Socrates got around

An essay at Aeon notes that there is reason to suspect that Socrates had a much more complicated love life than Plato let on (or knew about?):

The enduring image of Socrates that comes from Plato is of a man of humble background, little education, few means and unappealing looks, who became a brilliant and disputatious philosopher married to an argumentative woman called Xanthippe.  Both Plato and Xenophon, Socrates’ other principal biographer, were born c424 BCE, so they knew Socrates (born c469 BCE) only as an old man. Keen to defend his reputation from the charges of ‘introducing new kinds of gods’ and ‘corrupting young men’ on which he was eventually brought to trial and executed, they painted a picture of Socrates in late middle age as a pious teacher and unremitting ethical thinker, a man committed to shunning bodily pleasures for higher educational purposes. ....

Plato’s pupil Aristotle and other Ancient writers provide us with correctives to the Platonic Socrates. For instance, Aristotle’s followers Aristoxenus and Clearchus of Soli preserve biographical snippets that they might have known from their teacher. From them we learn that Socrates in his teens was intimate with a distinguished older philosopher, Archelaus; that he married more than once, the first time to an aristocratic woman called Myrto, with whom he had two sons; and that he had an affair with Aspasia of Miletus, the clever and influential woman who was later to become the partner of Pericles, a leading citizen of Athens.

The man child President, continued

Lots of reporting about how Trump and his Homeland Security boss fell out over the matter of whether the government agency has to follow the law.  (Guess which one thought it could be ignored.)

Now, his Secret Service head is going too.  Vox notes (emphasis on the last paragraph):

The Secret Service said in a statement after the incident that it was Mar-a-Lago, not them, who decides who and who does not get into the property. Trump just last week said that he “could not be happier” with the Secret Service, which has “done a fantastic job from day one.”

CNN reports that Alles’s ouster is not related to the Mar-a-Lago incident, and an official told NBC News that it “was not based on any single event.” The Times, however, reports that Trump sought Alles’s resignation “in part” because of the incident.

The Times also reported Trump had “soured on” Alles and that the director had been told about 10 days ago to come up with an exit plan for himself and devise a timeline. According to the report, Trump made fun of Alles’s appearance and called him “Dumbo” because of his ears.

Terrible politics noted

The Coalition, which by rights should come out of the forthcoming federal election with a mere handful of seats and be rebuilt from the ground up, knows how to run a dishonest populist scare campaign and is out and running with one early.

Labor needs to be countering this ASAP - sad to say, but populist lies of this type lodge in brains early and can be near impossible to displace.   Here are some amusing tweets about it today:

Seekers remembered

Australian Story last night gave a quick history of The Seekers.  I had forgotten how relatively briefly they had been together.   Also how young Judith Durham was when they started (she was 19 when they left for England.) 

Their heyday was when I was in primary school, but you know, I never cared for them.  There is something folk melancholic about their sound which infects all of their songs, even the ones which are meant to be more upbeat. 

They seem to be nice enough people, though.

Things that are getting way out of hand

1.   Vegans.   Yeah sure:  holding up city commuters, and running onto farms you don't like is really going to convince meat eaters that they ought to stop.   And I say that as someone who has been musing about animal welfare lately.   Really, their behaviour is just that of anti-social jerks, and serves no educative or persuasive role at all.  

2.   Reality TV, particularly Married at First Sight.   Lots of people seem very perturbed about this show and its puzzling popularity.   (Michael Rowland of ABC breakfast starting a lot of complaints.)  Should just be banned as entirely unethical.

3.   Nationalist leaders blowing up satellites to show how modern macho strong their nation is, and thereby pointlessly increasing the dangerous cloud of orbital debris that risks the safety of all spaceflight in future.  It's such a stupid thing to do.

Just how smart is Keith Windshuttle?

I see from a scan of Catallaxy that Keith Windshuttle from Quadrant has taken the extraordinary step of claiming that the George Pell accuser fabricated his complaint by copying one from the US.   I won't link to the Windshuttle claims.

This seems extraordinarily foolhardy when the matter is undergoing an appeal which could, quite possibly, decline to set aside the conviction.   Windshuttle thinks the stories are so similar that it is self evident that the latter is copying the former - I would bet that many people (even one at Catallaxy has said so!) do not see it as so clear cut at all. 

Furthermore, Windshuttle acknowledges we have not read the full testimony of the complainant - making him attempting a comparison an unwise exercise in the extreme.

Maybe I am missing something here, but why wouldn't the Windshuttle story be a case of defamation if the appeal upholds the conviction?   Is he simply relying on the complainant not wanting to go through the public exposure of a defamation action?   Again, seems a very, very unwise thing for Windshuttle to assume. 

