90 Comments

I was impressed by that very eloquent passage from Santayana, a philosopher whom I never read during my graduate study of philosophy. It captures the essence of what Ayn Rand would later term "whim-worship." Can anyone provide a citation, so I can perhaps read it in context?

<<For the barbarian is the man who regards his passions as their own excuse for being; who does not domesticate them either by understanding their cause or by conceiving their ideal goal. He is the man who does not know his derivations nor perceive his tendencies, but who merely feels and acts, valuing in his life its force and its filling, but being careless of its purpose and its form. His delight is in abundance and vehemence; his art, like his life, shows an exclusive respect for quantity and splendour of materials. His scorn for what is poorer and weaker than himself is only surpassed by his ignorance of what is higher.>>

I groaned a little when I saw the notion of "domesticat[ing]" the passions, which is generally based on a Platonic view of the passions as irrational beasts (as in the charioteer metaphor from The Republic). But Santayana immediately followed up with an explanation of how one domesticates the passions: "either by understanding their cause or by conceiving their ideal goal." So the passions are not alien forces to be whipped into submission (the stereotypical Platonic view) or succumbed to (the emotionalist's view). It's not clear from this passage exactly what he thinks the passions are, but it is clear that they are subject to cause and effect, including teleological causation. Although this was an idea that had been percolating during Santayana's time, as psychology and therapy were in their youth, I hadn't before seen it so explicitly stated until significantly later.

I especially like the connection between the fundamental nature of a whim (which Ayn Rand defined as "a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause") and its destructive consequences. The person who has abandoned concern for the causes of his or her passions is left with "exclusive respect for quantity and splendor of materials" in the pursuit of personal values. (Although Santayana's passage applies specifically to art, I think the concept applies in one form or another to all values.)

And in the social realm, a life on the premise of unexamined emotions leads to social-hierarchical thinking, with its ultimate result being conflict and war. ("His scorn for what is poorer and weaker than himself is only surpassed by his ignorance of what is higher.")

This brief but insightful passage makes me want to read more by Santayana, a person I knew only by his reputation as an influential but not top-tier philosopher of the early 20th century. Thank you for introducing me to him!

Expand full comment

Hey, Charlie might be 67 but we're told by Tim Miller that he's spry! So there's that.

Expand full comment

I keep waiting for the tide of public sentiment to turn on Trump and his faction because his public is fickle and they tire of the same old same old. You can fool some of the people for some of the time but not for all of the time. Trump has a limited range.

Expand full comment

That fear is what paralyzes this Administration. They need to get over it. Just as Putin is taking advantage of wishful thinking, so is TFG and his fellow-travelers. Biden wants to be a leader. LEAD!

Expand full comment

Re Mike Lee, he's obviously a RINO because he still has enough of a sense of shame to kowtow to Trump in private, or what he believed would remain private. Seems he's foolish enough not to understand that most things become public eventually.

I suppose I must take whatever solace there may be in believing that Mike Lee will need to act shamelessly in public from here on out no matter how it may unsettle him to do so. He sure as Hell isn't going to act responsibly.

Expand full comment
founding

Televised hearings by the 1/6 committee would be helpful. I'm hoping we will see those before too much longer.

Expand full comment

Any thoughts on the Jennifer Rubin piece on Tom Nelson democratic candidate for the senate from Wisconsin. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/17/tom-nelson-wisconsin-senate-populist-that-democrat-need/)

Expand full comment

Agree with Don Gates. Better domestic violence we who value democracy can prepare for and win than to not indict fearing violence, which strengthens the authoritarians. That would be the absolute worst.

Expand full comment
Apr 17, 2022·edited Apr 17, 2022

Now for something somewhat different: Anyone who incites revolt or violence against government, especially our federal government, commits sedition. To wit: Trump, Lee, Meadows, Powell, Wood, Flynn, Bannon, et al.

Further, "Every person owing allegiance to the United States, who [...] adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason." To wit: Brownshirts such as Marjorie Taylor Green, Boebert, Gaetz, Cawthorn, etc.

Yes, I know I'm not a lawyer. I'm an old Navy Chief, a qualified Submariner, armed (if you will) with a degree in History.

Expand full comment

Just love the C. S. Lewis quote! Did he have anyone in mind when he wrote it?

Expand full comment

This is my first time posting here, anywhere actually, I am one of the old ones one of the posters talked about. I'm a fan of you Charlie and watch you on MSNBC every chance I get. I was born in MKE and lived in WI until I was 16 so WI politics is still of interest as I have relatives there still. What I want to say now is how irritated I am right now with our government. I had high hopes that the Muller Report would do something about that criminal in the White House, then when it didn't, I'd hoped the January 6th Commission would get on the ball and expose him, indite him, even jail his ass. I don't care if he was President. I'm disappointed the NY AG's office has failed to do anything in spite of all the evidence of his corruption. I'm disappointed the legislature acts so slowly or not at all in passing the needed laws covering voting, women's rights (abortion), letting the Republicans just run over them...seems like to me anyway. The dems need to get some spine and start acting like they have the power that they do have. Maybe it's the age thing and too many of them are behaving like it's 20 years ago. I look at the members of the Ukraine Parliament, all seem to be young, smart and not afraid to act. We need more of that. As for Ukraine, I am all for giving them everything they need to defeat Putin and giving it to them TODAY! Thanks for giving me a place to speak my mind. Wish it would do some good!

Expand full comment

It strikes me that the current consternation regarding whether or not to prosecute TFG mirrors our over-cautious approach to Ukraine. If we truly believe that leaving Ukraine to the Russians is a threat to democracy, we should act like it. Go all in, because the alternative is an existential threat. Same goes for tacit encouragement of Trump and his MAGA crazies. This is not a time for timidity. The world's children deserve better.

Expand full comment

Lewis and Santayana are good, but George Will is best: "Trump is a weak man’s idea of a strong man."

Expand full comment

Gerontocracy - For those of us who survived the '60's - "Don't trust anyone over 30!"

Expand full comment

If Trump is tried, the most likely result is a hung jury. Why is that helpful?

Expand full comment

It always confuses me that it was right to go after mobsters despite the violence that could cause, but it's wrong to go after Trump

Expand full comment