For the better (84)

“In your view, you look at a man’s hope to see what it does for him.”
“Yes, and you can be provoked by him or not. That is part of the point of Emerson’s address to the divinity school: What is the point of preaching if you do not give someone hope?”

This really must have set his listeners off:

Alas for the unhappy man that is called to stand in the pulpit, and not give bread of life. Everything that befalls, accuses him. Would he ask contributions for the missions, foreign or domestic? Instantly his face is suffused with shame, to propose to his parish, that they should send money a hundred or a thousand miles, to furnish such poor fare as they have at home, and would do well to go the hundred or the thousand miles to escape.

For the better (83)

“So there is nothing for it to say.”
“Right.”
“You think it goes nowhere because there is no place for it to go in the first place.”
“Yes. It may fail in a circle or a paradox or some piece of odd logic when it has to defend itself, but it will fail. If you are a student of it, that is what you need to locate so you understand it for academic purposes.”
“But you’ll get an ‘F’ if you write it in a paper.”
“Probably, unless you leave it open for your professor to engage in it.”
“So you tell him after you have your degree.”
“He won’t believe you, I assure you.”

For the better (82)

“When we stop…”
“What?”
“The talking between us.”
“Yes.”
“What does the philosopher do?”
“Well, there is silence.”
“So he can talk then.”
“About what? Now there is no context.”
“And Emerson, what does he say?”
“…the never-broken silence with which the old bounty goes forward, has not yielded yet one word of explanation.”

An aside:

(From this Wednesday)

"...If I hope the Lions are going to win this Sunday, what are you going to say? That there is no hope?”

They won 19-14.

For the better (81)

“When you say that the “in principle move” is not called for, how do you prove it?”
“I don’t prove it. The gambit proves itself to be uncalled for by what it does. It arises in a context in which people are not talking of principles, they are just talking.”
“Ok.”
“Then, of a sudden, it makes the demand to move to first principles, when everything was quite clear without them.”
“How do you prove things were clear?”
“In the Euthyphro you can show what the issues are and that they are clear, which is what we have been doing. They don’t need philosophy to be understood.”
“How can you say that the issues in the Euthyphro talked about prior to the philosophy are all the issues? Could not there be some left out?”
“You cannot, in principle. But if there are others that remain for Socrates and Euthyphro to talk about, it would be a matter of fact, not principle.”
“For example…?”
“If Euthyphro had mentioned his concerned mother, one might raise a question about her.”
“So you cannot make an argument to prove your point.”
“You can make a factual one. You have to prove your point case by case, otherwise you are doing philosophy, which you have already said does not belong here.”

For the better (80)

“So where is Emerson in this mix?”
“Think of Euthyphro’s scripture as a provocation of his soul. Think of it merely as poetry, for much of it was narrative poetry.”
“So you’re saying Socrates sidesteps all of the traditional verse.”
“Right.”
“And you’re saying Socrates sidesteps Euthyphro the man, as he moves into philosophical analysis.”
“Right.”
“And you’re saying that Socrates’ analysis has nothing to do with what Euthyphro is doing or saying.”
“Right.”
“And that is because it makes this “in principle move” where none is called for.”
“Yes.”
“Ironically, Socrates is the one who calls for it.”
“Yes.”
“And that is where he improperly takes over the discourse, which ends up going nowhere.”
“Yes.”

For the better (79)

“So you think Euthyphro had hope, and Socrates denied it?”
“Yes, I do.”
“Let me get this straight. So just because Socrates introduced reason he was at fault?”
“No, not at all.”
“Then what was it?”
“It was the use of reason to get a conclusion as to what piety was, in principle.”
“That was the problem?”
“Yes. It sidesteps Euthryphro’s devotion to his own scriptures which is his piety and which underlies his hope that he made the right choice to bring his case against his father.”

For the better (78)

“So I cannot question a man’s hope?”
“Not sure what you mean. If I hope the Lions are going to win this Sunday, what are you going to say? That there is no hope?”
“Well they went 0-16 last year.”
“But how does that question my hope? I still hope they are going to win. What is there to question? I have the hope and you do not.”
"Hmm.”
“On the other hand you may be able to say that if I am betting my paycheck on hope alone, I probably need to add some analysis. Here it depends on what my hope is doing for me.”

For the better (77)

“Well, Socrates could have asked the questions that he did of Euthyphro.”
“Indeed he did, so he could have.”
“That he could have means he was entitled, I mean intellectually.”
“Entitled? Intellectually?”
“What is wrong with mentioning the issues, i.e., raising the questions?”
“What is wrong with pointing out there is not a man’s face on the moon? Is he entitled intellectually to do that?”
“Why not?”
“Because there is no point to it, given the context of their meeting. It does not add anything to what they are saying, and neither does philosophy.”
“Sure it does. It adds verbiage if nothing else.”
“Yes, but it has nothing to do with what they are saying.”

