For Young Men Who Like To Think
April 22, 2017
Apprentice Jonathan
observations of apprentices' works
We noticed an omission in Apprentice Aaron's paper. For the purpose of completeness, it should be mentioned that the Feast of Corpus Christi was instituted in the year 1264 and became universal in the Latin Rite in the year 1317. These two dates predate the first references of “Corpus Christi” in the English language, thereby indicating no anachronisms exist. Of course, we cannot explain why a universal celebration would be presented by the venerable fathers of the Council of Trent as an innovation original to them.
Former and Potential Apprentice Brock’s essay has several repetitions of the phrase “as every schoolboy knows” in reference to Columbus. Interestingly, the citation in the post script also has this wording, not in reference to Columbus as would be expected, but to zombies. It seems that Apprentice Brock is drawing the reader’s attention to the possibility that while everyone “knows” the year 1492, this knowledge may not be correct.
As a general observation, we wonder how many entries and citations, that is, how many dozens of hours, Apprentice Brock searched before finding one entry that would fit the context. It seems that the effort is wholly out of proportion to the effect.
Apprentice Tyler's work on dating the Roman Mass concludes that the complete Mass cannot date before the 1870s, for that date is the earliest citation for the “Benedictus” in the Oxford English Dictionary. The late date for the Benedictus can be easily explained: the OED has not updated the entry. Since Mozart and Haydn wrote full Masses, Apprentice Tyler should realize and acknowledge that Masses must be dated to at least the 18th century.
We are uncertain how to interpret or categorize our discoveries in the works of the Apprentices.
Former and Potential Apprentice Brock’s essay has several repetitions of the phrase “as every schoolboy knows” in reference to Columbus. Interestingly, the citation in the post script also has this wording, not in reference to Columbus as would be expected, but to zombies. It seems that Apprentice Brock is drawing the reader’s attention to the possibility that while everyone “knows” the year 1492, this knowledge may not be correct.
As a general observation, we wonder how many entries and citations, that is, how many dozens of hours, Apprentice Brock searched before finding one entry that would fit the context. It seems that the effort is wholly out of proportion to the effect.
Apprentice Tyler's work on dating the Roman Mass concludes that the complete Mass cannot date before the 1870s, for that date is the earliest citation for the “Benedictus” in the Oxford English Dictionary. The late date for the Benedictus can be easily explained: the OED has not updated the entry. Since Mozart and Haydn wrote full Masses, Apprentice Tyler should realize and acknowledge that Masses must be dated to at least the 18th century.
We are uncertain how to interpret or categorize our discoveries in the works of the Apprentices.
observations of master's works
We are familiar with “Denver: A Dialog” and the alternate title: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” wherein Master explicitly references Platonic dialogues and creates a dialogue. Although the resulting implication is that Master is attempting to imitate and flatter Plato, another viable explanation or understanding of the subtitle exists.
Typical of Platonic dialogues, answers to questions are invariably short, and we encounter this feature in “Denver”. However, it is possible that Master is imitating not Plato's dialogues, but Denver's hesitant and confused responses. For example the quizzical sounding “Huh?” occurs seven times.
Of course, if Master is imitating Denver's responses from personal experience, then it would follow that Master is flattering Denver. Regretfully, in the context of Platonic dialogues, we are uncertain why Master would engage in flattering now Apprentice Denver.
“Contrition” is understandable, although the closing can be misunderstood, that is, it is vaguely constructed. The paper explicitly relates two episodes, one from Master’s childhood and the other of an unspecified time, presumably much later. From the title and the incidents, Master felt contrition both for eating and for unjustly berating an innocent inquiry.
In the closing, we read “guilt, lust and of concern” and “an organization…, myself and a self avowed atheist”. The later statement indicates three entities and in order they are: the church, Master, and an unknown person. However, the former statement is ambiguous, as it can be understood as either “guilt” and “lust and ...concern” or it can be understood as “guilt”, “lust”, and “concern”. If the former is the correct understanding and the sequence is maintained in both lists, then the organization is associated with guilt, Master is paired with lust, and the atheist is aligned with concern.
Leo Strauss writes that careful readers are careful writers, however, we cannot determine if the omission of the “Oxford comma” is intentional or Master is adhering to the convention of American standard of writing where the comma is omitted. If we suggest the text is correct, then we must conclude only two descriptions, “guilt” and “lust...and concern”, which conform to the two incidents. However, if we suggest the comma has been intentionally omitted to create ambiguity, then the three descriptions, “guilt”, “lust”, and “concern”, conform to three, not two, incidents. We must conclude that a third incident is omitted from the essay and it partakes both of lust and contrition, where lust is correctly understood as "a strong desire for someone".
