Prompt: “Would any of Bacon’s essays have been more persuasive if he had talked about his own experiences? Which ones? Why?”

Francis Bacon was an influential English politician and philosopher. He served as Attorney General, Lord Chancellor, and the first Viscount of St Alban. Although he had gathered a decently large collection of wealth, he overspent and consequently also gathered a towering mountain of debt. Edward Coke, Bacon’s nemesis, charged Francis with 23 different accounts of corruption in 1621, and he was forced to leave Parliament. Bacon spent most of the rest of his studying and writing. You’d think that with so much experience in fortune and expense he would include some personal stories in his works Of Fortune and Of Expense, but if you read the prompt you know he did not.

In Bacon’s words of fortune he writes “Faber quisque fortunæ suæ”, which translates to “Every one is the architect of his own fortune.” This is the theme throughout most of the essay, and it still holds up today. But Bacon could have added much more authority to the claim if he had sited his personal experiences. If he had given to the audience a piece of his own life, explaining his path to fortune, it could have added an extra tier of wisdom as well as a splash of relatability. But he did not, instead he continued to make broad statements of general truth. In illo viro tantum robur corporis et animi fuit, ut quocunque loco natus esset, fortunam sibi facturus videretur, which translates to: “such was his strength of body and mind, that wherever he had been born he could have made himself a fortune.” Again it would have been nice for Bacon’s own experiences to come into play here, the story of an underdog beating the odds and becoming wealthy. But perhaps by not telling personal stories he was avoiding some of his more unsavory and exploitational means of gathering wealth. Serpens nisi serpentem comederit non fit draco, or in other words: “A serpent must have eaten another serpent before he can become a dragon.”

Bacon’s work Of Expenses is another example of how adding his personal experiences could have been a major plus to the essay. He suffered through enormous amounts of dept, dept was the bain of his political life, and dept nearly lost him his title. But despite this none of his personal life was documented. He wrote about the 17th century equivalent of budgeting, noting that ones expenses must be balanced in order not to gather dept. “As if he be plentiful in diet, to be saving in apparel; if he be plentiful in the hall, to be saving in the stable; and the like.” He said that if ones spending is not balanced it can lead to great financial loss. “For he that is plentiful in expenses of all kinds, will hardly be preserved from decay.”

To finish this off I want to talk about my personal favorite of Bacon’s essay: Of Envy. This essay demonstrates that clever writing and universal truth can override a need for personal experience. “A man that hath no virtue in himself, ever envieth virtue in others. For men’s minds will either feed upon their own good or upon others’ evil; and who wanteth the one will prey upon the other; and whoso is out of hope to attain to another’s virtue, will seek to come at even hand by depressing another’s fortune.” Envy is an emotion that every human has felt at one point or another. Its a feeling of discontentment in oneself, an emotion felt when comparing yourself to another that you deem greater. Usually we compare ourselves to those similar to us. We compare ourselves to friends who we see as more attractive, or to peers who overcome a problem quicker or more effectively than ourselves. “Near kinsfolks, and fellows in office, and those that have been bred together, are more apt to envy their equals when they are raised.”

We tend to envy that which is just out of our reach. We envy the beautiful golden apple that is only a few inches higher than we can grab, and we envy the man tall enough to grab it. We don’t envy the apples at the top of the tree, since they would be an unrealistic goal, just as we don’t usually envy celebrities. “Again, envy is ever joined with the comparing of a man’s self; and where there is no comparison, no envy; and therefore kings are not envied but by kings.” Envy is most prevalent in those that feel they must be perfect to be happy, or those that feel their pride must be expressed to others in order to feel it themselves. “Above all, those are most subject to envy, which carry the greatness of their fortunes in an insolent and proud manner; being never well but while they are showing how great they are, either by outward pomp, or by triumphing over all opposition or competition; whereas wise men will rather do sacrifice to envy, in suffering themselves sometimes of purpose to be crossed and overborne in things that do not much concern them.”

