Ciceronian Review

Back Again

The topic of values in political discussions has re-appeared over at Left2Right, in a couple of interesting posts. (So far as I can tell, they don’t read this blog, so “picked up” would be inappropriate. Quelle dommage pour moi!). See this post by Appiah. The comments, in particular, are interesting. As substantively interesting is the discussion by Anderson on the great David Hume. For those who slogged through the earlier discussions here about religion and politics, the two make interesting reading. I have disagreements with the material at Left2Right, which I might detail some other time. Perry at Mirror of Justice has also weighed in, partly in criticism of my views. I want to use those entries as background points and reconsider a point I tried to make earlier.

Political discussions have limits. The ongoing talk about contempt shows that, for that is not merely about effective advertising or persuasion, it is about taking arguments (or values) seriously. Thus it is of a piece with the notion that there are limits on proper sorts of political argument. What I suggested before was that we should not include among appropriate arguments those which are exclusively religious in a particular sense, viz., that the argument consists of the assertion of a doctrinal point founded in revelation. That the bible says should not be all there is to the argument. What I did not say was that there are ‘neutral’ values or that political arguments should be phrased in terms of secular values. What I suggested, instead, is that proper political arguments should find their purchase in sources and values open to the political community. How one gets to those values is a matter about which I had nothing much to say, and about which I am pretty much indifferent. But this is a very different claim than that only secular values matter or that there are neutral values.

 I also suggested that we seek common ground by looking close to the surface. Agreement on basic or fundamental values is unnecessary, and largely improbable.  A personal example: I can’t reach such an agreement with a Christian because I do not believe any of the elements of their fundamental beliefs are rationally defensible, let alone true. But I have no need to agree on the status of the bible, because we can agree about a great many of things far nearer the surface, so to speak. We can agree that assassination of political opponents is wrong without engaging in a discussion of the existence of souls, etc. There is little reason for him to require such agreement in order to form a political alliance or to engage in political discussion. He is perfectly free to think me defective in reason or character. But when we enter into politics, we should treat one another with some minimal degree of respect, which means to me that our discussions of the use state power (political discussions) should proceed from grounds which do not preclude agreement, where that is possible.

Rose, Fifth, Sturgeon

I took a short vacation -- a few days in what was, back in the day, sometimes called Baghdad by the Bay (it has a bit of an odd sound to it now).  The Chron, which I had not read in several years, has gone from being an entertaining and slightly weird newspaper to something so abominably bad that it was painful to read.  Even our local cult paper here is significantly better than the Chron.  But I went for vacation, which, in connection with a city, means other mainly culinary reasons. And to see if Hunt The Blind Man was still driving.  I can say the trip was quite a delight.  Tromping up and down hills helps with the food, but still -- caviar for lunch.

Back to the normal programming tomorrow.   

Voice and Poetry

A few days ago I finally received my copy of Quartets 9.  Quartets is a series of recordings issued by Bloodaxe Books.  Four poets read their works on two tapes, so each gets about a half an hour on cassette.  (I am surprised that the recordings are on cassette rather than cd - I would expect production costs to be lower on cd, and, let's face it, pirating seems a bit unlikely (but perhaps I am wrong and there is lively black market in commercial poetry recordings)).  This volume includes the estimable Ms. Rouse.  The tapes, in order, I am sure to add to the pleasure of discovery, are mislabeled.  Put in the side labeled Anne Rouse and out comes some Irish character.  He is quite good, as it turns out; reads well.  But I could tell the difference and caught on right away that he was not she.  Because my commute is all of seven minutes, it has taken a little bit of time to get to the end of the mistaken side.  Today I got to Anne.  Even though I was looking for her reading, it was still a small shock to hear her.  An interesting mix of accents -- London and Virginia.   Her voice has, it seems to me, changed over the years.  It shocked me to realize I had not expected that.  Like her Irish colleague, she reads well.  Which is remarkably rare among poets. 

Prose writers, in my experience, do a much better job of reading their works.  I often find I gain from the oral presentation.  With poets, my experience has most often resulted in a fervent wish that I had not heard them.  There is no separate language Poetry English.  Inflexible, I suppose, but I like people to read in the same language as the text is written. 
 

