"Meditations" (Marcus Aurelius)

Marcus Aurelius was emperor of Rome from 161-180 AD. He was a very learned man and a noted stoic. His reflections (something of a personal journal) entitled "Meditations" are an excellent example of a brilliant man writing about his personal search for peace, happiness, and the "good" life.

I have SO many favorite quotes from this text, that rather than put them all into a single post, I'm going to try to post one quote from the "Meditations" each day; some quotes will come with commentary from me, and others will not. I think this will be a good way to really slow down and digest the wisdom contained in this text. So, let's begin with this little treasure:

“...to endure labour; nor to need many things; when I have anything to do, to do it myself rather than by others; not to meddle with many businesses...” (Marcus Aurelius)

Here, he is speaking about how to be happy. There's much to reflect on here. I particularly like how he says that the good man does not have need of many things. A whole and happy person can live without a glut of items. In the United States right now there are some voices crying out in the wilderness against our culture of consumerism and commercialism. Marcus Aurelius would have been behind them. Throughout his meditations, he returns to this idea of how having too much stuff can keep us from focusing on what's most important in life.

Keep reading and check back tomorrow for more of Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations"!

Badminton, the Philosophy of Purpose, and Alfie Kohn

Part I: Olympic Badminton

So, with all the coverage of the Olympics, there has been one story that has really given me pause for consideration: the badminton cheating "scandal". If you're not familiar with the situation, it's pretty simple: some really good badminton teams intentionally lost matches (after they had ensured that they would advance to the next round) to get seeded against easier teams in the next round. Apparently the intentional losing was blatant with these elite badminton players (yes, I am fully aware of how ridiculous that phrase sounds) hitting shots into the net and wildly out-of-bounds. The teams were disqualified from further competition and sent home.

I would like to point out this simple fact: they were playing by the rules set-up by the IOC. Which is more ridiculous: a player who tries to lose in one match to improve her/his chances of advancing further in a tournament OR an organization that creates a tournament style that rewards losses and then complains when players throw games? The answer: they are equally ridiculous, and I expect more from the players and the IOC. For you Bogart fans out there, I liken the IOCs response to this "scandal" as follows: "I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED to find gambling in this establishment!"

Part II: The Philosophy of Purpose

One of the great legacies of ancient philosophy is the idea of "purpose" and how it should reflect our beliefs and guide our actions. As Marcus Aurelius, an emperor of Rome, once wrote, "For even the least things ought not to be done without relation unto the end." ("end" here means purpose or goal) I'm going to use this wonderful badminton situation as an example. One should always begin by saying: "Why am I doing this? What is my purpose?" When it comes to playing Olympic badminton, there are a few likely answers: 1) to win ; 2) to prove that I/my country am/is the best ; 3) because I LOVE my sport and my native country, and I want to play the best badminton I can play and continually improve my technique and skill through practice and play at high levels against other highly skilled players.

Okay...let's get serious, how many sports-people are actually driven by #3? Certainly not these athletes who got kicked out. (And I would go further and say that not many professional athletes in general are guided by reason #3.)

Thesis #1: If the IOC had examined players' purposes, they never would have set-up a tournament that rewards losing.

Thesis #2: If players really played their sport for reason #3 above, the world would be a better and happier place.

Part III: Alfie Kohn

Much of what Alfie Kohn says in "Punished by Rewards" (click here for an Amazon.com link) addresses this issue. Kohn essentially says that instead of teaching people to love what they do (be it sports, learning, work, reading, etc.) we bribe people to do what we want them to do, and when we do that we inherently devalue the thing itself. Allow me to give an example: John doesn't want to do his homework. So his mother says, "John, if you finish your homework I'll give you a cookie." John loves cookies, and so he does his homework and gets his cookie. Mom is happy and John is happy. John has also learned a valuable lesson from Mom: homework has no inherent value, it's only worth doing if he's going to get a cookie out of it (this could also transfer to the whole concept of school and learning, giving John the idea that knowledge has no value unless it "gets him something"). Oops! [By the way, John has also learned that his mother is more interested in controlling him than in helping him become an independent and self-regulating human being. The "control" factor of "rewards" (also known as bribes) is particularly pernicious and typically leads to resentment on the part of the person who was bribed.]