I find this particular essay to be very engaging not only in a psychological sense, but very true and needed on a worldwide basis. Envy is by far the most slippery sin, as its not only very powerful but it usually is accompanied by one or more other sins. It can easily mix with someones lust or greed, and can easily pop up as a result of wrath or pride. It can create spite and hatred that can bubble and grow in a persons heart, and it can be extremely difficult to disown. I have my own experiences with envy, but because Francis Bacon is this weeks theme i’m going to follow his example and not share those personal stories. Instead i’ll illustrate the difference between envy and the other sins. Envy is a constant, and if you allow even a drop of it into your mind it can become a constant focus. As Bacon puts it “Invidia festos dies non agit”, or “Envy keeps no holidays”. Lust can be satisfied, gluttony fed, greed and pride compensated, wrath calmed and sloth left to rest, but all envy can do is fester, belittle, and diminish any and all virtue it sinks its teeth into. The only thing that can offset its hatred is a heavy dose of envy’s opposite: love.

Question 1: What was “enlightened absolutism”?

Enlightened absolutism refers to the ruling practices of several 18th century monarchs, including Frederick the Great of Prussia, Princess Maria Theresa of Austria, and Empress Catherine of Russia. The practice was about valuing rationality in a leader above all else, and ruling explicitly for the good of the majority.

Question 2: What was the constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that led to the American Revolution? Give specific examples of how this constitutional dispute was evident in particular events.

The constitutional dispute was mostly over Britain’s excessive taxation and the colonists only having a small amount of legal representation. Britain was ruling from overseas and sending their governors to collect the taxes and enforce British law. For a while this worked, since the colonists were in charge of paying the governors and could revoke that pay if they disagreed with a governors actions. But the British withdrew this privilege, and along with raising import taxes they decided to take on the job of paying the governors themselves. Now the colonists had no way of controlling the governors, and the British products being shipped across seas were much more expensive. This created the protest line of “Taxation without Representation”. Some examples of this taxation are the sugar act, the stamp act, and the tea act. The tea act lead to the infamous Boston Tea Party, as well as coffee becoming a staple of American culture.

Prompt: “Should the group in a legislator’s district that got him elected monitor his votes, and recruit someone to run against him in the next primary if he starts voting wrong?”

It’s absolutely crucial that district legislators keep an eye on the candidates they elect. The candidate starts out surrounded by peers in his home district. These peers decide what they want to have happen, and they will chose a candidate based on these motives. Therefore the candidate has to be very receptive of what his peers are after, and strive his campaign to meet these needs. But after hes been elected and is working on a statewide level all of this changes. He’s no longer surrounded by peers of his district, but by state officials with very different motives and wants. So the peer pressure changes. He is befriended and pulled into the state officials club, and the state officials begin pressuring the candidate to focus his attention towards their motives. If the peers of his district who elected him aren’t diligently watching their candidate it’s very easy for that candidate to be lured under the wing of the state. And if that happens the district legislators need to elect someone different to complete the tasks that district needs done.

Prompt: “Is it easier to read Shakespeare or the King James Bible?”

 

The King James Bible vs Shakespeare. Faith vs theater. Church vs the art of play making . I found it surprising that almost every peer essay I reviewed chose the KJB over Shakespeare. This could be because I live in a rather conservative country where most children are forced into attending church once a week, or it could be because we’ve only read two out of Shakespeare’s many plays. Well, though I did experience church several times in my childhood, I was always a theater nerd when it came to my intellectual interests. I’ve read (and acted out) most of Shakespeare’s writing, and in my opinion it’s much more interesting and easy to digest than something like the Bible.

Usually when people think of Shakespeare the first thing that comes to mind is something like Romeo and Juliette. People think of romance, bloodshed, and dramaticized versions of normal life. And although William’s plays did often contain these elements, in many of his works these themes were only appetizers. My personal favorite Shakespeare play is the heavily underrated Twelfth Night. This contains advanced love triangles (more of a love diamond), a main character cross dressing for much of the play, and a marvelously witty fool.

I’ll start at the beginning. Two twins, Sebastian and Viola, are shipwrecked and separated. Duke Orsino is in love with a woman named Olivia, but his advances are rejected. Viola, deciding she wants to enlist in Orsino’s services, disguises herself as a man and takes the name Cesario. Orsino takes immediate liking to Cesario, and sends him to woo Olivia for him. In a twist of events Cesario falls in love with Orsino, and Olivia falls in love the with the disguised Cesario. High jinks ensue, especially when the best character in Shakespearean writing is introduced: Feste the fool.

