@Adam Hilstad

Where appropriate? Where is it not appropriate to find beauty or make something beautiful?

But what is beauty? It is either in the eye (or ear) of the beholder (or listener), or a lot of ugliness is being (and has been for a long time) passed off in public for beauty. I refer to the various genres of abstract art and rap music. Art used to be not just the imitation of, but the idealization of, nature. Now it has become what any four year-old might smear on a canvass, or a grown man throw against a wall. We see the ridiculousness of this in occasional newspaper headlines: a kindergartener’s finger painting is passed off as a million-dollar Kandinsky; a heap of rusty iron is hauled off by a university cleaning crew, only to discover it was a specially contracted $500,000 art display.

I recently read in The Times about a NYC graffiti artist who had gained international renown. He was commissioned to paint a piece to be displayed in S. Korea. Along with the piece, as a part of it, were included the shoes he had worn while painting it, and the brushes and cans, still full of paint, he had used, all placed on the floor beneath the work. The commission was worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars...

...after it was set up, a Korean couple came along and, spying the cans and brushes beneath, thought it was an interactive piece of art, opened the cans, dipped the brushes, and added their own effects to the multi-thousand dollar commissioned piece of “art”...

...but surveillance cameras caught the couple. They were soon arrested and questioned by police, and told their innocent story. The artist was alerted...and what was his response? this former graffiti artist who got a name by defacing public walls?...he was offended! He was offended that someone would dare deface a true “work of art”.

That is my commentary on the connection between ethics and aesthetics...

...btw, some who saw the piece before and after it was “defaced”, thought that the couple’s additions to it improved it, and it turns out the artist had moved from NYC to Paris...I suspect he will gain more sympathy there than he would have in his home town.

@Jack Cummins Life must and will be lived by everyone: we all go about our everyday lives doing the things we do, speaking with our ppl, having our transient thoughts. On the other hand, reading, true reading—that is, when you take a special book alone into a secret place and dwell on it for a good period of time—is not necessary, is ordinarily considered a luxury, is not attractive to most ppl, and must be done to the neglect of what others consider to be more important endeavors.

I am lucky to have lived a childhood free of necessity and full of the desire to learn. I had no chores as a boy, didn’t have to cut the grass or fetch water from the spring or eggs from the chicken house, etc, and had access to books from both school and public libraries, and from bookstores. I therefore learned from my earliest years that the key to life was contained in books. They have always remained my polestars, even now when I have become an old man and have less of the leisure I enjoyed as a child.

As far as independence of thought from what one reads goes, I believe that, to achieve such individuality, freedom and independence, all depends upon a couple things: first, your intimacy with the text: are you grazing the book to pick out things consonant with what you already believe, or is it rather a challenge? Do you approach the book as though, like Socrates’ lover in The Symposium, you are destitute of knowledge and in desperate need of a guide? That difference means everything. The second thing your independence hinges upon is your own native ability to discern the truth. Finally, when you have nourished yourself enough on the book, have gained enough knowledge and wisdom to dare consider that you see something a Plato or Aristotle, or Rousseau or Nietzsche didn’t see, then, and only then, should you believe it in your own heart, and publish it to the world...

...Machiavelli made such a dare and transformed the world—but was he right? Others have since questioned it—but, nevertheless, his idea took hold, and we all owe our secret belief that man really believes what his passions say he is, rather than what his reason does, is the ultimate truth...

...I think most ppl nowadays, especially philosophers, are conformists. In this day, it means throwing out a theory that is as entirely radical as possible, contradicting all norms as much as possible. This is the current badge of the philosopher: can I turn black into white, large into small, good into bad with a neat intellectual turn? When I see this sort of thing in this forum I instinctively turn away, ignore it. It is conformism parading as radicalism.

I'm fairly confident that some of these thoughts relate to the concept of liberty as sought by America's founding fathers — TLCD1996

America, as I perceive it, was founded, not on the rights of racial groups or any other sort; it was rather founded on the rights of individual men (human beings). Bathed in the light of such individual rights, the sort that make all men equal, their differences with regard to religion and race (and, anachronistically, sex) were supposed to disappear...yet they haven’t. Indeed, it seems those differences have only been augmented...

...I remember Obama coming out, after Trevon Martin’s murder, before the American ppl, and saying, “if I had a son, he would look like Trevon Martin”. I wondered to myself: “what does that fact have anything to do with the justice of this case?” Actually, such a sentiment as our president expressed in that moment runs contrary to justice. It says, “you as though killed my son, and so you too deserve to die”...but isn’t Justice supposed to be blind? blind to what? to skin color certainly, among many other things.

America’s founding is flawed. First of all, the Declaration should have said, not “men”, but “human beings”: “all HUMAN BEINGS” are created equal...the problem with this is, however, that, though it include women, it doesn’t exclude children. Immature human beings cannot be given the same rights as mature ones. In other words, once you open the door to all men, you can justifiably open it to whom- or what-so ever you will... which suggests you should never have opened it up for even ALL men...

...but then Pandora came along, just like did Eve.

The reason we eschew hierarchy in this day and time is because the whole world, fostered by The Enlightenment, has come to perceive that “all men are created equal”. This includes the ancient kings and priests and prophets and philosophers, the present movie and sports stars and tv personalities and congress men and women and “scientists” of every ilk and billionaires, etc...

...but see how we bow before the present ones—a Bill Gates or Lebron James or Tom Hanks, etc—just like the ancient unenlightened crowd used to do obeisance to their kings and priests! If all men are created equal, why are we so fascinated with the Royal Family? Didn’t we overthrow a king and say sic semper tyrannis? And yet we want to know the latest concerning Harry and Megan, William and Kate, etc. What exactly, I ask, is the source of this populist impulse or instinct to pay homage to greatness, when we are supposed to believe that all ppl are created equal? Could it be that the Enlightenment teaching runs contrary to human nature? that ppl instinctively desire to look up to human beings they perceive to be better than themselves? to emulate them?

In America, of course, we have adopted certain methods that keep us from having to compare ourselves unfavorably to examples of greatness from the past: finger-painting can become equivalent to Rembrandt—if you just call it “creative”—especially if it fetches millions at an auction. Nietzsche coined “creative” to describe a very rare sort of individual who had the character to reconstitute culture out of the debris of civilization’s decay—now, anyone, everyone, is creative...

...and anyone can now be a hero, a demi-god, just by signing up for military service, or by joining the fire-department or first responders. How many times have we heard on the local news this or that ordinary person, just doing their job, sometimes with little threat to their existence, called, nevertheless, a “hero”? One suspects, who has the proper historical perspective, that a diminution or dilution of the term has taken effect.

In fine let me say that there is always a tendency in human affairs to dilute purity in order that it align more closely with our everyday lives. As an example of a true hero, let me offer you the widow Jesus and his disciples watched put her two pennies into Jerusalem’s coffers after the rich men had put much more money, “out of the abundance of their wealth”, therein. He told them that she had given more; for they had given out of their abundance, while she had given “all that she had”...

...two pennies was all that she had—and she gave it all...how was she going to feed herself afterwards?... she trusted that God would feed her. That’s how she was able to become a hero: because she trusted in something greater than herself, and that’s why she gave her last two pennies to Him.

The cultural teaching is imprinted in my brain as well — 0 thru 9

The actual teaching of today’s culture is that there are no natural hierarchies: hierarchies are orders of things that man invents in order to oppress his fellow human beings. Armed with this enlightenment we can disenchant the priest and dethrone the king. But, looking at nature herself as philosophers, what do we see: a natural hierarchy!

First of all, there are the different orders of beings, the merely physical ones on the lowest rung; next, the living beings; then on top of these comes homo sapiens. Thusly arise the separate disciplines of the sciences, physics, chemistry and biology, and anthropology.

Even within these various disciplines we find hierarchy, for example flora vs fauna (higher), and element vs compound. Even among the elements some prove more important, hydrogen, oxygen and carbon being of superior status in that they combine to produce all of life and are dignified by their own special discipline: organic chemistry.

