periphrasis

From Federalist 10

"The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principal, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote."

Madison goes on to discuss the difficulty of the situation in which faction encompasses the majority, which is likely what you're referring to. But he is VERY explicit that majority rule is one of the primary weapons against faction, and the discussion of the failures of articles of confederation and historical leagues and confederacies that occupies multiple papers makes clear that lack of majority rule is one of the great enablers of faction.

edit: The guard against majority faction does NOT come from minority rule or supermajority requirements. It comes from representation, rather than direct assembly, and a large population that is geographically and politically diverse. Those are the mitigations Madison proposes in Federalist 10 for the dangers of majority faction. He's quite clear that majority rule is the only way to run a popular government and any danger it poses must be mitigated by other means, namely representation and large geographic extent.

instability and violence from a too-powerful government (thus checks and balances)

This is not the argument of the federalist papers. They argue for a government with powers commensurate to its objects. They discuss at great length the dangers of a government being too weak, namely that it forces a series of usurpations because its the only way to get anything done.

They warned of tyranny of the majority

Nor is this the argument of the federalist papers, for much the same reasons above. Madison and Hamilton are quite explicit that majority rule is the only way to have a functional government, and that the alternative will only lead to dysfunction and the need to seize more power to break the resulting logjams.

The text of Federalist 10 shows that this is not a useful distinction in our contemporary context. Madison defines the "republican principle" as majority rule, and further defines "pure democracy" as direct government by an assembly of the citizen body, i.e. Ancient Athenian Democracy, something which does not exist at any scale in the contemporary world. A republic, as Madison defines it, is one in which the citizen body elects representatives, who then carry on the work of government. In modern parlance we call this a representative democracy. Further, Madison emphasizes the vital importance of majority rule in a republic as a guard against faction, so much so that he call majority rule the "republican principle" as noted above.

The bottomline is that the essential features of what Madison calls a "republic" is what the contemporary world calls a "democracy" or more specifically a "representative democracy". Insisting on calling American government a republic and not a democracy, when Madison's definition matches what we think of as a representative democracy, just obfuscates what's being discussed.

Or, if he wants to eventually become the President of the US, then that's an alternative explanation (of why he cared)?

That would require a constitutional amendment in order for him to be eligible. He’s revealed himself to be pretty dumb, but even I give him enough credit to not be so stupid as to think he will one day he President.

When the weather gets nice in nyc, the bike lanes fill up with people slowly meandering about the lane as they cycle one-handed, eyes glued to their cellphones.

My unscientific, purely vibes based take is that the ubiquity of the smartphone has created such widespread severe dopamine addiction that basic human judgment and even self preservation instinct is increasingly impaired.

I don’t disagree about the artistic merit or lack thereof of most “content”. Will AI produced content be worse than 98% of what’s on Netflix? Probably not! But this will drastically change the economics of content creation, such that something that has the chance to be actual art will be dramatically more expensive than that which can benignly occupy a user’s attention as they alternate between staring at a screen and flipping through their phone. Give it a generation, or even just a decade (look at how rapidly audience tastes have degenerated since 2014 or so) and no one will be able to conceive of “content” being anything else. Who is going to sign on to fund popular entertainment with artistic ambition, eg The Fabelmans, or art house fare, eg Tar, in such a world? Such a future, a world without popular or even middle brow art, is dystopian to its core (and indeed it may already be our present) which is why I fail to conceal my contempt for the aesthetic values of anyone who would eagerly embrace it.

I was referring to the genre fiction versus literary fiction distinction, something which would be very evident if your understanding of the term wasn’t limited to the first hit of a google search.

So literally generic content replacing art? Just tell the machine what you expect and like and then your expectations can be satisfied on-demand! Sounds like cultural oblivion and I will hold my tongue on the quality of your aesthetic judgment.

And because the passage of time implies progress, this will be inherently better than what came before. /s

Happy isn't a long term state of being. It's a short term emotion like anger or sadness.

Counter point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

This decision is correct, given all the incorrect strategic decisions he made leading up to it. The markets have clearly lost a lot of confidence in his leadership, and I would have to imagine the remaining employees have too. Stepping down would be a drastic step, but merely stating “I take responsibility” is unlikely on its own to restore confidence in his ability to right the ship either.

Imagine thinking securities fraud is the profession of the superior man: instead, he is merely a slave to his desires, namely greed, debasing himself in order to vainly feed the insatiable beast inside. Truly pitiable and truly servile.

You certainly can recreate something very similar in post, although that’s a bit like saying chiaroscuro lighting is achievable in charcoal, oil paint, and photography: the effect is still going to be distinct depending on the medium. Digital has a whole host of unique qualities and even some distinct advantages over film. But the image of film has a different quality to it as compared to digital: it simply looks different than digital projection or home video, even if you had a pristine, flawless film print. The difference in image is subtle, but your brain recognizes it the moment the projector starts: “oh, yeah, this is how movies used to look.” Just as photography hasn’t superseded all other 2d visual arts, I think it would be a mistake to treat film as unnecessary in the age of digital. I can certainly understand why a director and DP would choose to work with digital for the average case project these days though.