Drugs, culture and meaning

I've been seeing quite a bit about the US opioid drug problem lately:   a recent Foreign Correspondent episode, mainly based in San Francisco, I think - showed the level of homelessness and filth in that city caused by the epidemic;  a bit of a Louis Theroux show from 2017 on Huntington, Virginia (called "Dark States - Heroin Town"), where he was talking to some high guy living in a tent by a river; a post at Reddit with a photo showing one young guy injecting another in an alley behind someone's suburban house (with commenters quickly guessing - correctly - that it would be in Ohio.  Some other commenter said he lived in San Francisco and would be lucky to only see 4 people a day shooting up.)

I have always trouble getting my head around how people get into addiction of this kind.  Sure, there has been a large element of "accidental" addiction via the over prescription of opioids in the US, but how people with no medical need for an opioid choose to try such a notoriously addictive drug and risk addiction - and not recognise the warning signs of a serious addiction problem early in its use - seems to cry out for an explanation even while another part of my brain says "no, you will never be satisfied that anything about this makes sense."

There is the strong temptation to look at meta social/culture explanations, and the best recent example of the genre is Andrew Sullivan's lengthy piece in New Yorker Magazine that's a year old now.   I've only just read it in full, though.

It's a good very piece, I think, giving a lot of background history both of the recent American experience, and some of the history of opiate use in both England and the US as well.

And he does indeed go all meta-cultural and meta-economic at the end:

It’s been several decades since Daniel Bell wrote The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, but his insights have proven prescient. Ever-more-powerful market forces actually undermine the foundations of social stability, wreaking havoc on tradition, religion, and robust civil associations, destroying what conservatives value the most. They create a less human world. They make us less happy. They generate pain.

This was always a worry about the American experiment in capitalist liberal democracy. The pace of change, the ethos of individualism, the relentless dehumanization that capitalism abets, the constant moving and disruption, combined with a relatively small government and the absence of official religion, risked the construction of an overly atomized society, where everyone has to create his or her own meaning, and everyone feels alone. The American project always left an empty center of collective meaning, but for a long time Americans filled it with their own extraordinary work ethic, an unprecedented web of associations and clubs and communal or ethnic ties far surpassing Europe’s, and such a plethora of religious options that almost no one was left without a purpose or some kind of easily available meaning to their lives. Tocqueville marveled at this American exceptionalism as the key to democratic success, but he worried that it might not endure forever.

And it hasn’t. What has happened in the past few decades is an accelerated waning of all these traditional American supports for a meaningful, collective life, and their replacement with various forms of cheap distraction. Addiction — to work, to food, to phones, to TV, to video games, to porn, to news, and to drugs — is all around us. The core habit of bourgeois life — deferred gratification — has lost its grip on the American soul. We seek the instant, easy highs, and it’s hard not to see this as the broader context for the opioid wave. This was not originally a conscious choice for most of those caught up in it: Most were introduced to the poppy’s joys by their own family members and friends, the last link in a chain that included the medical establishment and began with the pharmaceutical companies. It may be best to think of this wave therefore not as a function of miserable people turning to drugs en masse but of people who didn’t realize how miserable they were until they found out what life without misery could be. To return to their previous lives became unthinkable. For so many, it still is.

If Marx posited that religion is the opiate of the people, then we have reached a new, more clarifying moment in the history of the West: Opiates are now the religion of the people.

That sounds pretty convincing - but it also sets up a sort of hopelessness towards the issue if no one knows how you go about recovering the type of communitarian values, support and sense of meaning the loss of which this theory argues is the reason why so many turn to drugs. 

I also tend a bit towards scepticism when thinking about how addiction to alcohol, if not opiates, has been a serious problem in the past in societies where, on the face of it, adherence to religious practice was still important.

I have to think about this some more.  And read some more.

Update:  Good grief, Sigmund.   From this rather interesting article "Historical and cultural aspects of man's relationship with addictive drugs", I get this quote:

Sigmund Freud, a contemporary of Kraepelin, laid the ground for the psychological approach to addiction. Freud wrote in a letter to Fliess in 1897: “...it has dawned on me that masturbation is the one major habit, the ”primal“ addiction and that it is only as a substitute and replacement for it that the other addictions - for alcohol, morphine, tobacco, etc - come into existence.”²⁰

Down Mexico way: watching Roma

I have to write about watching the Netflix film Roma last night, so I can get it out of my head.  On waking up this morning, I kept finding I was already half composing my take on it, and getting black and white imagery floating through my head, in the way a good film can infect your sleep.

It's quietly compelling:  a visually beautiful, fly-on-the-wall type of experience of an eccentric, troubled  country (and family) circa 1971.

