By the great Stoney Edwards, he followed Charley Pride’s success and made this song a hit in 1973.
Who Are You?
Daniel C. Dennett died today at the age of 82. His work on intentionality -- by which he meant the inside-your-mind view of yourself, as well as the supposition you take about other people's -- was widely discussed in his own lifetime. The second of those links, to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, will lead you to believe that this is a relatively new field for philosophy, heavily influenced by the philosophy of language.
In fact, however, the basic work is Aristotelian, and the major figure not even mentioned in the SEP article is the Medieval churchman and philosopher* Peter Abelard. By coincidence it's also the subject of an essay sent by Dad29, written by James V. Schall of the Society of Jesus.
At least four famous, not-often-enough-repeated Aristotelian questions can be asked of any given thing when we try to figure out what and why it is. They are: 1) “What is it?” – a tree, a rabbit, a planet? 2) “Is it?” That is, does it exist rather than not exist? Does it stand outside of nothingness? 3) Who or what put it into motion or into being? 4) “Why is it in existence?” What is the reason for which it now exists?Of human beings, we can add a further question: “Who are you?” That is, each of us has a particular, singular, unrepeatable existence unlike any other being that ever existed, but we are still human. Each human “what” is a “you.”
This is actually a very surprising thing for Aristotelian philosophy, because the basic explanation of things is that they are matter put into a particular form. Yet no matter how precisely similar the form is -- twins were well known in antiquity, but it is true also of clones -- the two objects end up having a completely different inner sense. Intentionality is how you try to predict how other people will behave, but it also entails a recognition that they are beings with their own perspective, which you then try to judge.
It's a topic much too vast to cover in a blog post, but if you're interested in it we can go through some of the writings about it in more detail. In any case, requiescat in pace Dr. Dennett.
* Probably the most famous thing about Peter Abelard is that he was castrated by an angry uncle who didn't appreciate his relations with niece Heloise, the latter of whom also went on to become an important figure in the church and in letters. Abelard relates the story (noting that the law blinded and castrated also the uncle and his kinsmen) in the Historia Calamitatum, i.e., 'The Story of my Calamities.'
The Army has a Navy?
Possibly not a great one. The mission to build a floating pier off Gaza isn't going well Beege Welborn hopes it will be at least a helpful wake-up call.
What this exercise attempting to cross the Atlantic has proven is that we may not need tankers. Our poorly maintained and continually neglected naval vessels, be they Navy or Army, may not be capable of making it to the conflict to begin with.
If someone watching this circus unfold wakes the hell up realizing we are in one hell of a self-inflicted hurt locker and starts to yank chains to immediately effect change?
Then, this crackpot pier idea will be that blessing in disguise.
Home on the Mountain
I have returned to my mountain fastness, after an exhausting near-week in Vegas.
The spring has advanced rapidly in my absence. When I left on Saturday, the trees were showing signs of green buds; now everything is busting and blooming.
They Sure Have Pretty Sunsets
The one thing that isn’t fake in this town is the beautiful Mojave sky. This was taken by the roller coaster in the same casino with the bar mentioned below.
Coyote Ugly
Everything in Vegas is fake, but this is a special case of fake. Coyote Ugly is a fake Vegas version of a fake Hollywood version of a fake New York City version of a Texas Honky-Tonk. I went in just to see it, which required a ID check even though I could not possibly be underage, and then being wanded by a bouncer with a metal detector. This was amusing given that the crowd struck me as wholly unthreatening children, but I suppose it is part of the act.
It really was dressed up like the kind of place I’d like if it were real. There was an Indian Motorcycles neon sign, and the walls were decorated with old saddles, Jack Daniels signs, and cowboy hats which were in turn decorated with abandoned bras.
I had the one beer and then left. The bouncer asked me if I had gotten my hand stamped so I could get back in later. I said I wouldn’t be back. He said he’d remember me if I changed my mind. I’m sure he will, and I’m sure I won’t.
Las Vegas
The weather is nice in the Mojave right now. I’m in town for a few days on business, if any of you happen to be out this way.
The worst place on Earth.
My Mother Writes
She was looking through old papers today, and…
...I came across a letter written by your 4 year old preschool teacher. It said you had hit a boy named John. You told her that sometimes John hit you first but not that day. You said you only meant to give him a little muscle but you had eaten all your spinach and you hit him instead.She said she doubted that I had eaten any spinach. I said you ought to give a boy who admitted that he hit first credit for being a straight-shooter.
A Reverse for Liberty
Unfortunately the undesirable compromise seems to have emerged. Apparently part of the compromise was reducing the term of the renewal from five years to two, so that Trump could potentially sit on the next renewal as President. I assume that means that the fortifiers of democracy are fairly certain that the election can be stolen fortified; but perhaps they’re simply desperate to keep the power to spy warrantlessly on the people through the election.
More Lies and Dictatorial Actions
A chief item of the long-held desiridata of the gun control movement has been to 'close the gun-show loophole,' which we have discussed here many times. It's intended as a backdoor way of preventing anyone from transferring a firearm without going through the Federal government, which would open the door to Federal registries and confiscatory measures. Congress has often discussed it, lo and for decades, but has never done it.
