Is it better for hobbies to be broader or deeper?

Is it better to be a generalist or a specialist? I did another post tackling this question somewhat, in the context of both professional development and formal educational settings. As I said in that post, there are advantages and disadvantages to using both approaches. But, today, I’d like to focus on how this might work with one’s hobbies – at least, when those hobbies are distinguished somewhat from professional development. That is, one of the most important aspects of a hobby is just to have fun, particularly when one’s job is stressful and demanding. And, for present purposes, being a full-time student or a stay-at-home parent would count as a job. For purposes of simplicity, I am assuming with this answer that one wants to learn something while they’re engaging in their hobbies. That is, I am assuming that, if you’re reading this particular post, you’re the kind of person who enjoys learning things of one sort or another. It’s all right if you don’t want to learn very much, but I will address this particular post to those who do. (More for those who don’t in other posts.) Being a generalist and being a specialist both involve learning some new things. Moreover, both can require some minimum aptitude and intelligence (in at least one or two particular areas) to get these things right. Thus, with that said, let me now dive into the question of whether a broader approach or a deeper approach (or perhaps some combination of the two) will give you more fulfillment in your hobbies.

The gold funerary mask of Tutankhamun, a symbol of Egyptology and Ancient Egypt

What undergraduate major(s) should I choose to become a lawyer?

“The ABA [or ‘American Bar Association’] does not recommend any undergraduate majors or group of courses to prepare for a legal education. Students are admitted to law school from almost every academic discipline. You may choose to major in subjects that are considered to be traditional preparation for law school, such as history, English, philosophy, political science, economics or business, or you may focus your undergraduate studies in areas as diverse as art, music, science and mathematics, computer science, engineering, nursing or education.”

– Website of the American Bar Association – and, specifically, their page on “Pre-Law”

I once thought about going to law school. Moreover, I got a bachelor’s degree in business, which is one of the more traditional routes for entering the legal profession. But I have never so much as applied to a law school, let alone gotten in or out of one. Thus, I freely admit that I am not an expert on this topic. But it is a topic that I have thought about often over the years. I’ve read some legal classics, such as the Federalist Papers – or Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” Thus, I have some experience (after a fashion) with the law, at least in a narrow sense. Thus, I would like to offer my perspective on what kinds of undergraduate majors would be most helpful for law school.

Magna Carta replica and display, in the rotunda of the United States Capitol

To be clear, this is not intended to replace studying the ABA webpage on this subject, which is simply entitled “Pre-Law.” Indeed, I plan to quote from this page often in this particular post. This is just intended to supplement their most definitive webpage with some brief commentary of my own. I will here be focusing on the six majors that are considered to be traditional preparation for law school. This is because, with one exception, these are the relevant areas about which I personally know the most. As the quotation above shows, there are six traditional law school preparation majors. In their words, these are “history, English, philosophy, political science, economics, [and] business.” I will start with English, the only one of these subjects with which I lack any substantial personal experience. Otherwise, I will adhere to the sequence in which they mention these six subjects, giving my commentary on each of them in turn. So let’s dive into the English major first.

United States Constitution, which is still the supreme law of the land in this country

Historiography: A fancy word for the “history of history” (among other things)

It’s long been believed by the public that Marie Antoinette said the famous (or rather, infamous) line: “Let them eat cakes.” Modern historians have questioned the authenticity of this claim, and it is not at all certain that she actually said it – the debate is still ongoing. Even for those of us who do question this account, though, the claim that she said it is still a part of the history. This is because it’s been told for so long that generations of schoolchildren have grown up with the story. Therefore, the issue of whether it happened must still be grappled with, whenever the history is taught to each succeeding generation. It is part of what historians call the “historiography” of Marie Antoinette. This basically means how the story has been told ever since the original events happened – both by academics, and by popular sources. I should note that not all of these retellings have been so bad.

