Since joining Substack, neuron firings have increased exponentially. The three-body problem (and the “tricky problem with threes”) brought back memories from 1984 after reading the Fate of the Earth by Jonathan Schell; and Preventing War in the Nuclear Age by Dietrich Fischer. One of the main arguments Fischer made was that we did not have a “Sword of Damocles,” as said by President Kennedy, with China. The reason being was diplomacy and friendship. The Chinese were a nuclear superpower in the 1970’s and could completely destroy the United States, or the U.S.S.R., or France and the U.K. But they never postured so and were most eager to do business with the west. I find it interesting that the topic is brought up today as problem when in fact it was shown to be a working example of maintaining peace. The arguments of the hawks and the doves in the Times have been discussed before. There are many nations in the nuclear club most with positive relations with each other. I agree with the doves in the NYTimes article in that deterrence is better a one-to-one relationship approach--not that I am a dove--but simply that escalating is not necessarily the solution in nuclear stability. It’s just interesting that Fischer looked for solutions through example and we’re looking at it from a bird’s eye’s view. An orthographic projection from another angle. But why? The Cold War was scary at times. I remember nightmares during my undergraduate studies at NYU of overnight armageddon. Reagan in his Saturday morning radio address jokingly said, “We begin bombing five minutes.” To think the nightmares faded by the Soviet collapse, or that I just got older, I’ll never know. What’s my point after this nostalgic look back? 😄 It’s seem we keep revisiting the same old problems not unlike our sought after wisdom from thinkers of the past. 😊
The suggested reading columns are very nice, Massimo. Some remarks, one question.
The image on top of these columns of the woman with was tablets (found in Pompeii, I believe) was on the cover of my Latin schoolbooks when I was 11-14. Nice to be reminded.
You've recommended the six Peter Adamson books (A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, Volume 1-6) in an earlier column but didn't mention one aspect - their ridiculous price: €11.00 for ca; 400 pp, niche books - the author's a philanthropist!
My son ran off with my copy of the Field Guide to a Happy Life. So I bought him the French translation of all the Greek/Hellenic/Roman stoics in one volume (1400 super thin pages). My question: does a single volume complete translation exist in English? (my French is OK but it's just hard work)
Since joining Substack, neuron firings have increased exponentially. The three-body problem (and the “tricky problem with threes”) brought back memories from 1984 after reading the Fate of the Earth by Jonathan Schell; and Preventing War in the Nuclear Age by Dietrich Fischer. One of the main arguments Fischer made was that we did not have a “Sword of Damocles,” as said by President Kennedy, with China. The reason being was diplomacy and friendship. The Chinese were a nuclear superpower in the 1970’s and could completely destroy the United States, or the U.S.S.R., or France and the U.K. But they never postured so and were most eager to do business with the west. I find it interesting that the topic is brought up today as problem when in fact it was shown to be a working example of maintaining peace. The arguments of the hawks and the doves in the Times have been discussed before. There are many nations in the nuclear club most with positive relations with each other. I agree with the doves in the NYTimes article in that deterrence is better a one-to-one relationship approach--not that I am a dove--but simply that escalating is not necessarily the solution in nuclear stability. It’s just interesting that Fischer looked for solutions through example and we’re looking at it from a bird’s eye’s view. An orthographic projection from another angle. But why? The Cold War was scary at times. I remember nightmares during my undergraduate studies at NYU of overnight armageddon. Reagan in his Saturday morning radio address jokingly said, “We begin bombing five minutes.” To think the nightmares faded by the Soviet collapse, or that I just got older, I’ll never know. What’s my point after this nostalgic look back? 😄 It’s seem we keep revisiting the same old problems not unlike our sought after wisdom from thinkers of the past. 😊
The suggested reading columns are very nice, Massimo. Some remarks, one question.
The image on top of these columns of the woman with was tablets (found in Pompeii, I believe) was on the cover of my Latin schoolbooks when I was 11-14. Nice to be reminded.
You've recommended the six Peter Adamson books (A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, Volume 1-6) in an earlier column but didn't mention one aspect - their ridiculous price: €11.00 for ca; 400 pp, niche books - the author's a philanthropist!
My son ran off with my copy of the Field Guide to a Happy Life. So I bought him the French translation of all the Greek/Hellenic/Roman stoics in one volume (1400 super thin pages). My question: does a single volume complete translation exist in English? (my French is OK but it's just hard work)
(Les Stoïciens, ed. Pierre-Maxime Schuhl, Gallimard, Bibl. de la Pleiade https://www.amazon.fr/Sto%C3%AFciens-Collectifs/dp/2070105415/ref=sr_1_3?crid=27MZUUR6EFMRF&keywords=pleiade+stoic&qid=1689256588&sprefix=pleiade+stoic%2Caps%2C211&sr=8-3; but don't order the Pleiade books at Amazon as they always succeed in damaging the box of the books)
You've mentioned Antwerp renaissance Stoics in a podcast. Were you thinking of Lipsius? Are any of his books worth reading today?
Thanks!