American Illiterati

LSAT

2011-12-04T20:18:00.000-08:00

How many a man has dated a new era in his life from the reading of a book. ~Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Yesterday I took the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). I have been studying about 10-20 hours a week for the last 10 weeks and I took 17 practice tests. Basically this was my only "hobby" for the last three months and I had very little time to read anything worth blogging about. I am anxious to get back on my reading schedule now that I do not have this exam looming over me.

Although there are many factors involved, reading the Great Books of the Western World, especially the recent series on Law and Government, has influenced my decision to study law. It seems ironic that I have not had time to keep reading the GBWW because these books encouraged me to spend time studying for a law school entrance exam. Furthermore, if I do go to law school, I doubt I will have any time to read the GBWW for at least 3 years. However, I still find it interesting how reading a few books can significantly affect your life.

Camus and the Absurd

2011-09-13T06:59:00.000-07:00

Death makes life absurd. For Camus, the Absurd is a philosophical concept to understand the conflict between the rational mind and the large, uncaring universe. It is difficult for us to accept that we do not matter, that Good is not always rewarded, Evil is not always punished, and that we will eventually be wiped clean from the surface of the earth - like we never existed.  The absurd doesn't exist because there is no God, it would exist even if there was a God.

For Camus, understanding the Absurd is to confront the meaninglessness of life.  Death is a certainty, but we must act as though life has meaning.   Our only salvation from this despair and nihilism comes through taking responsibility for our lives. Living the Absurd comes down to these tenets:

1. To confront the meaninglessness of life
2.  Recognizing it is cowardly to kill oneself (we must live between hope and suicide)
3. We must act as if life had meaning (with "clown-like" distractions)
4.  Continue walking the tightrope between these extremes and we accept full responsibility for our lives

Life without meaning

Camus said that "Life will be more fully lived in so far as it has no meaning". Now man can "live out his adventure within the confines of his own lifetime" and recognize the "optimism without hope".

We are not abandoning ourselves to despair, but recognizing the futility of our existence. We are in a sense living a much more fulfilled life. To illustrate these, Camus uses the the Myth of Sisyphus.

Sisyphus was condemned by the gods to roll a stone endlessly up to the top of a hill, only to have it roll back down and to start his task all over again. Camus thought about the "pause" when Sisyphuss has to go back down the hill to collect the stone. It is at this moment when Sisyphus confronts the consciousness of his fate and acceptance begins. Even though his task is pointless (futile), this is Sisyphus's greatest strength and he has become a master of his own fate. The worst torture would be "the hope of succeeding".

Living the Absurd, above all, "means a total lack of hope (not the same as despair), a permanent rejection (not renunciation), and a conscious dissatisfaction (not a juvenile anxiety)"

If life has no meaning, why do we keep living?

Camus said, "There is only only really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide."

For Camus, to reconcile with the irrational, to commit suicide, "is a lack of understanding".

In the absence of a god (a divine judge) a human being becomes both the accussed as well as his own judge and has the right to condemn himself. A suicide "is prepared in the silence of the heart in the same manner as a great work of art". To die by one's own hand means recognizing "the lack of any serious reason for living...and the futility of suffering." However, living means "keeping the absurd alive. Keeping it alive is basically a question of observing it." Therefore, if one commits suicide they have chosen to reject the fact that they are living, which is irrational since only a living individual can commit suicide. Furthermore, they have not understood that the "meaning" of life is to live a "meaningless" life, living for the sake of living.

Camus: The Plague

2011-09-13T06:00:00.000-07:00

Can we have meaningful lives if we believe we will die tomorrow? Faced with the shadow of death, should we distract ourselves to avoid thinking about our mortality - or should we confront it? In The Plague, Albert Camus presents these questions in dramatic fashion when death is a constant companion. This novel describes the consequences of a plague in the French-Algerian city of Oran, circa 1940's. The government quarantines the entire city allowing no one in or out and people must endure the daily deaths without outside assistance. Many people wonder if they will ever see the outside world again, and their loved ones beyond the city walls.

Much of the novel focuses on how medical workers and common people adapt to this plague: the changes in society, the loss of freedom and the constant reminder of our mortality. The ability of these people to accept or ignore death can help them survive. It also sums up Camus's own philosophy of why we keep living when our own survival is finite. The difference here is that your death is not 40-60 years down the road, but right in front of you.

Characters

Dr. Bernard Rieux, the main character and narrator, is the first to recognize the plague in Oran. His wife left before the plague arrived and is therefore separated from him following the quarantine. Rieux spends the novel providing assistance to the sick and dying.

Father Paneloux tells the citizens that the plague is an act of God punishing them for their sinful nature. Many citizens flock to the churches. "But where some saw abstraction others saw the truth." However, as the plague worsens, Paneloux becomes disillusioned about why his god would allow such more suffering. Eventually Paneloux dies as well.

Cottard tries to commit suicide during the opening of the novel. Later, as the plague arrives, Cottard becomes a wealthy smuggler adapting well to his circumstances. However, when when the plague receedes, Cottard is unable to re-adjust to living in normal society.

Jean Tarrou is vacationing in Oran when the plague strikes, trapping him in the city. He is a stoic man and become a friend and helper for Dr. Rieux.

Rambert is a young journalist visiting Oran who is also trapped in the city following the quarantine. He seeks to escape so he can be reunited with his wife in Paris. However he begins to feel guilty about leaving Rieux and others in the city and changes his mind.

Confronting Mortality

One mechanism people use to cope with their imminent death is to give themselves distractions to keep them from confronting reality. Some of this is involves activity while in other cases it is letting their minds wander.

"The habit of despair is worse than despair itself...those who had jobs went about them at the exact tempo of the plague, with dreary perseverance."

The journalist Rambert was visiting Oran for his Paris-based paper and is now trapped by the plague. He tries to work with the bureaucracy at the Prefect's office to make an exception and let him leave, which they will not do. What is amazing about this scene is that despite the death and despair all around, the bureaucrats continued doing their jobs with mechanical efficiency, as if busying themselves with this almost meaningless work helps them avoid confronting the reality around them - that they could likely die any day.

Some people, in contrast, shifted aimlessly from hope to despair. "They drifted through life rather than living it, the prey of aimless days and sterile memories, like wandering shadows..."

In Tarrou's diary, he contemplates about how we can become more conscious of our time even while it is slipping away from us: "Querry: How to contrive not to waste one's time? Answer: by being fully aware of it all the while" This can be done by spending time in a dentist's chair, listening to lectures in an unknown language, lining up at the box-office of theaters and then not buying a seat, etc.

Freedom

Trapped in Oran, the citizens could still be "free" by imagining themselves with loved ones or in better situations, or by re-interpreting their situation. Even with many of their freedoms lost, people still had ways to be free.

"Hostile to the past, impatient of the present, and cheated of the future". It was like living in a prison where one's imagination was only thing to help you tick away the hours of your remaining life.

"...the bitter sense of freedom that comes of total deprivation". These are only memories, but you are completely free to imagine whatever you want.

Struggling against the inevitable

The doctor Rieux doesn't believe in god. "...if he believed in an all-powerful God he would cease curing the sick and leave that to leave that to Him" No one ever throws himself completely on divine providence. Rieux is actually "fighting against creation as he found it".

The order of the world is shaped by death and the plague only makes that more clear. For a doctor, life is "a never ending defeat". The victories never last. It is like Sisyphus pushing his rock up the mountain only to watch it tumble back down again.

Tarrou says in a sense we are all plague stricken with the desperate weariness of life. The key is to try and not infect others and keep ourselves busy with life's little distractions.

Camus: The Stranger

2011-08-28T18:46:00.000-07:00

The Stranger presents us with a most unusual character, Meursault, who seems completely apathetic toward society. The opening lines of this novel begin with his mother's death, which he seems to care little about:

"Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know."

This could be explained as Meursault merely being stuck with grief and unable to grasp his mother's death. However throughout the novel we can see Meursault weaving his way through life with the same indifference toward other people and toward life itself. Unless something directly affects him, Meursault takes very little interest in it. His reaction to his mother's death and his unemotional state at her funeral will later be used to condemn him at the end of the novel.

The Stanger takes place in sunny French-Algeria, pressed up against the Mediterranean Sea. Meursault attends his mother's funeral, returns home, relaxes at the beach and has casual sex with a girl he knows. What he remembers most about the funeral was being hot and uncomforable. This is perhaps what stands out most about Meursault, his need to satisfy his immediate physical requirements. If he is hungry he eats, if he wants to have sex he can find a girl, he smokes when he wants and finds pleasure in idle amusement. Meursault is not the kind of guy who would have a 401k plan, he does not think about long-term happiness or consequences, only immediate satisfaction for himself.

Meursault still has friends, holds down a decent job and the girl he slept with wants to marry him. However his apathy is apparent in all these situations. For example, his response to the girl is that it does not matter to him if he gets married, but if it makes her happy it it OK with him that they get married. When Meursault is offered the chance to relocate to Paris for work he does not seem to care, except that he would miss the sun and the sea.

Meursault is invited by one of his friends, Raymond, to spend some time at a beach house. While Meursault seems cool-headed and almost passionless, Raymond is the opposite, dressing in flashy clothes, having a violent temper and a loud personality. Raymond has upset some Arabs who are also staying on the beach and one of the Arabs cuts Raymond. Seeking to perhaps settle the score Raymond brings a gun with him to the beach, but even-keeled Meursault persuades Raymond to give him the gun. Meursault later finds himself alone on the beach when he confronts one of the Arabs, whom he kills with the gun.

The second half of the book focuses on Meursault's trial for murder. Most people seem to think that Meursault's trial will be dismissed as manslaughter, especially as another high profile case for patricide is making its way through the courts. However, when people learn of Meursault's shocking indifference at his mother's funeral he becomes regarded as some kind of sociopath, devoid of feeling for his fellow man. Meursault's conviction for murder becomes more about his apathy at his mother's funeral than for the killing the Arab on the beach.

There is no difference between dying now or 20 years from now. People won't even know that he has died or even lived today. It reminds me of my wedding day. It is one of the most important days in my life, but to almost everyone else it is just another Saturday. The tender indifference of the world.

Albert Camus

2011-08-19T18:31:00.000-07:00

Is life still livable if we know it is meaningless? If we can accept the banality and purposeless of life than why should we continue to exist? Can there be optimism without hope? These are the questions asked by Albert Camus (1913-1960), a French-Algerian author and philosopher. Camus has been labeled an existentialist, an appellation he and his friend John-Paul Sartre denied. However, Camus's writings clearly describe a division between "existence" and "essence" and our freedom to define our own lives, a hallmark of existential philosophy.

Perhaps reflecting his existentialist proclivities, Camus was a man of contradictions. He was born and raised in French occupied Algeria and supported the colonial policies of France. However he also called for greater equality with the native Arab population. Once a pacifist, he eventually joined French resistance against the Nazis and edited the paper "Combat". Camus joined the Communist Party only to abandon it later and decry the violence of the Soviet Union against the Hungarians in 1957.

My first exposure to Camus was watching Talladega Nights with Jean Girard (Sacha Baron Cohen) reading "The Stranger" behind the wheel of his Formula One car while racing Ricky Bobby (Will Farrel). I had absolutely no idea who Camus was, other than a Frenchman. I am a bit embarrassed to admit that now, but I have already stated I am "An Unread American". Besides "The Stranger", Camus's other great works include "The Plague" and "The Myth of Sisyphus". Camus received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1957, the second youngest recipient of that prize.

Roussseau: Democracy is for the gods

2011-07-30T19:12:00.000-07:00

Jean-Jacque Rousseau favored republics as the best form of government, although he did not think a pure democracy could be successful. Nevertheless, he did present several thoughts on what he thought a successful republic or democracy required.

Rouseau believed that John Locke's idea of a representative democracy would not work because the representatives would only support local interests and their own experiences and not work toward the "general will" of the country. He felt the best social contract is one in which everyone participates in politics. However, Rousseau's idea of a republic was even broader than Montesquieu's. Rousseau thought a "republican government" could be administered as a democracy (the many), an aristocracy (the elite few) or a monarchy (the one) as long as all the citizens could write the laws.

Given that Rousseau tolerates a monarchy it is not surprising that although he supports a republic he is not wedded to the idea of democracy being the best form of government.

"If we take the term [democracy] in the strict sense, there never has been a real democracy, and there never will be. It is against the natural order for the many to govern and the few to be governed....there is no government so subject to civil wars and intestine agitations as democratic or popular government, because there is none which has so strong and continual a tendency to change to another form, or which demands more vigilance and courage for its maintenance as it is..."

I would agree with Rousseau on his first point; there never has been a true democracy in any state larger than a small village. His second point is supported by Montesquieu who said that virtue and love of country are required for a successful democracy.

A real Greek democracy - how did that work?

"Were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men"

Rousseau is saying what many of us know. A pure democracy is not a reality, but something that we strive towards. It is an idea that takes continual work, dedication and discipline for us to approach this form of government, but it is the highest form of governance.

The Law According to Rousseau

2011-07-28T19:04:00.000-07:00

Laws and the General Will

In Rouseau's republic, the people are the soveriegns. We make our own laws and we must obey them. The question is, how do we agree what laws to make? For Rousseau, the answer was the "general will" or the greater opinion. The general will is the will of all the individuals which is directed toward a particular interest. It is determined by voting and majority interests. I suppose the problem with Rousseau's idea would be whether it can protect the views of minorities.

"In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less that that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence."

But how can a citizen be free (have liberty) if he does something contrary to the general will? Rouseau says that "the question is wrongly put. The citizen gives his consent to all the laws, including those which are passed in spite of his opposition..." Therefore his freedom is having the ability to express his opinion and views along with others, but everyone needs to follow the general will.

"The general will is always right, but the judgment which guides it is not always enlightened...The individuals see the good they reject; the public wills the good it does not see. All stand equally in need of guidance. The former must be compelled to bring their wills into conformity with reason; the latter must be taught to know what it wills."

Who makes the first laws? The constitution?

Rousseau says that laws are "acts of the general will", therefore everyone makes the laws and everyone is subject to them. However, before there are laws and a constitution we need people of supreme character to write laws that they are not subject to or have the authority to write - like our Founding Fathers. Rousseau calls these people "legislatures".

"Thus in the task of legistlation we find together two things which appear to be incompatible: an enterprise too difficult for human powers, and, for its execution, an authority that is no authority.

Who can be one of the legendary lawsgivers from history? Who has the gravatis to be a Lycurgus (Sparta), Numa Pompilius (Rome) or Solon (Athens) ? Luckily we were able to find men like that in revolutionary America.

For legislators, religion can be useful tool for having your laws accepted by the masses. Rousseau quotes Machiavelli saying, "In truth, there has never been, in any country, an extraordinary legislature who has not had recourse to God; for otherwise his laws would not have been accepted: there are, in fact, many useful truths of which a wise man may have knowledge without their having in themselves such clear reasons for their being so as to be able to convince others:" (Discourses on Livy)

Of course using religion as a tool to promote your agenda is duplicitous and "Machiavellian", but it may be necessary for the "lawgiver" of a new country. Certainly invoking the name of "God" was important to our Founding Fathers as they laid the foundations of our government, even though many of them were quite apathetic towards religion.

Rosseau - The Social Contract

2011-07-25T19:01:00.000-07:00

"Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they."

These are the famous opening lines to Rousseau's book The Social Contract, a work that outlines the importance of equality and liberty in modern republican governments. The idea of subjugation would have been familiar to many of Rousseau's contemporaries. Most governments during Rousseau's time were absolute monarchies with very few rights for their subjects. This was true in Rousseau's day and for many previous centuries, as it was the only form of government most people knew. This left the common man subjugated by the ruling class, a system that Rousseau vehemently rejected. Instead he proposed two revolutionary concepts: the only legitimate government is a republic where people govern themselves and that all citizens enjoy equal rights under that government. Paradoxically, Rousseau later goes on to challenge us with the provocative idea that our subjugation to a state or an idea is actually necessary for us to be truly free.

Man in his "state of nature"

Rousseau's is critical of Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher who coined the idea of a "state of nature" before governments existed where life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes said that men will do anything to get out of the state of nature to protect themselves, even if that means living under a despot. Rousseau recognized the hypothetical idea of a "state of nature" but he did not think this justified the reason why man was now in chains, especially under absolute monarchs.

Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau thought that man did not need to completely submit himself to a sovereign - man should "remain as free as before". The solution in Rousseau's mind was the social contract: "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole." Therefore, the "chains" we live under is the "social contract". So man gives up freedom in a state of nature in exchange for freedom in a civil society.

Rousseau's Liberty and Equality

Rousseau said that the two most important ends of law are equality and liberty.

"What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses."

The cost of freedom is freedom

Rousseau's idea of "liberty" is a bit different than our current concept. He wrote about liberty stating that it "can consist only in the power of doing what we ought to will" which is not the same as doing whatever we please. However, this is similar to what Thomas Aquinas suggested in his Summa Theologica.

Rousseau thought that we only truly had liberty when were followed rules, even personal guidelines we have set for ourselves. Obedience to our own personal laws is liberty "for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty". Therefore, saying to yourself that you won't eat cookies after 10 pm at night gives you liberty, but breaking that rule to yourself takes away your liberty, since you are a literal slave to your appetites.

More equal than others?

The second pillar of Rousseau's social structure was equality, however, Rousseau also believed that excess equality could ruin a democracy. A successful democracy should protect every one's rights and give them the opportunity for happiness, but it should not try to force equality - sounds like capitalism!

The whole social system should rest not on destroying inequality, but on providing equal legal rights for everyone regardless of their innate intelligence or strength. "Under bad governments, this equality is only apparent and illusory: it serves only to keep the pauper in his poverty and the rich man in the position he has usurped. In fact, laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing: from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all have something and none too much."

