ELSEWHERE: Starting about twelve hours ago, I have midterm prep, proctoring, grading, and getting another conference paper proposal out (for this week), in addition to being out of town for the weekend, prospectives festivities (best week-beginning of the year), and subbing in for a class on the Thursday next (international human rights regimes and humanitarian intervention). So, you know, busy.
UPDATE (Thursday evening): Midterm's over, except for proctoring one of the make-ups on Monday (and the process of grading has begun), and the conference proposal got sent out on time. I have a reasonably narrow idea of what to do for the class on Thursday. I've also picked up doing my best to explain Augustine and Aquinas to one of my colleagues (but may potentially get lunch in exchange). So, still busy, but come the 8th, I'm back to only having my prospectus to worry about. Odd to look forward to that.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
27.2.07
24.2.07
A BRIEF HISTORY OF SELLING OUT:
The White Stripes for Coke
Luscious Jackson for The Gap
and, clearly the best of them all, The Rolling Stones for Rice Krispies
The White Stripes for Coke
Luscious Jackson for The Gap
and, clearly the best of them all, The Rolling Stones for Rice Krispies
23.2.07
HEH: Via Amy, from the Heroes Personality Test, I find the following question, which amuses me greatly:
7. Are you a modest person?
No. Not at all.
Yes, definitely more than most people.
Not particularly, but I don't think I'm that special, either.
...on finishing the test, I got D.L. Hawkins. I have no idea what that means; but he was on Buffy (or looks like the guy who was on Buffy), so that's cool.
No. Not at all.
Yes, definitely more than most people.
Not particularly, but I don't think I'm that special, either.
...on finishing the test, I got D.L. Hawkins. I have no idea what that means; but he was on Buffy (or looks like the guy who was on Buffy), so that's cool.
NEEDLESSLY POKING THE HORNET'S NEST: From The Hater: "Why I Don't Watch Grey's Anatomy"
But I watch Lost, so I guess I'm not one to talk.
But I watch Lost, so I guess I'm not one to talk.
21.2.07
QUOTES FOR THE EVENING: First, on account of it having been Ash Wednesday:
"Under a juniper-tree the bones sang, scattered and shining
We are glad to be scattered, we did little good to each other,
Under a tree in the cool of the day, with the blessing of sand,
Forgetting themselves and each other, united
In the quiet of the desert. This is the land which ye
Shall divide by lot. And neither division nor unity
Matters. This is the land. We have our inheritence."
Today's more substantive thoughts have run to the question of moral exemplarity. There's a line of thought (or so I'd argue) that says people tend to focus more on man's capacity for evil, and tends to overlook or discount people who do good. So far as that goes, I'd agree--I'm just not sure it gets you very far. The problem, it seems to me, is that when you give certain people who do good acts an outsized moral status (making them into exemplars or cases to be studied and understood), you begin to suggest there's something unusual or heroic in what they do, which at least opens the possibility that others will think similar moral action is the realm of those who are, in some way, different from the normal run of people.* A person who acts morally just does what is expected of them. This thought led me back to Maugham, in The Painted Veil:
"'Good-bye, God bless you, my dear child.' She held her for a moment in her arms. 'Remember that it is nothing to do your duty, that it is demanded of you and is no more meritorious than to wash your hands when they are dirty; the only thing that counts is the love of duty; when love and duty are one, then grace is in you and you will enjoy a happiness which passes all understanding.'"
*There's a Grotius dimension to this, as you might expect. I'm inclining at the moment to the view that Grotius claims that there is in fact one set of morals that give normativity to all of one's actions: a prince has the same moral responsibilities as a citizen--the difference in what those responsibilities entail is just a function of their differing roles.
"Under a juniper-tree the bones sang, scattered and shining
We are glad to be scattered, we did little good to each other,
Under a tree in the cool of the day, with the blessing of sand,
Forgetting themselves and each other, united
In the quiet of the desert. This is the land which ye
Shall divide by lot. And neither division nor unity
Matters. This is the land. We have our inheritence."
