Instapundit points to this article in the New York Times: The Messy-Kitchen, Parking Spot War
He describes it as "Liberal Mother Syndrome".
Me, I just think the lady is stupid.
I sometimes wonder if the NYT isn't just trolling everyone with items like these, as they are bound to get all sorts of commentary on the thing.
Right on schedule
The people's paradise of Venezuela continues to follow the script with eerie faithfulness. Control "abusive" prices, watch shortages develop, decry the shortages, punish hoarders, and finally: nationalize the industry in the name of ensuring the people's right to access. This week it's the manufacture of toilet paper.
Democracy and Modernism
The problem with modernism, in art, is that it's too hard:
With modernism the challenge is purely intellectual, and relatively few are interested in that kind of challenge. That's not hidden praise for the art, as it is often taken to be -- "Only a select few can understand." It's a kind of hidden criticism, a democratic one.
UPDATE: Link missing before, fixed.
Beckett wrote “unenjoyable” books, says Martin Amis. Paulo Coelho believes Joyce’s Ulysses caused “great harm,” while Roddy Doyle doubts any readers are “really moved by it.” “Shabby chic” is the Financial Times’ verdict on modernist architecture. You hear it often these days, this grousing about difficult, pretentious modernism: Woolf, Kafka, Stein, and Picasso come in for it too. The emperor has no clothes. The flight from modernism—we know the names but skirt the works—may be a sign of the cultural times, a symptom of our special mix of fatigue, cynicism, and complacency. And then, of course, the art can indeed try your patience and stamina. Its demands are relentless; these are creations that decline to traffic in reassurance or open themselves to clicks and scans.It's the opening of a book review on works produced in 1922, when modernism was still a rising force. But I wonder if the real problem isn't the one the critics append. Maybe it wasn't that the art was so challenging, but that it wasn't beautiful. The True and the Beautiful share a link that somehow know at basic levels of our being. We work hard for the beautiful because we can see its value, we know there is something of worth that deserves the work. Even when it is beyond us, as Kant said of the sublime, we try to grasp its truth though we are doomed to fail.
With modernism the challenge is purely intellectual, and relatively few are interested in that kind of challenge. That's not hidden praise for the art, as it is often taken to be -- "Only a select few can understand." It's a kind of hidden criticism, a democratic one.
UPDATE: Link missing before, fixed.
"You Played Yourself"
We give the man a hard time, but Ice-T had something to say even twenty years ago.
A Good Essay
Sarah Hoyt writes on a familiar problem. The title of the article sounds like she might be taklig She manages to articulate something that I hadn't quite sorted out until I read it, which is contained here:
I may think they are wrong on the facts or wrong in interpretation. Yet in the last few years I've realized that the real feminists are working it out for themselves, and left to it will eventually come around. There's nothing I can say that will convince them, but the feminist historians working in (say) medieval studies are looking hard for examples of tough women making their own way in the world. And looking for them, they're finding them -- everywhere they look. It may take a while to turn over the old orthodoxy of 'the patriarchy,' and they certainly aren't trying to do it, but at some point the weight of the evidence they are producing day by day is going to force them to take a second look at their guiding mythology.
And that's good. It's great, in fact. It's a tremendous service to human understanding of the past, and I'm excited to see it flowering before us. I enjoy reading their articles, lit with the joy of discovering a kindred spirit in yet another one of their ancestors. It fills me with hope that, one day when they're ready, we'll be able to talk anew about the blessed legacy we received who were lucky enough to be descended from the Men and Women of the West.
So far, so good. But the men: or 'men,' more appropriately. They aren't worth spit. The only thing that keeps them from getting smacked in the jaws on a regular basis is the profound sense of pity you can't help but have for them. They are worthless, pathetic creatures -- until, like the Ayers of her example, they work out their sleaze on someone else.
The young women, I think, will work themselves out in time.
The young men need to come back in under the weight of the -- well, 'patriarchy' isn't quite right. The Brotherhood. They need to fall back in under the mastery of better men than they are, so they might become brothers and better men themselves. The best of their nature does not come naturally. It is a product of long and ancient art.
And yes, boys can be taught to act weak and much like the sob sisters. The problem is they aren’t. Not even when they’re raised to act that way. The end result is that they don’t know how to express their strength and they’ve never been taught to modulate it. Men who have only been taught to “act sensitive” but have no other discipline, no other moral, no other idea of what it means to be a man, will in fact hoist the pirate flag. Whenever a memoir surfaces from the sixties, the thing that always strikes me is how these men who were considered champions of women were in fact nasty little petulant creatures, taking advantage as much as possible. Say, the story of Ayers raping a girl and then making her sleep with someone she had no interest in, by bullying her with the idea that not to do so would be unenlightened.This is really the problem, isn't it? Generally I don't have any problem with women I know who self-identify as feminists: in fact, usually I like them, as I usually like tough-minded people who will argue with me.
I may think they are wrong on the facts or wrong in interpretation. Yet in the last few years I've realized that the real feminists are working it out for themselves, and left to it will eventually come around. There's nothing I can say that will convince them, but the feminist historians working in (say) medieval studies are looking hard for examples of tough women making their own way in the world. And looking for them, they're finding them -- everywhere they look. It may take a while to turn over the old orthodoxy of 'the patriarchy,' and they certainly aren't trying to do it, but at some point the weight of the evidence they are producing day by day is going to force them to take a second look at their guiding mythology.
And that's good. It's great, in fact. It's a tremendous service to human understanding of the past, and I'm excited to see it flowering before us. I enjoy reading their articles, lit with the joy of discovering a kindred spirit in yet another one of their ancestors. It fills me with hope that, one day when they're ready, we'll be able to talk anew about the blessed legacy we received who were lucky enough to be descended from the Men and Women of the West.
So far, so good. But the men: or 'men,' more appropriately. They aren't worth spit. The only thing that keeps them from getting smacked in the jaws on a regular basis is the profound sense of pity you can't help but have for them. They are worthless, pathetic creatures -- until, like the Ayers of her example, they work out their sleaze on someone else.
