# philosopher's club, anyone?



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

so there's been a sailors fight club. big deal. this is a chance for a thread that really separates the men from the boys. people get tiffed when morally/socially important stuff is brought up in mundane threads, so i thought it might be good for a thread to talk about the important issues without waking anyone up.

an example might be what it means to be a privileged cruiser in a third world country. or the death of someone at sea. gender roles and sailing.

what about it? seems to me we could use a little highbrow stuff for a change 

brevity is the soul of wit, and since the point isn't to be witty but to talk intelligently, longer posts should be encouraged - have something to say and take the space you need to say it. 

note that this post is a discussion of the thread not the thread itself. if there is interest, we should start a different thread, simply labeled philosopher's club. if that's too confusing you probably clicked on this link by mistake.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sounds interesting.


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

I don't think it has a place on this site. If I want to reach out and touch someone, I'll roll over or pick up the phone.


----------



## bsfree (Oct 25, 2001)

I used to want to change the world. Now I'd just like to leave the room, with a little dignity.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

How many posts before this thread turns into a battle over differing political and religious beliefs? Should be in Off Topic Hoff . . . you think (therefore you are)?


----------



## AboardIndigo (Aug 23, 2007)

TrueBlue said:


> How many posts before this thread turns into a battle over differing political and religious beliefs?


This thread, or the proposed philosopher's club thread?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

TrueBlue said:


> How many posts before this thread turns into a battle over differing political and religious beliefs? Should be in Off Topic Hoff . . . you think (therefore you are)?


You make a good point, TB--it does often seem to go that way here, doesn't it?


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

Either, or . . . Indi.


----------



## AboardIndigo (Aug 23, 2007)

TrueBlue said:


> Either, or . . . Indi.


Likely both. 

To expect anything else is to be guilty of having unrealistic expectations.

Why do I suddenly feel like quoting Yoda?


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

I have a teddy bear I want to name.


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

TrueBlue said:


> How many posts before this thread turns into a battle over differing political and religious beliefs? Should be in Off Topic Hoff . . . you think (therefore you are)?


Because if it's a philosophical thread, it shouldn't degenerate into that; the point to philosophy is enquiry, not scoring points. and there are moderators out there earning big bucks for the privilege of keeping the kids from throwing sand in each other's faces.

and as for the assertion it has no place in this site, the problem is every assertion is philosophical in nature, including the points raised here; what i'm suggestion is some thought about what lies behind our assumptions that we constantly make when we say something at sailnet.

there's already a lot of cheese and sandbox antics, as long as it's on topic, what could it hurt? and it would be important to stay on topic; there's a wealth of stuff in regards to sailing that could b be dug into. but if there really isn't the interest i won't be babbling to myself


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

I don't quite get it (what's being proposed for this "club", that is). But then again, I typically stay away from the off-topic section and political/social/moral discussion threads. I'll show myself to the door.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

HoffaLives said:


> Because if it's a philosophical thread, it shouldn't degenerate into that; the point to philosophy is enquiry, not scoring points.


 I get it, and it shouldn't, but it will . . . guaranteed. Everyone knows that the most quoted philosophers were ( /are) politicians and religious leaders, not sailors

Who's going to police the thread and make the decisions over what stays - and what doesn't belong, in a "sailing philosophy" discussion? Whatever the hell that is. 

Edit - I think it's a good idea for a thread - but only in Off topic.


----------



## AboardIndigo (Aug 23, 2007)

I get the feeling that if this goes ahead I'll become ensnarled in an argument with myself.

The hoff's original premise was that the philosopher's club should focus on philosophical discussions about sailing-related issues. This, by definition makes it "sailing-related".

Taking the position that the thread belongs in off-topic as opposed to sailing-related is tough to defend...


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

I suppose than, the inevitable digression to discussions of non-sailing related beliefs will be tolerated by the mods, regardless of the thread's existence in a sailing related forum.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

On the other hand - this seems to be the general trend with ALL threads anyway. Moot point TB.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Book I

1

ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the
delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness
they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of
sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not
going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything
else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know
and brings to light many differences between things.
By nature animals are born with the faculty of sensation, and from
sensation memory is produced in some of them, though not in others.
And therefore the former are more intelligent and apt at learning than
those which cannot remember; those which are incapable of hearing
sounds are intelligent though they cannot be taught, e.g. the bee, and
any other race of animals that may be like it; and those which besides
memory have this sense of hearing can be taught.
The animals other than man live by appearances and memories, and
have but little of connected experience; but the human race lives also
by art and reasonings. Now from memory experience is produced in
men; for the several memories of the same thing produce finally the
capacity for a single experience. And experience seems pretty much
like science and art, but really science and art come to men through
experience; for 'experience made art', as Polus says, 'but
inexperience luck.' Now art arises when from many notions gained by
experience one universal judgement about a class of objects is
produced. For to have a judgement that when Callias was ill of this
disease this did him good, and similarly in the case of Socrates and
in many individual cases, is a matter of experience; but to judge that
it has done good to all persons of a certain constitution, marked
off in one class, when they were ill of this disease, e.g. to
phlegmatic or bilious people when burning with fevers-this is a matter
of art.
With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to
art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have
theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge
of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all
concerned with the individual; for the physician does not cure man,
except in an incidental way, but Callias or Socrates or some other
called by some such individual name, who happens to be a man. If,
then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes
the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he
will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be
cured.) But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to
art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than
men of experience (which implies that Wisdom depends in all cases
rather on knowledge); and this because the former know the cause,
but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is
so, but do not know why, while the others know the 'why' and the
cause. Hence we think also that the masterworkers in each craft are
more honourable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the
manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are
done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things
which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire
burns,-but while the lifeless things perform each of their functions
by a natural tendency, the labourers perform them through habit); thus
we view them as being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of
having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes. And in
general it is a sign of the man who knows and of the man who does
not know, that the former can teach, and therefore we think art more
truly knowledge than experience is; for artists can teach, and men
of mere experience cannot.
Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely
these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they
do not tell us the 'why' of anything-e.g. why fire is hot; they only
say that it is hot.
At first he who invented any art whatever that went beyond the
common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only
because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he
was thought wise and superior to the rest. But as more arts were
invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to
recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded
as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of
knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence when all such inventions
were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving
pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in
the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the
mathematical arts were founded in Egypt; for there the priestly
caste was allowed to be at leisure.
We have said in the Ethics what the difference is between art
and science and the other kindred faculties; but the point of our
present discussion is this, that all men suppose what is called Wisdom
to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that,
as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be
wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist
wiser than the men of experience, the masterworker than the
mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the
nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then Wisdom is knowledge
about certain principles and causes.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

TrueBlue said:


> Moot point TB.


See, I'm already arguing with myself.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

2

Since we are seeking this knowledge, we must inquire of what
kind are the causes and the principles, the knowledge of which is
Wisdom. If one were to take the notions we have about the wise man,
this might perhaps make the answer more evident. We suppose first,
then, that the wise man knows all things, as far as possible, although
he has not knowledge of each of them in detail; secondly, that he
who can learn things that are difficult, and not easy for man to know,
is wise (sense-perception is common to all, and therefore easy and
no mark of Wisdom); again, that he who is more exact and more
capable of teaching the causes is wiser, in every branch of knowledge;
and that of the sciences, also, that which is desirable on its own
account and for the sake of knowing it is more of the nature of Wisdom
than that which is desirable on account of its results, and the
superior science is more of the nature of Wisdom than the ancillary;
for the wise man must not be ordered but must order, and he must not
obey another, but the less wise must obey him.
Such and so many are the notions, then, which we have about Wisdom
and the wise. Now of these characteristics that of knowing all
things must belong to him who has in the highest degree universal
knowledge; for he knows in a sense all the instances that fall under
the universal. And these things, the most universal, are on the
whole the hardest for men to know; for they are farthest from the
senses. And the most exact of the sciences are those which deal most
with first principles; for those which involve fewer principles are
more exact than those which involve additional principles, e.g.
arithmetic than geometry. But the science which investigates causes is
also instructive, in a higher degree, for the people who instruct us
are those who tell the causes of each thing. And understanding and
knowledge pursued for their own sake are found most in the knowledge
of that which is most knowable (for he who chooses to know for the
sake of knowing will choose most readily that which is most truly
knowledge, and such is the knowledge of that which is most
knowable); and the first principles and the causes are most
knowable; for by reason of these, and from these, all other things
come to be known, and not these by means of the things subordinate
to them. And the science which knows to what end each thing must be
done is the most authoritative of the sciences, and more authoritative
than any ancillary science; and this end is the good of that thing,
and in general the supreme good in the whole of nature. Judged by
all the tests we have mentioned, then, the name in question falls to
the same science; this must be a science that investigates the first
principles and causes; for the good, i.e. the end, is one of the
causes.
That it is not a science of production is clear even from the
history of the earliest philosophers. For it is owing to their
wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize;
they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced
little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters,
e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the
stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled
and wonders thinks himself ignorant (whence even the lover of myth
is in a sense a lover of Wisdom, for the myth is composed of wonders);
therefore since they philosophized order to escape from ignorance,
evidently they were pursuing science in order to know, and not for any
utilitarian end. And this is confirmed by the facts; for it was when
almost all the necessities of life and the things that make for
comfort and recreation had been secured, that such knowledge began
to be sought. Evidently then we do not seek it for the sake of any
other advantage; but as the man is free, we say, who exists for his
own sake and not for another's, so we pursue this as the only free
science, for it alone exists for its own sake.
Hence also the possession of it might be justly regarded as beyond
human power; for in many ways human nature is in bondage, so that
according to Simonides 'God alone can have this privilege', and it
is unfitting that man should not be content to seek the knowledge that
is suited to him. If, then, there is something in what the poets
say, and jealousy is natural to the divine power, it would probably
occur in this case above all, and all who excelled in this knowledge
would be unfortunate. But the divine power cannot be jealous (nay,
according to the proverb, 'bards tell a lie'), nor should any other
science be thought more honourable than one of this sort. For the most
divine science is also most honourable; and this science alone must
be, in two ways, most divine. For the science which it would be most
meet for God to have is a divine science, and so is any science that
deals with divine objects; and this science alone has both these
qualities; for (1) God is thought to be among the causes of all things
and to be a first principle, and (2) such a science either God alone
can have, or God above all others. All the sciences, indeed, are
more necessary than this, but none is better.
Yet the acquisition of it must in a sense end in something which
is the opposite of our original inquiries. For all men begin, as we
said, by wondering that things are as they are, as they do about
self-moving marionettes, or about the solstices or the
incommensurability of the diagonal of a square with the side; for it
seems wonderful to all who have not yet seen the reason, that there is
a thing which cannot be measured even by the smallest unit. But we
must end in the contrary and, according to the proverb, the better
state, as is the case in these instances too when men learn the cause;
for there is nothing which would surprise a geometer so much as if the
diagonal turned out to be commensurable.
We have stated, then, what is the nature of the science we are
searching for, and what is the mark which our search and our whole
investigation must reach.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

3

Evidently we have to acquire knowledge of the original causes (for
we say we know each thing only when we think we recognize its first
cause), and causes are spoken of in four senses. In one of these we
mean the substance, i.e. the essence (for the 'why' is reducible
finally to the definition, and the ultimate 'why' is a cause and
principle); in another the matter or substratum, in a third the source
of the change, and in a fourth the cause opposed to this, the
purpose and the good (for this is the end of all generation and
change). We have studied these causes sufficiently in our work on
nature, but yet let us call to our aid those who have attacked the
investigation of being and philosophized about reality before us.
For obviously they too speak of certain principles and causes; to go
over their views, then, will be of profit to the present inquiry,
for we shall either find another kind of cause, or be more convinced
of the correctness of those which we now maintain.
Of the first philosophers, then, most thought the principles which
were of the nature of matter were the only principles of all things.
That of which all things that are consist, the first from which they
come to be, the last into which they are resolved (the substance
remaining, but changing in its modifications), this they say is the
element and this the principle of things, and therefore they think
nothing is either generated or destroyed, since this sort of entity is
always conserved, as we say Socrates neither comes to be absolutely
when he comes to be beautiful or musical, nor ceases to be when
loses these characteristics, because the substratum, Socrates
himself remains. just so they say nothing else comes to be or ceases
to be; for there must be some entity-either one or more than
one-from which all other things come to be, it being conserved.
Yet they do not all agree as to the number and the nature of these
principles. Thales, the founder of this type of philosophy, says the
principle is water (for which reason he declared that the earth
rests on water), getting the notion perhaps from seeing that the
nutriment of all things is moist, and that heat itself is generated
from the moist and kept alive by it (and that from which they come
to be is a principle of all things). He got his notion from this fact,
and from the fact that the seeds of all things have a moist nature,
and that water is the origin of the nature of moist things.
Some think that even the ancients who lived long before the
present generation, and first framed accounts of the gods, had a
similar view of nature; for they made Ocean and Tethys the parents
of creation, and described the oath of the gods as being by water,
to which they give the name of Styx; for what is oldest is most
honourable, and the most honourable thing is that by which one swears.
It may perhaps be uncertain whether this opinion about nature is
primitive and ancient, but Thales at any rate is said to have declared
himself thus about the first cause. Hippo no one would think fit to
include among these thinkers, because of the paltriness of his
thought.
Anaximenes and Diogenes make air prior to water, and the most
primary of the simple bodies, while Hippasus of Metapontium and
Heraclitus of Ephesus say this of fire, and Empedocles says it of
the four elements (adding a fourth-earth-to those which have been
named); for these, he says, always remain and do not come to be,
except that they come to be more or fewer, being aggregated into one
and segregated out of one.
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, who, though older than Empedocles, was
later in his philosophical activity, says the principles are
infinite in number; for he says almost all the things that are made of
parts like themselves, in the manner of water or fire, are generated
and destroyed in this way, only by aggregation and segregation, and
are not in any other sense generated or destroyed, but remain
eternally.
From these facts one might think that the only cause is the
so-called material cause; but as men thus advanced, the very facts
opened the way for them and joined in forcing them to investigate
the subject. However true it may be that all generation and
destruction proceed from some one or (for that matter) from more
elements, why does this happen and what is the cause? For at least the
substratum itself does not make itself change; e.g. neither the wood
nor the bronze causes the change of either of them, nor does the
wood manufacture a bed and the bronze a statue, but something else
is the cause of the change. And to seek this is to seek the second
cause, as we should say,-that from which comes the beginning of the
movement. Now those who at the very beginning set themselves to this
kind of inquiry, and said the substratum was one, were not at all
dissatisfied with themselves; but some at least of those who
maintain it to be one-as though defeated by this search for the second
cause-say the one and nature as a whole is unchangeable not only in
respect of generation and destruction (for this is a primitive belief,
and all agreed in it), but also of all other change; and this view
is peculiar to them. Of those who said the universe was one, then none
succeeded in discovering a cause of this sort, except perhaps
Parmenides, and he only inasmuch as he supposes that there is not only
one but also in some sense two causes. But for those who make more
elements it is more possible to state the second cause, e.g. for those
who make hot and cold, or fire and earth, the elements; for they treat
fire as having a nature which fits it to move things, and water and
earth and such things they treat in the contrary way.
When these men and the principles of this kind had had their
day, as the latter were found inadequate to generate the nature of
things men were again forced by the truth itself, as we said, to
inquire into the next kind of cause. For it is not likely either
that fire or earth or any such element should be the reason why things
manifest goodness and, beauty both in their being and in their
coming to be, or that those thinkers should have supposed it was;
nor again could it be right to entrust so great a matter to
spontaneity and chance. When one man said, then, that reason was
present-as in animals, so throughout nature-as the cause of order
and of all arrangement, he seemed like a sober man in contrast with
the random talk of his predecessors. We know that Anaxagoras certainly
adopted these views, but Hermotimus of Clazomenae is credited with
expressing them earlier. Those who thought thus stated that there is a
principle of things which is at the same time the cause of beauty, and
that sort of cause from which things acquire movement.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

4

One might suspect that Hesiod was the first to look for such a
thing-or some one else who put love or desire among existing things as
a principle, as Parmenides, too, does; for he, in constructing the
genesis of the universe, says:-

Love first of all the Gods she planned.

