Political and Ethical Philosophy in Fiction and Poetry > Likes and Comments
Among the studies of the political philosophy of Shakespeare, see Allan Bloom and Harry Jaffa, Shakespeare’s Politics; John E. Alvis and Thomas G. West, eds., Shakespeare as Political Thinker; and Timothy W. Burns, Shakespeare’s Political Wisdom.
See the remarks regarding the Danish television series Borgen in posts 1 and 2 of the Types of Government: Parliamentary Democracy topic of this group.
One of the best television products of the twentieth century was Star Trek: The Original Series, which aired in the late 1960s. I recently watched all the episodes on Amazon Prime. (Although I was aware of the program, I didn't watch it during the 1960s or in later reruns.) The show contained many allusions, sometimes veiled, to contemporary political issues, including the Cold War and race relations (it featured the first interracial kiss, which many Southern stations refused to air) and ventured into broader questions of political philosophy and ethics, including various types of regimes (on different planets). The cast was multiracial, which was quite unusual for its time. Although it acquired a substantial following, especially in the scientific community, it was not an outstanding commercial success. However, its fans have remained loyal, even to the present day. All in all, it was a splendid blend of scientific fiction, character development (including the unforgettable Spock, the Vulcan rationalist), and philosophical thought. Its science ("warp speed" etc.) was often questionable, but its political statements, explicit and implicit, packed a wallop.
Thanks Alan - it seems great clue to better understanding of danish parlamentary democracy. I´ll watch all series. Ron Carneiro
Trump "I am the Pop Culture." The Making of a Presidenthttp://presumptivephilospher.blogspot... Tony Soprano COOL "media's bewilderment"
Tony wrote: "Trump "I am the Pop Culture." The Making of a Presidenthttp://presumptivephilospher.blogspot... Tony Soprano COOL "media's bewilderment""
I was afraid, when I mentioned Trump in another topic thread, that this forum would degenerate into a typical political website whereby allegations and insults are hurled back and forth or serve the mere purpose of being an "echo chamber" for people of like-minded political opinions. The linked webpage in the preceding post is a example of what I would like to avoid. I'll let it pass this time, but I want to keep this forum as a scholarly exception to the usual political diatribe. If we nevertheless continue down this path, I will have to start deleting posts and, if necessary, members. See the group rules at the head of the "Political Philosophy and Ethics" group. There are plenty of websites out there to vent one's opinions about this and that. This one is dedicated to a rational examination of enduring issues of political philosophy and ethics. The less we discuss current events, the better as far as I am concerned.
Hi. I'm new to this group and to Goodreads in general, so please advise me how to do better if I do this wrong (I did read the group rules).The first political philosophy book I read was Gulliver's Travels. Although Animal Farm, 1984 and Brave New World carry greater emotive punches, I think Gulliver's Travels (and perhaps the Time Machine) fathered the modern political speculative fiction genre. In modern spec fic, I highly recommend Iain Banks' "Culture" series, which posits a civilization where there is no material scarcity, and citizens have free access to all the basics and education and luxuries they desire, including personal security.
I, personally, however, am more interested in ethics, in the sense of guidelines for choice and blame. IMO, there are many spec fic novels out there that discuss these issues.
What I find most fascinating about them is that in spec fic, "ought" is most definitely implied by "is." [Please note I have a bug up my ass about the contrary generalization taught at Yale while I attended as one of the first females, which contrary generalization should be limited to linguistic philosophy.] While, IMO, as any fruitful discussion of ethics must, spec fic novels adopt naive realism, the facts constituting their "realities" or "universes," whether sci-fi or fantasy, are unique to each.
However, I'm aware of none that do not adopt some version of individual "free will" in their universes. (I do not read the Foundation series as dismissing free will.) This may be only because a story without free will would be boring, but I hope recent developments in quantum physics theory revitalize the notion of free will.
In general, I find most interesting universes positing different types of "gods" and/or aliens, whose physics and/or biology and/or environment create different values. If anyone is interested, I could suggest various specific novels. I also suggest study of Eastern philosophies.
This is actually my own area. Freshman year at college, I decided to write the "New" [feminist] Nicomachean Ethics after retiring early from an international law practice. Before I got there, however, I realized no one but academics wanted to read ethics unless it was presented in fiction. [I should have known, given my fondness for Nietzsche's aphorism in Beyond Good and Evil that "the more abstract the truth that you would teach, the more you must seduce the senses to it."] So, since my early retirement, I have worked on spec fic stories asking ethical questions.
