#the cuntery she served | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

newtonian-tragedy · 3 months

Text

Thoughts on The Sensorium of God

Firstly, the tagline ("Sparks of genius—the momentous clash between Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke") is a bit misleading. While the book does indeed cover the timeline between Newton's work on the Principia all the way up his Presidency, the conflict with Hooke is actually not even the focus of the story.

Although there is a wide cast of familiar characters, the attention divided between them is unequal. The premise starts with Halley as the main protagonist and Newton and Hooke as the deuteragonists, but as it progresses it mainly flips back and forth between Newton and Halley's perspectives, with Hooke's presence dwindling more and more after Grace's death until he becomes demoted to a minor background character.

Despite being limited to supporting characters, certain other philosophers like Flamsteed and Leibniz get a satisfying amount of screentime, with even a scene here and there featuring Fellows like Wren, Papin, and Pepys, and even a whole chapter dedicated to Locke. But for some reason, Boyle's role was disappointingly brief, limited to a line or two during a clandestine meeting with Newton. Given his connections to both Newton and Hooke, you'd think he'd be featured just a bit more prominently, but alas.

I enjoyed the interactions between Hooke and Grace, even if some of the more sexual scenes came off as incredibly unrealistic and like something out of an adult fantasy story. Without going off into a political rant (I'm by no means a libertarian, but I'm no feminist either, if you must know), even as someone who is largely accepting and sympathetic of Hooke's unhealthy relationship with his niece, it came off as more than a little unbelievable that a 16 year-old (presumably a virgin) who found herself cornered in an uncomfortable situation (presumably for the first time) not only reacted by initiating sexual contact, but did so with the boldness and dexterity of an experienced woman. It just made me roll my eyes. That, and the "first-aid handjob", while kind of sweet, came off as gratuitous.

Considering that both sides of Hooke's affair are explored here—from his sincere caring and protectiveness to his darker fits of jealous rage and emotional manipulation that enshroud the former—it would have been neither unreasonable nor unbelievable to hold Hooke himself responsible for the very same "whorish" behavior that he was all too eager to shame her for. And although Halley may or may not have caught the eye of Grace in real life, it served as a painful reminder that she most likely never returned her uncle's feelings, and that any sexual favors were performed out of a sense of obligation towards her only source of security. What's more, both of the Hookes came off as being burdened with guilt—Grace, for being unable to love her uncle as more than her uncle, and Robert, for his sexual possession of her—which may have explained why the references to their affairs disappeared from the diary after Grace's, well... disgrace involving Robert Holmes. A very complicated relationship, to say the least.

The part about Grace giving her uncle dancing lessons just hours before she died really hit me in the feels, and I'm certain it was inspired by the couple of diary entries that mentioned "dancing shoos" (although those were from a whole decade before her death).

It was overall an enjoyable read that felt like a rollercoaster ride of emotions. Several of the men fostered mutual grudges against one another, but I found that my sympathy for Newton waned to nearly nothing by the end of the book. If you thought he was an asshole in life, you'd be right, but the author's added interpretation of his motives crank the cuntery up to eleven here. Even worse is how Halley is treated.

Granted, there are more pressing complications that arise in Halley's life that originated with the death of his father, but the reward for his unwavering faith and loyalty in Newton is not only to be used thanklessly (and on one occasion is outright insulted) by him, but to be caught in the crossfire of retaliation from what had once been mutual friends of theirs—particularly his mentor Flamsteed, with whom, to be fair, he'd always shared a precarious relationship with. Even as the hero of the story, Halley really has it tough, getting screwed left and right throughout.

Newton being portrayed as a closeted homosexual is done in a largely believable way, but it doesn't really change much. If anything, Fatio becomes the more tragic and sympathetic figure of the two, although the reason for Newton throwing him under the bus was to protect himself from having his secret exposed (and it's not the one you'd assume). I will say though, that I particularly enjoyed the idea that the justification for Fatio later being involved in the French cult was due to the influence of Newton's religious delusions spreading like a contagion. Were this actually the case, I would not be a bit surprised.

