“I do not understand; I pause; I examine”

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) has been recognized as one of the most significant philosophers of the 16th century. Born into a privileged family and raised during the period of the French Renaissance, he was educated in a private boarding school where all his lessons were taught in Latin. Because of his family’s great wealth, he was free to devote the first half of his life to jobs serving the public sector; including volunteering as a legal counselor, advisor to King Charles IX and mayor of the town of Bordeaux.

In 1571, at the age of 38, he retired from public life to his estate, where he isolated himself from all social and family affairs so that he could dedicate his time to reading, meditating, and writing. It was in his castle’s round library room – which contained more than 1,500 books – where Montaigne probed his mind and produced two highly influential books titled simply Essays; which he published in 1580. Montaigne wrote that “I am myself the matter of my book“, and his stated goal was to describe humans, and especially himself, with utter frankness.

Some of the key topics Montaigne explored in his various essays include:

• Mankind’s dangerously inflated claims to knowledge and certainty
• The assertion that there is no greater achievement than the ability to accept one’s limitations
• The problem of trying to locate truth in commonly accepted ideas that are false or unexamined – especially since many things we held yesterday as articles of faith today we know as fables.
• The importance of freeing ourselves from outside influences, customs and opinions
• His belief that the best path to understanding truth is by a careful exploration of one’s own body-and-mind.

Montaigne believed that the self, even with all its imperfections, was the best possible place to begin the search for truth, even though our identities can’t be defined as a stable thing because it is always changing. The most obvious example to him was the struggle of living with the infirmities of a human body. “Our bodies smell, ache, sag, pulse, throb and age regardless of the best desires of our mind“. It is only in acceptance of these traits that we can remain faithful to the truth of one’s being.

Montaigne isolated himself while writing his Essays but maintained the importance of maintaining contact with the outside world of other people and events because one can learn much that is useful from others. He described human beings as having a front room, facing the exterior street, where they meet and interact with others, but also with a back room where they are able to retreat back into their interior private self to reflect upon the vagaries of human experience and consider how it impacts their intimate identity.

Montaigne was refreshingly different from other philosophers and academics of his day who believed that their advanced powers of reason were a divine gift that gave them mastery over the world and a happiness that was denied to lesser educated creatures. He mocked those philosophers who were proud of their big brains and his writings come across as wise and intelligent – but also as modest and eager to debunk the pretensions of learning.

He wrote of his fellow academics and philosophers: “On our highest thrones in the world we are seated, still, on our arses” and, “…in practice, thousands of little women in their villages have lived more gentle, more equable and more constant lives than us.

He mocked books that were difficult to read. He found Plato boring and just wanted to have fun with books. “I’m not prepared to bash my brains out for anything, not even for learning’s sake – however precious it may be. If one book tires me, I just take up another“.

[note: I must admit that this sentiment makes me feel somewhat better about my decision to hold off reading the notorious difficult novel Ulysses by Irish writer James Joyce].

Montaigne was honest about the limitations and usefulness of his own intellect and attacked his prestigious academic friends for studying difficult things that were not useful to our lives.

“Difficulty is a coin which the learned conjure with so as not to reveal the vanity of their studies. Intellectuals would prefer you to study other people’s books way before we study our own minds. If man were wise, he would gauge the true worth of anything by its usefulness and appropriateness to his life”

I can’t help but wonder if Montaigne’s admiration for the working class – and life’s simple things – stemmed from the decision his humanist father made to leave him for three years when he was a small boy in the sole care of a peasant family in their town, in order to “draw the boy close to the people, and to the life conditions of the people, who need our help“.

Whatever the reason for his modest and humble personality, Montaigne comes across as one of the world’s first examples of a tolerant mind; a breath of fresh air in the cloistered and snobbish corridors of 16th century academia. He became an inspiration and encouragement to all those who felt put-upon and patronized by the arrogance of self-proclaimed clever people.

Montaigne tells us that each one of us is richer than we think. We may all arrive at wise ideas if we cease to think of ourselves as unsuited to the task just because we haven’t been classically trained or happen to lead an ordinary life.

The inscription Montagne had placed on the crown of the book shelf in his library was “I do not understand; I pause; I examine“. He had the inscription placed there to remind him of the limitations of his own knowledge and to caution him about the dangers that can result when one hastily forms opinions without careful consideration of all the facts.

Too many people today, especially since the advent of social media – which allows anybody to pass themselves off as experts – form their beliefs by adopting commonly accepted ideas or by making broad generalizations. Outside influences and political talking points trigger knee-jerk reactions from those who fail to take the time to study all sides of a topic – or to consider what is the truth and what is morally just.