My first observation (one I am often making these days, because I can't get over how production values on so many Netflix shows look like that of expensive cinema of old): the visual recreation of the era is completely convincing (admittedly, not that I am familiar with the streets of Mexico City then or now.)   I was often wondering if some street-scapes were digital or if the city is easy to dress up as looking 50 years older than it is.  It looks great and makes you feel you are in the era - it's almost worth watching for this alone.

As a drama, it doesn't have that much of a narrative arc:  it's a more of the European/Aussie film tradition in which merely showing a slice of life of unhappy, hopeless people, with no sense of anything much learned at the end,  is considered enough of a justification for a movie.  But the family and main character - their poor maid Cleo - in this case is more sympathetic than that, and the key tragic event in the film is upsetting to watch. 

It's also true that there is very little in the way of dialogue from Cleo that expresses her feelings and character:  that's why I described it as more "fly-on-the-wall" than your usual family drama story.  I see now that Richard Brody, writing in the New Yorker*, strongly criticised the film (one of the very critics to do so!) for making a cipher of the key character:

He not only fails to imagine who the character of Cleo is but fails to include the specifics of who Libo [the real life character writer and director Alfonso Curaron devoted the film to] was for him when he was a child.

In the process, he turns the character of Cleo into a stereotype that’s all too common in movies made by upper-middle-class and intellectual filmmakers about working people: a strong, silent, long-enduring, and all-tolerating type, deprived of discourse, a silent angel whose inability or unwillingness to express herself is held up as a mark of her stoic virtue. (It’s endemic to the cinema and even leaves its scars on better movies than “Roma,” including some others from this year, such as “Leave No Trace” and “The Rider.”) The silent nobility of the working poor takes its place in a demagogic circle of virtue sharing that links filmmakers (who, if they offer working people a chance to speak, do so only in order to look askance at them, as happens in “Roma” with one talkative but villainous poor man) with their art-house audiences, who are similarly pleased to share in the exaltation of heroes who do manual labor without having to look closely or deeply at elements of their heroes’ lives that don’t elicit either praise or pity.

That effacement of Cleo’s character, her reduction to a bland and blank trope that burnishes the director’s conscience while smothering her consciousness and his own, is the essential and crucial failure of “Roma.” It sets the tone for the movie’s aesthetic and hollows it out, reducing Cuarón’s worthwhile intentions and evident passions to vain gestures.

That's really harsh - but I guess as I don't have a history of watching art house films of the type he describes,  I don't find it all that compelling.  

Brody goes on to list all the things the film does not expand on, or explain properly. And he's right: you're not going to get any idea of what the student riots or general unrest in the city was about from the film.   But readers of this blog would know that I quite like the way a movie can prompt me to go reading about the era it depicts, and with Wikipedia it's never been easier.   Brody's criticism seems to be more about the film not being of a kind he thinks it should be, and while my generic criticism of European art house films noted above could be said to the same thing, I find it all forgiveable in the case of Roma.  It is what it is, I feel like saying to Brody.


There are some flashes of humour  - mostly based on eccentricity - and I can partly agree with Brody that it would have been possible to allow Cleo to open up more via dialogue.  It reminds me a little of The Tree of Life - without being as spectacular and affecting in direction (and certainly without the mystical edge) - but as a powerful visual experience based around family, it has similarities.  

It's a pretty great film that I recommend.


*  Please note:  I strongly recommend not reading his review before seeing the movie - he gives way too much of the plot away, and while it is well worth reading after seeing the film, I think it is important to see this film not knowing anything about the events it depicts.  

Some significant climate modelling

Here, at Real Climate, is some more modelling of past climate suggesting 3 degree climate sensitivity is very close to the mark.

It's hard to understand how people can think what happened to the globe in the past with higher CO2 won't happen again.

The backside of Art

I learn via Literary Review that someone has published an entire book centred on Renaissance art which heavily featured the male backside:   Seen from Behind: Perspectives on the Male Body and Renaissance Art

The review could be better, but this part, talking about one painting which does sound pretty ridiculously butt focussed - The Massacre of the Innocents by van Haarlem - is pretty amusing.   Here's the description:

Take The Massacre of the Innocents by Cornelis van Haarlem, which dominates one of the magnificently refurbished galleries of the Rijksmuseum. Painted in 1590, it is a scene of tumultuous violence, anchored formally by the massive nude figures of four soldiers in the foreground, one striding towards us from the right with a dead baby under his arm, one flat on his back on the left, overcome by a group of mothers, who gouge out his eyes. Counterpoised in the centre are two soldiers seen from behind, one standing, the other, biggest of all, down on one knee as he cuts a child’s throat, his colossal backside not only in the viewer’s face but also inches from the face of the child’s desperate mother. The heroic scale of the picture, some eight feet by twelve, adds to the interpretative puzzle for a modern eye: why make a vast male arse the focal point of a major religious painting? It’s impossible, too, not to wonder if the Dutch, whose art embraces the everyday, the suggestive and the downright lewd, kept a straight face about it, then and afterwards.