As an example, I recently saw Full Metal Jacket on 35mm. The last Boot Camp scene, the one in the bathroom, while unsettling in any context becomes positively haunting in 35mm. The lower light conditions introduce artifacting even in digital, but the slightly wobbly frame motion and the scratches and dust marks exaggerate that artifacting further. The resulting image is almost expressionistic, as though reality has become so horrifying our very perception of it is starting to breakdown. The same sort of effect recurs with the sniper at the end of the film. In between, the rougher, less pristine frames create a sense of grittiness that amplifies the mood of the film. In short, I thought seeing Full Metal Jacket on 35mm was a fully superior experience over watching it on digital (although I’ve only seen digital presentations of it at home and not in a theater).

I’m not sure avoiding sub vocalisation is an advantage unless your only priority is speed. If you’re reading poetry or rhetorical writing, i.e. a speech, and if you’re neither sub vocalizing nor reading aloud, then you’re missing most of what’s on offer: the careful arrangement of rhythm and sound to create literary effect.

Achilles' flaw is that he is driven entirely by Thumos, far beyond what is appropriate.

I disagree completely. If it was beyond what was appropriate, much of the meaning of the poem simply does not work. There was a story in the tradition that the suitors of Helen, after she was betrothed to Menelaus, all swore an oath to come to the aid of Menelaus if anyone harmed the sanctity of their marriage: this story appears no where in the Iliad. Homer explicitly doesn't mention it, because his characters are at Troy to win honor and glory, actions which in bronze age warrior culture were admirable and noble. For moderns, who are not part of a bronze age warrior culture, it can be difficult to contemplate just how thoroughly Agamemnon humiliates Achilles in front of the entire army in Book I. War prizes were awarded as a measure of esteem in which a warrior was held by his peers: the greater the esteem the greater the prize. Strip a man of his prize, and you strip him of his esteem, his honor, his entire reason for being. If there was no oath by the suitors, which Homer explicitly omits, then not only does Achilles lose his honor, he loses all purpose for being at Troy: he's not bound by an oath so why even fight if the fruits of that fighting will be taken from him in the most humiliating fashion possible? So of course Achilles goes back to his tent and sulks for over a dozen books of the poem. Had Achilles submitted to the humiliation Agamemnon inflicted upon him he would have added cowardice and unmanliness to his dishonor: he would have lost all respect by his peers and the social expectation would have been to commit suicide. So by withdrawing to his tent and sulking, Achilles was doing the appropriate and praise-worthy thing within the context of his (alien to ours) culture. And that choice ultimately destroys him.

The point is that Aristotle's views about Oedipus both misread Sophocles' text and fail to generalize across the literary corpus Aristotle was analyzing. Achilles is the quintessential and paradigmatic tragic figure in ancient Greek literature: if Aristotle's insight about tragic character doesn't apply to Achilles, then it certainly makes sense that Aristotle would omit discussing him because such a counterexample so discredits his idea!

He classifies it as epic poetry, although I don't recall off hand the details of discussion of Achilles, if there even was any. But the Iliad is most certainly a tragedy in its dramatic elements; indeed you simply would not have Athenian tragic drama if Homer and the Iliad were not central to ancient Greek culture. The "Greek Tragic Vision" is Iliadic, and it extends it reach throughout Greek literature, not just the theatrical genre called tragedy: for example, Thucydides' history cannot be fully understood without reference to the tragic vision.

The "tragic flaw" is a more useful frame for analysis of subsequent Western tragedy, which was obviously heavily influenced by Aristotle's Poetics. However, Aristotle's analysis of tragedy in Poetics is almost solely an analysis of Oedipus: if he was wrong about Oedipus, then his argument for the "tragic flaw" doesn't have much else support. Indeed, it's not a very useful analytical tool when applied to ancient Greek literature, as opposed to subsequent Western literature. What is Achilles' tragic flaw? That he was jealous of his honor, a completely admirable and noble thing for a bronze age warrior?

In contrast, Walter White does indeed have a tragic flaw: he is prideful. His ordinary, stable life as a high school chemistry teacher was less than he felt he deserved, and when his cancer diagnosis disrupts that status quo, he is set on a path that ultimately destroys him and everything he cared about. But here we have an instance of tragedy written after literally millenia of Aristotle's mistaken analysis of Oedipus defining expectations for tragedy.

There's plenty else in Poetics that is very useful, and obviously its influence on literary criticism and analysis is profound. But one of its most famous findings is, well, tragically flawed.

Correct, in that as the play opens he has already unknowingly done the things that once revealed will destroy him, which were all the workings of the prophecy. However, in the action of the play itself, he still makes a fateful choice of his own to resolve the mystery of Laius’ murder to expiate the religious pollution causing the plague. A less conscientious king or a less able investigator would not experience the dreadful consequence of this choice: learning the truth. But precisely because Oedipus is conscientious and is intelligent, he uncovers the truth which utterly destroys him. It’s not merely that he was doomed before the play begins, but that he affirmatively makes a choice in keeping with his strength of character that reveals that doom.

It makes it less surprising that the social impact of the internet has so curdled in the last decade, doesn’t it?