The young women, I think, will work themselves out in time.
The young men need to come back in under the weight of the -- well, 'patriarchy' isn't quite right. The Brotherhood. They need to fall back in under the mastery of better men than they are, so they might become brothers and better men themselves. The best of their nature does not come naturally. It is a product of long and ancient art.
Handy expressions
From a 1922 Spanish-English dictionary being processed now at Project Gutenberg. How impoverished English is, to lack a verb for the act of giving a blow with an aubergine.
berenjenaza, f. blow with an aubergine.
buzcorona, f. playful buffet to head of one who is respectfully kissing the hand.
candileja, f. oil receptacle of a lamp.--pl. foot-lights of a theatre; (bot.) willow-herb, deadly carrot.
cartapel, m. memorandum filled with useless matter.
cascapiñones, m. one who shells hot pine-nuts and cleans the seed; pine-nut cracker.
cascaruleta, f. (coll.) noise made by the teeth when chucked under the chin.
casiller, m. in the royal palace, servant who empties the close-stools.
casorio, m. (coll.) inconsiderate marriage; informal wedding.
cejijunto, ta, a. having eye-brows that meet.
celia, f. beverage made of wheat; a beer.
centímano, na a. (poet.) having a hundred hands.
cigoñal, m. well-sweep.
cimillo, m. flexible twig on which a decoy-pigeon is tied.
cinca, f. any infraction of the rules of the game of nine-pins (ten-pins)
cisque, (coll.) to besmear, to dirty.--vr. to ease nature
coche parado, balcony over a street full of persons.
codal, a. cubital, one cubit long: palo codal, stick hung round the neck as a penance.
codazo, m. blow with the elbow; a hunch.
cogotazo, m. slap on the back of the neck.
cojitranco, ca, a. nickname for evil-disposed lame persons.
cola de boca, lip glue.
colear, va. (Mex.) in bull-fights, to take the bull by the tail, while on horseback, and, by suddenly starting the horse, to overturn him; (S. Amer.) to fell a bull by twisting his tail.
colillero, ra, a. person who gathers cigar stubs for a trade.
colmillada, f. injury made by an eye-tooth.
cominear, vn. (coll.) to meddle in trifles or occupations belonging to women.
componte, secret order by which an obnoxious person is done away with.
consentido, a. applied to a spoiled child; applied to a cuckold by his own consent.
Autumn, Minus A Week
The summer is dying in front of our eyes. Better times, friends. Better times are coming.
The Race Is Not To The Swift
Tonight was a good night for the kind of small-town high-school football around which so much of American culture is built. The closest small town large enough for a football team is the county seat, and it is so small by local standards that it very rarely carries the day. The players are as strong as they usually grow in farm country, but there is more to the game than strength and speed.
I am teaching the rules to a young person who is growing in appreciation of the sport. At the end of the first quarter, while the score was still tied, I asked him which team was going to win and why. He answered that he thought the visiting team had better plays. "That's right," I said. "Their offensive strategy is much more sophisticated, and it is unlikely our team can adapt to it quickly enough. Nor do we have a similar strategy that will let us match them. They will likely win easily."
"But not for certain," he said.
"No," I agreed, remembering the verse from Ecclesiastes. There were three quarters left, and time and chance happen to us all, but so it proved.
I am teaching the rules to a young person who is growing in appreciation of the sport. At the end of the first quarter, while the score was still tied, I asked him which team was going to win and why. He answered that he thought the visiting team had better plays. "That's right," I said. "Their offensive strategy is much more sophisticated, and it is unlikely our team can adapt to it quickly enough. Nor do we have a similar strategy that will let us match them. They will likely win easily."
"But not for certain," he said.
"No," I agreed, remembering the verse from Ecclesiastes. There were three quarters left, and time and chance happen to us all, but so it proved.
Guests
What better reason to clean things up than guests arriving in great numbers over the next few weeks? We've spraywashed the outside of the house, touched up some trim on the porch, repainted old peeling patio furniture and put new cushions on it, and cleaned up any number of horrors in the house. The spare bedroom becomes such a dump when there's no one planning to sleep in it. My husband had the bright idea of squeezing my hundreds of skeins of yarn into those vacuum packages that attach to the vacuum cleaner, because I'm on a tiny-tiny white thread crochet kick and probably won't need to get to my yarn for years. Boxes of this and that left the house for the local thrift store, ladders were climbed in aid of cleaning years' worth of dust off of the tops of windows, doors, light fixtures, and ceiling fans, and corners were de-grimed with toothbrushes. We're nearly presentable!
Help Kickstart World War III
This sounds fantastic! We could have another 'Greatest Generation'!
Or, you know, part of one, anyway.
9/11 Annual Repost: "Enid & Geraint"
Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.
And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.
They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.
At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.
And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.
By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.
Enid cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.
Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.
Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.
And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.
And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.
His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.
And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.
And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.
They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.
At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.
And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.
By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.
Enid cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.
Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.
Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.
And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.
And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.
His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.
And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.
The Ignorance of History
Let's have a short history lesson on the origin of the National Rifle Association, courtesy of Wikipedia.
The National Rifle Association was first chartered in the state of New York on November 17, 1871 by Army and Navy Journal editor William Conant Church and General George Wood Wingate. Its first president was Civil War General Ambrose Burnside, who had worked as a Rhode Island gunsmith, and Wingate was the original secretary of the organization. Church succeeded Burnside as president in the following year.Got that? The NRA was founded by Civil War Union military leaders who recognized that northern prowess with rifles was lacking in the late war with more-rural Southerners. The purpose of the organization was to train potential soldiers in case it became necessary again to suppress a Southern independence movement.
Union Army records for the Civil War indicate that its troops fired about 1,000 rifle shots for each Confederate soldier hit, causing General Burnside to lament his recruits: "Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn." The generals attributed this to the use of volley tactics, devised for earlier, less accurate smoothbore muskets.