Feste is what makes this play a masterpiece, and in my mind cements it as a much more interesting read than the King James Bible. Feste is Olivia’s licensed fool, which means he has a licence to say whatever he wants. His job is to sing songs, entertain his boss and the audience, and wittily taunt anyone he sees fit. Feste is the pinnacle of good character writing. He advances the plays story through humor, mockery, and good old fashion jabs towards the other characters. He brings a likability, relatability, and personality into the play that the King James bible is completely lacking.

When Olivia is mourning her brothers death Feste askes “Good madonna, why mournest thou?” Olivia replies “Good fool, for my brother’s death.” Feste then says “I think his soul is in hell, madonna.” And Olivia retorts “I know his soul is in heaven, Fool.” To which Feste replies “The more fool, madonna, to mourn for your brother’s soul, being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen.” Feste proves again and again that he is by far the wisest character in the play, as well as the funniest. He shows that wisdom and foolishness are two sides of the same coin, a ying yang situation if you will. “Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the sun, it shines everywhere.”

I think this is a good quote to form a conclusion around. Foolery does exist in everything, and the wisest of us embrace it. Shakespeare embraced foolishness, worked with it, evolved his art with it. He took natural human stupidity, and instead of antagonizing it he found humor in it. The Bible in contrast does the opposite. It spouts out just as much foolishness as it does wisdom, but it takes itself so seriously that instead of making light of such stupidity it scolds the audience for just having this human characteristic. I’ll use Leviticus as an example. Leviticus says things that are not only pointless, such as “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” But also things that are extremely offensive, hurtful and degrading such as: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Being part of the LGBT community myself it hurts my heart to think of all the innocents who have been murdered simply for being themselves. “Detestable” is a good way to describe this horrendous discrimination.

The difference between Shakespeare and the Bible is Shakespeare works with and understands human foolishness. The Bible punishes foolishness, while simultaneously spewing out more of it. People of faith may be able to take it seriously, but for the neutral of us it offers nothing charming to draw us in. It only offers self righteous old men punishing exploration, self discovery, and any type of growth that doesn’t confine to the churches strict limitations. So to draw a conclusion, i’ll offer a quote from our old friend Feste that’s on the money for this comparison: “Better a witty fool, than a foolish wit.”

 

Question 1: Explain the views of the French materialists.

The French materialists were philosophers during the 18th century. They believed that there was no spiritual plane, no all mighty creator, and no real purpose in this world other than the pleasures of the flesh. They believed that the universe was made only of matter, and that humans were no more than advanced animals. They described animals as machines, comparing humans to grandfather clocks and other animals to wrist watches. They also said humans shouldn’t be blamed for their actions, since they were only following what their programming instructed.

Question 2: What does Adam Smith mean by the “invisible hand”?

The “invisible hand”, as Smith described, refers to the unseen web of production and consumption that is needed for the free market to function. Everyone needs things: knives to chop veggies, wheels for their car, glass for their windows, ect. But no one is completely self sufficient, at least the majority isn’t. Not everyone knows how to make their own wheels, so there’s a demand for wheel production on the market. This leads to people specializing in wheel making, working on it their whole lives and slowly becoming an expert at the trade. But whats more efficient than one person working on the whole wheel is a factory of people working on small parts of the wheel. One group of people make the rubber, others make the bolts ect. Then by the end of the process dozens more wheels are made, and dozens more people get to reap in the benefits.

Question 3: Discuss the causes and consequences of the War of the Austrian Succession.

The War of Austrian Succession was between Austria and Prussia, but many other European countries got dragged in due to alliances and border disputes. Prussia was a very tiny country, and King Frederick the second was looking to expand his territory. So he went to his neighbor Austria, and spoke to their monarch: Princess Maria Theresa. He wanted a section of her land, called Silesia, and told her he wouldn’t bring in his army if she handed it over by choice. She refused, and the war ensued. It gets a little messy at this point. Many European countries got dragged in, alliances and political enemies kept changing, the long and short of it is Frederick won the war and Silesia became part of Prussian territory.