Currently, I have only one story of this type published (a near-future sci-fi story in "Heirs of the Body," published in 2015 in print and online in the quarterly, "Issues in Science and Technology"). However, I have several awaiting completion or polishing. Please visit my website at www.ethicalantics.com
If anyone in this group is passionately interested in ethics in the "real" and speculative worlds, I'd love to discuss more with him or her.
Claudia wrote: "Hi. I'm new to this group and to Goodreads in general, so please advise me how to do better if I do this wrong (I did read the group rules).The first political philosophy book I read was Gulliver..."
Thank you for your contribution, Claudia. Although I can't wrap my own mind around post-twentieth-century novels, even philosophical ones, I'm sure others in this group will be interested in reading your recently published book. I see that Amazon does not yet have a Kindle edition available. That could be the usual delay between CreateSpace and Kindle. If, however, you have not planned to do a Kindle edition, you might reconsider. Many people prefer ebooks these days, especially when (as is my case) they run out of room in their residences for paper books.
The "ought"-"is" and free will issues are addressed in the following, inter alia (you will appreciate my legal jargon!), topics of this group: Neuroscience, Evolutionary Biology, and Ethics (including the hyperlinked reviews of books by Sam Harris and Michael Shermer); Free Will; and "Facts" and "Values". See also, generally, the Ethics folder of this group.
You have a very interesting background, and I encourage you to post additional comments in this group when and if you consider them "on point" (one of my favorite lawyer expressions).
Ms. Casser, You definitely have a new career, transplanted (pun intended) onto your legal one. Now you just need eternal life to get all the stories down. Bravo!
Thank you so much, Alan. I will definitely browse your links.Just to clarify, NCLB is a semi-comic, near-future YA/crossover, so it is even more a simplified "stealth" ethics offering. I wrote it, inter alia [pretend I inserted smile emoticon here], to teach myself to write more simply. It will be coming out on Kindle, but first I'm withdrawing the print version to fix typos.
My semi-comic short story in Issues in Science and Technology is more typical for me, but most people find it too compressed/complex a discussion.
In my other short stories, I'm seeking to rewrite to a middle ground. When I do that, however, I end up with "short" stories around 20K words long, for which I have not seen a market. Maybe Kindle would work for them?
Again, thanks for welcoming me to the group!
Randal wrote: "Ms. Casser, You definitely have a new career, transplanted (pun intended) onto your legal one. Now you just need eternal life to get all the stories down. Bravo!"Hi Randal
Does the pun mean you read "Heirs of the Body"? I'm currently working on three other stories in the "Lucas" universe. I'd love some advice on which I should focus on finishing first: "Cat Heir," which precedes "Heirs of the Body," and in which Lucas creates the "Schodinger's Cat" Trust; "Sins of the Fathers," which covers way too many issues about the ethics of population management in an era of CRISPR-Cas-9 and epigenetics, and "Dragon's Teeth," where I'm trying to limit myself to the CRISPR-Cas-9 issues.
Like you said, one needs immortality to do everything. Though I wrote a very bad novel in my Flock universe about a clone society where one could achieve something close, depending on your definition of identity, which is of course a core issue in "Cat Heir"... :)
Anyhow, seriously, I'm a bit adrift regarding what to concentrate on first. I'd welcome opinions on what others think the more "important" ethical questions among those I'm currently writing about.
BTW, is there a difference between a "comment" and a "reply", or do they appear in the same list? I wanted to add "Lord of the Flies" as an important ethical "human nature" "Locke vs. Hobbes" fiction work, even if not quite in my spec fic bailiwick.
Claudia wrote: "Thank you so much, Alan. I will definitely browse your links.Just to clarify, NCLB is a semi-comic, near-future YA/crossover, so it is even more a simplified "stealth" ethics offering. I wrote it..."
Congratulations on your publications, including but not limited to your effort to reach young adults. Needless to say, the young ones need all the help they can get!
Kindle might, indeed, be a good platform for your short stories. There is also something called "Kindle Singles," but that seems to be oriented toward authors who are already famous. Unlike Kindle Singles, the regular Kindle does not have an editorial gatekeeper (unless you pay extra for editorial services). In my nonfiction work, I have always resisted editorial "corrections": IMHO, I know more about grammar and style than most editors. That is one reason why I published my recent book on Roger Williams on CreateSpace and Kindle. Additionally, books published by regular publishing houses usually go out of print after a few years. That doesn't happen with CreateSpace and Kindle.
Best of luck on all of your publications, present and future!
Claudia wrote: "BTW, is there a difference between a "comment" and a "reply", or do they appear in the same list? I wanted to add "Lord of the Flies" as an important ethical "human nature" "Locke vs. Hobbes" fiction work, even if not quite in my spec fic bailiwick."I think a "comment" and a "reply" show up as the same thing. Please feel free to add any relevant comment in any topic of this group that appears to be appropriate. There are no prerequisite credentials, academic or otherwise.