Since no democratically legitimate effort to pass such a law has proven possible, the Biden administration has simply issued a 'final rule' pretending that such a law was on the books all along.
The rules clarify who is required to conduct background checks and aims to close what is known as the “gun show loophole” — which refers to the reality that gun-show sellers and online vendors are subject to much looser federal regulations than vendors who sell at bricks-and-mortar stores.
That is not and has never been the least bit true, but the media reliably claims that it is true in order to justify the gun control it wants. In fact, sellers have had the same regulations whether or not they were selling at a gun show; if they were in the business of selling guns, they had to do the background checks. If they weren't, they didn't whether they sold a gun at a show or anywhere else. Now, they pretend that the law requires pretty much anyone who wants to sell a gun to obtain a Federal Firearms License (an expensive prospect) and also to conduct background checks.
More to come, Biden promises in a festival of lies intended to justify such things. Some of the lies are his; mostly, again, they're the media lying to frame his remarks for him.
A Victory for Liberty
I won't go so far as to say that it was an act of political virtue or wisdom, but it's a win for American liberty all the same. Hopefully no compromises emerge, and FISA/702 goes away forever.
Throw me in that briar patch
I can only be amused by the prospect of young people with absurd notions of effective public policy announcing that they're going to give the finger to all us old jerks by declining to vote this fall. That'll teach us to have bequeathed them a world in which the government doesn't supply all their daily needs.Baby child, you just go right ahead and finish up that 10-year degree in Self-Actualization. Under no circumstances produce anything of value to others in order to procure the kind of unfair perks your elders lucked into. Never run for office or support anyone who does. That's society's job.
A Western Story
Everybody knows that John B. Stetson invented the famous version of the American cowboy hat, but even I had never heard until today who invented the famous version of the cowboy boot. In the spirit of the story about Walgreens' in the Prohibition post, here's a corporate history of that company.
I don't own a pair of cowboy boots right now, but I wore out a measure of them back when I rode horses a lot. It's a style that seems ostentatious at first, but every apparently ostentatious aspect ends up having a practical ground. The high heel keeps your foot in the stirrup so they don't slip out the front of it. The pointed toes let it slip in and out from the back side easily, simplifying mounting and reducing the hazard of dismounting (especially when it is done without the rider being the one who intended it). The elaborate stitching stiffens the leather, letting it stand up tall against thorns and other hazards.
On the occasion, here's a piece by Molly Tuttle, a young singer of Western tunes.
This was NPR
This self-critical view from the inside is going around today. It's always good to see people reflecting on themselves in this way, and I hesitate to criticize it. Plenty of people will do that. I am just glad to see an attempt at honest self-reflection here.
Bottom Scandal of the Year
With everything wrong with education, I would think this scandal wouldn't merit an article. "Over $100" was spent for a dubious purpose? Seven dollars and twenty-seven cents over, in fact. I haven't seen a grocery bill that low in several years now.
I realize there's a generalized opposition to teaching kids about sex, especially 'alternative' sexualities; but these are young adults, college students, and there's got to be a point at which you let them do adult things.
As for the instructor being the author of "pornographic stories, including at least one story involving a graphic description of gang rape," we read Last Exit to Brooklyn in high school. I obviously haven't read this story to compare them, but the novel is both infamous for that very thing and also normally assigned by literature departments. If you want to address that problem, the place to start isn't with the $100 thing.
National Beer Day
Apparently the day after National Tartan Day is National Beer Day, which I didn't find out about in time to celebrate the holiday. It marks the end of Prohibition in 1933.
Recognizing that some people have legitimate difficulties with alcohol, and that there is therefore legitimate concern about it among some, the end of Prohibition also represents a triumph of human liberty. It represents the first failure of the Progressive government-by-the-regulatory-state-for-your-own-good model that continues to bedevil us to this day.
Also, like similar more recent events, plenty of loopholes were baked in to allow the favored classes to continue to do what they wanted. ["Of course you can ignore these stay-at-home orders, which we assure you are absolutely necessary to save lives, provided you're protesting racism."] Prohibition was about telling the little guy that he couldn't have a beer after work. Those who could afford doctors willing to write them prescriptions, or who owned wineries, or who could claim 'sacramental' use, were allowed to carry on.
That prescription model gave rise to one of the most successful drug store chains in America, by the way, which boomed as it realized that it could provide ordinary people (at least in major cities) access to doctors who would write them that prescription. Just as certain major firms in Boston don't admit to the origins of their fortune in rum or slave ships, that 'family secret' isn't well known and certainly not trumpeted.
By the way, if you happen to be one of those with concerns about alcohol, the original article discusses the rising popularity of non-alcoholic beer. I drank a lot of that when I could get by the DFACs in Iraq, due to General Order #1 (a sort-of second Prohibition for the working soldier). Guinness has one now, which I haven't tried due to the lack of Prohibition around here. The original article also notes the continuing difficulties faced by a certain beer can sold in a blue container, which is down 28% year-over-year.
