Being an Emperor’s Heir is a Dangerous Job

While I wasn’t paying attention last week, we passed the 3,000-page mark in the Man and Society category of the Great Books Project. We should hit 13,000 pages overall in the next few weeks.

Here are the readings for the coming week:

1. The Divine Comedy: Inferno by Dante Alighieri, Cantos I-XVII (GBWW Vol. 19, pp. 1-22)
2. “Against Epicurus” by Epictetus (GBWW Vol. 11, pp. 121; Book I Chapter 23 of the Discourses)
3. The Annals of Tacitus, Book V-VI (GBWW Vol. 14, pp. 83-100)
4. The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen, Chapters 2-3 (GBWW Vol. 57, pp. 9-29)
5. The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud, Introduction and Part I, Sections A-C (GBWW Vol. 54, pp. 135-155; pp. 1-16 of the linked PDF)
6. The Philosophy of Right by G.W.F. Hegel, Third Part, Sections I-II (GBWW Vol. 43, pp. 58-93)

To compensate for diving into Freud for the first time, I’ve also scheduled us to read the last of the five great epics of Western civilization over the next several weeks.

Here are some observations from last week’s readings:

1. Six Characters in Search of an Author by Luigi Pirandello: This play is so clever in exploring the tension between “reality” (as represented by the characters’ story) and the requirements of representing reality on the stage. Then it gets all degraded with the pseudo-incest stuff. I’m not clear on what place the gunshot and death at then end has in connection to what has gone before, though. 
2. “On Precognitions” by Epictetus: I’ve normally thought of precognition as a kind of foresight, but Epictetus appears to be using it in the sense of a “conception of the good,” or at least a judgment about which action will lead to the best outcome. Epictetus, not surprisingly, advises focusing on what we can control, i.e. the inner life. 
3. The Annals of Tacitus, Book IV: Tacitus writes that this is when Tiberius becomes a tyrant, and that it’s because of Sejanus. However, Sejanus’s plot hasn’t been fully realized yet, so I assume Tacitus that it’s Sejanus’s malign influences on Tiberius he’s talking about. The poisoning of Drusus is dealt with surprisingly quickly. I also found it noteworthy that Tacitus lingers over the court case of a son accusing his father. To Romans (as I suppose it should be to us) that is something monstrous.
4. The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen, Introduction: Veblen posits a contrast between “exploit” and “drudgery” in primitive society. The guys who go out and kill huge animals, fight other people, etc., have prestige and exercise power in the tribe. This includes priestly figures who, I guess, demonstrate their prowess with the unseen world. Those involved in industry, such as growing crops, are seen as inferior. An interesting idea, to be sure, but like Hobbes, Rousseau, and the rest, Veblen is speculating, not demonstrating.
5. On Floating Bodies by Archimedes: Amazingly, Archimedes can tell us what solid bodies floating in liquid will do without ever actually looking at one. As far as I can tell, the math works, even though I started getting lost in the second half. 
6. The Philosophy of Right by G.W.F. Hegel, Second Part: Apparently Hegel, like William James, thinks that intention is the judge of our actions. That puts him in tension with W.K. Clifford and some of the other authors in the Great Books corpus, to say nothing of Thomas Sowell, every Austrian economist, etc. I noticed that Hegel also defines action differently from the Austrians, as the “externalization of the will,” something which requires an external environment. In other words, something like reflection would not qualify as action for Hegel.

We’re now 27 months into this project. Can you believe it? I find it amusing that I recently got a comment on my original “Master Plan” post to the effect that I’d give up on this the first year. Yet here we are.

New Page in the Reading Economics Project

The long-awaited (or at least long-delayed) page listing the works in the Reading Economics Project is now live on the site. It is still incomplete, but it had been on the drawing board long enough (I made the initial draft seven months ago!).

I am still adding works and links, so don’t fly off the handle if you see something missing.

Oh, and Happy Easter!