Let's apply Kohn's thinking to the badminton players: these players were not taught to love their sport (or respect themselves as sportsmen/sportswomen) and to constantly seek to improve their skill and challenge themselves; they were taught to win. Every win was congratulated and every loss was considered a failure. Unfortunately for them, losing is an important tool for improvement: it guides you along the pathway to better play. These players have been thoroughly trained to "win" at all costs. In the Olympics, what does it mean to "win"? Winning means getting the gold medal. Their thinking: "If losing this match, gets me an easier match in the next round, then I should lose this match, because it puts me in a better position to win the gold."

It might also be interesting to consider the implications of Kohn's "No Contest" (click here for an Amazon.com link) in the Olympics. Perhaps I'll consider that in a future post...

Keep reading!

Thomas Jefferson...

I recently visited Monticello, toured the home of Thomas Jefferson, and was highly moved by what I read and found there. Jefferson was a man of such wide knowledge and consideration as to be inspirational. His academic training had been classical, and he was always grateful to his father for having instilled in him a love of classical authors and for having taught him how to read Greek and Latin. But he was no Miniver Cheevy; he was a man firmly of his own time. He read extensively, and taught himself much of what he knew. His thirst of knowledge was insatiable.

But perhaps more interesting than his thirst for knowledge was his application of it. He observed carefully his surroundings (taking detailed measurements of the natural environment around him and cataloguing those findings), and he read the ideas of many learned persons. But then he considered the implication of those ideas, and acted upon them. We can see this clearly in his text "The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" (1786). Here he takes action and proclaims a natural right according to what he has read and learned, and believes to be right, despite the fact that the ideas contained in this document were quite different from the historical reality throughout the world. This application of his learning is evident everywhere at Monticello, from the gardens (where he took extensive notes concerning his crops, tested theories on how to improve them, and applied his outcomes), to the ice house, to the interior architecture, the placement and design of windows (double paned for winter insulation), and skylights. He read, he learned, and he applied his knowledge to improve his own life and the life of his fellow citizens.

A few choice quotes from Jefferson seem appropriate at this point:

"The field of knowledge is the common property of all mankind."

"...truth is great and will prevail if left to herself..."

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

"A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

"And for the support of this Declaration [the Declaration of Independence], with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Misinterpretation and What We Can Learn from Mr. Romney

This is not a political blog. This is a blog about books, reading, and critical thinking. However, being a widely read individual and a responsible citizen who keeps up on current affairs, I often make connections between what I observe in the world and what I find in books. This intersects with the realm of politics, but my motivation for writing it is purely academic. First a disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I am not impressed with either of our presidential candidates this year. If President Obama had made the error I’m about to discuss, I would be writing the same post.

As it happens, the error was Mr. Romney’s. This letter, posted in the New York Times, and written by the brilliant scholar Jared Diamond (professor at the University of California, and author of Collapse, Guns, Germs, and Steel, and other insightful, thought-provoking books) details how Mr. Romney either read Diamond’s Gun, Germs, and Steel and completely misunderstood it, or referenced said text as supporting a piece of his foreign policy position, when, in fact, the text does not say what Mr. Romney claims it said.

So one of three things is true: 1) Mr. Romney did not understand Diamond’s work; 2) Mr. Romney understood it and deliberately twisted Diamond’s meaning to suit his own purposes; or 3) Mr. Romney has never read this book, but someone on his staff pulled quotes and references that seemed to give some support to Mr. Romney’s position and Mr. Romney blindly repeated the references without looking into it himself (and, dare I suggest, learning something!).

Whichever of the three options above happen to be true, I am pointing this out for young scholars everywhere, because this is a problem that I see among my students regularly: the failure to carefully read and consider what an author is saying before attempting to deputize her or him into one’s argument as supporting evidence. I teach high school, and one of the most common mistakes I see is the mistake of a student not carefully reading a text and fully understanding it before trying to make use of it in supporting, defending, or attacking a position.

For all young scholars, let this be an object lesson: we have a duty to authors and to ourselves to carefully and thoughtfully read any material we might want to examine or explore as we try to form an argument around a topic. Adler discusses this duty that reads have toward authors in a book I’ve already discussed on this blog How to Read a Book. His discussion of analytical reading and its importance is highlighted by this example. One of the reasons we read analytically is so that we can intelligently and accurately talk about an author’s ideas.

I once heard it said that a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. Mr. Romney’s failure, can be a lesson to us all.

