I just learned – from my wife, who also just noticed this – that John Edwards’ favorite book is The Trial of Socrates.
This is I.F. Stone’s masterful 1988 philosophic investigation, published a year before his death at 82, about why Socrates allowed himself to die. Why he drank the hemlock, after Crito (according to Plato) had given his old friend Socrates a chance to escape. Why he allowed himself to go to trial in the first place, rather than quietly quit Athens. Why Socrates went out of his way to antagonize a jury which, by most accounts, was not really out to sentence the great philosopher to death.
Stone, a journalist gadfly and publisher of I.F. Stone’s Weekly from 1953-1971, had given up contemporary journalism, taught himself ancient Greek, and devoted himself to understanding what had gone wrong back in ancient Athens - what had driven the world’s first recorded democracy to kill someone who even then was recognized by many as a world-class thinker. Stone’s conclusion, based on his fresh reading, was astonishing: Socrates had allowed the Athenians to bring him to trial, had to some extent even provoked the capital verdict, and then accepted it, because he loathed democracy, and wanted to embarrass it – show the world and subsequent history just how corrupt a democratic system could be.
I had never bought Plato’s account of the last days of Socrates. From the first I read and discussed it, in Professor Henry Magid’s "Introduction to Philosophy" class that I took as a freshman at the City College of New York in 1963, I didn’t believe it – didn’t believe that Socrates wouldn’t have taken Crito up on his good offer, to continue his philosophy in a city other than Athens, rather than submit to the painful, unjust death of hemlock. So when I first came upon Stone’s book in 1988, I was delighted.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Which brings us back to John Edwards. What does his putting Stone's The Trial of Socrates at the top of his list tell us about this candidate for President?
It tells us that his handlers think that putting the book on his list will win him votes from northeastern leftist elitists who tend to write off southerners like Edwards as not sufficiently intellectual for them. It's clearly a contrived politicall strategy to even release a reading list.
Dave
2 - Paul Levinson
Dave - and you know this for a fact? I guess the cynics are your favorite branch of philosophy ...
You know, as I said in my post, the book came out in 1988, is not talked about much any more - which is too bad, because it is a superb book - but I really doubt that any one would be put it on a list today as savvy political move.
3 - Clavos
Paul wrote,
Dave...I guess the cynics are your favorite branch of philosophy ...
Well, Edwards IS a personal injury lawyer...
4 - Paul Levinson
Dave wrote: It's clearly a contrived political strategy to even release a reading list.
Dave - your comment was so enjoyable, I thought I'd read it again...
And the above means, what ... you prefer candidates who are illiterate?
I guess that would explain your support of the incumbent...
5 - Lumpy
It's been my experience that excessive reading in politics leads to the degradation of individual and original thought, leaving you a zombie full of ideology instead of questions.
6 - Paul Levinson
Lumpy wrote: It's been my experience that excessive reading in politics leads to the degradation of individual and original thought, leaving you a zombie full of ideology instead of questions.
No kidding? And what experience is that?
7 - Dave Nalle
Dave - and you know this for a fact?
I know for a fact that other candidates have released or 'leaked' reading lists to try to enhance their appearance of intellectualism, whether to counter an impression that they are idiots who can't read, or to suck up to a constituency which might have similar reading interests.
I guess the cynics are your favorite branch of philosophy ...
Hardly. One can be cynical without favoring it as a philosophy. For a philosophy I'll stick with Stoicism.
And the above means, what ... you prefer candidates who are illiterate?
No, I'd prefer candidates who don't think they need to tell us what they read for us to take them seriously.
I guess that would explain your support of the incumbent...
Case in point. Bush has leaked info on what he's reading from time to time to counter those who claim he's not a reader or not at all intellectual. Is it good when Edwards does it but not when Bush does it?
Dave
8 - Paul Levinson
Dave wrote: Case in point. Bush has leaked info on what he's reading from time to time to counter those who claim he's not a reader or not at all intellectual. Is it good when Edwards does it but not when Bush does it?
Not at all - I'm happy to learn anything I can about leaders and potential leaders - including what they read, or even what they say they read.
I do have a problem with Bush's reading materials, though...
9 - Dave Nalle
Well here you go, Paul. President Bush's official reading list from last year:
And I freely admit to having read only one book on the list - you can guess which one. I'm not a big fan of biographies.
Dave
10 - Paul Levinson
Good to see that he's branched out... I'm happy to see the Salt and the Inlfuenza books on the list, even if Bush didn't read them...
