Is the universe only a numbers game?

August 1, 2014 at 5:56 P.M. I am in receipt of what purports to be yet another letter from Fernando Fernandez dated July 29, 2014 by way of Google email. 

This latest communication from Mr. Fernandez contains an alleged email from "Michelle Castro" at Invicta Watch Company stating: "there is proof of prior payment but there is still a pending charge of $28.00 return shipping. The watch has exceeded 30 days [It sure has!] and will be returned unrepaired if you do not make payments."

In fact, both money orders -- one for $48.00 and the other for $28.00 -- have been sent, received, cashed and ACKNOWLEDGED by Invicta. 

A copy of the exchange of letters and copies of my money orders have been received by Invicta Watch Company, 3069 Taft Street, Hollywood, Florida 33021, USA, by certified mail, return receipt signed for on July 28, 2014 by Invicta employee "Maria Uribe." Ms. Uribe's handwriting is nearly identical to "Cecilia Luce's" writing to say nothing of "Sheldon" and "R. Schnezler." 

I will send another package by certified mail, return receipt requested to Ms. Letitia James and Invicta Watch Company with copies of these recent communications, including another handwritten note from Fernando Fernandez (who is probably also Michelle Castro), along with copies (again) of the two money orders cashed by Invicta. 

I should point out that the Public Advocate's office in New York is located in zip code 10007 while the letter from Mr. Fernandez was sent from a Post Office meter stamped at zip code 10001. 

The Public Advocate's office has its own postage meter with the appropriate zip code indicated. 

Is "Fernando Fernandez" a.k.a. "Michelle Castro" also "George Johnson" of the Times? ("Manohla Dargis Strikes Again!") 

July 28, 2014 at 1:47 P.M. When I signed-in just now to computer number #06, NYPL, Inwood Branch, I was greeted not with the library's home page, but with a "customer survey" (purportedly from the library) which I have copied. The address for this "survey" is Survey Monkey, Inc [US] https//www.surveymonkey.com/s/W6JY9W2

The New York Public Library does not request personal information from library patrons concerning finances or their sex lives. I assume this survey request is bogus. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?") 

July 26, 2014 at 4:41 P.M. I have just received a letter from Fernando Fernandez at the NYC Public Advocate's Office indicating that Mr. Fernandez contacted Invicta Watch Company explaining that all payments ($70.00) have been made but no watch has been received by me. 

The response received, allegedly, from Michelle Castro, Customer Service Representative, mcastro@invictawatch.com is "Can you provide the tracking number from when you sent it in?" 

This CAS or tracking number appears on all of my letters -- both to the NYC Public Advocate and to Invicta -- as well as being written on the money orders cashed by Invicta Watch Company. 

I will send a copy of this latest letter to Ms. Letitia James, NYC Public Advocate by certified mail, return receipt requested, copy to Invicta, possibly with a copy also of this online posting. ("Invicta Watch Company" and "The Invicta Watch Company Caper.")

The email address for Fernando Fernandez, allegedly, is ffernandez@pubadvocate.nyc.gov The copy of these emails sent to me, however, bears the following address at the bottom of the page: http://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/ui=2&ik=a9d8ea7bad&view=pt&search=sent&the=1476... (7/24/2014)

I did not realize that the NYC Public Advocate's office makes use of google email for their communications. 

A handwritten note from Mr. Fernandez says: "We are getting close to obtaining your watch. 212-669-3571 (no mes, [sic.] please)." 

The handwriting of this note seems to be a woman's writing.   

July 26, 2014 at 2:57 P.M. I have been waiting for a Time/Warner service person since 8:00 A.M. How curious? A call from "METRO CABLE" explained that the Time/Warner person would "reschedule" for an hour later, every hour, since 8:00 A.M. This is only to replace two cable boxes and remove four other cable boxes, since we have been sent four packages (so far) filled with cable boxes. Evidently, all of this is necessary in order to get HBO. Anything is possible now. (Again: "Invicta Watch Company" and "The Invicta Watch Company Caper.")

My appointment with Time/Warner has been rescheduled for Monday between 4:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M., allegedly. I have been paying for HBO and additional service since last Wednesday and, eventually, I may be able to see the channels for which I am paying good money. 

Julian Baggini & Jeremy Stagroom, "Conversation With Mary Midgley: On Murdoch and Morality," in What Philosophers Think (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003), pp. 125-133.

David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World (New York & London: Viking, 2011).

Herbert B. Enderston, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1970).

Mary Midgley, Science and Poetry (New York & London: Routledge, 2001).

Ernest Nagel & Robert Newman, Godel's Proof (New York: NYU Press, 1958, 1967), pp. 100-102.

Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).

Nathan Salmon, "The Limits of Human Mathematics," in Metaphysics, Mathematics, and Meaning: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005), p. 243.

Erwin Schrodinger, What is Life?: With "Mind and Matter" and "Autobiographical Sketches," (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967, 2000), pp. 128-140. 

Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey (London: Penguin, 1994), pp. 382-396. ("Philosophy of Mathematics.")

Stuart Shapiro, Foundations Without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). (This work deals extensively with the very topic of Mr. Johnson's article to the extent that there is a topic in the Johnson article.)

George Johnson, "Beyond Energy, Matter, Time and Space: In Looking for Understanding About Existence, Some Calls to Stretch the Search Boundaries," The New York Times, Science Times, July 22, 2014, p. D6.

A recent article appearing under the byline of "George Johnson" (probably a fictitious name) purports to comment upon some timeless mysteries surrounding the limits of mathematics and reality. 

Among the surprisingly missing thinkers from Mr. Johnson's discussion are Immanuel Kant and Kurt Godel. Their absence suggests that Mr. Johnson is new to this discussion and these vexing issues. 

Is "George Johnson" also Bob Menendez ("Maria Uribe"?) or someone affiliated with Senator Menendez? 

Thomas Nagel is mentioned by Mr. Johnson as is Max Tegmark. I am pretty sure, however, that neither book -- Thomas Nagel's nor Max Tegmark's book, nor any of their ideas, for that matter -- has been fully absorbed by Mr. Johnson.

We are told by Mr. Johnson that "everything from physics to biology, including the mind comes down to four fundamental concepts: matter and energy interacting in an arena of space and time." 

This statement by Mr. Johnson contains at least 6 concepts: "matter, energy, interaction, arena, space, time." 

It may be that the author(s) of this article confused the four fundamental forces of physics (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces) for the totality of the conceptual structure used in the sciences. As it stands the statement about only four concepts is absurd or laughable. ("Robert Brandom's 'Reason in Philosophy'" and "Hilary Putnam Is Keeping It Real.")

Mary Midgley discusses Iris Murdoch's philosophy and concludes:

"I think that Iris and I share the thought that it's terribly important to see the whole and that one is usually deceiving oneself if one says X is only Y. Sometimes there's good reason to attend only to Y. But the illusion that particular scholars tend to have is that their subject has explained everything completely." (Baggini & Stagroom, p. 128.)

Biology, for example, is concerned with a concept of "life" which is important to the discussion of some "concepts" used in this Johnson article, such as "mind" and "consciousness." 

This phenomenon and concept of "life," strangely, is not among Mr. Johnson's four concepts, nor can it be satisfactorily or necessarily included within the listed concepts since the boundaries of life have yet to be determined in all possible permutations, perhaps as life will be discovered elsewhere in the universe someday.

There are grammatical errors and lapses by Mr. Johnson that lead me to believe that "George Johnson's" first language is Spanish and that this person(s) is Cuban-American, probably at least one person writing this article is a woman located in Miami, Florida or Union City, New Jersey. 

Perhaps "Mr." Johnson also writes letters on behalf of Invicta Watch Company, or has friends at Time/Warner, or uses the name "Fernando Fernandez," or conducts surveys for the New York Public Library. ("Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?")

"The answers, he [Thomas Nagel?] believes, may be found through science, but only by expanding it [?] further than it may be willing [does science "will" things?] to go." (emphasis added!) ("Metaphor is Mystery.")

This sentence may illustrate Nagel's point concerning teleology. ("Thomas Nagel's Guilt by Association.")

Mr. Johnson is seriously confused when it comes to the concepts of consciousness and mind, intelligence and order, epistemology and ontology as well as metaphysics, or mathematics in fact. ("Mind and Machine" and "Consciousness and Computers.") 

The most severe problem in this article concerns the use of the word and concept of "reality," also unclear is what is meant by the universe/multiverse as distinct from mathematics, which is taken to be both different from and identical with the empirical universe, whose workings mathematics describes. 

Mr. Johnson's view may be described by some readers as incoherent to the extent that it is meaningful at all. 

Among Johnson's errors and confusions is the false assumption that Plato's idealism is the only alternative to the view that mathematics is "about nothing other than itself." 

Plato's theory in the philosophy of mathematics is now called "mathematical realism." In metaphysics this same position is called "anti-realism or idealism." 

All thinkers about the nature of mathematics seem to agree that numbers are "real" -- in some sense of the word "real" -- given the various kinds of reality at issue in the discussion. Existent, real, Being -- these are exceedingly difficult concepts deployed in the analysis of the ultimate nature of numbers and the world. 

To admit mathematics into "science as one of nature's irreducible parts," as Mr. Johnson writes, may confuse the language used to describe regularities found in the empirical universe for the material contents (or furniture) of the cosmos. 

This confusion by Mr. Johnson is a somewhat serious "difficulty" or befuddlement resulting from an unfortunate reductivism. As Roger Scruton explains (I urge Mr. Johnson to purchase and read the work quoted below):

"On Kant's view, mathematical propositions are a priori but synthetic -- and in this he agrees with Plato. But this explanation of the claim removes its metaphysical force: we can accept it, [epistemologically,] without making mathematics into the paradigm of objective knowledge [metaphysically] that it has been since antiquity."

Modern Philosophy, pp. 382-383. (See the discussion of Kantian Constructivism and then my essay "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.")

Numbers may be "objects" and/or "objective" (epistemologically) without being "material" (ontologically). 

The completion of this Kantian insight and, perhaps, the destruction of "absolute logicism" -- if that is Professor Tegmark's position, which I doubt -- is Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem." 

This famous theorem establishes that there can be "no proof of the completeness of arithmetic which permits a proof of its consistency, and vice versa." (Scruton, p. 395.)

"It also follows that almost all mathematical statements are undecidable: [in ultimate terms] there is no proof that they are true, and no proof that they are false. Each of them is either true or false, but there is no way of using physical objects such as brains or computers to discover which is which. [noumenal] The laws of physics provide us only with a narrow window through which we can look out on the world of abstractions. [phenomenal]"

Please underline this next paragraph:

"All undecidable statements are, directly or indirectly, about infinite sets. To the opponents of infinity in mathematics, this is due to the meaninglessness of such statements. But to me it is a powerful argument ... that abstractions exist objectively. [emphasis added] For it means that the truth value of an undecidable statement is certainly not just a convenient way of describing the behavior of some physical object like a computer or a collection of dominoes." (Deutsch, pp. 184-185.) ("Donald Davidson's Anomalous Monism" and "Immanuel Kant and the Narrative of Freedom.")

To suggest that the universe is a mathematical structure may mean: 1). that the regularities in nature operate in calculable ways for which mathematics, as a language and system of representation is useful, exclusively for modeling the forces of nature or "what is"; or 2). it may mean that numbers are ontologically real entities discovered, empirically, floating around in (or as) the universe.

The first claim is epistemological; the second claim is more metaphysical. Any of these claims will be connected to understandings of the concept of "Being" or "is" and/or "reality." 

Without clarifying this elementary distinction or how terms are used all subsequent discussion is of limited value or may be totally worthless. ("The Mathematics of Love.")

Accordingly, the opposition between Mr. Johnson's questions "Is mathematics, for all its power, only the root of reality? Or is it a product of the human mind?" vanishes when we grasp that the human mind and its products are quite "real." Kant and Einstein insist on this point to say nothing of William Shakespeare. 

Mathematics may be a product of the human mind and nevertheless real and objective, like chemistry and the Harry Potter books, or Sherlock Holmes. ("Jacques Derrida's Philosophy as Jazz" and "Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Missing Author.")

Mr. Johnson has indeed "come far" in describing the "vast beyond."

"If the theorem-knowing machinery of the human brain is a computer, then the human mind surpasses the human brain or humankind does not deserve credit for creating pure mathematics (or, as some might see it, humankind does not deserve the blame). Thus, the human mind either presupposes the very organ in which it evidently resides or else it is not responsible for the existence of pure mathematics -- or both, as Godel himself believed (and I agree)." (emphasis added!)

