Samians, largely because of Pericles. Lacedaemonians invade Athenian territory. Pericles waits, then sends fleet to Peloponnese and attacks. Plague takes Athens, and elsewhere. Athenians oust Pericles and later want him back. The plague gets him too. People praised him for his moderation, purity in stressful times, "'for', said he, 'no Athenian, through my means, ever wore mourning'". This bio was much more subtle and intricate than previous ones we've read from Plutarch. One common character lesson Plutarch has emphasized is the ability to stay calm and principled in incredibly stressful times. Knowing it's a virtue is easy, but being able to actually pull it off can get you a spot in Plutarch's hall of fame.

A Letter Concerning Toleration - John Locke: Specifically, the letter addresses "mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion", which is, to him, the true mark of a church. True religion is about "regulating of men's lives according to the rules of virtue and piety...[men] make war upon [their] own lusts and vices". It is a mistake, therefore, to persecute in the name of religion. "I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other." Civil government is about outward things, specifically protection of property and civil rights; "religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind". Church is a free and and voluntary society for the public worship of God and the salvation of souls. Nobody is born a member of a church. Churches are free to make/enforce their own laws, which should only concern the two ends of worship and salvation, so force is never needed. The Christian church is supposed to be persecuted, not do the persecuting. The church therefore is utterly distinct from the government as any voluntary association is. There is nowhere for rulers to appeal to for "authoritative" interpretations of Christianity. Church rites that violate civil laws are already illegal, all else should stay legal. Israel was a special case because God himself was the ruler. Government can't inhibit preaching if no civil rights violated. What of laws that force you to violate your conscience? Obey your conscience always. Jews, Muslims, Pagans to be tolerated, but not atheists because God is the basis of all contracts, etc. Not being tolerant of other religious viewpoints is what caused the religious wars, not the diversity of opinion. Heresy is separation made over something not explicitly in the Scriptures. Schism is separation based on worship practice. (Mostly) great display of religious toleration and what lead to the idea in the West. It's not an accident that it's a Protestant with a Calvinist background that is writing this. He's talking about a distinction between the sphere of church authority and the sphere of state authority. Modern secularists can mistakenly read him as making a distinction between "Christianity in toto" and "the secular state" (which, reading what he says about atheists should dispel, though it's shocking for different reasons!). He's quite (and admirably) consistent with our earlier readings of his on state from a few weeks ago, but his methodology implies that the bible has no input on the operations of the state, which it does. His heresy definition seems way too strict - anyone leaving one church for another would be a heretic! 

Federalist Papers #67-69 - Alexander Hamilton: 67) Executive branch has received great criticism likening it to the British monarchy. One complaint is that the president appoints stand-in senators during recesses. But these appointments expire at the end of their next session. The president's ordinary powers of appointments are shared with the Senate. 68) The means by which the president is himself appointed to office is the least criticized. The people of the various states choose their own electors. Candidate with majority of votes is president. VP chosen in the same way. 69) Characteristics of the executive. Single man elected for 4 years, open to being re-elected ad infinitum. He can be impeached, removed, punished (unlike British king). Is limited in influencing bills, military, granting pardons. He can receive ambassadors, appoints both them and judges, but only jointly with Senate. He possesses "more or less power than the governor of New York" does. And "there is no pretense for the parallel...between him and the king of Great Britain". Reading this you can see them starting with monarchy as a model for the presidency, then limiting it where they saw abuse. Other changes from what's defended here include means of election and limitations on president/VP terms.

Motions of the Heart - William Harvey, Ch. VI-XI: VI) Most anatomists restrict their investigations to deceased humans. Had they worked with live animals, these matters would be cleared up. The fetal heart is different from the adult. VII) Consumed water passes through the liver, kidneys, bladder without a "pulse" pushing it. Valves in the heart prevent two-way passage of blood. VIII) Here's a novel idea concerning the quantity of blood, though it may be unpopular: blood is not ever-generated anew, it circulates and recycles "to recover its state of excellence or perfection". Arteries carry blood from the heart to the body, veins actually bring it back to the heart (contrary to what's currently thought). IX) He calculates that the amount of blood pumped by the heart in a given time far exceeds the input needed to make the blood. The standing amount of blood in a body can be demonstrated by how fast butchers can drain blood from animals. The heart keeps pumping blood after the lungs fail in a dying person, which is why you see air in the arteries after death. X) One can initiate two kinds of death in a snake heart: "extinction from deficiency (of blood) and suffocation from excess". XI) Ligatures (tourniquets) can be used to demonstrate the prevention of circulation in animals and humans. Such a basic observation overlooked because everyone was looking at only one species (human) and thus only one state (deceased), as opposed to live animals. Surely the car's engine looks different after it's broken than when it works. I enjoy this, but parts make me queasy!

On the Nature of Things - Lucretius, Book VI: We must be rid of the fear of sickness and death by "the aspect and laws of nature". Thunder comes from clouds through seeds of fire from the sun; all things are heated by motion. Thunderbolts consist of "small and smooth elements" that "break or pull the knots and untie the bonds of union". They don't come from gods. Clouds form by aggregates and mix with water, releasing rain caused by wind or their own density. Earthquakes come from "air gathering" in subterranean caverns. Volcanoes come from wind and air heating rocks in mountains. The Nile rises and falls from winds or excessive rains. Hot springs and toxic lakes come from noxious seeds. Magnetism works by opening a void between "magnetic rock" and metal, through which the metal is pulled/pushed. Disease comes from "seeds...conducing to disease and death" that rise up in clouds and blow away, therefore varying between climates. Plague can be so harassing that we forget about the gods. He seemed to peter out at the end. I guess it wasn't the bang I was expecting.

Here's next week's readings:

1. The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare  (GBWW Vol. 24, pp. 406-433)
2. “Fabius” by Plutarch (GBWW Vol. 13, pp. 141-154)
3. “The Study of Mathematics” by Bertrand Russell (GGB Vol. 9, pp. 84-94)
4. Federalist #70-74 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 210-222)
5. An Anatomical Disquisition on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals by William Harvey, Chapters XII-XVII (GBWW Vol. 26, pp. 292-304)
6. Protagoras by Plato (GBWW Vol. 6, pp. 38-64)