Regarding the study of man, aren’t we taught nowadays that all cultures are equal? Yet some are “primitive” or “aboriginal”, and some “civilized”. An anthropologist, observing that the former often have no modesty in public and go about naked might conclude that there is no real purpose to clothing for the latter either; isn’t clothing’s only real and original purpose just to keep us warm? Then why do “civilized” men wear it when it’s so hot you want to take your very skin off? Civilized ppl at least realized that short pants gave them SOME relief from the heat...

...but short pants soon became associated with juvenility...not something dignified adults wore, even in the warmest climes. Wouldn’t a serious anthropologist ask himself (or herself) why civilized men and women wear clothing when it has no evident purpose? Such an anthropologist might discover, in pursuing this question, that there is a weightier element to his or her consideration than just protection from the elements. Perhaps, as far-fetched as it seems in these utilitarian times, clothing’s ultimate purpose is not to protect us from the elements, but rather to conceal our animal nakedness from each other. And this impulse derives from our hierarchical superiority to the animals: we realize that we are not mere animals; that mankind is The Supreme Species...

...only when we realize the truth of this can we begin to understand ourselves. Mankind’s advent into the world created a whole new arena for the understanding of things—a higher one. A whole new realm of knowledge was opened up pertaining to wholly new notions: such ideas as liberty and justice, modesty and nobility, wisdom and folly, etc. The attempt by wisdom itself to reduce our motives back into the cosmic slime has only resulted in a compromised and limited understanding of ourselves, reductionist theories in which man’s motives are explained by lower phenomena, as bodies in motion (physics) or animals promiscuously copulating (biology) etc. When we say that we share a certain “chemistry” with someone, we are unwittingly echoing this same sort of reductionism: human interrelatedness is no different than the affinity sodium and chlorine have for one another...

...but human beings are far different, are more complex, than either mere bodies in motion, elements of the Periodic Table, or baboons. We were much closer to the animals when we employed them as our help mates, when we used them as our vehicles, or our tractors (I refer to the horse and mule and bull, of course), or the source of our eggs milk and meat. This antiquated association is now perceived to be exploitative, akin to slavery and genocide. The next step in our enlightenment would be to realize that cutting forests or fields of grain is no different. After all, a stalk of corn or a maple tree is just as much alive as you and I...

...I once had a debate with a certain fellow on another philosophy forum, whom I forced to confess that a human being is no better than a rock. So I asked him: “so you don’t mind, then, if I kick you around a bit in the argument”...and he was offended! A rock wouldn’t have been offended. It might have been eroded a bit, maybe even broken in two, but it would have felt nothing, for it has no soul. Only human beings are offended by injustice...

...I fell a tree for firewood and it crashes to the ground. It does not moan or cry for help, yet it is a living being: it’s sap still percolates out of the stump, like a bleeding man’s blood does when you cut off his leg or arm, still trying to nourish the parts that are no longer there. I wring the head off a chicken and it’s body runs headless around the yard until it realizes it no longer has a head, and flops to the ground...but I needed some meat for my supper...

...I awaken out of a deep sleep and suddenly realize that there is a pistol stuck to my temple and a masked man hovering over me, saying, “get up”. In that moment, I better have already decided what I would do in such a moment. The tree didn’t get to decide that; the chicken didn’t get to decide that either...

...but I do.

If I recall correctly, the ancient Greeks exercised naked in the gymnasia...the males, that is. For there was (generally, of course) no danger of males being sexually attracted to each other...

Now, Socrates, in The Republic, insists on both men and women exercising together in this manner, and this is part of his disenchantment of sexuality...making maleness and femaleness equal in his perfect regime...

...which takes us back to Eden, when Adam and Eve lived together naked without thought of their sexual relatedness. After all, that attraction came into being only after she had partaken of the Tree of Knowledge, had eaten of the forbidden fruit and had offered it to her unsuspecting mate. Thus did sexual intercourse become a crime...which was now, however, made necessary, since she had failed to partake of the Tree of Life, and mankind had therefore lost his chance at immortality...

...in the Biblical account, God created woman (Eve) as a mate to man (Adam) DOWN HERE ON EARTH, so that he not be lonely... though Adam already had God for his companion. Thus it was the distance between God and man that caused God to botch the Creation by making for Adam a companion! God realized that Adam was distant and alone, and so made for him an inferior companion (out of his rib-bone)...

...Btw, this is not necessarily my own opinion: it is just my tentative interpretation of scripture...

My opinion of the possibility of public nakedness and sexual intercourse is that it is a chaemera: no civilized ppl would allow such a thing, anymore than that they would countenance public defecation. Man wishes to exalt himself above the mere animal, and he has as his advocate God, who is above both him and mere animals.

I offer a sentiment written by someone who may have been one of the last philosophers for your approval or disapproval:

“And here is where the whole business turns nasty. The souls of men—their ambitious, warlike, protective, possessive character—must be dismantled in order to liberate women from their domination. Machismo—the polemical description of maleness or spiritedness, which was the central NATURAL passion in men’s souls in the psychology of the ancients, the passion of attachment and loyalty—was the villain, the source of the difference between the sexes. The feminists were only completing a job begun by Hobbes in his project of taming the harsh elements in the soul. With machismo discredited, the positive task is to make men caring, sensitive, even nurturing, to fit the restructured family. Thus...men must be re-educated according to an abstract project. They must accept the “feminine” elements in their nature...Men tend to undergo this re-education somewhat sullenly but studiously, in order to keep the peace with their wives and girlfriends. And it is indeed possible to soften men. But to make them “care” is another thing, and the project must inevitably fail.”

Is it is all those centuries of ascribing the feminine as the source of evil? — Valentinus

I assume you meant to say something like, “Is it because of all the centuries during which men ascribed to women the source of evil?” Well, let me just suggest that, were we to make a survey of all the instances when great male writers spoke about the evils of women, we might just make a case that there is such a thing as toxic femininity.

Because being too feminine doesn't kill people. — Banno

Perhaps it doesn’t...but then there are worse things than death.

Why is “toxic femininity” not a currently operable phrase?

The countries or states that got off easy in the first wave or two got whammied in the third, etc. The vaccine has been a stop-gap to the spread, but it isn’t yet universal, and then there are the anti-vaccers...who still carry scars from the mandatory polio and smallpox inoculations they received in 1st grade on their shoulders, but who refuse to get a vaccine now...
The question is whether a populace brought up to obey and admire science can continue to do so. On the one side are the forces of governmentally supported scientists and mega-companies and mainstream celebrities promoting universal vaccination; on the other are religious entities and news outlets and conservative pundits arguing for freedom and liberty, and against hurried science and depressed economies, etc...
...after all, economists are scientists too...aren’t they?

@Fooloso4. As an addendum, let me note that, aside from the reasonings you have given in this and the other thread, what struck me most was your lack of concern about the details of your speech: you often betrayed the tendency not to care enough about your posts in order to correct the language in a preview—and that says something about your concern—or lack thereof—for accuracy in this, or any other, forum.

@Fooloso4. I took a little trip over to the esotericism thread to see what was going on, and my impression was something both Bloom and his teacher Tocqueville warned about: the attraction of the democratic mind to abstract concepts, as opposed to concrete details. Bloom constantly warns us throughout all his works to resist our innate temptation to accept “shiny new theories” rather than have “fully cognized experiences”. Just an example of the former tendency is our fascination with Plato’s “forms”. Rather than focus in on them, we should dwell with the dialogue and get to know its interlocutors as though they were real people with certain character traits that betray their inclinations. The democratic Mind tends not to perceive or take seriously aristocratic tastes and “values”; but to understand ancient literature, one must be able to recapture that mindset that has been neglected and forgotten...precisely because it was driven out of “society” long ago.

For my part, I have no theory about the forms, Bloom’s or otherwise. What I think—admonished by Bloom—is that our intellectual crisis has far more to do with our lack of connection with the old literature and its cast of characters, fully described in that literature—the Davids and Achilleses and Moseses and Socrateses that populate it; and who make it a living place, one where we can dwell and feel comfortable—and thence be inspired to think.