Salmon, "The Limits of Human Mathematics," pp. 245-246 (emphasis added). 

Godel was led by this Kantian insight to develop an argument for the existence of God based on reworking the ontological argument: Please see my essay "Is it rational to believe in God?"  







  

Menendez Accepts Cash For Legal Battle.

July 24, 2014 at 2:12 P.M. Attempts to use my home computer this morning resulted in theft of my mouse by hackers and obstructions in my Internet access. 

I will attempt to make use of NYPL computers later today. Eventually, a list of sources will be added to this post. I seem to experience many difficulties with my Time/Warner service for some reason.  

"Too Crazy to be True?," (Editorial) The Star Ledger, July 10, 2014, p. 14. (Mr. Menendez claims Fidel Castro shot down the plane over Ukraine -- or Eukraine, depending on your preference -- but the difficulty for Mr. Menendez's "story" is that recent allegations concerning his fondness for prostitutes as well as unseemly associations, or cash pay-offs, are nothing new. "It sounds like a low-budget thriller: "Cuban spies cook-up allegations that a U.S. Senator paid for sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, then plant the bogus story with gullible U.S. reporters in an orchestrated reelection smear." Curiously, the so-called "low-budget thriller narrative" may be accurate -- I doubt it -- but the allegations may still be true. "Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes." )

Mary Ann Spoto, "Great Adventure Employee Charged in Secret Taping," The Star Ledger, July 10, 2014, p. 17. (Were sessions at 512 42nd Street, Union City, New Jersey or elsewhere involving interrogational hypnosis with "Terry Tuchin" taped? A man videotaped women performing at Great Adventure amusement park as the women changed their clothes. Leonard Vasile, Jr. claimed to know Senator Menendez, allegedly.)

Christopher Baxter, "Three Men Indicted in Scam That Cost Medicaid $73K," The Star Ledger, July 10, 2014, p. 17. (Former N.J. government employees of a housing agency located in Hackensack charged with frauds of Medicaid, allegedly with legal and political assistance, totaling nearly $73,000 in improper payments. Dr. Melgen? Ethan Gurbon, 52, of Fort Lee, possibly an Israeli, and Roman Abashkin, 32, of Wayne, and Semen Rybakov, 68, of Wayne "accidentally" filed 45 false claims. These men wonder why it is O.K. for Mr. Menendez's friend to scam Medicaid, but not for them?)

Sue Epstein, "Township Man, 42, is Accused of Sexually Assaulting Two Boys," The Star Ledger, July 10, 2014, p. 17. (Michael Robertson, 42, charged with sexually assaulting two boys at his home in East Brunswick, N.J. Affiliations with Edward M. De Sear, Esq. cannot be confirmed. "Edward M. De Sear, Esq. and New Jersey's Filth.")

AP, "Ex-Inspector Gets Probation for Theft," The Star Ledger, July 10, 2014, p. 17. (Ridgewood, New Jersey -- a hot bed of illegal activity -- has seen Thomas Rica, Esq., former public official for the municipality, steal millions for years before being caught taking about $400,000 in quarters. Evidently, his pockets were a little full in every sense of the word.)

Chris Harris, "Meter Thief Gets Probation: Ridgewood Could Recoup Full Amount," The Record, July 10, 2014, p. L-1. (Mr. Rica refuses to give up his parking permit in town because "it costs a fortune to use the meters in Ridgewood." Mr. Rica will receive a non-custodial sentence even as there are young African-American men and women in New Jersey's prisons for stealing far less than $400,000. "So Black and So Blue in Prison.")

Jim Norman, "Guilty Verdict Ends Final Case Against Drug Ring Members: Charges Tied to Raid in Hackensack," The Record, July 10, 2014, p. L-3. (Drug network with possible connections to politicians broken-up in Bergen County: "The network used a warehouse in Metuchen to conduct its operations, ... state police seized 40 kilograms of cocaine, or just over 88 pounds, and more than $1 MILLION in cash." Street value of the seized C.D.S. is about $1.4 MILLION. Carlos M. Marraquin, 52, of Los Angeles -- formerly of Union City, New Jersey -- and Cesar E. Perez, 55, of Metuchen, as well as Divanes A. Mendoza, 36, of New York and Juan C. Roque, 31, of Los Angeles were employed as "assistants" in the venture. Many of these individuals have Hudson County "connections." These "connections" suggest affiliations with local politicians in Hudson County. "Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?")

Sue Epstein, "Wife Jailed in Suitcase Murder Wants Attorney Probed: Convicted in Grisly '04 Killing[,] Woman Seeks Investigation Into Alleged Drug Use [by Her Attorney]," The Star Ledger, July 11, 2014, p. 21. (Joseph Tacopina, Esq. is the latest defense attorney targeted in New Jersey for being a defense attorney. Clients are usually used for this purpose by the OAE and prosecutors acting, illegally, from behind their targets' backs. "John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.")

Kevin McCoy, "Lawyer: Madoff's Director Should Serve Time at Home," The Star Ledger, July 11, 2014, p. 26. (Don't send Bernie Madoff's Financial Director to prison because he is a nice Jewish boy. Much the same may be said of lawyers assisting Bernie in his criminal efforts for years. "New Jersey Lawyers' Ethics Farce.")

Mary Dirduch, "Neighbor Gets 8 Years in Boy's Sex Assault: Garfield Man Guilty of Numerous Acts," The Record, July 12, 2014, p. L-1. (Rigoberto Ramirez, possible Menendez contributor, will serve 8 years in prison.)

Herb Jackson, "Donors Defend Menendez: Senator's Legal Fund Rises Along With Prominence," The Record, July 21, 2014, p. A-1.

"As he battles investigations into claims that he favored one wealthy donor, dozens more have helped Sen. Bob Menendez in that legal fight, adding $308,000 to his defense fund, according to disclosure forms released last week." ("Is Menendez For Sale?" and "Bribery in Union City, New Jersey.")

The majority of the money -- allegations of cash-in-an-envelope "donations" continue to haunt Mr. Menendez -- come from Right-wing Cuban-American organizations and individuals as well as prominent pro-Israeli groups and persons. 

For example, Jorge Mas Canosa, Jr., who is well known to Cuban authorities and, allegedly, to Interpol, since accusations of illegality continue to be made against the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), is only one donor. ("Why I am not an ethical relativist.")

Also, Luis Echarte, the Cuban-born chairman of Azteca America, a t.v. enterprise -- also under investigation, allegedly -- may be behind computer and Internet attacks against "Leftists" and propaganda efforts for the far-Right Republicans who support Bob Menendez. Mr. Echarte may also be involved in the sex trade besides his political efforts. ("Marilyn Straus Was Right!" and "Diana's Friend Goes to Prison.")

Mr. Mas Canosa gave $10,000 to the fund for Menendez lawyers. He also gave $19,200 to previous Menendez campaigns. His organization is accused of "involvement" in the drug trade which is how they claim to "finance anti-Castro efforts," allegedly. ("American Hypocrisy and Luis Posada-Carriles" and "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security.")

Mr. Echarte gave $10,000 to the defense fund and had given $17,000 to Menendez previously.

Accusations of "favors" from Mr. Menendez in exchange for these gifts cannot be confirmed. 

I am sure that these Cuban-American businessmen gave large sums of money for no expected return simply out of the kindness of their hearts.

Individuals accused of fronting for Mossad or Israel have contributed extensively to Menendez's coffers: David Barry, David Steiner (West Orange, New Jersey), and Stacy Shusterman have forked over thousands of dollars to Menendez, even though they usually donate only to Conservative causes. They may all be connected to communications companies in America. This may explain Mr. Menendez's increasing appearances on Fox News and my troubles with Time/Warner. 

"Andrew and Racquel Shechtel of Princeton gave $20,000 to the [Menendez] defense fund, and first contributed to Menendez in 2012, when they gave $10,000. That same year, they gave a combined $120,000 to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee."

I can only hope that none of these people is connected to Invicta Watch Company, as shareholders or otherwise. ("Invicta Watch Company" and "The Invicta Watch Company Caper.")

These "donors" may also support Stuart Rabner's political efforts. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

Some of the money reaching Menendez from such "donors" may come directly from Israel, or originally from U.S. taxpayers, perhaps, as aid for the embattled Middle Eastern nation. ("The Audacity of Hope.")

"Menendez's defense fund disclosure shows he paid $260,000 in May and June to three law firms, on top of $400,000 he paid for legal fees from his campaign account [emphasis added] in 2013." ("Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics" and "New Jersey's Politically-Connected Lawyers On the Tit.")

It appears that the money drawn from campaign funds may now result in a separate ethics investigation of Mr. Menendez, both due to election issues and legal ethics problems. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

Lionel Kaplan, Esq. of Princeton has acted on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) in the past. I have reason to believe that Mr. Kaplan is familiar with my writings. Mr. Kaplan has contributed $10,000 to Menendez's coffers for "electoral campaigns" and gave $4,700 to the Senator's reelection effort in 2012. No conflict of interest, Mr. Kaplan? (Again: "John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")

Mr. Kaplan's cash contributions, if any, also cannot be confirmed. Mr. Kaplan may be fronting for Mossad. Can Mr. Kaplan identify "Terry Tuchin" a.k.a. "David ______" a.k.a. "Malbus"? ("An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli.")

These unseemly (if lucrative) associations for Mr. Menendez, along with several others not appearing in disclosure papers, perhaps, continue to add to the sleaze factor surrounding New Jersey's senior U.S. Senator. ("Menendez Faces New FBI Investigation" and "Wedding Bells Ring For Menendez!" then "Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" and, once more, "Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?")

Regrettably, the aroma of corruption has begun to taint the United States Senate as well as Mr. Menendez. (Again: "Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes" and "Website Denies Link to Menendez Case" then "Menendez Blames Castro For His Prostitution Habit.")        

The Mathematics of Love.

July 22, 2014 at 6:36 P.M. I will attempt to create another blog when I reach 270 posts at "Against Dark Arts." Efforts will probably be made to prevent me from creating another blog. I will struggle to do so, every day, in order to continue writing. No doubt my watch has been sent, mistakenly, to the Gaza strip in Israel. ("Invicta Watch Company" and "The Invicta Watch Company Caper.") 

John Allen Paulos, "The Advanced Metrics of Attraction," The New York Times, July 15, 2014, p. D3.

Robert C. Solomon, Love: Emotion, Myth, and Metaphor (New York: Prometheus, 1990). 

Sebastian Faulks, On Green Dolphin Street (New York: Vintage International, 2001).

Emma Darwin, The Mathematics of Love (New York & London: Harper, 2006).

John Allen Paulos is a mathematician who writes well about numbers, but not necessarily with great understanding or subtlety about philosophical issues, or the erotic lives of persons.

After reading a book on the subject of romantic love and the mysteries of love's intoxication, Mr. Paulos pondered the ambiguities of "attraction."

"Attraction" is an experience that is undefined by this mathematician and amateur philosopher who attempts, nevertheless, a "statistical expression" of the essence of this undefined phenomenon of attraction that is equated with a "crush."

A "crush," presumably, refers to human beings feeling romantic interest in one another. The words "attachment" and "crush" are used as synonyms (or as alternative terms) in several sentences by Mr. Paulos.

Having written an essay about a concept which is undefined, "attachment," Mr. Paulos introduces a second concept which is also undefined, "crush." This is not very helpful.

The word "erotic" is not used in this essay nor is the word "love" found in the article. Thus, "attraction" could refer to the mutual appeal of meteors or centipedes.

What kind of attraction is involved in this proposed statistical reduction?

Mr. Paulos does not know the answer to this question. He cannot say what kind of attraction will be captured in his formula. Indeed, the "reduction" has been so successful (even before it has taken place) that the thing being reduced has disappeared entirely due to the initial imprecision in terminology.  

If you set out to reduce nothing to less than nothing, you may be sure that nothing from nothing will leave you with nothing, even without "Bayes' Theorem." This man teaches at MIT. 

No doubt Mrs. Paulos has offered a statistical reduction of divorce to the following formula: "me minus you = I get the car and house while you get your math books."

I must admit that, on this occasion, analytical philosophy's discipline and strictures concerning clarity and rigor do come in handy:

" ... attraction [what's that?] can cascade into exultation but, alas, gradually dissolve into disillusionment and a slow vanishing of the mirage."

