March 29, 2025
The Inquiry—update
Well, we have recorded two episodes: an intro and an episode on Stoicism. Things are going well. Much editing to do, but we'll be posting soon.
March 26, 2025
The Inquiry
We're basically open for business. (Basically?) Episodes forthcoming. But, y'know, the website's up! And we got a logo and everything!
March 24, 2025
Lord of the Flies
I thought I would take a break from Herodotus and give Lord of the Flies a re-read. For some reason it’s been coming to mind, and I decided to scratch said itch. It’s been twenty-plus years.
Unlike Frankenstein and The Great Gatsby, I enjoyed Lord of the Flies. That’s not to say there aren’t things about it that I didn’t particularly love. I don’t love the writing. I find William Golding’s descriptions and prose trying. But the story as a whole kept my attention; I guess I found it gripping—compelling!
One thing I don’t agree with is how the novel is generally received. The edition I read (Penguin, 2016) features an afterword by novelist Lois Lowry (The Giver) and a suggested reading list. Both emphasize the novel’s purported glimpse into the dark side of humanity. The suggested reading list includes books on serial killers and police brutality. Lowry assumes the orthodox tone.
Is this what the novel is about? It was certainly Golding’s intention to produce such a view of humanity—“the darkness of man’s heart.” But I ceased caring what artists think many years ago. It’s up to me as to what the text is “about.” When we hear the title Lord of the Flies, we picture chaos and violence. Young boys with their faces painted and total social breakdown. This is not what happens.
Yes, there is violence and painted faces. But things remain relatively well-ordered for 140 pages—of a 200-page book. There is a basic democratic arrangement and a rough division of labor for 70 percent of the book. On page 71, Piggy gets punched in the stomach for running his mouth, and on page 91 Jack delivers the judgment: “Bollocks to the rules.”
That said, it takes 140 pages for the situation on the island to go off the rails. And it does—partly. The problem is the character Jack, who is power hungry, craves status, and fancies himself manly. He then gets a few young boys to fall in with him, because he dangles fun and feasts for their temptation; they (very young boys) get to call themselves hunters, paint their faces, and kill pigs. Is this a glimpse into humanity’s dark side?
Indeed, humans can fall under the spell of awful people. Last November, 77 million Americans made that abundantly clear. But, history is replete with humans supporting the wrong person. Does Jack represent humanity? A prepubescent psychopath?—um … no. And the even younger boys who follow him? Do they represent humanity? Young boys are not exactly known for their critical thinking skills; they are representative of nothing but themselves.
In the second chapter of Rutger Bregman’s excellent book Humankind, he discusses what happened when real boys became stranded on an island in 1965. Referred to as the “real Lord of the Flies,” the boys cooperated, largely got along, and conducted themselves with civility. It crushes the “Lord of the Flies” myth that people in what philosophers call the “state of nature” will tear each other apart.
So, despite the common treatment and the author’s intentions, “Lord of the Flies is a decent read. I especially like the character Simon. His mental interaction with the pig’s head (the Lord of the Flies) is among my favorite scenes in literature.
Friend Michael and I are giving Virgil a break and reading George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia. Can’t wait.
www.amazon.com/Lord-Flies-William-Golding/dp/0399501487/
Unlike Frankenstein and The Great Gatsby, I enjoyed Lord of the Flies. That’s not to say there aren’t things about it that I didn’t particularly love. I don’t love the writing. I find William Golding’s descriptions and prose trying. But the story as a whole kept my attention; I guess I found it gripping—compelling!
One thing I don’t agree with is how the novel is generally received. The edition I read (Penguin, 2016) features an afterword by novelist Lois Lowry (The Giver) and a suggested reading list. Both emphasize the novel’s purported glimpse into the dark side of humanity. The suggested reading list includes books on serial killers and police brutality. Lowry assumes the orthodox tone.
Is this what the novel is about? It was certainly Golding’s intention to produce such a view of humanity—“the darkness of man’s heart.” But I ceased caring what artists think many years ago. It’s up to me as to what the text is “about.” When we hear the title Lord of the Flies, we picture chaos and violence. Young boys with their faces painted and total social breakdown. This is not what happens.
Yes, there is violence and painted faces. But things remain relatively well-ordered for 140 pages—of a 200-page book. There is a basic democratic arrangement and a rough division of labor for 70 percent of the book. On page 71, Piggy gets punched in the stomach for running his mouth, and on page 91 Jack delivers the judgment: “Bollocks to the rules.”
