Lazy weekend

Pushed through Book 2 of Republic while doing some yard work this weekend. Book 2 is quite engaging. Book 1 is a somewhat jumbled discussion on justice and what it means. He goes back and forth with Cephalus and Thrasymachus, unfortunately sometimes reaching conclusions that later turn false. Book 2 is much more straightforward and in accordance with my idea of a Socratic discussion. The premise is that by analyzing a just city, one can more easily identify the heart of justice in a person. Thus, the second book involves Socrates and Glaucon creating a new city from scratch, and in doing so identifying all that which is good for a city. This meshes well with Leviathan, and indeed the two share many common themes. I was rather surprised that Socrates (technically Plato) supported limitless censorship in order that the city may better raise its citizens. So far, I have not come across a competent defense of freedom of expression, though I expect Locke or Mill had some good ideas to that end. I tend to agree with this more conservative view of government. Socrates opines that the telling of lies or false truths is not permitted of any citizen, but the government may utilize it as they wish. I support that. To draw from Hobbes, the sovereignty must have the power to do whatever it will to provide for the safety and prosperity of its citizens. If, as Socrates uses as an example, poets will tell tales that make soldiers less likely to die in battle and more likely to surrender, then it is clearly in every citizen's interest for the sovereignty to outlaw those offending poems.

Of course Republic has much more substance to it, but I can't cover it all. In reading Hobbes this weekend, I have the whole time been reading of Christian commonwealths. Once again, I think Hobbes had a very keen sense of how civil sovereignty can be reconciled with the dominion of religion. Unfortunately, that is also why his contemporaries considered him an atheist and a heretic (heretique, in those days). To provide an example, religion expounds on the 'Kingdom of God', which is not yet come, but lies in the future. Religion, therefore, are a set of instructions on how to live in that future; not laws, but advice or counsel. This is because nothing may abrogate the sole right to lawmaking of the civil sovereignty. Where the civil government is meshed with religion, Hobbes is a bit more vague, but it seems as though the civil sovereignty is still the sole power. I can understand why his peers considered him subversive, though he paid due respect to the Christian faith.

I took the opportunity of watching a few TED talks this weekend. One on flowering plants. Botany is always interesting, and I think that opening my eyes to the natural world couldn't be considered a bad thing. There are, apparently, 250 million species of flowering plants alone. That large number certainly deserves that I pay some attention to their organization and disposition. A second talk was on epidemiology, on the eradication of smallpox in 2006. An absolutely wondrous accomplishment, that was. I rather like the more social side of epidemiology; of course pharmacology would be dry and require endless study, but a broad study of epidemiology would be nothing but beneficial. Finally, a talk on how extremism better uses social networks and organizational tools than do established groups for democracy or other social good. I think that's a particularly important thing to understand. In the video, it was claimed that we have moved into the third stage of modern sociology - from ethnic identity, to national identity, to an identity of common belief. I hope to find more on this topic.

I ran across iTunes U this weekend. Had seen it before, but it is much more developed now. Seems like an excellent opportunity for while I am commuting or running or working in the yard or whatever.