@Fooloso4. Consider if this excerpt from Bloom’s interpretive essay on The Republic isn’t an accurate description of Jaffa:

“The divided line and the cave teach that there are two fatal temptations of the mind. The first is that of the men who insist on the significance of the images in the cave and constitute themselves as their defenders and hence the accusers of the philosophers. They are often men of very high intelligence who are forced to hate reason by their unwillingness to renounce the charm and significance of their particular experiences and those of their people. They are enemies of whatever leads in the direction of universality, of anything that would tend to break down the heterogeneity, the particularity and distinctiveness, of the ways to which they are attached. Their dominant trait is piety, which frequently turns into fanaticism. These men are among the leaders of peoples and are protectors of the people’s beliefs. This account of their nature acts as a corrective of the view that the people can easily be persuaded to accept philosophers as kings.”

That is why Jaffa considers it insulting that Bloom suggest Hobbes and Locke, two non-Americans, were the chief influencers of the Founding thought. It is also why he criticizes him for not praising American thinkers or artists—what about Huck Finn? What about Lincoln and Jefferson? etc.

This excerpt from Jaffa’s critique of “Closing...” is sufficient evidence of my point:

“Of course it is the themes of the Civil War that supplied the themes of America’s greatest literary works. Huckleberry Finn confronts convention with nature, and slavery with freedom, in a uniquely American poetic transformation of the teachings of Rousseau. It is one that, I believe, equals, if it does not surpass anything that European literature of the last 200 years can show.”

A couple things to notice in this passage: though Jaffa dare equate Huck Finn with European literature, even suggest it is better, he doesn’t dare omit that it originated as a response to a European thinker! When American thinkers were inventing such things as steam engines and telegraphs unguided by European wisdom, why did American writers feel the need to “transform” a Rousseau?

Another thing: why in his comparison of American and European literature did Jaffa confine himself to “the last 200 years”? Was he afraid that if he went back beyond Rousseau, to perhaps Dante or Virgil or Homer, his criticism might not have held its weight in gold?

And besides, hadn’t Jaffa just conceded that Americans were not a ppl influenced or guided by a book, but that the “American Story” was a book in itself?

“Bloom complains loud and long that Americans do not have national books that form and represent national character, as do Frenchmen or Germans or Italians or the English. There is some justification for this complaint. But that is because the genius of America as a civilization is above all to be found in its political institutions, and its greatest writers have been its greatest political men.”

Mirabile dictu! Suddenly Mark Twain is forgotten ( who I don’t remember being a “political man”)—though he was perhaps superior to any European literature of his time—and American literature, the sort that might be civilization-constituting like Homer or The Bible, has become the political writings of Jefferson and Lincoln. We are forced to ask: which is it, Mr. Jaffa: is America a ppl intellectually constituted by Melville and Whitman and Twain? or rather by Jefferson and Lincoln?

I don’t much doubt, O Morosophos, that you will agree with my critique of Jaffa here; what I doubt is that you will heed what my quote from Bloom says about the meaning of the cave and its images; for you propose a very radical and relativistic interpretation of Plato’s cave that I have never heard of...whence did you obtain that opinion, that Plato is manipulating us through images of the ideas in this way?

I did discover that philosophy can now be purchased in a bottle. — Fooloso4

Ha ha! Good joke. But I regret that that site was cancelled. I spent a good bit of time on it around 2004-6 (?). There was a guy on there who was very persuasive in espousing modern natural rights teachings, especially economic ones. He thought I was much younger than I was, and talked me into accepting a mailing of several books by obscure Enlightenment era authors whose names I no longer remember, in an attempt to convert me. The only one of those books I saved and still have is Hobbes’ Leviathan.

The Jaffa critique of Bloom I attempted to refute on that site was I think his “Humanizing Certitudes and Impoverishing Doubts”, a play on a quote from Bloom’s Closing..., from Part Two (“Our Ignorance”): “What is so paradoxical is that our language is the product of the extraordinary thought and philosophical greatness at which this cursory and superficial survey has done nothing more than hint. There is a lifetime and more of study here, which would turn our impoverishing certitudes into humanizing doubts.”

My instinct is that Jaffa felt Bloom was a nihilist, in the form of his former teacher Nietzsche, while Jaffa himself clung to the old or standard natural rights teachings, and defended The Constitution. In TCAM (The Closing of the American Mind), Bloom obviously both defends and criticizes that constitution (in different contexts). Bloom says he began his career believing in Freud, was converted to Nietzsche, and finally settled with Plato...but Plato would have never believed in natural rights...

...a request of you, O Morosophos: are you internet-savvy enough to pull up Jaffa’s criticism of Bloom, the one entitled, “Humanizing Certitudes and Impoverishing Doubts”? I have tried, but everything I found was either a requirement of purchase, or of access to a university account...and I am not a professor, student, or card-holding consumer. The reason I ask this of you—and I don’t want you to go to great lengths that would put you out in any way—is because I remember that I refuted one of Jaffa’s statements therein concerning the Constitution quite definitively, and would like to see that statement again, to judge whether I was correct in perceiving it to be so obviously self-contradictory.

Does he say what he thinks our status is epistemologically? I am inclined to thing that we are psychologically still under the influence of the image or makers. — Fooloso4

I assume by “we” and “us” you mean philosophers... among which I do not count myself. I may have been born with the nature for Her... but I came to Her so late, in my 30s, and by a mixture of nature and chance with a preponderance of the latter: only by chancing upon books I found by browsing in libraries and bookstores did I ever find either Bloom or deGrazia. My brief fling with the University before this, in the early 80s, offered me nothing.

By “epistemologically” I assume you mean whether Bloom thinks the philosopher can be truly independent of the regime or polity or community with regard to his THOUGHT. The answer to this is a resounding “yes!” According to Bloom, that is the uniqueness of the philosopher as a human being and citizen, that he cannot accept the city’s beliefs because he bases his thought on reason alone, which the city cannot do. The following is from his essay, “Aristophanes and Socrates: A Response to Hall”:

“The philosopher, of course, begins, as do all men, in the cave; and...he pays the strictest attention not only to particular or individual things but to their shadows. But the difference between him and other men is that he learns they are only shadows—shadows which give us access to the truth—whereas they believe the shadows are the real things and are passionately committed to that belief. That is what cave-dwelling means. The cave must always remain cave, so the philosopher is the enemy of the prisoners since he cannot take the non-philosophers’ most cherished beliefs seriously. Similarly, Socrates does not care for other men, but only to the extent they, too, are capable of philosophy, which only a few are. This is an essential and qualitative difference, one that cannot be bridged and that causes fundamental differences of interest...To the extent that the philosopher turns some men to the light, he robs the cave-dwellers of allies. It is not because he lives in the sun, out of the cave, that I say the philosopher is at tension with the city; his problem is due precisely to the fact that he is in it, but in a way different from that of other men.”

It isn’t simply that the philosopher’s problem is that his soul is trapped inside his body while his body is trapped within the cave. His soul too begins within the cave, and only by education, literally, is it brought outside into the sunlight; and this, only after great attention has been payed to “the individual things” and to “the shadows”; for as Bloom admonishes us, though the shadows must be perceived as unreal, it is only they that give us access to the truth.

Thanks for the New Republic piece. It WAS interesting...

...it caused me to recall a refutation of Jaffa’s criticism of Bloom I composed and published on a website devoted to discussion of Strauss back in the 20-aughts. That site was cancelled soon after, and its title taken over by a company that sold beauty products, “Philosophy”. Were you ever familiar with that site? That was a long time ago, and my memory of much of it has faded.

Of the two, Jaffa and Bloom, Bloom seems more politically consonant with their spiritual father, Strauss; for, like him, he espoused moderation in politics, based on his interpretation of the political intentions of the ancient philosophers, and was himself not active in politics like Jaffa. It was interesting to see how far Strauss’ influence on politics goes back—all the way back at least to a Barry Goldwater speech given in 1964, only three years after my birth! It is just as interesting to note that there is no mention of the divide b/w Strauss’ students, which occurred rather early on it seems, in any of Bloom’s published works or interviews that I am aware of. He seems rather to consider his true rivals—ie, those whom he must refute—to be men like Dale Hall, Daniel Bell and John Rawls: not outwardly political men, but rather men who might pervert or obscure or deform the old books by which he hoped to inspire his students. This is all of a piece with his teaching that philosophy is a very personal, as opposed to political, undertaking...