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

2011-07-19T18:40:00.000-07:00

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was one of the most important political philosophers for the French Revolution (1789) and significantly influenced philosophers such as Kant, Hegel, Goethe, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Nietzsche, Marx and Engels among others. He also contributed to American ideas of equality and liberty.

Rosseau's thoughts on government propounded a popular sovereignty with equality and education for everyone. Although his writings did not contribute directly to the development of our Constitution as Montesquieu's had, Rousseau's ideas did have a profound impact on political thought in Europe and throughout the world.

Born in Geneva to a Swiss watchmaker, Rousseau's education began early under his father, reading Plutarch when he was only ten years old. Originally Rousseau was training to become an engraver. However at the age of sixteen he abandoned the trade and began a series of wanderings and adventures which he later described in the first six books of his Confessions. Hungry and homeless he eventually took refuge with a Catholic priest who introduced him to Madame de Warens, a woman known for her good works.

Converting to Catholicism, Rousseau began his formal education studying music, science, Latin and philosophy. He supported himself as a tutor and began writing a book on "political institutions". Rousseau eventually gained fame in 1749 for an essay he wrote: "Has the progress of the arts and sciences contributed more to the corruption of purification of morals?". He followed this in 1755 with the Discourse on Origin of Political Inequality, followed by Emile, on Education in 1758 and the Social Contract published in 1762.

Provocative works like these gave Rousseau literary street cred and financial rewards, but also earned the enmity of a great number of people. He was condemned by the French Parliament for Emile and caused him to flee to Prussia. Controversy followed him there and he was forced into exile in Berne, then fleeing again to England upon the request of David Hume. Later quarrelling with Hume, Rousseau fled back to France in 1767 where he was told he would be unmolested. He then spent the next nine years working on his autobiography and pursuing his former occupation of copying music.

Rousseau's ideas on education and political philosophy still reverberate to this day. In regards to principles of governance, The Social Contract and the Discourse on Origin of Political Inequality are still presented to students of political science as major works of historical and philosophical importance. His main treatise is that equality and liberty are central to a successful popular sovereignty.

Montequieu's Guide for Dictators

2011-07-18T18:34:00.000-07:00

Dictators have been around for as long as we have had civilization. How do these dictatorships arise? Do we ever have a need for dictators? How do they stay in power?

Some societies, such as republican Rome, actually had laws establishing temporary dictatorships in desperate times. In general, however, a dictator has concentrated all the government's power and this usually leads to bad governance and diminished liberty for the masses. There is rarely anything good about living under a dictatorship.

When is it appropriate to have a dictator?

Montesquieu clearly does not support despotic governments, but he does admit that a given group of people need to find the form of government that is best suited for their particular needs. The best government for a people depends on their own local situation (climate, industry, farming, religion, degree of liberty they can tolerate, manners, custom, commerce, etc). For example, Montesquieu states taxes can be lower in a dictatorship since people has less liberty. Conversely, democracies can tolerate the highest taxes because they have the greatest liberty.

Montesquieu also states that the size of the country is important. He states that it is, "the natural property of small states to be governed as a republic, of middling ones to be subject to a monarch, and or large empires to swayed by a despotic prince." Therefore a large country is easier to control as a dictator.

I once had a friend from Pakistan who was telling me about why her country would never have a true democracy. She said that it would just not work with their values. It is easy to say that Pakistan and other countries without pure democracies are backward. However, we have to recognize that democracy may not be the best form of government all the time, for everyone. There is probably a good reason why the people in Pakistan cannot tolerate that kind of liberty and freedom that other democracies enjoy. In fact the rest of the world may be better off having a less democratic Pakistan.

According to Montesquieu, the key to a successful despotic government is maintaining fear in your subjects. This is not a new idea; Machiavelli said that for a prince it was better to be feared that to be loved. If people do not fear you they may rise against your government. This is similar to the mutual fear that everyone has in the "state of nature". Therefore, maybe dictators provide true equality? No one is above suspicion....

Advantages to a dictatorship

Having Montesquieu's roles of executive, legislative and judicial concentrated in one individual allows the dictator to move decisively and unilaterally. This can be highly advantageous in desperate times, such as in war or when fighting a rebellion. Dictatorships are also useful for smaller countries as Montesquieu explains, "Thence it follows that petty states have oftener a right to declare war than great ones, because they are oftener in the case of being afraid of destruction." Therefore weaker states (Germany and Japan in WW2, North Korea today) are more likely to wage war because their needs require this and it is justified - and also a dictatorship helps.

Modern Dictators

There are many well-known dictators today (Kim jong il of North Korea; Bashar al-Assad of Syria; Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, etc). All these dictators need to maintain fear in the populace to retain power. Therefore, if they lose this attribute they will lose the ability to control to masses. An example of this is the "Arab Spring" in Syria and other countries. In Syria, Assad one day brutally suppressed protesters and the next day made vacuous concessions. He thereby diminished his ability to promote fear in the populace by weakening his position. The police have reflected this lack of authority by no longer issuing citations. A dictator can never appear weak, lack confidence or be reluctant to use force, as per Montesquieu.

Montesqueiu's Guide to Government

2011-07-16T15:00:00.000-07:00

While Montesquieu travelled Europe and studied history he examined many different forms of government and observed what characteristics made each successful. When writing The Spirit of Laws he divided these governments into different classes and judged what motivated the citizens of each government and how each one operated. In this process, Montesquieu created a new classification for governments. This differed slightly from Aristotle's system, long recognized as the predominant categorical platform for classifying governments. I have outlined the two systems below:

Click to Enlarge

Although it clearly influenced the development of our government, The Spirit of Laws is not necessarily written as a guide for producing a successful democracy. Montesquieu also explores others forms of government such as dictatorships, monarchies and republics.

Origin of government: Hobbes vs. Montesquieu

Before we had governments Thomas Hobbes said we lived in a "state of nature" where men were at constant war. Societies were established to protect our property and our rights from this struggle of man against man. For the development of government to occur we needed to surrender some of our liberty and freedom to a sovereign. We did this by agreeing to an unwritten covenant which we are not allowed to rebel against. In the process we have created a super-being, an artificial man (the prince) to rule over us and preserve our equality and rights by subjugating us. We are all equal because we are all equally subjugated.

Montesquieu did not agree with this idea of Hobbes. He believed that men formed governments out of fear and weakness and that no covenant was required. In addition, the people could be their own sovereign. Therefore there is no requirement to ennoble a single individual (the prince) with all this power.

Society takes away equality: Karl Marx vs. Montesquieu

In a "state of nature" all men are equal because they are all afraid. Even if a man is stronger he may not necessarily want to subdue others since he still fears for his own security. However, when we have formed a society this equality is lost - we are no longer equals since there is no common fear, and men may try using this to their advantage.

"As soon as man enters into a state of society he loses the sense of his weakness; equality ceases, and then commences the state of war". This is because individuals become aware of their own strengths and seek to use the state to further their desires. Thus the state needs to be constantly protecting equality by preserving liberty, something that an all powerful sovereign cannot do effectively. A good refute of Hobbes!
.

"In the state of nature, indeed, all men are born equal, but they cannot continue in this equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the protection of the laws." The inequality that inherently arises from society is something Karl Marx would have agreed with if he read Montesquieu a hundred years later. However, Marx did not want to counter inequality by granting more liberty and opportunities, but rather by suppressing those who had property (the bourgeoisie). So in comparing these two, Karl Marx wants to force equality while Montesquieu wants to give everyone the opportunity to acquire more.

Montesquieu made detailed observations on several different forms of government and in The Spirit of Laws and he outlines the characteristics of each.

A Guide for Monarchies

A monarchy is a society ruled by a sovereign that also has a class of nobles who help the king or queen maintain power. Both nobles and a strong clergy prevent the prince from slipping into despotism by holding him accountable. The main motivating force for a monarchy is "honor". The basic guidelines for a successful monarchy include: 1) Setting a value on fortune, not on life, 2) Not looking weak and never appeating inferior to your rank and, 3) Recognizing that honor overrides laws that do not concur with honor.

A Guide to Republics: Democracies and Aristocracies

The word "republic" has a nebulous definition in modern language. Montesquieu called both democracies and aristocracies republics, since both provide representation. A democracy has equal representation while an aristocracy is representation by the best or the elite of society. By this definition, our government in the US is largely an aristocracy.

Republics require continued self-sacrifice. The key to a successful republic is to make people love their government; make public interest more important than private. In contrast to an honor-loving monarchy, virtue is the key to a democracy and an aristocracy. A republic cannot tolerate avarice or reckless ambition. In a republic the lawmakers are subjects to their own rules and should therefore have a vested interested in producing the most fair and balanced laws. In the particular case of a democracy the people need to be educated so they can govern themselves and they must love equality as "...real equality be the very soul of a democracy", even if it is difficult to establish in exactness.

This being said, too much equality can destroy a democracy. "The spirit of inequality, which leads to aristocracy or monarchy, and the spirit of extreme equality, which leads to despotic power, as the latter is completed by conquest." The highest level of virtue and ability is required in the citizens of a pure democracy and that is rarely found. Therefore in a true democracy with perfect equality we will find ourselves subject to poor leaders and bad government.

Perhaps reflecting this, Montesquieu suggests that voting should be public so that, "The lower class ought to be directed by those of higher rank...". In contrast, he believes that votes in the senate ought to be secret to prevent intrigue. In our government the opposite is true, but it is interesting to imagine what it would be like if we had followed Montesquieu's advice in this regard.
.

Is an aristocracy better than a democracy?

Montesquieu says that "In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject." In a true democracy anyone can be chosen to direct the administration of the state (selected at random), but only the best are actually chosen as we have seen in ancient Athens. The Athenian law-giver Solon gave the citizens the option of being included in a lottery for a position as a senator or a judge. However, at the end of their tenure the people "elected" were then judged on how well they had done their job. Therefore you would not want to submit your name for a position by lot unless you were sure you were qualified. In addition, everyone had the right to accuse someone if he were found unworthy of office. This means that everyone had the option of being elected if they chose, but really only the best (or more confident in their ability) were selected. Therefore, ancient Athens was a proto- or pseudo-aristocracy. However, I do wish we held our politicians to same standards that then Athenians did.

I'm one of you...don't you trust me?

I believe America is an aristocracy, similar to ancient Athens, and I do not have a serious problem with that. Considering that we have "aristocrats" representing us in government, we can see how Montesquieu's next words of advice apply. We have all observed members of our aristocracy pretending to be "regular Joes" by riding motorcycles, drinking beers or wearing hardhats. They want to appear like us - the hoi polloi, the vulgar masses, when they are of course the ruling class. Montesquieu's advice is very apropos:

"Aristocratic families ought to therefore, as much as possible, to level themselves in appearance with the people. The more an aristocracy borders on democracy, the nearer it approaches perfection: and, in proportion as it draws toward monarchy, the more it is imperfect."

Continuing with the duplicitous theme: "When they affect no distinction, when they mix with the people, dress like them, and with them share all their pleasures, the people are apt to forget their subjection and weakness". Therefore the perception of inequality causes disorder in aristocracies and our leaders should appear to be "regular people" in order to successfully direct the majority.

Seperation of Church and State

Montesquieu says that in a republic ecclesiastic power is harmful for a republic, since it interferes with the people's will. This is in contrast to an monarchy where is plays a critical role in helping the sovereign stay in power. I imagine several of the Founding Fathers took this to heart where they were preparing our Constitution.

The Death of Democracy

Montesquieu says that many things indicate the decline of a republic or a democracy. For example, as the penalties for crime increases this correlates with a loss of liberty. Consider our laws against marijuana use; are they too strict or even useful? How about California's law of "Three Strikes" ? Are the penalties justified or are we concealing deeper problems in our society? Norway is held up as a model a democracy where citizens have cradle-to-grave health care, have a high standard of living and have almost no crime. Interestingly, the harshest penalty for a crime in Norway is 21 years! That's it! Montesequieu's words ring true here.

Montesquieu also states that republics often end in luxury while monarchies end in poverty. Perhaps the decadence of Republican Rome lead to its acceptance of a dictator. We should ask ourselves if our democracy end in luxury. Will this be in the wealthy or the masses? Perhaps it is like what Aristotle said about the important role of the middle class in maintaining a republic - equality is the key. As long as the middle class is taken care of, we will forget our subjugation by the aristocracy.

"It is a general rule that great rewards given to individuals in monarchies and republics are a sign of their decline; because they are a proof of their principles being corrupted, and that the idea of honour has no longer the same force in a monarchy, nor the title of citizen the same weight in a republic."

Of course since we live in aristocracy we should also consider Montesquieu's words here. An aristocracy is corrupted if the power of the nobles becomes arbitrary because then there is no virtue. "The extremity of corruption is when the power of the nobles become hereditary; for then they can hardly have any moderation." Therefore, we need to keep that "death tax" running to prevent our aristocrats from corrupting themselves.

Montesqueiu and the American Constitution

2011-07-14T19:45:00.000-07:00

Montesqueiu’s greatest contribution to our government is his outline for the separation of political power into three branches: the executive, legislative and judicial bodies.

James Madison

James Madison, while defending this principle, cited a lengthy quotation in Federalist Paper Number 47 which demonstrated this idea originated with Montesquieu. We can probably regard Madison as a reliable source as he is considered the "Father of the Constitution" as well as the Bill of Rights. The division and distribution of power from one body to several is not a new concept; the Greeks and Romans attempted similar schemes. What Montesquieu does is to fully investigate the reasons for this divestment of political power into multiple (three) branches and why it is required for maintaining a strong republic and preserving liberty.

In The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu states that government should consist of one body that makes laws (legislative), one that makes wars and peace, directs the military and foreign relations (executive) and one that punishes criminals (judicial). Montesquieu believed that many governments have become corrupt, weak or collapsed because too much power was invested in too few people, which is one reason for the distribution of power. In addition, concentrating power will naturally lead to decreased liberty for the masses.

"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty…Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive."

It is noteworthy that John Locke, discussed previously, proposed to separate power between a legislative and an executive. However, he retained the judicial powers with the executive.

Montesquieu also proposed checks and balances between the different powers. This included dividing the legislative power into two bodies.

“The legislative body being composed of two parts, they check one another by the mutual privilege of rejecting. They are both restrained by the executive power, as the executive is by the legislative." In addition, Montesquieu believed that the judicial power should decide court cases, not the executive, but the executive should be allowed to overrule the courts: for example by granting a pardon.

The Spirit of Laws also made several other contributions to our government:

No cruel and unusual punishments

Montesquieu cites the Valerian and Porcian laws passed in ancient Rome which exempted Roman citizens from degrading and shameful forms of punishment (such as scourging with rods or whips and crucifixion).

In addition, he believed that if punishments are too strict criminals would become "inured to the cruelty of punishments, would no longer be restrained by those of a milder nature". In other words, we should make the punishment fit the crime and not exceed it.

State Rights

We need strong provinces to have a strong republic, so let states have some control in their governance.

Freedom of speech

"It is not the words that are punished, but an action in which words are employed".

Therefore is OK to say you want to overthrow our government, but don’t actually try it.

Equal rights for women

Montesquieu supports suffrage for woman which he says can flourish in a republic and contribute to its success. "In republics women are free by the laws and restrained by manners". For example women had more rights in ancient Greece and this likely explains the success of that ancient government. Montesquieu also states that women make better leaders as they have "more lenity and moderation, qualifications fitter for a good administration than roughness and severity".

Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws

2011-06-21T20:00:00.000-07:00

The authors of our Constitution depended on the ideas and writings of Montesquieu more than any other single political thinker. No writer is more highly cited than Montesquieu by our Founding Fathers and he profoundly influencedThomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison. However, I expect most of us have never heard of him.

Montesquieu (1689-1755) was born Charles Louis de la Brède in the French area of Gascony near Bordeaux. Montesquieu took his name from his estate, just like another French political thinker from Gascony, Montaigne. Initially Montesquieu pursued interests in literature and science. However a tour of Europe observing local social and legal institutions inspired him to explore the deeper meanings of law, human rights and the purpose of government. Montesquieu distilled his thoughts in his book, The Spirit of Laws.

Montesquieu's work was largely criticized in his native France, but was embraced in Britain and the American colonies. The Spirit of Laws promoted the separation of government into three branches (executive, legislative and judicial powers) and the rights of all men. He also discusses at length the differences between governments such as republics, monarchies, and despotic regimes. Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws is a stark contrast from Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, which supports a strong, almost omnipotent central government. We therefore have an interesting juxtaposition of a Frenchman (Montesquieu) celebrating the British constitution and an Englishman (Hobbes) idolizing the French monarchy.

Shakespeare: King Henry IV part 1 & 2

2011-05-15T10:17:00.000-07:00

Henry IV of England

The next GBWW on political theory are Shakespeare's plays King Henry IV Parts 1 & 2, which seemed at first like an odd diversion from political philosophy. However, I can appreciate how these two plays complement the previous readings. In 1399 King Henry IV usurped the crown from his unpopular relative King Richard II. Henry IV then spent the remaining years of his life trying to suppress rebellions throughout his kingdom. One can imagine all the legal and political questions Henry IV has to address, not to mention the irony of having to suppress revolts similar to the one he participated in. What make those rebels different from Henry IV overthrowing Richard II? There is only one great difference: now Henry IV is the king.

