(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)