It would be refreshing if more of us today, before forming our opinions, would like Montaigne, acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge, admit that we don’t fully understand a topic and then take time to examine all aspects of the issues in question using qualified experts in the field as our guides.

The danger of operating a society with uninformed or half-informed subjects was identified as early as the 2nd century by the Roman writer Publilius Syrus who said that it is “Better to be ignorant of a matter than to half know it“.

Today there are so many competing sources of information, where anyone with a computer can offer their uninformed opinions. Few people check the credentials of writers or the authenticity of the facts, and foreign actors can easily spread misinformation along via unregulated social networks.

The next time we are asked to form an opinion or make a decision about subjects we do not fully understand, we would do well to follow the sage advice of Montaigne: Do not let somebody else speak for you and do not fall prey to the pressures of biased outside influences. Instead take a moment to pause, study all sides of the issue, consult qualified experts and sources, and endeavor to reach true understanding.

If you can summon the conviction and discipline to do this, then you will be able to take solace knowing that even though you can not govern external events, you at least govern yourself.

The Dirt of Gossip Blows into my Face

Frank Sinatra was my Dad’s favorite singer and one of the most popular and influential musical artists of the 20th century, selling more than 150 million records during his long music career. His rise to fame began in the the 1940’s and lasted all the way into the 1990’s, when my Mom and Dad actually got to see him perform live on a concert stage in Worcester, MA.

Nostalgic memories of my Dad cheerfully crooning old Sinatra tunes led me to a Netflix documentary called Sinatra: All Or Nothing At All; which documents Frank’s 60 year career from its humble beginnings to his life as a music giant, touching on all the personal battles he struggled with along the way.

Francis Albert Sinatra was born in Hoboken New Jersey in 1915, the only child of Italian immigrants. His energetic and driven mother and his illiterate father were the proprietors of a tavern in Hoboken. Frank spent much of his time there after school working on his homework and singing along to the tunes on the bar’s player piano for spare change. He developed an interest in music at a young age, particularly big band jazz, and was especially influenced by the intimate easy listening vocal style of Bing Crosby.

Sinatra got his break fronting popular bandleaders Harry James and Tommy Dorsey and found success as a solo artist in 1941 when he began topping the male singer polls. His appeal to the teenage girls of that time revealed a whole new audience for popular music – which had been recorded mainly for adults up to that time. His popularity became officially known as “Sinatramania” and his bright blue eyes earned him the nickname “Ol’ Blue Eyes“.

Frank never learned how to read music, but he worked very hard to improve his singing abilities by working regularly with a vocal coach. He became known as a perfectionist, renowned for his dress sense and performing presence and insisting on recording all his songs in front of a live band.

Sinatra led a colorful personal life. He was often involved in turbulent affairs with women, had connections to Mafia bosses, and had several violent and well publicized confrontations with journalists and work bosses he felt had crossed him.

Despite the negative publicity, everyone recognized the important contributions Frank Sinatra made to society through his music. He was honored with America’s highest awards and was named by music critic Robert Christgau as “the greatest singer of the 20th century“. He died in 1998 but he remains to this day an iconic and popular figure.

In 1995 a birthday tribute, Sinatra: 80 Years My Way, was broadcast from Los Angeles featuring a star-studded cast of performers singing songs meant to honor the “Chairman of the Board“. I was surprised to learn that Bob Dylan, my favorite artist, was among the cast of performers who appeared on stage that night.

On the surface, it seems like Frank Sinatra and Bob Dylan would be unlikely to have much in common. After all, they come from different generations and practiced totally different musical styles. Frank worked with a big band using his smooth velvet voice to interpret other people’s songs; while Dylan wrote and sung his own material employing his unique rough and weathered blues voice.

But the two artists had great respect for one another and if you dig deep into the life and careers of the two men it is not hard to understand why:

• Both men came from humble beginnings; Frank the son of blue collar workers and Tavern owners in Hoboken NJ and Bob the son of a Hibbing MN Appliance Store owner.
• Both were self-made men who dropped out of school to pursue their musical interests. Frank would sing for free on NY Radio stations and found jobs singing for cigarettes or his supper. Bob hitchhiked across the country singing at Folk Clubs and coffee shops for tips and crashing on friend’s couches in New York’s Greenwich Village.
• Both men had to learn how to cope with the fame and attention that comes with achieving sudden fame and popularity. Sinatra had to travel with bodyguards while Dylan learned to disguise himself in public and hide his family away from the hordes of fans who would show up at his doorstep at all hours of the day and night to ask him his opinions about politics and the meaning of life.
• Both men had a small circle of loyal friends who they trusted, both lived through a series of romantic relationships, and both were known to be moody for wanting to protect their privacy and do things their way.
• Both men spoke out against injustice. Frank publicly championed the rights of all people, regardless of race and set an example by the diverse group of people he associated with in his personal life. Bob wrote the great Civil Rights anthems of the 1960’s that encouraged passing of the landmark 1960’s Civil Rights laws.
• Both men managed to have successful musical careers for more than 60 years. One was simply referred to as “The Voice“; while the other was burdened by the press with the title of the “Voice of his Generation“.
• Both men were primarily responsible for what is known as “The Great American Songbook“. Frank’s iconic singing of the work of the great songwriters from the 1940 and 50’s led to the first Great American Songbook; while Bob Dylan’s original and poetic songs became classics and the key components of America’s second Great American Songbook.
• Both men were honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal and Grammy Lifetime Achievement Awards. Both men were included in Time Magazine’s list of the 20th century’s 100 Most Influential People.

Even though the two men were not close, it is not surprising that they would each have admiration and respect for one another – simply because of the similarities between their life experiences. Dylan once told an amusing story about the first time he met Frank which indicates the two men knew they were made of stuff that was a cut above everyone else.

“We were standing on his patio at night when he took me aside and said, ‘You and me, pal, we got blue eyes, we’re from up there,’ and he pointed to the stars. ‘These other bums are from down here.’ I remember thinking that he might be right.”

Bob Dylan relating what Frank Sinatra said to him at their first meeting

While browsing Youtube, I was happy to stumble across this [video clip] of Bob Dylan singing his song “Restless Farewell” to Frank at his 1995 80th birthday television tribute. The lyrics for this poignant song are reprinted below:

Restless Farewell by Bob Dylan

Oh, all the money that in my whole life I did spend
Be it mine right or wrongfully
I let it slip gladly to my friends
To tie up the time most forcefully
But the bottles are done
We've killed each one
And the table's full and overflowed
And the corner sign says it's closing time
So I'll bid farewell and be down the road

Oh, ev'ry girl that ever I've touched
I did not do it harmfully
And ev'ry girl that ever I've hurt
I did not do it knowin'ly
But to remain as friends you need the time
To make amends and stay behind
And since my feet are now fast
And point away from the past
I'll bid farewell and be down the line

Oh, ev'ry foe that ever I faced
The cause was there before we came
And ev'ry cause that ever I fought
I fought it full without regret or shame
But the dark does die
As the curtain is drawn and somebody's eyes 
Must meet the dawn 
And if I see the day, I'd only have to stay
So I'll bid farewell in the night and be gone

Oh, ev'ry thought that's strung a knot in my mind
I might go insane if it couldn't be sprung
But it's not to stand naked under unknowin' eyes
It's for myself and my friends my stories are sung
But the time ain't tall
Yet on time you depend and no word is possessed by no special friend
And though the line is cut, it ain't quite the end
I'll just bid farewell till we meet again

Oh, a false clock tries to tick out my time
To disgrace, distract and bother me
And the dirt of gossip blows into my face
And the dust of rumors covers me
But if the arrow is straight
And the point is slick
It can pierce through dust no matter how thick
So I'll make my stand and remain as I am
And bid farewell and not give a damn

I can’t help thinking that Bob chose to sing this particular song as a farewell because it beautifully captures the independent spirit and steadfast nature of both Frank Sinatra and Bob Dylan; two men who walked in the same shoes, trying to live life to the fullest and navigating the journey on their own terms.

I believe the song captures the essence of both men. Both men lived life generously, sharing their fortune with friends, family and worthy causes. Both men loved greatly and regret past hurts to companions that can’t be undone. Both men picked up the torch to fight battles to overcome injustice, battles that must now be picked up by others. Finally, both men remained true to themselves, refusing to be swayed by public opinion or what impact their actions would have on their popularity.

The last verse is especially striking to me. As Frank Sinatra is nearing the end of his life, does he feel bewildered and bothered by a false clock that is trying to tick out his time? Does he remember all the “dirt of gossip” that blew into his face through the years or think about the “dust of rumors” that seemed to always cover him? If he does, Bob advises Frank not to give a damn about it because Frank was always a straight arrow with a sharp point and “if the arrow is straight and the point is slick it can pierce through dust no matter how thick“.

Maybe the reason both men were able to bust through the dust and dirt that swirled around their life is because when they got up to sing they had a way of capturing the universal emotions of the human spirit in a way that always felt true.

Frank expressed this exact sentiment directly when he was asked about all the gossip and innuendo that always seemed to surround him. He said; “Whatever else has been said about me personally is unimportant. When I sing, I believe I’m honest.“

So, here’s to those two restless spirits, Frank Sinatra and Bob Dylan; may they live forever through their music and may their music continue to remind all of us “other bums” to bravely pursue our lives with authenticity and honesty.

“Seek Moderation in everything, except Knowledge…”

School was not my favorite thing when I was attending grades 1 through 5 at a Catholic elementary school in my hometown – mostly because of the rigors and discipline that were imposed on the students by the Sisters of the Sacred Heart. Those sisters demanded obedience and made embarrassing examples out of any child found to be cutting corners or violating the rules. I did not thrive but I did manage to adapt to that austere school environment.

When I was 12 years old, my parents decided to enroll me in the sixth grade of the local public Elementary school because it was closer to my home and less expensive for my parents – who were doing their best to make ends meet while supporting their large family of 8 children.

I was the new kid in class and it was the first time I was exposed to a teacher who was not a Nun. My teacher, Mr Genaitas, was a man who became the first person in my life, outside my family, to really encourage me and motivate me to want to do my best.

While attending the Catholic elementary school I was just an average student at best – nothing special – but in my new public school surroundings I suddenly found myself at the top of my class, quickly becoming a favorite of my teacher who was delighted by my addition to his class. He pointed me out as an example for the other kids to follow,  awarded me special privileges for my assistance in tutoring other kids and suggested to me additional readings that he thought would challenge me.

I came to realize later in life that I probably owed my sixth grade success, and many of the fruits of my life’s later accomplishments, to the rigor and discipline that I learned at the hands of those Sisters of the Sacred Heart. Despite the negative aspects of the education system employed by the Nuns, they certainly instilled in me the values of hard work and sacrifice that have served me well throughout my whole life. My experience is that the Catholic education system teaches good learning habits that stay with you for life.

The things I got in abundance from Mr Genaitas that I did not get from the Nuns is encouragement, praise, validation and self-esteem. At the end of my sixth grade school year I left for Junior High School filled with confidence and the belief that the direction my life could take had endless possibilities. Sometimes on my way home from Junior High School I would stop by my old 6th grade classroom and visit with Mr Genaitas. He would smile at me proudly and give me advice as I told him about my classes and the subjects I was learning.

Teachers have the power to change a life. I have heard numerous people fondly reminisce about a teacher from their past who they looked up to and who made a positive difference in their life. All it takes is one inspiring teacher but I was truly blessed to have had several such teachers in my life.

A recent event made me realize that it is also possible for students to create a memorable and long-lasting impact on their teachers. I was visiting my 90 year old mother and she told me that she had a chance encounter with my old High School History teacher while shopping at the Grocery store. She said he asked her how I was doing and wondered what I had done with my life, mentioning to her that teaching was always gratifying to him when I was in his class.

I was shocked that he even remembered me. A retired teacher in his late eighties, someone who taught thousands of students throughout his career, remembering me fondly for my participation in a class he taught over 40 years ago.

It brought to mind another teacher who was influential in my life; Dr. Leo Hines, a professor of Medieval Literature at the College I attended. Dr Hines introduced me to the great religious thinkers of the middle ages and challenged his students with lectures that made them think about how those philosophies could be applied in our times. Those discussions came at an important time in my life, at a point when I was learning to put away childish things and become a man of substance.

I was surprised to one day find this note from Dr Hines, along with a magazine article, in my College Campus mailbox. The note was another event for me that demonstrated how teachers especially appreciate students who actively participate in the classroom and who are attentive, curious and eager to learn.

Dear Alan,

Your Christian athleticism puts me in mind of an article of mine published in England about the time you were born. It appeared in The Month, July 7, 1962. Hopkins himself published in this periodical in the mid-nineteenth century.

You always guarantee me an intelligent class, for which I am glad, so I reciprocate herewith by giving you an intelligent gloss on your psyche. I was not aware when I wrote it, of course, that that was my intention.

See you in class.

Best always, Dr Hines

My inherent desire to learn about new things has always come naturally and it has been part of my daily practice to search for things that I can do to increase my knowledge.

You will notice that Aristotle’s advice to “Seek moderation in everything, except knowledge, for virtue is found in the mean between extremes” exempts the search of knowledge as the one thing that people can not do to extreme. Anything else can be done to excess, but not learning, because learning is a treasure that will follow its owner everywhere.

Great and interesting things happen when we are curious and seek knowledge. Albert Einstein said  “I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious” and Walt Disney said “When you’re curious you find lots of interesting things to do”.

I hope I continue to remain curious and seek out knowledge to the end. When we learn new things we nurture growth points that bring new possibilities into our lives. So my advice is to go ahead and take that online physics class, read a book on a new subject, learn a new language, immerse yourself in a different culture, watch an educational documentary, visit a museum, start a new hobby, volunteer to help a charitable organization – always seek out knowledge and truth.

If you do, I’m certain your life will become filled with lots of interesting things to do!

“Get your facts first and then you can distort ’em as much as you please”

As the 2016 election season begins in earnest, and the presidential candidates start flooding the media with numerous facts bolstering their political positions, it would be wise for voters to remember this humorous observation made by Mark Twain noting the tendency politicians have to distort facts to their liking.

Mark Twain also used the famous phrase – “There are three types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics” to describe how statistics are often used to persuade people to believe weak arguments.

Statistics can be powerful when properly applied – simplifying complex data, identifying trends and providing answers to questions that would be otherwise unknowable. Statistics can be improperly applied and misused too – becoming a dangerous mechanism for unscrupulous actors to mislead people for their own personal or political gain.

That is why, as consumers of statistical information, it is important for us to question the validity of statistical data and to insist that the sources of the data explain how the data was derived. There are websites like Politifact and the Washington Post’s Truth Tracker that provide a valuable public service by evaluating statistical claims made by the candidates and reporting on the credibility of their statements.

However, these non-partisan websites should not be a substitute for our own self examination to decide whether or not the facts presented to us should be believed. A good life skill to acquire is the ability to examine the facts presented to us and objectively evaluate the validity of the claim.

In the book “Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking”, Stephen K. Campbell writes that we should ask ourselves five questions whenever we are presented with a statistical fact before we accept it as trustworthy.

QUESTIONS:

1. What kind of reputation does the source of the fact enjoy as a supplier or as an authority on the relevant subject? If the source of the data is not a widely recognized authority with a history of providing accurate data then the validity of the fact should be questioned. 
2. Does the supplier of the fact have an “axe to grind”?  The fact may be tainted by the effects of intentional and unintentional bias based on racial or religious bigotry or  bias based on the desire to sell an idea or commodity. Be skeptical of estimates from sources that have “axes to grind”. Make the source work hard to convince you that their facts are trustworthy.
3. What supporting evidence is offered? When evidence is offered, ask yourself whether it does in fact support the estimates or whether it has been artificially created merely for the sake of making a good impression.
4. Does the underlying methodology behind the statistical facts seem reasonable or are they based on questionable assumptions? Beware of facts based on eccentric theories or from a buildup of previous dubious facts.
5. Do estimates appear plausible? Sometimes common sense and just a little knowledge about the relevant subject is all that is required to strip worthless estimates of their respectable facades.

If you ask yourself these questions and still are not sure whether a fact has merits, it is better to doubt the accuracy of the fact than to believe it.

Both Republicans and Democrats have historically played fast and loose with their statistical facts and both parties are guilty of doctoring statistics to gain political advantage.  For example, I have examined two statistical facts below, one presented by Donald Trump and one presented by Hillary Clinton to see if the facts would pass the trustworthy test questions recommended by Stephen Campbell.

• Trump said that “Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s 50 largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years.”

The data for this statistic does come from a reputable source, The Washington Post; but Trump makes the situation appear more dire than it actually is by cherry picking the data to only select cities that had a rising homicide rates – failing to mention that the overall crime rate for the country as a whole has been declining since the late 90’s. This statistic would fail Campbell’s third question because it was artificially created for the sake of making a good impression.

• Clinton said that “About 1 percent of all gun sellers are responsible for more than half of the guns that are used in crimes”.

There is some truth to this claim. The source of the data is a 2000 report on 1998 gun tracing data produced by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. However, it would be fair to question if this fact from the year 1998 is still valid 18 years later in 2016. It would be impossible to validate this fact today because Congress passed a law in 2003 that forbids the ATF from reporting gun related statistics. This statistic would likely fail Campbell’s fourth question because it is based on a buildup of previous facts that may no longer be valid.

So good luck wading through the avalanche of data and statistics that will be unleashed on the American public over the next three months – and whenever you hear a new statistic it would be good to be skeptical like our former president Ronald Reagan when he advised “Trust but Verify”.