Great article, although I would quibble with the reference to the “tragic flaw”. What is Oedipus’ tragic flaw? That he’s smart and inquisitive? That he won’t rest until he learns the truth? These aren’t flaws but strengths. Aristotle, the originator of the term tragic flaw, fundamentally misread Oedipus: Oedipus is not destroyed by a flaw in his character, but by his very strengths! This is partly what makes humanity’s tragic condition so terrifying: that we fundamentally cannot consistently foresee the consequences of our actions and that the thing that ultimately destroys us could be one of our personal strengths applied well but without perfect foresight.

to catapult their careers ahead.

What is the value of one’s career? To make more money? Why is it smart to devote so much effort to moving up when you’ll be dead and your work completely forgotten much sooner than anyone cares to admit? If you’re seeking lasting glory then the well trod path there is politics, war, or art: technologists generally are not remembered outside their time (with maybe literally a half dozen exceptions since antiquity).

I ask this honestly, because at this point in my own career the only answer I can come up with is the personal satisfaction of getting better and more knowledgeable about something I at one time enjoyed.

Rural areas account for 14% of the US population. Why should they have veto power over the urban planning and transportation policy in metro areas?

And I’m sorry you feel that the pro-coup, pro-Dobbs, pro-demonizing-gay-people party isn’t as well liked as you feel they’re entitled to be.

? Madison et al. are quite explicit that non-proportional representation in the Senate was a deeply regrettable compromise that could potentially create extraordinary difficulties down the line. The only thing keeping it from being completely unjustifiable was that the alternative was remaining under the articles of confederation, which was already in the process of breaking down (hence the need for a constitutional convention in the first place). Far from being a concession to slave states, which were growing rapidly at the time and consequently favored proportional representation, the Connecticut Compromise was a concession to small states, mostly in the North (indeed the name of the compromise is a hint here). See Federalist 62 to see just how disappointed Madison et al. were to be forced to accept this compromise by political necessity.

To be clear, slavery and its legacy has had a profoundly malign influence on American politics and its constitution, but non proportional representation in the Senate is not an example of it.

I’m of the belief that social media use ravages the attention span and imposes a high passive opportunity cost on your time (consider how often you absentmindedly open your phone to scroll a feed without looking for anything in particular only to suddenly realize 20 minutes has passed with nothing to show for it). While there is a great deal of informative content on YouTube, personally I find the cognitive trade offs of being a YouTube user far too great for it to be a tool of intellectual development. I’m just a random asshole on the internet though, so credit my opinion accordingly.

One thing this thread has reminded me of is that for all the lip service conservatives pay to toughness and manly traditional gender roles, they certainly seem to live in abject terror of being the victim of a crime.

Eh, MMO lingo presumes that a "tank" class is supposed to take damage. Any tank crew that plans to rely on its armor to survive hits isn't going to live very long.

A few points that in the course of being typed out turned into a small essay:

Modern conventional warfare is extremely deadly: essentially, if a target can be seen it can be destroyed. Anything in the open will eventually be destroyed. Tanks are not especially more vulnerable to this danger than any other ground vehicle; they are larger, more visible targets, but that is somewhat offset by their armor. If you're looking at all the wrecked Russian T-72s in Ukraine and asking "why have tanks?" you could just as easily look at all the wrecked BMPs and BMDs and ask "why have infantry fighting vehicles?" or at all the wrecked supply convoys and ask "why have trucks?" The answer of course is because you need the mobility and firepower that vehicles provide, but the trade off is that the battlefield is very, very deadly for vehicles.

Tanks cannot take the lead in urban operations because the terrain is too restricted and their situational awareness too low. But, their direct firepower can be essential in urban operations: think of a rifle squad pinned down by sniper fire from the upper floors of a building at the end of the block, which is something a tank can easily destroy with minimal risk.

As the above point alludes to, tanks and infantry fight more effectively as a team than they can separately. Depending on the mission, terrain, and enemy disposition, a tank can be a more effective weapon than infantry, and vice-versa. But by having both working together, they are able to compensate for the others weaknesses. In the course of a battle, the more effective arm at a given moment is liable to change back and forth multiple times: sometimes the infantry will be making the main effort, sometimes the tanks; sometimes the infantry will be maneuvering while the tanks support by fire, sometimes the tanks maneuver while the infantry supports by fire.

The Russians have been particularly bad at this last point in Ukraine. Partly, this appears to a be a result of their infantry formations being significantly understrength; even if they were at full strength, their TOEs (Table of Organization and Equipment) for various infantry unit types suggest notably less strength than their western counterparts. The Battalion Tactical Group organization, as an ad hoc formation, also means that the infantry and armor in a given BTG have probably never trained to fight together as a team: it makes a big difference to go to war with people you've trained as a team with for months/years than with people you met two weeks ago.

I think the big takeaway from Ukraine is not that tanks are especially vulnerable on contemporary battlefield, but that unprepared and disorganized Russian tankers are going to die as quickly as the rest of the Russian army when confronting a tough, well-trained, determined opponent equipped with weapons specifically engineered to destroy their vehicles.

Now also corroborated by radio intercepts: https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/possible-eviden...