Hi friends,

Greetings from Austin!

I've just published the next lecture in the series I co-hosted about René Girard. This one shows why violence and chaos develop in society and explores Girard's philosophy on what creates peace and order. He rejects the logic of a social contract. Instead, he says humans depend on a little bit of violence (and deceit) in the short term to prevent a lot of violence in the long term.

Today's Finds

​In the Presence of Schopenhauer: Whenever I find an author I like, I try to study their influences. In the world of media theory, it seems like everything points back to Heidegger. In the world of philosophy, it seems like everything points back to Arthur Schopenhauer. This book breaks down Schopenhauer's philosophy. It's written by Michel Houellebecq, one of France's most controversial authors, who wrote: "Even if you ultimately find yourself in disagreement with [Schopenhauer], you cannot fail to be deeply grateful to him." The book is short. 100 pages. I'm intrigued by Schopenhauer's description of art. Before him, people believed art was manufactured. But Schopenhauer believed that art is innate. It's born out of a 'dumbstruck contemplation of the world.' Like kids, they're in a state of pure perception. Artists, then, live inside their own daydreams. They move intuitively and instinctively, pulled in by the magnet of curiosity, perpetually unsure of the ultimate intentions behind their work.

​H.L. Mencken's Review of The Great Gatsby from 1925: You rarely hear people critique this book. Mencken thought the storyline was tinny and the characters were hollow. It stood out because of the writing quality: "The obvious phrase is simply not in it. The sentences roll along smoothly, sparklingly, and variously. There is evidence in every line of hard and intelligent effort." Early in his career, F. Scott Fitzgerald (the author of The Great Gatsby) was critiqued for being a poor writer. His first novel, This Side of Paradise, was denounced as a shoddy piece of writing. Evidently, he improved a bunch throughout his career. I take two lessons away from this: (1) we should read more book critiques from people who were alive when it was published, and (2) one can improve as a writer if they put in the requisite time and effort.

​Postscript on Societies of Control: In this short essay, Gilles Deleuze argues that modernity has been characterized by three stages: (1) before Napoleon, we lived in societies of sovereignty, (2) after World War II, we lived in societies of discipline, and (3) we’re now moving into a society of control. The essay anticipated many modern developments, such as the ability of big technology companies to shape speech and behavior without ordinary people realizing how strongly they’re being controlled.

​Birds and Frogs in Physics: I’ve always liked the Fox vs. Hedgehog distinction between people who know a little about many things and people who know a lot about one thing. This essay makes a similar argument that people are either birds or frogs. Birds see things from, well, a bird's eye view. They have a vast landscape in front of them and don't demand a lot of detail. Frogs are different. They like to dive into the gritty details. Einstein and Feynman were birds; Fermi and Hubble were frogs. The specialization of science throughout the 20th century made it harder for physicists to be birds.

​Maybe, We're Teaching History Wrong: When you think about history class, you probably think about war and politics. Shining the spotlight on them distracts us from other important moments in history, such as intellectual and technological shifts. In America, when we think of the year 1776, we think about the signing of the Declaration of Independence instead of the publication of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations — the first systematic display of spontaneous human order. Why the focus on politics and war? For one, they're dramatic. The brutality of war in particular makes for gripping narrative. Politics has Shakespearean levels of drama too. Business, science, and technology may not lend themselves to such compelling narratives — even if they’re just as important.