That said, it takes 140 pages for the situation on the island to go off the rails. And it does—partly. The problem is the character Jack, who is power hungry, craves status, and fancies himself manly. He then gets a few young boys to fall in with him, because he dangles fun and feasts for their temptation; they (very young boys) get to call themselves hunters, paint their faces, and kill pigs. Is this a glimpse into humanity’s dark side?
Indeed, humans can fall under the spell of awful people. Last November, 77 million Americans made that abundantly clear. But, history is replete with humans supporting the wrong person. Does Jack represent humanity? A prepubescent psychopath?—um … no. And the even younger boys who follow him? Do they represent humanity? Young boys are not exactly known for their critical thinking skills; they are representative of nothing but themselves.
In the second chapter of Rutger Bregman’s excellent book Humankind, he discusses what happened when real boys became stranded on an island in 1965. Referred to as the “real Lord of the Flies,” the boys cooperated, largely got along, and conducted themselves with civility. It crushes the “Lord of the Flies” myth that people in what philosophers call the “state of nature” will tear each other apart.
So, despite the common treatment and the author’s intentions, “Lord of the Flies is a decent read. I especially like the character Simon. His mental interaction with the pig’s head (the Lord of the Flies) is among my favorite scenes in literature.
Friend Michael and I are giving Virgil a break and reading George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia. Can’t wait.
www.amazon.com/Lord-Flies-William-Golding/dp/0399501487/
March 21, 2025
Brian Eno
I got Brian Eno’s new book, What Art Does: An Unfinished Theory, and I am thoroughly enjoying it.
For those who aren’t familiar, Eno was in the rock band Roxy Music, went solo, became a producer—of Bowie, the Talking Heads, U2, you name it—and along the way invented ambient music. I recommend any of his interviews or essays floating around in cyberspace. (Oh, and his music. LOL!)
Well, he’s mentioned for years he’s been working on a book, so this must be it. It’s quite short, heavily illustrated, features playful typography, and seems to be loosely modeled on a couple books by Marshall McLuhan that were reissued in the mid-1990s: The Medium is the Message and War and Peace in the Global Village. If you haven’t seen those, I recommend them.
Eno and coauthor Bette A. do a nice job exploring the concept of art, opening it up, and expanding its boundaries. If you’re interested in these things, I can’t imagine you wouldn’t enjoy this book.
For those who aren’t familiar, Eno was in the rock band Roxy Music, went solo, became a producer—of Bowie, the Talking Heads, U2, you name it—and along the way invented ambient music. I recommend any of his interviews or essays floating around in cyberspace. (Oh, and his music. LOL!)
Well, he’s mentioned for years he’s been working on a book, so this must be it. It’s quite short, heavily illustrated, features playful typography, and seems to be loosely modeled on a couple books by Marshall McLuhan that were reissued in the mid-1990s: The Medium is the Message and War and Peace in the Global Village. If you haven’t seen those, I recommend them.
Eno and coauthor Bette A. do a nice job exploring the concept of art, opening it up, and expanding its boundaries. If you’re interested in these things, I can’t imagine you wouldn’t enjoy this book.
March 20, 2025
My area of philosophy is political philosophy. And under that expansive umbrella, my area of focus and research is human nature.
Commonly, political theorists begin with considerations of human nature. If you’re going to arrange human beings, then you need to know what kind of creatures you’re dealing with. If they’re violent and aggressive, then you would arrange them one way. If they’re basically cooperative, then you would proceed much differently.
It’s because of this that I have read a fair amount about chimpanzees. We can learn a lot about humans by studying chimps. We can see the building blocks of human behavior: our social dynamics, our politics, our morality. This is not to suggest that chimps are moral, but there is a code of conduct in chimp groups that is quite sophisticated and impressive. As I have said, the closer we look at animals, the smarter they get.
I am thoroughly enjoying the Netflix miniseries Chimp Empire. It is fun to watch what I have read about; the video footage is astounding. And the documentarians have done sound work. The miniseries is responsibly written and what one sees and hears in the documentary is scientifically solid.