Recognizing a need for better training, Wingate traveled to Europe and observed European armies' marksmanship training programs. With plans provided by Wingate, the New York Legislature funded the construction of a modern range at Creedmore, Long Island, for long-range shooting competitions. Wingate then wrote a marksmanship manual.
Another mission it took on was arming and training Freedmen in the South. Don't take my word for it.
You can see the full version here.
The NRA was always "the Black NRA." They went to some trouble and expense, from the very beginning, to be just that thing. I would wonder at this shocking ignorance, except that it is such a piece of the historical ignorance of our gentle and generous friends on the Left.
For Those Of You In The Mighty 9th
As you know if you've been watching the last week with an eye for it, Congressman Doug Collins is sounding like a pretty serious "No" at this point on Syria. He's holding a telephone town hall tomorrow night to talk about it with anyone from the district who wants to call in.
This week, I returned to Washington for the House Foreign Affairs Committee's special hearing on Syria. This was the opportunity for Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, and General Dempsey to make President Obama's case for why we should pursue military intervention in Syria. As I said at the time, I left that room with more questions than answers, and I don't believe they made their case.I've said what I have to say about it at BLACKFIVE.
You can see video of my questions in that hearing here, but tomorrow night, I want to hear your questions.
I'm holding a telephone town hall meeting to talk about Syria on Monday night. The call will start at approximately 7:25 PM, and you are welcome to call in if we don't call you first. The phone number is877-229-8493 and the passcode you'll need to enter is 111377.
Getting one's bearings
One of my husband's war-gaming buddies provided him with this link. An unusually impenetrable lecture on missile guidance, or an explanation of the rhetorical style of our foreign policy as recently announced? You be the judge.
Bits of a Good Day
And then the local Oktoberfest (of which my photos have been seized by the NSA -- or, beer prevented me from properly saving. Whichever).
Bier of the night: Paulaner Oktoberfest.
Best song of the night: a xydeco piece with yodeling.
Best line of the night: in the middle of a (different) yodeling piece, the singer calls out "Everyone! Sing along!"
Prost, y'all!
History and Abduction
I think this is a really neat paper, a Master's Thesis from Canada. It shines light on two very different debates: a debate within the field of history about the reality of abductions in Medieval England, and our current debate over the value of higher education.
On the question of abductions, the author has taken the tactic of examining fifty court cases with surviving documentation. The result casts some of our assumptions in a new light.
Both the finding and the method casts some light on our discussions about the value of higher education. Many have argued, on reasonably good grounds, that higher education no longer provides the same value to students that it has in the past. Education past the bachelor's degree, and particularly in the humanities, is especially subject to this line of attack.
There is one thing, though, that all these extra history and literature majors are doing: they enable us to go over the historical record with a fine-tooth comb to a degree never before possible. The value to the students may be questioned, but the value to the rest of us -- as long as these programs continue to produce students who perform quality research -- is not always adequately considered. We really benefit from these minute but significant adjustments in our understanding of the past.
(H/t: Medievalists.)
On the question of abductions, the author has taken the tactic of examining fifty court cases with surviving documentation. The result casts some of our assumptions in a new light.
Both the finding and the method casts some light on our discussions about the value of higher education. Many have argued, on reasonably good grounds, that higher education no longer provides the same value to students that it has in the past. Education past the bachelor's degree, and particularly in the humanities, is especially subject to this line of attack.
There is one thing, though, that all these extra history and literature majors are doing: they enable us to go over the historical record with a fine-tooth comb to a degree never before possible. The value to the students may be questioned, but the value to the rest of us -- as long as these programs continue to produce students who perform quality research -- is not always adequately considered. We really benefit from these minute but significant adjustments in our understanding of the past.
(H/t: Medievalists.)
Building zaps citizens
London now features a building with a curved glass wall that acts as a solar lens strong enough to melt plastic on parked cars.
A military "Onion"
Bookworm is right: I didn't even get past the titles before I laughed out loud:
[A] friend of mine directed me to a site called The Duffle Blog, which is a military satire site. It's dedicated to churning out such articles as "US Praises Massacre Of Syrian Civilians Without Use Of Chemical Weapons" [and] "Admin Error Sends Bradley Manning to Death Row, Nidal Hasan to Gender Reassignment Surgery." Even the title is funny.The article about Hasan and Manning was filed by one of the Korean Airline pilots, apparently. New since Bookworm's post: John Kerry Announces Protest of Syrian Conflict As Soon As He Finishes Starting It.
Off Again
I will be gone for a few days, escorting some friends from foreign lands around the Smoky Mountains and the Blue Ridge. They wanted to see some of America's beauty, and I'm only too happy to show them a part of what I know of it. We'll be riding, hiking and camping until Monday.
The Feast of St. Monica
St. Monica was the mother of St. Augustine. It is impossible to think seriously of Christianity as we know it today without dealing with Augustine's influence. But once he was no Christian at all, just a man, and a man particularly given to the pleasures of the flesh. His father was a difficult husband, at times violent.
But his mother was Monica, a woman of virtue who prayed readily for her husband and child.
But his mother was Monica, a woman of virtue who prayed readily for her husband and child.
A Pity They Can't Both Lose
Today I witnessed a confrontation between two characters so despicable that I was sorry to have to take sides, mentally though in no way practically, with one of them.
I was crossing the street in a small Southern city when it happened. Perpendicular to my own crossing -- which is to say, against the light -- a large and muscular man in shorts, apparently drunk at two in the afternoon, was also crossing the street. A little black car apparently decided that trespass justified nearly running him over, perhaps in an attempt to scare him straight. He was carrying a beverage of some sort in a styrofoam cup, which he dashed against the window of the black car as it passed.
The car slammed to a stop -- now out in the intersection -- and a very large woman got out and started yelling. "Oh, H#LL no!" she began, pink cell phone in her hand, proclaiming that she was going to call the cops because he was crossing against the light, and he had better not leave before they got there to arrest him.