“Confession is good for the Soul” is the third and final work we will examine. Master is known to declare that he does not write fiction, and this, on the whole, is correct. However, “Goat and Crab” is an acknowledged children's story and “An Attempt to Write Fiction” is, well, fiction. Whereas “Goat and Crab” can be understood as an allegory, and hence open to many plausible interpretations, “ATTW Fiction” should not be misunderstood by those who should know better.
“Confessions” is enjoyable, as Master interprets his actions from the perspective of one who thinks or believes ill of others. Master writes to those who willingly seek the worst in people and twist facts, that is, certain individuals interpret behavior to conform to their opinions. The second rate psychologist, a frequent contributor to this website, proposes that opinions be based on behavior.
Master has repeatedly written of his enjoyment of the high schoolers, finally suggesting they are ambiguous. We understand this conclusion of ambiguity as true, since the high schoolers are men, but insufficient. Once again, we are confronted with the possibility that Master forgets what he writes or Master is unaware of his thoughts or Master is incapable of reaching a reasoned conclusion regarding the high schoolers. We believe that none of these three possibilities are plausible and suggest that Master has offered us several clues or hints to his opinion regarding the high schoolers.
In Master's writings, the high schoolers are equated with gentlemen, those protectors of the city from threats internal and external. Although external threats can be summed up by “enemy”, internal threats are not easily categorized under one heading and this difficulty is due to multiple internal threats of varying degrees of severity.
From Plato, we suspect that gentlemen are intentionally placed between the philosophers and the people. Furthermore, we propose that the placement of gentlemen between the philosophers and the masses is not only hierarchical, but also physical. Gentleman find both groups, the philosophers and the people, likable, although certain gentleman will have personality conflicts with certain philosophers. We have no doubt that philosophers find gentlemen, as a group, likeable. Pragmatically speaking, the philosophers like the gentlemen, as the gentlemen can offer physical protection from bodily harm or death from the majority of people who distrust the philosophers.
If our suggestion that philosophers find gentlemen likable and vice versa, then how can Master declare that the high schoolers, those future gentlemen, are ambiguous? Unless Master is attempting to be completely dishonest, we will presume he is being as forthcoming as circumstances allow and proceed accordingly.
Gentlemen are characterized by their praise of virtue and their adherence to morality, the non virtuous and immoral have no seat at the gentleman's table. Gentleman believe in, hold to, and promote a standard of correct behavior and, by extension, incorrect behavior is condemned, marginalized, and repressed. The Gentle Reader must keep in mind that the gentleman are warriors, not rhetoricians, and enforcement of a society’s conventions is accomplished, not by forceful words, but by the sword. The city is too important to allow it to collapse due to internal dissention from a few individuals. Titus Andronicus is a gentleman, par excellence.
The gentleman are ambiguous insofar as their possible actions; they are not because of their solid beliefs. While the gentleman's swords are justly pointed towards the masses of the city, there is no reason to suggest that the swords cannot swiftly turn inward on a single philosopher. Hence, likability alone is not sufficient to guarantee the security of an indiscreet, or careless, philosopher.
The philosophers, it should be noted, are not immoral, they are amoral; for only amoral individuals can act on the belief that the end, the stability of the city, justifies the means. Gentleman, guided by morality, cannot behave in this manner.
Therefore, we agree with Master's assessment of the high schoolers; they represent the future gentlemen of the city, the virtuous, the idealist, the epitome of placing the needs of the community before the needs of the individual. Yet, because they accept convention, in politics and morality, they are potentially dangerous to select individuals. Finally, we agree with Master’s conclusion, the HighSchoolers™ , although likeable, are ambiguous.
Typical of Platonic dialogues, answers to questions are invariably short, and we encounter this feature in “Denver”. However, it is possible that Master is imitating not Plato's dialogues, but Denver's hesitant and confused responses. For example the quizzical sounding “Huh?” occurs seven times.
Of course, if Master is imitating Denver's responses from personal experience, then it would follow that Master is flattering Denver. Regretfully, in the context of Platonic dialogues, we are uncertain why Master would engage in flattering now Apprentice Denver.
“Contrition” is understandable, although the closing can be misunderstood, that is, it is vaguely constructed. The paper explicitly relates two episodes, one from Master’s childhood and the other of an unspecified time, presumably much later. From the title and the incidents, Master felt contrition both for eating and for unjustly berating an innocent inquiry.
In the closing, we read “guilt, lust and of concern” and “an organization…, myself and a self avowed atheist”. The later statement indicates three entities and in order they are: the church, Master, and an unknown person. However, the former statement is ambiguous, as it can be understood as either “guilt” and “lust and ...concern” or it can be understood as “guilt”, “lust”, and “concern”. If the former is the correct understanding and the sequence is maintained in both lists, then the organization is associated with guilt, Master is paired with lust, and the atheist is aligned with concern.