...but Socrates proved that the search for knowledge and the desire for justice in the polity are ultimately entwined. The desire of the philosopher—the man born to pursue the truth—and that of the citizen—the man born to follow the ways and beliefs of his fellow citizens—must necessarily collide with each other...and the latter is destined to win politically, because that sphere is where he, the citizen, has power through numbers: there are many more men in the cave than those who have the power to peer outside it...

...but, as Bloom admonishes us, though the philosopher is psychologically outside the cave, he always remains physically within it; and I think this fact is what inspired both the ancient temperance in his (the philosopher’s) political writings—ie the appeal to the aristocracy—and the Machiavellian audacity to abolish it in favor of the plebs. In other words, the philosopher/scientist was always going to have to take account of politics...one way or another.

The split in Strauss’ students, some taking a more moderate, some a more extreme stance toward politics, is reminiscent of the post-Socratic divide b/w Stoic and Epicurean. Division after philosophical revolution seems to be a given: as soon as the pre-Socratics gave way to Socrates, their exalted independence was compromised, inasmuch as they now had to turn their attention away from atoms and eclipses (the microcosm and macrocosm) to the mundane affairs of horse-smiths, orators and oracles.

@Fooloso4 The reason I have not yet responded to you is because our debate caused me to feel the need to do some research first: I felt the need to do a close rereading of Plato’s Apology and Crito, and to examine what Bloom has to say about Socrates’ death in the several books of his (Bloom’s) I have in my possession.

I have been conversant with Bloom for over 30 years. Indeed it was he that introduced me to philosophy—not him personally, but rather through his books, particularly “Closing...”, but also, later on, “Giants and Dwarfs”, “Love and Friendship”, and, of course, his two major translations, of “Emile” and “The Republic”.

I originally joined this forum, not long ago, out of a felt need to seek others who might share my own philosophical interests...or at least potentially share in them. You are the first whom I’ve found, after a year of searching here, who is familiar with the last century’s revolution in Socratic interpretation initiated by Strauss and continued by his students and theirs. Where this revolution has led I have little idea: it seems to have inspired Republican American politics of the late 90s—being used in a manifestly political way which Bloom, had he lived so long to see, would have lamented—when certain intellectuals supporting President Bush espoused his (Strauss’) ideas.

Our debate about why Socrates chose death over exile has thusly caused me to return to the works of the philosophers, to test whether my opinion is correct or not. Thus I owe a debt of gratitude to you, O Morosophos, for having led me back to books I had too long neglected...and to some I am not familiar with...

...and I hope to end my neglect of you soon with a response—after I have finished my research.

Bloom meant that Socrates chose to be philosophy’s martyr.
— Todd Martin

I would be very surprised to learn that this is Bloom's view. — Fooloso4

Here is the actual quote from “Closing of the American Mind”:

“Achilles’ laments and complaints about why he must die for the Greeks and for his friend [Patroclus] are very different from Socrates’ arguments and the reasoning that underlies them for accepting death—because he is old, because it is inevitable, and because it costs him almost nothing and MIGHT [my all caps represent italics in the text] be useful to philosophy.” (p. 285)

Now, the context for this passage does not surround it in Bloom’s text, so we must go searching for it elsewhere; but we needn’t go far to find it. On p. 281 we read,

“Thus philosophy’s response to the hostility of civil society is an educational endeavor, rather more poetic or rhetorical than philosophic, the purpose of which is to temper the passions of gentlemen’s souls...The model for all such efforts is the dialogues of Plato, which together rival the Iliad and the Odyssey, or even the Gospels, introducing a new hero who excites admiration and imitation...Plato turns the [ridiculous] personage of The Clouds into one of those civilization-constituting figures like Moses, Jesus or Achilles...”

Notice that these three figures are all great men characterized by tragedy: Moses led his ppl to the promised land, but was not allowed to follow them there; Achilles bested Hector, but was not fated to see the conquest of Troy; and Jesus’ fate is most similar to Socrates’ in that he was put to death for heresy...

...therefore to my mind, when Bloom says, “and MIGHT be useful to philosophy”, he can only mean that he believed Socrates thought it likely, or at least not unlikely, that his life would be memorialized by his disciples after his death. This memorial would be in the form of writings about his life—ones that would appeal to the gentlemen, to that special class of men who were both partially sympathetic to him, and who had considerable political clout (cf pp. 276-7, beginning at “There are three groups of men...” etc)...

...and why does he italicize “MIGHT” here? Had he merely been speaking of the obvious fact that a man going to his grave cannot know what will occur after his death, then there would be no need for italics; something more is required to explain them. This is provided by Bloom’s analysis of the difference b/w ancient and modern philosophy with regard to fortune: the latter believes fortune can be mastered while the former does not (cf p. 286). Here, Bloom wants to emphasize Socrates’ respect for fortune: he (Socrates) can no more be sure that his life and death will be memorialized to the benefit of philosophy than that philosophers will rule (cf p. 284, “The Enlightenment Transformation”)...but he was willing to bet his life on it, at least acc. to Bloom.

Referring back to the quote from p. 285, notice the phrase, “and the reasoning that underlies them [Socrates’ arguments for accepting death].” By the underlying reasons I think Bloom meant the hidden ones (and real ones), for he does not even mention Socrates’ chief argument in the Apology of Plato: that it would be unjust for him to have benefitted all his life from Athens, then turn around and negate her lawfully conducted jurisdiction.

The physician treats the body with medicines that are to some degree harmful but restore and promote health. Socrates harmed the city by undermining its foundations, but he did so to promote the city's health. — Fooloso4

But what greater degree of harm can one do to something other than by undermining its foundation? So, to characterize what Socrates did to Athens as “to some degree harmful”, but overall good, yet undermining her foundation, undermines your analogy. And the idea that Socrates, after a lifetime of philosophizing, suddenly felt guilty after being indicted and was willing to be put to death seems rather silly Morosophos.

Modern philosophy and science overcame the domination of the Church. — Fooloso4

The Dark Ages were not lacking in philosophy. Aristotle and Plato were still respected and studied during the Middle Ages: the former was indeed incorporated into ecclesiastical doctrine, and though his teachings were modified to fit the church, that actually helped preserve him for the few scholars of philosophical bent who could then go back to the original texts.

Natural philosophy was already prominent, guided by the work of "the philosopher", that is, Aristotle. — Fooloso4

But the Renaissance scientists were busy contradicting Aristotle. The famous example of course, the one you read in the introductory chapter of physics books, where short shrift is given to ancient scientists and their naivety, is that he thought bodies of different weights would fall to the earth at different rates of speed. Aristotle may have inspired modern philosophy of the natural sort, but it soon left him in its wake.

Machiavelli died 1527. Galileo was born 1564. Francis Bacon was born 1561 — Fooloso4

It appears then that Machiavelli was not prompted in his political philosophy by these natural scientists, but that they rather were inspired by him. I appreciate this information, Fooloso4, for it tells me that the modern philosophical revolution, The Enlightenment, was directed inversely to the ancient one: in the beginning, men of thought were directed to the natural world, particularly to astronomy, and only later were forced to deal with politics. After many centuries of stasis, it was the political philosophers, not the natural ones, who dared/decided to shake things up.

Wouldn't those years be spent philosophizing with his friends? — Fooloso4

Finally, O Morosophos, let me only add this as reply: not if he were to live far from his patria in exile.

more uglier — ssu

All I can say is that I am more honorableor than I deserve that my thesis has resulted in such ongoing discussion...I only wish I had the time to participate in it.

Thanks for the Xenophon quote. It seems not to require more context for understanding, yet I am perplexed by it: how would Socrates’ acceptance of death because he was already naturally so close to it show that he wasn’t lying about the daimon? Because a man near death is prone to tell the truth?