For the better (76)

On he goes, denying each man’s hope in himself. There is no charity in this way. Much better to have shared a confusion, if there was one to begin with. If there was a confusion with Euthyphro, it was how his matter might be decided and what it might do to him and his father. What might the household fallout of all this have been?

Instead Socrates demands a theoretical account of piety which introduces his own manufactured confusion. Euthyphro begins in a circle and never gets out, except by walking away.

For the better (75)

So Socrates’ mission begins.

Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me.

This is a mission with no reconciliation for parties in dialogue.

(I've always wondered about missionaries and what it took to be one, but this?...JeZeus H. X.)

For the better (74)

Socrates thought he had to prove the oracle’s truth. He took it upon himself as a personal mission.

Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature.

So he decides to try to refute the oracle.

After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest."

An unfortunate case (306)

Resolving the issues of toxic assets:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on Wednesday named the first winning bidder under a test of the government's program to back private purchases of toxic mortgage assets and get them off banks' balance sheets.

Fort Worth, Texas-based Residential Credit Solutions Inc. is paying $64.2 million for a 50 percent stake in a new company that will have about $1.3 billion in home mortgages from the failed Franklin Bank.

The FDIC took over Houston-based Franklin Bank in November. Under the test sale to RCS, the new company will issue a note for $727.8 million to the FDIC. Twelve groups of companies had bid on the assets, the agency said.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FDIC-names-first-winner-in-apf-117288626.html?x=0

So they are paying 792 million for 1.3 Billion in home mortgages.

Works out to 61 cents on the dollar, assuming a non-squirrely note.

For the better (73)

In this deflation Emerson says:

Then falls the church, the state, art, letters, life. The doctrine of the divine nature being forgotten, a sickness infects and dwarfs the constitution.

There is no shared hope in this deflation.

Socrates talks to Euthyphro not for his provocation as a soul but to show that Euthyphro knows no more than he does, which he thinks is nothing. He is not there to share any hope with Euthyphro that the gods will smile on him in his difficult matter before the court. He is there to show Euthyphro that he knows nothing about the gods to which he has devoted his life.

That way he can prove the Oracle at Delphi true, for Socrates believes that he himself knows nothing. The oracle said that no one was wiser than Socrates, so no one else must know anything either, since Socrates believes that he himself knows nothing.

As Socrates' account in the Apology goes:

Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether - as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt - he asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself, but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of this story.

Of course it is the case that the court, to which he speaks, knows nothing either. Throughout the dialogues, a common theme is the unseating of those in some position in the state.

For the better (72)

Now I may purchase a theory of a Velveteen Rabbit, but that marks me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Velveteen_Rabbit

I have faith in lesser things. Though I do have faith, no question.

…the absence of this primary faith is the presence of degradation. As is the flood so is the ebb. Let this faith depart, and the very words it spake, and the things it made, become false and hurtful.

If I pull the hope out of this optative, I leave all quite deflated.

For the better (71)

There appears to be no Mediator, as understood in Hebrews:

(9:15) For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:15&version=NIV;

For Emerson, the transcendent is not gained through a mediator.

Rather, ... it cannot be received at second hand.

This does not mean that there is nothing. Of anyone who speaks to me in this optative subjunctive of which we have spoken,

What he announces, I must find true in me, or wholly reject; and on his word, or as his second, be he who he may, I can accept nothing.

I must find the same hope.

Let me give the link again.

http://www.rwe.org/works/Nature_addresses_2_Divinity_School_Address.htm

For the better (70)

Then Emerson momentarily turns to Jesus:

And the unique impression of Jesus upon mankind, whose name is not so much written as ploughed into the history of this world, is proof of the subtle virtue of this infusion.

He leaves him quickly, but his departure is a setup for subsequent matters.

Meantime, whilst the doors of the temple stand open, night and day, before every man, and the oracles of this truth cease never, it is guarded by one stern condition; this, namely; it is an intuition. It cannot be received at second hand. Truly speaking, it is not instruction, but provocation, that I can receive from another soul.

The doors of the temple stay open day and night to the individual. No one holds the key for him.

There is no keeper of the key.

For the better (69)

A parenthetical:

(“Would that I were in the presence of the Lord.”
“Who, you?”
“Yeah, me.”
“You?”
“Yeah, my whole kit and caboodle.”)

An unfortunate case (305)

It is fair to say that a recovery is in working order, provided that defaults can be papered over with new securities and accounting profits. Typically defaults are a lagging indicator and in a normal business cycle are just pain endured on the way to health.

The emerging view now is that the the recovery will be as sharp as the prior decline. Future writedowns are under control. Not only that, they will not dampen the explosive growth that is to come.

So here is another article on defaults that should be ignored:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601009&sid=aNPzlGJQ1RXY

It is extraordinary how a simple change in accounting rules for impaired assets, noted back in March, corrected the impairment and laid the foundation for the explosive growth to come.

Mr. Geithner, who was viewed by the financial community as a slender reed, is now a veritable Samson.

Trading haircuts are a mere aside.