Jefferson's 10 Rules

On my recent visit to Monticello, Jefferson's Virginia farm estate, I ran across something called "Jefferson's 10 Rules", and I liked them so much I thought I'd share them here with perhaps a little commentary:

1. Never put off until tomorrow, what you can do today.
2. Never trouble another for what you can do yourself.
3. Never spend money before you have earned it.
4. Never buy what you don't want because it is cheap.
5. Pride costs more than hunger, thirst, and cold.
6. We seldom repent of having eaten too little.
7. Nothing is troublesome that we do willingly.
8. How much pain the evils cost us that never happened.
9. Take things always by the smooth handle.
10. When angry, count to ten before you speak; if very angry, count a hundred.

I thought these were wise aphorisms worth sharing. I particularly like numbers three and four. I think if people followed those two, they would have much less stress and strife in their lives.

"The Story of English in 100 Words" (By: David Crystal)

Cover image copied from Amazon.com

I noticed that some of my brilliant friends from college were reading this book, and it sounded interesting, so I decided to take the plunge.

The author has selected 100 words from the English language, and for each word, he takes two to three pages to describe the history of the word and how it has been used, and how its usage has changed over time. It's a very easy book to pick up and read a couple chapters and then put down again. There are many interesting quirks and footnotes in the history of English that Crystal points out. Overall, I'd say this is a book I would highly recommend to any person who finds the English language and its history fascinating (if you aren't one of those people, you might want to try the book anyway...you might discover that its more interesting than you thought!).

Next week: comments about Thomas Jefferson (in light of my recent visit to Monticello) and more thoughts from Francis Bacon and "The Advancement of Learning"

Cheers!

Francis Bacon: "The Advancement of Learning"

I delved into this text a while ago, and recently picked it back up. A little history about Bacon for those who are unfamiliar would be in order. Sir Francis Bacon lived in the late 16th and early 17th centuries in England where he held many important political positions. He helped develop the scientific method and examined and experimented on many natural phenomena. He was one of the major intellectual figures of his time, and much of what he discovered has served as the foundation for modern science. Last night I ran across this passage:

"The corrupter sort of mere politiques, that have not their thoughts established by learning in the love and apprehension of duty, nor never look abroad into universality, do refer all things to themselves, and thrust themselves into the centre of the world, as if all lines should met in them and their fortunes, never caring in all tempests what becomes of the ship of state, so they may save themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune; whereas men that feel the weight of duty and know the limits of self-love use to make good their places and duties, though with peril..."

I was struck by this description of the un-learned person as bringing everything back to him or herself, and how "in all tempests" this person cars only for his or her own fortune and not for the "ship of state" or the common good, trusting in his or how own fortune to save him or herself. How well this describes so many of our modern life-arrangers and persons of power today!! I was struck by the manifold examples of this attitude in recent news:

1) Joe Paterno and other PSU authorities: they were so concerned with the reputation of their football program and how much money it was making for them (i.e. their "fortune") that they were willing to let a serial child molester go unpunished and free to repeat his crimes to "save themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune".

2) Politicians who are so beholden to the gun-lobby that they won't even consider a bill that would limit gun users to ammunition clips of 10 bullets or less. Given the national tragedies involving guns in the United States of America, one would think that we could all agree that there's no legal need to have an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 bullets... And yet, these politicians are more interested in "saving themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune" (i.e. the campaign donations they receive from the gun lobby), than in caring for the "ship of state", because they "thrust themselves into the centre of the world".

3) Those involved in the LIBOR scandal: need I point out the degree to which these individuals tried to "save themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune" and to which they "thrust themselves into the centre of the world"?

4) Fourthly (I say, fourthly and not finally, because there is no "finally" to this list, it could go on and on...), there are those individual citizens of the United States and corporations who continually "save themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune": those who use off-shore bank accounts to shield themselves from paying the full weight of their taxes (What could be more "un-American" than a bank account that is literally not in the US?); those who ship jobs overseas, shutting down whole factories in the United States, destroying communities and the lives of individual workers to "save themselves in the cockboat of their own fortune" rather than make the ethical choice to make a narrower profit margin as a company, but continue to employ hard-working citizens; those who engage in dangerous financial practices that create these "bubbles" which we are suffering through (housing, banking, etc.), and those who lie, cheat, and steal from those who trusted them, like Bernie Madoff. Surely these men and women cared only for themselves and their fortunes, and never considered either the good of the country (in some cases the world) or their fellow citizens.