Well, if it is a "mirage" to begin with not much "vanishing" will be necessary for this "mirage" to disappear or become unreal. An attraction between persons can be very real indeed, not a mirage, without becoming a romantic crush let alone a deep and lasting love. Much depends on the type of attraction at issue.

Important definitions and distinctions need to be introduced into any analysis and discussion of attraction in order for the commentary or theory about attraction to be meaningful, to say nothing of achieving philosophical rigor or insight about what brings people together.

Alternatively, the mathematical formulas and theories are meaningless from the outset because they are not applied to anything substantial and real like the "little lady at home." Right, Professor Paulos? ("David Stove and the Intellectual Capacity of Women" and "Nice Babies and Bad Psychologists.")

One may be "attracted" to a person who is intellectually stimulating or intriguing, without that person also being physically attractive or sexually desirable, or vice versa, and sometimes a person is absolutely magnetic because of a particular quality of genius that has nothing to do with romantic appeal.

One may find emotional responses to moral beauty leading to genuine love, apart from erotic appeal, as a result of what may initially have been only a charming smile or a unique sparkle in the eyes. The Troubadors sang of "love's call" which was distinct from and sometimes opposed to lust.

Part of the problem with Mr. Paulos' essay -- which manages to say absolutely nothing that is meaningful to me -- is the confusion in the subject matter that may be misinterpreted to contribute to the general skepticism about love that, sadly, is quite common today.

F.H. Bradley defined metaphysics as the "search in a darkened room for a black cat that may not be there."

Perhaps efforts to define "attraction" are a similarly Quixotic venture when the specific kind of attraction to be understood or transformed into a formula is unspecified.

Do we seek essential or ostensive definition in this matter, Mr. Paulos? Mr. Paulos says, enigmatically:

"Let us begin by imagining a person to be an assembly of traits."

Is a person an assembly of traits? Isn't everything an assembly of traits or qualities? Doesn't a theorist have to do a little better than this in defining relevant characteristics of persons in terms of what is "attractive" or "attracts" persons to other persons in order to write an essay with an actual subject? ("What is Law?") 

If we begin from an understanding of persons as "social animals" (Aristotle) that makes them necessarily moral and political "creatures" ("creatures" implies created by the way), animals with a need for love or even requiring the presence of others in their lives to be healthy, or to understand themselves in relation to others of their kind, animals seeking out the qualities in others that reflect their inner lives and/or "lacks" (Sartre), then the notion of a gravity-like "pull" exerted by some persons upon other persons becomes a bit more precise. ("The Galatea Scenario and the Mind/Body Problem.")

"Evidence" of special attractiveness may be relevant not to attraction itself, as a quality, but to different relationships resulting from, as it were, an initial "big bang-like" appeal (attraction?) felt from another locus of desire and feeling called a "person." 

What "attraction" is depends on what it does in different contexts. What follows from attraction may be friendship; a Platonic crush; passionate sexual relations; life-long and profound love; fleeting interest; and/or eventual revulsion.

In the absence of clarity about how the concept of "attraction" is used, however, Mr. Paulos' discussion will be utterly worthless in deciding upon the "mathematical laws" of attraction or anything else. Seeking a formula for attraction is probably absurd. Some experiences may not be amenable to mathematical reduction.

The foregoing conclusion may have been the author's' point in writing this essay and is certainly the only possible conclusion for the reader. Attraction can ...

" ... resemble a kind of terror, or an illness marked by a fever, loss of appetite, shaky knees, nervous twittering and a certain looseness in the brain and bowels. [How alarming!] It is romantic love that as the Spanish philosopher [Jose] Ortega y Gasset describes it, 'is a state of mental misery which has a restricting, impoverishing [that's for sure!] and paralyzing effect upon development of consciousness.' And yet we not only enjoy this but we consider it the highest experience of all. (Isn't this odd?) It is romantic love for which men and women wreck careers and abandon families and obligations, which provides plots for soaps and Operas, which Plato called a kind of madness and which so infuriated St. Paul, which inspired Shakespeare if not also Dante[,] and led to the downfall of Antony, Juliet, Romeo, Samson, Emma Bovary and King Kong."

Robert C. Solomon, Love: Emotion, Myth, and Metaphor, p. xx.    

Christie Takes Care of His Law Partners.

July 21, 2014 at 1:07 P.M. Current events in Gaza defy rational comprehension or analysis. The front page of today's Times features a medical doctor in a room filled with the corpses of murdered Palestinian children in a scene out of Dante's "Divine Comedy."

U.S. complaints about alleged Russian participation in the downing of a passenger plane over Eukraine seem irrelevant when we, mostly, ignore the crimes of  -- or fail to call for sanctions against -- the nation responsible for the Gaza horrors.

There must be something that the U.S. can do in this crisis. 

A "Survey" calling for personal information -- allegedly from the New York Public Library -- appeared on the computer screen as I signed-in to computer #5, Morningside Heights branch. It is never certain whether I will be able to continue writing. I will certainly try to write every day. 

Shawn Boburg, "PA Gave Old Christie Firm a Big Contract: Sources Say Agency Was Pressed to Fast-Track Deal for Legal Work," The Record, July 8, 2014, p. A-1.

Matt Arco, "Christie Hits the Road: Governor Leaves Hometown Critics Behind as He Launches Summer Tour in the GOP Spotlight," The Star Ledger, July 8, 2014, p. 1. 

Shawn Boburg, "Law Firm With Ties to Gov. Got P.A. Work: Lawyers Earned $6.3 MILLION Since 2010," The Star Ledger, July 8, 2014, p. 13.

"'Joe D.' Gets a Free Pass: Dem's Case Shows New Jersey's Election Watchdog Needs a Makeover," (Editorial) The Star Ledger, July 8, 2014, p. 14. ("Three years ago, Essex County Executive JOE DI VINCENZO was credibly accused of using campaign funds for personal expenses -- everything from flights to Puerto Rico to routine dining at local restaurants -- with people he refuses to identify." The OAE thinks this is hunky-dory: "Joe D Knows How to Eat!")

Frank Askin, "The Supreme Court's Winners and Losers," The Star Ledger, July 8, 2014, p. 15. ("It's time to add up the score for this year's [N.J.] Supreme Court term: winners -- corporations, fat cats, employers, the 1 percent, religious fanatics and free riders.")

Joe Moesynski, "Criminal Charges Dismissed Against Prosecutor, Attorney," The Star Ledger, July 8, 2014, p. 17. (Crooked sheriff as well as prosecutor and defense attorney protected by the system.)

Christopher Baxter, "Officer Gets Seven years For Conspiring," The Star Ledger, July 8, 2014, p. 17. (Corrections officer conspired to bring in cash and phone cards for inmates as part of a network in New Jersey prisons.)

AP, "Morris Man Admits $500,000 Scam," The Record, July 9, 2014, p. A-3. (Peter Lareau, 77, of Mountain Lakes pleaded guilty to wire fraud, but allegedly claimed friendship with Joe Di Vincenzo and Bob Menendez. Lawyers assisting in these transactions have not been accused of wrongdoing.)

Joe C. Ensslin, "Suit Faults Contract Award: Builder Says Rival's Winning Bid On Justice Center is Flawed," The Record, July 9, 2014, p. L-1. (Allegation that $66 MILLION project was awarded to a 'bidder" who is not qualified -- except for BRIBING officials in New Jersey government -- will not go to prosecutors and/or civil courts.) 

Stephen Castle, "Limits to Books in Prison," The New York Times, July 2, 2014, p. A9. (Her Majesty's prisons limiting access to books produced protest among authors. Politicians chuckled, until polls began reflecting the effects of literary hostilities against Mr. Cameron's government. Increased numbers of books for inmates are on their way to UK prisons. The goal is for Britain to boast of the best educated criminals in the world. This will be true not only in Parliament, but also in prisons.) 

"More PA Deals: Christie's Former Firm Won Contract," (Editorial) The Record, July 9, 2014, p. A-10. (Christie sees the PA as his personal "cookie jar." He is sharing the cookies with his friends.)

"In his first two years in office Chris Christie larded the Port Authority [emphasis added] with more than 50 patronage appointments. Now, it is reported that his former law firm was fast-tracked to receive a large contract from the Port Authority." ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")

Mr. Christie has decided that his former law firm -- cosy colleagues from that firm -- requires socialistic assistance, or fees, from public funds. ("Christie Gives Contributor $1 Million of N.J. Money.")

Once again, Christie is turning to persons he has appointed at the PA to obtain money for his intended beneficiaries, that is, to enrich his friends, often the same persons that he has appointed to PA positions in the first place:

" ... the Christie administration pushed the Port Authority to hire the law firm Dughie & Hewit (now Dughie, Hewit and Domaleski, Esqs.). The firm has very close ties to the governor -- Christie was a partner in the firm before being appointed U.S. Attorney for New Jersey." ("U.S. Attorney Calls New Jersey a Culture of Corruption.")

Mr. Christie was once "outraged" by law firms connected to the Democratic party that specialized in "public work" protected by politicians to whom they contributed, legally and illegally. 

Evidently, his own "generosity" as New Jersey Governor benefitting his former law partners -- who are bound to remember Christie at election time! -- is just fine. ("New Jersey's Politically-Connected Lawyers On the Tit" and "Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics" then "New Jersey Lawyers' Ethics Farce" and "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")

It is curious that Mr. Christie's firm was awarded the contract paid for by N.Y. and N.J. taxpayers "without having to go through a competitive selection process." ("Senator Bob Loves Xanadu!" and "Law and Ethics in the Soprano State.")

Legal ethics should preclude such mutual back-scratching and pay-to-play politics. There should be ethics investigations into these matters.

The Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) is corrupt and cowardly, however, while the state's legal ethics committee is drawn from the very crooked law firms that are most in need of regulation. ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.")

Mr. Christie's firm is a good example of the hypocrisy and dual standards afflicting the system. Prominent law firms have no incentive to change things as long as they are getting fat, as it were, from the people's wealth. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?")

The lie that is legal ethics in New Jersey makes the state more of a farce than it already is in global perceptions and renders it "unlikely" that Mr. Christie will charm voters in Iowa to look away from his faults, despite his elegant and beautiful personal appearance, to endorse his presidential bid:

"Chris Christie was going to be someone different. That is what he has been telling the people of New Jersey as far back as his days as a Morris County 'Freeholder.' ..."

Mr. Christie's tactics in the G.W.B. crisis, additional evidence of his lies, cover-ups, and now dipping into the public treasury to enrich friends insuring future support -- all of this "business as usual" -- has made Mr. Christie seem no different from his predecessors whom he charged, tried, (and often succeeded) in imprisoning for doing exactly what he is doing now, or for much less than what he is doing in office:

"Dughie and Hewit was hired to to handle litigation resulting from the Port Authority's purchase of waterfront land in Bayonne at a price that The New York Times reported was far greater than the appraised value." 

The law firm's real mission will be to protect Christie in connection with this transaction in order to prevent another public scandal from interfering with Christie's presidential bid. ("Christie's Bridge of Sighs" and "The Teflon Governor.")

The firm represents Christie, not the PA. This blatant conflict of interest will also be ignored by the OAE with utter disdain for New Jersey's public that is without protection from "unethical lawyering" in this matter. ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")

Shame on the OAE and New Jersey's Supreme Court, yet again. ("New Jersey's Judges Disgrace America" and "New Jersey's Failed Judiciary" then "New Jersey Supreme Court's Implosion.") 

The Invicta Watch Company Caper.

Via Certified Mail, R.R. Requested

Invicta Watch Company
3069 Taft Street
Hollywood, Florida 33021

Re: (Service number is listed in my letter and on all money orders.)

Dear Sir/Madam:

An unsigned letter was sent to me by someone claiming to act on behalf of Invicta Watch Company. 

The author of this letter is obviously a person whose first language, based on grammatical errors, is probably not English. (See attached copy of letter allegedly from Invicta Watch Company of America.)

Curiously, this most recent letter may have been prepared on a different computer from other Invicta communications. The letter states:

"Thank you for taking the time to contact our service center reference to case number ______. We received payment for the repair cost $42 [sic.] confirmation number REP86438. I suggest that you contact the bank for the money order [sic.] to see if that check was ever cashed. We have not receive [sic.] the payment for $28."

A check is not the same thing as a money order. 

