A Curious Little Blog

If you haven't seen the body cam video of the police shooting of Daniel Shaver, I encourage you not to -- it's really disturbing.  There are so many things wrong with it, but I guess since race is not a potential issue (the victim was white) it hasn't received as much attention as some other shootings. There are things to be said on both sides, and my opinion varies depending on the case.  I thought the shooting of Philando Castile earlier this year was inexcusable; in other cases, police officers have had at least some reason for pulling the trigger quickly. It is very tricky to judge a shooting on its merits, even when captured on video.  We (and juries) have to do it, of course, and we are right to make decisions for and against policemen for their actions, but it doesn't seem to me like we are going to make fundamental changes by jailing this or that cop for unjustified homicide.  (That said, after the Castile and Shaver "not guilty" verdicts, I have

I watched a little of a debate tonight that included Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz, and it included a segment on the individual mandate.  Even though this was not the focus of the debate, there was enough discussion on it that I heard Sanders several times complain that we are the only nation that doesn't guarantee health care for its citizens.  (Sometimes he specified the only "advanced" country or some such.)  I was hoping Ted Cruz would come back with an argument like the following: "Your strongest argument for guaranteed health care seems to be that every other nation has it.  While this circumstance certainly means the concept merits consideration, I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that we should do it because other nations are doing it.  Let's consider the circumstances of those other nations; how many of them are as large and diverse as the United States?  Do any of them have a federal structure like we do that limits national power?  Let&

I have not written much about the removal of Confederate statues, even though my hometown, Charlottesville, is at the center of the controversy.  Honestly, I have a hopeless feeling about it and the subject makes me depressed.  I do feel that the issue is not being approached from the correct point of view by either side, so I wanted to give my perspective. Statues of Confederate commanders are not about slavery.  I have literally never heard anyone honour these men because they supported slavery, and only marginalized groups outside of the public discourse consider them as standing for anything racial.  The number of demonstrations recently, almost all including members of the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacist groups, gives a misleading impression of how these statues are viewed by most people.  I have no evidence that these protests were organized by members of the left, but I do believe that, if the left wanted to make a case for removing the statues, they could not do better

Going back to my youth, I have been concerned that the main sides in the political debate do not talk to each other.  They produce articles and books arguing in favour of their own position, and sometimes arguing against their opponents, but almost never approaching their opponents' arguments with the seriousness that they would want for their own.  It is generally enough to find one person making a bad version of an argument, and refute that; no one feels obligated to refute the best arguments that their opponents have to offer.  The result of this is obvious for all to see, but I find it was nicely anticipated some 600 years ago by Christine de Pisane, who wrote, Those who plead their cause in the absence of an opponent can invent to their heart's content, can pontificate without taking into account the opposite point of view and keep the best arguments for themselves, for aggressors are always quick to attack those who have no means of defence. (from The Letter of the

It was a treat finally to read Lucretius's masterpiece, "On the Nature of Things" ("De Rerum Natura").  I knew it was an exposition of atomism, but I didn't know what to expect in the way of reasoning behind or developement of the idea.  It is actually a poem, and, thanks to the excellent translation, the writing style makes it easier to understand rather than more difficult.  (I can't imagine trying to tackle it in Latin, however.)  It was written explicitly to argue against religion; right at the beginning, Lucretius makes clear that he thinks religion is nonsense and he is going to prove it by explaining physical phenomena without reference to the gods. The central argument of his explanation is that the world is composed of atoms, and he can use atoms to explain everything from a purely physical point of view.  It is truly extraordinary to see how far reason can work out things about the physical world even when observations are made at such a gros

I spend a fair amount of time wondering whether "ideas" count as real things, as I have written about elsewhere in this blog ( Things and Ideas , Degrees of Being , et al.).  So it was a matter of considerable interest to me to read about the following exchange between Margaret Thatcher and British politician Enoch Powell: On one occasion, just before the Argentines invaded the Falklands, Mrs. Thatcher spoke about the Christian concept of the just war and Western values. "We do not fight for values," said Powell. "I would fight for this country even if it had a Communist government." "Nonsense, Enoch," snapped Maggie. "If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values." Powell stuck to his guns. "No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed." (From SteynOnline ).  Now, Thatcher is known for having once said, &q

What a crazy day in Charlottesville.  A bunch of people with literally no mainstream political support anywhere gather, there's an even larger counter-rally, some violence ensues, the whole country is looking at Charlottesville now.  Ironically, almost none of the people are actually from around here.  I don't know about this time, but the last time there was a rally a few months ago, KKK members came in from another state.  I assume local members would have come if there were any. I don't believe this rally was instigated by left-wingers to make the right look bad, but I do believe that left-wingers couldn't have done a better job themselves than these bozos have done for them.  Down to the stupid name, "Rally to Unite the Right," which it has in a way -- even top members of the Republican party who usually disagree on everything have condemned the rally. I'm not the organizing sort, but I have a pretty good idea of how I would implement a rally to de