And Hesiod says:-

First of all things was chaos made, and then
Broad-breasted earth...
And love, 'mid all the gods pre-eminent,

which implies that among existing things there must be from the
first a cause which will move things and bring them together. How
these thinkers should be arranged with regard to priority of discovery
let us be allowed to decide later; but since the contraries of the
various forms of good were also perceived to be present in
nature-not only order and the beautiful, but also disorder and the
ugly, and bad things in greater number than good, and ignoble things
than beautiful-therefore another thinker introduced friendship and
strife, each of the two the cause of one of these two sets of
qualities. For if we were to follow out the view of Empedocles, and
interpret it according to its meaning and not to its lisping
expression, we should find that friendship is the cause of good
things, and strife of bad. Therefore, if we said that Empedocles in
a sense both mentions, and is the first to mention, the bad and the
good as principles, we should perhaps be right, since the cause of all
goods is the good itself.
These thinkers, as we say, evidently grasped, and to this
extent, two of the causes which we distinguished in our work on
nature-the matter and the source of the movement-vaguely, however, and
with no clearness, but as untrained men behave in fights; for they
go round their opponents and often strike fine blows, but they do
not fight on scientific principles, and so too these thinkers do not
seem to know what they say; for it is evident that, as a rule, they
make no use of their causes except to a small extent. For Anaxagoras
uses reason as a deus ex machina for the making of the world, and when
he is at a loss to tell from what cause something necessarily is, then
he drags reason in, but in all other cases ascribes events to anything
rather than to reason. And Empedocles, though he uses the causes to
a greater extent than this, neither does so sufficiently nor attains
consistency in their use. At least, in many cases he makes love
segregate things, and strife aggregate them. For whenever the universe
is dissolved into its elements by strife, fire is aggregated into one,
and so is each of the other elements; but whenever again under the
influence of love they come together into one, the parts must again be
segregated out of each element.
Empedocles, then, in contrast with his precessors, was the first
to introduce the dividing of this cause, not positing one source of
movement, but different and contrary sources. Again, he was the
first to speak of four material elements; yet he does not use four,
but treats them as two only; he treats fire by itself, and its
opposite-earth, air, and water-as one kind of thing. We may learn this
by study of his verses.
This philosopher then, as we say, has spoken of the principles
in this way, and made them of this number. Leucippus and his associate
Democritus say that the full and the empty are the elements, calling
the one being and the other non-being-the full and solid being
being, the empty non-being (whence they say being no more is than
non-being, because the solid no more is than the empty); and they make
these the material causes of things. And as those who make the
underlying substance one generate all other things by its
modifications, supposing the rare and the dense to be the sources of
the modifications, in the same way these philosophers say the
differences in the elements are the causes of all other qualities.
These differences, they say, are three-shape and order and position.
For they say the real is differentiated only by 'rhythm and
'inter-contact' and 'turning'; and of these rhythm is shape,
inter-contact is order, and turning is position; for A differs from
N in shape, AN from NA in order, M from W in position. The question of
movement-whence or how it is to belong to things-these thinkers,
like the others, lazily neglected.
Regarding the two causes, then, as we say, the inquiry seems to
have been pushed thus far by the early philosophers.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

BOOK I

1

EVERY art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit,
is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has
rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a
certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, others
are products apart from the activities that produce them. Where
there are ends apart from the actions, it is the nature of the
products to be better than the activities. Now, as there are many
actions, arts, and sciences, their ends also are many; the end of
the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of
strategy victory, that of economics wealth. But where such arts fall
under a single capacity- as bridle-making and the other arts concerned
with the equipment of horses fall under the art of riding, and this
and every military action under strategy, in the same way other arts
fall under yet others- in all of these the ends of the master arts
are to be preferred to all the subordinate ends; for it is for the
sake of the former that the latter are pursued. It makes no difference
whether the activities themselves are the ends of the actions, or
something else apart from the activities, as in the case of the
sciences just mentioned.
2

If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for
its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and
if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for
at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire
would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the
chief good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence
on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more
likely to hit upon what is right? If so, we must try, in outline at
least, to determine what it is, and of which of the sciences or
capacities it is the object. It would seem to belong to the most
authoritative art and that which is most truly the master art. And
politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains
which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each
class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should
learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities
to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since
politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it
legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from,
the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this
end must be the good for man. For even if the end is the same for a
single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events
something greater and more complete whether to attain or to
preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merely for one
man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for
city-states. These, then, are the ends at which our inquiry aims,
since it is political science, in one sense of that term.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the
subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for
alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the
crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science
investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so
that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by
nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they
bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by
reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must
be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses
to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about
things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the
same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit,
therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the
mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of
things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is
evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a
mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.
Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a
good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a
good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an
all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is
not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is
inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions
start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends
to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable,
because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes
no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character;
the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing
each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to
the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire
and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such
matters will be of great benefit.
These remarks about the student, the sort of treatment to be
expected, and the purpose of the inquiry, may be taken as our preface.
4

Let us resume our inquiry and state, in view of the fact that all
knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good, what it is that we
say political science aims at and what is the highest of all goods
achievable by action. Verbally there is very general agreement; for
both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that
it is happiness, and identify living well and doing well with being
happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the
many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it
is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honour;
they differ, however, from one another- and often even the same man
identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill,
with wealth when he is poor; but, conscious of their ignorance, they
admire those who proclaim some great ideal that is above their
comprehension. Now some thought that apart from these many goods there
is another which is self-subsistent and causes the goodness of all
these as well. To examine all the opinions that have been held were
perhaps somewhat fruitless; enough to examine those that are most
prevalent or that seem to be arguable.
Let us not fail to notice, however, that there is a difference
between arguments from and those to the first principles. For Plato,
too, was right in raising this question and asking, as he used to
do, 'are we on the way from or to the first principles?' There is a
difference, as there is in a race-course between the course from the
judges to the turning-point and the way back. For, while we must begin
with what is known, things are objects of knowledge in two senses-
some to us, some without qualification. Presumably, then, we must
begin with things known to us. Hence any one who is to listen
intelligently to lectures about what is noble and just, and generally,
about the subjects of political science must have been brought up in
good habits. For the fact is the starting-point, and if this is
sufficiently plain to him, he will not at the start need the reason as
well; and the man who has been well brought up has or can easily get
startingpoints. And as for him who neither has nor can get them, let
him hear the words of Hesiod:

Far best is he who knows all things himself;
Good, he that hearkens when men counsel right;
But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart
Another's wisdom, is a useless wight.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

TrueBlue said:


> See, I'm already arguing with myself.


... with your own made-up representation of yourself, rather.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

5

Let us, however, resume our discussion from the point at which we
digressed. To judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men of
the most vulgar type, seem (not without some ground) to identify the
good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they love
the life of enjoyment. For there are, we may say, three prominent
types of life- that just mentioned, the political, and thirdly the
contemplative life. Now the mass of mankind are evidently quite
slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts, but
they get some ground for their view from the fact that many of those
in high places share the tastes of Sardanapallus. A consideration of
the prominent types of life shows that people of superior refinement
and of active disposition identify happiness with honour; for this is,
roughly speaking, the end of the political life. But it seems too
superficial to be what we are looking for, since it is thought to
depend on those who bestow honour rather than on him who receives
it, but the good we divine to be something proper to a man and not
easily taken from him. Further, men seem to pursue honour in order
that they may be assured of their goodness; at least it is by men of
practical wisdom that they seek to be honoured, and among those who
know them, and on the ground of their virtue; clearly, then, according
to them, at any rate, virtue is better. And perhaps one might even
suppose this to be, rather than honour, the end of the political life.
But even this appears somewhat incomplete; for possession of virtue
seems actually compatible with being asleep, or with lifelong
inactivity, and, further, with the greatest sufferings and
misfortunes; but a man who was living so no one would call happy,
unless he were maintaining a thesis at all costs. But enough of
this; for the subject has been sufficiently treated even in the
current discussions. Third comes the contemplative life, which we
shall consider later.
The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and
wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely
useful and for the sake of something else. And so one might rather
take the aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for
themselves. But it is evident that not even these are ends; yet many
arguments have been thrown away in support of them. Let us leave
this subject, then.

6

We had perhaps better consider the universal good and discuss
thoroughly what is meant by it, although such an inquiry is made an
uphill one by the fact that the Forms have been introduced by
friends of our own. Yet it would perhaps be thought to be better,
indeed to be our duty, for the sake of maintaining the truth even to
destroy what touches us closely, especially as we are philosophers
or lovers of wisdom; for, while both are dear, piety requires us to
honour truth above our friends.
The men who introduced this doctrine did not posit Ideas of
classes within which they recognized priority and posteriority
(which is the reason why they did not maintain the existence of an
Idea embracing all numbers); but the term 'good' is used both in the
category of substance and in that of quality and in that of
relation, and that which is per se, i.e. substance, is prior in nature
to the relative (for the latter is like an off shoot and accident of
being); so that there could not be a common Idea set over all these
goods. Further, since 'good' has as many senses as 'being' (for it
is predicated both in the category of substance, as of God and of
reason, and in quality, i.e. of the virtues, and in quantity, i.e.
of that which is moderate, and in relation, i.e. of the useful, and in
time, i.e. of the right opportunity, and in place, i.e. of the right
locality and the like), clearly it cannot be something universally
present in all cases and single; for then it could not have been
predicated in all the categories but in one only. Further, since of
the things answering to one Idea there is one science, there would
have been one science of all the goods; but as it is there are many
sciences even of the things that fall under one category, e.g. of
opportunity, for opportunity in war is studied by strategics and in
disease by medicine, and the moderate in food is studied by medicine
and in exercise by the science of gymnastics. And one might ask the
question, what in the world they mean by 'a thing itself', is (as is
the case) in 'man himself' and in a particular man the account of
man is one and the same. For in so far as they are man, they will in
no respect differ; and if this is so, neither will 'good itself' and
particular goods, in so far as they are good. But again it will not be
good any the more for being eternal, since that which lasts long is no
whiter than that which perishes in a day. The Pythagoreans seem to
give a more plausible account of the good, when they place the one
in the column of goods; and it is they that Speusippus seems to have
followed.
But let us discuss these matters elsewhere; an objection to what
we have said, however, may be discerned in the fact that the
Platonists have not been speaking about all goods, and that the
goods that are pursued and loved for themselves are called good by
reference to a single Form, while those which tend to produce or to
preserve these somehow or to prevent their contraries are called so by
reference to these, and in a secondary sense. Clearly, then, goods
must be spoken of in two ways, and some must be good in themselves,
the others by reason of these. Let us separate, then, things good in
themselves from things useful, and consider whether the former are
called good by reference to a single Idea. What sort of goods would
one call good in themselves? Is it those that are pursued even when
isolated from others, such as intelligence, sight, and certain
pleasures and honours? Certainly, if we pursue these also for the sake
of something else, yet one would place them among things good in
themselves. Or is nothing other than the Idea of good good in
itself? In that case the Form will be empty. But if the things we have
named are also things good in themselves, the account of the good will
have to appear as something identical in them all, as that of
whiteness is identical in snow and in white lead. But of honour,
wisdom, and pleasure, just in respect of their goodness, the
accounts are distinct and diverse. The good, therefore, is not some
common element answering to one Idea.
But what then do we mean by the good? It is surely not like the
things that only chance to have the same name. Are goods one, then, by
being derived from one good or by all contributing to one good, or are
they rather one by analogy? Certainly as sight is in the body, so is
reason in the soul, and so on in other cases. But perhaps these
subjects had better be dismissed for the present; for perfect
precision about them would be more appropriate to another branch of
philosophy. And similarly with regard to the Idea; even if there is
some one good which is universally predicable of goods or is capable
of separate and independent existence, clearly it could not be
achieved or attained by man; but we are now seeking something
attainable. Perhaps, however, some one might think it worth while to
recognize this with a view to the goods that are attainable and
achievable; for having this as a sort of pattern we shall know
better the goods that are good for us, and if we know them shall
attain them. This argument has some plausibility, but seems to clash
with the procedure of the sciences; for all of these, though they
aim at some good and seek to supply the deficiency of it, leave on one
side the knowledge of the good. Yet that all the exponents of the arts
should be ignorant of, and should not even seek, so great an aid is
not probable. It is hard, too, to see how a weaver or a carpenter will
be benefited in regard to his own craft by knowing this 'good itself',
or how the man who has viewed the Idea itself will be a better
doctor or general thereby. For a doctor seems not even to study health
in this way, but the health of man, or perhaps rather the health of
a particular man; it is individuals that he is healing. But enough
of these topics.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