No bank is involved in this matter since both the $42.00 and $28.00 money orders are certified post office money orders. (See attached copies with proof of receipt of these money orders by Invicta Watch Company.)

According to the United States Post Office both money orders have been received and cashed. This may be verified at any time by Invicta. (Receipts from U.S. Post Office have been sent to and received by Invicta.)

Invicta Watch Company received my money order for $28.00 by certified mail with return receipt requested on July 11, 2014, Return Receipt number 7014 0510 0002 1475 9989. The return receipt purports to be signed by "Adriana Ponce." (A copy of this return receipt is attached.) 

The new letter requesting $28.00 was sent on July 14, 2014. 

It is criminal fraud to request a payment which you have already received and cashed three days earlier than your latest letter. 

A copy of all payments in this matter and my previous online posting in connection with this highly amusing exchange has been sent to Ms. Letitia James, New York's Public Advocate, for whom this recent letter (allegedly from Invicta) displays obvious contempt. 

I will send a copy of this blog post with attachments to Ms. James's office. Copies of both money orders have already been sent to that office. 

All letters from the undersigned person to any party in connection with this matter will be sent by certified mail with return receipts requested. 

Machismo and/or intimidation efforts will not be successful with me. I will not hesitate to express my political opinions because Cuban-American politicians in Florida or New Jersey do not like those opinions. 

Continued displays of this level of incompetence damages the reputation of Invicta Watch Company and insults New York public officials. 

I can only hope that I will receive my repaired watch soon.

Very truly yours,

Juan Galis-Menendez

cc: Letitia James, N.Y. Pub. Advocate (w/encls., cert., r.r.)

Menendez Blames Castro For His Prostitution Habit.

July 15, 2014 at 10:09 P.M. Computer crime resulted in harm to my essay "Stuart Hampshire and Iris Murdoch on Freedom of Mind." I have done my best to cope with these attacks on my writings that come from New Jersey government officials and computers. "The Audacity of Hope" has also been damaged. 

July 15, 2014 at 3:20 P.M. Computer crime and censorship efforts continue to make writing difficult. My certified letter to Invicta Watch Company was received on July 11, 2014. The return receipt (this time) was signed by "Ariana Ponce" or "Adriana Ponce" who writes a lot like "Fernando Fernandez" and "Cecilia Luce." A "Ponce" is a "pimp" in the UK.

Strangely, I have yet to receive the return receipt from Letitia James, who is located much closer than Florida -- in New York, in fact. Anyone would think that someone is meddling with the U.S. mail. 

Perhaps Senator Menendez can clarify these matters? ("Invicta Watch Company.")

Michael Winerip & Michael Schwirtz, "Where Mental Illness Meets Brutality, In Jail," The New York Times, July 14, 2014, p. A1. (129 inmates seriously injured as a result of torture by employees in 11 months in a single facility.)

Steve Erlanger & Isabel Kershner, "Palestinians Flee Northern Gaza as a Cease-Fire Appears Elusive," The New York Times, July 14, 2014, p. A4. (Mass murder by Israel in the Palestinian territories -- 200 dead and over 1,000 wounded -- to the indifference of the global community discussing the World Cup final.)

Shawn Boberg, "P.A. Gave Old Christie Firm a Big Contract: Sources Say Agency Was Pressed to Fast-Track a Deal For Legal Work," The Record, July 8, 2014, p. A-1. (PA "fast-tracking" the hiring of a law firm with strong ties to Christie -- his old firm in fact! -- has netted the shysters a cool $6.3 MILLION so far, some of it has to be coming back to Christie, and this is from the PA alone. The same law firm is doing other New Jersey "public work." Bless their hearts: "New Jersey's Politically-Connected Lawyers On the Tit" and "Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics" then "New Jersey Lawyers' Ethics Farce" and "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?") 

Carol D. Leonnig & Manuel Roig-Franzia, "Menendez Seeks Probe of Alleged Cuban Plot: Attorney Asserts Scheme to Smear Senator Was Timed to Derail Political Rise," The Record, July 8, 2014, p. A-3. (Article probably written by Jose Ginarte or Lilian Munoz, or more recent attorneys acting on behalf of Menendez, or with their legal input, Estela De La Cruz maybe. The goal of Menendez's effort is to get ahead of the FBI and Senate Ethics Committee investigations into corruption, but this effort is unlikely to succeed. Former Cuban intelligence officers "affiliated" with Mr. Menendez, ENRIQUE GARCIA DIAZ and FBI operative ROBERT ENRINGER -- whose real name is probably "Fernando Fernandez" and who may also be a Cuban-American -- have probably visited my blogs and the Invicta Watch Company, perhaps.)

Carol D. Leonnig & Manuel Roig-Franzia, "Menendez Seeks U.S. Probe of Alleged Cuban Plot: Attorney Asserts Scheme to Smear Senior Senator Was Timed to Derail Political Deal," The Star Ledger, July 8, 2014, p. 1. (Nearly identical items emanating from Menendez offices cause me to be a little suspicious of the "objectivity" of these so-called journalists.)

Herb Jackson, "Support For Menendez Call For Probe of Cuban Plot," The Record, July 9, 2014, p. A-1. (How does it feel to cope with these behind-the-back smears, Senator?)

Mark Mazetti & Mark Landler, "Spying Case Left Obama in Dark, U.S. Officials Say," The New York Times, July 9, 2014, p. A1. (Mr. Obama had "no idea" the CIA was spying on the German government and corrupting officials in that country. What else are they not telling him?)

Matt Apuzzo, "Senator Sees Cuban Role In Corruption Inquiry," The New York Times, July 9, 2014, p. A15.

"WASHINGTON -- With a public corruption investigation hanging over him, Senator Robert Menendez suggested Tuesday that Cuban spies had planted the seeds of that inquiry as a way to discredit him and mute his strident opposition to the government in Havana."

Would the Cuban government single out Menendez for such an attack over Marco Rubio or Iliana Ros-Leghtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart or Albio Sires, or any of the other far-Right politicians -- Ted Cruz, included -- who dislike the Cuban Revolution? I doubt it.

The worst criticisms and insults I have ever heard concerning Menendez were spoken by Albio Sires when he was running for Mayor of West New York, New Jersey. Menendez supported his opponent,  Mr. Del Fino, probably because he did not want a "successful" rival Latino politician in Hudson County. ("Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes" and "Bribery in Union City, New Jersey.")

The trouble for Menendez in making these allegations now, as the corruption investigation focuses on Dr. Melgen -- the Menendez croney at the center of this sordid and sleazy "affair" -- is that, even if Menendez's claims are true (which is doubtful), it does not explain or mitigate the $8.1 MILLION fraudulent billing scheme by Dr. Melgen.

Dr. Melgen is seeking this sum ($8.1 MILLION) and more from taxpayers by way of Medicaid and in other scams. Nor is any alleged assistance or "kickbacks" to Menendez from Dr. Melgen explained by "animosity" from Fidel Castro for Menendez's policies towards Cuba. ("Menendez Croney's Office Raided" and "New FBI Investigation of Menendez.")

It is true that several of the 8 women making charges against Menendez have "disappeared" or "recanted," but some are still saying much the same as before. This is hardly the first time Menendez has been charged with "patronizing," as it were, prostitutes or indulging in cocaine use, allegedly. ("Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?" and "Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks.")

Worse for Menendez are making use of prostitutes' services and indulging in other naughty habits in Miami Beach, Florida without bothering to leave the country, allegedly.

The response from the U.S. government to Menendez's accusations has been muted and skeptical:

"One senior United States official said Tuesday that the [U.S.] government had no proof that the Cuban government was behind the effort [to indict Menendez]. A second official said that although it was a possibility, the authorities had not substantiated it."

Mr. Menendez will not change the subject in the current federal investigation from monetary fraud against Medicaid to his bizarre and commercialized sex life, or Fidel Castro's politics for that matter. The issue is whether Menendez is corrupt because he is on the take. ("Wedding Bells Ring For Menendez!" and "Is Senator Menendez a Suspect in Mafia-Political Murder in New Jersey?")

Menendez's alleged efforts to disseminate misinformation in the media may help the story to be more prominent and widely dispersed. This may be the first time that I have seen Menendez's political instincts fail him.  

This "lying through journalists" will hurt him far more than silence and discretion. Rumors that Menendez will not run for reelection are probably also lies to get the heat off of him now. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

The bottom-line in this matter, at least for the FBI, has little to do with the age of the prostitutes favored by Menendez in Miami or the Dominican Republic:

"The FBI is investigating whether [Menendez] received free airplane rides" -- he may have received "free rides" of a different kind from young women! -- "and other perks from a wealthy donor and repaid him [?] with political favors."

Ironically, given Mr. Menendez's connection to many persons acting against me from behind my back, Mr. Menendez now complains about "nameless, faceless accusations."

I deal with this sort of thing every day, Senator. I have coped with such tactics for a long time, perhaps with your knowledge of the sources of these attacks. How does it feel, Bobby?

"I wouldn't be surprised," Mr. Menendez said to CNN, "if the [Cuban] regime would do anything it can to stop me."

It may shock Menendez to know that the Cuban government gives him very little thought.

The Cuban regime is not accused of ever having offered Mr. Menendez cocaine, nor women for sex on his visits to Miami Beach, where he once owned an apartment under a corporate name, allegedly, and may still do so.

Nor do I believe that the Cuban government is behind the efforts to harm me that seem to emanate from Mr. Menendez's self-styled "friends." 

Is it true that Mr. Menendez will judge a wet t-shirt contest in South Beach?

Allegations of corruption and organized crime affiliations continue to follow Mr. Menendez. Perhaps this is all a "mischaracterization"?

The Audacity of Hope.

Jodi Rudoren, "Israel is Facing Difficult Choice in Gaza Conflict: World Seeks Cease Fire," The New York Times, July 22, 2014, p. A1. (More than 600 Palestinians now killed, about 1,500 wounded civilians in Gaza; others in Israel have also been killed. Mr. Obama has expressed concern about Mr. Putin's role in the downing of a civilian plane somewhere in Europe.)

Anne Barnard, "Questions About Tactics and Targets as Civilian Toll Climbs in Israeli Strikes," The New York Times, July 22, 2014, p. A11. ("The Palestinian deaths -- 75 percent of them civilians, according to a United Nations count -- have prompted a wave of international outrage, and are raising questions about Israel's stated dedication to protecting civilians." The U.S. will no doubt blame Vladimir Putin for the killings in Gaza.)

Steven Erlanger, "As Israel Hits Mosque and Clinic, Air Campaign's Risks Come Home," The New York Times, Sunday International, July 13, 2014, p. A6.

As I ponder the events in Gaza, it is impossible not to feel sadness and frustration at the all-consuming and passionate attention devoted in world media to the World Cup final, even as mass murder takes place before our eyes on television screens and in our newspapers when journalists get around to mentioning the fact. 

Gaza's atrocities were covered on page 6 of yesterday's New York Times. Today, the front page of America's "newspaper of record" featured the German soccer team's celebrations.

Distraction has become one of the most powerful methods by which nations define our realities and tell us what or whom to care about. ("'Total Recall': A Movie Review.") 

If something is not featured on the front page of the Times and is barely mentioned on the news (thank God, BBC world news is devoting a great deal of attention to these events!), then don't worry about it. 

I am not surprised that my struggle for the truth from New Jersey is relegated to silence in U.S. media. As I review this essay my access to BBC world news is blocked on my home television system which has been deprived of the on-demand feature. 

What's going on in Gaza? 

Israel is using a well-equipped, technologically-sophisticated army, financed (substantially) with U.S. taxpayer money, to attack a defenseless population in a territory essentially subjected to a massive strangulation effort (no medical supplies are getting in, water and food are problematic and scarce) and never-ending starvation tactics are all that people can expect for the future. This morning "Democracy Now" devoted most of the show to establishing the extent of the medical emergency in Gaza. 

The size of the letters in the foregoing paragraph has been altered, not surprisingly, as one response to the hope and effort to find a peaceful solution to all such conflicts. I suspect Cuban-American Republicans are behind this tactic. I further anticipate the continued use of these methods to attack my writings. ("Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")

The ostensible rationale for this horrible attack is the alleged "security needs" of Israeli citizens who must be kept "safe." This claim is absurd in light of the increased risk of reprisals and more effective bombings as well as rocket attacks from Hamas (and others) that these military actions will generate against Israel for generations to come.

