Food for thought

"Whether we wish it or not, we may soon have to make a clear choice between the special nation to which we pledge our allegiance and the broad humanity of which we are born a part. This choice is implicit in the world to come. We have a little time in which we can make the choice intelligently. Failing that, the choice will be made for us in the confusion of war, from which the world will emerge unified - the unity of total desolation."

-- E. B. White, The Wild Flag, 1946.

Further

I'm increasingly convinced that the absolute only reason that anyone took Marx's economic and political theories remotely seriously were twofold:
1. Fear over the changes that the industrial revolution brought. Humans, being the stupidest successful species ever, tend to have a demented fear of Change. Marx said, "No, you're totally right, you're not being fulfilled as a person if you're not out farming and growing your own food." He did everything he could to legitimize the ridiculous discontent at the changes in society.
2. That argument nicely set up, he just pointed and said, "Look! The Capitalist! You're not happy? It's because of him!"

Et voila - not only do people have their baseless dissatisfaction justified, but they have what everyone really wants, a scapegoat. He's brilliant with his language, but Marx isn't anything more than a talented sophist.

In other news, after having gotten a rejection letter from Grad School A yesterday, I was really pissed when I got a skinny letter from Grad School B (by far my top choice) today. "I was fine yesterday, but I don't think I can handle two rejections in a row, so I'm not going to open this until this evening, after seminar," says I.

Turns out it was just a note saying they have my complete application and I should get an acceptance or rejection within a month.

Also in the mail was a letter to all the seniors from the Dean which began along the lines of "Now that you've been notified that your senior essay has been accepted..." Which would be great. If we'd gotten notice about whether our essays have been accepted or not yet, but we haven't. So, as always, good job college administration!

Grunt

No reasonable person can deny that Rousseau's Social Contract had a significant influence on the framing of the Constitution.*

Unfortunately, either Rousseau or those framers completely fucked something up, because Rousseau says that representative government is a form of tyranny and obviously, the Constitution says otherwise.

This is extremely problematic.

*If this is not true I will kill myself immediately, because my senior thesis will in fact be a complete and total farce at that point.

Thoughts on the senior essay

Rousseau provides a very rigid definition of freedom to the people of a state ("You're free to do whatever you want to do within this box"). The Constitution turns that on it's head: "The Government is free to do this, this, and this. The people can more or less do whatever they want. This is all up for debate."

I think the openness to debate in the Constitution, and the perhaps inevitable evolution of what exactly what this 'freedom' nonsense consists of is an important difference. The Constitution, as a practical document, needs to be able to bend to the General Will, and I *think* Rousseau would agree on that. The exact parameters of American freedom aren't positively defined in the Constitution and have constantly changed since; what does this say about freedom? And what does it say about representative government, which Rousseau is totally not cool with?

If Rousseau had addressed the concept of state's rights my life would be much easier right now, because I need to figure out how to deal with that.

???

Dear Mr. Hegel,

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, that's an honest question. Could you please explain, in plain English, what exactly you're talking about?

Sincerely,

A befuddled reader.

Ssshhhh, at work

I highly recommend going to see Dark Knight - I think it absolutely lived up to the hype. I've also been thinking a bit lately about the nature of evil, and I think the movie raises some questions. There are two categories of Bad Guys in the movie:
1. Bad Guys who do bad things for a clear personal purpose (revenge, money, perhaps even an idea of justice). In this category are the mobsters and most villians, generally speaking.
2. Bad Guys who do bad thigns just for the hell of it: in this case, the Joker.

More thoughts on this sometime when I'm A) not at work and B) not running on quite as few hours of sleep.

Politics the way it should be

Two brief items of minimal importance:

1.  I just got back from lunch to discover that, on the chalkboard hanging in the hallway, someone had written: "It's OK, Kant thinks you're a jerk too." This pleases me.

2.  Apparently, I get nervous for my friends who are about to have the senior orals.  By the time mine is a few hours away, I think I'll probably die of heart failure.

Locke me up

I have the biggest crush on John Locke. Seminar was pretty empty - lots of people decided to kick off their long weekend a bit early, I guess - but pretty good. The type of seminar where I left with my head just spinning with ideas (including paper ideas).

Also, the Founding Fathers totally cribbed from Locke. It's worked out pretty well, sure, but at one point I was just like, hmm, that sounds markedly familiar...