A review of “The Civil War” (audiobook)

“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it.’”

– Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861)

What was the Civil War about? This question may be easy to ask, but it is one of the most complicated questions in American history. No matter how long we discuss it, we keep coming back to two popular theories, which are sometimes believed to contradict each other. These are slavery and “states’ rights.” Both of these issues were explicitly discussed in the United States Constitution, so both of them were constitutional issues as much as they were anything else. But we don’t have to choose between these two seemingly-contradictory explanations. This audiobook argues that these two issues were inseparably connected in the Southern mind. Put simply, this audiobook argues that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, while “states’ rights” was the convenient pretext used by the South to justify their attempts to protect and prolong it. At times, even “states’ rights” would take a back seat to their despicable goal of prolonging African slavery, as this audiobook shows in a number of ways – including by citing the “secession ordinances” of the rebellious states (which are highly incriminating on this score).

“Man is the measure of all things” … or is he?

“It is indeed the opinion of Protagoras, who has another way of expressing it. Man, he says, is the measure of all things, of the existence of things that are, and of the non-existence of things that are not.”

– Socrates, as recorded in Plato’s “Theaetetus”

Is all truth in the “eye of the beholder?” Protagoras thought so, but Socrates didn’t …

Socrates and Plato both reported some words from the Greek sophist Protagoras, in Plato’s dialogue “Theaetetus.” The dialogue features a character by the name of “Socrates,” believed here to represent the actual and historical Socrates. The character of “Socrates” thus quotes Protagoras as saying that “Man is the measure of all things.” Thus, we seem to have the word of both Plato and Socrates that Protagoras really said this. But what does it mean that “Man is the measure of all things”? As Socrates correctly argues, it seems to mean that all truth is in the “eye of the beholder” – or, at least, that Protagoras believed this to be the case. “If I believe that something is true,” say some today, “then it must be true.” But this belief leads to a number of problematic conclusions, as Socrates proceeds to point out in this same dialogue, the “Theaetetus” – named after one of the other characters in the dialogue. Nonetheless, some today (notably certain postmodernists) still proclaim that all truth is in the “eye of the beholder.” It is acknowledged that some things really do work this way, but it would seem that other things do not. Thus, this dialogue is a timeless meditation on objective truth whose arguments need to be heard today. Thus, it may be worth examining here in this post.

Socrates

A review of “Aristotle” (audiobook)

“We must not expect of Aristotle such literary brilliance as floods the pages of the dramatist-philosopher Plato. Instead of giving us great literature, in which philosophy is embodied (and obscured) in myth and imagery, Aristotle gives us science, technical, abstract, concentrated; if we go to him for entertainment we shall sue for the return of our money.”

– Will Durant’s “The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers” (1926), Chapter 2, Section 2

Aristotle is one of the most influential philosophers in all of world history. More than 2,000 years after his death, his name is still known, and his works are still studied. I knew his name early in my childhood, but did not examine his ideas until early college. My first philosophy class introduced me to Aristotle, and made me want to learn a bit more about him. As it turned out, my dad already had this audiobook about him by this time. Thus, the two of us listened to it on a moderately long road trip. My dad had already listened to it, but I had not – although I had listened to a similar audiobook about Plato by the same company (Knowledge Products). I greatly enjoyed this audiobook (my second from this series), and it helps that Charlton Heston is narrating it. Nonetheless, this audiobook makes one’s brain hurt after a while.

A few problems with Plato’s “Republic” (and his ideal state)

“You know also that the beginning is the most important part of any work, especially in the case of a young and tender thing; for that is the time at which the character is being formed and the desired impression is more readily taken.”

– Plato’s “Republic” (written around 375 BC), Book II – spoken through the character of “Socrates,” whose depiction in “The Republic” probably does not represent the actual views of the historical Socrates (although his depiction in some other Plato dialogues may really do so)

I recently finished reading Plato’s “Republic” in the original Greek …

My first encounter with the ideas of Plato was in an intro to philosophy class in 2005. I became particularly interested in his work “The Republic,” and later read the work in English translation during the winter of 2006-2007. At that time, it was for my own amusement, and I read it all the way through in English. Later, the book was assigned for an intro to ethics class in 2009 (which was also a philosophy class). But this time, it was for an accelerated summer class, so I was forced to limit myself to just the assigned parts of it. I figured that if I had read the work all the way through long before this, then I didn’t need to read the entire work this time around. Later on, I learned the Ancient Greek language. Thus, I was brave enough to want to tackle the entirety of “The Republic” in the original. Now, I have finally finished doing so – a task that took me roughly four years. (Specifically, I read it from February 2019 through February 2023.)

Plato

The Founding Fathers strongly criticized Plato’s “Republic” (and for good reason)

“Socrates had reason indeed to complain of the misrepresentations of Plato; for in truth his dialogues are libels on Socrates.”

– Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams (5 July 1814)

I recently finished reading Plato’s “Republic” in the original Greek …

I recently finished reading Plato’s “Republic” in the original Greek. But I’m still not convinced by its arguments. Why? Among other things, because Plato advocated having a philosopher-king with absolute power. (But I’m getting ahead of myself here.) I have given my own response to these ideas in another post, so I will not spend much time giving my ideas here. Rather, I will here focus on some of the responses from our Founding Fathers. Specifically, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both criticized Plato’s “Republic,” and so did one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. But in order to understand why they did so, I must first examine some of the arguments from “The Republic” itself – namely, the parts that the Founding Fathers most objected to. If you’ve already read my main post about Plato’s arguments, please feel free to skip this next paragraph.

Plato

… but I’m still not convinced by its arguments (which I briefly summarize here)

The Greek title of Plato’s “Republic” is ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ (“Politeia”). It has many translations, including “constitution.” Nonetheless, it might be best translated as “political entity.” In English, the work is ironically known as “The Republic” – but by modern standards, this is something of a misnomer. His “political entity” is far different from what we would today consider a “republic.” James Madison defined a “republic” as “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place” (Source: Federalist No. 10). But this does not describe the “ideal” state of Plato. Rather (as mentioned earlier), Plato’s “ideal state” is led by a philosopher-king with absolute power. The philosopher-king is to rule for life. Plato reassures his readers that the philosopher-king will refrain from “abusing” his power, but does not provide any convincing reasons that his scheme will indeed prevent this from happening (something that a good system should be expected to do, in my opinion). The philosopher-king has power to determine the occupations that his individual subjects enter into, and also has power to censor any idea (political or otherwise) that he deems to be “dangerous” or “undesirable.” He also has absolute control over education for both the young and the old, and has power to arrange marriages between his subjects to promote “good breeding” – an idea now known as “eugenics.” These things have a tendency to make “The Republic” into something far less than an ideal state.

Plato

Frederick Douglass took a great risk by learning how to read

Note: This post quotes from Frederick Douglass’s memoir, where he recounts racist treatment that he received from various white men. Although he quotes their offensive language, this post has censored out the racial slurs, indicating only by brackets that the unfortunate “N-word” was the word used in the original quotations.

Before the Civil War, a young slave secretly took a great risk by learning how to read ...

Before the Civil War, a young slave secretly took a great risk by learning how to read. The young slave’s name was Frederick Douglass, and he would later become a tireless campaigner in the cause of black freedom. First he would campaign against slavery, and then he would campaign for civil rights. (But I’m getting ahead of myself.)

Frederick Douglass in the 1860s, long after his being held as a slave

Frederick Douglass would later recount this story in a famous memoir

After he had escaped to the North, Frederick Douglass would later write a memoir. It was simply entitled “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave (Written By Himself).” This memoir was first published in 1845. In it, he describes his experiences as a slave, writing the most influential account ever given about American slavery. Most relevantly for our present subject, he recounts his secret undertaking to learn how to read, while under the domination of White Southerners. The writing speaks so well for itself that very little commentary will be needed to dramatize it, or put it into perspective.

Original edition of this memoir

Yes, Blackstone’s “Commentaries” influenced Abraham Lincoln (and here’s the proof)

“The election of 1834 came, and [Abraham Lincoln] was then elected to the Legislature [of Illinois] by the highest vote cast for any candidate. Major John T. Stuart, then in full practice of the law, was also elected. During the canvass, in a private conversation he encouraged [Abe to] study law. After the election [Abe] borrowed books of Stuart, took them home with him, and went at it in good earnest. He studied with nobody. He still mixed in the surveying to pay board and clothing bills. When the Legislature met, the law books were dropped, but were taken up again at the end of the session.”

– Abraham Lincoln’s “Autobiography Written for John L. Scripps” (circa June 1860), in which Lincoln strangely is referring to himself in the third person (as shown above)

There was an official campaign biography of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 …

Sir William Blackstone died nearly three decades before Abraham Lincoln was born. But Blackstone would nonetheless have an influence on the young Lincoln through one of his books, as many others have noted. In the year 1860, William Dean Howells wrote the “Life of Abraham Lincoln,” the official campaign biography of Abraham Lincoln (not to be confused with the above-quoted autobiography). This campaign biography was subject to revisions by Lincoln himself. Lincoln did indeed make some modifications whenever he deemed it necessary, but he did not alter the part about Blackstone that I’m going to quote here.

Sir William Blackstone

… which briefly talked about Lincoln’s legal education back in the 1830’s

The passage is about Lincoln’s legal education, which seems to have been gained sometime back in the 1830’s. Lincoln was in his twenties when getting this education. Thus, here is the portion of this biography about Lincoln’s reading of Sir William Blackstone:

William Dean Howells, author of this campaign biography of Lincoln