The murder of a number of small Palestinian children on a beach as they ran for cover is especially gruesome and unforgivable. Adding to the cruelty are warnings issued minutes before bombs fall to disabled persons in a hospital for the crippled -- who could not run or otherwise escape the fate announced to them -- combined with an utterly cynical disdain for the rights of all Palestinians displayed by so-called "observers" commenting "dispassionately" on what the UN General Secretary called: "the atrocity."

Targeting of medical facilities, a war crime, is designed to maximize casualties among medical professionals and wounded persons. Allegations that UN facilities are also being targeted by the Israeli military make these events even more horrifying.

The UN official responsible for human rights enforcement and judgments spoke of the U.S. continued supply of weapons used by Israel to slaughter civilians in Gaza as "complicity" in grotesque human rights violations (if not mass murder) and called on America to halt all arms shipments to Israel.   

Many of the injuries suffered by Palestinians suggest the use of illegal weapons aimed at maximizing injuries to human beings. Fragmentation and shrapnel-like wounds are fatal under conditions of deprived or non-existent medical care with the result that casualties are mounting and they are being seen by the world.  

According to the BBC and other sources: casualties number about 140 persons, with more than 1,000 human beings wounded, some severely, on the first day of the conflict alone, even as hospitals (including the facility for disabled children) are specifically targeted by Israel, again, as part of this strategy of heightening the pain for the most vulnerable members of the population. 

Even The New York Times has expressed mild reservations after the attempted murder of one of their journalists and shootings targeting a photographer, one of the few not in the pay of the C.I.A. perhaps. This newspaper may be assisting in efforts to censor and suppress my writings and the expressions of others critical of Israeli actions in this matter.  

Hospitals are overwhelmed, families are being destroyed, persons are fleeing their homes, people's entire life-savings and properties are burned, or turned into rubble, in what seems a naked attempt to push people out of their ancestral lands and homes in order that they may be stolen by Israelis.

Gaza can only be likened to Auschwitz with the plight of Palestinian residents being a grim choice between a slow death, through deprivation of all necessities, or sudden death by bombing and/or bullets fired into their homes as they sleep.  

This is not the "Jewish State" envisioned by the early Zionists nor can it be the nation Americans have admired as an embattled tiny state surrounded by larger hostile powers. Israel is now the regional superpower and has been for some time, thanks to billions of dollars in U.S. aid. 

Much of the turmoil in the region and globally -- especially in the Islamic world -- is a response to this appalling and sickening example of blood-thirsty militarism rationalized with unconvincing claims about the alleged "threat" posed by Hamas. All people on the planet will resist against murder or enslavement.  

Much of the hostility in the region will be directed against Americans. Mr. Kerry's mild comment concerning Israel's being regarded as a "pariah" nation as a result of walking away from the peace process required an apology from the Secretary of State. Mr. Netanjahu's campaigning for Mitt Romney and against Mr. Obama in the presidential election did not require an apology from the Israeli Prime Minister. 

Right-wing Russian Jews -- Mr. Nathan Sharansky is often seen in my neighborhood -- have formed bizarre alliances with far-Right Republicans, like Miami's anti-Castro fanatics, to create a force in the U.S. electorate that is feared by everyone. No one can speak out about these crimes. The Israeli lobby has purchased the few remaining American politicians who might oppose the continued financing of atrocity. Hence, the nightmare continues. 

There are certainly no blameless participants in these events. Hamas is largely irrelevant these days, but has (without a doubt) been a force for evil in the past. However, there is no excuse for the use of an army to kill mostly women and children, who are unarmed, in order to make a point or steal land. 

Israel is not Hamas. Israel cannot behave like Hamas or Assad, Sadam Hussein, or any other dictator. Israel is held to a higher standard. Nothing can (or should) alter America's fundamental commitment to the security and flourishing of Israel, but this adventure in Gaza is a moral low point for the "Jewish State."  

Equally shocking is the indifference of the global community, apathy created by distractions and consumption, entertainment and more sporting events fills the airwaves as Gaza burns. Mr. Remnick's comments on MSNBC notwithstanding, this is an urgent humanitarian crisis that will hurt Israel and America in the long run. 

I am sure that what I feel many other persons feel -- including quite a few Jews and Israelis, specifically, many other Americans, too -- but what we "feel" (most of all) is powerless and emotionally exhausted, weary of all the killing, chest-thumping politicians, tired of "leaders" with their slogans and evasions and lies. 

Nothing is more dangerous than the hopelessness people feel and express about Israel today and, for the first time that I can remember, also about America. 

Desperation only breeds murderous rage and violence. It must be impossible for Palestinians in Gaza to feel anything other than despair and hatred in response to recent events.  

Not many years ago James Baldwin cautioned America that the murder of Dr. King, the death of the possibility of loving responses -- even to hatred -- could only produce hatred in response to hatred. 

Israel's actions will result in violence in response to violence, murdered Jewish teenagers in response to murdered Palestinian children, perpetuation of oppression and murder for as long as we can see.

The truth must be told and faced, justice must be dispensed, and efforts at amelioration and compensation of the afflicted also must take place before peace will be possible. 

Invoking key passages of the Hebrew Bible, Mr. Baldwin reminded the powerful few of the Lord's warning after the flood: " ... the fire next time." 

Will that "fire" of the Lord's wrath consume Americans as well as Israelis? Will Europe escape the terrorist response? Will Palestinians and other Muslims not face reprisals for their terrorism? Can this vicious cycle of evil not be ended, finally and forever through civilized, reasoned, fair-minded discussion? 

Those of us who love America and Israel must continue to hope for peace, struggle for justice, and never despair.

" ... Israel bombed a mosque, which its aerial photos indicated [allegedly] was harboring ... weapons[, ] and a center for the disabled, killing two residents and wounding three, as well as a caretaker."

Worse:

"A separate strike on the house of a police commander killed at least 18 people, the highest toll so far this conflict, bringing the total number of dead to at least 140, [probably more than 1000 by now,] Palestinian officials said."  

Stuart Hampshire and Iris Murdoch On Freedom of Mind.

Several attempts to correct an alteration in the size of letters and other deformations of this text have not been successful. For some reason there continues to be a war on this essay. I will do my best to cope with continuing attacks on this text. 

"Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy." 

The death of Stuart Hampshire on June 13, 2004 -- about ten years to the day as I write these words -- marked the end of an era in English language philosophy.

Professor Hampshire's work will be remembered by historians of philosophy and chroniclers of the ideas of the twentieth century (not necessarily the same scholars) as marking the closure of analytical philosophy, as a dominant movement in Western thought and heralding the "Age of Pluralism" in the twenty-first century, or (more likely) widespread confusion, or the final triumph of Continental thought in America and Britain, depending on your point of view. ("Bernard Williams and Identity" and "Robert Brandom's 'Reason in Philosophy.'")

The tension between skeptical and/or Socratic and/or analytical approaches to philosophy -- logic-centered and (often) in thrall to the findings of the so-called "hard sciences" and scientific method -- combined with pragmatism and more open-minded, literary as well as meta-literary approaches to philosophical inquiry seems to be the subtext to more than one recent exchange among celebrated theorists. ("John Searle and David Chalmers On Consciouness" and "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.")

Please compare Martha Nussbaum, "The Professor of Parody," and "When She Was Good," in Philosophical Interventions: Reviews 1986-2011 (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2012), pp. 198-223, pp. 259-273 with Bernard Williams, "Thought and Action by Stuart Hamphire," and "Iris Murdoch's The Fire and the Sun," in Essays and Reviews: 1959-2002 (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2014), pp. 8-17, pp. 142-145 also with Christopher Norris, "Supplementarity and Deviant Logics: Derrida Contra Quine," Minding the Gap: Epistemology and Philosophy of Science in the Two Traditions (Amherst: U. of Mass., 2000), pp. 125-148. ("Martha Nussbaum, Iris Murdoch, and The Philosophy of Love" and "Jacques Derrida's Philosophy as Jazz.")

By way of a more methodical comparison between analytical and Continental philosophical approaches, please see Anthony Flew, An Introduction to Western Philosophy: Ideas and Argument From Plato to Popper (London: Hudson & Thames, 1971), pp. 431-490 and A.W. Moore, The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 2012), pp. 581-607. ("G.E. Moore's Critique of Idealism" and "David Stove and The Intellectual Capacity of Women.")

Stuart Hampshire's writings display most of the tensions of the rival historical and philosophical forces of the era in which he lived. These tensions find expression, often unconsciously, in Professor Hampshire's writings and perhaps more strikingly so than in the works of lesser philosophers.  

Stuart Hampshire was the embodiment of the British establishment intellectual: elegant, occasionally acerbic, well-born, Oxford-educated, polite and deferential in his beautiful prose and person, gifted as a scholar, original and even exceptional in his use of logic and analytical method to discuss problems within professional areas of concern touching on agency theory, mind and mentation, freedom and selfhood.

In addition to focusing on the classical rationalism of Spinoza in his academic writings, Hampshire was attracted to the equally radical empiricism of Hume, and was a student as well as a critic of Bishop Berkeley's and F.H. Bradley's forms of idealism, turning quietly in middle age to leisurely essays in literary analysis and appreciations (or commentaries) on favored poets and novelists, like Henry James and Oscar Wilde.

Mr. Hampshire seemed unaware of the revealing nature of his transition to literature and other fine arts that confirmed Iris Murdoch's important criticisms of his youthful philosophical project.

Few of Professor Hampshire's admirers knew that the epitome of the circumspect and consummate professional and scholarly philosopher, Stuart Hampshire, was also an expert on (and indeed wrote extensively about) the perverse, highly erotic texts of the Marquis de Sade and was fascinated by the bizarre, possibly sexual, relationship between Freud and Lou Andreas Salome, also "celebrating" with George Orwell and Lawrence Durrell the most sexually explicit texts of Henry Miller. See especially Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer (New York: Grove Press, 1961), (1st Ed. 1934).

"Destructive impulses are an original element in love and self-love." 

Professor Hampshire comments wistfully:

"Men not only seek pleasure and to preserve themselves, but, at the same time and in relation to the same objects, they seek pain and to destroy themselves. They only distort and smother their 'sensibility,' their capacity for any intense feeling, when they try to hide these facts from themselves. They can be liberated by admitting the facts to full consciousness."

"Sade," in Modern Writers and Other Essays (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970), pp. 59-60. ("Can you lie to yourself?")

These are surprising words from a man who admitted to serving in British intelligence during the war as a torturer/interrogator and, probably, after the war when he may have spied upon and informed against university radicals in the counterculture movement for British and American security forces. 

These words and sentiments are even more puzzling coming from a philosopher concerned to construct the "liberal subject," as an abstraction, in thinking about the freedom of the individual allegedly resulting from "mastering the passions." As a matter of fact, Hampshire spoke of an erotic pleasure in "cruelty":

"I interrogated some leading Nazis in captivity at the end of the war, including Heydrich's successor as head of the Reichssicherheiptshauptamt, Kaltenbrunner, with whom I talked at length when he was a prisoner with U.S. army headquarters, and whom I brought to London for further interrogation. I learnt how easy it had been to organize the vast enterprises of torture and murder, and to enroll willing workers in this field, once all moral barriers had been removed by the authorities. Unmitigated evil and nastiness are as natural, it seemed, in educated human beings as generosity and sympathy: no more and no less, natural, a fact that was obvious to Shakespeare but not previously evident to me. It became clear that high culture and good education are not significantly correlated with elementary moral decency. [Is this a personal confession by Professor Hampshire?] The massacres in the Soviet Union, continuing for decades after the war, fell into place alongside the work of Hitler and of the SS. They expressed a brutalized and debased Machiavellianism, the political style of the twentieth century."

Innocence and Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1989), p. 8 (emphasis added). 

Professor Hampshire is satirized, deftly, as something of a martinet ("Sir David Hampshire") in Edward St Aubyn's recent send-up of the Booker Award process in Lost For Words (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2014). Ironically, Mr. St. Aubyn has just won the Whodehouse Prize for best comic novel for this very work that questions the validity of all literary awards and which also may contain a fine recipe or two. Identification of the real-life counterpart of St. Aubyn's character seems to have been lost on reviewers. John Banville missed it in "Overbooked," in The New York Review of Books, June 5, 2014, p. 41 to say nothing of Kate Kalloway's dismissive assessment in The Guardian, May 11, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may11/lost-for-words-review-Edward-St.-Aubyn-review 

Professor Hampshire often referred to the "dilemma" of his experiences of torture and forced encounter with absolute evil as leading to despair with all of philosophy's ethical systems, further confirming Murdoch's critique. 