Many of Shakespeare's plays deal with the overthrow of rulers, as for example Hamlet and MacBeth. Interestingly, both King Cladius in Hamlet and MacBeth have to worry about being overthrown, similar to Henry IV. The question should therefore be, "by what right does a king govern?" Hobbes and others would say by the majority consent, but he would add that no subject can rebel against a sovereign. John Locke and Thomas Aquinas would like counter that the rebellion of Henry IV against Richard II is justified since the former king does not maintain the common good. However, this is a delicate and subjective arguement. I think this is the most fascinating question raised by Shakespeare's interpretation of history. There is even some Machiavelli in King Henry's son, Prince John, who tricks rebel leaders into surrendering and then has them executed.

After King Henry IV dies his son, Prince (Hal) Harry, assumes the throne as Henry V. The transition is peaceful, but Shakespeare's description of Prince Harry's wild youth would make one wonder if he is ready for the responsibility of governing a kingdom. Fortunately Prince Harry will depend more on his royal council for guidance than on his previous drinking companions like Falstaff. It is this dual persona that I think it quite fascintating. Nearly everyone, including his father, feels that Prince Harry would rather spend his time in a bar associating with characters of ill repute rather than shouldering the burdens of a king. Even if Harry does become king, many fear he will bring ruin to England. However, as King Henry V, Prince Harry actually becomes one of England's greatest kings. Therefore, having spent his formative years in the association of commoners does not appear to have diminished in any way Harry's noble character or innate ability to lead. In fact he may be a greater king for having had these experiences.

The Leviathan and Political Philosophy

2011-05-11T07:50:00.000-07:00

It has always bothered me when, after the elections of Bush and Obama, people have stated that the elected president is not their president. Who is your president then? Personally, I do not care who you voted for, but this person now represents you, your country, and the voices of millions of Americans - just like Hobbes's Leviathan. However, I do recognize that it is perfectly acceptable for you to not recognize the ruling authority if you are willing to give up all the rights and privilages that come with American citizentry and return to Hobbes's "state of war".

Let's assume you decide to not recognize the president and make a partial return to an atavistic and brutal state of existance. What constraints would you now have your freedom? Hobbes says that liberty is inversely proportional to opposition. Therefore, if you are freed from rules that you do not recognize you will have almost unlimited freedom - not a bad deal.

What about good and evil? Hobbes says that "good and evil are names that signify our appetites and aversions". Therefore good is whatever you like and evil is whatever you do not care for. So far this is working out pretty well - I would say beer is good and mowing my lawn is evil.

Interestingly, Hobbes does addresss the rogue individual who decides to not recognize the soverign authority. To Hobbes, this is perhaps the most dangerous individual to the state because this person receives all the benifits of the state (protection from attack, excellent infrastructure, cheap food) while not contributing to its maintainence. That state can tolerate a few of these free-loaders, but too many will destroy the government.

This reminds me of a mixed population of bacteria where some express antibiotic resistance genes (e.g. beta-lactamase for penicillin). These proteins are metabolically expensive, but keep the bacteria alive in the presence of antibiotics. However, some bacteria do not express these factors but depend on the resistance factors of other bacteria to keep them alive (i.e. herd immunity). The non-resistant bacteria will grow faster, consuming more resources, until they begin to outcompete the resistant bacteria. At this point, there will not be enough resistance factors present to keep the bacteria alive and they will die. Hobbes describes something similiar when he talks about bees and ants living together. He says that these animals operate in a commonwealth because of instinct, although I think that there is probably some evolutionary pressure similar to my bacterial colony example.

Compared with other political philosophers

Hobbes is emphatic that for men the state of nature is a state of war and even in civilized times men could revert to a state of nature if the common authority that keeps men in "awe" is removed. However, Hobbes says that majority desire to live in a society with rules and restraints on our freedoms. Therefore the need to live in a commonwealth is a natural one and prefered. Aristotle would agree that men require laws to restraints to be perfected. Both philosophers also recognized that the State is a natural development that arises from man's need for peace and justice.

On justice Hobbes seems to come down on the side of Might makes Right, and since the soveriegn is the most powerful entity whatever he does is correct. Machiavelli would concur this, as would Thraymachus from Plato's Republic. However, Plato would say that we cannot always depend on the soveriegn being correct, just like a friend who has gone insane with a sword in his hand.

Regarding natural law, Thomas Aquinas would support some of Hobbes's ideas, but Aquinas places more emphasis on individual happiness and a true good, rather that just mere survival. To Hobbes's subjects, just being alive and protected under a soveriegn is enough to be happy.

Hobbes: Leviathon

2011-05-09T07:46:00.000-07:00

Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan to support the Royalist cause during the English Civil War. However, the thesis of Leviathan is more complex that just the supremacy of a sovereignover his people. There is also the agreement between individuals to sacrifice their own power and freedom to produce this overlord and the relationship between the sovereign (or assembly men) and the subjects. In many ways Leviathan is a perfect segue from my last reading, Machiavelli's The Prince. Where Machiavelli proposed how a prince should govern, Hobbes goes into the details.

Hobbes says that before we had government, we lived in a constant state of war where "every man is an enemy to every man". Everyone could act on their desires, depending on their own strength, taking whatever they wanted from any person. Of course the resources and energy required to maintain this struggle meant that there was no culture, trade, art or letters and no society - not to mention continual fear at being attacked. Of course these individuals did have interactions and were not always fighting. However, a state of fear permeated everything and there was no common authority to establish justice or safety.

Eventually small groups of people agreed to give up some of their freedom in exchange for security. Thus men would "lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself". So now we have people agreeing to not kill and steal from each other. However, who is going to enforce this covenant? What will be the "common power to keep them in awe and direct their actions to the common benefit"?

Hobbes says that individuals in this society must "confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will". This is the "artificial person" who unites all the people and maintains justice in that society. The Leviathan has supreme power and all individuals must consent to the will of the "common power". Not everyone will agree, but the will of the majority is represented and must be followed because "a kingdom divided in itself cannot stand". If someone living in this society decides not to follow the sovereign, they have broken the covenant and they relinquish all rights. These people have returned to a "state of war" and are no longer protected.

Charles II

Hobbes gives his sovereign almost absolute power, which reflects the monarchist spirit of the text.

For example:

- The covenant between the subjects makes the sovereign, but the subjects can never willingly change sovereigns. This is what gives the soveign his authority to rule over other men.

- The sovereign's will is absolute in civil law, war and peace and he can reward or punish subjects.

Although the soveriegn is almost omnipotent in a society, there are some limits on his power.

- Although the sovereign is the last word in justice he cannot force a man to testify (provide evidence) against himself - a hallmark of our Constitution (aka. "taking the Fifth")

- He cannot force a man to intentionally harm himself - sounds fair to me.

- He must protect his subjects. This is a biggie. If the sovereign cannot protect his people he has broken his agreement and the obligation of the people to this sovereign is nullified.

Thomas Hobbes

2011-05-07T17:14:00.000-07:00

I was excited to read the next GBWW book on political theory, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, a work that is widely recogonized for its contribution in the development of modern political thought. Before we had governments, Hobbes says, we lived in a "state of nature" where we were in constant war with each other. In this savage world we were in continual fear and the life of a man was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Governments were created to lift us out of this primitive condition and allow us to exist in peace. However, in exchange for protection against bodily harm and property loss, Hobbes says that people under a government must surrender some freedoms. The relinquished power of the masses is then invested into a single body or person, who becomes the "Leviathan", the singular power that governs and protects the state and maintains justice. The Leviathan represents the will of the people and is expressed in an artificially created man, a super-entity, a single person, such as a sovereign.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) lived at a time when the government and monarchy of England were under assault. Hobbes was born on the day of the unsuccessful invasion of England by the Spanish Armada. Later he witnessed the English Civil War (1642–1651) between supporters of Charles I and Parliament. Because of his association with the Royalist cause, Hobbes fled for Paris. While in exile, Hobbes finished Leviathan (1651) a book which supported the need for a strong sovereign. However, Hobbes developed rancorous disagreements with Royalists living in France, partially because his work did not support a divine right to rule. Hobbes also thought that religion was just a construct of man designed to better understand the origins of causes and did not have any role in emperical science. He was put in the awkward position of being forced to flee back to England which, following the execution of Charles I, was now a Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. Luckily for Hobbes, most people seemed not to mind having him back in England. When the Commonwealth dissolved in 1660 the monarchy was restored under Charles II, who had in fact been formerly tutored by Hobbes.

Hobbes was walking the earth during a time of scientific discovery and philosophical explorations. Hobbes met both Rene Descartes and Galileo and was a secretary for Sir Francis Bacon. One thing that is interesting about the legacy of Hobbes is that although he supported a strong monarchy his work has often been referenced by more liberal thinkers. This is because the foundation of a successful government, as Hobbes believes, begins with agreements between individuals expressing a shared will to work together to achieve a common goal. This covenant between men is what Hobbes believes has made civilization possible.

Gustave Flaubert: Madame Bovary

2011-04-25T07:14:00.000-07:00

"Novelists should thank Flaubert the way poets thank spring; it all begins again with him. There really is a time before Flaubert and a time after him. Flaubert decisively established what most readers and writers think of as modern realist narration, and his influence is almost too familiar to be visible", critic James Woods in How Fiction Works (2008).

Madame Bovary was Gustave Flaubert's first and most successful novel and is regarded as one of the masterpieces in Western literature. It has been called a perfect work of fiction and is noted for its vivid detail and realism. Flaubert (1821-1880) spent five years writing Madame Bovary, a long-time by standards of the day. However, Flaubert had a passionate need to find the correct word ("le mot juste") in his writing and he would spend long hours looking for the right descriptive adjective. From reading his work, I think his effort was fruitful. I never felt like I was being inundated with trivial details, descriptions or facts. Rather, I felt I could see, hear, smell and taste the world through these characters. I am not a fan of overly detailed descriptions, but Flaubert has an incredible talent for capturing imagery with words that kept pulling me in.

The title character is Emma Bovary, the young, attractive wife of Charles Bovary, a country doctor. Living in rural France in the mid-1800's, Emma dreams of travel, grand balls and enjoying the fine things in life which are quite beyond her current position. She is constantly comparing the dreariness of her bourgeois, middle-class life with the excitement of living in Paris or being surrounded by high society. She has a strong, reckless personality and is nearly solely devoted to satisfying her own need for pleasure. She is a sensualist. By the end of the novel, Emma has spent nearly all of her and Charles's money, largely in supporting her affairs with other men and a secret life of luxury. She does go through moments of repentance where tries to be a good wife, mother, charitable to the poor and a almost born-again Christian transformation. However she then swings violently back to her furtive life of debauchery. I think today we would say that Emma was bipolar.

Emma has a strong personality which sharply contrasts with Charles. He is a humble, dull and tractable man, easily manipulated by both his mother and Emma. He doesn't recognize that Emma is spending all their money and easily caves into any request she makes. I think Emma doesn't realize that her unhappiness is something that she creates. She cannot accept the reality of her situation. In addition, she refuses to engage in serious self-reflection to improve her life in ways that are within her power. She is utterly capricious, manipulative, deceitful and a slave to her desires.

I cannot add significantly to the volumes that have been written about Madame Bovary. However I definitely plan to return to this book and enjoy it again. Not for the characters or the plot, but for the rich language that Flaubert uses to describe even the most provincial details of provincial life.

Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

2011-04-15T05:39:00.000-07:00

The novel "Lolita" is considered by many critics to be one of the greatest works of fiction from our past century. It is on Time's list of the 100 best English-language novels and #4 on the Modern Library's list of the 100 Best Novels of the 20th century. It is characterized by masterful prose, descriptive detail and unique word play, as well as its controversial subject, the seduction of a 12-year old girl by an older man. The success of this novel has entered our common vocabulary; the noun "Lolita" is used for any young vixen who could captivate and allure an older man.

Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977) was born in St. Petersburg, Russia where he learned to speak fluent Russian, English and French and later wrote novels in all these languages. Following the Russian Revolution his family fled to the West and Nabokov eventually settled in the United States where he became a citizen in 1945. He was a man of diverse interests, at one time teaching tennis, boxing and comparative literature, composing chess problems, and as a research fellow at Harvard University he was responsible for organizing the butterfly collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. The finacial success of Lolita, published in 1958 in the US, gave Nabokov the ability to concentrate full-time on his writing.

I doubt there is much I can contribute to the discussion on Lolita that has not already been said. The main character, Humbert Humbert, fantasizes about young women whom he calls nyphettes. Eventually he seduces 12-year old Lolita and, after her mother dies, travels with Lolita across the US staying in motels and visiting tourist attractions. Lolita seems more or less happy with the arrangement until the end, but Humbert is clearly paranoid about being caught. After about two years Lolita runs away, marries and starts a family. Humbert is devastated, even though Lolita was growing out of her "nyphette" stage anyway. Humbert exhibits a great amount of self-delusion as he tries to justify his love for nyphettes and he claims, in fact, that Lolita seduced him.

Publishing a novel with this subject matter today would be quite controversial, so it is almost unfathomable to me that it was printed in 1958 during the conservative Eisenhower era. What I found most attractive about this novel was the rich, creative writing style of Nabokov. Sometimes I felt like I was reading music and the words were flowing off the pages. I was also impressed at how he used adjectives and nouns in contexts I would have never have thought possible. It was almost lyrical. His synthesis of imagination and linguistic skill results in a really unique writing style and I found myself reading the same passages several times.

Machiavelli and Modern Politics

2011-04-06T08:57:00.000-07:00

Machiavelli said that the highest virtue was whatever allowed the prince to survive politically. This may not always express itself in the survival of the state; many politicians believe the ends justify the means they use in their own ideological pursuits. They may not call this Machiavellian, but clearly it fits his idea of virtue.

Of course no respectable political leader would admit to engaging in Machiavellian ethics. That being said, I thought it would be interesting to try and find examples of Machiavelli's influence on modern politics, using a few words from Machiavelli himself.

A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.

"Read my lips", this is practically a maxim among politicians. Saying one thing and doing another is second nature to most successful politicians. Of course this can backfire, therefore breaking promises is best used only for preserving political position. For example, promising not to raise taxes can get you elected president, but don't break that promise until your second term.

Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil.

Here Machiavelli is saying that even when we try to do good deeds, we often do evil. In other words, be prepared for people who will not like you, even when you are trying to help them. This continues to happen to the US throughout the world. Remember our relief missions to Somalia? Bombing Yugoslavia? The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya? We think we are doing good, but we just seem to be making more enemies.

In this country health care reform, granting everyone access to medical care, is ostensibly a good thing but many view this change with hostility. Likewise, many shortsighted people in the middle class vehemently resist higher taxes for the wealthiest 2% - even though it can only help them and the economy. Similar views can be found when we try and make people wear seatbelts, buy car insurance, avoid predatory mortgages, etc...
.

It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

If you cannot make everyone love you, make them fear you but never make the people hate you. Being loved is great, but fear has worked well for other countries (USSR and Nazi Germany) and many countries have loved or feared the US. However, once people begin to hate you will have lost respect and potential allies. Many countries have contempt for the US which is one reason we have lost influence on the global stage.
.

I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it.

This has been uttered by Marxists, Fascists, Liberals, Conservatives, etc... Of course Machiavelli does want to preserve the status quo as far as staying in power goes. Machiavelli also said that when taking power, the prince should eliminate the old nobility and replace it with new more loyal followers. This would literally be true in more extreme situations, but even in our democracy a new president wants his most trusted allies in key positions. Machiavelli also suggested making the rich poor and the poor rich which will help endear a new monarch to the masses.

Necessity justifies behavior that is not considered moral normally

With our war on terror we justify military tribunals and suspension of habeus corpus as "necessary". We should remember that Lincoln also suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War and FDR illegally interned Japanese-Americans during WW2. But as Machiavelli says, a state and a prince can do whatever is necessary to preserve the government. It could be argued by Lincoln, FDR, GW Bush and Obama that they are only doing what is required to protect us (i.e. the government) out of necessity.

It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.

Thomas Aquinas wanted us to believe that most men are good and only a view needed to be directed toward virtue. Machiavelli took a more pragmatic, realistic view. We need laws in our country to protect our freedom and property from other people. People are inherently self-interested and nearly everyone seeks to acquire more resources than they need for survival. We can find innumerable examples of this without even mentioning Wall Street, the predatory mortgages, pyramid and Ponzi schemes. Laws should protect the prince, his government and his people from these evils.

Of course the prince does not need to follow these laws - but he should appear to follow them.

The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.

Machiavelli thought that good counsel was critical for a successful prince. Abraham Lincoln was known for his "Team of Rivals" and other presidents and leaders have depended heavily on their cabinets. However, bad counsel can lead to ruin - ask Tsar Nicholas II about how Rasputin worked out. I also imagine someone told Nixon that breaking into the Watergate hotel was a good idea.

For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible; which is one of those disgraceful things which a prince must guard against.

You need a strong military to reflect your strength and keep away "wolves". Germany and Japan instigated WW2 in part because they considered the Allies to be weak. Our country uses its military as a deterrent to other countries that would threaten us - although it does not always work. Likewise, it could be argued that Saddam Hussein kept up the ruse of having WMDs to keep his neighbors wary of him.

Machiavelli also stressed the importance of citizen-soldiers, rather than hired mercenaries. Like our military, no one has more at stake in preserving a government than those who freely choose to defend it.

The one who adapts his policy to the times prospers, and likewise that the one whose policy clashes with the demands of the times does not.

All politicians needs to read the political tea leaves. If you want to stay in power, you need to be on the right side of political issues like segregation in the South, busting up or supporting unions, or going to war.

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.

Every time someone in our country tries to change the status quo, like fixing health care or social security, they run into a barrage of opposition. A prince has to have all the characteristics listed above to be able to push his new political agenda. He is confident, secure at home and abroad, has good counsel and is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve his goal.

Machiavelli: The Prince and Political Philosophy

2011-04-05T20:02:00.000-07:00

Is The Prince an amoral or immoral book, or just misunderstood?