Prompt: “Should the police be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting?”

Open meetings can be very stressful for politicians, for this exact reasons. Politicians most valuable asset is their image. Their image is what people associate with them, in most cases it’s the difference between them winning or losing an election. So naturally a politician will do everything in their power to keep that image shiny in the public’s eye. This is where the stress of open meetings come into play. At open meetings any question can be asked, and some of those questions have unsavory answers. The politician has to constantly be on his toes, and be ready to answer every trick question thrown at him. But many politicians aren’t ready for every trick question, so when something comes up that could smear their image if answered incorrectly the politician panics. It’s because of this panic that many request not to be filmed, as that little smear could easily turn into a permanent scar on their image if it gets posted online.

The politicians motive is understandable, but that in no way means its lawful. In the American constitution it clearly states we have freedom of press, whether it be a top news organization or just someone filming on their phone. At an open meeting we the people have the right to record, document, and share any and every word coming out of that politicians mouth; if that politician has something to hide this is a terrifying fact. But it’s a fact nonetheless, and requesting not to be filmed is as futile as it is suspicious. I make the argument that asking not to be filmed is the same as admitting you have a secret, and by admitting this it only makes people want to expose this secret more. It’s like hinting about a treasure you want no one to pursue, then being surprised that people start pursuing it. The best thing a politician can do is act like they have nothing to hide, lay down so many strong cards on the table that no one even notices the weak cards in your hand. Politicians will never escape the press, trying to fight it will only lead to the press swarming and suffocating that politician and their image.

Prompt: How important is the idea of covenant sanctions in the week’s readings?

 

Covenant sanctions refer to the punishments and rewards dished out by the top of the hierarchy. In this circumstance that would be the God of the Christian bible. In chapter 28 of Deuteronomy Moses explains both the positive and negative sanctions, and tells the outcome Israel will face if they choose to obey or disobey the word of God. The positive sanction is told as follows: “Now if thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God, to do and keep all his commandments, which I command thee this day, the Lord thy God will make thee higher than all the nations that are on the earth.” Now on the contrary it also lists the negative sanctions: “But if thou wilt not hear the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep and to do all his commandments and ceremonies, which I command thee this day, all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.” The list of curses include: “You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country,” “Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed,” and “The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.”

Covenant sanctions are not only important in the Christian bible, they are the glue that hold the peoples faith. Fear is what makes people respect Gods authority. Some say it’s love, but at least in the sense of the bible, it’s fear. If the bible was held up by love Moses wouldn’t have to threaten curses on the unfaithful. There would, and I argue there should, be no sanctions. Sanctions set unrealistic expectations that often leave a sense of disappointment in those who trust their truth. Sanctions, at least the negative ones, turn a religion of love into a religion of fear and anxiety. That’s how the Roman Catholic church has gotten so powerful, and unsurprisingly so corrupt. Any religion that gains followers through fear is asking to attract corruption. The only place where these sanctions work to an advantage are with people that are already corrupt, those with low morals who need to be threatened into being a good person.

If you couldn’t tell i’m not the biggest fan of the bible. I find it far too self righteous and intolerant to maintain any personal interest. But that doesn’t mean i’m not a fan of Jesus. The historically accurate Jesus Christ was a very wise man with many wonderful truths to share. He said that God need not be found in a place of religion. God isn’t loitering around a churchyard, or sitting on the tongue of a preacher waiting for the sheep to listen. God is within all of us, and inside yourself is the only place you’ll truly find him. God is that warm feeling of self accomplishment, that tingling joy you feel when a soft wind blows through the treetops, the pure happiness and satisfaction of tucking your children into bed at night. God is happiness, love and light, and in my opinion portraying him as a dictator threatening curses on anyone who doesn’t respect his every law is misleading us into fearing that which we should find comfort in.

Explain the significance of the person you read about for Lesson 48 in 100 words.