I hope she did call them, because she was guilty of several crimes. Her interlocutor wasn't actually doing anything worse than the misdemeanor offense of jaywalking -- impossible to prove, though I know he was guilty of it -- which doesn't rise to the level of offense at which citizens may exercise their arrest powers. Nor are you generally entitled to put someone's life at risk to demonstrate your annoyance at their violation of a minor point of legal protocol.
Good thing we have equality under the law! We can all be held to the same standard these jokers require to keep them from killing each other. That's the way to guarantee human liberty.
Why Is The Golden Age of Television So Dark?
Megan McArdle asks a question I am singularly unqualified to answer, as with one exception I don't watch television (and I watch it only on Amazon Prime), and haven't seen any of the shows she's talking about. I'm going to pose an answer anyway, one that has nothing to do with the specifics of the shows, but has instead to do with the history of the cinema that these shows are replacing.
Gangster movies do indeed date to the beginnings of the cinema, but there was a moment about a generation ago when they became extremely popular. It would be easy to say that this was simply because they were particularly excellent -- The Godfather and The Godfather II routinely top the lists of great movies in Hollywood history.
But they were excellent for a reason, and the reason has to do with a function they were serving. There was a famous essay -- I wish I could remember the title or author, and perhaps one of you will remind me -- that held that the gangster film was uniquely poised to permit Hollywood to explore tragedy. At this point the Cold War was deeply established, and American audiences were enforcing on Hollywood its duty to demonstrate that the American way was finally a story of happy endings. The counterculture that produced Easy Rider was still the counter- and not the leading culture; generally, comedies and action films and romantic comedies and even dramas all usually ended on an up-note. American audiences wanted to believe that, if you were a good person and lived according to your own virtues, things would work out.
The one genre where that wasn't required was the gangster film. Here, the essential evils to which the gangster had to commit were enough that even the most sympathetic gangster could be punished by fate without the audience rejecting the film. It was a way of re-enabling the tragic function, which Aristotle talks about in the Poetics. It's an important and very high function of drama, and the gangster film allowed you to explore it in the context of the day.
It also allowed -- because the ending would be tragic -- characters who could offer a strict critique of the American way. Read the analysis of the scene which precedes these words:
But it also seems to be exploring the idea of the old view of friendship versus the American rule of law. And it does it in the context of an America in which the rule of law seems to be of a different character than a generation ago. Don Corleone complained that judges 'sell themselves,' and the process was slow to boot: in the new shows, the agents of the Federal government particularly are baleful, not just corrupt but wicked. Yet when -- spoilers, as they say -- the CIA proves to be behind the effort to smuggle guns to one of the Mexican drug cartels wreaking havoc in California, the show is not leading but following the news.
It may be the reason gangster 'films' are so pervasive on the new television are the two old reasons: that it as a genre permits a genuine tragedy, and that it permits a clear-eyed critique of the American system. But it may also be that the American system isn't as healthy as it used to be, and the critique is therefore more persuasive. At some point, the tragedy will fall away, and people will simply accept these gangsters as heroes, full stop.
McArdle's alternate theory asks, "What will you do for an encore?" But the encore follows naturally, if I am right.
Gangster movies do indeed date to the beginnings of the cinema, but there was a moment about a generation ago when they became extremely popular. It would be easy to say that this was simply because they were particularly excellent -- The Godfather and The Godfather II routinely top the lists of great movies in Hollywood history.
But they were excellent for a reason, and the reason has to do with a function they were serving. There was a famous essay -- I wish I could remember the title or author, and perhaps one of you will remind me -- that held that the gangster film was uniquely poised to permit Hollywood to explore tragedy. At this point the Cold War was deeply established, and American audiences were enforcing on Hollywood its duty to demonstrate that the American way was finally a story of happy endings. The counterculture that produced Easy Rider was still the counter- and not the leading culture; generally, comedies and action films and romantic comedies and even dramas all usually ended on an up-note. American audiences wanted to believe that, if you were a good person and lived according to your own virtues, things would work out.
The one genre where that wasn't required was the gangster film. Here, the essential evils to which the gangster had to commit were enough that even the most sympathetic gangster could be punished by fate without the audience rejecting the film. It was a way of re-enabling the tragic function, which Aristotle talks about in the Poetics. It's an important and very high function of drama, and the gangster film allowed you to explore it in the context of the day.
It also allowed -- because the ending would be tragic -- characters who could offer a strict critique of the American way. Read the analysis of the scene which precedes these words:
This is the very first scene in the movie (though the dialogue is truncated for the big screen) for a reason. Francis Ford Coppola and Puzo understood the need to show the alternate moral universe of the mafia. Rahe points out that it’s no coincidence that the undertaker’s name is Amerigo Bonasera, which translates into “Goodnight America.”The only television show I've watched in the last five years is Sons of Anarchy. Its second season explores the positive aspects of that ideal. Its subsequent seasons explore, so far, the negative. It also seems to be a tragedy, based loosely on Hamlet.
Paul Rahe brilliantly explores the question of whether someone can be “armed” with “true friends” and still be a “good American.”
But it also seems to be exploring the idea of the old view of friendship versus the American rule of law. And it does it in the context of an America in which the rule of law seems to be of a different character than a generation ago. Don Corleone complained that judges 'sell themselves,' and the process was slow to boot: in the new shows, the agents of the Federal government particularly are baleful, not just corrupt but wicked. Yet when -- spoilers, as they say -- the CIA proves to be behind the effort to smuggle guns to one of the Mexican drug cartels wreaking havoc in California, the show is not leading but following the news.
It may be the reason gangster 'films' are so pervasive on the new television are the two old reasons: that it as a genre permits a genuine tragedy, and that it permits a clear-eyed critique of the American system. But it may also be that the American system isn't as healthy as it used to be, and the critique is therefore more persuasive. At some point, the tragedy will fall away, and people will simply accept these gangsters as heroes, full stop.
McArdle's alternate theory asks, "What will you do for an encore?" But the encore follows naturally, if I am right.