And here is the painting, which does, indeed, seem to comprise some very oddball composition:

Why, exactly, the rampaging soldiers are nude, and flesh coloured, while the mothers appear alien grey, must be another puzzling question for art historians.

I wonder how impolite it is for adults to giggle at this when viewing it in the art gallery?  Pity the school teacher taking groups of kids to see it, too. 

A new battery with some promise?

I heard about this on The Science Show a few weeks ago - Sydney University is apparently commercialising a new, safe, gel battery which (it is envisaged) is so safe and reliable it could be incorporated structurally within building walls.

Surely they don't last forever, though?   I would think it useful to still make them reasonably accessible for ultimate replacement.

Still, the University sounds very upbeat about it.

Read the Science Show story here, and the University's PR blurb here.  (I'll add an extract):

The zinc-bromide chemistry used by Gelion operates safely without the need for active cooling and uses 100 percent of the battery’s capacity. Further, its electrode surfaces can be rejuvenated remotely, using state-of-the-art battery management systems, without the need for on-site servicing – making it ideal for stationary energy storage applications in all areas, including remote sites.
About Gelion

Gelion Technologies Pty Ltd (‘Gelion’) was founded in April 2015 as a spin-out of the University of Sydney. The company’s novel battery technology provides a low-cost, safe and long-life energy storage solution. Gelion is owned by Gelion UK, a joint venture between management and Armstrong Energy, who oversee the corporate governance and funding of the business, as well as assisting in long-term strategic planning. Gelion is headquartered in Sydney, Australia.
For more information visit: www.gelion.com and www.gelion.com/video

America and pain

Oh.  NPR has a 44 min audio up about America having a long history of problematic use of opioids:

A record number of Americans have died from opioid overdoses in recent years. But how did we get here? And is this the first time Americans have faced this crisis? The short answer: no. Three stories of opioids that have plagued Americans for more than 150 years.

Sounds like something worth listening to...

Politics

*  Tim Wilson has no idea about how not to come across as trying too hard.  Have a look at heightened outrage acting in his twitter summary of his faked up inquiry into the franking credits reform proposed by Labor.  I think he and PM Morrison share a lot in common - more interested in PR imagery than sincerity, and people pick up on them being lightweights because of that.

* Look, I know that lots of people have an emotional reaction against Bill Shorten, and for reasons that they can't articulate and which I don't understand.   My feeling about him is "mostly harmless" - quite neutral, really.   But from the bits I saw of his budget in reply speech last night, I thought he seemed to striking exactly the right tone.   Positive, emphasis on fairness, not at all shrill.   I will be extremely surprised if he is not the next PM, and would not be surprised if his public approval improves when he is in the role.

* I've written plenty of strong criticism of Christopher Pyne over the years (use my side bar search to check), and I had forgotten how much he has behaved very, very badly in the past.  So yeah, it's funny to see now how journalists and other politicians have treated his departure with such apparent kind regard for him personally.   Look, I will give him credit for one thing - his comments in his speech yesterday about Australia being a great country because of politicians for all sides doing their best was at least a non-partisan acknowledgement that no one side of politics has all the good ideas, or is pure evil incarnate.   That is a good thing to hear, especially when the biggest worry in watching politics is how part of the Right has convinced itself over the lase decade that all evil has always come from any party to the Left of them.

Ooh. Now he's doing "Angry Panda"

Ok.  Angry reverse panda:

What is going on with women close to conservatives?

OK, so I am basing this on only two examples - Tony Abbott's daughter and now Barnaby Joyce's ex wife - but it still seems some kind of weird that both of these women who have been close to conservative, climate change denial politicians have turned to competitive body building for fun. 

Do such male politicians emit too much testosterone into the air around them?  

Is it an overreaction to the sort of conservatism that has a 1950's views of a woman's role in life? 

Or are they turning into wingnuts who have fantasies about physical power and domination - just like how Catallaxy has been headed for years now by Sinclair Davidson's selection of pictures showing battles and military power, or the wingnut titles to videos that read with umpteen variations on alleged victory - you know, like "D'Souza utterly destroys liberal student".     

It's weird whatever it is.   I suggest hormone treatment.  Especially for Catallaxy.