Recently a friend of ours who has a Ph.D. in Medieval
Philosophy and who teaches at a Jesuit institution of higher learning (no, not
Georgetown), read an essay on the trial of Socrates that very nearly cost him
his hair and eyesight. He was tempted to
tear out the former and gouge out the latter after reading such gems as:
• “The trial of Socrates during Roman times.”
• “.
. . how much he appreciated and in a way admired the young followers or pupils
he had throughout Rome.”
• “.
. . and how he had traveled to Rome to try and find a man that was smarter than
him.”
• “.
. . his favorite activity was to go around Rome . . .”
And at least four additional references to Rome. (Someone did remark, however, that everything
prior to AD 500 is considered “Roman Times.”
If you subscribe to the Greek Gazette, you’re out of luck.)
Stop and think for a moment, though. That’s not so bad.
Of course, Sir Percy Blakeney, a.k.a. “The Scarlet
Pimpernel,” told the Prince Regent when Prinny suggested that a new coat was “not
so bad,” “My dear sir. In all the world
there is nothing quite so bad as something that is ‘not so bad’.”
Anyway, let’s consider the trial of Socrates in Roman times
from the point of view of the accounting concept of materiality.
The individual billing himself as the “Premier Catholic
economist in America” (begging the question as to what the heck “Catholic
economics” is, and when was it baptized and confirmed, and how come we weren’t
invited to the First Communion Bash), claims that FDR was influenced by Quadragesimo Anno in designing and
implementing the New Deal.
The New Deal was designed in large measure by Adolf Berle
and Alvin (“I am not a chipmunk”) Hansen.
Their thought was formed by the growth of legal positivism and the
influence of Keynes. Legal positivism
got its toehold in the early 19th century, and Keynes’s economic thought was
fully formed by 1915.
Quadragesimo Anno
was issued in mid-1931. It was then that
Msgr. John A. Ryan (a.k.a., “The Right Reverend New Dealer” and “Monsignor New
Deal”) immediately seized on it as supporting what Dr. Franz H. Mueller
described as Ryan’s “corporatist” approach and vast increase in State
power. Ironically, evidence suggests
that Quadragesimo Anno was written in
part to counter Ryan’s influence. . . .
Anyway, this is an error of 15 years in putting the alleged
effect before the cause. (Time travel!!
Yay!!!! Screw the laws of thermodynamics!!!!!!!!!) Now, from 2006 or so when we saw the claim
linking FDR and QA and 1931 is 75 years.
15 is 1/5 or 20% of 75, meaning a 20% error is okay . . . even if cause
follows effect.
Socrates took his swig of hemlock in 399 BC, having been
born in 469, evidently living backwards as so many of today’s academics
do. Call the fatal imbibing 400 BC to
make the calculation easier. Putting the
event in AD 500 is 900 years off, give or take a month or so. From AD 2000 (rounding again) to 400 BC is
2,400 years. 900 is 37.5% of 2,400. This is close enough to 20% for government
work and academia. The error is
therefore within acceptable parameters.
Oh, you are whining about the fundamental falsity of the
underlying premise? What are you, some
kind of nut? How did you ever get a
Ph.D.?
#30#