Thoughts on Some Possible Solutions to the Knowledge / Information Problem
Grim and Cass have brought up some partial solutions, or at least ideas of places to look, and I ran across another today.
In the comments to The Knowledge Problem, Grim brings up the following:
Grim also proposed:
Cass also brought intuition into the discussion, and I think intuition might be an important part of the solution.
Then, this morning I ran into the Wikipedia article on bounded rationality, which seems to be addressing the same, or at least similar, ideas.
I will certainly be reading more about this idea.
----
1. It seems a bit unfair to only post this much. This was the conclusion to an extended argument Grim made in the comments to the earlier post, and to get the full implications I think the whole argument should be read.
In the comments to The Knowledge Problem, Grim brings up the following:
1) Time is short, but art is long. One of the ways in which we approach this problem is to learn what those before us knew. This not only helps us by teaching us how to recognize where they went wrong, but it provides us with a platform from which to criticize our own paradigms. Without an alternative, as you said, we cannot.
2) We have vital decisions to make, but urgency and importance are two different axes. Some decisions are really more vital, but there is time to consider more carefully; others are really more urgent, but not so important. One way of approaching the problem is to make sure we are making this distinction, so we focus the short time on problems that are both urgent and important; then problems that are urgent but somewhat important; and then on problems that are important but not urgent, leaving the unimportant problems generally to slide.
3) All you say in principle 3 is true, but we must still decide and act. One way to act is to learn to recognize areas in which the best available information is more likely to be wrong -- or, areas where being wrong is more likely to be disastrous. I am thinking here of Taleb's "The Fourth Quadrant," which is a typology of problems that lets you know that you can proceed without too much fear in some areas, but need to be very cautious about taking risks in others. So that is an aspect of your problem: developing similar typologies of kinds of problems, and also of kinds of "knowledge" that are more likely to be wrong.
Grim also proposed:
The justification step is disposable, if the relationship to the truth is really there. And that means that knowledge isn't JTB, but (as the externalists say) a relationship with the truth. [1]
Cass also brought intuition into the discussion, and I think intuition might be an important part of the solution.
Then, this morning I ran into the Wikipedia article on bounded rationality, which seems to be addressing the same, or at least similar, ideas.
Bounded rationality is the idea that in decision-making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision. It was proposed by Herbert A. Simon as an alternative basis for the mathematical modeling of decision making, as used in economics and related disciplines; it complements rationality as optimization, which views decision-making as a fully rational process of finding an optimal choice given the information available. Another way to look at bounded rationality is that, because decision-makers lack the ability and resources to arrive at the optimal solution, they instead apply their rationality only after having greatly simplified the choices available. Thus the decision-maker is a satisficer, one seeking a satisfactory solution rather than the optimal one. Simon used the analogy of a pair of scissors, where one blade is the "cognitive limitations" of actual humans and the other the "structures of the environment"; minds with limited cognitive resources can thus be successful by exploiting pre-existing structure and regularity in the environment.
I will certainly be reading more about this idea.
----
1. It seems a bit unfair to only post this much. This was the conclusion to an extended argument Grim made in the comments to the earlier post, and to get the full implications I think the whole argument should be read.
Defining the Problem, Part 2: Knowledge, or Information?
Plato discussed the idea that knowledge is justified true belief (JTB), and historically a lot of philosophers have accepted this definition. With JTB, we only know something if it is true, we believe it, and we have good reasons for believing it. There are some serious challenges to this idea of knowledge, but generally philosophers agree that a belief must be true to be considered knowledge; there is no such thing as false knowledge.
Information, on the other hand, can be simply a collection of data, whether true or not. Knowledge, then, is information that is true, justified, and believed.
The most recent (though probably not final) formulation of what I have called The Knowledge Problem goes like this:
1. Time is really short.
2. We have vital decisions to make.
3. It is impossible to get enough verified information out of an ocean of unverified data to make the best possible decisions, and sometimes the information we need just isn't available.
4. We need sufficient information that is good enough to allow us to generally make good decisions and to minimize the harm when we make bad decisions.
But is that really a knowledge problem? Or is it an information problem? After discussing the issue in that previous post, I'm beginning to think it's more of an information problem. Building up a body of knowledge is probably one of the answers to the problem.
What do you think? Knowledge Problem, or Information Problem? Naturally, feel free to help refine my four points or bring up related issues.
Information, on the other hand, can be simply a collection of data, whether true or not. Knowledge, then, is information that is true, justified, and believed.
The most recent (though probably not final) formulation of what I have called The Knowledge Problem goes like this:
1. Time is really short.
2. We have vital decisions to make.
3. It is impossible to get enough verified information out of an ocean of unverified data to make the best possible decisions, and sometimes the information we need just isn't available.
4. We need sufficient information that is good enough to allow us to generally make good decisions and to minimize the harm when we make bad decisions.
But is that really a knowledge problem? Or is it an information problem? After discussing the issue in that previous post, I'm beginning to think it's more of an information problem. Building up a body of knowledge is probably one of the answers to the problem.
What do you think? Knowledge Problem, or Information Problem? Naturally, feel free to help refine my four points or bring up related issues.
Completing an Entirely Frivolous Day in the Hall
I am doing some important things today, just not here.
UPDATE: Ok, now we're really finished for the day.
UPDATE: Ok, now we're really finished for the day.
The German Quiz
I'm officially 80% German, according to the very lustig "how German am I" test from Hipstery.com. The average is just 65%. I’m as German as Pfand, Apfelsaftschorle and shouting at people who commit minor legal infractions. Unglaublich! Don’t even try and beat my score.Heh.
Blessed Are the Peacemakers
Another story from Georgia, one well worth reading, is the story of Antoinette Tuff. She stopped a school shooting in DeKalb County the other day by talking the shooter down -- buying time for the children to be evacuated.
It's nice when that works. Of course, it depends on the shooter being willing to be talked down, which isn't always reliable. Nevertheless, it worked this time. Her heroic courage may have saved many lives.