11 - Rodney Welch
I'm in agreement with Dave that it's likely just an election year ploy, because candidates are always releasing lists like this to show they're bright and well-informed -- and, in truth, some are. Kennedy started the trend, I think; he'd let it be known that he enjoyed reading Norman Mailer (as Mailer was only too happy to report.)
It wouldn't surprise me if Edwards read or liked the Stone book or could discuss it; so could a lot of people, as that was a fairly popular book. As for what it "says" about him -- well, let's just say it says he wants to win the intellectual vote, and Paul Levinson's comments would probably give his handlers a triple orgasm.
But Dave, I must ask, do you really buy that whole Bush's reading list business? I think it was just made up or, let's say, heavily exaggerated. He claimed that by August of last year, he had read 60 books to Karl Rove's 50, and some of those books are pretty long and involved. Mao is 832 pages, Alexander II is 480 pages, and the Oppenheimer is 784 pages; even if you cut some slack for footnotes and annotations, those are three big books, and Bush would have had to be guzzling down a book and a half or so a week on top of running the war and dealng with Congress and flying all the place and dealing with the press and all the other stuff Presidents do.
12 - Paul Levinson
Rodney wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if Edwards read or liked the Stone book or could discuss it; so could a lot of people, as that was a fairly popular book. As for what it "says" about him -- well, let's just say it says he wants to win the intellectual vote, and Paul Levinson's comments would probably give his handlers a triple orgasm.
Actually, although Stone's book was well-received and widely discussed at the time of its publication - 1988 - it is rarely talked about now.
As an example, in the 30+ reviews of my 2006 novel, The Plot to Save Socrates, I don't recall a single mention of Stone's book, and even though many of the reviews were erudite, and even though Stone's book plays a significant role in mine.
If Edwards and his advisors were looking for an instanly recognizable book to bestoy intellectual creds, there are dozens of better candidates, such as Guns, Germs and Steel.
You just are not comfortable with accepting the obvious conclusion here: Edwards' says this book is his favorite because it reflects the values that he champions.
13 - Dave Nalle
Kennedy started the trend, I think
To give credit where due, I think the trend likely started with Theodore Roosevelt who WROTE more books than most candidates have read.
But Dave, I must ask, do you really buy that whole Bush's reading list business?
Yes, I'm inclined to buy it. Reading biographies fits with his personality, and from all accounts he reads them rather slowly.
Bush would have had to be guzzling down a book and a half or so a week on top of running the war and dealng with Congress and flying all the place and dealing with the press and all the other stuff Presidents do.
Perhaps he spends a lot of time with them in the bathroom? I know I get my best reading done there.
What I want to see is Newt Gingrich's reading list. That ought to be scary.
Dave
14 - Paul Levinson
Dave - so, seriously, you discount all of the talk about Bush prefering people to books, about not reading newspapers, etc? Admittedly, some of this may have been joking, but it's pretty widely accepted that Bush doesn't read very much.
(Not that that is some crime, but it would be inconsistent with the posted list.)
15 - Rodney Welch
TR read and wrote books in an era when it likely didn't surprise that many people that a President could form a sentence. Grant wrote a great one, too. Lincoln was a great writer. Presidents used to highly literate people.
If Bush reads slowly, then I'm even more inclined to think he didn't read these books at all. I think Bush has a very loose relationship with the truth. When he says he "read" a book, it might be the same as what you and I mean when we say we "started" a book, or glanced at a book, or bought a book. I do not believe he read those books. I think he probably bought 60, read a handful, and then claimed to have read 60.
16 - Paul Levinson
Rodney wrote: If Bush reads slowly...
I'm reminded of what Karl Popper, the British philosopher, used to say - that we have too many courses in speed reading, and could use some training in slow reading, so we could make better sense of what we read...
Except I don't think Popper quite had Bush's kind of slow reading in mind...
17 - Arch Conservative
My view on Edwards as a "political opportunist at all costs" was pretty much solidified between his stating that "When John Kerry is president people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out the wheelchair and walk," and when he held a press conference for his wife's cancer.
The Christopher Reeve remark is particularly aggregious in several ways. First it implies that people opposed to government funding of stem cell research are opposed to stem cell research in general. This is a misleading play on words by the left. Most people in the GOP/conservative base do not actually oppose stem cell research on existing cell lines. What they oppose is federal funding for stem cell research and the creation and destruction of new life for the sole purpose of stem cell research. The second point is that Edwards, not a a physician or medical expert in stem cell research himself, is pretty much saying that a vote for Kerry guarentees that complex medical issues will be solved through stem cell research.