Today's more substantive thoughts have run to the question of moral exemplarity. There's a line of thought (or so I'd argue) that says people tend to focus more on man's capacity for evil, and tends to overlook or discount people who do good. So far as that goes, I'd agree--I'm just not sure it gets you very far. The problem, it seems to me, is that when you give certain people who do good acts an outsized moral status (making them into exemplars or cases to be studied and understood), you begin to suggest there's something unusual or heroic in what they do, which at least opens the possibility that others will think similar moral action is the realm of those who are, in some way, different from the normal run of people.* A person who acts morally just does what is expected of them. This thought led me back to Maugham, in The Painted Veil:
"'Good-bye, God bless you, my dear child.' She held her for a moment in her arms. 'Remember that it is nothing to do your duty, that it is demanded of you and is no more meritorious than to wash your hands when they are dirty; the only thing that counts is the love of duty; when love and duty are one, then grace is in you and you will enjoy a happiness which passes all understanding.'"
*There's a Grotius dimension to this, as you might expect. I'm inclining at the moment to the view that Grotius claims that there is in fact one set of morals that give normativity to all of one's actions: a prince has the same moral responsibilities as a citizen--the difference in what those responsibilities entail is just a function of their differing roles.
20.2.07
SO: On a good day, where I'm productive and engaged in moving my argument forward, I consider myself to have done well if I can get one medium-sized idea written down (along with whatever underbrush-clearing previous days' argumentation has left me). Today, I was lucky to get three significant ideas--one on how the background conceptions one might have work their way from beliefs to the arguments one ends up making to others, and two on using customary international law as a way of sorting out rights and duties. Combine that with today's very excellent weather, getting to Chapel Hill early enough to sit in the gardens for awhile before class started, and an appropriately spring-ish song ("Paris 2004" by Peter, Bjorn and John).
So yes, life seems pretty good today.
So yes, life seems pretty good today.
QUOTE: From Free Exchange:
"It is, of course, hard to tease out cultural vs. economic differences, but the fact that all the countries in the Anglosphere tend to rank relatively low in subjectively reported bliss suggests that the famous British aversion to bragging may have something to do with it. Of course, maybe they just hate bland food and the Common Law."
How could anyone hate common law?
"It is, of course, hard to tease out cultural vs. economic differences, but the fact that all the countries in the Anglosphere tend to rank relatively low in subjectively reported bliss suggests that the famous British aversion to bragging may have something to do with it. Of course, maybe they just hate bland food and the Common Law."
How could anyone hate common law?
19.2.07
QUOTE FOR THE EVENING:
"you're going to be seeing a lot more of that sort of thing in the film... although that actually did happen... obviously, it's symbolic--it works on both levels... I don't want to tell you too much, don't want to spoil the film, but I'll just say 'Icarus,' okay? If you know what I mean, great. If not, it doesn't matter. But you should probably read more"
-Tony Wilson, 24 Hour Party People
"you're going to be seeing a lot more of that sort of thing in the film... although that actually did happen... obviously, it's symbolic--it works on both levels... I don't want to tell you too much, don't want to spoil the film, but I'll just say 'Icarus,' okay? If you know what I mean, great. If not, it doesn't matter. But you should probably read more"
-Tony Wilson, 24 Hour Party People
18.2.07
QUOTE FOR THE EVENING: I'm not sure anyone else might take this position, but I tend to think of Jeremy Waldron as the political theorist's political philosopher,* in the sense that he does what I think can reasonably be considered analytic political/legal philosophy in (but not entirely of) the positivist tradition, and yet he thinks that the careful reading of historical texts can be illuminating for the shape of argument as it might proceed today. He also comes off as very reflective on what it is the theorist or philosopher ought to be doing while producing philosophy or theory. Thus, from Law and Disagreement:
"It is striking, however, that today when a philosopher forms a view about justice and talks about 'What I would do' (about immigration, for example, or school prayer, or welfare provision), he usually means not what he would do as an individual agent, but what he would do in the unlikely event that he were in charge of the whole society and his conscience could mobilize us all. And we say the same about political philosophers: what Plato would do about gender inequality; what Hobbes would do about religion; what Mill would do about prostitution; etc.** Is this a valuable way of proceeding in political theory? I am not sure. Perhaps we should hesitate before substituting the individual thinker for the society in these manifestos--the 'I' for the 'we' who in the end constitute the only possible agent of social change. When we do this, are we in fact despairing of collective action, and imaging instead that each of us can make a difference--and this time the right difference--on his own? Do we think of ourselves or of the philosophers we read as prophets or lawgivers? Or do we accept that they are citizens, each of them one citizen among millions?"