Claudia wrote: "Does the pun mean you read "Heirs of the Body"? I'm currently working on three other stories in the "Lucas" universe. I'd love some advice on which I should focus on finishing first: "Cat Heir," which precedes "Heirs of the Body," and in which Lucas creates the "Schodinger's Cat" Trust..."Yes. I read "Heirs of the Body" lying in bed, first thing this morning on my Ich Phone and it was a (What is the electronic equivalent of "page turner?") It captures the fun / ironical twists and turns of life in a downtown law firm behind the facade of propriety. I am just guessing, of course, since I have only been in one to do my will (in the T&E department). But I have been to Shangri-La. So I can relate to that. You captured the ambiance very well. Never have been in space. But it seems that Lucas didn't remember anything of that anyway.
I am a quantum mechanics fan and would love to read the tales of Lucas with the "Schodinger's Cat" Trust. QM is so paradoxical that the only ones who understand it are incapable of explaining it, starting with Schrodinger himself. I would be very interested to see what you and Lucas do with it.
Best wishes!
Claudia wrote: "BTW, is there a difference between a "comment" and a "reply", or do they appear in the same list? I wanted to add "Lord of the Flies" as an important ethical "human nature" "Locke vs. Hobbes" fiction work, even if not quite in my spec fic bailiwick..."
Claudia,
I think you have figured this one out. You are a quick study. The reply gives you the automated "Claudia wrote: ' . . . .'." The comment just starts you out without that.
Would love to seen anything in the "Locke vs. Hobbes" vein. I am no expert in either, but generally go along with my old political philosophy professor's judgment that Locke was "the confused person's Hobbes." Alan has an opposite opinion. Just the kind of thing that makes the world (and this discussion group) interesting; that we don't all think alike! Maybe even "neurodiverse"!
Cheers,
Randal
For additional discussion regarding Hobbes and Locke (including a dialogue between Randal and me), see the following topics: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704). I have also addressed at length the development of Locke's views on religious toleration (and a comparison to the views of Roger Williams, Thomas Hobbes, Henry Stubbe, Edward Bagshaw, Thomas Jefferson, and others) in Appendix D of my The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience.
My semi-comic, genre-busting, YA and up science fiction and ethics novel, "No Child Left Behind," is finally out on Kindle. There are also a couple more reviews there than on Goodreads.Please check it out (literally, if you have that kind of Kindle subscription). :)
http://www.amazon.com/Child-Left-Behi...
Fun, open-ended topic. I have enormous shelves stocked with fiction-informed-by-philosophy. It would be quite an effort to list them. Some titles are obviously and overty philosophical, (e.g. the novels of Camus or Hesse) and some have their philosophy unannounced, unheralded, left for the reader to discern on their own. An example of the latter might be..ohh, perhaps something like Relation of My Imprisonment by Russell Banks. In this experiment, Banks revives a form of prison-exhortation or diary last relied on by 17 C. Puritans. But it simply reads like just a somewhat odd, quirky, weirdo little novel. Anyway, suffice to say that the best novels in western literature are usually philosophical as well.
Whatever may be the case with his other writings, I have always thought that F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby was a profound commentary on the American regime. The last page of that novel always clinched it for me.In their essay "From Backlands to Badlands: Behind the Façade of the American Dream", Christie Blair and Kate Kingsbury have a similar analysis of Fitzgerald's famous work. In fact, they noticed some aspects of it that had earlier eluded me. On the other hand, I do not necessarily agree with all of their interpretations, especially regarding the character Nick Carraway (in which, I think, Fitzgerald invested supreme irony). Nevertheless, their analysis is quite interesting, and it provides an alternative to the conventional wisdom (shared even by some of his own literary friends) that Fitzgerald was a shallow social and political thinker. Yes, he was an alcoholic. Yes, he seemed to celebrate and profit by the very Jazz Age that is the subject matter of much of his writing. Still, there was something more, much more. Perhaps that "something more" contributed to his alcoholic decline and untimely early death.
And, of course, as nearly everyone now admits, he was a literary genius.
Hi...with regard to that book you just mentioned, can you summarize their POV on Gatsby? I'd be keen to hear more of how they regard it. And, are they saying FSF was more astute in politics and economics than he appeared?The criticism of FSF's political thinking doesn't bother me; he certainly always had great unevenness in his mental make-up and well as plenty of personal problems. Fairly insecure and shaky individual; but he was nevertheless a credit to his Princeton education and he knew his classical literature. By the way, he keeled over whilst munching on a chocolate bar at a table in Hollywood, something I find outrageously ironic.
