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.
- “White Nights” by Fyodor Dostoevsky (GGB Vol. 3, pp. 276-319)
- “The Character of Socrates” by Xenophon (GGB Vol. 6, pp. 223-226; Book IV, Chapters VII-VIII of Memorabilia)
- Second Treatise on Civil Government by John Locke, Ch. XVI-XIX (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 65-81)
- Federalist #64-65 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 195-200)
- “On Ancient Medicine” by Hippocrates (GBWW Vol. 9, pp. 1-17)
- The Way Things Are (or On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, Book IV (GBWW Vol. 11, pp. 43-58)
No comments:
Post a Comment