7

Let us again return to the good we are seeking, and ask what it
can be. It seems different in different actions and arts; it is
different in medicine, in strategy, and in the other arts likewise.
What then is the good of each? Surely that for whose sake everything
else is done. In medicine this is health, in strategy victory, in
architecture a house, in any other sphere something else, and in every
action and pursuit the end; for it is for the sake of this that all
men do whatever else they do. Therefore, if there is an end for all
that we do, this will be the good achievable by action, and if there
are more than one, these will be the goods achievable by action.
So the argument has by a different course reached the same point;
but we must try to state this even more clearly. Since there are
evidently more than one end, and we choose some of these (e.g. wealth,
flutes, and in general instruments) for the sake of something else,
clearly not all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently
something final. Therefore, if there is only one final end, this
will be what we are seeking, and if there are more than one, the
most final of these will be what we are seeking. Now we call that
which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is
worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is
never desirable for the sake of something else more final than the
things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of
that other thing, and therefore we call final without qualification
that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of
something else.
Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for
this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something
else, but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose
indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should
still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of
happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness,
on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in
general, for anything other than itself.
From the point of view of self-sufficiency the same result seems
to follow; for the final good is thought to be self-sufficient. Now by
self-sufficient we do not mean that which is sufficient for a man by
himself, for one who lives a solitary life, but also for parents,
children, wife, and in general for his friends and fellow citizens,
since man is born for citizenship. But some limit must be set to this;
for if we extend our requirement to ancestors and descendants and
friends' friends we are in for an infinite series. Let us examine this
question, however, on another occasion; the self-sufficient we now
define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in
nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it
most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good
thing among others- if it were so counted it would clearly be made
more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that
which is added becomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater
is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and
self-sufficient, and is the end of action.
Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a
platitude, and a clearer account of what it is still desired. This
might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of
man. For just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or an artist, and, in
general, for all things that have a function or activity, the good and
the 'well' is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem to
be for man, if he has a function. Have the carpenter, then, and the
tanner certain functions or activities, and has man none? Is he born
without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of
the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man
similarly has a function apart from all these? What then can this
be? Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is
peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition
and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also
seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal.
There remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational
principle; of this, one part has such a principle in the sense of
being obedient to one, the other in the sense of possessing one and
exercising thought. And, as 'life of the rational element' also has
two meanings, we must state that life in the sense of activity is what
we mean; for this seems to be the more proper sense of the term. Now
if the function of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies
a rational principle, and if we say 'so-and-so-and 'a good
so-and-so' have a function which is the same in kind, e.g. a lyre, and
a good lyre-player, and so without qualification in all cases,
eminence in respect of goodness being idded to the name of the
function (for the function of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and
that of a good lyre-player is to do so well): if this is the case,
and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and
this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational
principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble
performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is
performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is
the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance
with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with
the best and most complete.
But we must add 'in a complete life.' For one swallow does not
make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short
time, does not make a man blessed and happy.
Let this serve as an outline of the good; for we must presumably
first sketch it roughly, and then later fill in the details. But it
would seem that any one is capable of carrying on and articulating
what has once been well outlined, and that time is a good discoverer
or partner in such a work; to which facts the advances of the arts are
due; for any one can add what is lacking. And we must also remember
what has been said before, and not look for precision in all things
alike, but in each class of things such precision as accords with
the subject-matter, and so much as is appropriate to the inquiry.
For a carpenter and a geometer investigate the right angle in
different ways; the former does so in so far as the right angle is
useful for his work, while the latter inquires what it is or what sort
of thing it is; for he is a spectator of the truth. We must act in the
same way, then, in all other matters as well, that our main task may
not be subordinated to minor questions. Nor must we demand the cause
in all matters alike; it is enough in some cases that the fact be well
established, as in the case of the first principles; the fact is the
primary thing or first principle. Now of first principles we see
some by induction, some by perception, some by a certain
habituation, and others too in other ways. But each set of
principles we must try to investigate in the natural way, and we
must take pains to state them definitely, since they have a great
influence on what follows. For the beginning is thought to be more
than half of the whole, and many of the questions we ask are cleared
up by it.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Does any one not agree??

I have plenty more to say...just ask!!!!


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Feeble minds corrupt the dignity of philosophy when they handle it; philosophy appears to be useless and defective when sheathed in a bad covering


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

TwentySeven said:


> ... with your own made-up representation of yourself, rather.


That's deep . . . now where'd that number go for my psychotherapist?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

poopdeckpappy said:


> Feeble minds corrupt the dignity of philosophy when they handle it; philosophy appears to be useless and defective when sheathed in a bad covering


YEs...I agree, but...

This argument is nothing like any of the Socratic Dialogues in any way except its frustrating nature. While Socrates was never satisfied with an answer, it was always because the answers were ill thought-out and defective, not because he was just being difficult. However, facing the withering dialectic of Socrates, especially about a matter you consider yourself to be an expert on, could seem as infuriating as this. Socrates harps on what may seem like minor details, but he is never content to rest until the answer to these most important questions are settled completely.

Oops, I lied again. There is one other similarity between this argument and the Dialogues. As a literary device, Plato had some of the interlocutors agree with Socrates's assertions during long passages in which Socrates is on a roll. Pages can go by where the only responses to Socrates are "Yes, Socrates," "How could it be otherwise, Socrates," "By the dog, Socrates, it is true" (whatever that means) and "Only a fool could doubt it, Socrates." You will often have the chance to suck up to Socrates in this fashion, although doing so in our little game could expose you to the scorn of some of history's great philosophers.

We stole most of our ideas from the Monty Python skit referred to above, in which the argument proceeds mostly because the interlocutor, Mr. Vibrating, will disagree with whatever answer the victim gives, no matter how trivial or obviously true it is.

For some exposure to the real Socratic dialogues, go to The Internet Classics Archive.

2. In 399 B.C., Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the youth, making the weaker argument appear the stronger, investigating matters in the heavens and below the earth and believing in deities of his own invention rather than in those approved of by the state. He was convicted and sentenced to die by hemlock. Whether he corrupted the youth, he certainly took his self-assigned role as the "gadfly" of Athens seriously. As anyone who has read Plato's dialogues will tell you, Socrates was so annoying in his persistent questioning that anyone would sympathize with an interlocutor who throttled him after a frustrating bout of dialectical discussion. Part of the problem was Socrates's claim of ignorance--Socrates never answered questions (at least in the early dialogues), he just asked them of his victim and showed the victim's answers to be sadly wanting.

Interestingly, Socrates goaded the court at his trial. When offered the option of leaving Athens as punishment, he replied that if set free, he would continue to behave as before. When offered a chance to pay a fine, he offered a sum laughably out-of-whack with reality. When offered the chance to propose his own penalty after he was found guilty (as was the Athenian custom), Socrates suggested that he be treated like a hero of the state--well-kept by public funds for the rest of his life.

In the final moments of his life, he urged those around him to think that death was not a great evil, but rather the beginning of an existence where knowledge is possible, with the soul finally freed of bodily constraints. He commented that to live a long time was to be a long time sick and required his friends to offer the sacrifice of a cock to Asclepius, the God of Healing.

While I harbor a deep and abiding respect for the Socrates described in the early Platonic Dialogues, I would be kidding if I said I wondered why they killed him. I wish I could reach back into time through the pages of my books sometimes and beat the Athenians to the punch.

Friedrich Nietzsche, in the Twilight of the Idols had the following to say on the subject:

Indeed, as a physician might ask: "How could the most beautiful growth of antiquity, Plato, contract such a disease? Did the wicked Socrates corrupt him after all? Could Socrates have been the corrupter of the youth after all? And did he deserve his hemlock?"

"A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum--that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

Did he himself comprehend this, this most brilliant of all self-outwitters? Was this what he said to himself in the end, in the wisdom of his courage to die? Socrates wanted to die: not Athens, but he himself chose the Hemlock; he forced Athens to sentence him. "Socrates is no physician," he said softly to himself; "here death alone is the physician. Socrates himself has merely been sick a long time."

3.Well, if all you're concerned about is winning, then the answer is yes. Besides killing Socrates, the ultimate form of victory in your petty little world view, there is another way to defeat the master. But really, is that all there is to life? Isn't finding out the truth better than beating someone (especially an old man) in an argument? Maybe you can make him cry, too...Socrates doesn't want to win, he is concerned with living the good life, and on his view, finding out what this entails is an activity that takes nearly constant inquiry. So grow up!

4. You shouldn't. Go back to the important surfing you were doing. Where were you going today? The live picture of Bentham's embalmed corpse? Pictures of Supermodels? All the hits on a search for your name? By all means, go back to your important work.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, you need to see just how clever we are. And the only way to do that is by playing the game.

If you mean "Why should I bother to think hard about the important issues in life as Socrates did?" then all I have to say is, to paraphrase Socrates, your miserable life has only one chance of being worth living, and that is if you expose yourself to some philosophical self scrutiny and try to evaluate the reasons you have for believing the things you do. So there.


----------



## labatt (Jul 31, 2006)

I'd love to take credit for this deep thought, but I read it some place else... If the Polynesians had discovered the "New World", would we all be sailing trimarans?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

labatt said:


> I'd love to take credit for this deep thought, but I read it some place else... If the Polynesians had discovered the "New World", would we all be sailing trimarans?


Actually should be....I am really happy the Polynesians didn't discover the World...otherwise I had to be sailing in a tri....and everyone knows that's not a boat!!!!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

You should name it DJ... 



Freesail99 said:


> I have a teddy bear I want to name.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yup... no sailing records have ever been set in a trimaran... 


Giulietta said:


> Actually should be....I am really happy the Polynesians didn't discover the World...otherwise I had to be sailing in a tri....and everyone knows that's not a boat!!!!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

This line was in the ASA's Multihull Fundamentals book from about 10 years ago. I believe it was in the first chapter or the foreword.


labatt said:


> I'd love to take credit for this deep thought, but I read it some place else... If the Polynesians had discovered the "New World", would we all be sailing trimarans?


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

If Polynesians DID discover the "New World", would we call Giu a HAOLE?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I can think of a lot of things to call Giu, especially about his last anti-multihull comment...but none are fit to print outside fof the Off-Topic forum. 


TrueBlue said:


> If Polynesians DID discover the "New World", would we call Giu a HAOLE?


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

Ah, now I get it. This thread is making so much more sense now that I'm four pages in. Crystal clear and philosophical indeed.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

If it is crystal clear and on sailnet... you're obviously reading it wrong. 


kwaltersmi said:


> Ah, now I get it. This thread is making so much more sense now that I'm four pages in. Crystal clear and philosophical indeed.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> Plato had some of the interlocutors agree with Socrates's assertions during long passages in which Socrates is on a roll. Pages can go by where the only responses to Socrates are "Yes, Socrates," "How could it be otherwise, Socrates," "By the dog, Socrates, it is true" (whatever that means) and "Only a fool could doubt it, Socrates."
> 
> .


Philosophy deals with matters of interest to the general public, and loses much of its value if only a few can understand or is interested in what is said.

Can't tell ya how many times I've replied when asked my opinion with a " oh, absolutely I agree " ( 21st century version of " By the dog, it is true " ) to a conversation of no interest and therefore I had no desire to understand


----------



## Joel73 (Apr 23, 2007)

Oh man.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

In any type of philoshopical conversation, there are no right answers, nor wrong ones. There is only YOUR answer. For what is true for you, may, or may not be true for anyone else. And the only answer you should have, is, what is true for you.


----------



## tigerregis (Nov 24, 2006)

That is BS, Aria. What does truth mean? You are talking about perception.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

poopdeckpappy said:


> Philosophy deals with matters of interest to the general public, and loses much of its value if only a few can understand or is interested in what is said.
> 
> Can't tell ya how many times I've replied when asked my opinion with a " oh, absolutely I agree " ( 21st century version of " By the dog, it is true " ) to a conversation of no interest and therefore I had no desire to understand


Sorry to disagree, but...

One of the most vexing questions raised by Husserl's yet unpublished Seventh Cartesian Meditation is that of the relation between the familiar (and -- in spite of some recent positivistic carping about trivialities like consistency and meaningfulness -- obvious) principle of the noematico-epochosynthetic correleticity and the Seventh Meditation's new and radical (1) [see endnote] principle of analysis-by-systematic-destruction-of-all-meaning (destitutive analysis). As is well known, Husserl scholarship in this area is sharply divided between the followers of Husserl's last and most faithful assistant, Johann Lebenswelter, and those of Husserl's most acute French critic, Marcel Gaston-Gaston. Until recently it was thought that this polar opposition stemmed from the different interpretive principles employed by the two scholars: Lebenswelter faithfully taking as fundamental the principle that "Husserl always means what he says, even when he says he doesn't," (2) and Gaston-Gaston, on the other hand, asserting that "Husserl never means what he says, especially when Lebenswelter thinks he does." (3) However, recently (4) the two men both agreed with Husserl's own assertion (5) that the two principles are equivalent for texts written after 1859. (Husserl regards his works prior to that year as mere "juvenile exercises.")

However, the disagreement remains and, to get to the heart of the conflict, let us at once examine a passage in the Seventh Meditation that has been the focal point of the dispute. (6)

"By referring to destitutive analysis, we must not be understood as intending (in the sense of radical directedness-to-a-preliminary-perceived objectivity) to imply that, speaking -- as always -- strictly within the finite-infinite limits of transcendental apodicticity, the object 'part-whole synthesis' is even partially reducible to the noematic correlate of affective suspension (in the sense of ideally intended noesis subsumed and founded by the epoche). (7) For, although this is, of course, the case, our concern is this realm of a fully concrete living of the a priori, is, as we have repeatedly said, solely to lay bare the horizontal quasi-content of this analysis' teleology. Here we may invoke Descartes' realization (fundamentally uninformed and absurd as it was, being formulated in a reasonable and intelligible way for the first time in our Logische Untersuchungen and even there still lacking the proto-foundation of a full scale synthetic analysis on the level of transcendent egologicism) that some things (res) are hard to understand." (8)

According to Lebenswelter, we can understand this pregnant (9) passage only by applying a destitutive analysis to its own thought (what Lebenswelter acutely calls a "constitution-by-springing-back-upon-oneself"). This leads to a formation of a destitutional noema expressing, as Lebenswelter says, the essential destitution of the passage. As those familiar with the unwritten Ideen IV (perhaps Husserl's clearest work) will immediately realize, this destitution implies the eidetic mutual transcendence of all principles, including that of noematico-epochosynthetic correlaticity relative to that of destitutional analysis. The implications of this are as radical as they are obvious. Lebenswelter further supports his interpretation by appealing to certain passages as yet untranscribed (10) in the MSS in the Husserl Archives at Louvain and to Husserl's last words (allegedly directed to Lebenswelter): "You're always right, Johann." (11)

Gaston-Gaston accepts, as he says in a daring adaptation of terminology, "the hyle but not the morphe of this analysis;" that is, "What it says is correct, but what it does not say is not corrrect." (12) According to him, we can remedy this deficiency only by trying to not-say, not what Husserl said or did not say, but what he did not not-say. However, this is not as easy as it seems. The proposed analysis cannot be carried out until Husserl's texts are expressed in maximally clear form; hence, according to Gaston-Gaston, we must begin by translating the entire Husserlian corpus into French. After this has been done (13) it will be necessary to make a detailed application of Gaston-Gaston's technique of analyse aneant (a more radical version of Lebenswelter's destitutive analysis which is designed to destroy destitution). This application will, according to Gaston-Gaston, result in an apocalyptic vision of phenomenology in which Husserl's true meaning will be revealed. (14) (However, he does not agree with the view of the Dutch theologian, Fr. van Vlumpt, that this will effect the conversion of the Jews.)