There's several long-running debates here on Goodreads swirling around Gatsby. 'Camps' have emerged: some want to claim it as a gay anthem (!) and other want to claim that it isn't even a love story but a crime story.
Feliks wrote: "Hi...with regard to that book you just mentioned, can you summarize their POV on Gatsby? I'd be keen to hear more of how they regard it. And, are they saying FSF was more astute in politics and eco..."Gosh, it would take me longer to summarize the article than for you to read it. Why don't you just read it? I really don't have the time or inclination to summarize it.
I'm not going to get involved in the various literary debates about the novel, except to note that the idea that it is a gay anthem is risible. My interest in the book is in its inimitably beautiful style and its depth of understanding of the American culture. In some ways I think it is Shakespearean. But I've stuck my neck out enough on this. I am aware that people either seem to love or hate Fitzgerald. I consider him a tragic hero.
Fair enough. I thought it might be something easily encapsulated in just a few words. Pardon me, I shouldn't have presumed. cheers.
Although I have seen one or more TV movie productions of Shakespeare’s Macbeth over the decades, I had not seen a stage production—the type of production intended by Shakespeare—until August 12, 2016, when my wife and I, along with another couple, attended the Shakespeare Festival presentation of Macbeth in Stratford, Ontario. It was quite exciting, as a view of the trailer will attest.Professor Timothy W. Burns has an interesting interpretation of Macbeth in his book Shakespeare's Political Wisdom (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). Comparing Macbeth to Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (the subject of chapter 1 of the book), Burns opens chapter 2 with the following remarks:
"With Macbeth we move from Roman to Christian times, from a deep sense of honor and pride in noble acts to sin and remorse; from a debate between an Epicurean and a Stoic to a fight between dark forces of hell and angelic forces of heaven. The politics of eleventh-century Scotland seem very strange in comparison with what we have seen of high political life in Rome, and they are. But the human problems perdure. The changes that Christianity brings to political life are, as we will see, real and far-reaching, but they do not destroy the permanent political questions. We are shown in the rule of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth the peculiar tyranny of bad or half Christians, and the eventual curing of Scotland by Malcolm, who is in contrast to his father, the pious Duncan, decidedly non-Christian."
Burns, Shakespeare's Political Wisdom, 63. Note: I don't necessarily agree with Burns on all issues, but I think his analysis of Macbeth is quite discerning.
Among the excellent scholarly editions of Macbeth, see William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Macbeth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) and pages 1005-67 of The Norton Shakespeare, 3rd ed., vol. 2, Later Plays and Poems, ed. Stephen Greenblatt et al. (New York: W. W. Norton, 2016.
I am currently rereading George Orwell's 1984. Among the many interesting passages in this book, I find the following particularly apt:"A Party member is expected to have no private emotions and no respites from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party. The discontents produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the speculations which might possibly induce a skeptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline. The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. . . . The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink."
George Orwell, 1984, in "Animal Farm" and "1984", Kindle ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2003), 287-88.
A good pairing with Orwell as far as totalitarianism is concerned, is Arthur Koestler, and his infamous work called Darkness at Noon. He was there.A one-time professor of mine, is somewhat of an authority on doublespeak: William Lutz. He wrote three titles on the subject (as it naturally did not cease when Orwell outed it). For example, Doublespeak: From Revenue Enhancement to Terminal Living : How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You
Feliks wrote: "A good pairing with Orwell as far as totalitarianism is concerned, is Arthur Koestler, and his infamous work called Darkness at Noon. He was there.A one-time professor of mine, is so..."
My parents owned a copy of Darkness at Noon, and I may or may not have read it in the late 1950s or early 1960s. In any event, I must admit I don't remember much of it today.
Another work focusing almost exclusively on the Soviet Union is Ayn Rand's somewhat autobiographical first novel, We the Living. Many of the factual events in this novel are based on Rand's own experiences growing up in Stalinist Russia. Although I reject the view that the perspectives of all persons are merely conditioned by their time/place, it is clear that these formative influences had a huge impact on Rand and very much helped shape her ideological opposition to any kind of big government. She basically admits as much in her writings.
I have about a hundred pages left in my rereading of 1984. I am, needless to say, getting much more out of the novel now than I did when I read it in my teens. Orwell is, of course, referring in part to the Stalinist Soviet Union. But it strikes me that the novel goes considerably beyond the facts on the ground in the USSR. It is though he extrapolates the worst tendencies of both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany into a projection of what life might be like worldwide in the worst-case scenario. He wrote this book during the forties, and it was by no means clear at that time that such a worst-case scenario would be avoided.
