those human swarms

Why should any given thing have happened? No theory, no convention or prejudice, should take precedence over the fact that if it did happen, it arose out of the endless complexity of human life, human lives. The Puritan Thomas Shepard, generally credited with founding Harvard, remarked that a man with a wooden leg could trim his foot to fit a shoe, but in the case of a living limb this would not be advisable. By all means those who think about history should avoid such trimming, since they deal with living flesh, specifically those human swarms whose passage through the world is the sum and substance of history.

We have not yet absorbed the fact that history has fallen into our laps, and we hardly know what it is, let alone what we should do with it. We have been busy destroying the landmarks that might otherwise help us orient ourselves. We have impoverished ourselves of every sense of how over time a society emerged that we and most of the world have considered decent and fortunate. Could we save this good order from a present threat? If it collapsed, could we rebuild it? These are real questions.

—Marilynne Robinson, Old Souls, New World

The founders knew that without a virtuous citizenry, the Constitution was a mere piece of paper and, in Madison’s words, “no theoretical checks — no form of government can render us secure.” Franklin was blunter in forecasting the moment we are now in: He believed that the American experiment in self-government “can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” You can impeach a president, but you can’t, alas, impeach the people. They voted for the kind of monarchy the American republic was designed, above all else, to resist; and they have gotten one.

—Andrew Sullivan, Can Donald Trump Be Impeached?

on not giving a shit

Thoughts from an interview with Caitlin Flanagan, who I think is a very good and interesting writer. (She's published a lot, but this article, which I can hardly believe was published over 10 years ago, is the first I remember reading by her. I still think about it.)

The interviewer is Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. The whole thing is worth listening to, but here's a bit from the very end, where they're winding down a discussion of sex, #metoo, toxic feminism, and fraternities:

Goldberg: “Caitlin Flanagan…”

Flanagan: “...You’re fired!”

Goldberg: [Laughs] “No, we love having you at The Atlantic, because you say interesting things and you don’t really give a shit.”

Flanagan: “I don’t give a shit.”

Goldberg: “Why don’t you give a shit? Because so many people give a shit right now.”

Flanagan: “Because this is why…it sounds so corny…I love America. You don’t have to be liked. Willy Loman should stop worrying. We have these freedoms that everybody mocks. You can say whatever you want. You know, you’ll get a lot of enemies, but…there’s 20 people I really care what they think about me. My family and my closest friends. After that, I don’t care. If people are offended or they don’t like it then they can turn this podcast off...It doesn’t matter if somebody likes what you say or not, you have the right to say it, you have the right to think it, you have a right to read the great books, and be the “artist reader” of the book as Nabokov would say and make your own meaning of the book. Beyond that it just doesn’t matter.”

First of all: excellent use of literary references. Second: I admire the sentiment. I doubt many people (myself included) would be able to carry off not giving a shit as well as Flanagan, especially since she can apparently not give a shit and keep her job, but I admire the sentiment nonetheless. And Jeffrey Goldberg is right to mention that she says interesting stuff and doesn't give a shit in the same breath. Because when everyone gives a shit things are so boring. If you watched the Oscar's this year, you know what I mean. A room of people carefully selected and eager for approval; I've been to academic panels more exciting. 

a philosophical windfall

Somewhere in the backwaters of twitter I came across this gem: an investor and fund manager has given $75 million dollars to the philosophy department at Johns Hopkins. Notably, this is the same department where he failed to finish his PhD.

My immediate reaction was, "I wouldn't give five cents to my grad school department." Upon additional reflection, yes, that's still true: I wouldn't give them a cent. Perhaps that's because they didn't kick me out when they probably should have? Regardless, I remain astounded that anyone could have had such a good time in a doctoral program that they decided to donate their hard-earned money to perpetuate that program. And I'm not even particularly bitter about my grad school experiences!

When I told Josh about the article, his very sensible question was, "What are they going to spend $75 million on? Books?" I imagine they will buy books, and also the very best graduate students in all the land. Too bad money won't be enough to get them all a job. Though I guess it will be enough to hire them all as lecturers for the next 30 years?