Although we were instructed to choose one of the better known characters (particularly Buffon, Harvey, Priestley, Euler, or Gray) I find myself drawn to a lesser known figure of history. He was a master alchemist, a doctor, the “Luther of physicians”, and as his most devoted followers nicknamed him the “German Hermes.” He was born in 1493 to the name Auroleus Phillipus Theostratus Bombastus von Hohenheim. This was a touch of an ironic title to be sure, but we’ll get back to that later. His father was a very well known physician of the time, known as the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order. It was from his library Hohenheim started his dive into alchemy, surgery, and medicine. By the time he was sixteen he had become very well acquainted with these sciences. As a teenager he studied the works of Isaac Hollandus, which roused in him an ambition to develop a medicine superior to any of the time.

As Hohenheim grew he became stubborn and independent. He looked down on the ancient texts, choosing instead to to use his own experience and observation of the natural world to advance his studies. He studied at the university of Basel, received a degree in medicine from the university of Vienna, then continued on to receive his doctorate from the university of Ferrara. He stressed the importance of common sense and common language, and challenged the ideas of the past “fathers of medicine”. Speaking of which, this is where the irony of his given name springs from. You see, the name Auroleus referred to Aurus Cornelius Celsus, one of the most celebrated medical writers of the time. Around the time Hohenheim received his doctorate he gave himself the title Paracelsus (meaning greater than Celsus). You can see pride was something he was in no way lacking. Though in many ways he more than deserved this title, as he discovered many methods of science and medicine that have become standard practice in today’s world. He found that you can concentrate alcohol by freezing it out of his solution, he advocated carefully measured doses with regard to the drugs purity, he founded the discipline of toxicology, he gave the element zinc its name, and was the first to note that some diseases are psychologically based. But what he was most known for was denouncing Galen’s theory of the four humors, that being the body was made of only blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm.

He spent his twenties living a nomadic life, wondering from country to country as a traveling doctor of sorts. He traveled through Germany, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Russia. In Russia he was captured by the Tartars and brought before the Grand Cham. In a twist of events the Grand Cham actually favored Paracelsus highly, and he was appointed to accompany the Cham’s son on an embassy from China to Constantinople. It was in this city legend tells Paracelsus was given something very special. It has many names: the supreme secret, the red teacher, the universal solvent, the philosophers stone, or as Paracelsus trademarked it: Alkahest. Many say it was only a myth, others say it was a rarely known chemical, some say its been lost to history, and some still search for it today. Anyway, on with the facts.

In his thirties he was given the honor of professorship at the university of Basel, but because of his radically prideful behavior (such as holding a public book burning of Galen’s literature) he didn’t maintain that title for long. After being denounced from Basel Paracelsus returned to his life of wondering. He met many doctors who insulted his abilities, but he turned the tables on them by curing several bad cases of elephantiasis. He spent the next ten years traveling and preforming cures that were amazingly advanced for the time. He traveled through Machren, Kaernthen, Krain, and Hungary, and finally landed in Salzburg Austria where he met the Prince Palatine, a great lover of the secret science of alchemy. He was offered by the prince a position as the royal alchemist, but sadly fate had other plans for him. Paracelsus died in 1541, after a short illness (or as some say after a scuffle with assassins sent by the orthodox medical agency). His body was lay to rest at the St Sebastian graveyard, but his documented studies and literature have long outlived him.

I had quite a good time researching this particular fella, and have decided to buy a book of his writings. Fun fact for any anime fans out there, Paracelsus was the inspiration for Edward and Alphonse’s father in the manga and anime Fullmetal Alchemist.

For this essay we were asked to choose a chapter of the book we’ve been reading, Cliches of Socialism, and explain why the cliche is incorrect. The chapter I chose states the theory: “Moonlighting increases unemployment.” Moonlighting is a term that describes the act of someone getting a second night job on top of their normal day job. It’s also the title of a decent 80’s movie, but that’s not what this essay is about.