It is striking to imagine how things could be different if powerful decision makers in our country "felt the weight of duty" and knew "the limits of self-love". How much heart-ache could have been avoided if Joe Paterno had gone to the police instead of the president of his university? Or if politicians could pass sensible gun control laws that limit an individuals ability to commit acts of terrorism against his or her fellow citizens? Or if the financial masters of the world and the country considered what was best for the common good instead of what would line their own pockets?

It seems we have much to learn from Francis Bacon. As dismayed as I am by the rampant examples of this kind of behavior in the news (and it is striking how well Bacon's quote describes so much of what is in the news right now), I find some solace in the fact that apparently, this problem is a very old one, and that it has been plaguing humanity for some time. Virtue, it seems, has long been in short supply.

Perhaps it is time for a conversation about how authentic learning and education support the growth of virtue, and can help safeguard us as a country from this pernicious problem.

New Words...

I love learning! I recently finished re-reading "Foucault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco. While I thought the book lacked the brilliant plot and dialogue of "In the Name of the Rose" (another brilliant Eco book), I was delighted by all the words I had to look-up while reading this book. Here is a list of fun words I read and their definitions from Google.

• isochronal - equal in duration or interval
• ogive - a Gothic arch
• chthonian - dwelling beneath the surface of the earth
• macumba - Brazilian religious cult using socery, ritual dance, and fetish
• catoptric - relating to a mirror, reflector, or reflection
• alembic - distilling apparatus; rounded necked flask
• eolopile - a device that, when heated, spins, spewing steam
• athanor - a furnace that feeds itself to maintain a consistent temperature
• homunculus - a very small humanoid creature
• notarikon - method for deriving a word using each of its initial or final letters to stand for another word, forming a sentence or idea from the words
• plerome - central core of primary meristem of a plant
• ogdoad - eight
• apothegm - a concise saying or aphorism
• hypallage - a transposition of the natural relations of two elements in a proposition
• zeugma - figure of speech in which one word applies to two other words in two different senses
• labile - easily changed ; having emotions that are easily aroused or freely expressed
• catafalque - decorated wooden framework supporting the coffin of a distinguished person during a funeral
• simoom - a desert wind that often carries dust/sand
• oriflamme - banner or standard ; a principle around which people rally
• syncretism - the practice of combining different beliefs while melding practices of various schools of thought
• austral - having to do with the south
• askesis - severe self-discipline
• couchette - railroad car with seats that turn into sleeping berths
• conventicle - secret or unlawful religious meeting
• telluric - of the earth or the soil
• philosopheme - a philosophical statement, theorem, or axiom
• rocaille - 18th century artistic style of decoration defined by elaborate ornamentation with pebbles, shells, or little beads
• cicatrix - scar of a healed wound, or on the bank of a tree
• menhir - tall upright stone erected in prehistoric times in Europe
• anamnesis - remembering things from a supposed previous existence
• grimoire - a book of spells
• hieratic - concerning priests
• sclerotic - being rigid or unresponsive, not able to adapt
• ithyphallic - having an erect penis
• auscultation - listening to sounds from the heart or lungs
• terraqueous - having both land and water
• tenebrous - dark, shadowy, or obscure

A Case for Back Roads...

I enjoy driving...a lot. I have a history of taking long solo road-trips (22 consecutive hours of solo driving from Miami, FL to Dayton, OH is my record). I must admit that much of my long trip driving experience has been on the interstate system, which, like all systems, has its pro and cons. Allow me to take a moment to examine them:

Pros of driving on an interstate:

• They tend to go between major cities in a relatively straight line (i.e. the shortest path)
• They tend to have the highest available speed limits (thus cutting down total travel time)
• They have standardized marking features such as milage markers, exit markers, and milage signs for distances to cities
• They advertise the services (i.e. gas, lodging, attractions, and food) available at each exit
• You are never that far from the next gas station
• They are kept in relatively good repair (i.e. no potholes that will swallow your car whole)

Cons of driving on an interstate:

• They tend to be boring
• The scenery is often not that attractive (although there are some exceptions to this rule)
• They often have many 18-wheel trucks driving on them, which can be troublesome for a regular car traveler (no offense intended to big-rig truck drivers! Keep on truckin'!)
• They are prone to have long-lasting construction projects that often bring them down to one lane, and dramatically reduce the speed limit (which is important for construction worker safety)
• When they aren't traveling through a major city they often travel through farm fields, and while farms are important, farms provide limited visual excitement on a lengthy trip.
• They sometimes have tolls

On my most recent road-trip to Charlottesville, VA from Cincinnati, OH (8 hours, 450 miles), Google maps service recommended that I begin my 8 hour journey with a three hour stint on non-interstate roads (Ohio state route 32, and US route 35). After examining the options, this seemed logical, and I gave it a go.