That Orwell was "thinking ahead" in this way is indicated by the following passage from 1984:
"It was only after a decade of national wars, civil wars, revolutions and counterrevolutions in all parts of the world that Ingsoc and its rivals emerged as fully worked-out political theories. But they had been foreshadowed by the various systems, generally called totalitarian, which had appeared earlier in the century, and the main outlines of the world which would emerge from the prevailing chaos had long been obvious. What kind of people would control this world had been equally obvious. The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition. This last difference was cardinal. By comparison with that existing today, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups were always infected to some extent by liberal ideas, and were content to leave loose ends everywhere, to regard only the overt act, and to be uninterested in what their subjects were thinking. Even the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance."
George Orwell, 1984, in "Animal Farm" and "1984", Kindle ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2003), 287-88.
After I finish 1984 I plan to read Christopher Hitchens's Why Orwell Matters, which appears, on the surface, to be a takedown of both left-wing and right-wing reactions to Orwell.
Looking at today's regimes, the parallels between 1984 and North Korea are quite evident. See the article here in yesterday's New York Times.
Thank you for the reference to the book by William Lutz, of which I was previously unaware. I have now downloaded it on Kindle and hope to read it soon.
Last evening, I watched the 1954 movie The Caine Mutiny on Amazon Prime. In addition to the brilliant acting (starting with Humphrey Bogart as Captain Queeg but including many others who were, or were to become, stars in their own right), I thought that the trial scene near the end was an excellent depiction of what actually happens in a courtroom (in contrast to most movie and TV portrayals of trials), though I don't know whether it was an accurate portrayal of a military court martial during the 1940s. I speak here as a retired litigation attorney. There were a couple of errors: the movie had the "leading question" objection exactly backward—leading questions are permitted on cross-examination but not on direct examination of witnesses. But that is a minor defect. Overall, the movie was quite crisp and illustrated well the moral and legal ambiguities of when, if ever, a mutiny is permissible on a navy ship in time of war. From the Wikipedia article it appears that the movie made several modifications to Herman Wouk's novel. Of course, that is a standard Hollywood practice. I have not read the novel and probably will not take the time to read it in the future, though it sounds like it might be interesting—perhaps more interesting—in its own right. Before last evening, I had not seen this movie since sometime during the middle or late 1950s. I was pleased that I remembered pretty clearly Queeg's testimony in the court martial. I remembered little else, but perhaps that movie put in a seed in my brain about eventually becoming a lawyer (I was probably less than fifteen-years old at the time I originally saw it at a theater in a small town).
They truly don't make movies like The Caine Mutiny anymore. It represented the best in 1950s Hollywood fare, though the background music (typical of its time) was a bit much.
Ah, now we're getting into some topics I know well. I'm a longtime fan of that movie. Bravo.Wouk himself is considered one of the 'big three' novelists to emerge from WWII (with Mailer and Jones). This particular novel, (I recall) won the Pulitzer for its year; and Anthony Burgess includes it in his famous '99' --his list of the century's best English language novels.
Its fantastic that the Queeg scene inspired your career. Indeed the rest of the leading cast (with the exception of young Willie) were already established studio stars with renowned careers ahead of/ behind them. I particularly love the presence of the great Tom Tully in the role of the old sea-dog captain.
Your scrutiny of the legal aspects is fascinating. Question: are rules of cross, different in a military court? Oh well. Yes for the sake of a functionally-dramatic scene, actual legal practice is always likely-to-be sacrificed by the screenwriter. Its reasoned by producers that few people in a typical audience are likely to notice (or care) about technical accuracy in courtroom proceedings. We watch movies with our emotions rather than our brains.
A courtroom film I would be more keen to hear you analyze: the superb 'Anatomy of a Murder' (based on a real case).
Certainly you're right in observing that they simply do not make films like this anymore. And this is not just reflected vainglory in my statement. On a purely objective level--simply examining the technical and industry changes which have taken place in Hollywood over the decades--this type of film is simply no longer around.
p.s. my favorite Orwell essay is the one where he talks about the ethics of our military (perhaps) needlessly dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It *may* be the one entitled, 'You and the Atomic Bomb' ,...but when I examine that work, it does not quite match what I remember. I recall Orwell scathingly dissecting Truman's heinous decision in that matter. His argument is persuasive. [Re-raising the issue with today's Americans however, is--I assure you--a hazardous undertaking at best; and you certainly ought never try this in a bar as I have done].
Feliks wrote: "Its fantastic that the Queeg scene inspired your career."Well, it was only latent, if that. I initially had no intention of pursuing a legal career—I always said (even before Nixon's famous "I am not a crook" speech) that I had no interest in becoming a "crook." In fact, I would never have gone to law school had it not been for a coworker at a company at which both he and I were writing social science textbooks during the 1970s. He pestered me into going to law school, saying (correctly, in the event) that our employer company was destined to go out of business (he was independently wealthy, so he didn't care about his own situation). I still resisted until he bet that I wouldn't last through the first year of law school. I accepted that bet and started going to law school in the evenings (while necessarily retaining my day job). So I became a lawyer on the basis of a bet. The rest, as they say, is history. By the way, I never, during my more than thirty years as a lawyer, had to be a "crook" or anything close to it. I did, however, experience a lot of unpleasant (as well as interesting) things, from which my retirement liberated me. But being a litigation lawyer was sometimes a lot of fun. It was often intellectually challenging. Looking back, I observe that everything, in one way or another, is a learning experience. I have no regrets. There is no possibility that I would have survived in what, for me, was the sole alternative—academia. That's not to say that academia isn't appropriate for others; it just wasn't my cup of tea.
And now, enough of my personal reminiscences!
Feliks wrote: "Your scrutiny of the legal aspects is fascinating. Question: are rules of cross, different in a military court? Oh well. Yes for the sake of a functionally-dramatic scene, actual legal practice is always likely-to-be sacrificed by the screenwriter. Its reasoned by producers that few people in a typical audience are likely to notice (or care) about technical accuracy in courtroom proceedings. We watch movies with our emotions rather than our brains."I don't know much of anything about procedure in a military court, but the rules regarding leading questions, direct examination, and cross-examination have, to my understanding, been set for centuries in Anglo-American law.
As to watching movies with our emotions rather than our brains, I was impressed by how cerebral and technically accurate The Caine Mutiny actually was. It confirmed my suspicion that popular culture has become less intellectual as the decades have rolled on. And that is related to my pet theory (advanced only in jest) that Darwin was wrong: we are devolving rather than evolving. Call me an old geezer, but I can't stand to watch most current movies and TV programs (other than "hard news" programs such as PBS's The News Hour). Of course, most of TV during the 1950s was, in the term used by its critics, a "wasteland." Occasionally, however, a TV series hits the ball out of the park, as with Seinfeld. That was funny and clever—I would give it "B", though my wife (who has watched it multiple times) would rate it an "A+". But then she liked the Beatles. My taste in popular music mostly ended with Frank Sinatra (not including, of course, the political incorrect lyrics of some of the songs of that era). Now that really proves that I'm an old geezer! So be it.
Well said. But I disagree that your taste is necessarily tied to your chronological age. I've long held the exact same opinions towards American cinema and television which you yourself just pronounced ...and I acquired this perspective somewhere in my mid-teens.This is a good time to put in a plug for that Rousseau essay on 'Progress' vs 'Virtue' in society.
Or, my #1 favourite grab bag of centuries of collected works of critical theory: Critical Theory Since Plato Check out the table of contents in that tome sometime!
Feliks wrote: "Well said. But I disagree that your taste is necessarily tied to your chronological age. I've long held the exact same opinions towards American cinema and television which you yourself just pronou..."I was speaking tongue-in-cheek. I also have held these and related views for many decades going back to my teens. I adhere to the principle that people have a natural and constitutional right to think, speak, write, and sing as they like. Similarly, I have a natural and constitutional right not to like what the majority think, say, write, and sing. But, contrary to my facetious image projected above, I am not a Grumpy Old Man. Life is too short. Live and let live.
I take a slightly different stance. The way I see it, life is far too long when something in it just isn't right. For example, no one in a dentist's chair ever finds the appointment disappointingly brief. Few people incarcerated in a Turkish prison ever yearned to stay longer. No one enjoys the sound of jackhammers ripping up the pavement outside at 133am.
"For the love of God just shoot me now, get it over with,"--this is a very handy phrase.
Feliks wrote: "I take a slightly different stance. The way I see it, life is far too long when something in it just isn't right. For example, no one in a dentist's chair ever finds the appointment disappointing..."