Newton's hypocrisy also shines through here on more than one occasion, a notable example being how he looked down on Flamsteed, refusing to acknowledge the other man as his peer despite his theory relying heavily on the latter's astronomical observations. Say what you want about how Hooke openly relegating mathematicians to builders as philosophers were to architectures, but the parallel here is clear enough that you'd think Newton would feel ashamed to agree with Hooke's hierarchy.

In the end, Newton is a manipulative karma-dodging bastard who leaves behind a plethora of ruined lives in his wake. In other words, not all that different from reality.

That said, however, I still highly recommend this book to anyone who is even remotely interested in the history of Newton and/or his contemporaries. While the narrative is mostly based on what actually happened, it is almost seamlessly interwoven with a few artistic liberties and fictional events—none of which alter the outcome in any major way. Chief among them is the spymaster Winslow, a character whose sole existence in-universe is to torment poor Halley and keep him on his toes, but he also manages to drive the plot forward and bring everything together in the end, which ultimately centers on the theme of Newton's new philosophy being viewed as a threat to religion and government.

#books #review #the sensorium of god

6 notes · View notes

circumspiceusa · 8 years

Text

Another Souter???

As Donnie gets ready to hand out the final rose to his SCOTUS pick tonight, I thought I'd give you a rundown on the two alleged finalists.

First, the runners up. The two who did not make the final cut (supposedly) are William Pryor from the 11th Circuit and Diane Sykes from the 7th Circuit. Sykes is not likely to make it because she lacks one thing. What is it now? Oh yeah... a penis. And, Pryor hasn't been seen around for a while, but if he is the nominee <sigh> you should probably just move. (He’s the guy who called Roe v. Wade an “abomination.”)

Our finalists are reported to be Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman. Now, ordinarily we would already know who it is because the press watches who gets off the planes at Reagan, but we elected a reality TV game show host as our president so he flew them both to D.C. I don’t know if he’s planning to sit them down across the Cabinet Room table Apprentice-style or what, but flying them both in is silly.

So, what do we know about them? Thanks to Westlaw a pretty good amount.

If I were going to pick a Scalia clone it would be Neil Gorsuch. In my research the terms “framers’ intent” or “framers’ design” came up frequently. You see, Mr. Gorsuch ascribes to the dwindling school of “Originalism” and those terms are kind of like an unsubtle secret handshake.

Now, if you made it through 9th grade Civics you learned about a concept called stare decisis. This Latin term refers to judicial precedent i.e. that a judge should base her opinions on the foundation laid by opinions in previous similar cases. Through stare decisis Constitutional law SLOWLY evolves over time, but it’s built upon earlier cases to guard against what Hamilton referred to as “arbitrary discretion in the courts.”

However, about 40 years ago a clever guy named Antonin Scalia figured out a way to get around this problem and be as arbitrary as he wanted to be, you guessed it, original intent. Those of us who have dedicated our lives to upholding the rule of law frequently refer to Scalia by the legal term: cunt. He was an obnoxious, condescending, ego maniacal cunt who is undoubtedly burning in hell at this moment. (Now, I know a lot of people have strong opinions about Scalia, but I am a legal professional, so I’m keeping it just on the level of indisputable fact. Sorry, if it looks like I’m going easy on him.)

Scalia believed that we do not have to look at that precedent crap, but rather every case should be decided on the “original intent” of the Framers. Because who is better at determining an issue like voting rights than a bunch of slave owners, who wouldn’t let women vote, and who have been dead for two centuries? Surprisingly, it turns out that the Framers really hated monogamous same sex marriage, women going to doctors, and people who like to go to the airport without assault rifles... who knew?!?