Then there was the whole press conference to discuss his wife's cancer. I viewed this as a personal matter and saw the press conference as wholly unecessary. it would have been fine if he had mentioned the fact that his wife had cancer at some point on the campaign trail or at an appearance...especially if asked about it or lead to discuss it. But the dog and pony show that they put on was clearly intended to make him look like some kind of great family man and garner sympathy votes.
18 - Lumpy
Look some people are readers and some are not and it has little to do with intelligence and much more to so with upbringing and personality. By all non partisan assessments bush is not particularly stupid. If he bought 60 books and read even just the dozen listed earlier, that's not so bad for a0busy guy.
19 - Paul Levinson
AC wrote: The Christopher Reeve remark is particularly aggregious in several ways. First it implies that people opposed to government funding of stem cell research are opposed to stem cell research in general. This is a misleading play on words by the left. Most people in the GOP/conservative base do not actually oppose stem cell research on existing cell lines. What they oppose is federal funding for stem cell research and the creation and destruction of new life for the sole purpose of stem cell research...
Come on, AC. Surely you see that if one is in favor of stem cell research - which I frankly don't see how any rational, caring human being could oppose - then one would want the government to do all its power to promote it.
After all, the primary purpose of government is to protect the lives of citizens.
Then there was the whole press conference to discuss his [Edwards'] wife's cancer. I viewed this as a personal matter and saw the press conference as wholly unecessary. it would have been fine if he had mentioned the fact that his wife had cancer at some point on the campaign trail or at an appearance...especially if asked about it or lead to discuss it. But the dog and pony show that they put on was clearly intended to make him look like some kind of great family man and garner sympathy votes.
You may have viewed this as a personal matter, but apparently it never occurred to you that millions of Americans who have cancer, or have relatives who do, are very interested in what John and Elizabeth Edwards are going through.
It's sad to see Republicans stoop to the level of attacking the Edwards for talking about this.
20 - Dave Nalle
Come on, AC. Surely you see that if one is in favor of stem cell research - which I frankly don't see how any rational, caring human being could oppose - then one would want the government to do all its power to promote it.
Paul, sometimes you seem strangely cloistered over there in the ivory tower of academia. There are plenty of people who support all sorts of things wholeheartedly who at the same time don't believe that it's the government's job to pay for them with our money. The theory many of us subscribe to is called 'capitalism' and operates on the assumption that if something like stem cell research will help a lot of people then there's a commercial market for its products so private enterprise will be eager to foot the bill for it.
Dave
21 - Dave Nalle
One other thought on Edwards. I was thinking about what I would say if asked to name a single book which I particularly liked, and I don't think I'd be able to pick a single book. For that matter I don't think anyone who really reads SHOULD be able to pick a single book. The fact that Edwards can name this single, specific book above all others is, in and of itself, suspicious.
Dave
22 - Paul Levinson
Dave wrote: The theory many of us subscribe to is called 'capitalism' and operates on the assumption that if something like stem cell research will help a lot of people then there's a commercial market for its products so private enterprise will be eager to foot the bill for it.
I subscribe to capitalism and the free enterprise system as well - read my The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution for details - or, for that matter, my Realspace: The Fate of Physical Presence, where I talk about the need to rely not government but free enterprise for space travel.
But, for some reason, you seem to think that government funding of stem cell research is incompatible with, or will be destructive of, commercial support for that research. And that's just plain and simply not true.
23 - Profull Gupta
An intellectual in the office of president is really not bad ,is it ? Americans in the last twenty years (since Ronald Reagan ) dont like intellectuals ! Even Bill Clinton did not look intellectual . He was another politician ! So if we do have an intelelctual in office .....it might change the way we conduct our foreign policies !
24 - Clavos
I come pretty close to just one American book with Atlas Shrugged.
But, then I think of Huckleberry Finn which I've read several times.
And then there's The Old man And The Sea, and To Kill A Mockingbird, and The Great Gatsby, and The Sound And The Fury, and, and...
And I haven't even left the US yet...
I see what you mean, Dave.
25 - Paul Levinson
Dave wrote: One other thought on Edwards. I was thinking about what I would say if asked to name a single book which I particularly liked, and I don't think I'd be able to pick a single book. For that matter I don't think anyone who really reads SHOULD be able to pick a single book. The fact that Edwards can name this single, specific book above all others is, in and of itself, suspicious.
First, Edwards listed his top three books (look at his site).
Second, I don't get it - what's suspicious?