But ppl commonly carry secrets to the grave. My maternal aunt had an affair with a barber and bore her only son (she had already two daughters from her husband), yet she never confessed this to anyone, not even the grown son, before her death—which was not sudden, but, rather, prolonged— and even though she may have suspected that the truth either was already being whispered in the community, or might come out after her death.

Yet it appears that that is the force of Xenophon’s argument: that Socrates wouldn’t lie, being so close to either death, or to that death-in-life, when the mental faculties have declined to the point that life is no longer worth living.

we know from the Phaedo that he had a young son — Fooloso4

I think he had at least two, but that is irrelevant: I think your point is that he had someone to live for. But I think I remember reading somewhere that his sons were rather dull. Were he to choose to live, wouldn’t he do so rather for his “spiritual” sons? the Platos and Xenophons and others with whom he felt a kindred soul, and whom he had led out of the darkness of the cave into the light of philosophy? rather than for his natural family?...yet he chose to die despite all the appeals of his friends that he live.

I think I remember reading elsewhere also that he could count on his friends to take care of his family after his death. Sorry: I can’t quote any passage to affirm this: it is just an old memory (the sort that can be as untrustworthy as its opposite).

there are no accounts, as far as I know, in either Plato or Xenophon of any infirmity. — Fooloso4

There didn’t have to be an existing infirmity for Xenophon to express this sentiment: he was speaking of what was likely to come for Socrates, who, obviously, judging by how he behaved in his last days, was not yet prone to mental infirmity. Nevertheless, it could reasonably be expected to come in the ensuing years, since he was, at 70 years, of what was anciently considered “the full years of a man” (according to Biblical scripture), after which dementia was likely to set in, just as it is today after the age of 80.

does Bloom explain how this might help philosophy? — Fooloso4

I could look the quote up for context, but I don’t think I need to. Bloom meant that Socrates chose to be philosophy’s martyr: that by dying unjustly at the hands of the state he might secure future sympathy for the philosopher...which, if true, shows he cared more about his “spiritual” than his temporal offspring.

By instructing the rulers Machiavelli helps shape the conditions in which the philosopher is free to follow his pursuits. — Fooloso4

Yes! That was his brilliant innovation; no ancient philosopher dared or even thought to attempt the same, though several were involved in politics to a higher degree than Machiavelli ever was...

...I’ll tell you my intuition; I don’t know the exact timeline on these matters, but it seems to me that, just about the time of Niccolo, natural philosophy was coming to the fore, with men like Galileo making discoveries, and carving a path that might have made certain suggestions to political philosophy: either emend the old worn-out systems to protect us, and align yourself with us, or remain in the old paths and be relegated to “the dustbin of history”. I suspect you have superior knowledge of this, and I look forward to your opinion.

But the goal is not simply to make the city safe for philosophy but to make philosophy safe for the city. — Fooloso4

But philosophy, true philosophy, cannot be made safe for the city; for, as I have pointed out, the priorities of the two are at odds: the latter will not broach any contradiction that their family or community or god is the greatest good; while the former is born to ask “what is the good?” and therefore question what his community accepts a priori.

But real cities must be a continuation of the city as it already exists. — Fooloso4

Exactly! Which is evidence that Plato never believed his imaginary city was practicable. What he meant to do was show us the ideal city; the theoretical one by which all practical ones would be measured. In this way he was behaving just like a natural scientist who perceives a mathematical formula that comprehends all the messy phenomena he sees in the real world, as Galileo (or was it Newton?) showed that all bodies must fall to the earth at the rate of 32ft/sec squared...though all “real” bodies do not obey that law.

like the harm caused by medicine, — Fooloso4

This is incomprehensible to me, O Morosophos; for I am not aware of any harm the ancient physicians caused the city...so, I would like for you explain that.

I think the answer to that question lies in the philosopher’s notion of his relation to civil society, or to the political community.

Both the ancient and modern philosopher understand or perceive that there is a vast gulf between himself and everyone else, and that this great divide is created by the different priorities of the two: the citizen says he believes in the truth—until It conflicts with what he holds dear: his family, country, or (especially) god, so he implicitly places these things above the truth in order of priority. The philosopher, however, really only cares about The Truth, and neglects the things other men hold dear in order to have the most freedom possible to devote himself to Her pursuit. I think all philosophers, both ancient and modern, recognize this.

This disparate relationship, b/w truth and community values, pits the philosopher against his community. The ppl will not endure even an implicit assault on the things they hold dear, and it is THEY, whether the demos or the aristocracy or the king, that rules politically, and has the power to condemn to exile, or even to death, the philosopher...

...and this is problematic for the latter, because, though he dare publicly act according to inner dictate, his outer personage is prone to the danger from public sources of power. He wants to pursue Truth, to philosophize in his soul, and to share this with the few like souls he can find in his community—but his soul is housed within his body, and the fate of the former depends upon that of the latter: if he die, then he can no longer philosophize; if he be exiled, then can he no longer consort with the Roman litterati, but must converse with the ignoramuses in Tomi, or in Sant’ Andrea...

...Allan Bloom speculates that Socrates chose death over exile for two reasons: “because he was old [and therefore had little opportunity left for philosophizing], and because it [his death] might just help philosophy.” This implies that, had he been, say, forty years of age instead of seventy at the time of his trial, he would have chosen exile over death—which, if true, undermines his (Socrates’) argument in The Apology and Crito for his acquittal.

At any rate, the pursuit of Truth led ancient philosophers onto very diverse paths, some choosing virtue, others even pleasure, as the primary good...yet this intellectual difference did not divide them too drastically: Seneca admired Epicurus while disagreeing with his doctrine, which we can clearly see in The Epistulae Morales: as he argues there, Epicurus’ pleasure was of a rather austere sort, much in-line with Stoic teachings.

As you have noted, Machiavelli was primarily speaking to future—not princes, but rather philosophers. And what was his message to them: that WE (the philosophers) are not prone, as the ancients thought, to “the slings and arrows of fortune”, but have the power to bend men’s minds to our will, if we only benefit them enough to otherwise leave us alone to our austere study?

That, O Morosophos, is prolegomena to what I hope is future discussion. Please forgive me if I have left your question unanswered: I have limited time to devote myself to this conversation; but I look forward to it, and prioritize it among the many day-to-day activities I indulge in.

His gift to Lorenzo was the one things ruler's most value, knowledge of how to rule. But any ruler who desires to stay in power will naturally be wary of someone who claims to have this knowledge because they pose a threat. So Machiavelli plays the part of the humble, ordinary citizen who has suffered greatly, that is, a weak man who would pose no threat to a prince. — Fooloso4

Btw, I agree with your general analysis. There might just be a few quibbles. In the above statement of yours, I agree with all its sentiments except for this one: “...who has suffered greatly”. To me, whether Niccolo had suffered adds nothing to the humble front he puts up. Achilles suffered, was mistreated by Agamemnon and complained about it; but never humbled himself to that king of the Greek army. Indeed, one who has suffered may just want revenge; so, to me, by declaring his suffering to de’ Medici, Niccolo was hoping for that prince’s favor, compassion, and some future appointment...

In other words, Machiavelli seems to me to be giving a free gift—his political tract about how to acquire and maintain a principality—to a prince, in hopes of personal gain from him; for he (Machiavelli) had spent the best part of his life in service to the Florentine government, mostly as her “Secretary”, and, after losing that post, felt that he had lost his very life. He went from being a high-ranking government official to being a nobody. A letter he wrote to his friend Vettori on 10 June 1514 sums it up: “So I am staying thus among my lice [in this village], without finding a man who remembers my service [to Florence] or who believes I might be good for anything.”...

...and as to whether he thought Lorenzo might fear him, I offer this excerpt Niccolo wrote to one of his philosophical buddies in “The Gardens” as evidence that he didn’t so think: “I do not want to leave out news of the way the Magnificent Lorenzo conducts himself, which has been...of such quality that he has filled the whole city with good hope...His Magnificence is...liberal and grateful in audience, slow and serious in reply. His way of conversing is of a sort...that has no proudness in it...In sum, he makes himself both loved and revered rather than feared...” etc.

