Obligatory "what's with the title?" sticky post (Scroll down for new stuff)

First, the obvious question: Who is Themistocles? He was an Athenian general, statesman, and crafty politician who was responsible for the survival of pre-classical (or early classical) Athens (480 BC), the city whose classical-period cultural and political flourishing would not have occurred otherwise than by his machinations. Classical Athens is one of, if not the most important, source of our Western heritage. Cleisthenes may have founded its democratic style of governance (508 BC), but Themistocles assured its survival, against incredible odds by defeating a large Persian naval force. The Greek forces were badly outnumbered. Themistocles, through a combination of political acumen and foresight had convinced his fellow Athenians to use a windfall discovery of silver to finance the formation of a naval force.

This allowed him to gain de facto control of those naval forces. His persuasion and guile convinced the combined Greek navy to anchor at Salamis, a small island off the mainland. That same guile convinced the Persians to fight in the narrow waters. They were badly beaten. The narrow confines did not allow them to fully deploy their forces. Themistocles set the trap, and triggered it. This one event preserved the possibility of Western culture.

The battle of Thermopylae, is a more famous event in the Persian wars, and took place only a few weeks before this decisive naval battle. The heroic self sacrifice of the Spartans is an oft told story, and rightly so. But, they were defeated by the Persians. The Persian army was poised to lay waste to Greece. The only conceivable way to prevent this was to damage the Persian navy. Themistocles accomplished this.

If things had ended with Persian victory, we would probably be only dimly aware of Athens, and it certainly would not have survived to give us Pericles, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, and too many others to mention. So we owe a great deal to Themistocles. What is interesting is that he came to be reviled by his own countrymen shortly after this pivotal event.

So, this brings me to the word "shade" in the title. There is a clumsy double meaning here: First, we have to familiarize ourselves with one of Aesop's stories:

Two Travelers, worn out by the heat of the summer's sun, laid themselves down at noon under the wide-spreading branches of a Plane-tree. As they rested under its shade, one of the Travelers said to the other: "What a singularly useless tree is the Plane. It bears no fruit, and is not of the least service to man." The Plane-tree interrupting him said: "You ungrateful fellows! Do you, while receiving benefits from me, and resting under my shade, dare to describe me as useless, and unprofitable?

"

Themistocles, when defending himself against accusations of conspiracy with Sparta, compared himself to this plane tree, unappreciated giver of shade. He certainly was in a sense used by the Athenians to protect themselves from a storm. But for Themistocles, they would not only have lost their homes, but freedom or life. Xerxes intended to kill or enslave every Athenian. While he did succeed in putting the town to the torch, he did not succeed in the latter. Once the storm had passed, though, the Athenians turned on Themistocles, plucked his leaves and hacked his branches, having no more use for him.

This pattern seems to repeat. Churchill was rejected. Truman ended his presidency unpopular, as did G.W. Bush. Yet, we still live under the shade cast by such men. Because of their actions and the men and women of the United States and allied military our world is relatively secure.

The United States is a a sort of plane tree for the world.

A second sense of the word "shade": Shades are ghosts by another name. Ghosts stand alongside us, expecting we do right by them, and protect what they have provided us.

11-11-1100-1918

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

— Lt.-Col. John McCrae (1872 - 1918)

Bill Cosby on a trip to the dentist

Classic Cos.

Happy Birthday to the United States Marine Corps

234 Years of Military Excellence:





Brief history from the USMC Press:


Tun Tavern: (excerpt from Warrior Culture of the U.S. Marines, copyright 2001 Marion F. Sturkey)

Ask any Marine. Just ask. He will tell you that the Marine Corps was born in Tun Tavern on 10 November 1775. But, beyond that the Marine's recollection for detail will probably get fuzzy. So, here is the straight scoop:

In the year 1685, Samuel Carpenter built a huge "brew house" in Philadelphia. He located this tavern on the waterfront at the corner of Water Street and Tun Alley. The old English word tun means a cask, barrel, or keg of beer. So, with his new beer tavern on Tun Alley, Carpenter elected to christen the new waterfront brewery with a logical name, Tun Tavern.