Machiavelli said that sometimes a prince must disregard accepted standards of virtue and "enter into evil as necessitated". However, if maintaining the State is the prince's most important job, then can we really say that anything he does is wrong? After all, if the State falls then we could lose everything (freedom, property, our culture and laws) so shouldn't we let the prince do whatever it takes to maintain power? The prince is intimately linked to the state, as the French king Louis XIV famously articulated, L'État, c'est moi" ("I am the State"), therefore if the prince falls, the state falls. Likewise, as Aristotle said in Politics, the chief aim of any government is the preservation of the State. Therefore we should expect that a successful prince will do anything he needs to do to stay in power.

Cesare Borgia - the ideal prince

Machiavelli dedicated The Prince to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, grandson of "Lorenzo the Magnificent", of the ruling Florentine Medici family. However, Machiavelli's ideal "prince" would have been Cesare Borgia (Chey-zer-ay Bor-zheh). A member of the notorious Borgia family (Cesare's father was Pope Alexander VI), Cesare conquered territories using both the art of war as well as guile. He found trusted advisers (even hiring Leonardo da Vinci as a military architect and engineer) and ruled fairly. However he could be duplicitous when necessary and dealt out punishment quickly and brutally. For this, Machiavelli admired him, saying that Cesare's only downfall was that he depended too much on his father (the Pope) since when he died Cesare's fortune was lost.

Comparing Machiavelli with classical political philosophy

Machiavelli's political treatise The Prince at first appears a significant departure from the political philosophy passed down from Plato and Aristotle. Machiavelli assumed that all men wanted power and could not be trusted. The sovereign must be prepared for these challenges and do anything he needs to do to maintain power. Because of this he said a prince must have the character of both a fox and lion, "It is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves"

Aristotle

Aristotle thought that men should be civil and avoid acting like beasts. He says in Politics that man "when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all". However, Machiavelli could say that by maintaining the power of the State, the prince is protecting men from injustice. In addition, the prince acting like a beast means that his subjects won't have to.

Plato

In the Republic, Plato has Glaucon talk about the story of the Ring of Gyges which could make a man invisible. Although all men claim to be honorable, if we could get away with something unbeknownst to others, wouldn't we try? Glaucon continues saying that the unjust man who appears just will not be punished while "the just man who is thought unjust will be scouraged, racked, bound....then he will understand that he ought to seen only, and not be, just." Mind you these are not Socrates or Plato's words.

Machiavelli says that the Prince should be like the Ring of Gyges; he should appear honorable and just, but, unseen, he should do whatever he needs to stay in power. Even Plato said that in an ideal state it was OK for the sovereign to lie. This is the "royal lie" which allows the ruler to give the impression of being just but allows him the freedom to pursue ulterior agendas.

Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas said that laws should be written with the common good in mind. Machiavelli would say that that laws serve only to help keep the ruler in power. However, if keeping the ruler in power is the best end for the people, then technically Machiavelli is fulfilling the ideas promulgated in the Summa Theologica.

At first the ideas of Machiavelli may seem to disagree with earlier political thought, however, Machiavelli can find support and justification for his theories using the same works he seems to be contradicting. Although we should recognzied that justifying every action of a prince may only apply in extremis, when the very survival of the society is at stake.

Niccolo Machiavelli

2011-04-05T12:54:00.000-07:00

The term Machiavellian is used to describe someone who is willing to deceive and manipulate other people for personal gain - it usually carries a negative connotation. However, for rulers in Renaissance Europe, following the principles of Niccolo Machiavelli could be the key to staying in power. Even today Machiavelli is regarded as the father of modern politics largely through his book The Prince, an instructive manual on gaining and maintaining political power.

Machiavelli (1469- 1527) was born in Florence, Italy during the peak of the Renaissance. Florence was the home of Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dante, the famous Medici family and a cultural, economic and political powerhouse. Machiavelli began a career as a public servant of the Florentine Republic. Later he developed a reputation as a political philosopher, military strategist, writer and famous playwright. This was a tumultuous time in Italy with wars occurring between the numerous city-states (Genoa, Venice, Florence, Naples, Milan), conflicts with the Pope, and outside armies marching through Italy from Spain, France, Switzerland and Germany. It was a world of shifting alliances, treachery and the overthrow of governments by both internal and foreign forces. What intrigued Machiavelli the most was understanding why some governments succeeded and others failed. What was the key to staying in power?

In response to this question, Machiavelli wrote The Prince, a guide to acquiring and preserving power. In this treatise Machiavelli lays out his instructions for sovereigns who have recently come to power. He discusses how to deal with the citizenry, what types of governments are easiest to control, how to organize the military and what to look for in your counsel. In many ways The Prince reveals things that most politicians already know. For example, you should appear upright and honest, but feel free to be covertly ruthless and deceitful. His message laid out in The Prince has been studied for centuries and has been said to influence numerous politicians from diverse backgrounds (communists, fascists, republicans and democrats) such as Lenin, Lincoln, Mussolini, Napoleon, etc. Some leaders have been directly affected by Machiavelli, while others have, perhaps unknowingly, followed the ideas promulgated at this book. The writings of Machiavelli have been, and will continue to be, interpreted multiple ways and used for many purposes, but the goals have always remained the same.

Machiavelli's political children

There is still controversy about what Machiavalli really meant in The Prince, especially since he also wrote about the need for a Republic, such as Florence. I've read this work twice and I continue to find new ways of interpreting it. Most intriguing for me now is seeing how The Prince relates to other works on political theory, and how it can be interpreted today. Even though we will never know exactly what Machiavelli is trying to tell us, people are likely to continue using his ideas to justify their political ambitions.

Summa Theologica and Human Law

2011-03-29T19:25:00.000-07:00

Where do Human laws come from?

Aquinas says that "justice has its course in nature; thence by reason of their utility; afterwards these things emanated from nature and were approved by custom, were then sanctioned by fear and reverence for the laws."

In other words - utility becomes custom, custom becomes law. This reminded me of my post on Montaigne who was amazed at how much value we attach to custom (which originally came from utility, and apparently contributes to laws). Of course some laws arrive less organically to protect the common good.

What gives the law authority over us?

The origin of the word for law (Latin: lex) is derived from ligare (to bind) because we are obliged (obligare) to follow the commands of others for the common good. But do we need to follow laws, especially Human laws? Aquinas says that all power comes from God, including the power to make Human law. Therefore, to break Human law is to break Divine law. That sounds like a no-no.

Are laws designed to make men good or to punish?

Aquinas says laws are to encourage virtue and to quote Aristotle, "lawgivers make men good by habituating them to good works". Aquinas follows adding that "accordingly, law, even by punishing, leads men to being good". It is an interestingly view - do we still think that punishment makes men good? From my experience working in a prison, the answer would be no.

Who is entitled to make laws?

In principle the making of a law belongs to all people, although in practice it is the lawgiver (sovereign) who writes the law with the "common good" in mind. Aquinas probably would be surprised that in a country of our size the power to make laws actually does rest with the masses. Laws that focus on the "true good" need to be followed. However "tyrannical laws, since it is not in accordance with reason is not a law, absolutely speaking, but rather a perversion of law" do not need to be obeyed.

What is a good law?

Laws should be codified and general, which limits the partiality of judges to only very specific cases. "Human laws do not need to forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices from which it is possible for the majority to abstain". That does make a law easier to follow - one that we would agree to follow anyway. Over all, Human laws should further the common good, help discipline and foster Divine law.

Who is above the law?
Notably, holy men are not subject to Human laws in so far as they contradict with Divine law. Also, lawgivers do not need to follow their own laws, although they may suffer God's reproach. Finally, "laws are not made for the just man". Fortunately for me I think of myself as a very just man; therefore that 55 mph speed limit doesn't apply to me...officer.

Summa Theologica, Law and Religion

2011-03-29T17:01:00.000-07:00

Who is entitled to make laws? What gives the law authority over us? Thomas Aquinas believed that the authority and the power to make laws came from God. This belief has been instrumental to the development of our legal and political system (e.g. "Under God the People Rule"). Just as important is the belief that there is a supreme being who is watching us and whose divine justice we cannot avoid.

My assignment was to read questions 90-97 of the Treatise on Law, which is set up as a series of queries, each containing several objections which Aquinas responds to in turn. Here is an outline of these questions: 90-92 treat law in general, 93 addresses Eternal law, 94 questions Natural law and 95-97 focus on Human law. Aquinas often cites Scripture as well as former church leaders (e.g. St. Augustine) in his responses. Most significant are his references to Aristotle whom he calls "the Philosopher". I am quite fascinated at how adeptly Aquinas incorporates the philosophy of an ancient Greek pagan into Christianity.

There are four types of law in order of importance: Eternal, Divine, Natural and Human. Divine power gives the lawgiver of a society the ability to produce laws, but only when these laws consider the common good.
.

Divine Law

Eternal law supersedes everything as it rests with God. Divine law descends from this and consists of the Old and New Testaments. Divine law punishes those that avoid Human and Natural law. According to Aquinas, the Old (Testament) laws depended on temporal rewards and fear while the New laws promoted eternal rewards and depended on love. The Old laws were written for "children" but the New laws are made for "adults". It makes me wonder what we would be if we didn't need Divine laws. Indeed Aquinas does say that the virtuous man does not need laws, therefore it is possible. However, who determines who is virtuous?

Don't sin, unless God says its OK.

The Natural law is the pursuit of the good, which is the natural inclination of all creatures. It contributes to Human law, involves "reason", and doing what is virtuous (following your conscience). Interestingly, as Aquinas says, Natural law can be changed by instances such as "by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent without any injustice whatever. In like manner adultery is intercourse with another man's wife who is allotted to him by the law emanating by God. Consequentially intercourse with any woman by the command of God is neither adultery nor fornication. The same applies to theft". Therefore, laws do not apply to God or his servants. Let's hope people think God's on your side.

How do these laws work together? If for example you murder someone you break three laws:

1) Divine Law: Thou shall not murder
2) Natural Law: Murdering is irrational and against the common good
3) Human Law: Murder is a crime

Thomas Aquinas

2011-03-29T07:00:00.000-07:00

The sixth reading in the GBWW series for Year Two is the Treatise on Law in the Summa Theologica written by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Born near Naples, Italy to a noble family (his uncle was Fredrick Barbarossa), Aquinas had numerous opportunities available to him. Therefore it was a great surprise to his family when he took the habit of the Dominicans and began studying theology at the University of Naples. Continuing his education in Paris he was introduced to Aristotle, recently re-discovered from Arabic sources. Aquinas readily embraced and incorporated Aristotle (whom he called "the philosopher") into Christian theology and translated Aristotle directly from the Greek texts.

Aquinas entered a university career teaching in Paris (later in Italy), and was recognized for his extraordinary skill and acumen. In 1269 he returned to Paris as the debate regarding the synthesis of Aristotle and Christianity was reaching its climax. Aquinas successfully refuted the Latin Averroists and the Augustians who thought Aristotle was incompatible with Christianity. This firmly established the union between ancient Greek philosophy and Christian theology which persists to this day. It also cemented the reputation of Aquinas as the leading scholar in the Catholic Church.

Aquinas is regarded as a Doctor of the Catholic Church and one of its most important philosophers and theologians. His greatest work is the Summa Theologica, a voluminous manual that was written to instruct believers on issues of theology such as the existence of God, the need for God's laws, the sacraments, etc. Aquinas frequently cites St. Augustine, Aristotle, other Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars as well as Scripture. Since Year 2 of the GBWW is focused on law and political theory, I will be only be reading the section Treatise on Law which deals with the development, necessity and types of law in human society.

The Fountainhead

2011-02-28T19:40:00.000-08:00

The Fountainhead revolves around the life of Howard Roark, a young uncompromising, innovative architect who designs buildings which reflect his own creative spirit. He does not imitate other architects or seek to incorporate classical designs from Ancient Greece, Rome or the Renaissance. A few people recognize the creative genius in Howard's designs. However most critics and the hoi polloi regard his work as grotesque or the projections of an egotist seeking to glorify his own soul. That is the point - Howard is the supreme egotist. These works are pulled from Howard's pure, free-thinking spirit, his identify, which is why they are so unique.

The Fountainhead has the best villain in any book I have read - Ellsworth Toohey. Toohey is a brilliant writer, skillful orator, a leading architectural critic and Howard's implacable foe. He is also one of the few people who recognize Howard's greatness, which is why he must destroy him. Toohey desires equanimity in society; he does not want anyone to rise above the rest; he seeks conformity and unity. He does however hide a secret agenda. While Toohey publicly gives away his own money and lectures on the rights and needs of the poor, he furtively maneuvers himself to gain power over other men. Under the guise of magnanimity and altruism, Toohey is a duplicitous, manipulative power-hungry genius. He's possibly the only character I know who could stab you in the back while getting you to agree it was for your own good. Toohey tries to turn the public against Roark, attacking him in public through his newspaper column or by sabotaging deals with potential clients. Time and time again Roark loses clients, falls into debt, and closes his office only to come back renewed and stronger.

Roark's devotion to his spiritual compass in contrasted with other characters in the novel. Roark's friend and fellow architect Peter Keating is portrayed as an anti-hero - he has gained all the monetary rewards and recognition that his career can offer him but he is a fraud. Keating gets his influence from classical buildings, does not have his own ideas, panders to the public desire and even claims Roark's drawings as his own. He is without a soul, but Toohey considers him the perfect tool to use against Roark. In addition, Roark meets the newspaper magnate Gail Wynand, the most powerful man in New York City and they become intimate friends. The Wynand newspapers play to the masses need for sensationalism. However, Wynand has never sacrificed his own personal integrity, which is what he has in common with Roark. Both men share the same passions and speak from their souls. However, Wynand has chosen a different route than Roark and values money and power. At the end of the novel Wynand is undone when he has to choose between his principles and his financial empire.

Ultimately, Roark comes out victorious by remaining true to himself, which is in no small part to his sense of purpose and supreme confidence. His enemies and the masses of people call him an egoist, although Roark celebrates this appellation. "We must be selfish, without the self there is nothing." He doesn't live his life for other people, but for himself. His self-esteem is not based on other people's opinions. His happiness is a private thing, his greatest moments are personal. He can still love other people, but he does not live his life for the benefit of anyone else.

The Fountainhead is a long book and sometimes Rand presents her philosophy in rambling character dialogues that last several pages - it feels like being lectured to. However, I did enjoy the read and I can appreciate the important points she raises about the significance of the individual. I also agree that we should not base our happiness on the opinions of others or try to conform for its own sake.

As Schopenhauer said, "We forfeit three-quarters of ourselves in order to be like other people".

Ayn Rand

2011-02-27T16:09:00.001-08:00

Ayn Rand

I just finished reading "The Fountainhead" for one of my book clubs. Even though this is not one of the GBWW, it is still a modern classic for several reasons. Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was a Russian-American writer and philosopher who is best known for her books "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". Born in St. Petersburg, Russia to upper-middle-class parents, she immigrated to the US in 1925 under the pretense of studying the American film industry. Early in her life Rand embraced the intrepid American entrepreneurial spirit and independence of thought.

In contrast, she maintained a passionate animosity toward the collective ideals of Communism, Fascism, the welfare state and other forms of national conformity and unity. This is reflected in her writing which she promotes the individual, the creative spirit, the isolated man who stands against the tide of humanity. She called her philosophy "Objectivism" and it is still taught and promoted by the Ayn Rand Society, a sub-group in the American Philosophical Association.

Ayn Rand has been called one of the most influential writers of the 20th Century. The heroes in her novels are innovative, free-thinkers who identify with meritocratic American ideals. In "The Fountainhead" the hero is Howard Roark, a young architect who designs buildings which reflect his own creative spirit. He does not care what the masses want and most of his clients know that. The people who understand Howard realize that he will design completely unique buildings that are incomparable to anything else. Howard persistently pursues his own ideals and beliefs and this is personified in the buildings he designs and sees constructed. However, to most people, the structures that Howard creates are met with apathy or outright hostility. He creates several powerful enemies but also finds kindred spirits who can appreciate Howard's genius. Howard must resist the people who try to destroy him and his buildings, who want to crush his spirit and make him conform to the standards of modern architecture.

Rand identifies the character of Howard with other visionaries from history such as Columbus, Copernicus, Galileo. Initially these mean were misunderstood and ridiculed but their ideas propeled the progress of humanity forward, even if they were not appreciated at the time. The point is that one cannot let other decide what is right for us, that we each need to follow our own course and we should not feel compelled to follow the majority simply because it is the majority.

Tacitus: The Annals

2010-12-31T13:06:00.000-08:00

Publius Cornelius Tacitus (55 – 117 AD) was a Roman senator who wrote about the early history of the Roman Empire. He is best known for the "Annals", a series of books focused on the time between the emperors Augustus (14 AD) to Nero (68 AD) and the "Histories" which continues to the death of Domitian (96 AD). In the Annals, Tacitus describes the domestic and foreign affairs of the Empire. He reviews the wars in Germany, Armenia and Britain, engineering projects of the Empire and the politics of the times. Tacitus seems to have some longing for the Republic, even though all he knew in his life was rule under an Emperor. The most interesting reading is when Tacitus discusses the personal lives of emperors and the plots and intrigue which occurred behind the scenes.

For the GBWW program I am reading the Annals, which picks up during the reign of Tiberius. I recently finished watching the BBC TV series "I, Claudius" based on the book by Peter Graves. The book covered the reigns of Augustus through Claudius, so it was quite revealing and fun to be reading the original source material and comparing it with the BBC program.

