One thing which is suggested by the letters themselves is that Locke’s courtship was not rewarded as he hoped. “P.E.” welcomed love, but of a different sort from that which Locke offered her. She wanted a rarefied spiritual love. Locke was more ardent. He protested first with sadness and later with bitterness that her love was too cold. …
In another letter he assured “P.E.” that she was right in thinking he wished to come back to Oxford for the sake of people there; but he said she was wrong in putting her name after that of another person. However, he asked her to increase as much as she could that other person’s friendship for him. This other person was named in the letter as “Mr. T” and Locke was a little jealous of him. He told “P.E.” he could not believe that the new friendship between her and “Mr. T” would ruin their friendship, but it looks as if he was afraid that it might.
–Maurice Cranston, John Locke: A Biography, p. 48.
… [T]here were double meanings in
the Necronomicon of the mad Arab
Abdul Alhazred which the initiated
might read as they chose ….
Sometimes two terms can be the same in reference but different in sense, like “the morning star” and “the evening star,” or “Mark Twain” and “Samuel Clemens,” or … “John Galt” and “Cthulhu.” Continue reading
About a year ago, I attended a meeting of Narcotics Anonymous (NA) as part of an assignment for a class on addictions counseling I’d been taking in the Master’s in Counseling Program at Felician University. Struck by the philosophical richness of what I’d encountered at the meeting, I thought I’d reproduce a version of my report on it here in case readers found it of any interest. In the interests of preserving the confidentiality of the group’s members, I’ve omitted any identifying features of the meeting with respect to time, place, and the identity of those present, describing the event only in the most general way. My aim here is to reflect on matters of general principle, not to dwell on the particulars of anyone’s life. Continue reading
For Berlin, Palestine, our southern border, and everywhere else it applies.
Soon after Abu Bakr Baghdadi was killed by American forces back in October, a lot of “woke” people, including some of my FB friends, took to Facebook and just about everywhere else to voice their outrage over the fact that The Washington Post had described Baghdadi, in their obituary of him, as an “austere scholar.” Boy, had the Post lost its way. Just sick. Continue reading
I have in the past criticized the U.S. government’s decision to bar Tariq Ramadan’s entry into this country on ideological grounds (26 page PDF). This isn’t because I have any admiration for Ramadan, to put it mildly, but because I don’t think that decisions to allow entry into a country should be made on ideological grounds. Genuine security concerns are one thing; ideological objections are another. The distinction isn’t that hard to draw, and shouldn’t be that hard to respect. In Ramadan’s case, we neither drew nor respected it. We managed in the process to make a martyr of him and take a crap on our own principles. Continue reading
I don’t consider myself a libertarian any more, and am not sure I ever was one in a wholehearted way, but I can say this much: once upon a time, I held a more clearly libertarian position about politics than I currently do. I heard a story on NPR yesterday that reminded me of a puzzle that my libertarian commitments generated (in combination with some of the commitments that I took to cohere with it), but that I never ended up resolving. Maybe some reader can resolve the puzzle and tell me where I went wrong. Continue reading
The latest issue of Reason Papers–the first issue edited by Shawn Klein (Arizona State University)–is now out. This issue contains (among other things) the long-awaited symposium on Vicente’s Medina’s Terrorism Unjustified, based on an Author-Meets-Critics session held at Felician University in April 2018. Thanks to everyone who worked on the issue, and especially to Shawn, for the work they put into it. Incidentally, though there isn’t one in this issue, the journal often runs a “Discussion Notes” section for responses to material in previous issues. So if you feel inclined to respond to anything you read here, send something along to Shawn via the journal.
My friend, erstwhile Felician colleague, and quasi-neighbor Joe Biehl has a nice piece in Areo on philosophy’s role as resistance to social reality. Read it.