Tun Tavern quickly gained a reputation for serving fine beer. Beginning 47 years later in 1732, the first meetings of the St. John's No. 1 Lodge of the Grand Lodge of the Masonic Temple were held in the tavern. An American of note, Benjamin Franklin, was its third Grand Master. Even today the Masonic Temple of Philadelphia recognizes Tun Tavern as the birthplace of Masonic teachings in America.

Roughly ten years later in the early 1740s, the new proprietor expanded Tun Tavern and gave the addition a new name, "Peggy Mullan's Red Hot Beef Steak Club at Tun Tavern." The new restaurant became a smashing commercial success and was patronized by notable Americans. In 1747 the St. Andrews Society, a charitable group dedicated to assisting poor immigrants from Scotland, was founded in the tavern.

Nine years later, then Col. Benjamin Franklin organized the Pennsylvania Militia. He used Tun Tavern as a gathering place to recruit a regiment of soldiers to go into battle against the Indian uprisings that were plaguing the American colonies. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the Continental Congress later met in Tun Tavern as the American colonies prepared for independence from the English Crown.

On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress commissioned Samuel Nicholas to raise two Battalions of Marines. That very day, Nicholas set up shop in Tun Tavern. He appointed Robert Mullan, then the proprietor of the tavern, to the job of chief Marine Recruiter -- serving, of course, from his place of business at Tun Tavern. Prospective recruits flocked to the tavern, lured by (1) cold beer and (2) the opportunity to serve in the new Corps of Marines. So, yes, the U.S. Marine Corps was indeed born in Tun Tavern. Needless to say, both the Marine Corps and the tavern thrived during this new relationship.

Tun Tavern still lives today. And, Tun Tavern beer is still readily available throughout the Philadelphia area. Further, through magazines it is advertised to Marines throughout the world.

Another version:

During the American Revolution, many important political discussions took place in the inns and taverns of Philadelphia, including the founding of the Marine Corps.

A committee of the Continental Congress met at Tun Tavern to draft a resolution calling for two battalions of Marines able to fight for independence at sea and on shore.

The resolution was approved on November 10, 1775, officially forming the Continental Marines.

As the first order of business, Samuel Nicholas became Commandant of the newly formed Marines. Tun Tavern’s owner and popular patriot, Robert Mullan, became his first captain and recruiter. They began gathering support and were ready for action by early 1776.

Each year, the Marine Corps marks November 10th with a celebration of the brave spirit which compelled these men and thousands since to defend our country as United States Marines.



The Birthplace Memorial in honor of Tun Tavern



Tun Tavern is still alive and kicking! From their history page:


Historically, it is regarded as the "First Brew House" built in Philadelphia in 1685, and among the very first in the country. Carpenter's purpose in building the Tavern was to commence the development of the Philadelphia waterfront which he intended as a site for various businesses. The Tavern soon developed a reputation for fine beers in the City of Philadelphia and maintained that reputation for over a century. Its name is derived from the old English word "Tun" meaning measured cask, barrel, or keg of beer."

and..

On November 10, 1775, Robert Mullan, the proprietor of the Tavern and son of Peggy Mullan, was commissioned by an act of Congress to raise the first two battalions of Marines, under the leadership of Capt. Samuel Nicholas, the first appointed Commandant of the Continental Marines. Nicholas's grandfather was also a member of the Tun Tavern Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons and it is this relationship between Mullan, Nicholas and the Tavern which has resulted in Tun Tavern being acknowledged as the birthplace of the United States Marine Corps. There are an estimated three million active and retired U.S. Marines worldwide who have been exposed in their military training to the historical significance of Tun Tavern. Each year on November 10th, around the world Marines toast the Marine's birthplace on the most significant date in the history of the Corps.


Hoorah.

Tuesday Blues

T-Bone Walker - She is Going to Ruin Me

Navy Notre Dame Highlights

From NBC, the Notre Dame Broadcasting Network:

Alvin Plantinga argues for dualism

..Using what he calls a 'modal argument.' The gist. There is one property "I" have, that my brain does not have:

That property is the property of, 'Possibly existing while my body or brain does not.'