*I recognize there's something crude in opposing political theory to political philosophy in this way; I've been taught by at least two political philosophers who are not, largely, of this tendency, and one sleeps on the philosophical acumen of Duke's political theory faculty at one's own risk
**Incidentally, as I've been reading the secondary literature on Grotius, I have run across a number of readings that propose something like this (one could also think of it as the difference between Grotius' position and the 'Grotian' position). Sometimes the claim will be advanced that there is a certain incoherence or fuzziness in Grotius' argumentation, and this provides a cover for the author to extract what they wish (Hersch Lauterpacht does this in "The Grotian Tradition in International Law." The first half of the argument says that it's very difficult to follow what Grotius means; the second half is a good distillation of what he actually says (with a few points that are more Lauterpacht's)).
"It is striking, however, that today when a philosopher forms a view about justice and talks about 'What I would do' (about immigration, for example, or school prayer, or welfare provision), he usually means not what he would do as an individual agent, but what he would do in the unlikely event that he were in charge of the whole society and his conscience could mobilize us all. And we say the same about political philosophers: what Plato would do about gender inequality; what Hobbes would do about religion; what Mill would do about prostitution; etc.** Is this a valuable way of proceeding in political theory? I am not sure. Perhaps we should hesitate before substituting the individual thinker for the society in these manifestos--the 'I' for the 'we' who in the end constitute the only possible agent of social change. When we do this, are we in fact despairing of collective action, and imaging instead that each of us can make a difference--and this time the right difference--on his own? Do we think of ourselves or of the philosophers we read as prophets or lawgivers? Or do we accept that they are citizens, each of them one citizen among millions?"
*I recognize there's something crude in opposing political theory to political philosophy in this way; I've been taught by at least two political philosophers who are not, largely, of this tendency, and one sleeps on the philosophical acumen of Duke's political theory faculty at one's own risk
**Incidentally, as I've been reading the secondary literature on Grotius, I have run across a number of readings that propose something like this (one could also think of it as the difference between Grotius' position and the 'Grotian' position). Sometimes the claim will be advanced that there is a certain incoherence or fuzziness in Grotius' argumentation, and this provides a cover for the author to extract what they wish (Hersch Lauterpacht does this in "The Grotian Tradition in International Law." The first half of the argument says that it's very difficult to follow what Grotius means; the second half is a good distillation of what he actually says (with a few points that are more Lauterpacht's)).
LINK: I'm uncertain whether the video linked at EDSBS or the attendant commentary is better. Either way, schadenfreude runs high yet again.
LINKS: The long-awaited redesign of whatevs.org has finally happened. I'm not really so much a fan of the design, but I'm looking forward to getting a regular Uncle Grambo fix again.
Also, via Camille, I see that Madpony is back (sort of).
2004 resets = so best. (Is that sufficiently meta? or is 'meta' too 2003?)
Also, via Camille, I see that Madpony is back (sort of).
2004 resets = so best. (Is that sufficiently meta? or is 'meta' too 2003?)
15.2.07
QUOTE FOR THE EVENING:
"I am responsible for everything, in fact, except for my very responsibility, for I am not the foundation of my being. Therefore everything takes place as if I were compelled to be responsible. I am abandoned in the world, not in the sense that I might remain abandoned and passive in a hostile universe like a board floating on the water, but rather in the sense that I find myself suddenly alone and without help, engaged in a world for which I bear the whole responsibility without being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an instant. For I am responsible for my very desire of fleeing responsibilities. To make myself passive in the world, to refuse to act upon things and upon Others is still to choose myself..."