Never Too Late

Today the Utah Supreme Court handed down a decision in Savage (2004 UT 102). The case concerns liability for placement of foster children who then abuse children in the placement home. In getting to the substantive issues, the Court needed to address whether the defendant had timely amended its answer to assert a new, statutory, defense. Here, in paragraph 10, is what the Court says:

 Although the Village moved to amend eleven months after the deadline to amend had passed, three months after the case was certified for trial, and four weeks before trial, thus pressing the outer limits of timeliness, we conclude that no prejudice to appellants is apparent, and the district court acted within its broad discretion when it granted the Village's motion to amend its answer to include the Village's argument regarding section 78-12-25.1(5).

(Emphasis added.)  Pressing the outer limits? Is there a limit?

 Ah, but the plaintiffs had a whole month to respond to the amendment. And, because plaintiffs had competent counsel, they in fact raised a number of points concerning the amendment (on which they ultimately prevailed before the Supreme Court). But this is a bit much. This sort of ruling puts non-moving parties in a very difficult position – in order to show prejudice, they must not respond. But not responding is viable only if the amendment is denied. If granted, then the prejudice is effectively self-inflicted. But if one responds, there is no prejudice and so no reason not to permit the amendment. There is little point to scheduling orders if the parties are not held to them. The inclination of courts to depart from plain rules rarely does anything to aid justice; usually it just results in unfair advantages, increased fees, and disrespect for the courts.

Pray How, Doctor?

Last month’s medical ethics meeting concerned requests by patients for the attending physician to join the patient in prayer. Since then I have been cogitating on the question of whether folks of different faiths can pray together. During the meeting, a number of people talked about praying with patients of differing faiths, and accepting blessings, etc. I found it all a bit puzzling. I don’t really see how it is that, for example, a Catholic and Mormon can pray together. They surely can both pray in the same place, but I take it that more was intended. If they can pray together, if God hers all prayers, then what is the point of doctrine? If it does not in the end matter if one believes in the resurrection, or if one believes that Jesus sailed across the Atlantic and preached in Central America, if it does not matter if one believes God is a corporal entity living nearby or a mysterious trinity, then what’s with all the doctrine in the first place? It surely is not just secret handshakes for the football team. If you get right with God through more or less any form of prayer, why is there any preference as to faith? What can the doctrinal difference mean if they have no import for connection to God? Religious people have been engaging in these ecumenical events for some time, so there must be an explanation. 

 

And what to say, if you think doctors should pray with their patients, when the patient’s theological commitments entail that the disease is a punishment? 

Sellers Reminds

Lat night I went to a showing of an upcoming HBO film about Peter Sellers. The movie is a biography, focusing on his personal life (i.e., things other than his professional success). I had expected something a bit different, focusing on the professional life. Sellers had a remarkable career – from the Goon shows on. The file got me thinking about how I came to his career, like most Americans, through film. I read the scripts from the Goon Shows in college (at the behest of a friend). They are worth finding and reading – extraordinarily interesting and funny. I saw most of his film work when I was in junior high school and high school, when I was a devoted fan of Dialing for Dollars, the three o’clock movies on one of the local television shows (channel 8 I think). I can’t recall the name of the host, other than his first name: Bob. In retrospect, it was a rather odd show. Of course there were the little intermissions to call people – if they were watching, they won some small amount of money. No, what was odd was the selection of films. I have no idea who made the selections, but in some instances the choices were quite adventurous. Of course there were films like Paint Your Wagon and West Side Story, Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Great Escape, the Rescuers, etc., and the Sellers films of the time – Pink Panther, The Mouse That Roared, etc. They broadcast Dr. Strangelove, and a bunch of things I’ve not seen on any other commercial source. One afternoon they showed a film of Zero Mostel performing Rhinoceros. Another time, they had Genet’s Maids (with Glenda Jackson I think). Also showed movies like Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf. And one movie, which sticks in my memory is a western I have never located. The plot: a sadistic stranger comes into a small town. He terrorizes everyone, rapes the protagonists wife (or girlfriend), and then rides off. No justice done. I would love to see it again. As I recall, it starred Fonda as the good guy unable to stand up against the sadist.

 

Everyday at three o’clock the local TV station was providing a course in film theory and history. I did not go to the movies then, and so did not quite get how eclectic the selection was.   

 

The first play I saw performed was Waiting for Godot. (See, there is culture in Southern California.)  Which reminds me of the greatest of the western movies, an Eastern European production, shown the night Robert Kennedy was assassinated: Lemonade Joe.