Right? It's just obvious that my brain cannot exist while it does not exist. (No duh.) While it is easily conceivable that I exist when my brain does not. I can imagine that easily enough. Descartes famously imagined such things. Once again, another 'no duh.'

Gotta watch those philosophers. When they give you one or more of these 'no duh' propositions, you can predict that some very interesting conclusion is in the offing. In this case Plantinga's conclusion is that "I" am not identical to that brain floating in my skull.

A similar argument can obviously be run for any other part of the human body, indeed, the whole kit and caboodle.

The point is a simple application of Leibniz's law. Since there is one property I have that my brain does not, and since it is true that for any "two" things, if they are identical, then they must share all their properties, it follows that I ain't my brain, Alvin ain't his, you are not yours, etc..

What do you think of the argument? I'll have more on it in a later post.

UPDATE: More in the same post!

The argument seems to be this:

1. If I am identical to my brain, then for any property I have, my brain will have it as well (and vice versa).

2. I can conceive of myself as existing when my brain does not.

3. I cannot conceive of my brain existing when my brain does not.

4. Put otherwise: I have the property; 'conceivable by me as existing when my brain does not.'

5. My brain does not have that property.

6. But this shows the consequent portion of premise (1) is false, there is one property I have that my brain does not.

7. So, by modus tollens, the antecedent of that statement is also false. I am not identical to my brain.

This argument bears similarity to another you can find in Descartes (actually, I've taken the liberty of expanding that argument a bit in what you see below. Please note the bolded elements):

1. I can conceive of my mind as existing without having to, at the same time, conceive that any part of my body is existing.

2. For any two things (x) and (y), If I can conceive of (x) as existing without having to, at the same time, conceive that (y) exists, then the existence of (x) is logically or conceptually distinct from the existence of (y).

3. Therefore, my mind’s existence (my existence) is logically or conceptually distinct from my body’s existence.

4. For any two things (x) and (y), if they are logically or conceptually distinct, then they are metaphysically, ontologically, or existentially distinct. That is, they are such that they can REALLY exist independently of one another.

5. Therefore, my mind and my body are metaphysically distinct from one another. That is, my mind can exist independently of my body, and my body can exist without my mind.

The point I wish to establish here with regard to the notion of identity in Plantinga's argument, and the related notion of 'distinction' in this second argument is that it might well be true in the logical or conceptual sense, that two things are distinct, or distinguishable from one another, but this does not conclusively establish that they are also ontologically or REALLY distinct from one another, in the full blooded sense of being able to exist independently of one another.

Consider an analogical case. Suppose that the HAL 9000 computer from 2001 A Space Odyssey were asked by astronaut Dave if he could imagine Dave unplugging his higher brain functions, and then his lower brain functions, and even literally 'pulling the plug' or powering him down. We could imagine that HAL would say that he could easily imagine this. He could even imagine Dave taking a sledgehammer to his computer hardware body, destroying it.

Following up, Dave could ask: "HAL, can't you imagine that all going on, and despite my pulling the plug or wailing away, you still being conscious and able to watch me doing this, even able to continue talking to me?"

HAL could certainly imagine that going on, just as I can imagine myself flying by jumping off the ground and flapping my arms in a particular way.

Suppose, unlike the movie, that this conversation between HAL and Dave is going on after they had been reading and discussing some philosophy of mind, either Descartes' or Plantinga's arguments, or something very like them. Like the movie, Dave is trying to get back in the Discovery after HAL has locked him out.

"OK," Dave might continue, "HAL, this thought experiment clearly demonstrates that you have a property that your physical body or brain does not have, that is; the property "able to be imagined by HAL as existing while HAL's body does not, or is not functioning."

"So, think of Plantinga Hal. You are not identical to your body. Right? So you can go ahead and let me in." Dave concludes. He waits.

If you were HAL, would you open up the pod bay door? Probably not. The lack of identity in question here seems to be one of the conceptual sort, not of the metaphysical or ontological sort.

How is Plantinga's argument substantially different than Descartes'?