Marie Antoinette

A review of “Stock Frauds, Manipulations, and Insider Trading” (audiobook)

So I was recently listening to some additional presentations from an audio series about investment. This particular installment was called “Stock Frauds, Manipulations, and Insider Trading.” I found out that it was actually two presentations: one about “Famous Frauds and Stock Manipulations,” and one about “The Story of Insider Trading.” Both were as interesting as I expected them to be, and brought back fond memories of my days as a business major.

A review of Ken Burns’ “Country Music” (PBS)

Back in 2001, Ken Burns released a television history of jazz music. I was a big fan of that series when it first came out. I never imagined then that Mr. Burns would later be doing a television history of country music. But, in 2019, the series “Country Music” was released on PBS. Ken Burns’ “Country Music” is actually 16 hours long. This isn’t as long as his “Jazz” series, which was 19 hours long. Nonetheless, one can certainly learn something about the music’s history in 16 hours. There are some kinds of history that could probably be better explored in books. This seems to be because books can go into greater depth than even the longest of television histories. But you’d have to be pretty good at reading sheet music, to get much out of a book on this subject. And, even then, there’s no substitute for carefully listening to the period musical recordings. The visuals can certainly help, too, and Ken Burns is a master at finding period visuals – such as photographs and film footage from the time. But, in an inherently audio-centered subject like music, the advantages of the television medium seem to outweigh the disadvantages. The chief drawback of a television history like this one is usually its relative brevity. But, with a series that’s a full 16 hours long, this seems to be less of a problem here. You can see and hear the musical history in all its glory, and also learn something about the nation as a whole in the process.

How the Great Northern War facilitated the rise of Russia

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment both saw some major wars in Northern Europe

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment both saw some major wars in Northern Europe. They have gone down in history simply as the “Northern Wars.” I should acknowledge here that this is an international topic. Perhaps partially because of this, there is actually some controversy about what to include here in the simple term “Northern Wars.” There is even a significant controversy about the very names of these conflicts. Because of this, I will try to avoid controversial terminology like the “First” Northern War, or the “Second” Northern War. These are not internationally accepted, since there is no international standard for the nomenclature here. Thus, I will try to use neutral terms which are clearer, in an effort to avoid names that will be interpreted differently by different groups. Regardless, they would ultimately culminate in the “Great Northern War.” This was one of the greatest conflicts of the eighteenth century. In this case, the name is accepted much more widely. And it is also acknowledged that this was the largest (and last) in this great series of wars.

Peter the Great assaults Nöteborg, part of the Great Northern War (circa 1702)

A review of PBS’s “The White House: Inside Story”

“Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man [such as a president] in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 70)

We hear a lot about the “big historical events” of the American presidency. And, to some extent, this is as it should be – some events may just be more worthy of frequent mention than others. But what about day-to-day life at the White House, in either the past or the present? And what about the architectural history of the White House building itself? These are some of the questions that this program attempts to answer, in its brief two-hour runtime. This program was made in 2016, when Barack Obama was still president. (He left office on January 20th, 2017.) And, fortunately for the filmmakers, President Obama was very cooperative with them in allowing them to film various parts of the White House. As the filmmakers note in this film, thousands of people still tour the White House on a typical day, seeing rooms that are actually used for official state functions. That is, they don’t just see “show rooms,” but actual buildings that are regularly used for Washington business. They may see a dining room where a state dinner was recently held, or the Oval Office where the president does much of his business. In some ways, the White House is similar to a palace, which is on loan to whoever currently holds the office. But, if so, it’s a very democratic palace, full of American history stretching back to the country’s founding.

The White House after the fire of 1814

A review of Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man” (audiobook)

In the United States, Thomas Paine is primarily remembered for his work “Common Sense,” and for some other stirring words written in his other work “The American Crisis.” (Words like “These are the times that try men’s souls.”) But relatively few have even heard of his 1791 work “Rights of Man.” The work was written in response to Edmund Burke’s 1790 work “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” To describe that work in detail would be tangential here, and I plan to do so later in another blog post. Thus, suffice it to say here that Edmund Burke was a major critic of the French Revolution, which was still going on when both men were writing these works. In this, Edmund Burke was closer to other American Founding Fathers besides Paine, such as John Adams and George Washington. Both of these men eventually shared Burke’s negative view of the French Revolution.

