(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)