Worth checking out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjgL7Pum
Commonly, political theorists begin with considerations of human nature. If you’re going to arrange human beings, then you need to know what kind of creatures you’re dealing with. If they’re violent and aggressive, then you would arrange them one way. If they’re basically cooperative, then you would proceed much differently.
It’s because of this that I have read a fair amount about chimpanzees. We can learn a lot about humans by studying chimps. We can see the building blocks of human behavior: our social dynamics, our politics, our morality. This is not to suggest that chimps are moral, but there is a code of conduct in chimp groups that is quite sophisticated and impressive. As I have said, the closer we look at animals, the smarter they get.
I am thoroughly enjoying the Netflix miniseries Chimp Empire. It is fun to watch what I have read about; the video footage is astounding. And the documentarians have done sound work. The miniseries is responsibly written and what one sees and hears in the documentary is scientifically solid.
Worth checking out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjgL7Pum
March 17, 2025
Descartes
Daily Philosophy just published my essay introducing Descartes's Meditations. If you have a thought, I'm all ears.
March 12, 2025
Moon Landings
My essay on aliens was fun to do, so I thought I might do one on the moon landings. Some people seem to doubt whether we actually landed on the moon. Hopefully, this essay will clear up a few things.
The moon landings were part of NASA’s Apollo program, which ran from 1969 to 1972. There were six crewed lunar landings in all. The first was Apollo 11.
The cost of the Apollo program is an estimate. The program, in adjusted dollars, ran about $300 billion. If the US government faked the moon landings, they would of course have to hide or steal one-third of a trillion dollars. And how does one do that? One doesn’t. There are receipts and (many) accountants. To suggest that a handful of governmental personnel took off with $300 billion is to announce one is a child.
And for that matter, we must consider the number of people who worked on the Apollo program: 400,000. Were 400,000 people in on the secret? Some 400,000 people kept a secret and fooled the public—and have so since 1969, many taking that secret to their graves?
If there is one thing humans are lousy at, it’s keeping secrets. And almost half a million of them doing so successfully? To believe this is to possess a remarkably high opinion of governmental personnel as well as the human ability to keep a secret—which is quite poor. Maybe the 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo program were genetically unique.
This leads us to why the US government would create such an elaborate hoax. Why bother? The Soviets! It was the Cold War! I have summarized and lightly analyzed the Cold War and will not do so here. (See my Straight Power Concepts, p. 40-7.) Crying “The Soviets!” is not an explanation as to why the US government would hide $300 billion and have 400,000 people swear to secrecy a deception merely to fool the Kremlin.
And we can ask the simple question—assuming the moon landings were faked—how did the United States benefit from allegedly going to the moon? Take that, Moscow! What were the foreign-policy benefits? Was Washington now positioned to achieve some goal it was not able to do so before?
Or maybe it was just self-esteem? We wanted to be first. So, then we lied? How does this improve our self-image? And we are of course back to those 400,000 people who could have done interviews and written and sold many books. Maybe they were afraid to. Maybe the government threatened them, or made them sign NDAs and they feared the repercussions. Maybe Bigfoot prevented them from doing so.
Now for the “evidence.” Some conspiracy theorists point to the photography as evidence that the whole thing was done on a sound stage. Let’s look at a few of the particulars:
• Conspiracy: There are no stars in the photographs.
Reality: It was daytime on the moon.
• Conspiracy: Neil Armstrong’s footprint doesn’t match his suit.
Reality: It was Buzz Aldrin’s footprint. And they were wearing overshoes when they walked on the moon.
• Conspiracy: The flag is waving and there is no wind on the moon.
Reality: The astronauts even said they put wires in the flag to make it look like it was waving. They did it as a joke. Is there wind on a sound stage?
• Conspiracy: The shadows aren’t right in the photography.
Reality: The moon’s surface is reflective and they wouldn’t be.
• Conspiracy: In the reflection of Buzz Aldrin’s visor, Armstrong does not appear to be holding a camera. So, how did he take the picture?
Reality: Armstrong took the photo with a 70mm lunar-surface camera. (A Swedish Hasselblad, I believe.) You can indeed see he’s holding something.
So, when we take into consideration the money, the people, the why, and the photography, we’re not left with much. The suggestion that the moon landings were faked is therefore difficult to take seriously.
The moon landings did take place. Nevertheless, I remain critical. I feel it was a colossal waste of money. Before we went, the assumption was that the moon was a large gray rock. $300 billion later we discovered that the moon … is a large gray rock. Money well spent.
