Craigside Chat 3: Talking Shop

To continue what has become a much enjoyed tradition, here is a conversation on philosophy:

J:  Dad's reading your book by Epictetus Craig.  I was reading it earlier.  The first page sounds an awfully lot like the serenity prayer.  

After reading a few sentences, Dad says "it does sound familiar."  

J:  Epictetus is like your modern self-help book.

C:  That's exactly what it is.  

Dad continues to read passages from Enchiridion:  

Of things some are in our power, and others are not.  In our power are opinion, movement towards a thing, desire aversion (turning from a thing); and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices (magisterial power), and in a word, whatever are not our own acts.  And the things in our power are by nature free, not subject to restraint nor hindrance: but the things not in our power are weak, slavish, subject to restraint, in the power of others.  ... When you think the things which are by nature slavish to be free, and the things which are in the power of others to be your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will blame both gods and men: but if you think that only which is your own to be your own, and if you think that what is another's, as it really is, belongs to another, no man will ever compel you, no man will hinder you, you will never blame any man, you will accuse no man, you will do nothing involuntarily (against your will), no man will harm you, you will have no enemy, for you will not suffer any harm.  P. 11

Di:  I agree to some degree.  It seems like a very rational way of looking at things, but also rather simplistic.  It doesn't seem to take into account both the positive and negative ways in which others can affect what happens to you, and vice versa.  

C:  Soon you'll read passages about gladiators.  

Dad:  Stoics admired the gladiators for their bravery in life.  In face of certain death, gladiators were known to glance away, so as to willingly expose their neck for the final blow.

J:   Why did the reference to gladiators resonate with you?

C:  Well, because, at the time, I was working in a not-so-favorable environment.  

J:  Are there other books with similar themes to which you are drawn?

C:  Yeah, Seneca.  I read that around the time of Epictetus (i.e. when he was working).  

Dad:  So you developed stoicism to help you get through certain conditions which you were facing at the time.  

C:  Yeah.  Just a little on Seneca, he was Nero's tutor and was ordered to commit suicide by the Emperor.  He first tried hemlock like Socrates but it didn't work.  Then he tried to slit his wrists, but that didn't work.  He later ended his life by suffocating in a steam room.

J:  I don't hear you mention Socrates much.  Is there a reason?

C:  I just haven't had the opportunity to talk about him.  I like reading Socrates but I'm not sure if I like him as a person.  It's hard to say whether he existed in a coherent form.  People disagree about who he was, similar to Jesus.  It's not clear what he was like.  

J:  Do you like reading Plato?

C:  Yes, but it's a different kind of philosophy from Seneca.  I read Plato, but I use Seneca to guide my life.  

Emily:  How has Seneca influenced your life?

C:  Seneca taught me the usefulness of writing, especially writing about one's life and travels - like writing myself letters.  

D:  Is there a reason why you seem to be influenced so much by Western philosophy and not Eastern?

C:  No, not really.  

J:  Maybe it's because college courses favor Western thinkers?

C:  That's part of it.

C:  But back to what I was saying, I don't share the same ideology as Socrates and Plato.  They believe in an afterlife, of an ideal world of forms and then a separate material world.  I think there's just one world.

C:  Can I rest from my quiz?

J:  (We laugh.)  Of course, C, we're just chatting.  This isn't meant to be a quiz.  We were just discussing your book.  Please don't feel obligated to talk.  

 C:  (Almost without pause) I suppose what I object most to Plato is the concept of Platonic forms, and especially, how that applies to Platonic law.  

Di:  Plato came up with the concept of chairness, right?  

C:  Yeah.

Dad:  Chairness, according to Plato, referred to the concept that things in the real world are pale reflections of ideal forms that exist in some higher realm.  

Di:  Yes, as in there is a prototypical chair and every other chair is just a reflection of it.

(Erin entered the room from doing the cats. Later, she sarcastically joked that she heard chairs and chairness and was about to interject with commentary on various ergonomic chairs).