It's nice when that works. Of course, it depends on the shooter being willing to be talked down, which isn't always reliable. Nevertheless, it worked this time. Her heroic courage may have saved many lives.
Rambling Wreck
Allahpundit says, "This guy’s either going to be president, the next Jim Carrey, or institutionalized."
Or else he'll just flunk out. The four-year graduation rate at Georgia Tech is about thirty-one percent. It's one of those schools where they tell you at orientation, "Look to your left. Look to your right. Only one of the three of you will make it."
The ones who do, though...
R.I.P. Sam
This is our neighbor's beautiful daughter Michelle and her son, Sam, 14 years old. Sam was killed Sunday afternoon in a head-on collision on the undivided two-lane highway a few miles north of here, on his way down from his home in Austin with family friends. A car in the oncoming lane suddenly crossed the line for unknown reasons; the wreck was instantaneous.
Also killed was the driver of Sam's car, the mother of his two young traveling companions. She was 45 years old. In the other car were a 43-year-old man, his girlfriend, his young son and daughter, and a friend of the daughter's. All survived, but only the 11-year-old boy came through without terrible injuries. The boy pulled his 9-year-old sister to safety, put compresses on her wounds, and flagged down help on the highway, then went back to pull his sister's friend to safety. He must have realized his father and the girlfriend were too large and too badly injured for him to try to help. Luckily there was no fire.
I find that I can't stop thinking about the 11-year-old boy's little dog, who was in the car with him. One of the firemen at the scene said she saw someone take the dog away wrapped in a towel. She wasn't sure if it had lived. She tried all the vets in town, but none had seen the dog come in. Because the wreck was about half-way to the nearest small community to the north, it's just possible it was taken somewhere else. In the comments section of the online newspaper for a nearby city, the boy's grandmother is asking about the dog for her grandson's sake. I've told her everything I've been able to find out. I'd like the little boy to know at least that someone tried to take care of his dog. Maybe against all odds they'll be reunited; at least he'll know that the dog wasn't simply overlooked and that someone tried very hard to help. The boy's father was in surgery all night long. His grandmother reports that his sister's lungs are "not responding well." Some good news would be welcome.
It's easier to worry about the dog, I guess, than to imagine the grief and horror of my neighbors and their daughter. Sam was her only child and my neighbors' only grandchild. He often visited next-door. He was a fine young man with a family who adored him. He had recently returned from the trip of a lifetime with his father, deep-sea diving near Bali.
Here's one of the last pictures of him, showing what a beautiful young man he was turning into.
Also killed was the driver of Sam's car, the mother of his two young traveling companions. She was 45 years old. In the other car were a 43-year-old man, his girlfriend, his young son and daughter, and a friend of the daughter's. All survived, but only the 11-year-old boy came through without terrible injuries. The boy pulled his 9-year-old sister to safety, put compresses on her wounds, and flagged down help on the highway, then went back to pull his sister's friend to safety. He must have realized his father and the girlfriend were too large and too badly injured for him to try to help. Luckily there was no fire.
I find that I can't stop thinking about the 11-year-old boy's little dog, who was in the car with him. One of the firemen at the scene said she saw someone take the dog away wrapped in a towel. She wasn't sure if it had lived. She tried all the vets in town, but none had seen the dog come in. Because the wreck was about half-way to the nearest small community to the north, it's just possible it was taken somewhere else. In the comments section of the online newspaper for a nearby city, the boy's grandmother is asking about the dog for her grandson's sake. I've told her everything I've been able to find out. I'd like the little boy to know at least that someone tried to take care of his dog. Maybe against all odds they'll be reunited; at least he'll know that the dog wasn't simply overlooked and that someone tried very hard to help. The boy's father was in surgery all night long. His grandmother reports that his sister's lungs are "not responding well." Some good news would be welcome.
It's easier to worry about the dog, I guess, than to imagine the grief and horror of my neighbors and their daughter. Sam was her only child and my neighbors' only grandchild. He often visited next-door. He was a fine young man with a family who adored him. He had recently returned from the trip of a lifetime with his father, deep-sea diving near Bali.
Here's one of the last pictures of him, showing what a beautiful young man he was turning into.
The Knowledge Problem (Part 1)
If you've waded through How Do You Splint a Broken Paradigm? and Let's Shift That Paradigm a Bit More (God bless you), then I hope you've understood my situation as a specific example of a generalizable and, I believe, common problem. Broadly, I've begun to regard most sources of knowledge as highly questionable.
While I am far, far more skeptical than I used to be, I wouldn't say I've become a true Skeptic. I do believe there are some demonstrable scientific truths. I believe journalists and historians and social scientists get some things right. I believe my lying eyes (ears, nose, etc.), most of the time. I don't believe there's a Big Conspiracy to keep The Truth from us, though there are probably lots of small, unconnected conspiracies to keep certain bits of information from certain people.
In other words, I believe knowledge is possible, and that we can fairly easily get our brains around some of it. The real problem is a bit more treacherous. We are deluged with information from a great variety of sources, but in most cases we don't know which bits of it are to be trusted and which aren't. Worse, we're mortal, and we have many requirements on our meager allotment of time in this world besides the sifting and sorting of information.
And yet, we must make decisions based on information. Not only the big things like who to support for president, but what to eat for breakfast (low-fat? low-carb? anything -- just hot and now?), whether to take up or remain in a religion, how to know when to devote time and money (and how much) to social or political causes, what to say to our co-workers at lunch when they ask what we think about current events, what advice to give to children and people we mentor, these sorts of things.
The knowledge problem, then, as best as I've been able to define it, goes like this: Time is really short; we have vital decisions to make; we need to get verified information out of an ocean of unverified data; that's very hard.
Are there any changes or refinements to the problem you would like to offer?
UPDATE 8/24/13: Due to the discussion in the comments, I've revised my formulation of the problem. I've given the new formulation in the post, Defining the Problem, Part 2: Knowledge, or Information?