Some who are passionate about the space program are eager to cite the technologies that the space program has provided. Space blankets! Freeze-dried ice cream! Memory foam! We spent $300 billion to get these things? That is a poor return on investment.
Telescopy I am in favor of. We have learned far more by peering into space than by traveling into it. With the Hubble telescope we can see 13 billion light years away. There is value in that. Physically traveling into space is expensive, dangerous, and inefficient.
And how do we know this? Because it has been endeavored. Y'know, like the moon landings, for instance.
The moon landings were part of NASA’s Apollo program, which ran from 1969 to 1972. There were six crewed lunar landings in all. The first was Apollo 11.
The cost of the Apollo program is an estimate. The program, in adjusted dollars, ran about $300 billion. If the US government faked the moon landings, they would of course have to hide or steal one-third of a trillion dollars. And how does one do that? One doesn’t. There are receipts and (many) accountants. To suggest that a handful of governmental personnel took off with $300 billion is to announce one is a child.
And for that matter, we must consider the number of people who worked on the Apollo program: 400,000. Were 400,000 people in on the secret? Some 400,000 people kept a secret and fooled the public—and have so since 1969, many taking that secret to their graves?
If there is one thing humans are lousy at, it’s keeping secrets. And almost half a million of them doing so successfully? To believe this is to possess a remarkably high opinion of governmental personnel as well as the human ability to keep a secret—which is quite poor. Maybe the 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo program were genetically unique.
This leads us to why the US government would create such an elaborate hoax. Why bother? The Soviets! It was the Cold War! I have summarized and lightly analyzed the Cold War and will not do so here. (See my Straight Power Concepts, p. 40-7.) Crying “The Soviets!” is not an explanation as to why the US government would hide $300 billion and have 400,000 people swear to secrecy a deception merely to fool the Kremlin.
And we can ask the simple question—assuming the moon landings were faked—how did the United States benefit from allegedly going to the moon? Take that, Moscow! What were the foreign-policy benefits? Was Washington now positioned to achieve some goal it was not able to do so before?
Or maybe it was just self-esteem? We wanted to be first. So, then we lied? How does this improve our self-image? And we are of course back to those 400,000 people who could have done interviews and written and sold many books. Maybe they were afraid to. Maybe the government threatened them, or made them sign NDAs and they feared the repercussions. Maybe Bigfoot prevented them from doing so.
Now for the “evidence.” Some conspiracy theorists point to the photography as evidence that the whole thing was done on a sound stage. Let’s look at a few of the particulars:
• Conspiracy: There are no stars in the photographs.
Reality: It was daytime on the moon.
• Conspiracy: Neil Armstrong’s footprint doesn’t match his suit.
Reality: It was Buzz Aldrin’s footprint. And they were wearing overshoes when they walked on the moon.
• Conspiracy: The flag is waving and there is no wind on the moon.
Reality: The astronauts even said they put wires in the flag to make it look like it was waving. They did it as a joke. Is there wind on a sound stage?
• Conspiracy: The shadows aren’t right in the photography.
Reality: The moon’s surface is reflective and they wouldn’t be.
• Conspiracy: In the reflection of Buzz Aldrin’s visor, Armstrong does not appear to be holding a camera. So, how did he take the picture?
Reality: Armstrong took the photo with a 70mm lunar-surface camera. (A Swedish Hasselblad, I believe.) You can indeed see he’s holding something.
So, when we take into consideration the money, the people, the why, and the photography, we’re not left with much. The suggestion that the moon landings were faked is therefore difficult to take seriously.
The moon landings did take place. Nevertheless, I remain critical. I feel it was a colossal waste of money. Before we went, the assumption was that the moon was a large gray rock. $300 billion later we discovered that the moon … is a large gray rock. Money well spent.
Some who are passionate about the space program are eager to cite the technologies that the space program has provided. Space blankets! Freeze-dried ice cream! Memory foam! We spent $300 billion to get these things? That is a poor return on investment.
Telescopy I am in favor of. We have learned far more by peering into space than by traveling into it. With the Hubble telescope we can see 13 billion light years away. There is value in that. Physically traveling into space is expensive, dangerous, and inefficient.
And how do we know this? Because it has been endeavored. Y'know, like the moon landings, for instance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)