This insight about the annoying tendency of the so-called "real world" to escape all conceptual categories and systems is a crucial existentialist contention formally rejected by analytical philosophers in their disdain for merely "literary" Continental theory. ("Michel Foucault and the Authorship Question.") 

It is this wisdom and literary attention to the "mystery" of persons that was central to the works of Hampshire's Oxford colleague and the Booker Award-winning novelist, Iris Murdoch, a woman whose mind Mr. Hampshire trivialized and dismissed, politely, but whose achievements are undeniable and overwhelming (in my opinion) when set beside Hampshire's indisputably accomplished works: 

"It was his encounter, in the capacity of interrogator, with Nazi officers at the end of the war, especially the Guestapo commander Ernst Kaltenbrunner, that led to his insistence, rare among 20th century philosophers, on the reality of evil."   

In her obituary of Hampshire for The Guardian Jane O'Grady discusses a famous "puzzle case" that was not a thought experiment for Professor Hampshire, but a matter of genuine personal experience and reflection:

"He frequently told the story of how, towards the end of the war, he had to interrogate a French traitor (imprisoned by the Free French), who refused to cooperate unless he was allowed to live. Should Hampshire, knowing the man was condemned to die, promise him a reprieve, which he was in no position to give, or truthfully refuse it, thereby jeopardizing the lives of resistance fighters?"

See Morality and Conflict (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1983), pp. 140-171 then Judith Jarvis Thomson, "The Trolley Problem," in Rights, Restitution, and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1986), pp. 94-117 and Judith Jarvis Thomson, Goodness and Advice (Oxford & Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), pp. 3-43 with commentary by Martha Nussbaum, pp. 97-126. 

Mr. Hampshire never explained his decision in that case.

A presumed decision to lie to his condemned prisoner may have required Hampshire to go through with an execution after obtaining vital information, under false pretenses, with the result that the loss of life among resistance fighters may well have been exactly the same as if they had granted the prisoner a reprieve in the first place, but a murder may have been committed or facilitated by a philosopher of ethics. 

These intractable ethical dilemmas formed a part of Jean-Paul Sartre's literary writings after the war and confirmed the reality and importance of ethics in philosophical thought. Stuart Hampshire was the opposite of a nihilist or "absolute relativist," whatever that may mean. Jean-Paul Sartre's "What is Literature?," in What is Literature and Other Essays (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1988), pp. 21-247. 

A concern with the relation between literature and philosophy certainly features in the works of Iris Murdoch as explained in her conversations with Bryan Magee "Literature and Philosophy," in Existentialists and Mystics (London: Penguin, 1999), pp. 1-24.  

It has been suggested that his war experiences led to a near-schizoid division in Hampshire's psyche between public and private personas, or "secret" and "revealed" versions of the self as "agent in the world." Compare R.D. Laing, "The False Self System," in The Divided Self (London: Tavistock, 1960), pp. 102-103 with Richard I. Evans, R.D. Laing: The Man and His Ideas (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1976), pp. 85-94.  

Mr. Hampshire's nasty Oxford High Table put-down of Iris Murdoch strikes the reader today as bizarre or, perhaps, the expression of secret matters between these two thinkers:

"I do not think Murdoch ever fully understood analytical philosophy, or that she was ever able to teach it successfully at St. Anne's College, Oxford, [to women, that is, who were not really Oxford students?] where she was for a few years a tutorial fellow." 

Hampshire's "The Pleasures of Iris Murdoch," in The New York Review of Books, November 15, 2001 (available on-line). 

These slights -- there were several public dismissals by Hampshire of Murdoch's philosophical works -- are offered against a philosopher, Iris Murdoch, whose early criticisms of analytical philosophy are now widely accepted and whose discoveries and contributions to discussions in English language, logic-centered and pragmatist, along with Continental schools, are required reading for serious students of contemporary thought. 

Few philosophers now doubt the continuing importance of Murdoch's original philosophy or that Professor Hampshire is primarily a scholar or historian of the subject: A.E. Denham, "'For every foot its own shoe': Method and Moral Theory in the Philosophy of Iris Murdoch," in Justin Broackes, ed., Iris Murdoch: Philosopher (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2012), pp. 325-353 and A. Horner & A. Rowe, eds., Living On Paper: Letters From Iris Murdoch (Oxford & Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 2015), pp. 166, 188, 211, 235, 447 (letters pertaining to Stuart Hampshire or his writings).

Murdoch synthesizes and expounds existentialist and hermeneutic as well as analytical strands of contemporary thought to create an entirely personal development of philosophy allowing, equally, for literary and logical insights. She unifies Sartre with Derrida, Wittgenstein (with whom she studied as a graduate student at Cambridge University) with John Rawls, Simone Weil with Hans-Georg Gadamer.  Iris Murdoch, "Against Dryness," in Existentialists and Mystics, pp. 287-297 and Iris Murdoch, "The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts," in The Sovereignty of Good (New York & London: Ark, 1970), pp. 77-105.

"Although considering most Continental philosophy vulgar and fraudulent, and contemptuous of hands-across-the-channel 'British Council philosophy,' as he called it, Hampshire was much influenced by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and thus indirectly by Martin Heidegger. But however much he hated Heidegger's Nazi sympathies, Hampshire insisted, in a Heideggerian way, that philosophy of mind 'has been distorted by philosophers when they think of persons only as possible observers and not as self-willed agents.' ..." O'Grady, "Obituary," The Guardian, June 11, 2004 (available online).

Iris Murdoch met and impressed Merleau-Ponty then discussed his work with Raymond Queneau to whom her first novel was dedicated. She wrote the first English language analysis of Jean-Paul Sartre's philosophy: Sartre: Romantic Rationalist (London: Viking, 1987) is a reissue of the 1953 edition with a new introduction that qualifies as one of the best essays on Sartre's later Critique of Dialectical Reason.

Most of Hampshire's "discoveries" drawing on the phenomenological tradition applied to analytical problems had been made by Iris Murdoch in the fifties. Please see Gregory McCulloch's translation of Sartre's and Murdoch's early thinking into analytical terms: Using Sartre: An Analytical Introduction to the Early Sartrean Themes (New York & London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 52-71.  

Adding to the mystery of Hampshire's denigration of Murdoch's thinking is the likely romantic affair between the two philosophers suggested in Peter Conradi's recent biography and analyzed in some "excised" portions of Murdoch's diary. Their intimate "relationship" and later "friendship" was not acknowledged by Professor Hampshire when he came to review Murdoch's biography, in a less than flattering way concluding that her biographer, Conradi, was "overwhelmed by the materials" of Murdoch's life. 

Having read Conradi's biography of Iris Murdoch, I do not agree with Hampshire's assessment and neither did Martha Nussbaum or Bernard Williams in their reviews of the book. Peter Conradi, Iris Murdoch: A Life (New York & London: W.W. Norton, 2001), pp. 302-304, 403, 414-415, 491, 494-495, 562. 

The plot thickens when one considers that Hampshire was "close" to the Cambridge Five, especially to Kim Philby, who was often listed as Hampshire's "closest friend" by British intelligence during the post-war years. The distinguished philosopher came under suspicion as the mysterious "6th man" who was never found by MI-6. Insufficient proof precluded any charges from being filed against Stuart Hampshire in Britain, although the investigation was never officially closed.

It may be suggestive (or revealing) to compare Richard Swinburne's essays "How to determine which is the true theory of personal identity," in G. Gasser & M. Stefan, eds., Personal Identity -- Complex or Simple? (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 2012), posted online at Professor Swinburne's site at Oxford University's Faculty Research Online Archive and "The Problem of Evil," in N. Mossner, et als., eds., Richard Swinburne's Christian Philosophy in the Modern World (Berlin: Ontos Verlag, 2008), also available at the Oxford University archive, with Phillip Knightly's, Philby: K.G.B. Masterspy (London: Andre Deutsch, 1988), pp. 86-101. 

Stuart Hampshire was showered with honors, including a knighthood, even as he destroyed the marriage of his colleague and admiring friend, A.J. Ayer, by indulging in an affair with Ayer's then wife Renee, [sic.] whom Hampshire eventually married, allegedly only to betray her in favor of his second wife, Nancy Cartwright. [sic.] I am not certain that Professor Hampshire would classify these romantic episodes in his life as examples of his impressive "mastery of the passions."

The scandal surrounding the affair with Renee Ayer leading to Hampshire being named "correspondent" in a divorce suit resulted in his departure from Oxford University to which Hampshire would return in glory after a stint at Princeton and Harvard Universities in the American colonies. Ben Rodgers, A.J. Ayer: A Life (New York: Grove, 1999), p. 260, pp. 148, 149, 167, 207, 216, 223.

It is interesting that Hampshire "reviewed" Ayer's The Problem of Knowledge, also dismissively. Professor Hampshire certainly would have thought very little of this essay by me. Hampshire was kind enough, of course, to recognize Iris Murdoch's talent for "novel-writing" where she "was at her best" as a mere woman.

I will now examine in detail -- using their own words as much as possible -- the single public dialogue between these philosophers concerning freedom and the self, love and imagination in terms of human actions in the world. 

It occurs to me that Stuart Hampshire became something of a character by John Le Carre. 

Like George Smiley I now place my huge spectacles on the tip of my nose and loosen my tie to uncover the hidden layers of personality and the dark subtexts in a seemingly polite academic exchange between two old friends concerning the liberal subject and the passions. We will be engaged in a philosophical "mole hunt." (I seem to resemble Alec Guiness suddenly and inexplicably.) 

The sections of my essay are marked by titles of Le Carre novels that seem "suggestive" for suspicious reasons that Smiley would no doubt discover very quickly.

"The Spy Who Came In From the Cold."

Given Professor Hampshire's professional concern during his years in intelligence work (Smiley's "Circus") with obfuscation and deception as well as his comments about "enjoying deceit" during the war, the following paragraphs provide a useful contrast between his opposed "presentations" on agency and freedom.

The following statements are by Hampshire: the first is from a conversation with Bryan Magee; the second is from Innocence and Experience. In light of the paradox revealed in, or suggested by, these paragraphs, I will set forth Hampshire's position concerning freedom of mind and the liberal subject, moving on to a discussion of what I consider to be Iris Murdoch's definitive criticisms of Hampshire's position and her own far more important contribution to the discussion of these issues in philosophy and literature.

It is not my intention to write a polemical essay on feminist themes, but it is impossible to ignore Ms. Murdoch's exclusion from Bryan Magee's book on "leading British philosophers of our age" and that, until recently, she merited only a footnote in most discussions of "British twentieth-century philosophy."

References to Mary Midgley, Mary Warnock, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot are rare -- if they exist at all -- in these typical books, often these women and their American counterparts are studiously ignored even as the work of far less distinguished male philosophers receive pages of discussion and analysis. ("Philippa Foot On Desire, Agency, and Reason.")

With regard to Murdoch, whose philosophical essays and Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals are important forward-looking texts, and whose novels are among the finest in our time, this exclusion or trivialization is bizarre and unforgivable: Compare Bryan Magee, Modern British Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1971), pp. 31-66 and S.G. Shanker, Philosophy in Britain Today (New York: SUNY Press, 1986), pp. 154-171 with John Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy (London: Penguin, 1966), p. 605, p. 608. ("Master and Commander.")

Iris Murdoch is now studied in many countries in the world as one of the foremost philosophers and literary artists of the twentieth century. Several recent academic gatherings at Oxford and the University of London have been devoted to her work (among the most active communities of Murdochians is the "Japan Iris Murdoch Society") and more books appear every year from well-known scholars and writers commenting on Murdoch's large body of fictions and theoretical works. For example, there are new books from A.N. Wilson, Maria Attonacio, Justin Broackes and others examining key aspects of Murdoch's powerful moral philosophy. ("John Rawls and Justice" and "Richard Rorty's Ethical Skepticism.") 