Stilbo. He was powerless to change fortune but demonstrated great power in his ability to change himself. — Fooloso4

This sentiment doesn’t quite agree with me either. For if, as you say, Stilbo believed in “the Good”, then he would have wished, not merely to change himself, but rather to align his soul with that good. This alignment may involve a change from an initial state of mind imparted by the community (which is what you might have meant), but it doesn’t involve what, as we say in our modern Nietzschean parlance, “a creative remaking of ourselves”. Would you agree with this or not?

In fine I want to express my gratitude for your reply. I knew this would not be a popular topic in this forum; I didn’t expect to get such a quality response as this was to it by anyone.

Btw, I don’t care much for babies: I like for them to grow old enough to talk to and play with. After that I am delighted in them.

As for pussy, I don’t like to grab it unless I am sure it wants to be grabbed.

My point was that the integrity of news sources are to be questioned, and holding skepticism in said news sources' claims are not the same as rejecting said claims — FlaccidDoor

I agree. There is bias in all reporting of news, whether it comes from the left or the right. For example, when CNN headlines “Firey But Mostly Peaceful Protests After Police Shooting”, then we know FOX will say something like “‘Peaceful Protests’ Break Out Into Rampant Destruction Of Property”. Both are literally true; both also reflect a bias.

What gives me doubts that the insurrection isn't as impressive as it's made out to be is that, while being made out to sound like the most terrible thing in modern history, no one on the law enforcement side was killed — FlaccidDoor

Indeed, what was so terrible about it was not loss of life, or even injury (though there was a lot of that, some permanent). It was rather the intent. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives in wars to protect our freedom. If dozens of Capitol officers had lost their lives, I think you and I and they and the whole nation would have considered their sacrifice just and noble and honorable and necessary for the same reason.

Take a look at Jimmy Carter, — 3017amen

Here, in my opinion, is more evidence of the American ppl’s lack of wisdom. Carter was a discreet mixture of traditional and progressive values; his successor was a precursor of Trump, a Hollywood celebrity who steered the country into materialism, away from buckskin and into Brooks Brothers. Carter probably fell out of favor only after the long Iran hostage crisis ended rather unsatisfactorily...which was not his fault.

Wisdom much like logic, is a priori and a posteriori. With respect to the latter wisdom changes based on empirical analysis. — 3017amen

For my part, if I meet wisdom, in a man or group or institution, I consider it a permanent quality they possess that can be generally counted on. When Solomon was said to be wise there was no implication that he would someday become foolish—aren’t lifetime appointments for judges based on this idea?— after all, it was a wish granted by God...though one might suspect his promiscuity and choices with regard to women.

In other words, might he had fired and hired top brass so as to install his minions, in the wake of the coup attempt, so that, after it had succeeded, he could trust in them to support him?
— Todd Martin

Our democracy of checks and balances would have precluded that from happening. — 3017amen

You mean these same checks and balances that Trump undermined during his administration? The ones Biden is struggling to reinstate?

I used to think that the President of the United States of America was a puppet role; that he had no real power. After Trump, I am much less sure. His only failure in the exercise of his powers for his personal ends seems to be that he was too impetuous: he said and did things, through his power, that inspired him at the moment. Had he exercised more foresight, calculated more than just reacted, he might have gained himself a successful ride on that hobby-horse our founders feared our future leader might.

My recommendation would be to take this same intellectual energy and focus on something more virtuous — 3017amen

My apologies, Mr. Amen: this thesis was just a fantasy I had while reading Machiavelli. Down here in my cave I have no one with whom to share my fantasies, so I was compelled (against my will) to share them in TPF.

brow:

The only confirmed murders were by the police to the rioters.
— FlaccidDoor

In the Trumpian value system they would be classified as losers and suckers. — praxis

Clever thinking. Accolades from me.

Those guys still work together. That is scary, to me. — James Riley

And it should be scary to us all: we are a divided nation. In all our institutions men and women work together who have polar opposite notions of how the world should be. This has been hidden beneath an administrative cloak of “protocols” and rules and regulations; but that is an uncertain standard, because it is the spirit, not the letter of those rules, that was sought when they were established...and it is just that spirit that has now come into question.

I have to confess it was not intentional — James Riley

I appreciate your honesty, James, and it says a lot about your character that you confess the truth. But I already suspected it was unintentional judging by other occasional misspellings you made in your posts.

You seem, however, to be a rather sharp intellect. My advice to you is to be more careful about details, like spelling: though one’s misspellings almost always become clear through context, nevertheless, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details” (and the angel too maybe).

In the unimaginable event that Trump had a successful coup d'état on January 6th, I wonder if he would have made horn guy the Secretary of Agriculture. I assume he has penchant for animal husbandry. — praxis

I think Trump should have (secretly, of course) recommended horny guy to Melania, to satisfy her mid-life urgings. I doubt Donald can or does still satisfy them.

Actually it was the opposite. It was a lack of wisdom — 3017amen

That’s my point, Mr. Amen: how do we extol the wisdom of a ppl in rejecting an unfit president when it was the same ppl who voted him in in the first place? Did the American ppl suddenly become wise after four years? If we were truly wise, would we have elected him to start with? Isn’t wisdom a permanent and timeless virtue? As I pointed out, he was a wolf in wolf’s clothing, so we weren’t fooled that way; for some reason we thought it better to let a wolf in than another milquetoast politician. What virtue, then, of a wolf, were we seeking as the primary quality in a leader?

It certainly backfired on Trump that's for sure — 3017amen

Au contraire, Mr. Amen: Barr stuck by his client (he was really Trump’s attorney, wasn’t he?) to (almost) the very end, helping him navigate two impeachment’s. He only got fired after he had to admit that the election was lost...

...which dove-tails into my thesis: that the election was not lost until the electorate had been ratified. Barr was jettisoned after his usefulness ran out, but he had been very useful up until that point...

...I just wonder—and maybe your superior knowledge might shed light on this—if Trump failed to properly groom/purge the military for the coming insurrection. In other words, might he had fired and hired top brass so as to install his minions, in the wake of the coup attempt, so that, after it had succeeded, he could trust in them to support him?

As one poster has already noted,

The obvious obstacle was the military — ssu

Yes. In a coup one must have the support of the military above all else. But the top brass weren’t with him, so I begin to doubt my thesis: I think, on Jan 6, the critical moment, Trump had to hole it out from the fairway were he to succeed in leading the insurrection to its logical conclusion, a precarious (literally) scenario, rather than just sink a medium-range putt.

...like Tiger would have done.

In other words, the public saw through it — 3017amen

Gotta give the majority of American's credit, they saw through the bull — 3017amen

I would say Trump was unsuccessful in carrying out this take-over because he underestimated the wisdom of the masses — 3017amen

Was it by wisdom that the masses voted him in in the first place? We let the wolf in the door...and he wasn’t even dressed in sheep’s clothing! We all knew what he was when, through our wisdom, we voted for him in 2016. Why then did we vote for him?

It’s, of course, complicated...very very complicated, and I haven’t the time to go into it all right now. I only want to make the point that, if we were so wise to resist the take-over attempt, yet we weren’t so wise to put that man in power who would inspire it.

But they keep their oath instead of saying they are oath keepers; much as the predator lives in grace with his pray, rather than simply saying grace before he eats. — James Riley

Clever; accolades from me...and especially for the spelling “pray” rather than the expected and proper “prey”...even if unintended...but especially if intended.

Not to mention our wonderful system of checks and balances. — 3017amen

So wonderful was it, that it was a wonder anyone wondered why Trump put Bill Barr in as Attorney General; that wonder wonderfully dissipated as soon as Barr gave his public summary of the Russia Collusion Investigation.

Of course, you are not an advocate of 'Presidential Leadership' skills that encourage domestic violence and law breaking and disorder, — 3017amen

I am not an advocate of either side here. As @NOS4A2, @fishfry and @FlaccidDoor might agree, “domestic violence and lawbreaking and disorder” might apply also to last year’s racial riots.