Neil Gorsuch is in consideration for one reason and one reason only: his opinion in the Hobby Lobby case. Gorsuch agreed that “religious liberty” shielded private companies from complying with the Obamacare provision that required health insurers to provide contraception. In his opinion he stated “every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.” (Clearly, he is an elegant writer, but that does not mean he is the best one for the job.)

Of course, Republicans want to use the religious liberty bullshit to push back on marriage equality. Essentially, they want to make it legal for Tammy Church Lady to refuse to sell gay guys a wedding cake. Now, unless gay men have decided they want some kitsch tacky wedding nowadays I really don’t think this is a big issue for your average Christian baker, but hey that’s an awesome reason to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

Gorsuch hasn’t authored any opinions on abortion, but I’m pretty sure he’d find a way for the Framers to be a’gin it.

The other option is Tom Hardiman. Everyone is making a big deal out of the fact that Hardiman did not go to an Ivy League law school. Now, I wouldn’t equate Georgetown to taking night school classes at the learning annex, but yeah, it’s not Harvard I suppose.

Hardiman is known for being friendly to cops. He authored opinions supporting strip searches at prisons and upholding the exclusion of cell phone footage taken of an arrest. The cell phone thing is concerning until you read the opinion. It’s MUCH more narrow than it’s billed. It just upheld the trial court’s finding that there was no proof of the chain of custody so they couldn’t say it had not been tampered with. Hardiman also wrote an opinion striking down the City of Philadelphia’s ban on cops giving money to the political action committee of their union. Again, that opinion was lauded as pro-cop, but if you read it I think it can be more accurately classified as pro-free speech, perhaps even pro-union.

He also wrote one an opinion striking down a municipal ordinance that required someone seeking a gun permit to prove a “substantial need” for it. The opinion was billed as pro-gun, but it was just common sense. I’m the biggest gun control advocate out there, but that ordinance was just facially unconstitutional. Until they remove the Second Amendment, you got to apply it on some level.

Hardiman has never written an opinion touching on abortion or marriage equality. Moreover, he has not discussed the subject or his feelings on Originalism, the easiest means to spot modern legal cuntery.

Hardiman does have one powerful ally in his corner. Now, I know it’s hard to believe that someone from Trump’s gene pool could be competent and intelligent, but his sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, is actually a justice on the 3rd Circuit with Hardiman and is reportedly a big fan.

The great hope with any Republican nominee is that he (and I say ‘he’ because, come on, Trump’s not going to appoint a woman; it’s just too hard for him to determine how good her breasts look under those robes) will be another Souter. With Gorsuch, there’s no chance. He’s a proud Scalia clone and has been sucking up to the right wing forever in hopes of this chance. But, Hardiman, meh... probably not, but not definitely not.

It would be very hard to appoint another Souter because of the way we look at SCOTUS appointments now. Bush Sr. and Ford were both looking to appoint someone who was a very competent jurist, but without any controversies so he would actually be confirmed by the Senate easily. Whenever Republicans nominate someone just upon their merit, we’ve got a chance for another Souter.

Look at the last two Republican nominees: Alito and Roberts. Alito was nominated SOLELY because he wrote the dissenting opinion in the landmark abortion rights case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That is THE only reason he was nominated; to make Pro-Lifers happy. As such, he hasn’t done anything unpredictable yet.

Roberts on the other hand was Bush’s first appointee and was picked to fill O’Connor’s seat. As such, largely because he was replacing the first woman to serve on the court with a middle aged white guy, there was a push to nominate someone who was unquestionably qualified. I don’t agree with his positions, but you cannot argue that Roberts was absolutely qualified for the job. And, while he has been reliably conservative, he did support the Affordable Care Act TWICE. Which means he’s a Leninist, pedophile pornographer in the eyes of most conservatives.

So, keep your fingers crossed for Hardiman tonight. There’s always a hope we might get a new Souter, but in the very least another Roberts is a helluva lot better than another Scalia!

1 note · View note