Hampshire comments on his own analytical philosophical style as defined by Russell and others, deeming that style "exemplary" and "paradigmatic" of the traditional virtues of English philosophy:

"It's a question of not obfuscating -- of leaving no blurred edges, of the duty to be entirely clear, [transparent?] So that one's mistakes can be seen; of never being pompous, or evasive. It's a question of never judging the results, never using rhetoric to fill a gap, never using a phrase which conveniently straddles, as it were, two or three notes and which leaves it ambiguous which one you're hitting. Russell's prose excludes even the possibility of evasion and of half truth" -- this is also Hampshire's assessment of his own "ideal" of clarity -- "and if one goes back to the writing of the eighties or looks back to, say, Mill, I must agree with Karl [Popper's] phrase about professional ethics, even in Mill, who was a very intellectually scrupulous man, one can be worried and perplexed as to which of two things exactly he means, and the fluent style allows him to leave this open, what he says is much more plausible because it's open; while in Russell's writing there's always this extraordinary nakedness of clear assertion. His doctrines and arguments stand out in a hard Greek light which allows no vagueness."

Stuart Hampshire to Bryan Magee in Modern British Philosophy, p. 45.

Reflecting more generally on Hampshire's style of self-presentation -- who he "seemed to be" as against who "he was" -- as a British intelligence officer, intellectual, or just as a person, Hampshire offers this revealing comment (even as he elsewhere discusses the inevitability of ethical conflict given our life-or-death commitment to the core values of our societies and selves), in light of unavoidable tensions between public and private "selves," given the distance between "appearance" and "reality" ambiguity and nuance -- the opposite of transparency -- become essential ingredients of all profound thought. Literature must be transformed into a necessity:

"Deception and concealment in politics, and the complexity of motive that leads to treachery, have always attracted me, both in reading history and occasionally in actual experience during the war. I have difficulty in imagining that purity of intention and undivided purposes can be the normal case in politics."

Can one write political philosophy with transparency and crystal clarity of language, abstractly, without leaving out of one's analysis crucial nuances and subtleties, Professor Hampshire? If such clarity is not possible, then is the "ideal of pristine clarity" in analytical philosophy helpful, or (sometimes) just the opposite of helpful, when seeking to understand human nature and/or malice? Must we leave out a great deal that is important, but unclear, in order to be "crystal clear" about issues and persons that are mysterious or complex, and anything but transparent to themselves or others? ("Judith Butler and Gender Theory.")

"I believe that very many people feel divided between openness and concealment, between innocence and experience; and, outside politics, they often find themselves divided between love and hatred of their own homes and their own habits. The evidence for this belief of mine comes rather from fiction" -- like Iris Murdoch's novel The Sea, The Sea whose central character is an actor, Charles Arrowby, who is something of a fraud? -- "than from moral philosophy, which always presents a tidier picture in the interest of some prevailing epistemology. The evidence comes also from introspection: I am interested in deceit. These conflicts of feeling not only seem natural, they are also often useful. Enjoying the spectacle of duplicity and deceit in secret intelligence during the war, I did not doubt that there is a black hole of duplicity -- and intrigue into which the plans of politicians and intelligence officers may altogether disappear, because they may forget what they are supposed to be doing, lost in the intricacies of manouvre. It's useful to understand the devious calculations which underlie the publicized features of international relations in war and peace; and one cannot easily understand such calculations unless one has at least some degree of sympathy with them, some fascination, however qualified, with the twists and turns of political contrivance."

Innocence and Experience, p. 11 (emphasis added).

I wonder whether clarity and analytical rigor or "transparency" may not, in some circumstances, be used to deceive or falsify the self and/or others?

Perhaps the most effective public lies are communicated in the style of legalistic and governmental prose that poses as disinterested statements of "reality." ("The Wanderer and His Shadow.")

To suggest that fiction or literature may yield a truer picture of human agency in all of its complexity and contradictoriness, or mixed motives, may undermine the philosophical theory of agency developed over decades by Professor Hampshire and a number of his distinguished colleagues in analytical philosophy. This confirms Iris Murdoch's critique of Hampshire's theory and the undermining of that theory may be only one of her late philosophical achievements.

In a BBC interview Iris Murdoch spoke of the "secrets" in the hearts of men and women and the "terrible things" -- meaning crimes -- that persons live with in guilt or remorse and sometimes delight. Murdoch argued that the philosopher's and novelist's shared task is to discover and explain these "secrets."

Murdoch suggested that, perhaps, this shared mission is a truer statement of the challenge for thinkers who wish to speak in a meaningful way of human agency as it exists in our social world -- especially in coming to terms with such phenomena as evil -- than any concern with absolute rationality and clarity.

The pose of disinterested scholarship, Murdoch suggested, wears thin "after the 'experience' of Hitler." (See Murdoch's essay "The Idea of Perfection.")

Murdoch's comments on such troublesome issues explain her dual commitments to philosophy and literature, but also her own moral practice or "agency" as a woman who saw herself easily falling into foolish romantic entanglements as well as passionate love affairs, and not as good or loyal a friend as she ought to be, far from "ideal" in her style or person. Rather than "mastering" the passions Murdoch often felt compelled to yield to them, especially with regard to the demands of life-long loves: "I would go into the dark if it would mean the light for you." (These were Murdoch's utterly sincere words to a woman who was a lover and friend of many years.)

Imperfection or "muddle," divided motives, the struggle for goodness, her boundless need for love and kindness as well as the blistering effects of evil are found in her novels and life, but these things are also of philosophical importance, Murdoch tells us, because they define what our lives are about, revealing who we are and are not or never will be, the things and persons for which we will suffer or die. Murdoch insists that philosophers are and should be artists as well as logicians. ("Is clarity enough?")

A philosophy that excludes such "messy" or "unclear" and "mysterious" realities is not better for it, but much worse and far less helpful to us in understanding ourselves or our world. For Murdoch, "freedom of mind" and "owning our actions" in the world that must involve others begins with the recognition of inconvenient complexity and uncertainty, doubt and pain, frailty and imperfection. ("Drawing Room Comedy: A Philosophical Essay in the Form of a Film Script.")

The paradoxical nature of the relationship between philosophy and the arts -- especially, poetry or literature -- is as old as Plato's dialogues. Iris Murdoch transformed these old ideas and unique debate into a theory of the subject opposed to, and far richer than, Professor Hampshire's straightjacketed but neat and tidy version of the liberal subject conveyed in a clear analytical language that often seems beside the point or irrelevant to what is at issue. ("The Allegory of the Cave.")

In Murdoch's exchanges with Professor Hampshire, and in published criticisms of Hampshire's texts, one senses a deep frustration and impatience that is rare in her writings and genuine puzzlement.

Before turning to the heart of the Murdoch/Hampshire dialogue and its many subtexts, the issues surrounding literature and philosophy should be emphasized because they have generated a continuing discussion in some of the most important books of recent decades: Richard Rorty, "The Contingency of Selfhood," in Contingency, Irony, Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1989), pp. 23-44 and Colin McGinn, "The Evil Character," in Ethics, Evil and Fiction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp. 62-92. ("Richard Rorty's Ethical Skepticism" and "Colin McGinn's Naughty Book.")

Novelists have examined the issue from slightly different directions than philosophers: Patrick O'Brian, Testimonies: A Novel (New York: W.W. Norton, 1954) and Ian McEwan, Atonement (New York: Vintage, 2002) and Penelope Lively, The Photograph (London: Viking, 2003) finally, John Banville's The Sea (New York: Vintage International, 2005). ("What is memory?" and "Law and Literature.")

Hampshire insists on "control" of intentionality and the passions in a manner that seems increasingly artificial or implausible to Murdoch as their relationship "evolves." 

I focus on two famous essays by Professor Hampshire that, taken together, constitute a summary of his argument: "Freedom of Mind" and "Spinoza and the Idea of Freedom" in Freedom of Mind and Other Essays. The ideas and arguments in these essays are elaborated upon in Thought and Action and Morality and Conflict to which I may refer to supplement my analysis.

Hampshire claims to reject reductivism either in the direction of neurochemistry or toward environmental factors (behaviorism) in understanding the mind. Scientism is also rejected. Freedom and agency cannot be explained by biochemical processes in the brain which may certainly help to account for the "mechanics" of bodily movements. Environmental factors, contrary to the strictures of B.F. Skinner, also cannot entirely explain human "behavior."

"My thesis will be that no matter what experimental knowledge of the previously unknown causes that determine a man's beliefs is accumulated, that which a man believes, and also that which he aims at and sets himself to achieve, will remain up to him to decide in the light of argument."

"Freedom of Mind," p. 3.

Does this overstate the importance of argument and underestimate the emotions or the contexts in which our decisions must be made? 

Argument is understood by Professor Hampshire in strict Spinozistic-rationalist terms, apparently, and persuasion is exclusively a matter of evidence and logical cogency in setting forth an argument. 

Articulation of argument, as previously noted, must be analytical because it involves a commitment to clarity of exposition that excludes all that cannot be stated with transparency. This raises difficult issues concerning the "transparency" of human motives and the instrumental "purity" of language -- issues that Murdoch will raise against Hampshire. (See my forthcoming review of "The Mountain Between Us.")

"The reflexive knowledge of [and reasons for] the causal mechanism [biology] constitute a change in the effect [actions]. And this is the complexity which makes a place, as Spinoza suggested, for freedom of mind." (Ibid.)

Hampshire says that I am aware of what clouds my judgment; while scientists know the neurochemistry. I can figure out what "motivates" my desire. Thus, I can correct for such extraneous factors as emotions in my objective and neutral weighing of factors, arguments, reasons for action, to decide freely and with logical sophistication what actions to take:

"If once he concentrates his attention on these timeless truths, independent of his own standpoint and perceptions, and argues carefully from them, he cannot help coming to the conclusion that human conduct has to be judged, and his own decisions made, by reference to this single standard, the standard of freedom of mind; and he will unavoidably agree that the distinction between freedom and its opposite is the distinction between active reasoning; internally determined, and the mind's passive reception of ideas impressed upon it from without."

"Spinoza and the Idea of Freedom," pp. 184-185. ("Robert Brandom's 'Reason in Philosophy'.")

Freedom of mind, accordingly, involves abstracting from our "interested particularity" as finite beings ("modes") trapped in time and occupying space to a consideration of things sub species aeternatis -- that is, universally and disinterestedly -- in the terms of Spinoza's "Ethics." ("Derek Parfit's Ethics" and "What is Enlightenment?")

The condition of "unfreedom" or "slavery to the passions" ("Ethics," Bk. IV) is the equivalent in Spinoza of the "heteronomy of the will" in Kant. It is not enslavement of the will that most troubles Hampshire, however, but "captivity of the understanding." Finally,

"Moral argument, that which replaces the traditional free discussion of ends of action, should be an attempt to bring to light, and to recognize, our own motives and their sources, and thereby to make our pursuit of our own safety, and the enjoyment of our own activity, fully self-conscious and therefore fully rational."

Ibid. p. 203.

Murdoch's critique is devastating and accurate, undermining Hampshire's project by invalidating his theory of what freedom of mind means and of how freedom is possible for persons. I urge readers interested in these issues to ponder Rebecca Goldstein's novel The Late Summer Passion of a Woman of Mind (New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1989). 

For Murdoch, the answer to the puzzle of freedom consists not in flight from what Sartre called "facticity" -- escape from our particularity in time, place, and culture -- but rather from understanding personal history, subconscious motivation, meaning and memory, history and politics allowing for increasingly improved self-appreciations and ever-more conscious or nuanced actions without denying the ambiguities or uncertainties that will always remain an aspect of human actions in the world.

Even with regard to philosophy, Murdoch contends, persuasively, that Hampshire misconstrues Kant and the vital importance of Kant's Critical philosophy in Modernity. 

It is necessary to move towards facticity, that is, towards our individuality, or the concrete realities of our situations in the world, even as we participate in rational agency as transcendental egos:

"Kant's combination of this insight [concerning freedom of the will] with his confidence in science produce the dualism" -- or dual-aspect compatibilism -- "which shocks Hampshire. Since we are not just free spirits but also causally determined animals we are not transparent to ourselves and our motivation is both obscure and surprising. (We cannot easily determine beforehand how far idealism may extend our possibilities and how far we may be able to act against our character.) Much modern philosophy (existentialist and analytical) follows Kant here: since value clearly has no place in the empirical (scientific) world it must be given another kind of importance by being attached directly to the operation of the human will." 

Iris Murdoch, "The Defense of Practical Reason," in Existentialists and Mystics, pp. 194-195 ("A Philosophical Investigation of Ludwig Wittgenstein.") 

Is the heart just a muscle? Or does "the heart have reasons that reason knows nothing of" in the words of Blaise Pascal? Should free will overcome in extreme situations (or crises) the dictates of logic?  