Ayn Rand vs. C.S. Lewis: A Failure to Communicate

A fifteen-year-old book containing sixty-year-old marginal notes is making waves in the blogosphere this week. Someone over on the First Things blog made a post titled “Ayn Rand Really, Really Hated C.S. Lewis,” which dredges up material from Ayn Rand’s Marginalia (1998), a book containing Rand’s private comments on twenty different authors.

It seems that Rand couldn’t abide Lewis’s Abolition of Man. Anyone familiar with both authors may find this surprising. After all, the Abolition of Man is a powerful statement against totalitarianism and oppression, and Rand spent her career trying to warn readers about these same things.

However, Rand seems to have interpreted Lewis’s book as a Luddite screed against science and technology. You can read the detailed marginal notes in the First Things post, but here’s one example. Lewis writes:

I am considering what the thing called ‘Man’s power over Nature’ must always and essentially be. No doubt, the picture could be modified by public ownership of raw materials and factories and public control of scien­tific research. But unless we have a world state this will still mean the power of one nation over others. And even within the world state or the nation it will mean (in principle) the power of majorities over minorities, and (in the concrete) of a government over the people. And all long-term exercises of power, especially in breeding, must mean the power of earlier generations over later ones.

Rand underlined the second and final sentences of the above paragraph, and then wrote in the margin, “So in the pre-science age, there was no power of majorities over minorities – and the Middle Ages were a period of love and equality, and the oppres­sion began only in the U.S.A. (!!!) The abysmal b****rd!”

In my experience, it’s unusual to come across someone, religious or not, who has no appreciation for C.S. Lewis. (I did know one science professor at Florida State University who abhorred his writing.) The Oxford don was remarkably successful in communicating Christian ideas in a way that won respect from a broad, educated audience.

On the other hand, Ayn Rand seems to be a “love-her-or-hate-her” author. Her devoted fan base is large, but huge numbers of readers despise her, too. One of the more comical things to come out of Washington in recent years is the attempt to smear Rep. Paul Ryan as an extremist because he had stated that he found value in Rand’s writing. I’m sure that many hate Rand simply because she rejected statism, and that others hate her because she ridiculed religion in all its forms.

I suspect, though, that some of the animus against Rand stems from her tendency to caricature her opponents. Her marginal note above is a textbook example of a straw man fallacy. Furthermore, it’s not clear that Rand even understood Lewis’s argument, if the rest of her notes are anything to go on. In context, Lewis is stressing that our attempts to “master Nature” can have profound long-term consequences, and that it’s critical that we be guided by a strict standard of ethics along the way.

To the post-WWII generation that was learning about the vivisection and other medical experiments performed by Nazis on human beings, this argument ought to make sense. Rand, however, appears to have been blinded by Lewis’s respect for tradition and faith, and thus dismissed everything he had to say.

I enjoy reading both of these authors and have assigned their works to undergraduate and graduate students. It’s pretty clear, though, that when showing students how to engage in scholarly discourse, Ayn Rand should not be the model.

Let Us Sit upon the Ground and Tell Sad Stories of the Death of Kings

After the heaviness of Ptolemy, Aristotle, and Hegel, I figured we could lighten things up by reading a socialist. That should be good entertainment!

Here are the readings for the coming week:

1. Six Characters in Search of an Author by Luigi Pirandello (GBWW Vol. 59, pp. 241-276)
2. “On Precognitions” by Epictetus (GBWW Vol. 11, pp. 120-121; Book I Chapter 22 of the Discourses)
3. The Annals of Tacitus, Book IV (GBWW Vol. 14, pp. 63-83)
4. The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen, Introduction (GBWW Vol. 57, pp. 1-9)
5. “On Floating Bodies” by Archimedes (GBWW Vol. 10, pp. 538-560)
6. The Philosophy of Right by G.W.F. Hegel, Second Part (GBWW Vol. 43, pp. 42-57)

If you experience any shock as you make your way through this week’s readings, it’s probably because half the material comes from the twentieth century.