The Declaration of Arbroath
Today is National Tartan Day, and more importantly the anniversary of one of humanity’s greatest political documents. The Declaration of Arbroath was a letter submitted in Latin to the Pope, protesting his support of English claims on Scottish independence. Along the way, the knights and barons declared that, while they accepted Robert the Bruce as their divinely-appointed king, they would throw him out and choose another if he failed to protect their rights.
From these countless evils, with His help who afterwards soothes and heals wounds, we are freed by our tireless leader, king, and master, Lord Robert, who like another Maccabaeus or Joshua, underwent toil and tiredness, hunger and danger with a light spirit in order to free the people and his inheritance from the hands of his enemies. And now, the divine Will, our just laws and customs, which we will defend to the death, the right of succession and the due consent and assent of all of us have made him our leader and our king. To this man, inasmuch as he saved our people, and for upholding our freedom, we are bound by right as much as by his merits, and choose to follow him in all that he does.But if he should cease from these beginnings, wishing to give us or our kingdom to the English or the king of the English, we would immediately take steps to drive him out as the enemy and the subverter of his own rights and ours, and install another King who would make good our defence. Because, while a hundred of us remain alive, we will not submit in the slightest measure, to the domination of the English. We do not fight for honour, riches, or glory, but solely for freedom which no true man gives up but with his life.
May it ever be so.
Le Morte d'Arthur
My dearest friend in the world, to say the least about her that can be said, told me last night that she has a cancer that has spread to her bones. You may recall that I wrote an Arthurian novel; it was dedicated to her. Starting tomorrow and for five days, which is as long as Amazon will allow it, it will be available for free on Kindle in the hope that more people will know her name.
There will be no comments on this post.
To Help Your Friends and Harm Your Enemies
Most people who have only read one thing Plato wrote -- or, more likely, excerpts from one thing -- read the Republic. It is without question the most famous of Plato's works, though very far from his best. Plato himself obviously wasn't satisfied with it, as he reprised the subject at much greater length in the Laws (on which I have written a commentary that you can find on the sidebar).
One of the more famous passages of this most famous dialogue has to do with the definition of justice. The antagonist in the dialogue, an aggressive man named Glaucon, gives what must have been the standard definition of the term. This was what Plato wanted to argue against, after all, so he sets up the most plausible definition in the popular sense of the time in the mouth of Socrates' opponent.
Socrates: And what is that which justice gives, and to whom?
Glaucon: If, Socrates, we are to be guided at all by the analogy of the preceding instances, then justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies.
The justice of that proposition must have been self-evident in ancient times. Your friends help you, so you should help them. Your enemies seek to harm you, so seeking their harm is the 'turnabout' that the proverb states is fair play.
What could be more just than to do to others as they do to you? From the Christian input into our society, we have two model answers: the Silver and Golden rules. The first is "Do not do unto others that which you hate," which we have from the Book of Tobias; the latter is "Do unto others as you wish they would do unto you," which we have from Jesus himself. Both of these set aside the actions you have received as important considerations.
It isn't obvious why we should set that aside, though, other than that it comes as instruction from Jesus. Prudentially, the fact that someone is your enemy seems like an important consideration in how you treat with them. It may mark out an ideal of excellence to dispose of the matter as unimportant and to do what you would want them to do for you instead; but you might get knifed, depending on just how seriously they take their enmity. Raymond Llull risked his life as a martyr having laid down the knightly sword of his youth to try his hand at the peaceful conversion of Muslims in Islamic Tunis, and maybe that's the saintly path. Perhaps it is more for older men, or unmarried ones: husbands and fathers may choose to imperil their souls to save their wives and children.
I'm thinking about this today because of two pieces I read, one from the NYT and one from Protein Wisdom.
Its members refer to it as the Axis of Resistance.... The Axis of Resistance includes Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and other groups, and both its strategy and its tactics have long been radical. The official slogan of the Houthis — the Yemen-based group that has attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea — includes “death to America, death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews,” for example.
Emphasis added. These people are our declared enemies, which either is or is not an important consideration. Against it being so are the authority of Jesus and the arguments of Plato; in favor of it being so is natural prudence and the fact that Plato's arguments are terrible, leading to an endorsement of totalitarian government and an elitism that would eliminate natural families in order to preserve itself.
Longtime readers understand my position, which is that in matters of war we do what we must and trust in the forgiveness we are promised. Greg, who is not actually welcome here but keeps coming around anyway, raises the just and defensible point that this does not live up to the standard set in the Sermon from the Mount.
It does not. As Martin Luther, I sin boldly as a proof of my faith in the promised forgiveness. I think we should, as a rule, help our friends; and sometimes I think we must, however disinclined to the business we may be, harm our enemies.
Frankly, I'm not even especially disinclined to it. This is the sort of revenge that was said, in the recent discussion of Aquinas, to be good because it aims at justice. And justice, as Glaucon said, is very plausibly helping your friends and -- at least sometimes -- harming your enemies. May our trespasses be forgiven, and let us forgive them theirs once they can no longer harm us, but sometimes in this world there is little wiser than to do unto others as they intend to do unto you.
If you can do more kindly by them, I think that's wonderful. Sometimes, however, you just can't; and as Kant said, 'ought implies can.'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)