All I am saying is that Trump was in a position, on January 6, that he could have led his army, instead of just trusting in them to do it all for him, to the Capitol, put all his chips in, and, not just gambled (which activity I suppose he is familiar with, especially on the golf-course) in the contest, but participated in it...and not just participated, but could have been the main character, the chief, the general, THE MAN...and either won or lost his cause, to remain perpetual leader of the greatest country in the world, by his own merits...

...but he didn’t have the balls to do what was needed to insure that bet. By withdrawing, he insured his safety at the cost of the cause. He still hoped the cause would be achieved, but because he valued his own personal safety more, he risked less, and, though hoping for more, nevertheless got exactly what he risked.

I think he thought he had to hole it in from the fairway, so he wasn’t willing to bet on it...

...but maybe he just had to sink a 15 foot putt.

I wish he had led the nutters in because then he would now be where he belongs, behind bars with horn guy. — praxis

One added letter, a “y” right after “horn”, would have made this a perfect post, Mr. Praxis.

Let's remember that Trump was in charge of the executive branch and the commander of the military, hence this would have been a self-coup. — ssu

Not really. Though technically speaking he was still all those things, his command was about to be removed by the swearing-in of his replacement. By forcing his ratification as the next president he would have guaranteed that he kept the command.

Donald Trump lives to be at heart a media personality, who absolutely enjoys the idol worship by his supporters. — ssu

And for four years he ran the American government like it was four seasons of the Apprentice!

Hence the Trump administration would had have to fire a lot of generals until they would have gotten military servicemen that thought that "protecting the constitution" would mean to halt the election process. — ssu

In my scenario the military are absent (as they were on Jan 6). Once he had been certified President Elect by the electoral ratification process, Trump would only have had to quell all and any anti-coup movements until Jan 21, after which he would remain commander-in-chief.

The ugliest thing is that the World would have adapted to the new situation — ssu

Yes. Had Trump succeeded in taking over the government, all the Bolsonaros and Putins and Xis would have been emboldened to do the same all around the world. The autocratic spirit in world politics that has been breathed fresh air over the last few decades would have ignited a general flame.

A lot of Americans would have just minded their own business — ssu

Yes: just go about day-to-day business, getting their kids to school, going to work, reclining to watch their favorite tv shows...like The Apprentice (!)

The real issue is that there does exist those, who could go through, if they would get into power. — ssu

It needs to be one of the blood-line. The blood of the prince has power over the ppl like nothing else. If his dad wasn’t bold enough, Donald Jr might be. What is he doing right now? Do you think he isn’t salivating over wet-dreams of 2024?


@"3017amen”

courage and leadership
— Todd Martin

Todd!

Can you elaborate on those concepts viz your thesis? — 3017amen

I think so: the courage to lead his mob/army into the Capitol in order to gain control of electoral ratification. That is what I meant.

force and fear
— Todd Martin

Can you (also) elaborate a bit more on those concepts viz your thesis? — 3017amen

By force I meant the entering of the Capitol accompanied by his Secret Service and backed by the mob. By fear I meant what Pence would have felt, and every Democrat and moderate Republican, whenever the gallery shouted its disapproval of the regularly listed electoral votes. In such a circumstance (literally), everyone against him would have feared for her life.

America did survive the insurrection for the simple reason there wasn’t one. — NOS4A2

There wasn’t one, rather, because it didn’t succeed. There can be no doubt about the intention of the insurrectionist: they were ready to hang Pence and Pelosi and any other politician who smelled of anti-Trumpism, including McConnell.


The division b/w those who see no coup attempt here, and those who do, is the difference b/w literal and subliminal message. Someone can insert a statement that is contrary to their overall message; but to take that statement as proof that their alleged intention is a fantasy, is itself the actual fantasy.

The most useful skill is how to acquire and keep a state. If Trump had possessed this skill he would now be Dictator of the USA, instead of a private citizen beset with interminable lawsuits.

I tend to experience the greatest amount of shame from really mundane things like remembering times when I said something stupid or acted awkwardly — TheHedoMinimalist

Well, here’s something else we can add to the list of things we have in common! Fear and shame of doing stupid laughable things is characteristic of young men in the bloom of their manhood, and typically plagues teenagers. That’s probably why young boys tend to adopt a “cool” or “tough” persona and a rigid mindset that conforms to whatever clique they join or find themselves a member of, in order to protect themselves against ridicule.

When I was that young man, I secretly longed to belong to some such group, to gain the identity that belonging to it promised, but I just never fit in; for I also had a fiercely independent nature, and an unwillingness to “go along” with beliefs or behaviors simply because they were sanctioned by a group.

But I digress. The most mortifying experience of my life happened at this age. I went to the prom with “the pageant queen”, a tall fair-skinned beauty with curly blonde hair. How I won that honor I cannot say. I was a good-looking boy, just come into the first bloom of manhood, but with no social connections to recommend him...

...the evening of the prom, she and I drove into the city to have supper with another couple she knew, and we ate at Ruby Tuesday. After we were seated the waiter came to our table...

...now, city, and small-town or country ppl, are just different: if you’re a town boy and unacquainted with city life, you encounter a lot of ppl there that look very different from what you’re familiar with. Our waiter was rather openly effeminate, obviously gay, had on earrings (unusual for a man in 1980), and spoke with a lisp. Between the times he came to our table, my male companion, older than me and a wise-cracker, would make jokes about him, and because I was nervous, being the beautiful pageant-queen’s date, I vented my nervousness in giggly laughter at his jokes...

...finally the waiter came to take our order. By now I had had a drink or two, and was in a state of pure hilarity, but had composed myself (or so I thought) enough to behave like a man in possession of his faculties. The waiter asked someone’s order and stood there in silence. Suddenly, no longer able to control myself, I burst out laughing...

...well, I didn’t exactly burst out laughing (that’s what I WANTED to do): I checked it, but in doing so, I caused it to come out at the other end, as a loud fart. I immediately grabbed my nose, hoping by doing so I would make everyone think the noise emanated from there, then ran to the bathroom. Once in the bathroom, I found myself alone, and began pacing back and forth, repeating to myself, “I can’t believe I just did that!” Once I had composed myself enough to return to my companions, I saw that everyone was smiling...except for my date. Of course, the wise-cracker had to make things worse: “Hey Todd, did that noise really come out of your nose?”

You can imagine what the rest of the night was like, O Hedomenos. I have little memory of it. I just remember taking my pageant queen back to her house, inviting myself in to sit up late watching tv, hoping for a kiss, which I had to ask for before acquiring, then departing. We never went out on another date after that.

Take tomorrow off, O Hedomenos, and I will respond to the more substantive issues you raised. I just wanted to share a humiliating experience with you for your entertainment. I have lived a long life and have experienced many things that I can view from a perspective you can’t. As you grow older, farting in public is not such a mortifying thing; but then again, you are unlikely to do it in the presence of a beautiful woman you think is the meaning of your life.

I would say that you are close to people that you care about the most and would be willing to prioritize their interests over the interests of other people. — TheHedoMinimalist

I assume you are speaking of family and friends, of co-workers , of ppl who you personally know and meet with/talk to on a regular basis, like the guy who sells you the morning paper from his stand, your barber, old high school buddies...maybe the inhabitants of the nursing home you work at or visit, maybe the inmates of a prison, etc.

This kind of closeness doesn’t seem to require to share secrets. — TheHedoMinimalist

I totally agree. We may care very much about the welfare of these sorts of ppl, and by telling them our innermost secrets we may only succeed in upsetting them or driving them away. But what about YOU, O Hedomenos: you know your own deepest secrets, yet you cannot escape your own self; so you must do one of a few things: you must suppress the memory of your shameful thoughts or actions deep enough that they barely ever touch your consciousness (and conscience); or you must explain them to yourself (and, perhaps, to others) in a light that makes them look less reprehensible...

...My father-in-law was a distinguished professor at a major university; he was also rather good-looking, and cheated on his wife enough that they divorced. But he had no real qualms about his behavior, because he used a discovery of animal-behavioralism to explain his infidelity: to sum it up in crude terms, if baboons do it, then so do men;

or, you do neither of these, and your shameful memories regularly haunt you throughout your life, arising again and again to torment you on an almost daily basis.