I was pleasantly surprised by my extended "back road" section of the trip, and was reminded of how delightful back roads can be, and thought for a moment, I would ramble on about the advantages of back roads from my own experience.

First of all, traveling on back roads was more convenient in that you often find yourself passing through little towns with gas stations and food places (some are even local instead of chains!) where one can pull off the drive and eat or get gas without having to get off at an interstate exit and then get back on (which sometimes seems to take a while depending on traffic).

The scenery is far more entertaining and enjoyable on those back roads. I spent some of my time driving through US 35 in West Virginia, and was just blown away by the beauty and grandeur of their mountains and forests.

You also sometimes find radio stations on back roads that you might not otherwise find on an interstate. For example, while on US 35 in West Virginia, I stumbled across a state sponsored classical radio station (89.9 I think), which happened to be playing my favorite Bach violin concerto (the one for two violins in D minor)! What a find! And who would have ever expected to find that, in those remote hills of all places!

There is WAY less traffic on these back roads. As I was driving along these back roads, I was struck by how few other cars I saw. I could go miles without seeing anyone.

As I reflect back on it, some of my other favorite drives have been "back road" drives. Followers of this blog will know that my wife and I recently took a vacation in the Pacific Northwest, and spent a lot of time driving the coasts of both Oregon and Washington: both of which were beautiful back roads.

I've also driving Route 1 in California which follows the coast there as well, and that is a beautiful stretch of road.

So, the next time you're planning a road-trip, consider routing in some back roads, just to give yourself a treat, and a taste of what goes on in those vast spaces between the interstates. I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised with what you find!

Until next time...keep reading!

BD

Galileo and thoughts on education...

I'm back from vacation! Here's a picture just to give you a taste of what I saw in Oregon and Washington...

"You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself." (Galileo)

As a teacher, I often think about learning: the things which aid it and which hinder it. Motivation is always a key ingredient in the recipe of learning. If you've read any of my other posts, you'll know I think Alfie Kohn had some great insight into motivation in his book "Punished by Rewards", in which he discusses the "Three Cs": Collaboration, Content, and Choice. He believes that when these three things are maximized and made relevant to people's lives, that they are more motivated.

I liked this quote above from Galileo because it summarizes so much of what I try to teach students and parents. I can explain something, I can demonstrate something, I can develop projects based around a concept, I can suggest readings about it, I can practice a skill with students in class, but if a student isn't actively engaged in the work, then it just washes over him or her without making any lasting impression. Each person must decide what's important for himself or herself, and pursue that with vigor and passion. Unfortunately, our education system isn't setup that way right now. So this is all a difficult sell to students who have had 8-10 years of what I call "sit, get, and spit" education. It's hard to break those habits. At school, we call this "shifting from a teaching centered culture to a learning centered culture". I think that sums it up pretty well.

This isn't a philosophy blog, and I don't want to get too deep into the realm of epistemology, but the second part of Galileo's quote reveals an interesting assumption: that the knowledge and skills we seek are already within us, waiting to be discovered or "found". This is a very "eastern" philosophy of knowledge. In the post-industrial west, we tend to think of knowledge as something that is outside of us that we somehow ingest and make part of us, like food. Even our colloquial verbiage around learning and thinking reflects this: "I need to sit back and digest that thought for a moment." or "I need to let that percolate in my mind." (percolation is a method for brewing coffee) "I need to let that soak in." Rarely if ever do you hear someone say, "Ah! Yes, you've helped me discover that idea in my mind!" Consider for a moment, the vastly different implications these perceptions of where knowledge comes from can have on how we approach the process of "learning."

The astute reader will have noticed that I haven't said whether I agree or disagree with Galileo's perspective on the origin of knowledge. Perhaps I'll save that for another day...

Happy reading!