Annals focus on Tiberius to Nero

I always find it fascinating to see how politics, politicians and governments have changed over the last 2000 years. Here are a couple of examples from Tacitus:

Loopholes Tiberius wanted to have the slaves of Libo Drussus questioned regarding Libo's supposed "revolutionary schemes". However, the law clearly says that slaves are not allowed to testify against their masters. Therefore, Tiberius had Libo's slaves sold to a State-Agent and they were immediately interrogated.

Greedy Trial Lawyers In Rome, attorneys (prosecutors) worked for free - the respect and admiration for their oratory skills was payment enough. This restriction on payment, called the Cincian Law, was changed so that lawyers could start collecting money from the defendant if they won. As you could imagine this resulted in many, many more cases being tried. Prosecutors could gain as much as one-quarter of the defendant's property from their cases. (Can we go back to the old system?)

Talking heads During the reign of Tiberius, Senator Lucius Piso threatened to leave Rome because he was growing tired of paid orators insulting him. Today we call these people pundits.

Natural disaster relief was common in the Roman Empire. During several earthquakes taxes were remitted for the province in need, a senate representative would visit and access damage, and aid was sent.

Marriage tax = the Lex Papia Poppaea: a law from 9 AD, the sponsors were known as Papia and Poppaea. The law put penalties on people who did not have children (women 20-50; men 25-60) and on people who were not married. It was designed to promote family values. People subverted the law by getting married but still having lovers and by "adopting" children.

Banking Crisis Usury (loaning money at interest) was common in Rome, however, interest rates above 10% were banned by the "Twelve Tables". Tiberius decided to cut interest rates in half and gave everyone 18 months to settle their debts before conforming to the new rates. This decree resulted in an enormous loss of private wealth as lenders tried to get their money back. Eventually there was too little currency in circulation and banks stopped lending money. The emperor had to release 100 million sesterces to the banks so they would lend money again and allow people to borrow without interest for 3 years. (Why can't our banks do that!)

Equal representation of aliens "What was the fall of Sparta and Athens, but this, that mighty as they were in war, they spurned from them as aliens those whom they had conquered?" With this question, Tiberius explained his reason for wanting representation in the Senate of people who were living in the Roman Empire but were not Roman. A similar argument is made today for people living in the US, who are not US citizens, but who work in our homes, prepare our food, and fight our wars.

Tacitus also talks at length about the depravity of Emperor Nero who murdered his mother, brother and wife, not to mention hundreds of others.

Seneca tutoring Nero

Of particular interest is the relationship between Nero and his mentor, Seneca. Seneca was a brilliant orator, a stoic philosopher and was charged with directing the education of young Nero. Eventually, with "special joy", Nero turned on his mentor and Seneca committed suicide. In trying to make a great philosopher-king, Seneca produced one of Rome's most notorious tyrants. It may be that sometimes not even the best teacher can help some students.

I found that Tacitus's writing was frank, unembellished and approachable; it reminded me of having a candid conversation with a friend. Even when he was describing the gory details of dozens and dozens of suicides and murders during Nero's reign, it felt very matter-of-fact. During the Annals, Tacitus lists many historical figures (politicians, orators, consuls, quaestors, wives and mistresses, etc) and I sometimes had difficulty keeping track of all the characters. However the depth and detail of his descriptions helped fill out these individuals and I enjoyed getting to experience these historical events through his words.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: Part 2

2010-12-17T14:25:00.000-08:00

The central theme of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ZMM) is debatable, but Pirsig talks a great deal about the concept of "quality". I do not like using this term since it can be confused with our traditional sense of quality, but we'll use his definition here.

In Pirsig's words, what separates a good motorcycle mechanic from a bad one is quality - are they fixing a machine like an automaton or consciously thinking about how all these parts work together? Quality defines the latter. The "romantic" mind thinks about the whole motorcycle - the big picture, is aesthetic and subjective. The "classic" mind focuses on the parts and how they function, and is objective. The concept of quality seeks to bring these two together. It provides direction. Where are you going? Why are you doing this?

Reading ZMM did make me think about "quality" in my work and life. Do I think about how all the parts fit and work together? Am I looking at the part and the problem? Pirisig continues listing other examples of quality and also talks about different concepts, such as gumption traps.

The Great Books of the Western World

A young Pirsig (i.e. Phadrus) enrolled at the University of Chicago to study philosophy and rhetoric. One of the big men on campus was President Robert Maynard Hutchins who collaborated with Mortimer Adler to develop the GBWW, the series of books that makes up the heart of my current reading program. As part of his highly controversial reforms, Hutchins had the GBWW taught at UC, while simultaneously having UC pull out of the Big Ten Conference, dropping its football program and trying to end its fraternities. Into this environment, Pirsig was thrust. This was a strict "Aristotelian" program where rhetoric was reduced to a methodical art - a science. Pirsig found this suffocating, since he believed Aristotle had moved away from Plato's dialectic, the true "art" of rhetoric. Since his professors supported the Aristotelian view, sparks were going to fly.

I imagine this is a common problem that all college students face. In the end, Pirsig left UC after showing off to his professor how little the man knew.

Not everyone had such unfavorable opinions of Hutchins. Carl Sagan said that he was "lucky enough" to have studied under him, "where science was presented as an integral part of the gorgeous tapestry of human knowledge."

In conclusion, I thought ZMM was a complex novel that was rewarding, but it demanded an investment of time and energy. I am glad to have read it but I would not recommend it for most people.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

2010-12-16T21:07:00.000-08:00

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ZMM) has been called a modern classic by some, and a self-absorbed ego-trip by others. In any case, it is an interesting book to include on this list since the author casts disparaging comments at the Great Books of the Western World (GBWW) for their slavish devotion to Aristotle.

Robert M. Pirsig (1928-) published ZMM in 1974 after it was rejected by 121 publishers (a world record). Since then it has sold over 4 million copies worldwide and the London Telegraph and BBC radio called ZMM the most widely read philosophy novel ever written.

The book is two stories, both autobiographical accounts of the author's life separated by about 10 years. One regards a 17-day motorcycle trip that the author makes with his young son, traveling from Minnesota to California. The other concerns Pirsig's earlier adult life, when he was a teacher and a student of philosophy. The novel oscillates between Pirsig's current motorcycle journey and his reflections of his early life, all the while as he ponders the philosophical concept of "quality". When referring to his early life, the author calls himself Phaedrus, after the character in the eponymous dialogue written by Plato - a story that plays a major role toward the end of the novel.

Pirsig and his son Chris

To summarize, this book was maddening. I found myself loving and loathing ZMM, sometimes within the same page. I admire Prisig for writing a very personal work and I found his philosophical insights thought provoking, although not profound. However, since he decided to publish and profit from his life it is fair for me to be critical.

Prisig describes himself as an unappreciated genius who has to endure living in a world of Philistines.  The author knows and talks about the "truth" but everyone else is too wrapped up in their own worlds to listen to him. In a moment of unrestrained ego, Pirsig states that he had the opportunity to change the entire focus of 2000 years of Western philosophy but he failed.  Much of this is done in the 3rd person as Pirsig talks about "Phaedrus", trying to understand how such a brilliant and insightful young man (himself) could be brought down by bigoted, narrow-minded professors at Montana State University and at the University of Chicago.

Pirsig seems unfair to his son and it appears he wants to lump him in with everyone else who doesn't understand him.  Not surprisingly, Chris does not completely enjoy riding on the back of a motorcycle for 17 days and this certainly affects his opinion of the entire trip. Pirsig badgers his son and at times it appears Pirsig is either completely lacking in empathy or he has cleverly disguised his true opinions - I really could not tell.

Some of the themes Prisig discusses include how technology and life have become separated. Imagine how different 2010 is from 1970 and he was already saying that. His main issue is the difference between subjective and objective people, whom he calls Romantics and Classicists. He says these people are both lacking in one thing that would unite them and that is "quality".  What is quality?    It is the central point of Pirsigs thesis, the thing that guides and directs us to being better - and it is talked about on my next post.

New Testament: Crossroads of Government and Religion

2010-10-24T21:02:00.000-07:00

In the Gospel according to Matthew it is revealed that Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus, is descended from King David. This invokes the concept of the hereditary monarchy for Jesus, who is known as "King of the Jews". Of course there is a clear and important break from this genealogy - Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph. Therefore it would appear there is a separation of the worldly, temporal kings from the heavenly kingdom of God. The line of Jewish kings has ended and this is a new age. Naturally, others might also interpret this as a new line of kings, sanctioned by God. Many Christian kings in the next two millenniums would assume the latter, but I believe the Bible is telling us that God is separating political power from religious authority.

To the Israelites, there appears to be no difference between church and state. Religious rules were political laws and limitations on cultural freedoms. This principle is still true today in several Islamic countries and many of the laws in our country are descended from religious codes of conduct. Jesus, however, felt there needed to be a clear distinction between church and state. Critical questioners of Jesus hoped to trick him into paying a census tax to the Romans, which they believed would make Jesus look weak, inconsistent, and submissive to the Roman occupation of Israel. Jesus said he would pay the tax stating,
.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s"

In other words, give the state what the state needs, but give God what God needs. This idea was completely foreign to the Jews (see the books of Samuel and Kings) and creates a powerful precedent as it sets a division between political and religious requirements. Do what the state wants, but also do what God wants. It does provoke the question of where our allegiances lie. Can we obey both religious and state laws? When and how do we acknowledge these rules? What affect does our conscious play on following either direction?

Much of the Acts of the Apostles covers the journeys of Saul (Paul), the tax collector turned preacher, who travels throughout the Mediterranean sharing the Gospel with Jews and Gentiles. At several points the Jewish religious leaders try to stop his preaching, arrest him, and put him to death.

Paul giving the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles

Eventually Paul is detained and is nearly killed. However, Paul declares to the authorities that he is a Roman Citizen. This fact supersedes the religious laws of the land.
.

"This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen."
.

"Festus said: 'King Agrippa, and all who are present with us, you see this man! The whole Jewish community has petitioned me about him in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. I found he had done nothing deserving of death, but because he made his appeal to the Emperor I decided to send him to Rome.'"
.

Paul seeking protection with the Romans

Paul is taken into protective custody and travels to Rome where he continues his preaching.

Paul says, "I had to pay a big price for my citizenship" and he uses this privilege to avoid punishment by the Jewish religious leaders. The Romans were more interested in following the law than the religious tenets of the Jews.

The protection of a religious minority (the Christain, Paul) by the Romans could be thought of as a primodial form of religious tolerance or freedom of religion, clearly one of the tenets of our own government. Its inclusion in the Bible suggests that seperation of church and state is not only a good idea, but it can also save your life.

It does however resurface the issue raised in Matthew of what obligations we have toward our religion and toward our government. Is Paul following his faith by seeking succor with the Roman political system? At what point will his allegiances shift or is he maintaining a consistent course? Is Paul manipulating the political system to support his own agendas or religious belief?

Old Testament Kings

2010-10-24T19:45:00.000-07:00

When the Israelites fled Egypt the only leader they needed was Moses. Later they had "judges" who helped guide the Jewish people, although they focused largely on military matters. At the time, many other nations had kings who ruled over their populations and in the Book of Samuel the people of Israel ask God for a King. God is not happy that they require a temporal leader, but he helps his prophet Samuel choose the man Saul to rule as king. This proves to be an unfortunate decision for the Israelites, and eventually David (son of Jesse, slayer of Goliath) becomes King.

King David

David and Goliath

Although David is held up as the gold standard of divine appointments, he had his share of personal problems. After his death, his heirs continued to rule establishing a hereditary monarchy. The Book of Kings continues this succession and it seems that each king is worse than the last. A few virtuous notables do exist, such as Solomon, but most were licentious, avaricious monarchs who tolerated pagan worshipping in their kingdom. Yes, a lot of pagan kings - not a good thing in the Old Testament when God loves to throw his weight around.

Israel eventually pays a great price for having divinely appointed monarchs and still descending into iniquity. The 12 tribes of Israel are destroyed by the ancient kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon. Eventually the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar II enslaves the Jews of Israel the sends them into captivity deep in his own kingdom (around 586 BC).
.

The divine right of kings?

What do we learn from this? God warned the Israelites that a king would bring iniquity, chaos and debauchery among them. This much appears to be true. A minority of "good" kings cannot justify the overwhelming number of bad kings. Strangely, even though God rejects the idea of a king, he still selects one for the Israelites (?) I suppose God is saying that he is willing to give the Israelites the freedom to fail.

One question is why does God need a temporal ruler (a king) on Earth to direct his people? Didn't Moses receive his directions from God? What is the purpose of a King? Is it to interpret and enforce God's will or to rule over worldly mankind? It is for wielding political power or to enforce religious decrees?

Interestingly, many if not most of the kings who initially received divine approval turned against God and caused great misery for their people. The message from the Bible would seem to be that while God recognizes the right of man to rule on Earth, vesting this power in one individual is a blueprint for disaster.

In the Middle Ages, and even into the Age of Enlightenment, people wondered if kings or any other person had a divine right to rule. Does divine right mean that God has chosen a ruler or that this ruler is blessed?

The Bible is practically constructed for misinterpretations so how can we know what God really wants? One man's "faithful" seeems like another man's lunatic, so we certainly cannot trust another person's judgement. Maybe this is why our government and others wanted a clear separation between religious and political authority. In addition the Book of Kings provides a vivid example of how absolute power in the hands of one man, no matter how divinely inspired, is almost always a disappointment.

Political thought and the Bible

2010-10-22T20:36:00.000-07:00

Year Two of the GBWW series focuses on political thought and government. Continuing with that theme, the next readings are centered on the development of government in Judeo-Christian society and the earliest records from this tradition come from the Bible.

Our government has been influenced by numerous sources, including the feudal kingdoms of Europe. The kings of the Middle Ages traced their supreme authority back to the Jewish King David, who was selected by God to rule Israel. The idea of a divinely appointed ruler originated here and that belief was carried forward for 2000 years.
.

Since God chose his own representative to rule man on Earth, the kings of Europe were absolute monarchs over the temporal world. This principle had great consequences the political destinies of both men and countries, and no doubt contributed the "separation of church and state" which is bed rock principle of our own government.

The four texts of the Bible that GBWW directs us to read for this section include two Old Testament texts (The Books of Samuel and Kings) and two New Testament works (The Gospel of Matthew and Acts of the Apostles).

A tangential comment, the God in the Old and New Testaments seems quite different. In the Old Testament, God seems more capricious and less tolerant of dissension - more like an ancient Greek or Roman god. In contrast the New Testament God seeks out the lost sheep (prostitutes, tax collectors, etc) and would rather guide than punish. For me, reading the New Testament invokes many memories of Sunday school and church services, however, the Old Testament feels much more foreign and unfamiliar. I am looking forward to reading more of both in the future.

Plutarch: Sparta and Rome - Part II

2010-09-18T15:13:00.000-07:00

Scipio Africanus was one of Rome's greatest generals. He defeated Hannibal and the Carthaginians at Zama in 202 BC and thus made Rome the greatest power in the Mediterranean. Two of his well-known grandsons were Tiberius (163-133 BC) and Caius (153-121 BC) Gracchus who went on to become Tribunes of the People of Rome. In this role, each tried unsuccessfully to introduce land reformation and redistribution of wealth similar to that attempted by Cleomones and Agis in Sparta a century earlier.

TIBERIUS GRACCHUS

Following his grandfather's path, Tiberius served in the Roman Legions as a military tribune while fighting in the Third Punic War. Because of the rapid militarization of Rome during this time, many citizens were giving up their farms to serve in the legions. In addition, wealthy land-owners were buying up much of the land conquered from campaigns, leaving nothing for the poorer citizens. Originally 500 acres was the most land one could own, but wealthy individuals were circumventing this using false identities and other tricks. When veterans returned from their military campaigns, they had no land to farm, let alone any other property. This greatly disturbed Tiberius, who began pushing for land reform and an equal distribution of property for all soldiers.

Tiberius was later elected a Tribune of the People, to represent their interests in the Senate. Here he said, "Wild beasts that roam over Italy have their dens, each has a place of repose and refuge. But the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy nothing but the air and light; without house or home they wander about with their wives and children"

The Senate with its wealthy members would not enforce the previous land agreements (i.e. the 500 acre law) so Tiberius by-passed them and went directly to a vote by the Concilium Plebis (the Popular Assembly). The Senate used a procedural trick to prevent this, but Tiberius countered by shutting down the government's daily business to punish the Senate.

This sounds a lot like the political tit-for-tat tactics we see in Washington today.

Things reached a head in 133 BC when King Attalus III of Pergamum died, leaving his entire fortune (including the whole kingdom of Pergamum) to Rome. Tiberius sought to use the agrarian reformation laws to redistribute the wealth to all the citizens of Rome, but the Senate was absolutely opposed to this.

Tiberius pressed the issue on the senators. A final confrontation in the Senate turned deadly as Tiberius was attacked and bludgeoned to death with chairs and stools by the senators (a civilized lot, huh?) and they threw his corpse into the Tiber river. Many of his followers suffered a similar fate. This ceased debate on the topic of property reformation and equal rights until....

CAIUS GRACCHUS

Younger than his brother by nine years, Caius (Gaius) was even more zealous about social reform than his ill-fated brother. Serving as Tribune of the People, Caius tried to include all Italians as Roman Citizens. Later he also tried to include all people in Roman colonies and Roman allies. He also sought cheaper grain for the poor, a more fair judicial system, re-division of the land and free clothing for soldiers serving in Rome's Legions.

The Senate did not try to use procedural chicanery on Caius like they did with Tiberius, but instead used another Tribune (Lucius Opimius) as a spoiler. If Caius promised cheap grain, Lucius would promise free grain; Caius would offer low rent land, but Lucius would offer free land. Of course Lucius' promises were untenable and impossible to grant, but this still had the affect of undercutting support for Caius among the masses. Eventually the Senate trumped up some legal charges and passed a measure calling for Caius' arrest. Caius committed suicide rather than defend himself.

