On rules 1 Jun 2009 My friend and colleague William Grey gave me a copy of F. M. Cornford’s Microcosmographia Academica, in which I read this passage which is so apposite to the modern day: The principle of Discipline (including Religion) is that ‘there must be some rules‘. If you inquire the reason, you will find that the object of rules is to relieve the younger men of the burdensome feeling of moral or religious obligation. If their energies are to be left unimpaired for the pursuit of athletics, it is clearly necessary to protect them against the weakness of their own characters. They must never be troubled with having to think whether this or that ought to be done or not; it should be settled by rules. The most valuable rules are those which ordain attendance at lectures and at religious worship. If these were not enforced, young men would begin too early to take learning and religion seriously; and that is well known to be bad form. Plainly, the more rules you can invent, the less need there will be to waste time over fruitless puzzling about right and wrong. The best sort of rules are those which prohibit important, but perfectly innocent, actions, such as smoking in College courts, or walking to Madingley on Sunday without academical dress. The merit of such regulations is that, having nothing to do with right or wrong, they help to obscure these troublesome considerations in other cases, and to relieve the mind of all sense of obligation towards society. There is so much of present value in that book. Like this: University printing presses exist, and are subsidised by the Government for the purpose of producing books which no one can read; and they are true to their high calling. Books are the sources of material for lectures. They should be kept from the young; for to read books and remember what you read well enough to reproduce it is called ‘cramming’, and this is destructive of all true education. The best way to protect the young from books is, first, to make sure that they shall be so dry as to offer no temptation; and, second, to store them in such a way that no one can find them without several years’ training, Book Education Humor Politics
Ecology and Biodiversity Miscellany 26 Jun 200818 Sep 2017 Barbara Forrest has an excellent analysis and background story on the introduction of the creationist bill in Louisiana, and the organisations supporting it, here at Talk2Reason. There’s a new phylogeny of birds out. See GrrllScientist’s post, and a full size tree here. Late edit See Bird Evolution – Problems with… Read More
Epistemology Morality and Evolution 7: Conclusion 22 May 201422 May 2014 [Morality and Evolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7] So far I have made out the following arguments: Evolution does in fact debunk moral realism, as the fitness bearer for a moral claim is the agent in relation to others in their group, not the truth of the claim There is no Milvian Bridge, therefore,… Read More
So, does this make up for his translation of the “Republic”? (When I was in first year, Cornford’s “Republic” was one of the texts in the “Philosophy I” unit I did. This so incensed my “History and Politics I” lecturer that he devoted an entire lecture to criticizing the translation of Plato used in another subject! Gist of criticism was that Cornford had streamlined the text by eliminating some of the formulaic dialogue: had put in a simple “Yes” in place of a “By the dog, you are right Socrates,” and that the particular formulas used were deeply significant. (I think he was a Strausian.) Since he didn’t have time, in a one-hour lecture, to explain what they were deeply significant OF, I just stuck with Cornford.
I don’t know the details of Platonic translation, but when I have done a word for word comparison of some Aristotle, I find that there is a long standing tradition among classicists from the late nineteenth century of “interpreting” rather than translating the text (obviously I am most concerned with finding “species” in English translations where eidos is not used at all). I suspect Cornford was following the rest in that respect, and is thus a Liberal Conservative by his own taxonomy…