The dispute between Lebenswelter and Gaston-Gaston will very likely come to a head this July in Vienna when, at the annual convention of the Phenomenologists International, the two men will meet in the finals of the world-wide Eidetic Intuition Competition. (15) Whatever the outcome, we may confidently expect a revindication of Husserl's classic dictum: "It is bad to be wrong, but it is worse to be understood."


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> In any type of philoshopical conversation, there are no right answers, nor wrong ones. There is only YOUR answer. For what is true for you, may, or may not be true for anyone else. And the only answer you should have, is, what is true for you.


John, John, John...how wrong you are, let me show you why...
WHAT I here make public has, after a long and scrupulous inquiry, seemed to me evidently true and not unuseful to be known- particularly to those who are tainted with Scepticism, or want a demonstration of the existence and immateriality of God, or the natural immortality of the soul. Whether it be so or no I am content the reader should impartially examine; since I do not think myself any farther concerned for the success of what I have written than as it is agreeable to truth. But, to the end this may not suffer, I make it my request that the reader suspend his judgment till he has once at least read the whole through with that degree of attention and thought which the subject-matter shall seem to deserve. For, as there are some passages that, taken by themselves, are very liable (nor could it be remedied) to gross misinterpretation, and to be charged with most absurd consequences, which, nevertheless, upon an entire perusal will appear not to follow from them; so likewise, though the whole should be read over, yet, if this be done transiently, it is very probable my sense may be mistaken; but to a thinking reader, I flatter myself it will be throughout clear and obvious. As for the characters of novelty and singularity which some of the following notions may seem to bear, it is, I hope, needless to make any apology on that account. He must surely be either very weak, or very little acquainted with the sciences, who shall reject a truth that is capable of demonstration, for no other reason but because it is newly known, and contrary to the prejudices of mankind. Thus much I thought fit to premise, in order to prevent, if possible, the hasty censures of a sort of men who are too apt to condemn an opinion before they rightly comprehend it.

1. Philosophy being nothing else but the study of wisdom and truth, it may with reason be expected that those who have spent most time and pains in it should enjoy a greater calm and serenity of mind, a greater clearness and evidence of knowledge, and be less disturbed with doubts and difficulties than other men. Yet so it is, we see the illiterate bulk of mankind that walk the high-road of plain common sense, and are governed by the dictates of nature, for the most part easy and undisturbed. To them nothing that is familiar appears unaccountable or difficult to comprehend. They complain not of any want of evidence in their senses, and are out of all danger of becoming Sceptics. But no sooner do we depart from sense and instinct to follow the light of a superior principle, to reason, meditate, and reflect on the nature of things, but a thousand scruples spring up in our minds concerning those things which before we seemed fully to comprehend. Prejudices and errors of sense do from all parts discover themselves to our view; and, endeavouring to correct these by reason, we are insensibly drawn into uncouth paradoxes, difficulties, and inconsistencies, which multiply and grow upon us as we advance in speculation, till at length, having wandered through many intricate mazes, we find ourselves just where we were, or, which is worse, sit down in a forlorn Scepticism.

2. The cause of this is thought to be the obscurity of things, or the natural weakness and imperfection of our understandings. It is said, the faculties we have are few, and those designed by nature for the support and comfort of life, and not to penetrate into the inward essence and constitution of things. Besides, the mind of man being finite, when it treats of things which partake of infinity, it is not to be wondered at if it run into absurdities and contradictions, out of which it is impossible it should ever extricate itself, it being of the nature of infinite not to be comprehended by that which is finite.

3. But, perhaps, we may be too partial to ourselves in placing the fault originally in our faculties, and not rather in the wrong use we make of them. It is a hard thing to suppose that right deductions from true principles should ever end in consequences which cannot be maintained or made consistent. We should believe that God has dealt more bountifully with the sons of men than to give them a strong desire for that knowledge which he had placed quite out of their reach. This were not agreeable to the wonted indulgent methods of Providence, which, whatever appetites it may have implanted in the creatures, doth usually furnish them with such means as, if rightly made use of, will not fail to satisfy them. Upon the whole, I am inclined to think that the far greater part, if not all, of those difficulties which have hitherto amused philosophers, and blocked up the way to knowledge, are entirely owing to ourselves- that we have first raised a dust and then complain we cannot see.

4. My purpose therefore is, to try if I can discover what those Principles are which have introduced all that doubtfulness and uncertainty, those absurdities and contradictions, into the several sects of philosophy; insomuch that the wisest men have thought our ignorance incurable, conceiving it to arise from the natural dulness and limitation of our faculties. And surely it is a work well deserving our pains to make a strict inquiry concerning the First Principles of Human Knowledge, to sift and examine them on all sides, especially since there may be some grounds to suspect that those lets and difficulties, which stay and embarrass the mind in its search after truth, do not spring from any darkness and intricacy in the objects, or natural defect in the understanding, so much as from false Principles which have been insisted on, and might have been avoided.

5. How difficult and discouraging soever this attempt may seem, when I consider how many great and extraordinary men have gone before me in the like designs, yet I am not without some hopes- upon the consideration that the largest views are not always the clearest, and that he who is short-sighted will be obliged to draw the object nearer, and may, perhaps, by a close and narrow survey, discern that which had escaped far better eyes.

6. In order to prepare the mind of the reader for the easier conceiving what follows, it is proper to premise somewhat, by way of Introduction, concerning the nature and abuse of Language. But the unravelling this matter leads me in some measure to anticipate my design, by taking notice of what seems to have had a chief part in rendering speculation intricate and perplexed, and to have occasioned innumerable errors and difficulties in almost all parts of knowledge. And that is the opinion that the mind hath a power of framing abstract ideas or notions of things. He who is not a perfect stranger to the writings and disputes of philosophers must needs acknowledge that no small part of them are spent about abstract ideas. These are in a more especial manner thought to be the object of those sciences which go by the name of Logic and Metaphysics, and of all that which passes under the notion of the most abstracted and sublime learning, in all which one shall scarce find any question handled in such a manner as does not suppose their existence in the mind, and that it is well acquainted with them.

7. It is agreed on all hands that the qualities or modes of things do never really exist each of them apart by itself, and separated from all others, but are mixed, as it were, and blended together, several in the same object. But, we are told, the mind being able to consider each quality singly, or abstracted from those other qualities with which it is united, does by that means frame to itself abstract ideas. For example, there is perceived by sight an object extended, coloured, and moved: this mixed or compound idea the mind resolving into its simple, constituent parts, and viewing each by itself, exclusive of the rest, does frame the abstract ideas of extension, colour, and motion. Not that it is possible for colour or motion to exist without extension; but only that the mind can frame to itself by abstraction the idea of colour exclusive of extension, and of motion exclusive of both colour and extension.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

tigerregis said:


> That is BS, Aria. What does truth mean? You are talking about perception.


My view on preception is different...want me to explain why??


----------



## JSL3 (Jun 6, 2007)

I believe I found the source of Giu's plagarism from post #44.

see here: http://philosophy.eserver.org/anonymous.html

Please explain yourself, Giu!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> My view on preception is different...want me to explain why??


Giu, you are thinking about conception, not preception. Preception precedes conception.

HEHE!

- CD


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

JSL3 said:


> I believe I found the source of Giu's plagarism from post #44.
> 
> see here: http://philosophy.eserver.org/anonymous.html
> 
> Please explain yourself, Giu!


I AM LANCE FLETCHER!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just live in Portugal and like to sail fast as a hobby!!!

I am a hardcore philosopher, I think therefore I am, Hypso facto, Ergo Sum, Et pluribus Unum.

Veni, Vidi, Vicci,

Badabim, badabum


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Giu, you are thinking about conception, not preception. Preception precedes conception.
> 
> HEHE!
> 
> - CD


And Catalinas precede **** Sapiens


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

Giulietta said:


> I AM LANCE FLETCHER!!!!!!!!!!!!


I thought your name was Dick Licmybals


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> And Catalinas precede **** Sapiens


And preception can lead to infection. Wash your hand first.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> And preception can lead to infection. Wash your hand first.


Washed as recommended...now come here for the Enema, it only hurts the first time...boy....


----------



## NCountry (May 25, 2006)

I break wind, therefore I am wind!.....


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

And stinky too...


NCountry said:


> I break wind, therefore I am wind!.....


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Well hell, that was fun


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> Washed as recommended...now come here for the Enema, it only hurts the first time...boy....


Sailhog... Sailhog is that you??? If I have told you once, I have told you a thousand times: THAT AIN'T KOOLAID!

Now, go wash that mouth out...


----------



## wiseleyb (Feb 11, 2007)

philosof*ckify?!?!?! i walked through Harvard for years. game on!


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

Well, as the thread talking about philosophy turned to poo so fast, I guess folks won't work with it in the real thing. pity, it might have been enlightening, which would be unusual for an internet forum.

But...you ever notice how so few voices determine the content that so many read? not their fault, those who read without participating shirk their responsibility. wish there was a way to hear those silent voices.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

HoffaLives said:


> Well, as the thread talking about philosophy turned to poo so fast, I guess folks won't work with it in the real thing. pity, it might have been enlightening, which would be unusual for an internet forum.
> 
> But...you ever notice how so few voices determine the content that so many read? not their fault, those who read without participating shirk their responsibility. wish there was a way to hear those silent voices.


Hoffa, you're right, man...absolutely right...shame on those idiots...

If you notice, I was the only one actually posting about philosophy..are you my friend?

I did what you asked for, long pholosophical posts.


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

Giulietta said:


> Hoffa, you're right, man...absolutely right...shame on those idiots...
> 
> If you notice, I was the only one actually posting about philosophy..are you my friend?
> 
> I did what you asked for, long pholosophical posts.


yup, but you forgot one important part - the sailing bit. quoting kant or nietzsche will have them stampeding for the exits. the proposal - as i'm sure you understand - is for more in-depth discussion about sailing topics.

but i was pleased to see the mention of callias. my favorite quote from antiquity was callias' " she has a **** like a mule in heat" (can't find the original latin right now).


----------



## wiseleyb (Feb 11, 2007)

wait, wait! - i thunk - there for i ain't???? - but, seriously, if you start this i'll participate (not much conciliation i'm sure)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

HoffaLives............
just an interesting "tidbit" of nonsense, but when I lived in Atlanta I became friends with an older gentleman that always had 3 or 4 big guys follow him around, usually following in a black caddy. Turns out he was number 2 or 3 in the TEAMSTERS. Without quoting the entire conversation, which I remember vividly because sometimes he could be chilling to speak to, he told me that HOFFA would NEVER be found, and he suspected Jimmy was in the "hereafter"......... I didn't axe how he knew for obvious reasons.


----------



## tigerregis (Nov 24, 2006)

Hoffa, cogito ergo sum et some other a$$hole who can't and isn't, FUBAR and then brings SNAFU from Iberia in the form of GIGO. Nice try, another time or at least somewhere else where the denizens don't eat their own Jung.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

HoffaLives said:


> yup, but you forgot one important part - the sailing bit. .


'Suppose the following to be the state of affairs on board a ship. The captain is larger and stronger than any of the crew, but a bit deaf and short-sighted, and doesn't know much about navigation. The crew are quarrelling with each other about how to navigate the ship, each thinking he ought to be at the helm; they know no navigation and cannot say that anyone ever taught it them, or that they spent any time studying it; indeed they say it can't be taught and are ready to murder any one who says it can.

They spend all their time milling around the captain and trying to get him to give them the wheel. If one faction is more successful then another, their rivals may kill them and throw them overboard, lay out the honest captain with drugs and drink, take control of the ship, help themselves to what's on board, and behave as if they were on a drunken pleasure-cruise.

Finally, they reserve their admiration for the man who knows how to lend a hand in controlling the captain by force or fraud; they praise his seamanship and navigation and knowledge of the sea and condemn everyone else as useless. They have no idea that the true navigator must study the seasons of the year, the sky, the stars, the winds and other professional subjects, if he is really fit to control a ship; and they think that it's quite impossible to acquire professional skill in navigation (quite apart from whether they want it exercised) and that there is no such thing as an art of navigation.

In these circumstances aren't the sailors on any ship bound to regard the true navigator as a gossip and a star-gazer, of no use to them at all?'


----------



## gypsywomen (Oct 27, 2007)

The Coming of the Ship



"Almustafa, the chosen and the beloved, who was a dawn onto his own day, had waited twelve years in the city of Orphalese for his ship that was to return and bear him back to the isle of his birth. 

And in the twelfth year, on the seventh day of Ielool, the month of reaping, he climbed the hill without the city walls and looked seaward; and he beheld the ship coming with the mist. 

Then the gates of his heart were flung open, and his joy flew far over the sea. And he closed his eyes and prayed in the silences of his soul. 

But he descended the hill, a sadness came upon him, and he thought in his heart: How shall I go in peace and without sorrow? Nay, not without a wound in the spirit shall I leave this city. 

Long were the days of pain I have spent within its walls, and long were the nights of aloneness; and who can depart from his pain and his aloneness without regret? 

Too many fragments of the spirit have I scatterd in these streets, and too many are the children of my longing that walk naked among these hills, and I cannot withdraw from them without a bruden and an ache. 

It is not a garment I cast off this day, but a skin that I tear with my own hands. 

Nor is it a thought I leave behind me, but a heart made sweet with hunger and with thirst. 

Yet I cannot tarry longer. 

The sea that calls all things unto her calls me, and I must embark. 

For to stay, though the hours burn in the night, is to freeze and crystallize and be bound in a mould. 

Fain would I take with me all that is here. But how shall I? 

A voice cannot carry the tongue and the lips that give it wings. Alone must it seek the ether. 

And alone and without his nest shall the eagle fly across the sun. 

Now when he reached the foot of the hill, he turned again towards the sea, and he saw his ship approaching the harbour, and upon her prow the mariners, the men of his own land. 

And his soul cried out to them, and he said: 

Sons of my ancient mother, you riders of the tides, How often have you sailed in my dreams. And now you come in my awakening, which is my deeper dream. 

Ready am I to go, and my eagerness with sails full set awaits the wind. 

Only another breath will I breathe in this still air, only another loving look cast backward,
Then I shall stand among you, a seafarer among seafarers.
And you, vast sea, sleepless mother,
Who alone are peace and freedom to the river and the stream,
Only another winding will this stream make, only another murmur in this glade,
And then shall I come to you, a boundless drop to a boundless ocean.


And as he walked he saw from afar men and women leaving their fields and their vineyards and hastening towards the city gates. 

And he heard their voices calling his name, and shouting from the field to field telling one another of the coming of the ship. 

And he said to himself: 

Shall the day of parting be the day of gathering? 

And shall it be said that my eve was in truth my dawn? 

And what shall I give unto him who has left his plough in midfurrow, or to him who has stopped the wheel of his winepress? 

Shall my heart become a tree heavy-laden with fruit that I may gather and give unto them? 

And shall my desires flow like a fountain that I may fill their cups? 

Am I a harp that the hand of the mighty may touch me, or a flute that his breath may pass through me? 

A seeker of silences am I, and what treasure have I found in silences that I may dispense with confidence? 

If this is my day of harvest, in what fields have I sowed the seed, and in what unrembered seasons? 

If this indeed be the our in which I lift up my lantern, it is not my flame that shall burn therein. 

Empty and dark shall I raise my lantern,
And the guardian of the night shall fill it with oil and he shall light it also.


These things he said in words. But much in his heart remained unsaid. For he himself could not speak his deeper secret. 

And when he entered into the city all the people came to meet him, and they were crying out to him as with one voice. 

And the elders of the city stood forth and said: 

Go not yet away from us. 

A noontide have you been in our twilight, and your youth has given us dreams to dream. 

No stranger are you among us, nor a guest, but our son and our dearly beloved. 

Suffer not yet our eyes to hunger for your face. 

And the priests and the priestesses said unto him: 

Let not the waves of the sea separate us now, and the years you have spent in our midst become a memory. 

You have walked among us a spirit, and your shadow has been a light upon our facs. 

Much have we loved you. But speechless was our love, and with veils has it been veiled. 

Yet now it cries aloud unto you, and would stand revealed before you. 

And ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation. 

And others came also and entreated him. 

But he answered them not. He only bent his head; and those who stood near saw his tears falling upon his breast. 

And he and the people proceeded towards the great square before the temple. 

And there came out of the sanctuary a woman whose name was Almitra. And she was a seeress. 

And he looked upon her with exceeding tenderness, for it was she who had first sought and believed in him when he had been but a day in their city. 

And she hailed him, saying: 

Prophet of God, in quest for the uttermost, long have you searched the distances for your ship. 

And now your ship has come, and you must needs go. 

Deep is your longing for the land of your memories and the dwelling place of your greater desires; and our love would not bind you nor our needs hold you. 

Yet this we ask ere you leave us, that you speak to us and give us of your truth. 

And we will give it unto our children, and they unto their children, and it shall not perish. 

In your aloneness you have watched with our days, and in your wakefulness you have listened to the weeping and the laughter of our sleep. 

Now therefore disclose us to ourselves, and tell us all that has been shown you of that which is between birth and death. 

And he answered,


People of Orphalese, of what can I speak save of that which is even now moving your souls? "

The Prophet
Kahlil Gibran

I could be way off on the point of this topic but I thought of this chapter in the book, I imagine this is what my first day of casting off will feel like. Bitter sweet. Looking forward and back at the same time.


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

gypsywomen said:


> The Coming of the Ship
> 
> I could be way off on the point of this topic but I thought of this chapter in the book, I imagine this is what my first day of casting off will feel like. Bitter sweet. Looking forward and back at the same time.


See, see, look, a noob. see what happens when you let in a little light?? glad you posted, gypsywoman.

i recognised the passage straight away. Gibran and Tolkein are one of the passages that so many people go through, usually about the same time.


----------



## gypsywomen (Oct 27, 2007)

Thanks, I love his work. I refer to the prophet more than my bible Bad christian, bad


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

I'll add a literary contribution....

Earendil

Earendil was a mariner
that tarried in Arvernien;
he built a boat of timber felled
in Nimbrethil to journey in;
her sails he wove of silver fair,
of silver were her lanterns made,
her prow was fashioned like a swan
and light upon her banners laid.

In panolpy of ancient kings,
in chained rings he armoured him;
his shining shield was scored with runes
to ward all wounds and harm from him;
his bow was made of dragon-horn,
his arrows shorn of ebony;
of silver was his habergeon,
his scabbard of chalcedony;
his sword of steel was valient,
of adamant his helmet tall,
an eagle-plume upon his crest,
upon his breast an emerald.

Beneath the Moon and under star
he wandered far from northern strands,
bewildered on enchanted ways
beyond the days of mortal lands.

From gnashing of the Narrow Ice
where shadow lies on frozen hills,
from nether heats and burning waste
he turned in haste, and roving still
on starless waters far astray
at last he came to Night of Naught,
and passed, and never sight he saw
of shining shore nor light he sought.

The winds of wrath came driving him,
and blindly in the foam he fled
from west to east and errandless,
unheralded he homeward sped.

There flying Elwing came to him,
and flame was in the darkness lit;
more bright than light of diamond
the fire on her carcanet.

The Silmaril she bound on him
and crowned him with the living light,
and dauntless then with burning brow
he turned his prow; and in the night
from otherworld beyond the Sea
there strong and free a storm arose,
a wind of power in Tarmenel;
by paths that seldom mortal goes
his boat it bore with biting breath
as might of death across the grey
and long forsaken seas distressed;
from east to west he passed away.

Thought Evernight he back was borne
on black and roaring waves that ran
o'er leagues unlit and foundered shores
that drowned before the Days began,
until he hears on strands of pearl
where end the world the music long,
where ever-foaming billows roll
the yellow gold and jewels wan.

He saw the Mountain silent rise
where twilight lies upon the knees
of Valinor, and Eldamar
beheld afar beyond the seas.

A wanderer escaped from night
to haven white he came at last,
to Elvenhome the green and fair
where keen the air, where pale as glass
beneath the Hill of Ilmarin
a-glimmer in a valley sheer
the lamplit towers of Tirion
are mirrored on the Shadowmere.

He tarried there from errantry,
and melodies they taught to him,
and sages old him marvels told,
and harps of gold they brought to him.

They clothed him then in elven-white,
and seven lights before him sent,
as through the Calacirian
to hidden land forlorn he went.

He came unto the timeless halls
where shining fall the countless years,
and endless reigns the Elder King
in Ilmarin on Mountain sheer;
and words unheard were spoken then
of folk and Men and Elven-kin,
beyond the world were visions showed
forbid to those that dwell therein.

A ship then new they built for him
of mithril and of elven glass
with shining prow; no shaven oar
nor sail she bore on silver mast:
the Silmaril as lantern light
and banner bright with living flame
to gleam thereon by Elbereth
herself was set, who thither came
and wings immortal made for him,
and laid on him undying doom,
to sail the shoreless skies and come
behind the Sun and light of Moon.

From Evergreen's lofty hills
where softly silver fountains fall
his wings him bore, a wandering light,
beyond the mighty Mountain Wall.

From a World's End there he turned away,
and yearned again to find afar
his home through shadows journeying,
and burning as an island star
on high above the mists he came,
a distant flame before the Sun,
a wonder ere the waking dawn
where grey the Norland waters run.

And over Middle-Earth he passed
and heard at last the weeping sore
of women and of elven-maids
in Elder Days, in years of yore.

But on him mighty doom was laid,
till Moon should fade, an orbed star
to pass, and tarry never more
on Hither Shores where Mortals are;
or ever still a herald on
an errand that should never rest
to bear his shining lamp afar,
to Flammifer of Westernesse.

JRR Tolkien


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

This is in the end the only kind of courage that is required of us: the courage to face the strangest, most unusual, most inexplicable experiences that can meet us. The fact that people have in this sense been cowardly has done infinite harm to life; the experiences that are called "apparitions," the whole so-called "spirit world," death, all these Things that are so closely related to us, have through our daily defensiveness been so entirely pushed out of life that the senses with which we might have been able to grasp them have atrophied. To say nothing of God.

Raine Marie Rilke

and of course..


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

This session is going to be about the history of the non-medical use of drugs. Let me say that, because this is going to be a story, that I think it will interest you quite a bit. The topic is the history of the non-medical use of drugs and I think you ought to know what my credentials are for talking about this topic. As you may know, before I taught at the University of Southern California, I taught at the University of Virginia for fifteen years, from 1968 to 1981. In that time period, the very first major piece that I wrote was a piece entitled, "The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge - The Legal History of Marihuana in the United States". I wrote it with Professor Richard Bonnie, still of the faculty of the University of Virginia. It was published in the Virginia Law Review in October of 1970 and I must say that our piece was the Virginia Law Review in October of 1970. The piece was 450 pages long. It got a ton of national attention because no one had ever done the legal history of marijuana before. As a result of that, Professor Bonnie was named the Deputy Director of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse and I was a consultant to that commission. 
As a result of Richard's two year executive directorship of the National Commission in 1971 and 1972 he and I were given access to both the open and the closed files of what was then called the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, what had historically been called the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and what today is called the Drug Enforcement Agency. Based upon our access to those files, both open and closed, we wrote a book called "The Marihuana Conviction- The Legal History of Drugs in the United States" and that book went through six printings at the University of Virginia press before being sold out primarily in sales to my friends at the FBI over the years. It is based upon that work that I bring you this story. 
________________________________________
The Situation in 1900 
If you are interested in the non-medical use of drugs in this country, the time to go back to is 1900, and in some ways the most important thing I am going to say to you guys I will say first. That is, that in 1900 there were far more people addicted to drugs in this country than there are today. Depending upon whose judgment, or whose assessment, you accept there were between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States addicted to drugs in 1900. 
Now, there were two principal causes of this dramatic level of drug addiction at the turn of the century. The first cause was the use of morphine and its various derivatives in legitimate medical operations. You know as late as 1900, particularly in areas where medical resources were scarce it was not at all uncommon for you to say, let's say you would have appendicitis, you would go into the hospital, and you would get morphine as a pain killer during the operation, you would be given morphine further after the operation and you would come out of the hospital with no appendix but addicted to morphine. 
The use of morphine in battlefield operations during the Civil War was so extensive that, by 1880, so many Union veterans were addicted to morphine that the popular press referred to morphinism as the "soldier's disease". Now I will say, being from Virginia as I am, that the Confederate veterans didn't have any problems about being addicted to morphine because the South was too poor to have any, and therefore battlefield operations on the Confederate Army were simply done by chopping off the relevant limb while they drank a little whiskey. But the Northern troops heavily found themselves, as the result of battlefield operations and the use of morphine, addicted to morphine.
Now, the other fact that I think that is so interesting about drug addiction at the turn of the century, as opposed to today is who the addicts were, because they were the exact opposite of who you would think most likely to be an addict today. If I were to ask you in terms of statistical groups who is most likely to be involved with drugs today, you would say a young person, a male, who lives in the city and who may be a minority group member. That is the exact opposite of who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century. 
In terms of statistical groups, who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century? A rural living, middle-aged white woman. The use of morphine in medical operations does not explain the much higher incidence of drug addiction among women. What does is the second cause of the high level of addiction at the turn of the century -- the growth and development of what we now call the "patent medicine" industry. 
I think some of you, maybe from watching Westerns on TV if nothing else are aware that, again, as late as 1900, in areas, particularly rural areas where medical resources were scarce, it was typical for itinerant salesmen, not themselves doctors, to cruise around the countryside offering potions and elixirs of all sorts advertised in the most flamboyant kinds of terms. "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for What Ails You", or "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for Man or Beast." 
Well, what the purveyors of these medicines did not tell their purchasers, was that later, when these patent medicines were tested, many of them proved to be up to fifty percent morphine by volume. 
Now, what that meant, as I have always thought, was the most significant thing about the high morphine content in patent medicines was it meant they tended to live up to their advertising. Because no matter what is wrong with you, or your beast, you are going to feel a whole lot better after a couple of slugs of an elixir that is fifty percent morphine. So there was this tendency to think "Wow! This stuff works." Down you could go to the general store and get more of it and it could be sold to you directly over the counter. 
Now, for reasons that we weren't able to full research, but for reasons, I think, probably associated with the role of women rural societies then patent medicines were much more appealing to women than to men and account for the much higher incidence of drug addiction in 1900 among women than among men. 
If you want to see a relatively current portrayal of a woman addicted to patent medicine you might think of Eugene O'Neil's play "A Long Day's Journey Into Night". The mother figure there, the one that was played by Katherine Hepburn in the movies was addicted to patent medicines. 
In any event, the use of morphine in medical operations and the sale of patent medicines accounted for a dramatic level of addiction. Again, between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States was addicted to drugs as late as 1900. 
Now if my first point is that there was a lot more addiction in 1900 than there is today and that the people who were addicted are quite a different group than the group we would be thinking of today, my next point would be that if you look at drug addiction in 1900, what's the number one way in which it is different than drug addiction today? Answer: Almost all addiction at the turn of the century was accidental. 
People became involved with drugs they did not know that they were taking, that they did not know the impact of. The first point, then, is that there was more drug addiction than there is now and most of it was accidental. 
________________________________________
The Pure Food and Drug Act 
Then the single law which has done the most in this country to reduce the level of drug addiction is none of the criminal laws we have ever passed. The single law that reduced drug addiction the most was the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. 
The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 did three things: 
1). It created the Food and Drug Administration in Washington that must approve all foods and drugs meant for human consumption. The very first impact of that was that the patent medicines were not approved for human consumption once they were tested. 
2) The Pure Food and Drug Act said that certain drugs could only be sold on prescription. 
3) The Pure Food and Drug Act, (and you know, this is still true today, go look in your medicine chest) requires that any drug that can be potentially habit-forming say so on it's label. "Warning -- May be habit forming." 
The labeling requirements, the prescription requirements, and the refusal to approve the patent medicines basically put the patent medicine business out of business and reduced that dramatic source of accidental addiction. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, not a criminal law, did more to reduce the level of addiction than any other single statute we have passed in all of the times from then to now. 
________________________________________
The Harrison Act 
The very first criminal law at the Federal level in this country to criminalize the non-medical use of drugs came in 1914. It was called the Harrison Act and there are only three things about the Harrison Act that we need to focus on today. 
Number one is the date. Did you hear the date, 1914? Some of you may have come this morning thinking that we have used the criminal law to deal with the non-medical use of drugs since the beginning of the Republic or something. That is not true. The entire experiment of using the criminal sanction to deal with the non-medical use of drugs really began in this country in 1914 with the Harrison Act. 
The second interesting thing about the Harrison Act was the drugs to which it applied, because it applied to almost none of the drugs we would be concerned about today. The Harrison Act applied to opium, morphine and its various derivatives, and the derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. No mention anywhere there of amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, hashish, hallucinogenic drugs of any kind. The Harrison Act applied only to opium, morphine and its various derivatives and derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. 
The third and most interesting thing for you all as judges about the Harrison Act was its structure, because the structure of this law was very peculiar and became the model for every single piece of Federal legislation from 1914 right straight through 1969. And what was that model? 
It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve. They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date -- 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call "states' rights" and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That's why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently. 
In the face of possible Constitutional opposition to what they wanted to do, the people in Congress who supported the Harrison Act came up with a novel idea. That is, they would masquerade this whole thing as though it were a tax. To show you how it worked, can I use some hypothetical figures to show you how this alleged tax worked? 
There were two taxes. The first (and again, these figures aren't accurate but they will do to show the idea) tax was paid by doctors. It was a dollar a year and the doctors, in exchange for paying that one dollar tax, got a stamp from the Government that allowed them to prescribe these drugs for their patients so long as they followed the regulations in the statute. Do you see that by the payment of that one dollar tax, we have the doctors regulated? The doctors have to follow the regulations in the statute. 
And there was a second tax. (and again, these are hypothetical figures but they will show you how it worked.) was a tax of a thousand dollars of every single non-medical exchange of every one of these drugs. Well, since nobody was going to pay a thousand dollars in tax to exchange something which, in 1914, even in large quantities was worth about five dollars, the second tax wasn't a tax either, it was a criminal prohibition. Now just to be sure you guys understand this, and I am sure you do, but just to make sure, let's say that in 1915 somebody was found, let's say, in possession of an ounce of cocaine out here on the street. What would be the Federal crime? Not possession of cocaine, or possession of a controlled substance. What was the crime? Tax evasion. 
And do you see what a wicked web that is going to be? As a quick preview, where then are we going to put the law enforcement arm for the criminalization of drugs for over forty years -- in what department? The Treasury Department. Why, we are just out there collecting taxes and I will show you how that works in a minute. 
If you understand that taxing scheme then you understand why the national marijuana prohibition of 1937 was called the Marihuana Tax Act. 
________________________________________
The Early State Marijuana Laws 
But before we get to that next big piece of Federal legislation, the marihuana prohibition of 1937, I would like to take a little detour, if I may, into an analysis of the early state marijuana laws passed in this country from 1915 to 1937. 
Let me pause to tell you this. When Professor Bonnie and I set out to try to track the legal history of marijuana in this country, we were shocked that nobody had ever done that work before. And, secondly, the few people who had even conjectured about it went back to the 1937 Federal Act and said "Well, there's the beginning of it." No. If you go back to 1937, that fails to take account of the fact that, in the period from 1915 to 1937, some 27 states passed criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What Professor Bonnie and I did was, unique to our work, to go back to the legislative records in those states and back to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed to try to find out what motivated these 27 states to enact criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What we found was that the 27 states divided into three groups by explanation. 
The first group of states to have marijuana laws in that part of the century were Rocky Mountain and southwestern states. By that, I mean Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana. You didn't have to go anywhere but to the legislative records to find out what had motivated those marijuana laws. The only thing you need to know to understand the early marijuana laws in the southwest and Rocky Mountain areas of this country is to know, that in the period just after 1914, into all of those areas was a substantial migration of Mexicans. They had come across the border in search of better economic conditions, they worked heavily as rural laborers, beet field workers, cotton pickers, things of that sort. And with them, they had brought marijuana. 
Basically, none of the white people in these states knew anything about marijuana, and I make a distinction between white people and Mexicans to reflect a distinction that any legislator in one of these states at the time would have made. And all you had to do to find out what motivated the marijuana laws in the Rocky mountain and southwestern states was to go to the legislative records themselves. Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona." 
Well, there it was, you didn't have to look another foot as you went from state to state right on the floor of the state legislature. And so what was the genesis for the early state marijuana laws in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern areas of this country? It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it.