With flags being banned, statues removed, and buildings renamed, the Civil War is more current now than at any time in the past 50 years. The Confederacy and everything associated with it is increasingly considered indefensible. People from both sides of the political spectrum often label Confederate commanders such as Robert E. Lee "traitors" and assert that no one who fought against the United States should be honoured with a statue.  When confronted with the awkward fact that the United States itself was founded by a number of traitors who dared to fight against their lawful government, these Unionists fall back on the issue of slavery:  what might have been right for George Washington and compatriots was wrong for Lee and his compatriots because the latter were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery.  Slavery is evil, and anything done in the name of slavery is inherently tainted, Q.E.D. This line of reasoning is problematic, and it is time to reconsider the

The first thing that struck me about this work was how much it sounds like the Bible.  In several places, Marcus Aurelius admonishes his reader to be ready for death at any point, which is a recurring theme in the Bible, especially in the New Testament.  More often, I find the Meditations to have a resigned tone, reminiscent of Ecclesiastes:  "it makes no difference whether a man shall see the same things during a hundred years or two hundred, or an infinite time," which sounds like the oft-repeated "nothing new under the sun" in the Biblical book.   Or a striking passage in the Meditations:   soon, very soon, thou wilt be ashes, or a skeleton, and either a name or not even a name; but name is sound and echo. And the things which are much valued in life are empty and rotten and trifling, and like little dogs biting one another, and little children quarrelling, laughing, and then straightway weeping. But fidelity and modesty and justice and truth are fled

I have always felt sympathetic toward Aristotle even though I have read very little of his work.  I had to read The Republic and several Platonic dialogues in college political theory classes, and I found the arguments unconvincing, to say the least.  Aristotle seemed much more down to earth as a thinker, which appealed to me. Now that I have finally read this seminal work, I am glad to say that my impressions have been confirmed.  Not that it was at all pleasant to read; to the contrary, it was incredibly tedious.  I think I got a bad translation, but I'll leave that question to the side. Early on, Aristotle assures us that "precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions," which already gets my respect.  I'm all for being as precise as possible, but also for recognizing the limitations of our understanding.  In fact, I would say that this is one of the principles of my approach to learning. After making some basic arguments, Aristotle adds, &quo

I am not interested in whether it was or was not legitimate for United to remove the guy from the plane, because by the time security got there to remove him, clearly authority was on their side.  The doctor, David Dao, undoubtedly did not know the legal ins and outs of whether it was reasonable.  His whole justification seems to have been:  I am doctor, therefore I am important.  I am more important that anyone else you could remove from this plane, therefore I am not leaving.  This is the kind of "individual exceptionalism" that I see people use all the time to break rules.  In general, we might want to favour doctors in this sort of situation, but he was in no position to determine that.  It's not as though he had an emergency that he absolutely had to deal with; no, he just had patients to see the next day.  At that point, it's not up to him to decide if his reason for going is more important than another passengers.  Sure, he has the right to complain; he has the

I had been intending to write an entry in praise of Trump last week; in the meantime, I now have reason to criticize him as well, so here is a chance to do both. I have begun to appreciate one thing about having Trump as president:  he just doesn't care what the media says about him.  No, that's not right; he obviously cares deeply, otherwise he wouldn't take the trouble to respond to every attack.  Let me put it this way:  he cares what the media says about him, but his way of dealing with it is not to compromise his beliefs (whatever they are at the moment); rather, he defends what he does and does it twice as much. I have suffered through many Republican presidencies, and I'm sure anyone who shares my outlook and experience can tell you that most Republicans are absolutely disheartened by the degree to which presidents have conceded moral authority to their critics.  The whole idea that George W. Bush would push for what he called "compassionate conservatism

I read a lot about people concerned with our "divisive" political culture in this country (the U.S.).  This is particularly interesting because it is almost always used as a criticism.  One almost never hears someone say that his own party is deepening the political divisions in the country; it is always the other side.  In other words, the problem of divisiveness is used in a divisive way. It may seem natural that people would see the other side as the source of the problem, but compare this to issues like military armament.  It is not difficult to find people urging unilateral disarmament on their own governments, as though the military problem would disappear if one side had no way to defend itself.  On the other hand, I have yet to hear someone urge his party or faction to stop using divisive language even if the other side continues to take advantage of it.  Arguably this was the tack Hilary Clinton was taking in her presidential campaign when she repeatedly said, &quo

I mean the title of this post to convey the idea that humans are never satisfied; each time one desire is quenched, another arises, so we are in a constant state of anticipation.  My thoughts came in direct response to what I read in Schopenhauer, and, by projection, to the general Buddhist approach to psychology.  I was surprised to find that a Google search on "human desire is never satisfied" actually brought back mainly Christian sites, chiefly in reference to Proverbs 27:20:  "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied" (KJV).  Not that it should be surprising that this subject is present in Christianity as in other religions and philosophies.  In fact, the nature of human longing is central to any study of man.  It is what I think of as the problem of motivation, which indicates that I approach it largely from the other direction:  how to convince myself or someone else to do something, not how to deal with the fact that I alwa