Leo Strauss writes that careful readers are careful writers, however, we cannot determine if the omission of the “Oxford comma” is intentional or Master is adhering to the convention of American standard of writing where the comma is omitted. If we suggest the text is correct, then we must conclude only two descriptions, “guilt” and “lust...and concern”, which conform to the two incidents. However, if we suggest the comma has been intentionally omitted to create ambiguity, then the three descriptions, “guilt”, “lust”, and “concern”, conform to three, not two, incidents. We must conclude that a third incident is omitted from the essay and it partakes both of lust and contrition, where lust is correctly understood as "a strong desire for someone".
“Confession is good for the Soul” is the third and final work we will examine. Master is known to declare that he does not write fiction, and this, on the whole, is correct. However, “Goat and Crab” is an acknowledged children's story and “An Attempt to Write Fiction” is, well, fiction. Whereas “Goat and Crab” can be understood as an allegory, and hence open to many plausible interpretations, “ATTW Fiction” should not be misunderstood by those who should know better.
“Confessions” is enjoyable, as Master interprets his actions from the perspective of one who thinks or believes ill of others. Master writes to those who willingly seek the worst in people and twist facts, that is, certain individuals interpret behavior to conform to their opinions. The second rate psychologist, a frequent contributor to this website, proposes that opinions be based on behavior.
Master has repeatedly written of his enjoyment of the high schoolers, finally suggesting they are ambiguous. We understand this conclusion of ambiguity as true, since the high schoolers are men, but insufficient. Once again, we are confronted with the possibility that Master forgets what he writes or Master is unaware of his thoughts or Master is incapable of reaching a reasoned conclusion regarding the high schoolers. We believe that none of these three possibilities are plausible and suggest that Master has offered us several clues or hints to his opinion regarding the high schoolers.
In Master's writings, the high schoolers are equated with gentlemen, those protectors of the city from threats internal and external. Although external threats can be summed up by “enemy”, internal threats are not easily categorized under one heading and this difficulty is due to multiple internal threats of varying degrees of severity.
From Plato, we suspect that gentlemen are intentionally placed between the philosophers and the people. Furthermore, we propose that the placement of gentlemen between the philosophers and the masses is not only hierarchical, but also physical. Gentleman find both groups, the philosophers and the people, likable, although certain gentleman will have personality conflicts with certain philosophers. We have no doubt that philosophers find gentlemen, as a group, likeable. Pragmatically speaking, the philosophers like the gentlemen, as the gentlemen can offer physical protection from bodily harm or death from the majority of people who distrust the philosophers.
If our suggestion that philosophers find gentlemen likable and vice versa, then how can Master declare that the high schoolers, those future gentlemen, are ambiguous? Unless Master is attempting to be completely dishonest, we will presume he is being as forthcoming as circumstances allow and proceed accordingly.
Gentlemen are characterized by their praise of virtue and their adherence to morality, the non virtuous and immoral have no seat at the gentleman's table. Gentleman believe in, hold to, and promote a standard of correct behavior and, by extension, incorrect behavior is condemned, marginalized, and repressed. The Gentle Reader must keep in mind that the gentleman are warriors, not rhetoricians, and enforcement of a society’s conventions is accomplished, not by forceful words, but by the sword. The city is too important to allow it to collapse due to internal dissention from a few individuals. Titus Andronicus is a gentleman, par excellence.
The gentleman are ambiguous insofar as their possible actions; they are not because of their solid beliefs. While the gentleman's swords are justly pointed towards the masses of the city, there is no reason to suggest that the swords cannot swiftly turn inward on a single philosopher. Hence, likability alone is not sufficient to guarantee the security of an indiscreet, or careless, philosopher.
The philosophers, it should be noted, are not immoral, they are amoral; for only amoral individuals can act on the belief that the end, the stability of the city, justifies the means. Gentleman, guided by morality, cannot behave in this manner.
Therefore, we agree with Master's assessment of the high schoolers; they represent the future gentlemen of the city, the virtuous, the idealist, the epitome of placing the needs of the community before the needs of the individual. Yet, because they accept convention, in politics and morality, they are potentially dangerous to select individuals. Finally, we agree with Master’s conclusion, the HighSchoolers™ , although likeable, are ambiguous.
conclusion
We conclude our initial essay with passages from “Confession” and note the application of an esoteric writing technique, the misspelling:
The criminal knows … what he has done, and ... if they [family members and friends] should discover … the perpetrator ..., he surley [sic] would suffer a … painful death. Our criminal will actively avoid this … for as long as possible.
However, previously , we read “that a great work that remains unrecognized has the same value of a work never created.” Emphasis added:
Therefore, there must come a point ... [when the] criminal ... desires capture, if only to be recognised for his efforts ...