We at the Center of the Universe by John Lukacs

Published in 2017, Lukacs's 93rd year

The publication of a book of essays by John Lukacs certainly gives us something to celebrate and ponder. "Celebrate" because Lukacs notes in a couple of these essays that they're written in his 92nd and 93rd years of life. "Ponder" because Lukacs says that he doesn't expect to publish more. I hope that he's wrong, but he has left of a treasure trove of works that contemplate not only significant events in history but that ponder everything from his unique life to our place "at the center of the universe." He ranges from the microcosm to the macrocosm, turning his careful eye to a wide variety of situations, including those of our own lives and those of our ancestors. Celebrate, ponder, and rejoice in the legacy he has provided us.

But at this point, I have to share one disappointment. When I learned the title of the book and of its impending publication, I thought it would surely include or expand upon an essay that Lukacs had written and published in The American Scholar (200) entitled "Putting Man Before Descartes."  The lead essay in this book, "At the Center of the Universe" serves as a coda to the earlier, lengthier essay. It would have been much better if the publisher would have (or could have?) included that essay, which to my knowledge has not been published outside of its original inclusion in The American Scholar. The earlier essay and this essay reflect upon the issue of the knower and the known, which allows Lukacs to display his formidable speculative and philosophical side. As in his Historical Consciousness, he draws upon the earlier practitioners of quantum physics and the English thinker Owen Barfield to explore our place in the universe and how we perceive it. Barfield, beginning in the 1920s, and then after a long hiatus, beginning again in the 1950s, developed a participatory epistemology that is too little appreciated. But Lukacs appreciates it, and he became familiar with Barfield and Barfield's work. This, too, is apparent in the "Putting Man Before Descartes" essay as well as here. Like Barfield, Lukacs is acutely concerned with humankind and our place in this universe in a way that stands outside--but not wholly outside--much of popular scientific thought. History serves as a way of knowing ourselves. 

For those interested, the essay "Putting Man Before Descartes" is cited in my earlier blog post, and you can find many quotes taken from the essay there. I highly commend it. 

The remaining essays in this brief book cover a variety of topics that Lukacs has written about before, but each one provides a welcome further exploration or consideration of what might otherwise be tired topics. Churchill, Stalin, the 1920s, and Madame Bovary are among the subjects that Lukacs considers, carefully examining and judging each topic as if it was a long-lost artifact that held untold secrets for us to tease out. As with almost all of his writing, I get the sense that I'm listening to a master discourse to his students as he ponders a topic. Lukacs's writing style always gives me the feeling that I'm listening to his thinking, not eavesdropping, but that I'm invited in to share his discoveries as he's writing them. It is a joy, and one that I hope doesn't stop with this book, but if it does, I have a shelf-full of his books that I can (and have) gone back to time and again to re-discover and savor this brilliant writer. 

The Ethics of Serving a Corrupt Leader

Some reflections on the two articles linked below. The first paragraph is based on the Rosenstein article, and the rest (starting with Seneca) goes to the McMaster article. For a rundown on Seneca and his relationship with Nero, read this summary of a book about it: Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero by James Romm. 

One thing that every lawyer has to pay attention to--even if he or she doesn't care about it--is ethics. (Very few don't care & most don't violate, but your cynical comments may be shared below). And, as I will illustrate by another post, the U.S. military (thank goodness) has a strong ethos of service and political neutrality. But how does one negotiate situations when one has to deal with a corrupt client? For lawyers, this is a common enough problem: some of my clients were violent criminals and some were slimy creeps (and the two sets didn't necessarily overlap). It's tough. But what if your client (or boss, in any event) is the president of the United States? How do you serve your country and yet avoid the taint that someone you serve is compared to mob bosses he's prosecuted by the former top law enforcement officer in the U.S. government (FBI Director)? Do you resign & "save your soul"? Or do you serve, knowing that you will become identified with any wrongdoing and likely get stabbed in the back for your efforts? Another post will follow, this one about a military officer who served in the #45 administration.

The Stoic philosopher Seneca served the Roman emperor Nero (of fiddle fame). For his trouble, Seneca was allowed to commit suicide after Nero turned on him. But he served while he could. So it is that some are called who feel duty-bound to serve, such as General McMaster. What should he have done? As he did? Ditto with General (ret.) Mattis, perhaps the last "adult" left to try to check #45's impulses? I feel for McMaster--he didn't even last in the job long enough for this piece about his work to be published! Again: what are the ethics requirements of those who would serve a corrupt figure, even if he is the lawful president of the U.S.?

Also, on a side note, the beginning of the article delves into the fact that the president is (essentially) a functional illiterate. That is (and these are my words) not to say that he can't read, but that he doesn't, for whatever reason, choose to read. That he is a "visual learner" or "better at listening" (that's a good one!) are so much BS. But in any event, he chooses not to read and in the end, I don't see that's functionally different from being unable to read. Shouldn't our president read? Aren't there important things that are conveyed by the written word that he should know about? I think so, but perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.