C:  I'm not an idealist.  Just as I disagree with Plato's chairness, stretching the concept to issues in the law, I don't believe there is something like ‘tortness' or ‘contractness' or a set of species frozen in time.  Like biology, the law adapts and changes over time.  I'm an evolutionist with regards to the law.  

J:  So you have used Plato to help form your economic loss rule?

C:  Yes, to some extent.  There's no fixed law, it's ever-changing, nor is there an ideal law.  I suppose I'm a realist, and not a formist.  

D:  There is no perfect law.  Law is perfect in the sense it meets the needs of the people using it.  

C:  Realism, in terms of a theoretical position, means that law is really what we make of it.  Legal concepts are of our own making; they aren't out there like "chairness" waiting for us to discover.  We make it.

Emily:  They aren't floating out there.  

Dad:  Quoting a former Supreme Court judge, "the law isn't a brooding omnipresence in the sky."

(Craig mentions that he's tired, so we put him to bed.)

C:  I'm glad you wrote this down because what we talked about really defines me.  This is how I want people to remember me.  

D:  I'm just surprised you were actually the one to cut the conversation short.   

~E, J, D, Dad, and Emily

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That Craig is spending his last days pontificating about Seneca and stoicism, Plato and the concept of chairness, and how all of it ties into the law is a testament to his love for philosophy and for thinking, as well as an indication of his deep-seeded nerdiness.  As we asked Dad, "what in the world happened between birthing Craig and yanking out the rest of us?"  To give us credit, we're all 'deep thinkers,' but Craig is truly in a class of his own.  Dad knows.  He spent many-a-nights discussing the ins and outs of Star Trek episodes, passages from the Bible, and philosophical thoughts with Craig.  Remembering long-winded conversations with his only boy makes Dad red faced and teary eyed from laughter.  We've always teased Craig about his passion for oratory. Earnest does not even begin to describe.  

Craig Kennedy, whom I love very much, has a penchant for talking.  He could spend hours ‘teaching' us philosophical concepts or the economic loss rule, whether we liked it or not.  We were Craig's start-up school, where he tested new theories and concepts before taking them public.  Much to his surprise, he often found a feisty force to debate the counterargument to his thesis, if only to get under his skin.  While his role was to teach, our role was to poke holes and, of course, to tease.  And he loved it.  Our relationship was such that, we could ‘take the piss' out of each other and still respect one another.  We strengthened our sibling bonds and kept ourselves grounded by calling someone out on their pseudo-pretentious rants.  

Preaching philosophy is quintessential Craig.  What once poured out of him like water through a sieve now trickles out, like water trapped behind a concrete dam.  They drip over the top when the waters are full and with energy.  Before this week, those moments were rare.  Within the last few days, he's shared his thoughts more freely - and coherently.  Ever ready with a pen and a notebook, we rarely miss an opportunity to scribble down his words, or capture an odd moment.  If only we had logged his thoughts before he was diagnosed with cancer.  We would have books and books of material.  

For Craig to chat on as he did was impressive, especially since today was only so-so compared to the days before.  After spending a few moments this morning perched at the edge of his bed, Craig spent most of the day lying virtually flat.  He seemed to be in more pain unlike the days before, and had to give himself extra bumps of morphine to help him get comfortable.   His breathing is still hovering around five breaths per minute, which is low, but at least regular.  His breaths have yet to dip below five.  

Like most Mondays, Sandy, Craig's hospice nurse, stopped by for a visit.  Unlike her previous visits, she seemed more subdued and even solemn.  She took a seat on Craig's bed as we briefed her on Craig's symptoms.  For what seemed like ages, Sandy watched Craig's breaths as he slept.  After a few moments of silence, Sandy informed us that Craig's ear lobes had curled inward, which is an indication of dehydration, and possibly, another sign that Craig is near the end of his process.  As we tried to process her latest news, Sandy leaned in to whisper in Craig's ear as if sensing that Craig wouldn't respond.  Almost immediately, Craig said "oh, hello."  Classic.  He clearly surprised her.

Patchy breathing.  Creeping mottling. Receding ear lobes.  For anyone, these signs would be serious, but as we noted earlier, "it's Craig."  He's defied all odds -- better we take each day as it comes.  -- J