In the swingin’ 30’s employees were in a bit of a rut. Well, wannabe employees that is, since unemployment was through the roof. To try to assist with this, the government published new regulations. These regulations stated that any employee that works over 40 hours a week would be paid an extra 50% for their efforts. This law was supposed to inspire those unemployed to try to get multiple jobs, or at the very least inspire them to aim for over 40 hours of work a week. But the issue with unemployment wasn’t the unemployed, but the companies that refused to hire. And these new regulations only made these companies want to hire less. They were now forced to pay more for anyone working over 40 hours, so try did their best to keep their employees working under 40 hours. This limited the efficiency, as well as the innovation. On top of this they stopped hiring new people, since they had to pay more for the ones they already had. This limited the companies growth, and caused America’s depression to rage on. It raged on all the way until the 1940’s, when it was ironically stopped by World War II’s need of weapons and the demand for people to work on them.

The truth of the matter is, usually it’s innovation that causes unemployment. Companies want to pay as little for their labor as they can. So if a bright and shiny newfangled invention comes along that could cut the costs of labor in half well, lets just say the costly individual working for them will not be the companies highest priority. So the individual gets fired, the machine replaces them for cheap, and the company giddily pays less. This is how its always been, and most likely how it will always be. Blaming a companies greed and lack of employee empathy on moonlighting is ridiculous.

Moonlighting does not increase unemployment, in fact it does the opposite. It allows hardworking people to fill the demand of the night shift. True, there are people who only work the night shift, and giving the job to someone who also has a day job takes away the night shifter’s position. But such is the way of life, survival of the fittest. Survival of the employee who’s the fastest, or most imaginative, or most efficient. The employee that works the hardest should get the position, and if someone is smart and determined enough to win a second job on top of his first than he should be rewarded with the income for both. The lesser employee who would have gotten the position must look elsewhere, must settle for a less convenient job. This may seem like unemployment at first glance, but on the contrary its actually employing those that deserve it. Employment is a privilege, not a right. And as we see from the 1930’s when the government steps in to try to accommodate the undeserving companies simply stifle their employee growth. They give the jobs to machines, gears and wires that cost a lot less than flesh and blood. And that rejected, jobless flesh and blood has to go hungry, with only the light of the moon but no career to go with it.

Prompt: “How was Don Quixote’s knight-errant oath in conflict with his deathbed oath?”

The book, Don Quixote, tells of a man who went mad as a result of obsession. Don Quixote lived in the 16th century, long after the knights of medieval times had been rendered obsolete. Despite this Don Quixote spent his time locked in his library, regaling himself with tales of chivalry and knighthood. He eventually got so obsessed with these stories that he started suffering delusions. He abandoned his house and family, on a deranged quest to find his knights-errant.

He found a woman who he hardly knew, and pronounced her his one and only love. It was in her name that he gave an oath of chivalry, then he rode off to find someone who could dub him an official knight. He rode until he came across an inn, which he interpreted as a castle. He approached the innkeeper, insisting that the head of this “castle” must dub him a knight. The innkeeper played along, and so the official knight Don Quixote was born. He knew that a strapping knight such as himself should have a decent squire, so he once again rode off searching for someone to fill the role.

He met a peasant named Sancho Panza, who he lured into the position of squire with promises of wealth and fortune. Sancho wasn’t completely seduced by Don’s false promises, but he was intrigued enough to abandon his family to come along with him. Together they went on many misadventures, Sancho starting out skeptical but eventually losing himself to Don Quixote’s fantasies. The most famous of these misadventures is the tale of the tilting at windmills. In this Don Quixote spies a group of windmills, and mistakes them for giants. His squire Sancho tries to make him come to his senses, but Don Quixote replies by saying, “It is easy to see, that thou art not used to this business of adventures; those are giants; and if thou art afraid, away with thee out of this and betake thyself to prayer while I engage them in fierce and unequal combat.” As you can see Don Quixote was as charismatic as he was insane, and Sancho was eventually so entranced that he began experiencing the same delusions as his counterpart.

On his deathbed Don Quixote finally came to his senses. He realized that his oath of knighthood interfered with his original oath, that is to be a sane and stable head of his household. Don realized that he wasted most of the latter half of his life chasing fantasies and nonsense, and he realized that the chivalry he had obsessed on was as useless as it was a dead practice. In his last few minutes of life he denounced his knightly oath, and re-embraced his original oath of being a fair and stable head of house. Then he died, knowing that after all his mistakes he finally regained his sanity.