McMaster and Commander

Can a national-security adviser retain his integrity if the President has none?

NEWYORKER.COM

Opinion | Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and the Art of Survival

Sometimes the best way to do justice is to compromise with those who would deny it.

NYTIMES.COM

What the Qur'an Meant: And Why It Matters by Garry Wills

Another liberal arts education in a short book

The most recent book by Garry Wills takes off from where he left off with three of his earlier book What Jesus Meant, What the Gospels Meant, and What Paul Meant. Now, he turns his attention to What the Qur'an Meant--And Why It Matters (2017). The first three books draw upon Wills's status as a classicist and as one of the foremost Catholic intellectuals of our time. But so why go into this new arena, and of what value might he bring to his endeavor? He answers the first part of the question--the "why?"--in the first three chapters. As should be apparent to all of us, the Islamic world is one that holds considerable sway for Americans, and our ignorance about the world of Islam is abounding. As to the second issue, about the value of his endeavor, it's true that he's not an Arabist and cannot read the Qur'an in its original text (unlike the Greek and Latin texts of Christianity he's pondered), but he brings the same patient scholarship and care to reading that he brings to the more familiar Christian texts. 

By reading this book, we learn about the meaning of jihad (struggle), shari'ah, and a host of other (sort of) familiar parts of the Qur'an. We learn that jihad is about struggle and that shari'ah refers to the right (straight) path, similar to some familiar Biblical injunctions. Also, we learn about Mohammed's thoughts (or more precisely, those of the Qur'an) about fellow people of the Book (Jews and Christians), who are to be treated with peace and forbearance. That there have been times when such peace and forbearance has not occurred reminds us how often those claiming fidelity to each of the three great monotheisms have fallen below from the intentions of the prophets. Some practices dictated by the Qur'an now seem archaic, if not barbaric. But if these are a mark against Islam, so are many of the actions and directives found in the Talmud and the New Testament, especially about the treatment of women. The wearing of the hijab (veil) is the least of problems: to many Muslim women, wearing some veil serves as a sign of feminism. 

Like each of the many books that Wills has written, one gets a mini-liberal arts education. Wills deftly mixes the problems associated with our contemporary ignorance and misunderstanding of Islam (and the consequent messes in Iraq and Afghanistan that we suffered) with a deep understanding of the Book that gave rise to this extraordinary religion about 1300 years ago. In a short book, I learned a great deal about what guides millions and millions of my fellow humans. It's well worth the time and effort. 

On Fear with Garry Wills

Garry Wills, 83 years-old & still at it. Rejoice!

I've just embarked on reading What the Qur'an Meant: And Why It Matters by Garry Wills (2017).


The first section of the book addresses the awful decision to invade Iraq after the 9/11 attacks, and in particular, he has a chapter entitled "Fearful Ignorance" that resonated with me. I've written before that fear is a wonderful warning system and an awful guidance system. Wills, I think--although much more articulately--says much the same thing. The chapter discusses the fears and attendant decisions of the post 9/11 era and the problems that arose from these fear-based decisions. He also, quite aptly, compares these reactions to the Cold War hysteria about communism. It's not that we needn't have had any fears about Communist subversion during the Cold War or about Islamic terrorism, but that fears become inflated and exploited and become counter-productive. His book (the remainder from this point) explores the Qur'an to learn what it really says and how it is not "the enemy."  

Fear is rarely a good guide. The first impulse when disaster strikes to run around, as the saying goes, like a chicken with its head cut off. Just when the head is most, it is the hardest thing to find. President Roosevelt, struggling for calm during the Great Depression, wisely counseled that " the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." yet even he yielded to fear after Parel Harbor, consigning a hundred thousand loyal Japanese Americans to concentration camps, expropriating their property, and denying them court procedures. (54)

What caused that fear? [Of Islam after 9/11] In a word, war. War, as Clausewitz argued, tends of itself to become total because of a reciprocal "ratcheting-up" (Wechselwirkung) of hostilities. In order to mobilize reaction to war conditions, threats from the foe must be emphasized, stating or overstating the peril-- which prompts any foe, actual or potential, to resond in kind. When hostilities occur, no matter who commits them, they are often attributed to an entire body of adversaries, which may not even have known about them. (58)

Fear, no matter how justified initially, slips easily out of any restraints imposed on it. (58-59)

Our enemy in this war [War on Terror} is far less localizable than it was in World War II or the Cold War. It was hard enough to find and defeat an ism like Communism. Terror is a tool, not a country. Declaring a war on it is less like normal warfare, country versus country. It is more like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. These have often seemed wars on phantoms, fought with tools randomly or overly used, getting results hyped as promising or intended to encourage further efforts, with strong lunges in wrong directions justified by consolatory gestures, as cash evanesces into the indiscernible. There is no VE Day or VJ day in such wars. (61)

Living with fear is corrosive. It depletes the patience to sort out threats and to calibrate responses. The less we know about the reality of Islam, the more we will fight shadows and false emanations from our own apprehension. Ignorance is the natural ally of fear. It's time to learn about the real Islam, beginning with its source book, the Qur'an. (61) 

Why Grow Up? by Susan Neiman

Published in 2014

In this book, philosopher Susan Neiman examines a simple but provocative question: why grow up?

But as one quickly recognizes, simple questions often don't yield simple answers, and this question provides no exception. What we get then is the answer in a short but enlightening book. And I use the term "enlightening" quite intentionally, for Neiman draws upon some of the most significant names of the Enlightenment to provide some answers to her simple question. Her discussion includes Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume. Along with way, you also encounter Plato, the Stoics, Cicero, Simone De Beauvoir, Hannah Arendt, and Paul Goodman. This is a book about growing up, but it's not a book for children. 

The theme underlying this book is that growing up is no treat, and it's not easy adjusting oneself to an imperfect world and our flawed incarnation in it. How should we initiate children into this world? And how should we either accept the requirements of adulthood or attempt to slough them off?

Because this is a short book, I'll keep my review short. But if you're on the path to adulthood or thinking about shepherding in your young ones, this book provides a thoughtful perspective on this challenge. 

Unconstitutional War

This article (link below)  makes an absolutely crucial argument: the strike against Syria was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The author, con law lawyer Garrett Epps, doesn't argue that the strike was immoral (maybe, maybe not; although I think not) or illegal under international law (almost certainly). No, without congressional authorization, even under the War Powers Act, the president cannot order an attack on a sovereign nation as he did here unless that nation has attacked us (it hasn't). Congress could authorize such an attack, but it routinely abrogates its constitutional duties. Most congressional representatives--Democrats and Republicans--don't want to take a stand. Any choice--because there is no "good" choice--will prove unpopular with some segment of voters. And for this, Paul Ryan and others will draw a fat pension.

Let's be clear about this. This isn't about Trump, it isn't about Republicans, it isn't even about Syria--it's about the U.S. Constitution and the blatant disregard of the Constitution.

This needs to stop.

The Unconstitutional Strike on Syria

The Constitution still requires congressional authorization for an attack on another country. The requirement is not a formality.

THEATLANTIC.COM

The Return of Marco Polo's World: War, Strategy, & American Interests in the Twenty-first Century by Robert D. Kaplan

Robert Kaplan and his most recent book

Robert D. Kaplan's latest book (2018) is a collection of essays that he's written for publications such as The Atlantic, The American Interest, The National Interest, and the Washington Post. These essays provide an excellent entry into his observations and thinking if you're not already acquainted with his work, and they offer a delightful refresher if you're already acquainted with him, as I am. Kaplan describes himself (no doubt accurately) as a "foreign correspondent." But he's a foreign correspondent steeped in a profound and continuing reading of history and in particular, the history of relations between nations (which includes everything from tribes to empires to nation-states, as well as anarchical situations). This acquaintance with history allows him to achieve exquisite focus on the particulars of the here-and-now around the world (especially Asia, Africa, and Europe). This broad knowledge enables him to pull back from the tight focus to see the big picture of how the world is (and has) worked in the myriad relations between actors on the world stage, from disaffected demographic groups (young Muslim males) to nation-states and empires. 

  The subjects in this collection of essays are diverse. Three of them are profiles of foreign affairs thinkers (and actors): Henry Kissinger (whom Kaplan calls "a close friend"); the late Samuel Huntington, a Harvard professor and veteran of a couple the Johnson and Carter administrations; and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, the chief proponent of "offensive realism" and a noted commentator about U.S. relations with China. Each of these three thinkers shares the designation of "realist" with Kaplan, although none of them prove to be beyond Kaplan's criticism on some points. All three subjects have been lightening-rods for harsh criticism, so Kaplan's generally sympathetic treatment of each of them provides a useful anecdote the heavy dose of invective that you can find about each of them elsewhere. 

Other essays address such topics as the literature of the Vietnam War and the warrior ethos, the consequences of the fall of North Korea (written in 2006), the wounds of war, and so on. But the most interesting to me were those that examined the relations between states in Asia, developments on the Eurasian continent, and how these developments affect the U.S.  As a part of this, Kaplan discusses the uses of empire and how (at least until the advent of the Trump administration), the U.S. and its support of international institutions, served as an empire to help ease relations in a world of nation-states. His discussion of the Obama administrations actions and attitudes in this regard is insightful and merits careful consideration. 

With President Trump, we have in office a man of woeful ignorance about history and foreign relations. And without leadership from the top, we may not garner a clear picture of how the U.S. will conduct its grand strategy at present. But reading Kaplan, who identifies the fissures and fault lines that will shake us in the future, we know that these threats lie in wait, and we can perhaps only hope for the best.