Of these three sorts of ppl, 1) the suppressor, 2) the prevaricator or 3) the sufferer, which do you think you and me are? I have an idea about you, having gotten a taste of your soul through this dialogue, but I won’t divulge my opinion until you have answered the question.

Oh! I forgot a fourth alternative: the soul without a conscience, who never has a qualm about anything he does or imagines. He is someone who actually exists. Then there is a fifth possibility: the soul that never thinks nor does anything reprehensible...

...but he is a fiction, nicht wahr?

@synthesis.

Please don't make the mistake of believing the era we live in is somehow special — synthesis

If you look back at the quote by counterpunch you were responding to, you’ll notice he was speaking of the distant both past and future, thus not making the present “special” at all.

@TheHedoMinimalist.

I personally don’t see the value in sharing secrets for their own sake. — TheHedoMinimalist

By “for their own sake” I suppose you mean “just because they are secrets”. The problem with that though is that they are secrets because you are hiding them for some reason.

Of the things that we hide there are, I think, two different sorts: the general things all ppl routinely hide from each other because they are low and what we share with mere beasts, and the more particular things that a person hides because he is ashamed of them. An example of the former is defecation and it’s clean-up: who would want to hear someone give his particular details of this universal phenomenon? These are the sorts of things I assume you meant when you said,

there’s some secrets that I have that I wouldn’t want to share with anyone. Simply because it wouldn’t have conversational value and there’s no other reason to share it. — TheHedoMinimalist

An example of the latter I draw from an hypothetical scenario you gave in an earlier post of the loose-lipped girl whose hobby was killing stray cats. Most anyone else (ie, a normal person) would be ashamed of such behavior and not confess it, certainly not to just anyone, because of this:

I wouldn’t share my secrets with anyone who has any power to produce negative outcomes in my life if they knew a particular secret of mine. — TheHedoMinimalist

For, if someone knows you kill animals for fun, they might report you to the SPCA.

But what if you have someone close to you that you feel you can confide in about such shameful things without fear of condemnation? Yet you lack such a person in your life, O Hedomenos, for, as you confess,

I have a tendency to share the least about myself with people that I’m closest to. — TheHedoMinimalist

Unlike most everyone else (maybe it’s different now in this day and age: maybe we have become so isolated that our closest connections are with anonymous ppl on the internet), you would rather confess your secrets to those you are furthest from.

But what does being close to someone mean if you hold something far away from them? If you say,”I am very close with my” mom, or sister or brother or best friend, but withhold secrets that would enable them to understand the character of your soul in its fullness, how close can you be? How can you be close to someone who knows the least about you?

If there is uncertainty among the participants in this discussion what freedom means, maybe it would be good to come to an agreement about it. I propose this definition for consideration:

Freedom for a member of a political community is his permission within that community to pursue the things considered necessary by that community for living a fully human life. I am aware this is a vague generalization, but you’ve got to start somewhere.

@TheHedoMinimalist. Well, let me ask it this way: with whom are we most willing to share the secrets about our bodies? Isn’t it our physician? And with whom are we most willing to share the secrets about our crumbling house? Isn’t it the carpenter or mason?

With whom are we willing to share the secrets about our delinquent accounts? Isn’t it with our financial planner? And aren’t we most willing to divulge the secrets of our pet’s misbehavior with its trainer?

And what about the secrets of our soul? Don’t we go to our priest and confess, if we’re Catholic, or go to a therapist, if we’re secular?

But let me ask you, O Hedomenos: with whom would you be willing to share your innermost secrets? Is there someone in your life that you trust that much? Wouldn’t anyone long to have such a one? If anyone would want to have such a person in their lives, wouldn’t there be a general term we use to describe him, to characterize him (or her)?

It's a silly question. Being yourself doesn't necessarily require knowledge of who you are. A cat does not know it's a cat, but has no issues being a cat. We are all outcomes of our genes and upbringing and are always being ourselves. — Harry Hindu

But you upbraided synthesis for trying to be someone else:

Stop watching TV and watching movies, as it's all propaganda. For some reason people want to be like the characters they see on TV and the movies, or be told how they should be the actors that play those characters, rather than just being themselves. — Harry Hindu

So, apparently, at least some ppl aren’t always just being themselves, but are impressed enough by examples they admire so much that they want to be that person. In the mid-80s Allan Bloom wrote, “ I discovered that students who boasted of having no heroes secretly had a passion to be like Mick Jagger, to live his life, have his fame. They were ashamed to admit this in a university, although I am not certain that the reason has anything to do with a higher standard of taste. It is probably that they are not supposed to have heroes.”

We are all outcomes of our genes and upbringing — Harry Hindu

But man is satisfied with neither his nature nor nurture. Often, to be himself (or herself) he thinks, he needs to alter his genetic gender, and work hard to overcome an oppressive upbringing...all in order to become who he truly is.

A cat does not know it's a cat, but has no issues being a cat. — Harry Hindu

Your example goes straight to my point: a human being, unlike a cat, knows what he is, and, unlike a cat, often has issues with it.

No more drunk philosophy from me! — counterpunch

Ah vhe! You mean no more Alcibiades stumbling into Plato’s Symposium?...what a shame...what a loss!

What does “being yourself” mean? That presupposes you know who and what you really are. Is that knowledge so evident and obvious? Has the Delphic Oracle been reduced to something like “2+2=4”? Has the object of Socrates’ lifelong pursuit become obvious for anyone that breathes and thinks?

@TheHedoMinimalist. You didn't answer my question, O Hedomenos:

who is the one with whom we are willing to share our personal (secret?) desires and insecurities? What is his name, or what do we call him? — Todd Martin

Are you willing to answer it or not?

@Harry Hindu.

For some reason people want to be like the characters they see on TV and the movies, or be told how they should be the actors that play those characters, rather than just being themselves. — Harry Hindu

“[American] students [of the 80s] have not the slightest notion of what an achievement it is to free oneself from public guidance and find resources for guidance within oneself. From what source within themselves would they draw the goals they think they set for themselves? Liberation from the heroic only means that they have no resource whatsoever against conformity to the current “role models.” They are constantly thinking of themselves in terms of fixed standards that they did not make. Instead of being overwhelmed by Cyrus, Theseus, Moses or Romulus, they unconsciously act out the roles of the doctors, lawyers, businessmen or TV personalities around them. One can only pity young people without admirations they can respect or avow, who are artificially restrained from the enthusiasm for great virtue.”

That is my generation.

@TheHedoMinimalist.

Nonetheless, I still think it would be more honest for me to tell her about my girlfriend because I think sharing secrets increases one’s level of honesty. — TheHedoMinimalist

I assume you mean that, when you tell someone secrets, that they get the impression you can be generally trusted to tell the truth, since our secrets are the last things we tell; after all, how else did they become secret?

But whether you should tell your mom about your girlfriend depends on several things, doesn’t it? What if it would upset her? Surely you wouldn’t want that to happen just because of some abstract ideal of an “increased level of honesty” b/w you two? But maybe, though it would upset her, by telling her, you would be sending the subtle message that this is YOUR life, and you’re gonna live it the way you want to, regardless of what she wants.

I think that my mom’s motive was either that of curiosity or that of concern for my welfare. — TheHedoMinimalist

And “concern for your welfare” might extend to concern for the sort of women you might be getting involved with? As far as curiosity goes, I attempted to argue in my previous post that no one is just curious: there is always a motive, however subtle or hidden, for one asking or exploring.

Would a mother who had complete trust in her child ever even think to ask him either where he has been or where he’s going?

it’s usually considered really honest of someone to share their personal desires and insecurities with others but one is not being dishonest by refusing to share those things with others. — TheHedoMinimalist

I have a question for you, O Hedomenos: who is the one with whom we are willing to share our personal (secret?) desires and insecurities? What is his name, or what do we call him? For it is surely not with just anyone that we are willing to share such things.

But, as you pointed out in a previous post, there are some who confess all to anyone, who tell everything “in quaslibet aures” (to whomever will listen). Ironically, we cannot trust such a person to be our friend, despite his perfect honesty, because we find that he dishonors our friendship by telling everyone the things he should only confess to us.