A second group of states that had criminal laws against the use of marijuana were in the Northeast, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York -- had one and then repealed it and then had one again -- New Jersey. Well, clearly no hypothesis about Mexican immigration will explain the genesis of those laws because, as you know, the Northeast has never had, still doesn't really, any substantial Mexican-American population. So we had to dig a little deeper to find the genesis of those laws. We had to go not only to the legislative records but to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed and what we found, in the early marijuana laws in the Northeast, we labeled the "fear of substitution." If I may, let me paraphrase an editorial from the New York Times in 1919 so we will get exactly the flavor of this fear of substitution. 
The New York Times in an editorial in 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest," and here comes the substitution. "But," said the New York Times, "we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise" -- here's the substitution concept -- "all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use." 
Well, from state to state, on the theory that this newly encountered drug marijuana would be substituted by the hard narcotics addicts or by the alcohol drinkers for their previous drug that had been prohibited, state to state this fear of substitution carried, and that accounted for 26 of the 27 states -- that is, either the anti-Mexican sentiment in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain areas or fear of substitution in the Northeast. That accounted for 26 of the 27 states, and there was only one state left over. It was the most important state for us because it was the first state ever to enact a criminal law against the use of marijuana and it was the state of Utah. 
Now, if you have been hearing this story and you have been playing along with me, you think "Oh, wait a minute, Whitebread, Utah fits exactly with Colorado, Montana, -- it must have been the Mexicans." 
Well, that's what I thought at first. But we went and did a careful study of the actual immigration pattern and found, to our surprise, that Utah didn't have then, and doesn't have now, a really substantial Mexican-American population. So it had to be something else. 
Come on folks, if it had to be something else, what do you think it might have been? Are you thinking what I was thinking -- that it must have had something to do with the single thing which makes Utah unique in American history -- its association with the Mormon church.

With help from some people in Salt Lake City, associated with the Mormon Church and the Mormon National Tabernacle in Washington -- with their help and a lot of work we found out what the genesis was of the first marihuana law in this country. Yes, it was directly connected to the history of Utah and Mormonism and it went like this.

I think that a lot of you know that, in its earliest days, the Mormon church permitted its male members to have more than one wife -- polygamy. Do you all know that in 1876, in a case called Reynolds against the United States, the United States Supreme Court said that Mormons were free to believe what they wanted, but they were not free to practice polygamy in this country. Well, who do you think enforced that ruling of the Supreme Court in 1876? At the end of the line, who enforces all rulings of the Supreme Court? Answer: the state and local police. And who were they in Utah then? All Mormons, and so nothing happened for many years. Those who wanted to live polygamously continued to do so. 
In 1910, the Mormon Church in synod in Salt Lake City decreed polygamy to be a religious mistake and it was banned as a matter of the Mormon religion. Once that happened, there was a crackdown on people who wanted to live in what they called "the traditional way". So, just after 1910, a fairly large number of Mormons left the state of Utah, and indeed left the United States altogether and moved into northwest Mexico. They wrote a lot about what they wanted to accomplish in Mexico. They wanted to set up communities where they were basically going to convert the Indians, the Mexicans, and what they referred to as "the heathen" in the neighborhood to Mormonism. 
By 1914, they had had very little luck with the heathen, but our research shows now beyond question that the heathen had a little luck with them. What happened apparently -- now some of you who may be members of the church, you know that there are still substantial Mormon communities in northwest Mexico -- was that, by and large most of the Mormons were not happy there, the religion had not done well there, they didn't feel comfortable there, they wanted to go back to Utah where there friends were and after 1914 did. 
And with them, the Indians had given them marijuana. Now once you get somebody back in Utah with the marijuana it all becomes very easy, doesn't it? You know that the Mormon Church has always been opposed to the use of euphoriants of any kind. So, somebody saw them with the marijuana, and in August of 1915 the Church, meeting again in synod in Salt Lake City decreed the use of marijuana contrary to the Mormon religion and then -- and this is how things were in Utah in those days -- in October of 1915, the state legislature met and enacted every religious prohibition as a criminal law and we had the first criminal law in this country's history against the use of marijuana. 
That digression into the early state marijuana laws aside, we will now get back on the Federal track, the year is 1937 and we get the national marijuana prohibition -- the Marihuana Tax Act 
________________________________________
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 
Now, first again, does everybody see the date, 1937? You may have thought that we have had a national marijuana prohibition for a very long time. Frankly, we haven't. 
The marijuana prohibition is part and parcel of that era which is now being rejected rather generally -- the New Deal era in Washington in the late 30s.

Number two, you know, don't you, that whenever Congress is going to pass a law, they hold hearings. And you have seen these hearings. The hearings can be extremely voluminous, they go on and on, they have days and days of hearings. Well, may I say, that the hearings on the national marijuana prohibition were very brief indeed. The hearings on the national marijuana prohibition lasted one hour, on each of two mornings and since the hearings were so brief I can tell you almost exactly what was said to support the national marijuana prohibition. 
Now, in doing this one at the FBI Academy, I didn't tell them this story, but I am going to tell you this story. You want to know how brief the hearings were on the national marijuana prohibition? 

When we asked at the Library of Congress for a copy of the hearings, to the shock of the Library of Congress, none could be found. We went "What?" It took them four months to finally honor our request because -- are you ready for this? -- the hearings were so brief that the volume had slid down inside the side shelf of the bookcase and was so thin it had slid right down to the bottom inside the bookshelf. That's how brief they were. Are you ready for this? They had to break the bookshelf open because it had slid down inside. 
There were three bodies of testimony at the hearings on the national marijuana prohibition. 

The first testimony came from Commissioner Harry Anslinger, the newly named Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Now, I think some of you know that in the late 20s and early 30s in this country there were two Federal police agencies created, the FBI and the FBN -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. 

In our book, I talk at great length about how different the history of these two organizations really are. But, the two organizations, the FBI and the FBN had some surface similarities and one of them was that a single individual headed each of them for a very long time. In the case of the FBI, it was J. Edgar Hoover, and in the case of the FBN it was Harry Anslinger, who was the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 until 1962.

Commissioner Anslinger gave the Government testimony and I will quote him directly. By the way, he was not working from a text that he had written. He was working from a text that had been written for him by a District Attorney in New Orleans, a guy named Stanley. Reading directly from Mr. Stanley's work, Commissioner Anslinger told the Congressmen at the hearings, and I quote, "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." That was the Government testimony to support the marijuana prohibition from the Commissioner. 
The next body of testimony -- remember all of this took a total of two hours -- uh .. You understand what the idea was, don't you? The idea was to prohibit the cultivation of hemp in America. You all know, because there has been some initiative here in California, that hemp has other uses than its euphoriant use. For one, hemp has always been used to make rope. Number two, the resins of the hemp plant are used as bases for paints and varnishes. And, finally, the seeds of the hemp plant are widely used in bird seed. Since these industries were going to be affected the next body of testimony came from the industrial spokesmen who represented these industries. 
The first person was the rope guy. The rope guy told a fascinating story -- it really is fascinating -- the growth of a hemp to make rope was a principle cash crop right where I am from, Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland at the time of the Revolutionary War. But, said the rope guy, by about 1820 it got cheaper to import the hemp we needed to make rope from the Far East and so now in 1937 we don't grow any more hemp to make rope in this country -- it isn't needed anymore. 
If you heard that story, there are two things about it that I found fascinating. Number one, it explains the long-standing rumor that our forefathers had something to do with marijuana. Yes, they did -- they grew it. Hemp was the principal crop at Mount Vernon. It was a secondary crop at Monticello. Now, of course, in our research we did not find any evidence that any of our forefathers had used the hemp plant for euphoriant purposes, but they did grow it. 
The second part of that story that, to me is even more interesting is -- did you see the date again - 1937? What did the rope guy say? We can get all the hemp we need to make rope from the Far East, we don't grow it hear anymore because we don't need to. 
Five years later, 1942, we are cut off from our sources of hemp in the Far East. We need a lot of hemp to outfit our ships for World War II, rope for the ships, and therefore, the Federal Government, as some of you know, went into the business of growing hemp on gigantic farms throughout the Midwest and the South to make rope to outfit the ships for World War II. 
So, even to this day, if you are from the Midwest you will always meet the people who say, "Gosh, hemp grows all along the railroad tracks." Well, it does. Why? Because these huge farms existed all during World War II. 
But, the rope people didn't care. The paint and varnish people said "We can use something else." And, of the industrial spokesmen, only the birdseed people balked. The birdseed people were the ones who balked and the birdseed person was asked, "Couldn't you use some other seed?" 
These are all, by the way, direct quotes from the hearings. The answer the birdseed guy gave was, "No, Congressman, we couldn't. We have never found another seed that makes a birds coat so lustrous or makes them sing so much." 
So, on the ground that the birdseed people needed it -- did you know that the birdseed people both got and kept an exemption from the Marihuana Tax Act right through this very day for so-called "denatured seeds"? 
In any event, there was Anslinger's testimony, there was the industrial testimony -- there was only one body of testimony left at these brief hearings and it was medical. There were two pieces of medical evidence introduced with regard to the marijuana prohibition. 

The first came from a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. When asked by the Congressmen, and I quote, "Doctor, did you choose dogs for the similarity of their reactions to that of humans?" The answer of the pharmacologist was, "I wouldn't know, I am not a dog psychologist." 

Well, the active ingredient in marijuana was first synthesized in a laboratory in Holland after World War II. So what it was this pharmacologist injected into these dogs we will never know, but it almost certainly was not the active ingredient in marijuana. 