While I am far, far more skeptical than I used to be, I wouldn't say I've become a true Skeptic. I do believe there are some demonstrable scientific truths. I believe journalists and historians and social scientists get some things right. I believe my lying eyes (ears, nose, etc.), most of the time. I don't believe there's a Big Conspiracy to keep The Truth from us, though there are probably lots of small, unconnected conspiracies to keep certain bits of information from certain people.
In other words, I believe knowledge is possible, and that we can fairly easily get our brains around some of it. The real problem is a bit more treacherous. We are deluged with information from a great variety of sources, but in most cases we don't know which bits of it are to be trusted and which aren't. Worse, we're mortal, and we have many requirements on our meager allotment of time in this world besides the sifting and sorting of information.
And yet, we must make decisions based on information. Not only the big things like who to support for president, but what to eat for breakfast (low-fat? low-carb? anything -- just hot and now?), whether to take up or remain in a religion, how to know when to devote time and money (and how much) to social or political causes, what to say to our co-workers at lunch when they ask what we think about current events, what advice to give to children and people we mentor, these sorts of things.
The knowledge problem, then, as best as I've been able to define it, goes like this: Time is really short; we have vital decisions to make; we need to get verified information out of an ocean of unverified data; that's very hard.
Are there any changes or refinements to the problem you would like to offer?
UPDATE 8/24/13: Due to the discussion in the comments, I've revised my formulation of the problem. I've given the new formulation in the post, Defining the Problem, Part 2: Knowledge, or Information?
Manufactured Problems, Death Row Edition
The decision by the Missouri Supreme Court to allow propofol, the same powerful anesthetic that caused the death of Michael Jackson, to be used in executions — coming at a time when Texas, Ohio, Arkansas and other states are scrambling to come up with a new drug for their own lethal injections — is raising new questions about how the death penalty will be carried out.If all else fails, I hear hemp works.
A Tale of Two SAs
Two men, one aware of his situation and one oblivious.
This
event happened a couple of seasons ago. Despite
having his back (mostly) to the event, he's still able to…interfere…with the
ball and prevent a painful, if not serious, injury. Albeit trained, his situation awareness was
present, even in the distraction of an interview.
This
event happened last night. This time,
the "gentleman" was facing the entire incident and lifted not a
finger to interfere. It's not that he
didn't care, it's that he was completely oblivious. Fortunately, the lady wasn't injured beyond a
momentary embarrassment to her dignity.
Two men, one who was heads up, and one who simply had his
head up.
Of course, I'm eliding the wisdom of conducting an
interview so close to the sideline of an active playing field—that's sometimes
unavoidable in the business—and I'm eliding the ladies' own lack of SA. Ms Oliver should have known better and been
more aware herself. I don't know the
baseball lady, but she seemed (based on no information at all) to be more
inexperienced. Still, she should have
known better, too, especially with an active batter. None of which detracts from the one man or
absolves the other.
Eric Hines
Let's Shift That Paradigm a Bit More
I introduced one line of thought in my previous post, How Do You Splint a Broken Paradigm?, that needs a bit more filling out.
While I wrote almost exclusively about the fall of my anti-religious world view in that post, that event coincided with a number of other worldview issues.
My faith in the academic world was taken down several notches by a list of things: The discoveries that I talked about in my earlier post that historians had repeatedly affirmed falsehoods for more than a century, my increasing awareness of just how politically uniform Western historians and academics in general are, and my occasional run-ins with histories and other academic work written with what seemed to be ideologically-driven (instead of fact-driven) methods.
My faith in journalism, never particularly high, was lowered further by the abysmal coverage of the war during the Bush presidency and increasing evidence that the field of journalism was as politically monolithic as the academy.
Finally, once I realized that the realm of information, both the academy and journalism, were almost completely in the sway of a single ideology, I understood the course of events in America differently. America has flirted with technocracy from the mid-nineteenth century, at least, and we may have finally reached it. Whether we have or not, the university is the high ground; whoever holds it determines the direction of American culture.
The combination of blows to what I thought I knew and the sources that before had seemed more trustworthy really produced severe doubts about what could be known about anything going on in the world. The political domination of the academy and, through it, other institutions, made me doubt that there were very many who would even try to tell the truth if it conflicted with their socio-political goals. (It's quite possible they couldn't see it as the truth; paradigms guide us, but they also give us blind spots.)
Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, wrote that a group of people, such as the members of a scientific community, cannot discard a paradigm, no matter how flawed, until they have a new one to replace it with. Without a guiding paradigm there is no way to accomplish anything, and we can always say we're working out the flaws, even if what we're really doing is changing paradigms entirely.
I'm not sure what new paradigm is shaping up here, but it is one that is far more politically aware, and one that views things through the lens of progressive domination of the university and all of the institutions that rely on it. It is obviously far more skeptical.
Something it isn't is belief in a conspiracy, or a belief that all or most journalists or academics are bad. I believe most of them are just people doing their best in a flawed world. In some ways that makes things easier, but in others harder. But, that is a post for another day.
While I wrote almost exclusively about the fall of my anti-religious world view in that post, that event coincided with a number of other worldview issues.
My faith in the academic world was taken down several notches by a list of things: The discoveries that I talked about in my earlier post that historians had repeatedly affirmed falsehoods for more than a century, my increasing awareness of just how politically uniform Western historians and academics in general are, and my occasional run-ins with histories and other academic work written with what seemed to be ideologically-driven (instead of fact-driven) methods.
My faith in journalism, never particularly high, was lowered further by the abysmal coverage of the war during the Bush presidency and increasing evidence that the field of journalism was as politically monolithic as the academy.
Finally, once I realized that the realm of information, both the academy and journalism, were almost completely in the sway of a single ideology, I understood the course of events in America differently. America has flirted with technocracy from the mid-nineteenth century, at least, and we may have finally reached it. Whether we have or not, the university is the high ground; whoever holds it determines the direction of American culture.