Thomas Paine

An overview of the New Zealand Wars

“The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the seperate and independent chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen [Victoria] of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of sovereignty which the said Confederation or individual chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.”

– Article 1 of the “Treaty of Waitangi” (1840), today considered the basis of the unwritten constitution of New Zealand

Early contact with Europeans, the Musket Wars, and the Treaty of Waitangi (1840)

European ships reached New Zealand as early as 1642. But the two main islands of what is now New Zealand were already inhabited by the Māori, as you may know. The British explorer James Cook arrived in 1769 – and, over the course of three voyages, Captain Cook eventually mapped and circumnavigated New Zealand. Of course, Māori wars predate European contact – but they took on a somewhat different character when European weapons like the musket arrived. This led to the native “Musket Wars,” which went from 1818 to sometime in the 1830s. (It’s hard to know exactly when these wars ended.) On 6 February 1840, William Hobson and his British associates signed the “Treaty of Waitangi” with some of the natives. Its anniversary is today celebrated as the national holiday of New Zealand. It is simply called “Waitangi Day” there. The local Māori tribes were convinced to sign. They had to cede many of their rights to the government of Queen Victoria, much to their chagrin. In return, Queen Victoria recognized their rights as “British subjects” (see the further quotes from the treaty below). Thus, one might say that the “Treaty of Waitangi” forms the basis of the unwritten New Zealand constitution – just as the Magna Carta forms the basis of the unwritten British constitution. But there were soon early engagements between the Māori and the British, such as the Wairau Affray in 1843.

The earlier Musket Wars, a Māori conflict influenced by the European musket

Hōne Heke cuts down the flagstaff on Flagstaff Hill at Kororāreka

The Great Turkish War: How Europe fought back against the Ottomans

In the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Empire was making many enemies in Europe

The seventeenth century was rocked by several wars in Europe. But this century also saw a few major wars in the Middle East as well. For example, there were the forgotten Mughal-Safavid Wars. These wars were fought intermittently for many decades – before, during, and after the seventeenth century. There was also another major power in the Middle East, which was the Ottoman Empire. Unlike these other powers, it had ambitions in Continental Europe itself. The Ottoman Empire had been expanding further and further into the Balkans, and even into Central and Eastern Europe. But the Ottoman Turks were then making many enemies in Europe. Thus, the Ottomans were getting a little over-extended there. The Turks would soon be facing coalitions of several European powers – including the Russians, whom they had faced in two prior wars. The Ottoman Turks had also fought a few wars against Poland in the past, and would soon be facing the Poles again in this struggle. And some prior conflicts with the Habsburg monarchy would also be re-ignited in the coming struggle. Sadly for the Turks, there would be other enemies for them, as the Europeans decided to fight back against the Ottoman incursions. United by a common interest, their alliance would soon prove formidable to the Turks, in a conflict sometimes called the “Last Crusade.” Small wonder, then, that the Ottoman Turks would remember it simply as the “Disaster Years.” But the rest of the world would usually remember it … as the “Great Turkish War.” Like the prior Mughal-Safavid Wars, the “Great Turkish War” would prove one of the greatest conflicts of the seventeenth century. In this conflict, much of Christian Europe would band together, in a “holy resistance” to the Muslim invaders.