-Sartre, Being and Nothingness, Part Four, Chapter One, III: Freedom and Responsibility
"I am responsible for everything, in fact, except for my very responsibility, for I am not the foundation of my being. Therefore everything takes place as if I were compelled to be responsible. I am abandoned in the world, not in the sense that I might remain abandoned and passive in a hostile universe like a board floating on the water, but rather in the sense that I find myself suddenly alone and without help, engaged in a world for which I bear the whole responsibility without being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an instant. For I am responsible for my very desire of fleeing responsibilities. To make myself passive in the world, to refuse to act upon things and upon Others is still to choose myself..."
-Sartre, Being and Nothingness, Part Four, Chapter One, III: Freedom and Responsibility
SO: Finished up the conference paper proposal and sent it off. My hope is that it's not too far off the regular political theory radar to get picked up. Title: "Grotius, Rights, and the Rule of Law." The idea came from a half-facetious remark I made about generating paper ideas from my dissertation project--pick any three terms I'm interested in, and that's a paper. Grotius, rights, and the rule of law were the three that happened to come into my head at that moment. But as it so happens, I had recently read a paper by Jeremy Waldron where he uses the concept of 'the rule of law' as a means to guide the practice of governmental officials with respect to international law. He argues in particular that the rule of law provides principles antecedent to the sources of that law to guide interpretation of particular statutes (or treaties, or custom in the international law sense) but also where the law is silent. This put me in mind of the way right in Grotius is attended by moderation, interpretive charity, and the importance of keeping faith, and the rest of the parallels just sort of drew themselves. Hopefully someone else will find this interesting or useful.
14.2.07
JUST CALL ME THE ABSTRACT: Too busy tonight--trying to get a proposal ready for a conference. Back tomorrow.
Also, since I saw a hit for this on my sitemeter, if you're a prospective for Duke Poli Sci this year, and you have any questions, leave me a comment or send an email, and I'll do my best to answer, or point you to someone who can.
Also, since I saw a hit for this on my sitemeter, if you're a prospective for Duke Poli Sci this year, and you have any questions, leave me a comment or send an email, and I'll do my best to answer, or point you to someone who can.
13.2.07
QUOTE FOR THE EVENING: From everybody's favorite post-punk Maoist disco collective (that'd be Gang of Four, "Anthrax"):
"Love crops up quite a lot as something to sing about,
Cos most groups make most of their songs about falling in love
Or how happy they are to be in love,
You occasionally wonder why these groups do sing about it all the time -
Its because these groups think theres something very special about it
Either that or else its because everybody else sings about it and always has,
You know to burst into song you have to be inspired
And nothing inspires quite like love.
These groups and singers think that they appeal to everyone
By singing about love because apparently everyone has or can love
Or so they would have you believe anyway
But these groups seem to go along with what, the belief
That love is deep in everyones personality.
I dont think were saying theres anything wrong with love,
We just dont think that what goes on between two people
Should be shrouded with mystery."
"Love crops up quite a lot as something to sing about,
Cos most groups make most of their songs about falling in love
Or how happy they are to be in love,
You occasionally wonder why these groups do sing about it all the time -
Its because these groups think theres something very special about it
Either that or else its because everybody else sings about it and always has,
You know to burst into song you have to be inspired
And nothing inspires quite like love.
These groups and singers think that they appeal to everyone
By singing about love because apparently everyone has or can love
Or so they would have you believe anyway
But these groups seem to go along with what, the belief
That love is deep in everyones personality.
I dont think were saying theres anything wrong with love,
We just dont think that what goes on between two people
Should be shrouded with mystery."
12.2.07
QUOTE FOR THE EVENING: From the liner notes to Bringing It All Back Home:
" i accept chaos. I am not sure whether
it accepts me. i know there're some people terrified
of the bomb. but there are other people terrified
t' be seen carrying a modern screen magazine.
experience teaches that silence terrifies people
the most"
(helpfully archived here)
" i accept chaos. I am not sure whether
it accepts me. i know there're some people terrified
of the bomb. but there are other people terrified
t' be seen carrying a modern screen magazine.