Here are some observations from last week’s readings:

1. The Tragedy of King Richard II by William Shakespeare: I hadn’t read this play in about fifteen years. I was impressed on this reading how Shakespeare dances around the necessity of making either Richard II or Bolingbroke a villain. Both are portrayed as imperfect, but each receives sympathetic treatment, and you do feel sorry for Richard during his deposition and murder. Bolingbroke’s “though I did wish him dead, I hate the murderer” rings a wee bit hollow at the end.
2. The Metaphysics of Aristotle, Book XIV: The discussion of whether number is real continues here. Aristotle says no. Attributes of number exist in substances, but number does not exist independently. It might seem like a curious note on which to end the treatise, but some of Aristotle’s contemporaries had made this idea a cornerstone of their philosophical systems.
3. The Annals of Tacitus, Book III: Again, Tacitus emphasizes Tiberius’s sliminess. The whole spectacle of Germanicus’s funeral and Piso’s trial was distinctly unedifying. Then we had the show trial of Piso’s wife. There wasn’t a sympathetic character among them.
4. “Of Taxes” by David Hume: The fairest tax is one on consumption; the worst are arbitrary ones. Hume also makes an interesting argument against the view that all tax ultimately falls on the land.
5. “Experimental Considerations Common to Living Things and Inorganic Bodies” by Claude Bernard: According to Bernard, “strict determinism” is the foundation of all physical science. He insists that the scientist always asks how, but never why. I assume that Bernard is not claiming that there is no why, but that when one asks it he is no longer speaking as a scientist.
6. The Philosophy of Right by G.W.F. Hegel, First Part: Believe it or not, I found this part pretty interesting. Hegel lays out ideas on property and contract. He seems to accept the homesteading principle as self-evident. He then writes of violations of property and contract as “wrongs,” and includes brief treatments of fraud and coercion. All of this, according to him, is pre-moral.

I’ve been trying to get this post up since yesterday afternoon. Even so, I managed to make up a day on the posting schedule from last week. We’re enjoying what is probably the last stretch of cool weather before Alabama’s annual six-month swelter. Whether inside or outside, I hope you find some time to read this week!

The Owl of Minerva Spreads Its Wings Only with the Falling of the Dusk

We’re reaching another milestone in the Great Books Project this week: upon completion of the Claude Bernard reading below, we’ll have completed five of the ten volumes of the Gateway to the Great Books series. I believe that makes nine volumes completed overall!

Here are the readings for the coming week:

1. The Tragedy of King Richard II by William Shakespeare (GBWW Vol. 24, pp. 320-351)
2. The Metaphysics of Aristotle, Book XIV (GBWW Vol. 7, pp. 619-626)
3. The Annals of Tacitus, Book III (GBWW Vol. 14, pp. 45-63)
4. “Of Taxes” by David Hume (GGB Vol. 7, pp. 85-88)
5. “Experimental Considerations Common to Living Things and Inorganic Bodies” by Claude Bernard (GGB Vol. 8, pp. 266-290; Chapter III of An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine; these links may not work)
6. The Philosophy of Right by G.W.F. Hegel, First Part (GBWW Vol. 43, pp. 22-41)

It will be nice to finish Aristotle’s Metaphysics this week, although it doesn’t seem nearly so difficult now that we’ve started a work by Hegel.

Here are some observations from last week’s readings:

1. “Sorrow-Acre” by Isak Dinesen: This story features a giant head-fake that had me convinced the climax would be a lynching of the landlord following the old woman’s death. I’m glad it didn’t turn out that way. The ambiguity at the end of the story leaves you wondering whose view of the world is more accurate: the uncle’s or the nephew’s.
2. The Metaphysics of Aristotle, Book XIII: After all the discussion of substance, Aristotle turns to mathematics to discuss whether numbers are real, etc. This book contains several citations of Plato, who thought mathematics showed evidence of the ideal Forms. 
3. The Annals of Tacitus, Book II: Tacitus certainly wants you to think that Tiberius is a reprehensible figure. His maneuvering in the Senate is pretty disgusting, as is his treatment of many public figures. Germanicus, on the other hand, comes off as pure as the driven snow. It’s interesting how Tacitus doesn’t say flat out that Piso had Germanicus poisoned, but contents himself with noting that circumstantial evidence appeared to point in that direction. 
4. “Of Prognostications” by Michel de Montaigne: I found it very interesting that Montaigne appears to give some credence to ancient pagan prophecy, quoting Cicero to the effect that it had faded in efficacy by the first century B.C. As usual, he juxtaposes classical references to examples from his own time, expressing incredulity that French nobles sought the aid of diviners even in the sixteenth century. 
5. The Almagest of Ptolemy, Book XIII, Parts 5-11 and Appendices: After 21 weeks, we’re finally putting this work to bed. I probably understood 25-30% of what I read, and I don’t think I’ll be able to comprehend it fully until I’ve come back to it after a close study of Euclid and the other ancient mathematicians in this series. I liked the second appendix, which bridges Ptolemy’s system with that of Copernicus and Kepler. I’ve had it with astronomy for a while, though. We’ll come back to those guys later. 
6. The Philosophy of Right by G.W.F. Hegel, Preface & Introduction: This work is not what I was expecting. Hegel is essentially commenting on his own university lectures, and he appears to assume that readers are his students. I liked the image at the end of the preface about the owl of Minerva spreading its wings at dusk. Hegel essentially believes philosophy can only comprehend a phase of history too late for it to be of any practical use.

I am sort of on spring break this week; at least two of my classes aren’t meeting. It doesn’t feel like it, though, with a new issue of the Journal of Faith and the Academy to edit and a conference to attend at the Ludwig von Mises Institute tomorrow. Here’s hoping I can make up another day or two on the schedule next week!

He Who Destroys a Good Book, Kills Reason Itself

It feels like we’re starting a new chapter in the Great Books Project. After all, I’ve had to set three new hyperlinks for this week’s reading list! What’s more, this is the last week of Ptolemy.

Here are the readings for the coming week:

1. “Sorrow-Acre” by Isak Dinesen (GGB Vol. 3, pp. 615-641)
2. The Metaphysics of Aristotle, Book XIII (GBWW Vol. 7, pp. 607-619)
3. The Annals of Tacitus, Book II (GBWW Vol. 14, pp. 23-45)
4. “Of Prognostications” by Michel de Montaigne (GBWW Vol. 23, pp. 65-67)
5. The Almagest of Ptolemy, Book XIII, 5-11 & Appendices (GBWW Vol. 15, pp. 456-478)
6. The Philosophy of Right by G.W.F. Hegel, Preface & Introduction (GBWW Vol. 43, pp. 1-21)

I know Hegel is scary, but I doubt he’ll be any worse than Kant. One step at a time!

Here are some observations from last week’s readings:

1. Areopagitica by John Milton: Milton makes about as strong an argument as can be made for freedom of the press here, and he does it without playing the “fundamental human rights”card, at which everyone in the mid-17th century would have scoffed. This work comes from the period in which I specialized in grad school, so I didn’t have any trouble with the idiom, e.g., references to “tonnage and poundage.” There are some great lines here, too, like the one I used for the post title.
2. The Metaphysics of Aristotle, Book XII: This book returns to the question of substance. Aristotle lays out three different kinds. It was amusing to read this book in conjunction with Berkeley this week, as radically different as they are. 
3. The Annals of Tacitus, Book I: Apparently, being a soldier in the mighty Roman legions was a pretty tough life. Had it not been, there wouldn’t have been a major mutiny right after Augustus’s death. I couldn’t help thinking that the successful effort to shame the soldiers out of rebellion would have fallen flat in today’s culture of entitlement. You may have noticed that we get our first glimpse of Caligula in this book. He seems harmless enough now, but just wait!
4. Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley, Sections 82-156: I’m still shaking my head at Berkeley’s attempt to annihilate anything that’s not perceived. Would he have thought that light and the firmament didn’t really exist on the first and second days of creation because no physical beings were around to sense them? I also had to wonder at his assertion that insistence on the reality of unperceived things gives the game away to atheists.
5. The Almagest of Ptolemy, Book XIII, Parts 1-4: We’re on the home stretch here. This book tries to tie up loose ends, most importantly the planets’ lateral deviations from the ecliptics established in previous books. Not surprisingly (to us), Ptolemy has to treat Mercury’s and Venus’s deviations differently from those of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. I broke off right before the tables started. 
6. “Against Those Who Wish to Be Admired” by Epictetus: This one-paragraph discourse is pretty clever. Epictetus notes that many thinkers wish to be admired by the masses, but in their philosophical reflections they consider the masses mad. “Well then, do you wish to be admired by madmen?”

I don’t know about you, but I’m planning to enjoy St. Patrick’s Day. There’s corned beef brisket and shamrock-shaped ravioli in the freezer as I type. I hope that you won’t be celebrating so much that you won’t have time to read something from the Great Books this weekend.

Bohemians Who Want to Be Philistines

Ever since beginning this Great Books Project, I’ve known that some of you out there have been itching to read about crazy Roman emperors. We’re going to start reading Tacitus this week, so your wait is over.

Here are the readings for the coming week:

1. Areopagitica by John Milton (GBWW Vol. 29, pp. 379-412)
2. The Metaphysics of Aristotle, Book XII (GBWW Vol. 7, pp. 598-606)
3. The Annals of Tacitus, Book I (GBWW Vol. 14, pp. 1-23)
4. Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley, Sections 82-end (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 428-444)
5. The Almagest of Ptolemy, Book XIII, 1-4 (GBWW Vol. 15, pp. 426-455)
6. “Against Those Who Wish to Be Admired” by Epictetus (GBWW Vol. 11, p. 120; Book I, Ch. 21 of the Discourses)

We’re close to the end of Ptolemy and Aristotle, and we finish Berkeley this week, too, so we’ll have some significant turnover in the schedule soon. I’m excited to sit down and select what to read next!

Here are some observations from last week’s readings:

1. “The Pupil” by Henry James: “Bohemians who want to be Philistines”—for some reason I found this statement absolutely hilarious. I’ve never read a story quite like this about social climbers impoverishing themselves. I’m not sure how interpret Morgan, “the pupil,” here. Any ideas? 
2. The Metaphysics of Aristotle, Book XI: Is there one science that treats of all being? Aristotle, unsurprisingly, says it depends on how precise we are with our definition of “being.” Here he also makes an interesting refutation of Heraclitus and Anaxagoras, arguing that to apply their ideas consistently would ultimately result in a violation of non-contradiction. 
3. Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville, Volume II, Appendices II-III: I was struck by the statement in Tocqueville’s speech before the French legislature that the aristocracy lost control of the country, at least in part, because they deserved to, because of their moral degradation. It was the sort of statement that didn’t occur much, if at all, in the more analytical Democracy in America. 
4. Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley, Sections 1-81: I don’t buy it. The idea that something must be perceived to exist just doesn’t pass the smell test. The only way to salvage this, I guess, would be to say that God perceives all things, so that the chair is still there even when we close our eyes, but I don’t see where Berkeley allows this. Maybe it’s coming up in the next section . . . 
5. The Almagest of Ptolemy, Book XII, Parts 6-10: We start off here with a discussion of Mercury’s regression before moving another table or two. Then there’s an analysis of Mercury’s and Venus’s “elongation with respect to the sun.” The assumption of circular orbits certainly led to a lot of finessing! The modern astronomer wants simpler math, I suppose.
6. “About Reason, How It Contemplates Itself” by Epictetus: “It is the chief and the first work of a philosopher to examine appearances, and to distinguish them, and to admit none without examination.” I think I’ll use that somewhere.

My three-week streak of making Great Books posts on Mondays has been broken, and in a big way. It may take a few weeks to claw back, but really this week the delays were unavoidable. I apologize to any of you who were bent out of shape over the wait.

Great Books Project Post Index Up to Date!

I’m pleased to announce that the index of posts in the Great Books Project is now up to date!

The index had been stuck in the first half of 2011 for some time, but as Dave Barry would say, “Alert Reader” Stef Bradford did the work of compiling the links and author lists and sending them to me. Thanks, Stef!

This week’s project post is behind schedule, but it should be up tomorrow morning.

Interview: Why Christians Should Read the Great Books

A recent post here resulted in an invitation to appear on the Research on Religion podcast. Host Tony Gill was intrigued by my applying lessons from Plato to dining at Applebee’s in the 21st century.

We recorded the interview last Wednesday, and it was published yesterday on the Research on Religion site.

The interview was a lot of fun to do. Looking back on it, my only regret is that I neglected to go into the need for Great Books education in a democratic society where ordinary citizens are expected to play a role in public life. That omission apart, I think the interview went very well, and I hope you enjoy it.

All the World’s a Stage

Three Great Books Monday posts in a row . . . what is the world coming to? If you have never read Henry James before, you’re in for a treat this week.

Here are the readings for the coming week:

1. “The Pupil” by Henry James (GGB Vol. 3, pp. 530-568)
2. The Metaphysics of Aristotle, Book XI (GBWW Vol. 7, pp. 587-598)
3. Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville, Volume II, Appendices II-III (GBWW Vol. 44, pp. 400-411)
4. Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley, Sections 1-81 (GBWW Vol. 33, pp. 413-428)
5. The Almagest of Ptolemy, Book XII, 6-10 (GBWW Vol. 15, pp. 411-425)
6. “About Reason, How It Contemplates Itself” by Epictetus (GBWW Vol. 11, p. 119-120; Book I, Ch. 20 of the Discourses)

This week we say good-bye to Alexis de Tocqueville. Reading two appendices isn’t exactly going out with a bang, but we’ve encountered many great insights from him along the way. I know there’s material for several blog posts if I ever find the time.

Here are some observations from last week’s readings:

1. As You Like It by William Shakespeare: Even though it has some great speeches like “All the world’s a stage . . .” this play doesn’t grab me like so many others from Shakespeare. I suppose something is lost in translation; I’m sure the irony of an Elizabethan actor pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man onstage would have been immensely funny at the time. Bryce Dallas Howard is easy on the eyes, but she’s just not the same.
2. The Metaphysics of Aristotle, Book X: This book discusses the idea of unity. The problem of “the one and the many” is a thorny one. What does it mean to say that two things are the same, or that two things are different. Is there a unity of all things, some genus that comprehends every species? As usual, by the end of the book you are convinced that the problem is more difficult that you ever thought before.
3. Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville, Volume II, Part Four, Ch. 6-8 and Appendix I: Here at the end, Tocqueville makes some interesting reflections on how God might view the changes in the world. His point about God’s being concerned with the welfare of all and not just those of Tocqueville’s class is important. Of course, by itself it does not prove that democracy is desirable.
4. Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley, Preface and Introduction: The influence of Locke on Berkeley is evident from the beginning; there are at least five or six citations from Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding in the Introduction. I started to wonder whether I should have read that work first, but it’s too late now! Berkeley claims that “general abstract” ideas are harmful to sound reasoning, even though the use of language inevitably draws us to them to some extent.
5. The Almagest of Ptolemy, Book XII, Parts 1-5: I got really confused in this section because editorial notes were inserted into the text with no warning other than a slight change in font size. This book lays out a different way of treating the “regressions,” or apparent backwards motions, of the planets. The editor indicates that much of what Ptolemy does here foreshadows Copernicus’s work of more than 1,000 years later.
6. “How We Should Behave to Tyrants” by Epictetus: Libertarians will enjoy Epictetus’s statement that one should react to a tyrant as one does “to a fever and the bile.” Not surprisingly, Epictetus emphasizes that the tyrant can’t touch you where it counts, on the inside.

Average annual rainfall here is around 55 inches; so far in February we’ve had more than 11 inches. I’m feeling a bit waterlogged and hoping we’ll get a reprieve soon.