The other piece of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug." 
What's amazing is not whether that's true or not. What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" 

That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you." 
Now, the interesting question for us is not about the medical evidence. The most fascinating question is: why was this legal counsel to the most prestigious group of doctors in the United States treated in such a high-handed way? And the answer makes a principle thesis of my work -- and that is -- you've seen it, you've been living it the last ten years. The history of drugs in this country perfectly mirrors the history of this country. 
So look at the date -- 1937 -- what's going on in this country? Well, a lot of things, but the number one thing was that, in 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected in the largest landslide election in this country's history till then. He brought with him two Democrats for every Republican, all, or almost all of them pledged to that package of economic and social reform legislation we today call the New Deal. 
And, did you know that the American Medical Association, from 1932, straight through 1937, had systematically opposed every single piece of New Deal legislation. So that, by 1937, this committee, heavily made up of New Deal Democrats is simply sick of hearing them: "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"

So, over the objection of the American Medical Association, the bill passed out of committee and on to the floor of Congress. Now, some of you may think that the debate on the floor of Congress was more extensive on the marijuana prohibition. It wasn't. It lasted one minute and thirty-two seconds by my count and, as such, I will give it to you verbatim.

The entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition was as follows -- and, by the way, if you had grown up in Washington, DC as I had you would appreciate this date. Are you ready? The bill was brought on to the floor of the House of Representatives -- there never was any Senate debate on it not one word -- 5:45 Friday afternoon, August 20. Now, in pre-air-conditioning Washington, who was on the floor of the House? Who was on the floor of the House? Not very many people. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition. 
"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?" 
To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind." 
Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?" 
In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote. 
In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt's desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition. 
________________________________________
1938 to 1951 
Now, the next step in our story is the period from 1938 to 1951. I have three stories to tell you about 1938 to 1951. 
The first of them. Immediately after the passage of the national marijuana prohibition, Commissioner Anslinger decided to hold a conference of all the people who knew something about marijuana -- a big national conference. He invited forty-two people to this conference. As part our research for the book, we found the exact transcript of this conference. Ready? 
The first morning of the conference of the forty-two people that Commissioner Anslinger invited to talk about marijuana, 39 of them got up and said some version of "Gee, Commissioner Anslinger, I don't know why you asked me to this conference, I don't know anything about marijuana." 
That left three people. Dr. Woodward and his assistant -- you know what they thought. 
That left one person -- the pharmacologist from Temple University -- the guy with the dogs. 
And what do you think happened as a result of that conference? Commissioner Anslinger named the pharmacologist from Temple University the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics about marijuana, a position the guy held until 1962. Now, the irony of trying to find out what the drug did after it had been prohibited -- finding out that only one person agrees with you -- and naming him the Official Expert, speaks for itself. 
The next story from this time period was a particular favorite of the police groups to whom I spoke at the FBI Academy, because it is a law enforcement story. 
After national marijuana prohibition was passed, Commissioner Anslinger found out, or got reports, that certain people were violating the national marijuana prohibition and using marijuana and, unfortunately for them, they fell into an identifiable occupational group. Who were flouting the marijuana prohibition? Jazz musicians. And so, in 1947, Commissioner Anslinger sent out a letter, I quote it verbatim, "Dear Agent So-and-so, Please prepare all cases in your jurisdiction involving musicians in violation of the marijuana laws. We will have a great national round-up arrest of all such persons on a single day. I will let you know what day." 
That letter went out on, I think, October 24, 1947. The responses by the resident agents were all in the file. My favorite -- at the bottom line, there wasn't a single resident agent who didn't have reservations about this idea -- came from the Hollywood agent. This is the exact letter of the FBN agent in charge in Hollywood. 
"Dear Commissioner Anslinger, 
I have your letter of October 24. Please be advised that the musical community here in Hollywood are unionized and very tight we have been unable to get an informant inside it. So, at the present time, we have no cases involving musicians in violation of the marihuana laws." 
For the next year and a half, Commissioner Anslinger got those kinds of letters. He never acknowledged any of the problems that the agents said they were having with this idea and always wrote them back the same letter. 
"Dear Agent so-and-so, 
Glad to hear you are working hard to give effect to my directive of October 24, 1947. We will (and he always underlined the word 'will') have a great national round-up arrest of musicians in violation of the marijuana laws all on a single day. Don't worry, I will let you know what day."

This went on -- and, of course, you know that some jazz musicians were, in fact, arrested in the late 40's -- this all went on until it ended just the way it began -- with something that Anslinger said. I don't see anybody in here really old enough to appreciate this point, but Commissioner Anslinger was testifying before a Senate Committee in 1948. He was saying, "I need more agents." And, of course, the Senators asked him why. 
"Because there are people out there violating the marijuana laws." 
Well, you know what the Senators asked -- "Who?" 
And in a moment that every Government employee should avoid like the plague, Anslinger first said, "Musicians." But then he looked up at that Senate committee and he gave them a little piece of his heart and said the single line which provoked the most response in this country's history about the non-medical use of drugs. Anslinger said, "And I don't mean good musicians, I mean jazz musicians." 
Friends, there is no way to tell you what a torrent ensued. Within 24 hours, 76 newspaper editorials slammed him, including special editions the then booming trade press of the jazz music industry. With three days, the Department of the Treasury had received fifteen thousand letters. bunches of them were still in bags when I got there -- never been opened at all. I opened a few. Here was a typical one, and it was darling. 
"Dear Commissioner Anslinger, 
I applaud your efforts to rid America of the scourge of narcotics addiction. If you are as ill-informed about that as you are about music, however, you will never succeed." 
One of the things that we had access to that really was fun was the Commissioner's own appointment book for all of his years. And, five days after he says "I don't mean good musicians, I mean jazz musicians." there is a notation: 10 AM -- appointment with the Secretary of the Treasury." Well, I don't know what happened at that appointment, but from that appointment on, no mention is ever made again of the great national round-up arrest of musicians in violation of the marijuana laws all on a single day, much to the delight of the agents who never had any heart for it in the first place.

The final story from this period is my favorite story from this period, by far, and, again, there is simply nobody here who is really old enough to appreciate this story. You know, if you talk to your parents -- that's the generation we really need to talk to -- people who were adults during the late 30's and 40's. And you talk to them about marijuana in particular you would be amazed at the amazing reputation that marijuana has among the generation ahead of you as to what it does to its users. 
In the late 30's and early 40's marihuana was routinely referred to as "the killer drug", "the assassin of youth". You all know "reefer madness", right? Where did these extraordinary stories that circulated in this country about what marijuana would do to its users come from? 
The conventional wisdom is that Anslinger put them over on Americans in his effort to compete with Hoover for empire-building, etc. I have to say, in some fairness, that one of the things that our research did, in some sense, was to rehabilitate Commissioner Anslinger. Yes, there was some of that but, basically, it wasn't just that Anslinger was trying to dupe people. 
The terrific reputation that marijuana got in the late 30s and early 40s stemmed from something Anslinger had said. Does everybody remember what Anslinger said about the drug? "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." 
Well, this time the magic word -- come along lawyers out there, where's the magic word? -- Insanity. Marihuana use, said the Government, would produce insanity. 
And, sure enough, in the late 30s and early 40s, in five really flamboyant murder trials, the defendant's sole defense was that he -- or, in the most famous of them, she -- was not guilty by reason of insanity for having used marijuana prior to the commission of the crime. 
All right, it's time to take you guys back to class here. If you are going to put on an insanity defense, what do you need? You need two things, don't you? Number one, you need an Expert Witness. 
Where, oh where, in this story, are we going to find an expert witness? Here it comes -- sure enough -- the guy from Temple University -- the guy with the dogs. I promise you, you are not going to believe this. 
In the most famous of these trials, what happened was two women jumped on a Newark, New Jersey bus and shot and killed and robbed the bus driver. They put on the marijuana insanity defense. The defense called the pharmacologist, and of course, you know how to do this now, you put the expert on, you say "Doctor, did you do all of this experimentation and so on?" You qualify your expert. "Did you write all about it?" "Yes, and I did the dogs" and now he is an expert. Now you ask him what? You ask the doctor "What have you done with the drug?" And he said, and I quote, "I've experimented with the dogs, I have written something about it and" -- are you ready -- "I have used the drug myself." 
What do you ask him next? "Doctor, when you used the drug, what happened?" 
With all the press present at this flamboyant murder trial in Newark New Jersey, in 1938, the pharmacologist said, and I quote, in response to the question "When you used the drug, what happened?", his exact response was: "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat." 
He wasn't done yet. He testified that he flew around the room for fifteen minutes and then found himself at the bottom of a two-hundred-foot high ink well 
Well, friends, that sells a lot of papers. What do you think the Newark Star Ledger headlines the next day, October 12, 1938? "Killer Drug Turns Doctor to Bat!" 
What else do we need to put on an insanity defense? We need the defendant's testimony -- himself or herself. OK, you put defendant on the stand, what do you ask? "What happened on the night of . ." 
"Oh, I used marijuana." 
"And then what happened?" 
And, if the defendant wants to get off, what is he or she going to say? "It made me crazy." 
You know what the women testified? In Newark they testified, and I quote, "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette my incisor teeth grew six inches long and dripped with blood." 
This was the craziest business you ever saw. Every one of these so-called marijuana insanity defenses were successful. 
The one in New York was just outlandish. Two police officers were shot and killed in cold blood. The defendant puts on the marijuana insanity defense and, in that case, there was never even any testimony that the defendant had even used marijuana. The testimony in the New York case was that, from the time the bag of marijuana came into his room it gave off "homicidal vibrations", so he started killing dogs, cats, and ultimately two police officers. 
Commissioner Anslinger, sitting in Washington, seeing these marijuana insanity defenses, one after another successful, he writes to the pharmacologist from Temple University and says, "If you don't stop testifying for the defense in these matters, we are going to revoke your status as the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics." He didn't want to lose his status, so he stopped testifying, nobody else would testify that marijuana had turned them into a bat, and so these insanity defenses were over but not before marijuana had gotten quite a reputation, indeed. 
The next step -- and now we are going to move very quickly here -- in 1951. We get a whole new drug law called the Boggs Act and it is important to us for only two reasons. 
Number one, it reflects what I am going to call the formula for drug legislation in this country. Here is the formula. The formula really is always the same, think about it in our lifetime. 
The formula is that someone, and by the way, that someone is usually the media, perceive an increase in drug use. What's the answer? The answer in the history of this country is always the same -- a new criminal law with harsher penalties in every single offense category. 
Where did the perception come from this time? Well, if you have ever seen movies from this time period like High School Confidential, the perception was that kids in high school were starting to use drugs. What's the answer? The answer is always the same. The Boggs Act of 1951 quadrupled the penalties in every single offense category and, by the way, the Boggs Act had a whole new rationale for the marijuana prohibition. 
Do you remember the old rationale -- that marijuana was an addictive drug which caused in its users insanity, criminality, and death? Just before Anslinger was to testify on the Boggs Act, the doctor who ran for the Government the Lexington, Kentucky narcotics rehabilitation clinic testified ahead of Anslinger and testified that the medical community knew that marijuana wasn't an addictive drug,. It doesn't produce death, or insanity, and instead of producing criminality, it probably produces passivity, said the doctor. 
Who was the next witness? Anslinger. And, if you see, that the rug had been pulled out from under everything he had said in the 1937 hearings to support the marijuana prohibition. In what I call a really slick Federal shuffle -- Anslinger, you know, had been bitten bad enough by what he said, he didn't want that again -- he said, the doctor is right, marijuana -- he always believed, by the way, that there was something in marijuana which produced criminality -- is not an addictive drug, it doesn't produce insanity or death but it is "the certain first step on the road to heroin addiction." And the notion that marijuana was the stepping stone to heroin became, in 1951, the sole rationale for the national marijuana prohibition. It was the first time that marijuana was lumped with all the other drugs and not treated separately, and we multiply the penalties in every offense category. 
By the way, I told you that the history of drug legislation reflects the history of the country. 1951, what's going on? The Korean War, the Cold War. It didn't take the press a minute to see this perceived use in drug use among high school kids as our "foreign enemies", using drugs to subvert the American young. In our book, we have ten or fifteen great political cartoons. My favorite is a guy with a big Fu Man Chu (mustache) labeled "Oriental Communism." He has a big needle marked "Dope" and he has the American kids lying down -- "Free World" it is marked. There it was -- that our foreign enemies were going to use drugs to subvert the American young. What did we do? We passed a new law that increased the penalties in every offense category by a factor of four. 
Well, now once you buy it, the ball is going to roll like crazy. 
________________________________________
1956 and the Daniel Act 
1956, we get another new drug law, called the Daniel Act, named for Senator Price Daniel of Texas. It is important to us for only two reasons. One, it perfectly reflects the formula again. What is the formula? Somebody perceives an increase in drug use in this country and the answer is always a new criminal law with harsher penalties in every offense category. 
Where did the perception in 1956 come from that there was an increase in drug use? Answer: Anybody remember 1956? In 1956, we had the first set ever of televised Senate hearings. And whose hearings were they? They were the hearings of Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee about organized crime in America. 
These hearings, which everybody watched on their little sets showed two things that we all know today, but it sure made their socks roll up and down then. Number one, there is organized crime in America and number two, it makes all its money selling drugs. There it was, that was all the perception we needed. We passed the Daniel Act which increased the penalties in every offense category, that had just been increased times four -- times eight. 
With the passage of each of these acts, the states passed little Boggs acts, and little Daniel acts, so that in the period 1958 to 1969, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Virginia was typical, the most heavily penalized crime in the Commonwealth was possession of marijuana, or any other drug. 
It led to a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years, no part of which you were eligible for parole or probation, and as to no part of it were you eligible for a suspended sentence. 
Just to show you where it was, in the same time period first degree murder in Virginia had a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years. Rape, a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Possession of marijuana -- not to mention sales of marijuana with its mandatory minimum of forty years -- mandatory minimum of twenty years. 
That is the situation in 1969 when we have a new drug law, the first one in this country's history that does not follow the formula. It is the 1969 Dangerous Substances Act. For he first time in this country's history, we have a perception of an increase in drug use during the Sixties, but instead of raising the penalties, we lower them. And, further, in the Dangerous Substances Act of 1969, for the first time we finally abandon the so-called "taxing" mythology. 
In the 1969 Act, what the Federal law does is, it takes all the drugs we know -- if you can't fill in this next blank, you are in trouble -- except two -- which two? Which two are never going to be mentioned? Nicotine and alcohol. But, other than nicotine and alcohol -- every other drug. 
By the way, I tried this with the FBI for twenty years and they wouldn't listen, and you won't listen either but, I am going to try. If you are going to go out and talk about drugs and whatever you are going to do with drugs, will you please discard the entirely antiquated and erroneous word "narcotics." Narcotics are drugs that put people to sleep. Almost all of the drugs that we are interested in today don't do that. 
So, in 1969, the Dangerous Substances Act gave up the effort to define what are narcotic drugs. What the 1969 act did, and what most state laws still do, is to classify all drugs except nicotine and alcohol by two criteria. What is the drug's medical use? And, what is the drug's potential for abuse? 
We put all the drugs, by those two criteria, in schedules, and then we tie the penalties for possession, possession with intent to sell, sale, and sale to a minor to the schedule of the drug in question. Now, again, I am no good at this anymore, I have not kept up with the drug laws, I don't know who is in what schedule, and many states have abandoned the schedule but, to give you a flavor of it: The first schedule, Schedule One Drugs were drugs that had little or no medical use and a high potential for abuse. What's going to go in there? LSD, marijuana, hashish, they are all in Schedule One -- little or no medical use and a high potential for abuse. 
Then you get some medical use, high potential for abuse -- what do you want there? Barbiturates, amphetamines,. 
Then we are going to get what? High medical use and high potential for abuse. Morphine, codeine. Codeine is the best one because codeine is in almost every single prescription cough medicine and it is addictive as can be. 
Then you go on down and get the antibiotics -- high medical use, almost no potential for abuse, and there you are. 
Once you schedule your drugs, you then tie the penalties for the drugs to the schedule and then, because in 1969 they wanted to reduce the marijuana penalties they had to deal with marijuana separately and did so. 
But the 1969 act important for two reasons again: One, we abandoned the taxing mythology and; two, it was the first law in this country's history that, instead of raising the penalties in every offense category, lowered them. 
Well, then you know what happened. We get the War on Drugs. You know how it all went down. We got perceptions in the 80s that there was an increase in drug use, a great dramatic decision to declare war on drugs and, predominantly, war on drug users. 
What I want to say to you is this, and this is where I think some of you are going to be a little surprised. You know as much about that process as I do. You watched it. You saw how we had one law after another, raising the penalties so that as late as 1990, thirty percent of the minority group population of the City of Baltimore who are male and between 20 and 29 are under court supervision for drugs. Thirty percent, that's the number you are looking for. 
The War on Drugs, a very interesting war, because why? It was cheap to fight. It was cheap to fight at first -- why? You heard me in the "Recent Decisions" talk. What was last year's big moment, and the year before? The change in cheap and easy forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture was used to make this a costless war. That is, easy forfeiture from those who were caught allowed us to pay for the war in that way. I think we are going to have some real questions about whether people want to pay for the war on drugs through their taxes because now the Court has made forfeiture much, much more difficult in their overall concern for property rights. 
But here is what I think may surprise some of you. You guys know as much about the War on Drugs as I do. I didn't come hear to talk, or to harangue, or to give you any opinions on that point. I think it speaks for itself. It is a failure and I think it will be judged as a failure. What I wanted to bring you instead was, instead of talking about that that everybody is talking about -- and you guys will ultimately resolve it and you guys are the ones who are seeing all the drug cases, day in and day out, and always will, until this changes. But, what I thought I could bring you was the part of the story you hadn't heard -- how we got to where we were when the War on Drugs was declared.
________________________________________
Conclusion - The Issue of Prohibition 
And one other thing I want to do with you this morning, and that's this -- I want to say one thing. To tell you the real truth, my interest isn't in drugs, or in the criminalization of drugs although I think we should abolish the criminal penalties for drugs, and deal with it as the Europeans do in a medical way, but who cares? That's an opinion.