COMPARISONS

Plutarch compares the lives of these two Romans with the two Greeks mentioned in my last post.

All of these men hoped to promote a more equal division of property and wealth among their citizens. For the Spartans, they thought it would make their city-state stronger and be true to their ancient traditions. For the Romans, they wanted their soldier-citizens to receive the same privileges as any other free individual. All were thwarted by the wealthy, elite and well-entrenched castes of their respective societies.

It is remarkable to see how politics has changed so little in the last 2000 years. Of course people are not being bludgeoned to death in our Capitol, but the same political maneuvering, the same attempts at legal tricks and loopholes are still played out today.

Plutarch says that it is "difficult to change the government without force or fear". In these four examples we can see that to be true. In the end, the lack of reformation in Sparta resulted in it slipping into a state of decandance and avarice from which it never recovered. Rome grew from an aristocracy to an oligarchy/democracy, but maintained a strong military. Eventually Rome became a tyranny/dictatorship under the Caesars. It eventually followed the same path as Sparta, growing accustomed to luxury and sloth and tolerant of inequality of wealth.

As Aristotle said in Politics, inequality is the cause of rebellion and the decay of society. Of course no one is more resistant to equality than the ones who benefit from the difference, and we have seen historically that equality among the classes can be violently opposed by those in power.

Plutarch: Sparta and Rome

2010-09-18T12:30:00.000-07:00

I have previously read and written about Plutarch (46-120 AD), the ancient Greco-Roman biographer who compared and contrasted the lives of noble Romans and Greeks. My readings about Plutarch this time concern a pair of Spartan kings (Agis and Cleomones) and a pair of Roman brothers (Caius and Tiberius Gracchus).

The commonality between these two sets is that both the Spartans (Greeks) and the Romans were trying to attempt major land reforms and redistribution of their country's wealth among the poor. All four characters would confront intense resistance from the nobles in their societies. Likewise, all would die as a result of their attempts to reform their governments. In some ways, these stories build off Aristotle's ideas of democracy (equality), but are also a proto-socialist state similiar to that suggested in the Communist Manifesto, which I discussed earlier.

FIRST to GREECE

In the ancient world, Sparta was one of the world's greatest warrior states in no small part to the laws of Lycurgus (800-730 BC) which I described in a previous blog post. These laws encouraged austerity, eschewed vice and wealth, and promoted equality among the citizens.

During the Peloponessian War (404 BC), Sparta and her allies defeated Athens leaving Sparta the preeminent power in Greece. The city state of Thebes and the Macedonians (i.e. Alexander the Great) later eclipsed Sparta and by 260 AD Sparta was in decline. The Spartan King Agis IV (264-241 BC) thought that the wealth gathered following Athen's defeat had corrupted Sparta, making her accustomed to luxury and coin, weak and effeminate.

AGIS IV

King Agis IV decided to relign Sparta with the ideals of Lycurgus. To do this he cancelled all debts and redistributed the land amoung the poor. This was very popular with the lower classes, but vehemently opposed by the Ephors (Spartan nobles) and his co-monarch Leonidas II. This was partially because Leonidas grew up in the luxurious court of the Greco-Persian King Seleucus II and married a Persian. King Agis had the obstructionist Leonidas exiled, then had all Spartan bonds, debts and securities and had them burned in the market place. However, called to a military campaign, he was not able to redistribute the land as he hoped before he left.

Leonidas later returned from exile with mercenaries, captured Agis, and together with the Ephors conducted a mock trial. Fearing a popular revolt, they quickly had Agis put to death along with his mother and grandmother. This was the first time a Spartan king had been executed by the Ephors - made all the worse given his noble intentions.

CLEOMENES

After Agis's death, Leonidas II assumed the monarchy and forced Agis's wife to marry his son, Cleomenes (263-219 BC). Cleomenes greatly admired Agis and his attempt restore Sparta to its former glory. Even more ironic, when Clemones became king of Sparta in 235 he would attempt the exact same reforms that Agis did! Cleomones waged war throughout the Peloponese, fighting in Corinth, Argos, Megalopolis and Manitea and nearly succeeded in uniting the entire peninsula. With his growing military honors he returned to Sparta and had the treacherous Ephors executed.

Cleomones gave all his land to the state, and was followed in example by his family and friends, then by all the other citizens. An equal division of land was given to each individual, and the state population was increased by granting citizenship to non-citizens. Cleomones then instituted military reforms, including the introduction of the Macedonian sarissa (pike) and restoring social and military discipline.

Unfortunately these reforms may not have come soon enough for Sparta. Bad luck, bad timing and a massive Macedonian army lead to Cleomones defeat at the battle of Sellasia (222 BC) and he was forced into exile and death in Alexandria, Egypt.

Next...ROME and the comparison with Tiberius and Caius Gracchus!

Aristotle: Politics - What is democracy?

2010-09-11T12:40:00.000-07:00

We often hold our democratic form of government as the most successful and fairest form of administration, the natural evolutionary endpoint of hundreds of years of failed states.

Democracy has its roots in the Greek world, (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power", so it is quite appropriate to read Aristotle's thoughts as he compares democracy with other forms of government. A true democracy, as Aristotle states, gives each citizen an equal voice in the government. But, as Aristotle quotes Homer, "it is not good to have a rule of many". Even a relative contemporary, Winston Churchill, acknowledged that, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"

The first problem with democracy is that it can be very difficult to reach a consensus. In addition, many opinions will come from inferior minds lacking experience, knowledge or ability to contribute effectively. In a true democracy, everyone participates in government so citizens "elected" to office must be chosen at random. What would this be like today? First off, anyone could be a senator, a judge or even president! The multitude of people in the US, many without college or high school degrees and no political experience, could ascend to positions of great power. It would be a true democracy, but also chaotic, capricious and probably destructive. Democracies are also very susceptible to demagogues, popular leaders who appeal to the masses. They often play toward common feelings of inequality against the wealthy, the educated and other notable classes of society. Demagogues have been a threat to many governments (think Hitler, Mussolini) and have been shown to be a destabilizing factor even recently. Concluding, Aristotle lists many failed democracies throughout the Mediterranean including: Thebes, Megara, Rhodes, Syracuse and others. It seems that even the inventors of democracy did not think it was perfect.

Essentially, democracy is a monarchy of the multitudes. It marginalizes the rights of the few (wealthy, highly educated, noblity, etc) for the benefit of the many (poor, less well-educated, no birth right). In contrast, an Oligarchy is rule by the few over the many. Aristotle points out that this can be favorable since only a few individuals will be truly "virtuous", educated and experienced enough to run the government. Of course this can disenfranchise the multitudes who would have had power in a democracy.

In the US we have a combination of both an Oligarchy and a Democracy. Everyone has a vote and everyone has the potential to hold office. In reality, it is largely the elite of society who hold political positions. Many politicians represent corporate interests, come from wealthy well-educated families and political dynasties. I'm not saying this is a bad thing; Aristotle would agree that "notables" should run the government rather than less qualified individuals. However, by the strict definition, we do not live in a pure democracy.

The universal and chief cause of revolution is inequality, says Aristotle. A democracy is not truly equal, since wealthy property owners are stripped of their superior position. Similarly an oligarchy, like our government, is not equal to the majority. Aristotle says that an oligarchy can mitigate this disparity by treating the majority well.

Ultimately, Aristotle says, the chief aim of any government is the preservation of that government. That seems short-sighted and self-serving but it is manifestly true. Everyone involved in the government (e.g. "elected officials") will do everything possible to preserve the status quo. This reminds me of what Karl Marx said when he decribed police as "heavily-armed thugs" whose purpose was to protect the rights of the ruling class. Police are essentially agents defending the government from dissention and supporting its policies and values. Aristotle also goes on to say that the size of the military should be large enough to support the policy of the state "commensurate with the scale of her interests". This would include maintaining the status quo.

The last few books of "Politics" regard the education and employment of the youth. Aristotle states that, "All paid employments absorb and degrade the mind", by which he means we should all be self-employed. I can agree that working for someone is essentially degrading since we work largely for a paycheck. In contrast, being self-employed frees us from payday and grants us a unique self-interest in our work.

Similarly, Aristotle elaborates that learning for the sake of others is menial, servile and reflects an illiberal character. We are responsible for our own education and we should ensure that we are learning for our sake and not to be used as a tool.

Finally, as an aside, Aristotle says that the ideal state should be entirely visible at a glance. This seems practical to the city-states of ancient Greece (Athens, Thebes, Sparta, etc) but he probably did not imagine a state as large as the USA. However, if we consider that all politics are local, then the governing of a large country is merely a matter of organization and scale.

Aristotle: Politics - Why do we have a government?

2010-09-11T11:21:00.000-07:00

Last year I did a brief introdution of Aristotle and I read a portion of his work "Politics" which I discussed. This time my assignment was to read all eight "books" of Aristotle's Politics.

Aristotle famously says, "Man is by nature a political animal", and perhaps nothing (sadly) is more important to the advancement of civilization than politics. It is the foundation of government, society, culture and our welfare. Therefore a critical examination of the mechanics of politics is required for the development of any successful state.

Aristotle asks many questions such as: What are the elements of a successful government? Why are there different types of government? What is the best government?

Why do we need government? Aristotle says that within a "state" man is perfected, the best of all animals. However when he is removed from law and justice he becomes the worst. I suppose many would agree with that assessment, including Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who said that without government man would be in a "war of all against all" and thus have lives that were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

Who should rule? Aristotle says that some individuals are made to rule, just like some are naturally slaves and others masters. Just like the mind rules over the appetites, so should the superior rule over the inferior. At first I dismissed this idea as anachronistic and undemocratic, but now I am wondering if Aristotle is correct. Do we want bad leaders? Of course not, but what qualifies someone as good or bad? Education? Experience? Intelligence? Birth? It is worthy of further thought.

Who is a citizen in our government? What an apropos question as the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the status of illegal aliens in the US is currently in the news. Aristotle suggests that a citizen is someone who can participate in the government, specifically in the judicial system. A virtuous citizen is one who can both obey and lead.

What is the best government? Aristotle compares different governments weighing their pros and cons.

Governments can be divided into how many people rule over the state. This can be one (royalty/tyranny), a few (aristocracy/oligarchy = governement of the best), or the many (democracy/constitutional government).

Having a smaller ruling party results in a more efficient government which does not require a consensus for its action. It is also possible to have the best (most virtuous) rulers who are highly educated and skilled. Conversely, having a small number of people in charge means they are more likely to express bad judgement than a larger number would. Smaller governments also disenfranchise a great number of people.

The worst form of government is a tyranny where one man rules without restraint. According to Aristotle, a democracy is not too far behind. So what does Aristotle think is the best form of government? He wryly says it is the one that is administered by the best.

Aristotle does make it clear though that inequality is the root cause of rebellion and that a strong middle class is essential.

"Thus it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely be be well-administered, in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible that both the other classes...for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme"

Reading Plan: Year Two

2010-08-19T03:34:00.000-07:00

In the GBWW program, year one was a general introduction into great works of literature and philosophical thought. The next nine years have more direction, which each year orientated to a specific theme.

Year two is focused on literature concerning the development of political theory and government. From the reading list below I can see that I will be returning to some authors and books that I read selections from last year, such as Aristotle, Plutarch and Shakespeare as well as more Bible reading. I am particularly looking forward to reading the political philosophy of Hobbes, Rousseau and Kant who I know have been very influential.

Aristotle: Politics

Plutarch: The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans
Old Testament: Samuel, Kings
New Testament: Matthew, Acts
Tacitus: The Annals
Aquinas: Summa Theologica
Machiavelli: The Prince
Hobbes: Leviathan
Shakespeare: King Henry IV
Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws
Rousseau: The Social Contract
Locke: Concerning Civil Government
Kant: The Science of Right
J.S. Mill: Representative Government, On Liberty
The Federalist (selected readings)
Hegel: The Philosophy of Right
J.S. Mill: On Liberty

Here is the rub. Over the next nine years I will read select readings from specific works, but in some cases I do not finish the entire piece. For example, it was suggested by GBWW that I only read 50 pages of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire . When will I finish the rest? (another 1750 pages!). Do I want to spend two months reading that and slow my progress on other books? Will I get diminishing returns by reading the entire work?

My tentative plan to is finish year two of the GBWW program ahead of schedule and return to Decline and Fall as well as reading Marx's Das Kapital (and perhaps some others). Of course plans only survive as long as they don't meet reality.

Year One - A review

2010-08-12T15:42:00.000-07:00

On January 9th, 2009 I started reading GBWW following the Year One schedule. It took 19 months rather than 12 to finish the first year, but I'm still pleased to have completed everything. Admittedly, writing a thoughtful blog entry about each book seems to double the effort.

From my list, I think I enjoyed reading Hamlet the most. However the Communist Manifesto and Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire were the most stimulating.

Here is the list of GBWW that were finished this year:

Plato: Apology, Crito, The Republic

Sophocles: Oedipus the King and Antigone

Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, Politics

Plutarch: The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans

Old Testament: Book of Job
St. Augustine: The Confessions
Montaigne: The Essays
Shakespeare: Hamlet
Locke: Concerning Civil Government
Swift: Gulliver's Travels
Gibbon: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
The Declaration of Independence
The Constitution of the United States
The Federalist
Marx-Engles: Manifesto of the Communist Party

Communism in America

2010-08-12T11:44:00.000-07:00

I found the Communist Manifesto to be quite thought provoking and it also made me eager to read Das Kapital to learn more about Marx's economic theories. I agree that many workers today are still exploited as "wage laborers", including ones with PhDs and MDs. Certainly the problem has been greatly rectified since 1848, but I thought it would be worth seeing what Communist ideas Marx had that have been implemented in America.

What Marx wanted to see:

1. Progressive income tax. We have this in America, however some people do not think it is nearly "progessive" enough for the super rich. We also tax inhertances, which retards the growth of a wealthy ruling classs.

2. Free education. We have publicly supported schools for K-12 and state sponsored universities. However a free college education is unrealistic, even in "socialist" Europe.

3. A national bank. We have this and the Federal Reserve regulates the short-term interest rate which means there is quite a bit of governmental control over our economy (especially lending).

4. Labor unions. We did cultivate many of these over the last 150 years. Although they are not nearly as powerful as in years past, they still retain their influence and protect workers rights.

5. Public Ownership of Business. The goverments currently owns many "companies" such as the post office, mortgage companies (Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae) and we own 60% of General Motors following our bailout of that company.

Marx saw history as a grand and natural transition from old ideas to new ones. It was a mix of Hegel's inevetable march of time and a twist of social Darwinism. The final outcome would be a great class struggle with Communism emerging dominant. He probably did not predict that we would instead incorportate many of his ideas in our capitalist governments.

Marx and Engels: The Communist Manifesto

2010-08-12T07:45:00.000-07:00

"The theory of the Communists can be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property." Not the property of peasants but "the kind of property which exploits wage labor and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation."

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that there has been a long historical struggle between the working class of "wage laborers" (the proletariat) and the ruling class who control capital (the bourgeoisie). In other words, most of us are working for someone for money and the people paying us control how much compensation we receive for our labor. This "callous cash payment" has "converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers".

What is wrong with being a wage laborer? One problem is that the wage laborer is not fairly compensated. For example, in an 8-hour work day we pay for ourselves in only 5 hours and the rest of the wage-labor we generate goes to the bourgeoisie. Worse yet, many wage laborers only earn enough money to survive and reproduce, but never enough to elevate themselves out of their position. This just perpetuates the cycle of dependency on the bourgeoisie. If a laborer tries to ask for more money the bourgeoisie will find cheaper labor elsewhere, since wage earners are just a "commodity".

The proletariat "is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie - the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker" (think “Cash Now” or “Check & Go” money-lending stores today). The bourgeoisie do train and educate the proletariat, but only to help the bourgeoisie compete with other bourgeoisie, foreign and domestic. However, the Manifesto suggests that the preliterate should be using this knowledge against the bourgeoisie who keep them suppressed.

How are communists different those other working parties? They support all national struggles and they represent the movement as a whole. This is in contrast with nationalist worker parties. The Communists want all workers to unite.

Karl Marx

2010-08-11T04:26:00.000-07:00

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a radical political figure who advocated the abolition of private property and the overthrow of the ruling elite. Marx called his idea of goverment Communism, as as we know today it had a profound influence on the events of the following century. Born in Germany, Marx was not a stellar university student although he had a keen interest in philosophy. During his early life he developed a great sympathy for the alienation of the working classes of Europe which was occurring during the Industrial Revolution.

Marx wrote many publications supporting his beliefs, but the two most well-known are The Communist Manifesto (1848), which outlined his thoughts and called for a worker's revolution, and Das Kapital (1867) which explains the deficits in the capital mode of production which lead to class struggle.

The publication of his ideas were not popular with most governments and Marx was forced to leave Germany and later France before finally settling in London. He lived in almost total poverty with his wife and children helped only by the financial support of his close friend and intellectual counterpart, Friedrich Engels.

The Federalist Papers

2010-08-10T20:14:00.000-07:00

If men were angels there would be no need for government. The great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed: and in the next place oblige it to control itself" Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist

The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 articles supporting the ratification of the United States Constitution. The papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison and were published for general readership. The authors used the pseudonym "Publius," in honor of the Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola, who helped overthrow the Roman monarchy (509 BC) and established a popular and fair justice system in ancient Rome. (Incidentally, many publications in early America were printed under Roman pseudonyms (e.g. Cato, Caesar, &c) perhaps to establish the credibility of the authors or as innuendo.

