Example not too obtuse. In fact, clear. Newton gets beaned by an apple. Apple makes computers. Claims to be different. Like political parties. Both perpetuate the illusion of apparent choice. Neither innovate or change anything. Current political climates encourage integration, and Newton, the father of calculus, invented the concept of integration. Apple made a Newton PDA. PDA is loved and hated by the public. Like politicians.

First of all, that was brilliant.

Second, as to your final conclusions, I'm not exactly sure what they are, so fitting Newton into them is rather difficult. My one thought is this: just as thoughts on economics written while telemarketing are inherently suspect, so are thoughts on physics written after getting bonked by falling fruit. This does not mean, however, that said thoughts are not correct.

On "Plato was right": in his description of three kinds of people, I'm increasingly in agreement. I recognize that this makes me an elitist bastard, but as anyone who knows me well will report, this does not bother me much. Still, I'm quite partial to Thrasymachus' answer that justice is either 1) the advantage of the stronger, or 2) obedience to law (which winds up looking a lot like the first one).

But counterthesis: the British haven't done a very good job of managing their own islands.

Example: NHS.

Conclusion: I'm for setting up an independent state in the hills of Virginia. Who's with me?

Additional point: There is a hidden assumption linking your assertion that the market undervalues certain activities and that we need a more equal distribution of wealth. It may be a good assumption, but there's at least a step or two there that haven't been adequately explained.

Brilliant is what these interpretations of the significance of Isaac Newton for my conclusions are. Ryan, I'll be happy to take you out for ice cream next time I see you, whenever that may be. I'll be at graduation, so perhaps I'll see you then. Ryan, I'll do the same for you. If you want a treat. My idea was that Isaac Newton is most famous for the notion of gravity, which could crudely (and inaccurately) be interpreted as stating that what goes up must come down, which is the pessimists' party line regarding America. However, I think I like both of your interpretations better than mine; the standards of recent literary criticism triumph again.

As far as Plato, I was more thinking that it'd be nice if we could be ruled by all-knowing, wise, and reasonably benevolent philosopher-kings. In the meantime, I'll be busy casting a vote for neither Bush nor Kerry. I'm not sure who I'll vote for, but if the choices are only Bush or Kerry, I won't be voting. Georgia will go to Bush anyways, I reason, so why not vote for someone other than his closest challenger? I'm not particularly convinced that Kerry is any better than Bush; he might even be worse. Everytime I think I might be able to stomach voting for one or the other, they make speeches and remind me why I thought they were both such poor candidates anyways.

As for their being a hidden assumption linking the ideas that the market undervalues certain activities and that we need a more equal distribution of wealth, well, yes. I'm thinking about the assumption and may comment later. In the meantime, what reason do we have to not make some sort of linking assumption there? That is, why should we think that the market's evaluation of worth (measured as it is in wealth) is satisfactory?

modern literary criticism? Bah. It was culture working through you, through me, and through ryan. medium does not matter. do it?

I'm so glad you two roomies are still friends... I did a good job of RA... even though Ryan was on catacombs at the time...

Trip down memory lane:

You two cats were the craziest roomies since Rye Dawger and Wes Vanderlambadingdong. You had two spectrums of the intellectual elite, but what brought you together was your love of philosophy and video games. Here's to you men! May your mirth be filled with happiness.