experience teaches that silence terrifies people
the most"
(helpfully archived here)
11.2.07
QUOTE FOR THE EVENING: As I contemplate (and write on) my first extended project (sometimes also known as my dissertation), I find that I spend a lot of time reading what other people think about writing and the creative process (and also, to a lesser extent, the means by which research is carried out). A few things have become obvious to me: you have to sit down every day and write something, no matter how insignificant (there appears to be some rule that inversely correlates how much I think I have to say on a given topic and how much I actually have to say); that reading marginally more can be helpful, but is generally not as helpful in figuring out where to go next as writing until you hit a gap in your knowledge or a problem you don't know how to solve; that the structure of an argument matters at least as much as its content. Then, of course, there's the value of reading things that have nothing whatsoever to do with your topic, as a means of getting some mental distance from whatever else it is you're trying to do. Occasionally, something useful turns up where you wouldn't otherwise expect it--I've found the introductions of Robert Nozick's various philosophically-oriented books to be excellent places to turn on the question of what exactly a piece of philosophical writing is supposed to be doing. To wit, from Philosophical Explanations:
"I place no extreme obligation of attentiveness on my readers; I hope instead for those who read as I do, seeking what they can learn from, make use of, transform for their own purposes. Much as they wanted to be understood accurately, the philosophers of the past would have preferred this response, I think, to having their views meticulously and sympathetically stated in all parts and relations. The respect they paid their predecessors was philosophy, not scholarship. Rather than our listening to them, wouldn't they prefer we spoke to them? (We have to listen closely enough, though, to speak to them)"
"I place no extreme obligation of attentiveness on my readers; I hope instead for those who read as I do, seeking what they can learn from, make use of, transform for their own purposes. Much as they wanted to be understood accurately, the philosophers of the past would have preferred this response, I think, to having their views meticulously and sympathetically stated in all parts and relations. The respect they paid their predecessors was philosophy, not scholarship. Rather than our listening to them, wouldn't they prefer we spoke to them? (We have to listen closely enough, though, to speak to them)"
10.2.07
SATURDAY EVENING POST: When the power's out in the heart of man...
Three weird things this week:
Arcade Fire- "Neighborhood #3 (Power Out)"
Pulp- "The Fear" (live)
The KLF- "3 am Eternal" (if you're going to be avant-garde performance art, you might as well master the skills required to actually be good at what you do. I'm not sure if the supporting mythology of the KLF is odder, or the fact that they had the level of success that they did. There is a live version of this from a British awards show, where the KLF hire out a death-metal band to cover the song, and end it by shooting machine guns filled with blanks into the audience (I was unable to find it on youtube at the moment). That's dedication to your artistic vision)
Three weird things this week:
Arcade Fire- "Neighborhood #3 (Power Out)"
Pulp- "The Fear" (live)
The KLF- "3 am Eternal" (if you're going to be avant-garde performance art, you might as well master the skills required to actually be good at what you do. I'm not sure if the supporting mythology of the KLF is odder, or the fact that they had the level of success that they did. There is a live version of this from a British awards show, where the KLF hire out a death-metal band to cover the song, and end it by shooting machine guns filled with blanks into the audience (I was unable to find it on youtube at the moment). That's dedication to your artistic vision)
7.2.07
HOWDY Y'ALL: Obviously, I've been away for a bit. Busy and stuff. Anyway, last night, Yo La Tengo did "Sugarcube" as an encore, and James mentioned the excellent video for it. It occurred to me that it'd be worthwhile to mention its similarities to this video. Intentional? I can kind of see the Yo La Tengos getting the whole "D.A.I.S.Y. Age" thing, but that may just be me.
5.2.07
QUOTE FOR THE EVENING: And how much of my reading of Grotius hinges on this?*
"Therefore the same Cicero calls it detestable to break Faith, the Observation of which is the Bond of human Life, and, as Seneca says, Faith is the most sacred Good of the rational soul. Which Sovereign Princes ought the more solemnly to keep, by how much they offend with more Impunity than others. Wherefore take away Faith, they will be like wild Beasts, whose Rage all Men dread. Justice indeed in other Parts, has often something that is obscure, but the Bond of Faith is self-evident, and to that End do Men engage their Faith in their Dealings, that all Doubts may be removed."
-Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis, III.XXV.2
*pretty much all of it
(I'll be otherwise distracted for much of the week, trying to draft a full version of my prospectus; but I'll still post from time to time)
"Therefore the same Cicero calls it detestable to break Faith, the Observation of which is the Bond of human Life, and, as Seneca says, Faith is the most sacred Good of the rational soul. Which Sovereign Princes ought the more solemnly to keep, by how much they offend with more Impunity than others. Wherefore take away Faith, they will be like wild Beasts, whose Rage all Men dread. Justice indeed in other Parts, has often something that is obscure, but the Bond of Faith is self-evident, and to that End do Men engage their Faith in their Dealings, that all Doubts may be removed."
-Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis, III.XXV.2
*pretty much all of it
(I'll be otherwise distracted for much of the week, trying to draft a full version of my prospectus; but I'll still post from time to time)
4.2.07
QUOTE FOR THE EVENING:
"[the man confessing] had an immense self-importance; he was unable to to picture a world of which he was only a typical part--a world of treachery, violence, and lust in which his shame was altogether insignificant. How often the priest had heard the same confession--Man was so limited he hadn't even the ingenuity to invent a new vice: the animals knew as much. It was for this world that Christ had died; the more evil you saw and heard about you, the greater glory lay around the death. It was too easy to die for what was good or beautiful, for home or children or a civilization--it needed a God to die for the half-hearted and the corrupt."
-Graham Greene, The Power and the Glory
"[the man confessing] had an immense self-importance; he was unable to to picture a world of which he was only a typical part--a world of treachery, violence, and lust in which his shame was altogether insignificant. How often the priest had heard the same confession--Man was so limited he hadn't even the ingenuity to invent a new vice: the animals knew as much. It was for this world that Christ had died; the more evil you saw and heard about you, the greater glory lay around the death. It was too easy to die for what was good or beautiful, for home or children or a civilization--it needed a God to die for the half-hearted and the corrupt."
-Graham Greene, The Power and the Glory
3.2.07
YOUR SATURDAY EVENING POST: And I just can't help believing, though believing sees me cursed...
Johnny Boy: "You Are the Generation That Bought More Shoes & You Deserve What You Get" (don't let the title throw you off)
Another Oasis song? Kind of: Oasis (minus Liam!) covering Slade, a good working definition of what rock n roll should sound like (the video makes me wonder why they ever let Liam sing in the first place)
"Modern Girl", Sleater-Kinney
Johnny Boy: "You Are the Generation That Bought More Shoes & You Deserve What You Get" (don't let the title throw you off)
Another Oasis song? Kind of: Oasis (minus Liam!) covering Slade, a good working definition of what rock n roll should sound like (the video makes me wonder why they ever let Liam sing in the first place)
"Modern Girl", Sleater-Kinney
LINK: I've never quite managed to get to total Joss Whedon-fanboy stage (having, I am ashamed to admit, never seen Firefly or Serenity), and the idea of a Wonder Woman movie always seemed... sort of pointless to me, but finding out that Whedon's off the project makes me lose pretty much all interest. The comments about Cobie Smulders are fairly amusing, though, especially as they can't seem to tell the extent to which Joss is being serious. (Link via Jacob Levy)
A QUESTION: for people who have done more Con Law than I have: is there a particular reason that opinions tend to announce the decision within the first paragraph, and yet go on for several more pages? It seems like that's exactly what you'd do if you wanted to create lots of problems for future interpreters.
2.2.07
QUOTE FOR THE EVENING:
"Law and society are correlative terms, and it is trite learning that neither can exist without the other. But it has been said that a platitude is a truth that no one denies but everyone forgets, and if that is true, it may be worth while to consider the signficance of this particular platitude in the international field. For in the special characteristics of international society lie the conditions which govern the whole problem of the international legal reformer, and no scheme for establishing the international rule of law will lead us far unless it is firmly based on an understanding of them."
-J.L. Brierly, "The Rule of Law in International Society"
"Law and society are correlative terms, and it is trite learning that neither can exist without the other. But it has been said that a platitude is a truth that no one denies but everyone forgets, and if that is true, it may be worth while to consider the signficance of this particular platitude in the international field. For in the special characteristics of international society lie the conditions which govern the whole problem of the international legal reformer, and no scheme for establishing the international rule of law will lead us far unless it is firmly based on an understanding of them."
-J.L. Brierly, "The Rule of Law in International Society"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)