The Constitution was designed to promote a stronger union among the states, prevent inter-state disputes, help the government raise money and give us a strong executive (i.e. president). However the Constitution was not greeted with uniform praise.

Many regional leaders feared the enervation of states rights and powers. The two most powerful states, Virginia and New York, had the most to lose and were the last ones to ratify the Constitution. The Federalist papers were written to appeal to the sensibilities of these recalcitrant people and mollify their concerns of a monolithic federal government dominating the country.

Hamilton, Madison and John Jay

Let's see if I can briefly summarize the Federalist papers:

Most of the Federalist papers praise the merits of the Constitution, going into the details of its workings and the new government, as well as defending and attacking detractors and other governments.

"Publius" states that the Constitution was written by men who studied many other forms of government and chose the best ideas of each, similar to what Lycurgus did for 7th century BC Greece. However, the main reason for creating the Constitution was to promote unity. States need a unified code of laws and fiscal policy in some areas, as well as a single voice in treaties and foreign negotiations. Solidarity would also discourage neighboring states from becoming rivals, a natural outcome of having regional powers in close proximity. We also needed to deal with Spain and England who threatened to block our expansion to the west.

The legislative branch of government is naturally the most powerful, but a strong executive is needed to provide balance and to give us one voice. To help divide the power of the legislature, we have a Senate and a House of Representatives. In addition, this division helps protect the minority by inhibiting the majority from acting in a concentrated manner.

Other_governments, such as Great Britain, do not have truly independent legislatures, "executives", and judicial systems. This may be one of the greatest contributions of the American Constitution to modern government. Interesting, we are one of the few countries that does not have its executive chosen by the legislature. Compare this with the Prime Minister of the UK.

Are term limits a bad thing? Hamilton says that if a president or other elected official is not going to be re-elected it encourages deviant behavior since the elected official will not be held accountable to the voters. It also enervates the power of the elected official - what we call a lame duck. We also lose an experienced official.
The Founding Fathers would probably not have approved the Twenty-second Amendment.

All Men are Not Equal. Despite what the Declaration of Independence suggests, Jefferson meant that all men should have equal opportunities. Hamilton praises the diversity in America, saying that one of our greatest strengths is that we are not equal in every ability.

It is ironic that Hamilton suggests the Constitution will discourage the need for standing army and the likelihood of war when later in life Hamilton played an active role in establishing a national army and trying to provoke a war with Spain. Of course this only one of several ironies that the Founding Fathers could not have predicted.

The Constitution of the United States

2010-08-03T19:39:00.000-07:00

Even though we declared ourselves independent in 1776, we did not have our Constitution until 1787. During that time the weak Articles of Confederation held our country together, which allowed individual states a wide latitude in their own governance. When it came time to write a new more unifying Consitution, many people (such as Madison and Hamilton) realized that we needed a stronger federal government and their convictions earned them the appellation "Federalists". Opposing the Federalists were the "Republicans", who favored a weaker central government with more states rights.

The Constitution seems to always be in the news. A familiar cry from belligerent talk show guests is for us to "read the Constitution". OK, I will. Of course that doesn't mean I can deduce what the Founding Fathers meant in the Second Amendment by the right to bear arms. The newest buzz is over the Fourteenth Amendment which states that anyone "born" in the USA is a United States citizen. It was designed to complement the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery. However, it is now thought to be antiquated since illegal aliens giving birth in the US automatically give their children US citizen status. I could see an amendment to this, since other countries such as the UK don't allow this. Also, I think we may also be able to allow citizens not born in the US to become president.

Most of the original Constitution lays the groundwork for the new government: qualification for senators and representatives, term lengths, the judicial systems, etc. It is all interesting and I probably read it before when I was twelve. However, you do gain a better appreciation for the ingenuity of the architects of this document after a certain age.

Not surprisingly there is no mention anywhere of the President of the United States being elected by the popular vote. Of course everyone is aware of this now, but it is comforting to see that I wasn't lied to back in 2000. One interesting note is that the president can pardon ANY crime (e.g. murder, treason) except impeachment! Since Nixon was not impeached he could be pardoned - but Bill Clinton who didn't commit any crimes (?) cannot be.

Reading the Amendments I felt like there was some missing. I reached twenty-four, but there are in fact twenty-six Amendments. I then realized that this edition of the GBWW I am reading is from 1952. The Constitution, as they say, is a living document, and has moved on.

The Articles of Confederation

2010-08-03T19:07:00.000-07:00

About the time the Declaration of Independence was being signed, the Continental Congress was writing up our first constitution, which would be known as "The Articles of Confederation". This document united the states into a single country, but it was not approved officially by all the states until 1781.

Not to be confused with the "Constitution of the United States", this agreement established a weak federal system, which reminds me of an early "European Union". There was no president, no national court system, the states could raise their own militias and states could coin their own money (value was set by the Fed however).

There were thirteen articles in all. I found article eleven amusing as it states no colonies can enter the union without the approval of the other states except...Canada! Canada has free admission to the union if they want to join, but I guess they turned us down.

Overall, it was not a very strong union, but it was enough to get us started.

Declaration of Indepedence

2010-08-03T18:48:00.000-07:00

The next few works I am reading concern the development of our government in the United States of America. These include the Declaration of the Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the USA and finally the Federalist papers.

I recently finished a biography on one of our founding fathers, John Adams, by Pulitzer Prize winner David McCullough. I highly recommend this book and it has given me a broader perspective into the events that were occurring when these documents were prepared. I also think I understand the motivations and personalities of the men who contributed to these great works including: James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson

The Declaration of Independence has its famous and powerful preamble. The lesser known portion of this document is the list of grievances that follow. The signers cite these as justification for their succession from the oppressive British Empire. Ironically, the Declaration was heavily influenced by the British. It is partially modeled after the declaration of Scottish Independence (1320 AD) and reflects thoughts by the British philosopher John Locke. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, John Locke advocated that the role of government is to help preserve "Life", "Liberty" and "Property". That's not quite the same as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but it's close enough for most people.

Continuing with this theme, this statement is worthy of further thought: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". What is it that makes these truths self-evident?

Gibbon: Persecution of early Christians

2010-07-25T15:15:00.000-07:00

Christianity arose following the death of Christ in the reign of Emperor Tiberius (29 AD?). Until the first Christian Emperor, Constantine (337 AD), the Roman Empire had a difficult and hostile relationship with Christianity. Each Emperor dealt with the Christian problem in his own way, which I will not outline here.

Ironically, the traits that made Christianity so successful were the very ones that pagan Romans found incomprehensible, repulsive, alien, and subversive. To accept only one god was unfathomable to a polytheist. Interestingly, some Romans wanted to incorporate Jesus into their pantheon of deities. When Pontius Pilot reported to the Emperor Tiberius that the Jewish Messiah (Jesus) was unjustly killed it was, "...Tiberius, who avowed his contempt for all religion, immediately conceived the design of placing the Jewish Messiah among the gods of Rome". Wouldn't that have resulted in a different future for Christianity?

In any case, since Christians rejected worship of any other god but theirs, this put them on a collision course with Roman culture and mores. Interestingly, many eminent philosophers (the intellectuals of their day) acknowledged the wisdom of a single god. However, they could not accept the concept when it was presented to them by a group of ragtag disciples from distant Judea. In addition, many Romans found the austere, disengaged lifestyle of Christians to be haughty and traitorous to the ideals of the Roman Empire.

Gibbon tells us that not as many Christians became martyrs as we are lead to believe. Examining the records, Gibbon says that far more Christians have been killed in the religious wars of Europe than were ever persecuted by the Romans. However, there appears to be no shortage of Christians who were willing to embrace martyrdom. In fact, many seemed far too eager to leave their temporal existence for the Kingdom of Heaven than logic would dictate. To avoid martyrdom was quite easy as it did not require a "confession" only a "denial" and a small offering to one of the pagan gods. Gibbon says that many of the poor and humble Christians had very little to look forward to in this life. This made martyrdom and eternal bliss in Heaven an attractive escape and many would in fact rush toward death - even antagonizing the beasts in the Colosseum to speed along their demise.

Gibbon: Why was Christianity successful?

2010-07-23T13:52:00.000-07:00

Gibbon states that there were five reasons why Christianity thrived in the Roman Empire.

I.Christianity was inflexible. It derived its intolerant zealotry from its Jewish heritage and this was decidedly unlike the inclusive polytheism of the pagan religions which most Romans practiced.

II. The doctrine of a future life. The idea of a Christian heaven was a powerful and coercive tool for recruiting new believers.

III. The miraculous powers attributed to the early Church. Even after the death of Jesus there were frequent reports of resurrections and miracles happening in the Holy Land as Gibbon recounts. Eventually the Christian elders/leaders (presbyters) put a stop to these claims to avoid discrediting the church.

IV. The pure and austere morals of the Christians. The rigidity of the Christian faith was appealing to many. In addition, pagan religions often had priests from the upper caste of society and the hoi polloi were allowed limited access to temples and ceremonies. In contrast, Christianity embraced the poor and encouraged the divestment of material (temporal) positions. Living an austere life was a way to gain access to the eternal kingdom.

V. The union and discipline of the Christian republic. The first few hundred years of Christianity were very tumultuous, with many beliefs competing for control of the young religion. Eventually a clear set of doctrines emerged which promoted the cohesion of the church. Having one set of church doctrines and leaders made Christianity less ambiguous, more transparent and contrasted it from pagan religions of the day.

That being said, the early church was not initially very unified. Perhaps the most prolific splinter group were the Gnostics who combined Christianity with eastern philosophy. According to Gibbons there were over 50 sects at one point with names such as the Basilidians, Valentinians, Marcionites and later the Manicheans. Each of these had their own gospels, bishops, martyrs and had influence and proselytes from Asia to Rome (and beyond). Eventually the Catholic sect (for lack of a better word) emerged dominant and unified most of Christianity under a single set of tenets. The reason for this is largely due to the list stated above, which the other sects were not able to incorporate as successfully.

The Catholic Church had two powerful weapons at its disposal to keep the faithful in line and maintain their unity: Excommunication and Absolution of sins. Anyone excommunicated would be ostracized from the Christian community, excluded from all rights, privileges and fellowship. More significantly, the pariah would feel the onerous burden of eternal damnation unless he was received back into "communion" with the church. Forgiveness of sins was the second tool of the church which granted it the ability to completely pardon anyone for any worldly (temporal) crime. To be able to absolve someone of any crime (theft, murder, etc) with the authority of god was incredibly powerful in recruiting new members and a sacrament that could be withheld on those members who did not conform.

For these reasons, Christianity flourished in the Roman Empire over other religions, despite the persecution they endured.

Gibbon does make a point of acknowledging that the familiar story of the birth of Jesus was a well-known tale in the mythology of several other religions even before Christ was born.

"...the legends of Bacchus, of Hercules, and Aesculapius had, in some measure, prepared their imagination for the appearance of the Son of God under a human form".

Below is a video which follows this up in more detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1FdtpH8lSI&feature=related

Edward Gibbon

2010-07-20T05:14:00.000-07:00

Edward Gibbon (1737-1797) was an English historian and Member of Parliament who is best known for writing "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", which was published as six volumes between 1776-1789.

Gibbon was the son of established wealth and this afforded him opportunities for education and travel. On his grand tour of Europe, a young Gibbon was overcome by the grandeur and decay of Rome. He decided soon after that he would be the first modern historian to chronicle the history of the Roman Empire.

The arduous process of researching primary sources and writing consumed most of Gibbon's life as he catalogued the history of Rome from Emperor Marcus Aurelius (180 AD) to the Fall of Constantinople (1453 AD). When Gibbon published the first volume of his magnum opus in 1776 it was universally hailed as a success. The quality of his prose, his objective style and his use of primary sources became a model for future historians to emulate.

I will eventually finish all 1800 pages of the Decline and Fall however, following the GBWW program, I am only reading chapters XV-XVI at this time. These are two of the most controversial chapters in the entire series as they deal with the rise and incorporation of Christianity within the Roman Empire. Gibbon's description of early Christianity does not agree with the history promulgated by the Catholic Church and this discrepency was compounded by the fact that Gibbon relied on primary sources rather than later documents produced by the church.

Gulliver's Travels

2010-06-09T20:47:00.000-07:00

Reading Gulliver's Travels, one would think that Jonathan Swift was a misanthrope. He does not color mankind with a friendly brushstroke when he describes the behavior of the natives he meets and compares it with humanity back home.

Broken into four parts:

(I) Following a shipwreck, Gulliver famously finds himself on the island of Lilliput where he is the prisoner of 6 inch tall people. In exchange for his release he agrees to help the king defeat his enemies on the nearby island of Blefusco, which Gulliver does by capturing their navy.

Gulliver finds the long war between Lilliput and Blefusco to be trivial and foolish, similar to many European wars he has observed - especially concerning religion. The Lilliputian war began over the interpretation from their holy book on how to open eggs: on the big end or small end. The factions (Big-Endian and Little-Endian) cannot simply allow an individual to freely choose which end is best suited for themselves.

Gulliver is disgusted when the Lilliputians demand that he destroy the people of Blefusco. This decision, along with jealously, courtly intrigue and politics force Gulliver to leave Lilliput.

Before leaving, Gulliver comments that he admires the Lilliputians for placing morality over ability in their government officials, since people with great ability but no morals would quickly subvert government to their own needs. However, "moral" people still make bad decisions.

(II) Gulliver's next journey is to Broddingnag, a race of giant humans 12 times his size. Many of the giants regard him as a novelty, like a toy, and display contempt for Gulliver's intelligence and ability. The king of the giants, after speaking with Gulliver about the English policital system, concludes that, "ignorance, idleness, and vice are the proper ingredients for qualifying a legislature (in England)". When Gulliver talks about the secret of gunpowder with his majesty, the king expresses outrage that such a little man could know a secret which would equalize all races. In affect, making a small man (or commoner) as powerful as a king (or a giant).

(III) After leaving the race of giants, by way of a bird carrying off his cage, Gulliver's next notable adventure is reaching a floating island. The floating island is home to royalty and it circles a much larger "normal" island full of commoners and lesser nobility. Swift describes an ingenious way for keeping the floating island in the sky - it uses the earth's magnetic properties to levitate, sort of like a futuristic mag-lev train. The king of the floating island extracts tribute from the larger island below, and if he doesn't receive it he will hover above their lands depriving them of sunlight and rain. It is possible that he could use more force and crush the inhabitants below with his floating island. However, this could destroy his own floating island as well, so he doesn't choose to do this.

In this society, technology and science are considered the supreme good (at the expense of common sense). Devices are created at the academy that seem unproductive, wanting or are harmful - although some are quite clever.

Gulliver also meets a group of people who can speak to the dead. Gulliver summons eminent philosophers and orators, generals and politicians to talk with him. In another area, Gulliver finds a race that is immortal. Unfortunately, this race ages normally and so they spend the majority of their long life in the condition of extreme physical old age.

(IV) Gulliver finally encounters the Houyhnhnms. This is a race of intelligent horse-like creatures living on an island who cannot lie and prize reason above emotion. They exist in contrast to the barbaric, uncivilized humans known as "Yahoos" who respond to only to their base desires. The Yahoos are filthy, unshaven and are either running around free or used for physical labor by the Houyhnhnms.

The natives find that since Gulliver resembles the Yahoos he must be similar to them in intelligence, ability and behavior. They are surprised when Gulliver learns their language and is capable of sophisticated reasoning. Gulliver quickly identifies with the Huoyhnhnms and their culture. After all his travels, he begins to express his resentment for what he formerly called civilization in England.

He admits that in his land, people and princes fight wars over things that seem beyond reason. "Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh: whether the juice of a certain berry be blood or wine: whether whistling be a vice or a virtue: whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire: what is the best color for a coat?"

The yahoos have conflicts too, over the possessions of shining stones and inebriating substances. These are things which cause the emotional desires of the yahoos to replace reason, something that the Huoyhnhnms cannot understand.

Gulliver declares that he never wants to associate again with humans, but he is forced to leave because of distrust among the Huoyhnhnms. He is, after all, a Yahoo.

Having returned to England, Gulliver takes no joy in seeing his wife and he writes "the sight of them filled me only with hatred, disgust and contempt" which is likely a result of Gulliver's lost faith in mankind. Gulliver seems to have given up on men, and he soon devotes his time to a horse he has recently purchased.

Jonathan Swift and Gulliver's Travels

2010-06-07T19:41:00.000-07:00

It is quite interesting that "Gulliver's Travels" is often found in the children's section of many bookstores. Most of us know this iconic tale as the story of a giant Englishman surrounded by the miniature Lilliputians trying to subdue him. Although Gulliver's Travels (1726) is easy to read without dissecting it, I do not think that Jonathan Swift's (1667-1745) original audience was young English children.

Swift was an Englishman born in Dublin, the son of a father who backed the losing side in the English Civil War. Following his education in Oxford, Swift became a potent essayist and political activist for the conservative Tory party. He railed against the English treatment of the Irish and clashed with the Whig establishment in London. Most of his political diatribes were satirical; for example, he suggested that the English (Whig) solution for the overcrowding of Ireland would be for the Irish to sensibly eat their own children.

Gulliver's Travels was written to mock the exaggerated travel stories that were fashionable during this time of foreign discovery. In addition, Swift also portrays royalty, government officials, and humanity in general, with cutting mockery.

Gulliver describes several different groups of "people" he meets on his travels. These include the race of miniature humanoids 6 inches tall that we are most familiar with. He also reaches shores full of humans 12 times our height, a race of men that do not die, a group that can converse with dead people, a flying island, and finally an island populated by intelligent horses where humans are considered imbeciles and treated as slaves.