For the better (68)

Jung thought a great deal about Indian views. Just a quick search of the web produces this:

In his 1939 article "What India Can Teach Us," Jung praises India's integrative religion, seeing it as a model for the modern Western world. India's religion embraced "the whole man from top to bottom" unlike the Western variety which separated the rational from the natural human being. Jung appreciatively concluded that India had avoided the "fatal dissociation between an upper and a lower half of the human personality."

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_vraja_jung.htm

Curiously, before Christianity became Aristotelian, Augustine wrote in the City of God about saving the whole man. What else would a spiritual body be for and why would Jesus have one? Augustine did not see an upper and lower half of the man, either. He wrote in the 5th century. Aristotle was introduced close to eight hundred years later.

But that is a subject for another day.

Suffice it to say that Emerson draws no such doctrinal distinctions, either. His subjunctive draws none.

For the better (67)

Returning to Emerson’s paragraph that prompted me to adduce examples of piety:

This thought dwelled always deepest in the minds of men in the devout and contemplative East; not alone in Palestine, where it reached its purest expression, but in Egypt, in Persia, in India, in China. Europe has always owed to oriental genius, its divine impulses. What these holy bards said, all sane men found agreeable and true.

This is Emerson’s view of the thought of piety. In our day the sane and agreeable are few.

An unfortunate case (304)

If we are having a recovery, it has not been evident to Japan.

TOKYO (AP) -- Japan's current account surplus in July fell 19.4 percent from a year earlier as exports tumbled amid a slow recovery in the global economy, the finance ministry said Tuesday.

The current account surplus, Japan's broadest measure of trade with the rest of the world, was 1.27 trillion yen ($13.6 billion), the first year-on-year fall in two months, the ministry said.
Exports in July dropped 37.6 percent to 4.55 trillion yen, marking the 10th consecutive year-on-year decline.

"Sluggish exports dragged down the surplus. Exports were weak in every key region, underlining that a recovery in the global economy has yet to become solid," said Hideki Matsumura, senior economist at think tank Japan Research Institute.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Japans-current-account-apf-645721683.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

We are in a central bank driven recovery that has yet to find economic traction.

For the better (66)

It is most unfortunate that Euthyphro tries to tell him what the nature of this idea is. He gets into a vicous circle that often happens in early philosophy. Here the circle is that piety is what the gods love and what the gods love is piety. But it happens over and over in philosophical history. Heidegger gets into one in the early part of Being and Time and finds it profound, not understanding that it is asking the philosophical question that leads to the circularity.

Everything is perfectly clear until the philosopher gets his mits on it.

From this point on, the dialogue is largely useless. Socrates tries to derive his standard without looking at any cases. The more abstract the discussion becomes, the more confused it gets. The confusion just keeps worsening. Euthyphro leaves in frustration. The reader is taught how misguided the unphilosophical are and how true Socrates remains in his quest for clarity.

But the truth is just the opposite. Socrates has a real opportunity to get a religious scholar on his side for his upcoming trial,.but runs him off in the name of false clarity.

Socrates induces people to think that they need to do his philosophical exercise. They do not need to. They never did. For twenty five hundred years they have been engulfed in this confusion for thinking there are rules prior to cases.

There are cases. Any rules we write are just those we write.They are not those we have to write. The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro changes, in principle, when it goes from the case to the purported rule for the case: the general idea which makes all pious things to be pious.

It also turns from a conversation to an interrogation. It flows no longer. It is directed by a questioner(who in other dialogues believes that he is after a quarry.) and one who responds to his questions. From that point on there is a question pending. which Euthyphro is forced to answer. Socrates' quarry is Piety.

The trouble is that Euthyphro's case stands on its own without any such rule. He has already explained it. We can understand it without any rule. We did before we entered into the discussion of philosophy.

For the better (65)

Again the hijacking in full view:

Soc. Remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all pious things to be pious. Do you not recollect that there was one idea which made the impious impious, and the pious pious?

Unfortunately Euthyphro has listened to philosophy and has bought into its notion.

Euth. I remember.

Soc. Tell me what is the nature of this idea, and then I shall have a standard to which I may look, and by which I may measure actions, whether yours or those of any one else, and then I shall be able to say that such and such an action is pious, such another impious.

Euth. I will tell you, if you like.

The two move to the transcendence of philosophy over the example. Whereas Emerson, the transcendentalist, sees transcendence as coming out of the individual man, the one at hand, who uses the subjunctive to worship. The ages since Socrates have come to prefer the former to the latter, without understanding the error of the former.

The error is not a logical error. It is an error in discourse in which one side presses an advantage, in principle, where one is not needed. It is not that one cannot press the advantage. It is just that the action does not belong in the prior conversation.

From the prior conversation we glean Euthyphro's reasons for bringing his father's case to justice. There is nothing more to find out. A discussion of first principles gives up nothing further.

An unfortunate case(303)

The religious sentiment run amok:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=an7Pm3hkmauw