I have become more patient and tolerant as I have aged. But I am not referring to manifest evils such as political incarceration or unnecessary or inappropriate noise pollution. As for experiences in the dentist chair, well, that's life, and the alternative is worse. To paraphrase a song from some decades back, no one ever said life would be a rose garden. I am referring to the routine habits of daily life, some of which may seem irrational to me but somehow satisfy the needs of many people. There's no point railing against perceived minor imperfections. It's a waste of time. Rather, seek the light. The people who are content living in Plato's cave will take care of themselves, and I'll never change them. That's all I mean. Admittedly, it's taken me several decades to arrive at this plateau of serenity. It helps being retired, when I no longer have to deal with the sometimes irrational whims of bosses, clients, judges, juries, witnesses, opposing counsel, and so forth. So, my advice to younger generations is to be sure to put away enough money so that one can retire. As one of my sister's friends puts it, retirement is heaven on earth. Of course, retirement is not for everyone. Some people prefer to work at their jobs as long as possible. And that's fine--different strokes for different folks, as they say.
You haven't aged. Bodies age. Or rather, they look different over time. Not people, though.
Feliks wrote: "You haven't aged. Bodies age. Or rather, they look different over time. Not people, though."Au contraire, as one ages, one often becomes more wise. One learns from experience, reading, and reflection on same. Although my essential principles have perhaps not changed since my late teens, the elaboration and application of them have widened and deepened. I personally have found this to be especially true in the area of political philosophy. One's premises, when young, sometimes turn out to be contradicted by experience or further study. And when one is preoccupied with gainful employment and family, one does not have time for the reading and reflection one can enjoy in retirement.
There are, admittedly, extremes on both ends of the continuum. Many people become more rigid, mentally, with age. Others, perhaps Plato, seem to have been wise ab initio. However, even Plato acknowledged in the Seventh Letter, assuming it to be authentic, that his youthful suppositions were proved incorrect by experience. Seventh Letter 324b-326b. Moreover, Plato may be the exception that proves the rule: he never had to work for a living and spent his entire adult life philosophizing.
I can't fathom how I've omitted mention of this great website before; but to see the issues we discuss here in their most practical real-world applications, you can hardly do better than Media Education Foundation. They produce educational videos for high schools & universities. Take a look at their table of contents--astounding. Every major issue represented. Videos are free to view in low-res; usually around $125-$150 to own in hi-fidelity.https://www.mediaed.org/
I've long been a fan of a particular passage in Jules Verne's "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea". Both book and movie. The episode I'm recalling is where Professor Arronaux questions the ethics of the notorious Captain Nemo. Nemo of course, is an 'Ahab' like character, he is pursuing an impossible ideal. If I remember correctly, his wife and child were accidentally killed by a naval battery. Subsequently his mission is to enforce peace on all nations by destroying their navies--in his role as lord of the sea, using his fabulous submersible.
Professor Arronaux and a few other refugees are aboard his sub after he sunk their passenger ship--Nemo's excuse is that their ship was also carrying munitions.
Before their eyes, Nemo prepares to sink his next target, and this is where Arronaux (a formidable debator) stands up to him. The man of science labels Nemo a hypocrite, in his use of arbitrary violence just as bad as the warmongers he is seeking to bring to heel.
Nemo disagrees. In his view, he is carrying out a good cause against an unremitting opponent: man's inclination towards harm.
Arronaux tries another tack. He reminds Nemo that military ships too, carry out acts of mercy and assistance; rescue missions and the like.
But Nemo shakes his head, un-swayed. Still, he is forced to choose a weaker position. His rebuttal is this: 'for good to be effective, it must be constant, rather than piecemeal and happenstance acts, too soon forgotten'.
Arronaux at this point, is disgusted with him. He now sees that Nemo is playing god; 'constant good' is the prerogative of heaven, not men. Men are fallible.
It's a memorable bit of ethical by-play in what is otherwise a novel devoted to entertainment and information.
Feliks wrote: "I've long been a fan of a particular passage in Jules Verne's "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea". Both book and movie. The episode I'm recalling is where Professor Arronaux questi..."Interesting. Thanks for commenting. I think I read this book when I was in junior high, but, of course, I can't remember anything about it now, especially that episode. If I read it then, it would have been a library book. The small town in which I then lived didn't even have a bookstore, and we were a couple hundred miles or so away from the nearest city.
There's a superb movie from 1957, called 'Seven Waves Away' (aka 'Abandon Ship') which not too many people know about. Anyway it's memorable to me because it depicts one of the clearest examples of the 'greatest good for the greatest number' principle (not saying of course, that I agree or disagree with this dictum). But it does put it all into a very accessible narrative.
Something the original Star Trek series has in common with Richard Adams’ Watership Down is a philosophy of decision and action.“The Cage” (the original pilot, and one of my favorite episodes) pits the life of action (as exemplified by Captain Pike and the Enterprise crew) against the evils of a life lived in the imagination (represented by Vina and the Talosians).