The combination of blows to what I thought I knew and the sources that before had seemed more trustworthy really produced severe doubts about what could be known about anything going on in the world. The political domination of the academy and, through it, other institutions, made me doubt that there were very many who would even try to tell the truth if it conflicted with their socio-political goals. (It's quite possible they couldn't see it as the truth; paradigms guide us, but they also give us blind spots.)
Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, wrote that a group of people, such as the members of a scientific community, cannot discard a paradigm, no matter how flawed, until they have a new one to replace it with. Without a guiding paradigm there is no way to accomplish anything, and we can always say we're working out the flaws, even if what we're really doing is changing paradigms entirely.
I'm not sure what new paradigm is shaping up here, but it is one that is far more politically aware, and one that views things through the lens of progressive domination of the university and all of the institutions that rely on it. It is obviously far more skeptical.
Something it isn't is belief in a conspiracy, or a belief that all or most journalists or academics are bad. I believe most of them are just people doing their best in a flawed world. In some ways that makes things easier, but in others harder. But, that is a post for another day.
Another Historian Discovers Aristotle
One reason I decided I had to study Aristotle was that he kept popping up in my research in early US history. Hence, it was a happy surprise to see that the author of a couple of excellent books on US history made a similar discovery.
I'm slowly reading my way through Walter A. McDougall's Throes of Democracy: The American Civil War Era 1828-1877 and, in an endnote on American political rhetoric, ran across the acknowledgement: "I am indebted to David Eisenhower for steering me, at this late date in life, to Aristotle" (p. 620, note 19).
Although McDougall doesn't say much more about it, the history of ancient Greece and Rome were familiar to many in the early American colonies and early republic, and a lot of social and political rhetoric not only followed Aristotle's Rhetoric, but used allusions to those two cultures to make their points.
I'm slowly reading my way through Walter A. McDougall's Throes of Democracy: The American Civil War Era 1828-1877 and, in an endnote on American political rhetoric, ran across the acknowledgement: "I am indebted to David Eisenhower for steering me, at this late date in life, to Aristotle" (p. 620, note 19).
Although McDougall doesn't say much more about it, the history of ancient Greece and Rome were familiar to many in the early American colonies and early republic, and a lot of social and political rhetoric not only followed Aristotle's Rhetoric, but used allusions to those two cultures to make their points.
The Glories of the Freed Market
A few weeks ago Tex and I were discussing the question of whether it is correct to talk about libertarians on the left. Tonight I came across two groups that describe themselves as just that: the Center for a Stateless Society, and the Distro of the Libertarian Left.
It makes for interesting reading. Sometimes they really do sound just like Tex, except for an odd tic of using the term "freed" market instead of "free" market. (Apparently this has to do with a distinction they want to make between markets, which they think are good for just the reasons Tex does, and capitalism, by which they mean something like government/corporate cronyism. A "freed" market is a market restored to the glories of which it is capable before all the rent-seekers and bureaucrats got involved in carving out sinecures for themselves.)
Here, though, is a good example of them sounding much like our friend and companion:
It makes for interesting reading. Sometimes they really do sound just like Tex, except for an odd tic of using the term "freed" market instead of "free" market. (Apparently this has to do with a distinction they want to make between markets, which they think are good for just the reasons Tex does, and capitalism, by which they mean something like government/corporate cronyism. A "freed" market is a market restored to the glories of which it is capable before all the rent-seekers and bureaucrats got involved in carving out sinecures for themselves.)
Here, though, is a good example of them sounding much like our friend and companion:
Most people take it for granted — because they’ve heard it so many times from politicians and pundits — that they must trade some privacy for security in this dangerous world. The challenge, we’re told, is to find the right “balance.” Let’s examine this.So there really are left-libertarians! Although they sometimes seem to prefer to call themselves "anarchists," they also use the identification.
On its face the idea seems reasonable. I can imagine hiring a firm to look after some aspect of my security. To do its job the firm may need some information about me that I don’t readily give out. It’s up to me to decide if I like the trade-off. Nothing wrong there. In a freed market, firms would compete for my business, and competition would pressure firms to ask only for information required for their services. As a result, a minimum amount of information would be requested. If I thought even that was too much, I would be free to choose to look after my security myself. If I did business with a firm that violated the terms of our contract, I would have recourse. At the very least I could terminate the relationship and strike up another or none at all.
In other words, in the freed market I would find the right “balance” for myself, and you would do the same. One size wouldn’t be deemed to fit all. The market would cater to people with a range of security/privacy concerns, striking the “balance” differently for different people. That’s as it should be.
Actually, we can say that there would be no trade-off between privacy and security at all, because the information would be voluntarily disclosed by each individual on mutually acceptable terms. Under those circumstances, it wouldn’t be right to call what the firm does an “intrusion.”
But that sort of situation is not what Barack Obama, Mike Rogers, Peter King, and their ilk mean when they tell us that “we” need to find the right balance between security and privacy. They mean they will dictate to us what the alleged balance will be. We will have no real say in the matter, and they can be counted on to find the balance on the “security” side of the spectrum as suits their interests. That’s how these things work. (See “NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds.”) Unlike in a freed market, what the government does is intrusive, because it is done without our consent and often without our knowledge.
Gathering up Some Threads
I had to go searching for these today for the next Aristotle post, so I thought I'd put the links all in one convenient spot.
Formal Logic, Part I
Formal Logic, Part II
Formal Logic, Part III
Aristotle's Categories
Negative Capability
More on Negative Capability
Although at this point it may not seem related: Rick Santorum on Art
Because it looks like an interesting tool: Quora.com
Anything else I should add on Aristotle or The Knowledge Problem?
Formal Logic, Part I
Formal Logic, Part II
Formal Logic, Part III
Aristotle's Categories
Negative Capability
More on Negative Capability
Although at this point it may not seem related: Rick Santorum on Art
Because it looks like an interesting tool: Quora.com
Anything else I should add on Aristotle or The Knowledge Problem?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)