What interests me though, isn't drugs. What interests me is that larger issue, and the reason that I wrote the piece, and the reason they were my tenure pieces, I am interested in a much larger issue, and that is the idea of Prohibition -- the use of criminal law to criminalize conduct that a large number of us seem to want to engage in. 

And, for my purposes, -- now, Professor Bonnie went on to be associated with NIDA and with all kinds of drug-related organizations and continues to be interested in the drug laws -- I am not. My interest is in criminal prohibitions and, for my purposes, as a criminal law scholar, we could have used any prohibition -- alcohol prohibition, the prohibition against gambling that exists still in many states. How about the prohibition in England from 1840 to 1880 against the drinking of gin? Not drinking, just gin -- got it? We could have used any of these prohibitions. We didn't. We chose the marijuana prohibition because the story had never been told -- and it is an amazing story.

We could have used any of these prohibitions. We could have used the alcohol prohibition. The reason we didn't is because so much good stuff has been written about it. And are you aware of this? That every single -- you know how fashionable it is to think that scholars can never agree? -- Don't you believe that -- Every single person who has ever written seriously about the national alcohol prohibition agrees on why it collapsed. Why? 
Because it violated that iron law of Prohibitions. What is the iron law of Prohibitions? Prohibitions are always enacted by US, to govern the conduct of THEM. Do you have me? Take the alcohol prohibition. Every single person who has ever written about it agrees on why it collapsed. 
Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Do you have me? What? The right answer to that one is Huh? Want to hear it again? 
Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Want to see it? 
Let me give you an example, 1919. You are a Republican in upstate New York. Whether you drink, or you don't, you are for the alcohol prohibition because it will close the licensed saloons in the City of New York which you view to be the corrupt patronage and power base of the Democratic Party in New York. So almost every Republican in New York was in favor of national alcohol prohibition. And, as soon as it passed, what do you think they said? "Well, what do you know? Success. Let's have a drink." That's what they thought, "let's have a drink." "Let's drink to this." A great success, you see. 
Do you understand me? Huge numbers of people in this country were in favor of national alcohol prohibition who were not themselves opposed to drinking. 
I just want to go back to the prohibition against the drinking of gin. How could a country prohibit just the drinking of gin, not the drinking of anything else for forty years? Answer: The rich people drank whiskey and the poor people drank what? -- gin. Do you see it?
__________________


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

HoffaLives said:


> so there's been a sailors fight club. big deal. this is a chance for a thread that really separates the men from the boys. people get tiffed when morally/socially important stuff is brought up in mundane threads, so i thought it might be good for a thread to talk about the important issues without waking anyone up.
> 
> an example might be what it means to be a privileged cruiser in a third world country. or the death of someone at sea. gender roles and sailing.
> 
> ...


Since Giu resurrected this thread, I don't feel too bad about contributing. 
But because I have posted the quote twice in the past, this time I will only add the link to the original. I don't want to break any sacred rules or anything.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ted/7384-words-live.html?highlight=words+live

Although the only thing that I seen that is sacred so far is a certain unnamed member's spouse's posterior.
Nevertheless, I want to play it safe.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

knothead said:


> Although the only thing that I seen that is sacred so far is a certain unnamed member's spouse's posterior.
> Nevertheless, I want to play it safe.


Magnum 44....do you feel lucky??? Punk???


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

Giulietta said:


> Magnum 44....do you feel lucky??? Punk???


Is there really any place for luck on a thread about philosophy?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

knothead said:


> Is there really any place for luck on a thread about philosophy?


Let me answer with another philosophycal question....

Is there eneregy gains in mast foot blocks and organizers???


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

Giulietta said:


> Let me answer with another philosophycal question....
> 
> Is there eneregy gains in mast foot blocks and organizers???


I only wish.


----------



## Joesaila (May 19, 2007)

Who needs wind with all that?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Joesaila said:


> Who needs wind with all that?


That is very very un-philosophical....piss off.......   

Get it?? piss in the wind and it comes back at you.....


----------



## TomandKarens34 (Dec 4, 2007)

Ahh yes, the history of drug laws in the US. In the US we champion the belief that fixing the symtoms fixes the problem. Aside from the fore mentioned references to The Prophet, My favorite quote; "The law, in it's majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread". Lest we forget that the "People" refers to the class that is tolerated for its ability to supply labor and wealth for those who are better connected and powerful. Sorry, in a bad mood this morning.
It would seem that a philosophy of sailing would be based on a logical framework germane to sailing's significance to living. To that end I would quote Plato who said, " It is the excersize of vital energies, along lines of excellence, in a life affording them scope." That said, I'm going to go fix stuff on my boat, the real stuff that bugs me defies repair.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

While you're up, can you bring me a gin and tonic my good man?


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

If 
"I think and therefore I am" is true
Is
"I stink and therefore I vent" true?

No, because you see it could have been "I stink and there for I went".

It's hard to be philosphical when in fact all farts are funny. Nowhere, in all of recorded history has there been one non-funny fart. Did (diety of choice) include methane gas production in our biochemistry just to add humor to our lives? Probably not, because farts are not funny due ot olfactory considerations, they just sound funny. If you can accept the truth of all farts being funny then you have accepted that it doesn't matter if a fart is a squeeker or a 'birds took off from sound sleep at 200 yards" blast of gas. Giggling after a fart has nothing to do with the smell, you have, or will giggle long before the smell reachs your nose; and likely will cease giggling shortly thereafter.
In fact, multi-part, multi-tonal squeekers have (not personally tested) less of a methane component and likely less olfactory impact but often produce the more humorous responses. They are, if played in tune with Beetoven's 5th, even likely to produce a lip twitch on a Britsh royal guard's inmobile face.

I'm not telling ya'll how to think, or how to stink. I'm just saying...


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

I tried reading the long posts, really I did. But I kept falling asleep. There is a moral there someplace... But if those posts weren't immoral, illegal or fattening, then there is a sleep factor involved that has a negative exponential to the attention keeping of a true sailor.
So it is enjoy life, while you can. Life is to short to fret over the small stuff and almost everything is small stuff.


----------



## LarryandSusanMacDonald (Apr 3, 2005)

A British dude once told me, "You Americans are an odd lot. When you burp, you excuse yourselves. When you sneeze, everyone blesses you. And when you fart, you laugh like hell."


----------



## CharlieCobra (May 23, 2006)

Where the hell IS Hoffa? Did someone scare him off?


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

CharlieCobra said:


> Where the hell IS Hoffa? Did someone scare him off?


I think Hoffa Lives elsewhere nowadays..


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Hoffa saw a picture of Jody...........need we say more!


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

blt2ski said:


> Hoffa saw a picture of Jody...........need we say more!


Yep and its so fugly that even Giu can't touch it with photoshop (as a matter of fact I have it from good sources he tried and Adobe immediately revoked his photoshop license...and now that is the rest of the story of why Giu is on sabbatical)...


----------



## zAr (Feb 22, 2009)

If you ask me, just because something is philosophical doesn't mean it's off-topic in a sailing forum.

First off, sailing is a lifestyle, replete with existential choices about life and the living of it. The sailing life, some say, is about freedom, others say it's the opposite - it's about imprisoning oneself in a floating jail cell. Then there's the obvious question - why do we do it and what does it mean to each of us? Is sailing about getting in touch with nature, or about getting in touch with ourselves, getting closer to who we are or running away from who we are, finding our limits or self-imposing limits?

Or if you want to get into ethics and morality, is there such a thing on the ocean or is it everyone for themselves? Technically, it may be lawless, but somehow or other a lot of us wind up practicing some unwritten code of ethics, we live by it and we have an unspoken expectation that others follow it too - and usually they do. Heck, sailsmanship is a kind of ethics - it's about the right and wrong way to do things, or perhaps it's more of an etiquette, like whether the fork goes on the left or right.

And the sailing lifestyle can be said to be a shared world-view, shared intersubjective experiences. We are a community that understands some things others do not. We share a love for something which other communities do not.

Or how about topics such whether boats are works of art, capable of moving the soul, of uplifting numinosity of spirit, lines and symbols of symmetry and perfection, or merely practical tools more or less like a hammer or screwdriver.

Or how about sailing as the art or science of bringing order to the high chaos of the ocean? Man against nature? Or man alongside with and at one with nature? Man tempting fate, tempting the odds. Tiny humanity against powerful nature. 

I could go on and on.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

zAr - good point dude. 

As far as I'm concerned...

Kierkegaard teed it up in 1835. Gabriel Marcel knocked it out of the park in 1943. And Sartre, Nietzsche, Heidegger, et al were just bummed out clowns. I don't think any of 'em sailed anyway....so scroom.

Back to my bong.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

They were all smoking something Smacky, and had too much time on their hands. Immanuel Kant with his 'a priori' condition of our internal intuition postulates that we can only think in ways that we are pre-conditioned to. This explains a lot about the world of politics and even sailing. 
Many say you should not sail a MacGregor 26' on the ocean yet it has been done. Robert Gainer crossed the Atlantic in his 20's on a nearly 25' sloop which was considered a daredevil feat by most but was just something he tried to do and succeeded.
One of the things I love about sailing is when there is almost nothing to do but monitor the sails, rigging, sea state and weather. It gives one a lot of time to think about how small we actually are and how by the grace of the elements we are slowly progressing across the surface of this vast globe. I guess that the globe seems a lot smaller to those who have been around it a few times: "Turn to starboard after Cape Horn and head NW for 2000 nm or so." Different minds and different mind sets = different strokes fo' different folks.
My only blue water experience gave me a few philosophical thoughts to ponder. Being trapped or free on a 51' sailboat with just one other person for 400 nm was enjoyable and our small microcosm of society did just fine for the 3+ days it took. Once back in the circus that is Miami airport with the throngs of our society flooding around me I missed the solitude and quiet of our little floating world where everything was dependable except the weather and even that had been pretty benign for our crossing from Tortola to the TCI, Provo. The hardest thing I found to deal with rationally was the loss of a horizon after dark on a nominal 3' ocean swell. The mast light hovered and moved like a UFO which I reasoned was not very likely but seemed quite apparently real. The noise of the boom as it tried to jibe against its preventer would produce a sound that to my ears was a short dog bark, yet we were over 100 nm from any shore with no dog on board. No, nighttime is the time when our imaginations can and do run riot over our mind and senses. Whether through an inner strength or if the hand of some higher power was in it I was able to reason through all of these seeming anomalies. There are many strange things that are out there that can either be 'the usual' to the experienced or 'mind bending' to the uninitiated. 
The wonderful thing about being on a sailboat in decent weather is that you have some time to think about some of the conflicting signals your senses may be telling you and reason with your own demons.
Nietzsche may sneeze at this in his grave but I'd like to see him out there.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Caleb - dude - that was beautiful man. Seriously.

Nietzsche's a punk.


----------

