The Value of Beauty Never Seen

G.E. Moore was the Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge in the early twentieth century when Cambridge was the center of the philosophical universe. Fellow Cantabrigians included Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand (the 3rd Earl of) Russell (one of only a trio of philosopher winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature, the others being Camus and Sartre), and Ludwig Wittgenstein, later Moore’s successor in the Professorship.

The Moore thesis for today is that it is better that a Beautiful World (hereinafter “BW”) exist, even if so distant that no one will ever see it. In this Moore was trying to refute ethical hedonism, as then expounded by utilitarian theorists, who claimed that the good (what is valuable in a way relevant for morality) is exhausted by desirable states of consciousness. Henry Sidgwick, the most prominent of these theorists, specifically contended that there could be no value in any beauty apart from its contemplation by conscious beings. [Methods of Ethics, book I, ch. IX, s. IV, pr. II, p.114).]

Descartes and Knowing One is Awake

Descartes maintained that our experience never permits us to judge with certainty that we are awake: “[T]here are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep.” So I would be unjustified in judging that I am now, in fact, awake with a computer screen in front of me. 

(At the end of the day, of course, Descartes did think I could be so justified, but before that day’s end I would have to traverse through his cogito, taxonomy of mental contents, clear and distinct ideas, ontological argument, and his argument that God is trustworthy. Not being able to negotiate that entire journey, I want to see where we end up on dreams if we decline to go beyond Descartes’s First Meditation.)

Does Precedent Require the House to Pass an Impeachment Inquiry Resolution?

It is a tiresomely repeated talking point that the current impeachment investigation in the House of Representatives is unconstitutional, violative of House rules, and in conflict with “bipartisan precedent.” As the first of these claims have been repeatedly and decisively refuted, I will here only take a little more detailed look than has been common at the precedent claim, which, turns out to be unsupported by history.

The Fatal Flaw in the Impeachment Clauses

I argued in my post on 8/26/19 that there is a fatal flaw in the 25^th Amendment in all those cases in which the president, although in fact no longer up to the responsibilities of the office, is determined to stay in power.  

Unfortunately, contemporary politics has produced a similarly baleful defect in the impeachment process. It is so clear cut it could almost be a theorem of game theory. It’s the Senate.

Can Anyone Still Believe that “Russia, if you’re listening . . .” Was a Joke

Some people in Congress and in the media had the temerity to suggest that it might be an invitation to a hostile foreign power to interfere in the 2016 election to implore, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”  The president defended himself by explaining that he said it as a joke. “Of course I was being sarcastic.” (Interview on Fox and Friends.); "[I]n jest and sarcastically, as was apparent to any objective observer." (Written answers to Mueller questions.)  At a campaign rally he made fun of the media for not realizing, that it was all a joke.

In a post of June 9 this year, I examined Trump’s defense and the “in jest” defense to solicitation charges more generally. I was skeptical. Subsequent developments, including the recent dramatic developments seem to confirm that skepticism was not amiss.

Socialism Is Democracy Extended.

There has been a centuries-long trend of growth in the share of the population having a serious say in the way things run. Significant exceptions are easy to find and there have been terrible reversals, but still it is a big picture trend. I will call the agents behind reallocation of power from smaller to larger social groups “the left,” conceding that this is an oversimplification as well as anachronism, the “left/right” terminology arising only with the French Estates General.

The Presidential Emolument Clause

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.  Art II, Sec 1, cl 7