Battle of Vienna, 1683 – the opening battle of the Great Turkish War

Battle of Párkány, 1683 – part of the Polish-Ottoman War

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: A metaphor for the ages

Plato wrote many great works, such as his records of the trial of Socrates. Specifically, his work “Apology” alone alone could earn him a place in the pantheon of Western philosophers. But his work entitled “Republic” is different. It seems to be best known today for its near-totalitarian political philosophy. Specifically, in that work, Plato advocated a philosopher-king with absolute power. I’ve never been a big fan of this particular part of the work. In fairness, Plato was writing more than 2,000 years ago, and did not have the kind of hindsight that we have today. I have more mixed feelings about Plato’s theory of forms, another doctrine detailed in the pages of “The Republic.” It’s not a very practical theory, but it may be among the first attempts in history to grapple with the problems presented by abstract concepts, and the concrete physical examples of them. Since I admittedly lack any true expertise in metaphysics, I will refrain from commenting further on Plato’s theory of forms in this particular post. And I will instead leave the discussion of Plato’s political theory to two other posts (here and here, respectively). Here, I will instead undertake to comment on a different part of “The Republic” – one of the few parts that actually meets with my approval. Specifically, I will be commenting here on Plato’s famous “Allegory of the Cave,” one of the classic allegories of Western literature and philosophy. It can be taken broadly as a metaphor for the discovery (or re-discovery) of some kind of world, which was previously unknown or forgotten. It could also be a metaphor for political or religious conversion, or the discovery of some subculture in which one finally feels at home.

Plato

What the War of 1812 did for the United States

“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

– Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolution

Anecdote about the diplomacy of John Adams, during and after the American Revolution

In 1785, John Adams became the first American ambassador to meet with a British king. That monarch was King George the Third, who then remained somewhat unpopular in the American colonies. As was customary for ambassadors in this time, Adams approached the king and bowed three times. As Wikipedia puts it, Adams then “promised to do all that he could to restore friendship and cordiality between people separated by an ocean and [who] ‘have the same language, a similar religion and kindred blood.’ The king agreed and added that ‘while he had been the last to consent’ to American independence, he wished Adams to know that he had always done what he thought right and proper. He inquired, ‘There is an opinion, among some people, that you are not the most attached of all your countrymen, to the manners of France.’ Adams replied, ‘That opinion sir, is not mistaken, I must avow to your Majesty, I have no attachments but to my own country.’ George responded, ‘An honest man will never have any other.’” (Source: Their page on the “Diplomacy of John Adams”) John Adams had signed the peace treaty with Britain that ended the Revolutionary War. Later on, his son John Quincy Adams would sign the peace treaty with Britain that ended the War of 1812. Both tried to sort out some of the issues left over from the American Revolution – whether before, during, or after the War of 1812.

Naval engagement in our Quasi-War with France, 1799

My inner conflicts about learning Latin

“In the last century [then the seventeenth century], Latin was the universal language of Europe. Correspondence among the learned, and indeed among merchants and men of business and the conversation of strangers and travellers, was generally carried on in that dead language. In the present century [then the eighteenth century], Latin has been generally laid aside, and French has been substituted in its place; but has not yet become universally established, and according to present appearances, it is not probable that it will. English is destined to be in the next and succeeding centuries, more generally the language of the world, than Latin was in the last, or French is in the present age.”

– John Adams, in “To the President of Congress, No. 6” (5 September 1780)

Anecdote about how our Founding Fathers were avid students of Latin

Our Founding Fathers were avid students of Greek and Latin. For example, over the years, John Adams wrote a number of letters to his son (and future president) John Quincy Adams. In 1781, specifically, John Adams once told his son: “You go on, I presume, with your Latin exercises: and I wish to hear of your beginning upon Sallust who is one of the most polished and perfect of the Roman historians, every period of whom, and I had almost said every syllable and every letter is worth studying.” (Source: Letter of 18 May 1781) In another letter, John Adams also told his son that “The writings of Cicero too, you should read in turn. When I speak of reading I dont mean holding a book in hand and dreaming over it— take your pen.—and make yourself master of every sentence.— By all means make yourself master of the Latin tongue and that immediately.” (Source: Letter of 4 October 1790) Thus, John Adams advised his son to “go on … with your Latin exercises,” and “By all means make yourself master of the Latin tongue and that immediately” (as cited above). Thus, John Adams must have considered the study of Latin to be valuable. More about his admiration for the Ancient Greek language here.

Cicero, Roman philosopher and statesman admired by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

Sallust, Roman historian admired by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson