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:
- Moby Dick by Herman Melville, Ch. 1-15 (GBWW Vol. 48, pp. 1-31)
- “Fabius and Pericles Compared” by Plutarch (GBWW Vol. 13, pp. 154-155)
- “The Energies of Men” by William James (GGB Vol. 7, pp. 157-170)
- Federalist #75-77 (GBWW Vol. 40, pp. 222-229)
- On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies by William Gilbert, Preface and Book I (GBWW Vol. 26, pp. 1-25)
- “Thomas Aquinas” by Henry Adams (GGB Vol. 10, pp. 422-461)
No comments:
Post a Comment