In Watership Down, in the chapter on the shining wire, the rabbits on their journey to Watership Down encounter rabbits who have adapted to a life in which a farmer snares them one at a time and just infrequently enough not to threaten the continuation of the warren. These rabbits have grown fat on cast-offs the farmer leaves them from his garden. Their rabbit lore, once practical and action oriented, has become mystical and inward looking.
Alan wrote: "Obvious examples are |||||||| and Animal Farm by George Orwell, Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley, Anthem and Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, Shakespeare's plays, and ancient Greek drama...."Definitely feels like Huxley's vision has come to pass. I can't recall the name of the drug or whatever it was in that tale--but the way people are media-addicted lately strikes me as exactly the same. Completely abandoning their brains with some third-party medium.
Recent events are causing me to ponder the difference between people who think themselves "above" the law, people who are scofflaws, and people who embrace civil disobedience.The first thing that pops into my head when I think about civil disobedience is a one-act play that impressed me greatly when we read it in middle school: The Valiant, by Holworthy Hall and Robert Middlemass. There is a radio play of it on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B8vl... U
I never envisioned Humphrey Bogart as the main character, but it is still listenable-to.
What struck me about "The Valiant" as a Seventh Grader was the courage and romance of civil disobedience. IMO this courage and romance even trickles through Henry David Thoreau's famous, unemotional (and IMO disjointed) essay.
A few years ago, I wove a crazy current of civil disobedience into a long short story I wrote about near-future institutionalized torture, which, like The Valiant, involves a very personal motive for civil disobedience.
But where is the line between "civil disobedience" and simply being a scofflaw or believing oneself above the law? Is it that those who embrace "civil disobedience" do not deny that their actions violate the law? Or is it that they do not conceal their actions? Or must they also agree to be punished for those actions?
Also, can anyone recommend more fiction, preferably science fiction, that addresses these distinctions?
HG Wells' 'The Invisible Man' touches themes of renegade law.Kate Wilhelm's 'Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang' treats themes of resistance to community will.
Feliks wrote: "HG Wells' 'The Invisible Man' touches themes of renegade law.Kate Wilhelm's 'Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang' treats themes of resistance to community will."
Thanks! You are the second person to recommend "Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang." I think I read it when it was first published, but can't recall it among the many post-apocalypse stories I read back then. I'll put it top of my list to re-read. :)
Feliks and others might be interested in Charles Thorpe's review of Jack Womack's novel Random Acts of Senseless Violence. Professor Thorpe is a member of this group. Although I don't have time, at my advanced age, to read novels anymore, I certainly don't mean to discourage others from doing so.Note: I have changed the title and location of the present topic. The new title is "Political and Ethical Philosophy in Fictional Works." The new location is in the folder "General Topics." In adding "and Ethical" to the title, I don't wish to make this topic a forum for general literary critiques (there are plenty of other Goodreads groups for such discussions). Where, however, the novel, play, or other fictional work has one or more ethical themes, please feel free to comment on such themes here, even though the work may or may not have an explicit or implicit theme that triggers the "political philosophy" rubric. See also post 1, above.
Alan wrote: "Although I don't have time, at my advanced age, to read novels anymore, I certainly don't mean to discourage others from doing so...."IMO the philosophical problem with "non-fiction" is the failure of authors to make their ontological and epistemological assumptions explicit. They rarely admit they are subject to the "four blind men and the elephant" syndrome.
Personally, it is hard for me to trust an author's selection of "facts" to discuss when he/she insists that the facts they have selected are the only "important" ones to consider. IMO fiction both derives from and encourages the consideration of alternative "facts."
IMO, good fiction is like the hypothetical scenarios used to teach law students. :)
re: post #48, I admire these sentiments about the value of creative fiction. Well said!And I agree that many books begin from a set of assumptions which are not challenged.
But 'non-fiction' is sure taking a beating here! This is the kind of path that those Frenchies always take, which irks me so.
I wonder, what happens when you do open the gate to consider 'other facts'? Is there ever any result? Can any analysis progress that way? Relevancy is what isolates a question to the components useful in finding an answer to that question. Spread wide one's arms to embrace all possible facts and one winds up floundering, one lands in 'analysis paralysis'.
Surely too, one must agree that many nonfiction analyses begins from facts which are not filtered by the author; but are self-evident. What about those works? Are they useless?
Just asking....
Alan wrote: "Although I don't have time, at my advanced age, to read novels anymore,..."Nonsense! I've said it before and I'll say it again: you can do anything you want to do. Whenever you want to do so. Pay no attention to any number when it comes to making a decision!
:p
See also the second paragraph of post 47, below.
(Revised December 25, 2016.)