Values become a matter of rational necessity, of what our lives with others require, through "feeling" the dilemmas of others, their pains and emotive needs within an appreciation of their equality, leading to a larger sense of justice in society as well as among societies.

Like Henry James and George Eliot, Thomas Mann and Leo Tolstoy -- novelists with whom Murdoch should be listed -- she is able to see and articulate in purely philosophical discourse and in creative fictions the essential artistic response and insight into the human condition in our dismal times that defends freedom of the will, primarily, in the moment of decision or choice, even in tragedy and suffering, by demanding a "presence" or attention to others rather than escape into an impossible abstraction or ideology. ("Westworld: A Review of the T.V. Series.") 

Simone Weil's call to "attend to the reality of others" lingers in Murdoch's memory. Iris Murdoch takes her place between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Jean-Paul Sartre as well as Simone de Beauvoir as one of the most important humanistic thinkers of our times. ("Richard Rorty's Ethical Skepticism.")

Hampshire contradicts himself because he is incapable of appreciating precisely these tensions in his thinking. He seems unable to detect the conflicts in his own motives due to an imaginative deficiency that Murdoch rightly views as a problem for all analytical philosophy.

It is the novelist's (or artist's) essential task to detect precisely such complexity of motives and purposes -- whatever one thinks of Freud -- once we get beyond the foundational need for Kantian fairness:

"Now it is not easy to see at first sight why Hampshire rejects in toto this pregnant and various 'doctrine of the transcendent will,' since he himself holds, as I shall argue, a view which is a version of this same doctrine. However, I think there is a particular feature of the doctrine which Hampshire finds menacing, and that is that it may portray (this is certainly true of Kant and the existentialists) human motivation as mysterious." (Murdoch, p. 195, emphasis added.)

For the purpose of unraveling the complexities of human motivation, the meaning of memories, the role of others in our private and public dramas, IMAGINATION in interpretation becomes crucial. Murdoch anticipates the insights of hermeneutic thinkers, such as Gadamer and Ricoeur, by falling back on her deepest sources in Shakespeare's poetry and Bradley's dialectics, or Sartre's and de Beauvoir's writings:

"It is significant that Hampshire relegates imagination [Derrida's juissance] to the passive [female] side of the mind, regarding it as an isolated non-responsible faculty which makes potentially valuable discoveries which reason [male] may inspect and adopt. Hampshire certainly regards imagination as a side issue. It is not even mentioned in his main argument. Why?" (Murdoch, p. 198, emphasis added.)

"Imagination" has been classified as a "feminine virtue." ("'The Stepford Wives': A Movie Review" and "David Stove and the Intellectual Capacity of Women.")  

Derrida's concern with "playing" and the "play" of meaning in language use and art, or life, has been dismissed by analytical philosophers as "childish." ("Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Missing Author.") 

Are imagination and play actually trivial factors when considering freedom of mind? Are they not of the very essence of such freedom? Are the artist and child not totally free in the moment of their "creations"? 

"A Delicate Truth." 

The focus on imagination crystalizes Murdoch's criticisms of analytical philosophy as well as her objections to Hampshire's philosophy. Comparison of the British philosophers' respective positions concerning "fancy" and "play" is revealing.

See, for example, Murdoch's "Against Dryness" and "On God and Good" then Hampshire's "Fallacies in Moral Philosophy," in Stanley Hauerwas & Alasdair McIntyre, eds., Changing Perspectives in Moral Philosophy (Indiana & London: Notre Dame U. Press, 1983), pp. 43-92. 

Murdoch's critique of Hampshire's denigration of imagination is important because that denigration is widespread in America today despite the urgent need for imagination in public life and thought. ("The Return of Metaphysics.")

Murdoch goes on to explain the danger from the point of view of the ostensibly scientific-minded who fail to see all of the imagining that is necessary to understand the bottom-line factual or empirical reality described by science:

"When this activity is thought to be bad it is sometimes called 'fantasy' or 'wishful thinking.' [Self-deception, perhaps?] That we are all constantly engaged in this activity is something which Hampshire chooses to ignore, and he selects his vocabulary accordingly."

Perhaps only a novelist or other artist can fully appreciate Murdoch's observation. The implications of this truth are crucial and should be set forth at length. ("Immanuel Kant and the Narrative of Freedom.")

"Is there not also a good constructive imagination which plays an important part in our daily life? [Mary Warnock's book on imagination appeared after Murdoch's essay.] Hampshire would be unwilling to allow this for a rather important reason. He can readily admit imaginings which are unwilled, isolated, passive. But if we admit active imagination as an important faculty it is difficult not to see this as an exercise of will. Imagining is doing, it is a sort of personal exploring. Now Hampshire's picture depends on a divorce between will and reason (he considers the influence of will upon belief at the level of a man forcing himself to believe his leader against his better judgment, that is, it is always improper). Our freedom is said to consist in our ability to remove ourselves into a region where we can assess situations under no pressure from the will."

The assumption that we ever confront a pristine or non-interpretive "reality" that we may apprehend, non-creatively, without active representation is impossible after Kant. 

It is fascinating how stubbornly many persons cling to the so-called "empiricist delusion" -- as Linus clings to his security blanket -- of an objective external reality that is reflected "mirror-like" in the mind through the senses. We cannot simply "go and look" to determine what is "real." ("Why I am not an ethical relativist" and "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.")   

A century of scholarship in philosophy and the human sciences has done little to displace the assumption from analytical circles that all we need is care in expression or "clarity" to see and say exactly "what is really there." (See the discussion by Wilfrid Sellars of "The Myth of the Given.")

It may be objected that Hampshire expressed doubts or "pessimism" about the capacity of persons to be guided by reason and recognized the ubiquity of evil or moral failure as an aspect of human life in Morality and Conflict. 

This recognition merely confirms Murdoch's biting critique of Hampshire's philosophy and indicates a failure on his part to appreciate that the problem had to do with his acceptance of the moral philosophies of Aristotle and Spinoza that, perhaps, were "troubled" by the emotions and failed to take sufficient note of the role of love, empathy, compassion and imaginative sympathy as well as other emotions in understanding "reason" and the requirements of moral judgment for human "being-in-the-world." ("Why philosophy is for everybody.") 

It may be necessary to point out, again, that Murdoch's position in this debate and Continental thought in general are not attacks on rationality or science, even as they uphold (rather than denying) the importance of truth, goodness and love as genuine values underlying nearly everything else that we do as persons:

"The world which we confront is not just a world of 'facts' but a world upon which our imagination has, at any given moment, already worked; and although such workings may often be 'fantasy' and may constitute a barrier to our seeing 'what is really there,' this is not necessarily so. Many of the beliefs which are relevant to action are unlike disciplined scientific or scholarly beliefs. They are beliefs in the genesis of which active imagination can and will play a part which is not necessarily sinister."

Please bear this reasoning in mind and return to my arguments in "The Galatea Scenario and the Mind/Body Problem" then "Mind and Machine" and "Consciousness and Computers."

"We have to attend to people, we may have to have faith in them, and here justice and realism may demand the inhibition of certain pictures, the promotion of others. Each of us lives and chooses within a partly private, partly fabricated world, and although any particular belief might be shown to be merely 'fantastic' it is false to suggest that we could, even in principle, 'purge' the world we confront of these personal elements. Nor is there any reason why we should. To be a human being [person] is to know more than we can prove, to conceive of a reality which goes 'beyond the facts' in these familiar and natural ways." (The foregoing quotes are from "The Darkness of Practical Reason," pp. 197-199, emphasis added.)

There is no reality found entirely "apart" from human values that we experience as "persons." This does not undermine our value-laden notions of "objective/subjective" realities. We may still deploy concepts of objectivity and subjectivity, facts and values. We certainly cannot do without notions of truth that are implied even in this very statement of the ubiquity of values and desire. ("'Ex Machina': A Movie Review.")

Human freedom can never come from "escaping" emotions or imagination, since the very concept of freedom is the fruit of emotion and imagination. 

Freedom can only come from recognizing or achieving some understanding of the role that such mental faculties and other "factors" play in creating the interpretations by which we construct ourselves and our worlds of meaning. ("Shakespeare's Black Prince.")

Our sciences, arts, politics and laws are filled with imaginative energies and these endeavors that we create then "construct" us in return, sometimes tragically, only to be "deconstructed" in turn by us so that the process may begin again. ("Metaphor is Mystery" and "Conversation On a Train" then "Is Western Philosophy Racist?")

Reality (especially when it is said to be fully "objective") is actually saturated with imaginative constructs. (Again: "Judith Butler and Gender Theory" then "What you will ..." and "A Doll's Aria.")

I find my glasses growing larger, thicker, my face has become pudgy and pasty, my gray hair thin in the image I behold in the mirror. George Smiley has found his culprit:

Any self-styled "analytical" philosopher clinging to a bottom-line empiricism that no longer exists is our philosophical "mole." If such a creature is "out there," there is no need to worry, he or she has become extinct with the crumbling of the wall between analytical and Continental philosophical schools and the return to language studies in our universities, but such a "skateboarding philosopher" is merely unaware of the "fact" at this time:

"We are obscure to ourselves because the world we see already contains our values." ("David Hume's Philosophical Romance.") 

This includes science's revealed realities and the clarity about such realities admired by linguistically-minded philosophers. None of this deprives us of truth or nuanced notions of objectivity in discourse.

" ... we may not be aware of the slow delicate process of imagination and will which have put those values there. This implies, of course, that at moments of choice we are normally less free than Hampshire pictures us as (potentially) being, and that freedom is a more difficult and complex achievement than Hampshire suggests." (Murdoch, p. 200.)

I will list only a few key works that have informed my thinking concerning Hampshire's and Murdoch's views, except that I cannot avoid suggesting a few Le Carre novels.

Stuart Hampshire, Spinoza (London: Penguin, 1951).

Stuart Hampshire, Freedom of the Individual (New York: Harper & Row, 1965).

Stuart Hampshire, Modern Writers and Other Essays (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970).

Stuart Hampshire, Freedom of Mind and Other Essays by Stuart Hampshire (New Jersey: Princeton U. Press, 1971).

Stuart Hampshire, Morality and Conflict (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1983).

Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1989). 

Stuart Hampshire, Spinoza and Spinozism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005). (1st Ed. 1959.) 

Selected works by, or about, or relevant to Stuart Hampshire:

Stuart Hampshire, "A Special Supplement: A New Philosophy of the Just Society," The New York Review of Books, February 24, 1972, reviewing John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1971). 

Alan Ryan, "Voice of Experience," The New York Review of Books, March 1, 1990, review of Innocence and Experience. 

Stuart Hampshire, "The Reason Why Not," The New York Review of Books, April 22, 1999, review of T.M. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1989).

Stuart Hampshire, "The Pleasures of Iris Murdoch," The New York Review of Books, November 15, 2001, review of Peter Conradi, Iris Murdoch: A Life (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001).

Wolfgang Saxon, "Stuart Hampshire, 89, Moral Philosopher Dies," The New York Times, June 27, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27... (Obituary).

Paul Vitello, "Jerry Roberts, 93, Code Breaker for Britain," The New York Times, April 5, 2014, p. A19. (Hampshire's colleague in the spy business.)

Bernard Williams, "Thought and Action by Stuart Hampshire," in Essays and Reviews: 1959-2002 (Princeton: Oxford U. Press, 2014), p. 8.

John Le Carre, The Honorable Schoolboy (London: Penguin, 1989).

Selected Works by or About Iris Murdoch:

Iris Murdoch, "The Darkness of Practical Reason," in Existentialists and Mystics (New York & London: Penguin, 1999), p. 193. Review of Stuart Hampshire, Freedom of the Individual (London: 1966). 

Iris Murdoch, Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals (London: Penguin, 1992).

Iris Murdoch, Sartre: Romantic Rationalist (London: Viking, 1953). 

Peter Conradi, Iris Murdoch: A Life (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001).

Maria Attonacio & William Schreiber, eds., Iris Murdoch and the Search For Human Goodness (London & Chicago: U. Chicago Press, 1996).

Iris Murdoch, The Sea, The Sea (London: Viking, 1978).

Iris Murdoch, The Message to the Planet (London: Viking, 1991). 

John Le Carre, The Spy Who Came In From the Cold (London: Victor Gollancz, 1963).

John Le Carre, Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy (London: Penguin, 1974). 

John Le Carre, Smiley's People (London: Coronet, 1992).

John Le Carre, A Delicate Truth (London: Penguin, 2013).