(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)