Locke: Concerning Civil Government

2010-05-06T18:57:00.000-07:00

I wish I had the time to devote a serious review to this work which I found enlightening and also worthy of discussion.

Natural Law
John Locke says that before we had governments, justice was determined by "Natural Law", e.g. do onto others as they have done onto you. We were our own judge, jury and executioners if someone wronged us.

The problem with Natural Law is that we cannot be dispassionate and fair judges of what we deserve in compensation for our loses. That is one reason why we developed government, to have an impartial judge and executor of natural law. Similarly, government gives the weaker party the ability to overcome the stronger in the name of justice.

Property

Property is the result of labor. Acorns fallen from a tree in the wild belong not to everyone but to the one who collects them. If I kill a rabbit in the wilderness it is now my property (according to Locke), since I used my labor for the activity.

Can I take as much "property" as I want? Locke says we should take as much as we need. In Natural Law this would only be enough food that won't spoil or go to waste. This makes sense, since why would you collect more than you can consume? However, since we do gather more than we need, we developed money to represent property. The protection of property and money is the job of government.

Laws and Rulers

.
.
.
.
.
.
..

"All men are by nature equal", says Locke, and that includes monarchs. In fact, leaders have a special obligation to follow the law and maintain equality.

Laws should not serve as a limitation to our freedom but as guideposts. The law makes us free by protecting us and our property. Locke says that laws act sort of like parents protecting children and they should only limit to the extent that we do not affect someone elses freedom or property.

Monarchs and other executives should also act like parents, as kings came originally from patriarchal societies. However, even though we are told to "honor our parents" by God, they should only receive the honor they deserve.

Each of us is are born into a governmental system, but we do not have to accept or adopt this system. When we leave the age of minority we should acknowledge the right of this government to rule us or we should leave the protection of this society. If we recognize our government, we should demand that it remain just and follow its own laws. If it does not, we are obliged to rebel against it.

Revolution
Locke states that we have no obligation to follow laws or the authority of a ruler that was not appointed by our representatives to govern us. This is probably what people thought after the 2000 presidential race. Similarly, unjust laws should not be followed. However, Locke admits that it may be difficult to determine what is "unjust" and that may vary on your point of view.

Locke's treatise made great strides in recognizing individual rights. I want to fault him for not going far enough but that would be, in the context of history, unfair. From everything I have read in the last 12 months, Locke's treatise has been one of the most interesting and thought provoking works.

John Locke

2010-05-05T19:05:00.000-07:00

John Locke (1632-1704) was a British philosopher whose innovative ideas on the purpose and regulation of government has given him the title of spiritual father of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. John Locke is also recognized as the founder of British Empiricism which hypothesized that innate ideas about the world do not exist. The only knowledge we can obtain is through sensory perception and experience.

During Locke's lifetime England played witness to many revolutionary thoughts on the function and role of government. The English Civil War (1641-1651) between the monarchy and the Parliament resulted in the execution of the King of England Charles I in 1649 and the establishment of a commonwealth (sans monarch). Eventually Charles II, son of Charles I, was restored to the throne in 1660, but his son (James II) was later overthrown in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This resulted in the establishment of a constitutional monarchy with Parliament gaining significant power. In the following two years (1689 and 1690) Locke wrote his treatise "Concerning Civil Government".

John Locke wanted to understand why we needed government and how it could be useful. He thought that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights and property. Property is what we accumulate through our labors and no one should be able to take that away from us (not even the government). Our rights include life, liberty and the freedom to rebel against unjust governments. While this did justify the revolutions in England, it also supported the American revolution a century later.

Locke also had the novel idea that government should have its authority separated into different branches and be regulated between these units by checks and balances. The executive branch would have judicial responsibilities and the other division was made of Parliament, which had the authority to remove (impeach) the executive. This is very similar to our government, except of course that the judicial branch is separate from the executive (depending on who you ask).

Locke's ideas had an enormous influence on our founding fathers and it is fascinating to see the progenitor of our own constitution.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Bacon, Locke and Newton, I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception".

Shakespeare: Hamlet

2010-04-20T14:37:00.000-07:00

The story of Hamlet is one that was known for generations, long before Shakespeare picked up his quill. In fact many of Shakespeare's works are re-tellings of familar tales or historical events. However it is, along with King Lear and Macbeth, one of Shakespeare's best plays.

Warning: spoilers ahead. Hamlet's uncle Cladius secretly murders Hamlet's father, becomes the king of Denmark and marries Hamlet's mother. Hamlet learns the truth of this murder, but is paralyzed by his own thoughts and words from acting to avenge his father's death. In the end Hamlet does kill Cladius, but his dithering means that seven other characters also die along the way through treachery, combat, accidents and suicide.

Hamlet is a complex, thoughtful character who finds himself immobilized by his self-reflections on the purpose and meaningfulness of life. In the end we are all food for worms and so life seems futile - "To be or not to be". Is it better to be alive and suffer misery or to be dead and enjoy a long sleep. Hamlet realizes that he will die, like all men, and he would have his life extinguish knowing that he did what he thought was right rather than doing nothing but enduring a mortal existence.

Reading Hamlet well-prepared with the vocabulary, historical background and double-entendres gave me the opportunity to appreciate the other subtitles in this play, as well as the grand story without being mired in misunderstood phases and words.

For example, when Hamlet yells at Ophelia, "get thee to a nunnery" this doesn't mean a convent - well it does - but also a whorehouse. When he calls Ophelia's father a fishmonger, Hamlet is not talking about a seller of fish per se, as a fish is another name for a prostitute. Not surprisingly, Hamlet's charm probably contributed to Ophelia's watery suicide.

A final thing about reading Hamlet that I found amusing was being surprised by a line that you have heard a hundred times, but you were still not prepared to see it suddenly jump out at you in your reading.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be, for a loan oft loses both itself and friend"

"The lady doth protest too much, me thinks"

"Frailty, thy name is woman"

"I must be cruel to be kind"

Of course....

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

And Finally...

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;"

William Shakespeare

2010-04-16T14:36:00.000-07:00

I never had a strong desire to read Shakespeare (1564-1616), the only work I read in high school was Romeo and Juliet. I found him abstruse, esoteric, inaccessible and I could not appreciate his language. I thought that anyone who expressed pleasure or appreciation in reading Shakespeare was more refined than myself, or merely pretentious.

Living in England for two years, and visiting Stratford-upon-Avon, was transformative for me. Being in the home of the Bard, and experiencing the reverence he was shown in the UK, made me want to give him a second chance. During my time in England I read Henry IV Part One, Macbeth and Julius Caesar and watched the The Merchant of Venice, The Tempest and Henry V. I also read a humorous biography by Bill Bryson, "Shakespeare: The World as Stage".

More recently I finished the more critical biography "Will in the World" written by Harvard professor Stephen Greenblatt. This was an excellent resource for understanding Shakespeare, not only detailing how the events of his life shaped his writing, but also explaining hidden messages behind many of his most famous plays. Although there are great gaps in Shakespeare's life we do know where he was and what he was doing at some very specific dates and places. It is also possible to see how the spirit of the times in Elizabethan and Jacobean England influenced his works.

I do not subscribe to the theory that Shakespeare's works were ghost written by another author since we can clearly see how many of his greatest works were drawn from events in Will's own life. I agree that it is remarkable that an relatively uneducated, unrefined man from the boondocks could become the apotheosized master of the English language. However such success from obscurity to greatness could be said about many people in history: Lincoln, Napoleon, Einstein, Buffet, etc..

I could not appreciate nor understand Shakespeare in my youth. However, life's lessons and experiences have significantly improved my ability to relate to his words and enjoy them. Still, I find reading "Cliff Notes" before I tackle a piece invaluable, since the vocabulary and context of many words and phrases is concealed by the 400 years that have past since they were first recorded.

Reading outside the GBWW schedule

2010-04-10T18:54:00.000-07:00

I recently realized I was perilously behind in my classical reading blog, especially in the Great Books of the Western World (GBWW) reading schedule. I have not stopped reading, but I have been diverted by books outside the GBWW series.

One contemporary book that I finished was the political/philosophical satire called "Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington"by Cathcart and Klein. This book targeted politicians and well-known polemicists who use illogical, evasive or deceptive arguments to persuade the public. Although I did enjoy it, I found it overtly partisan and not as entertaining as Carthcart and Klein's last book "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar".

A more stimulating book was "Viva la Repartee" by Mardy Grothe. This collection of retorts, rejoinders and witty, pithy comebacks from celebrities, politicians and others was glued to my hands. It often made me think, "Why didn't I say that?" I think it did stir up some creative thoughts in me which I hope will surface when I need a riposte.

A modern classic I finished was "Empire Falls" by Richard Russo, which won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2002. This books describes a small, dying town in Maine and the characters that dwell in it. Since my formative years were spent in small towns I could easily relate to the situations the characters found themselves in. Divisions of wealth and class are much more apparent when you cannot escape from your own small world. The story was also well told and I found the denizens of this town to be vivid and sympathetic.

In our book club we read a classic of Victorian English literature, "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte. Published in 1847, this is the story of a young woman overcoming poverty, loneliness and distrust. By holding true to herself she becomes educated, develops close friends and eventually discovers love and becomes independently wealthy. This was a satisfying, but voluminous novel (nearly 600 pages) and Bronte's vocabulary required my dictionary's frequent consultation. This was a book I wanted to read and I am glad to have had the opportunity to enjoy it.

A final book that I finished in the last few months was the "The Life of Pi" by Yann Martel. This novel won the prestigious "Man Booker Prize" in 2002, which is awarded to the best work of English fiction produced that year by a "Commonwealth Nation" (e.g. UK, Canada). It is the story of a young Indian boy whose father is transporting his zoo from India to Canada when the ship carrying them sinks. The young boy, Pi, must then survive a long journey alone in a lifeboat, his only companion a hungry tiger. One of the more interesting parts of this book is how Pi decides to become a Christian, a Hindu, and a Muslim all at once, which provides some fun and thoughtful moments.

Montaigne - Customs, Education and Morality

2010-04-04T06:43:00.000-07:00

Customs

Many people believe that their laws and customs are natural and universal and derive from reason. However, a studied inquiry will often reveal that the reasoning is flawed or stands on weak foundations. Moreover as we examine other cultures (as Montaigne did) we can see that our "truths" are not universally shared.

Montaigne describes the idyllic and pure lives of savages in the New World and says that compared to them we are barbarians. Some may be cannibals, eating their dead enemies, but how is that worse than the atrocities committed in the wars of religion in Europe (as well as the Inquisition). Many people mindlessly follow their customs without ever questioning them. Just because we do not understand something does not mean it is wrong. Likewise, the fact that we follow the rules and customs of our society does not validate their virtue.

Education

Montaigne describes his own education and says that too much emphasis is placed on memorizing details of little consequence. What students should be learning is good judgement.

We also need to be teaching practical knowledge and encourage students to use what they have learned.

"For wisdom is not only to be acquired, but also utilized" - Cicero.

Repeating quotes without comprehension also does not educate. Ironically, Montaigne quotes someone to support this.

"They have learned to speak from others, not from themselves" - Cicero

We should be selective in what we learn, but not exclusive. Some of the best thoughts come from "the lower end of the table".

Good and Evil

Montaigne said that good and evil are partially determined by our opinions. The three evils that many fear are Death, Pain and Poverty.

It is not sensible to fear death since it is natural and we are only afraid of the unknown. Pain is more difficult since it works the body against the soul. However, pain is often only experienced in the context of the situation. Pain for beauty, honor or wealth is not felt as strongly as when we experience pain in the absence of a future reward. Therefore pain appears to be some thing variable to the opinion of the sufferer.

Montaigne does not talk as much about being poor as he does about avarice and the accumulation and burdens of wealth. Montaigne was from a well-to-do family so he would know the latter better than the former. He says that being wealthy will not make you happy, it only changes your condition. Money is like wearing clothes to keep warm, the heat comes from you, not the clothes. Being happy comes from how we view and judge our own situation.

Michel de Montaigne

2010-04-04T05:59:00.000-07:00

Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (1533 – 1592) was a French renaissance scholar who is famous for his "Essays", a series of short topical works which are partially autobiographical. In these essays, Montaigne talks openly about good and evil, education, customs. religion and other subjects from his own point of view.

What sets Montaigne apart is his great skepticism, suspended judgment and tolerance. He asks us not to accept ideas, laws and beliefs without careful investigation and justification. Montaigne provides examples from his own life and experience, and frequently quotes authors from antiquity (Plutarch, Livy, Cicero, Seneca) to support his case. Being a proponent for skepticism, Montaigne even tells the reader to doubt him. His often used and most well-known quote is, "What do I know?"

I found Montaigne essays easy to digest, entertaining and surprisingly applicable to contemporary life.

Some quotes that I enjoyed:

"Obsession is the wellspring of genius and madness."

"Life in itself is neither good nor evil, it is the place of good and evil, according to what you make it. "

"To forbid us anything is to make us have a mind for it. "

"Not being able to govern events, I govern myself."

"Nothing is so firmly believed as that which least is known."

"When I play with my cat, how do I know that she is not passing time with me rather than I with her?"

Brave New World - Analysis

2009-12-02T20:42:00.000-08:00

I thoroughly enjoyed this thoughtful, well-written novel by Huxley and I wanted to elaborate on how I think the themes in this book translate into our society today.

The structure of society

Even though America prides itself on being upwardly mobile for most of its citizens it is clear that the caste structure in BNW (alpha, beta, gamma, etc) exists here today. In BNW the caste structure is maintained by controlling genetics and development, and later through conditioning and social conformity. The latter two matter significantly since it requires the state actively manipulating individuals throughout their entire lives. In BNW conformity is induced by controlling media, promoting conformist activities for each caste and by giving caste members drugs (soma) to keep them complacent.

Controlling society

Today I think we are manipulated by state institutions, large corporations and the media. We are taught to conform to a consumerist society where we feel compelled to compare our possessions, lifestyles, careers and other choices to our neighbor's. We don't have "soma" but we have many other drugs to help keep us happy. It could be said that money, alcohol, computer games, reality television and sports are all used to keep us "happy" and easily malleable. The only people who can transcend the caste structure today are those who can resist these temptations and the compulsion to measure self-worth using society's tangible criteria of success.

A society of equals?

Near the end of the book, the "World Controller" Mustafa Mond reveals that there was once an experiment to create a society full of alphas. It was a disaster since not all alphas could be doctors and lawyers, but some had to be factory workers and laborers. The alphas performing menial tasks detested those working in the high profile jobs. The experimental society collapsed into chaos. Mustafa says that society is like an iceberg, where 8/9ths of society must be at the bottom and only 1/9th on top.

I recognize that not everyone can be doctors, lawyers or "world controllers". However, I cannot imagine society would collapse in a world full of equals, assuming everyone is rewarded proportionately to their job. Also, I believe there is more than just genetics in determining what career is most suitable to us and our success. Things such as passion, ambition and work ethic should count for as much as our chromosmes. Likewise, fairness in compensation and rewarding effort with opportunities to move through the social hierarchy would create the best society, in my mind.

Aldous Huxley: Brave New World

2009-12-01T05:59:00.000-08:00

Although many people read "Brave New World" in high school, I never experienced it until now. This is my new favorite book.

Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) was an English writer and philosopher whose most well-known work was "Brave New World", which imagines a dystopian view of the future. The title comes from Miranda's speech in Shakespeare's The Tempest.
.
"O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world! That has such people in't!"
.
Although Brave New World was written in 1931, Huxley's book predicted future events with great clarity. In BNW the state exerts near total control over people's lives (think Hitler or Stalin) and we have in vitro fertilization, birth control, helicopters, televisions and drugs which help regulate our moods.

All babies are from in vitro fertilization and there are no "mothers" or "fathers". Everyone belongs to everyone else. You can have sex with anyone, but no one can have a child. Promiscuity is encouraged, but no one is allowed to have a relationship, since this creates a bond which is not shared with everyone else. The developing embryos are manipulated in vitro so that they produce babies who fall into different castes such as alpha, beta, delta, gamma and epsilons (think of A, B, C, D and F students). The alphas are the highest caste, the most intelligent and physically perfect. Progressing downward, the epsilons are practically imbeciles, capable only of the lowest, most menial tasks.

To ensure harmony, the euphoric drug "soma" is freely available and it is especially useful in controlling the epsilons in their mindless work and near meaningless existence. In substitution for God, Henry Ford (yes, Model T Henry Ford) is worshipped as a god. The year is 632 AF (after Ford) and the deity's words of consumption and social engineering are considered sacred text. All Christian crosses have their tops sawed off so as to resemble "T" as in "Model T Ford".

Consuming material goods is very important, as this keeps everyone in society working. If people are not working, they cannot be happy. Therefore the state controls exactly how much needs to be consumed to keep everyone busy. The state also manipulates its citizens with "hypnopedic" messages to "condition" them into being happy in their jobs and desiring the correct things in the correct proportions.

The book centers around three characters who reject this "perfect" society. Bernard Marx is an "alpha plus" who detests the complacency induced by "soma" and expresses his desire to feel emotions (rather than have them dampened or clouded by drugs). Helmholtz Watson is another alpha plus who wants to understand poetry (which is banned) and he recognizes the manipulation that is occurring in this "civilization". John is a "savage" born in a free-world reservation, who is brought to this civilization by Bernard. John detests this new society which he finds god-less, materialistic and ignorant. He says that everyone gets things too cheaply and easily, no one knows what hard work is, or has a chance to feel their emotions. Everyone is able to indulge in infantile desires and a steady supply of soma keeps all the people happy and easily controlled.

This book makes me wonder about our own role in society and the influence of the state in keeping us in our "castes". Just like in BNW, I think we are subtly manipulated by the media and controlling substances to maintain our place in society.