Not finishing “The Machiavellian Moment” by J.G.A. Pocock

I made it fifty pages into The Machiavellian Moment by J.G.A.Pocock and decided it’s not the book for me. I dislike books that are so abstract that it’s possible to read a whole chapter and not have any idea what the author is really saying. Also, Pocock seems to be taking a lot from Aristotle. Sometimes people who get into Aristotle seem to be coming from almost another planet. I have the same feeling about followers of Hegel. I know I probably just have to learn more about philosophy and its different schools of thought, but in the meantime I get lost in all the abstraction. Who says people living in medieval Florence couldn’t think of time much the same way that we do? It seems unlikely to me. They may have had thoughts and values about it that are different from our own, but time itself? Pocock is very definitely an original thinker, but his book is just too much for me. I’m on to historiography, with E.H. Carr’s What is History?, Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories, and Anthony Grafton’s What was History? I hope these guys are on their game and can teach a regular reader like me something about history.

Have this one on my shelf in the to read pile. Might have to dip in.

Been feeling bad about giving up on this one. I usually claim I can read just about anything. Feel free to pass on some pointers (i.e., how to make it through this book), if indeed you do decide to read.

30 pages or so in. I must have had a run at this before because I marked up the text.

It certainly is dense and referential. Not sure I have any advice. Would have to read something like this several times and construct a mind map to follow the argument enough to say anything worthwhile.

Having said that, I might be more open to the possibility that people have differing experiences of time. Not sure what background reading you have, so don't want to make any comments that would restate what you already know and found wanting.

Maybe just a case of agreeing to disagree.

No shame in dropping something you don't find useful.

Just finished Cantor’s How to Study History a book about study skills for incoming history majors. He says (for any history book) read the introduction, the preface, the first chapter and the last chapter before you read all the rest. Once you know where the author is going, it’s easier to understand the book.

If I go back to this one, I might try a method such as that.

Good luck! I hope you finish!

(I do have plans to read philosophy, but have no idea when I will begin. I have apprehensions about a few philosophical schools, but that’s prejudice. Nothing informed.)

Yeah, that is a typical strategy for someone who has to master the literature on a particular subject. Luckily, I just do this for fun so I can poke around at my own pace.

Still thinking about my original post about The Machiavellian Moment - how I rebelled against the idea that different people experienced time differently. May think a bit more about that. Thinking about how older eras kept time by the seasons and the skies.

Maybe a book like, A World Lit Only by Fire, would be a better book for me (judging only by the title, though).

Oh you took the links down? I didn't get a chance to look at those. No worries, just getting back to this and I was interested in taking a look.

Sorry about that. Just felt it was too many words. Though both of these are short articles.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/books/jga-pocock-dead.html#

https://books.google.com/books?id=0121vD9STIMC&pg=PA928#v=onepage&q&...

I’m adding this one. It’s long but I haven’t read it. So, take your chances.

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/11/what-is-a-republican-reflections-on-j...

>9 March-Hare:
March-Hare, if you’re out there, I’m wondering if you have a preference? Would you wish to commit to reading The Machiavellian Moment? And would you prefer to read it on your own or read it together roughly at the same time?

I could do either.

If I’m going to read Pocock, I might just as well read Leo Strauss, as well, since they’re both so difficult. Otherwise, my plans are to read Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories and, after that, What Was History? by Anthony Grafton. (I’ve just finished, What Is History?, by E.H. Carr. They’re related).

Right now, my Machiavelli list is getting longer, and I want to make progress, so I can move on to my bigger goal, the English Reformation. But I’m willing to do anything.

If you’d rather not partake of any of this, that’s okay, too.

I'm game. Not sure if I can stick to a schedule if you are going fast but I will definitely tag along. I read some of Pocock yesterday and I'm really enjoying it. I plan to read some of the surrounding literature too. Just pulled Revolution of the Saints off the shelf a few minutes ago. Would also have a go at Baron, Hill etc.

Great! We don’t have to be on the same pages, or anything. If you have questions, frustrations, or even just notes, go ahead and share. I’ll do the same.

I found a book at the used bookstore in Chicago called Reading Machiavelli, John P. McCormick which I may use to help with understanding. It has chapters on Pocock and Strauss.

Pocock is a hoot! This should be fun!

(In general, I’ll try to read about 50 to 100 pages a week. I probably won’t go slower than that. If that’s too fast or too slow, just let me know. I don’t think we need to be on the same page.)

(I just finished Hans Baron - The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance - the focus of it is around the events of 1402 and writings after that. That’s a little early for Machiavelli, but the political thoughts (Leonardo Bruni and others) certainly apply. Bruni is mentioned in the chapter headings of The Machiavellian Moment.)

I think Pocock leans on Baron's notion of civic humanism. I'm about 80 pages in at the moment.

Taking a dog leg into The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol 1 for orientation.

(I’ve written this somewhat rant on the first chapter. I hope you don’t mind. Let me know what you find in Skinner.)

***

I’m still chafing at this idea that the Medieval mind somehow stood outside of time. Pocock describes what he calls “timelessness” by saying, “The truth of a self-evident proposition was self-contained and did not depend upon contingent recognition of some other proposition, still less upon evidence transitory in time and space; it was in this self-contained quality that timelessness largely consisted.” (p.4). Does he think people in the medieval mindset couldn’t think of contingencies to some of the things they were taught? just because their God was eternal, and he himself stood outside of time?

I’m sure people did experience time differently - experiencing time around the seasons, the stages of life (birth-marriage-children-old age-death), around yearly festivals, even astronomy. The average person, though, had no recourse to Aristotle. That was for the nobility, and the monks and bishops.

And what about different kinds of time? How about narrative time? (Are there different kinds of time?) If you read in the Book of Acts in the Bible, Luke tells the story of Paul’s rather eventful voyage to Rome. A storm drives the boat off-course; they jetison the cargo; eventually they land on the island of Malta, crushing the ship, but without loss of life. Paul had a word from God that they’d all survive, but does this mean he didn’t feel the danger and suspense of this sequence of events which so tested all of them on the boat? (Acts 27). Even with all the prophecy (prior to this) predicting that Paul would be bound, and the word which the Book of Acts claims came from Christ that he would be a witness to Rome, there is still this suspense on the boat.

Pocock also writes, “It is a dialectical paradox that while the doctrine of salvation ultimately made the historical vision possible, for centuries it operated to deny that possibility.” (p. 31) I’d like to hear more about this statement. I wish Pocock would give more examples, so we could know for sure what he is talking about. Then, he says, “History, in short, acquired meaning through subordination to eschatology.” Largely, this is true, as Christian history will always put God in ultimate control. But eschatology suggests end-times. Is it possible for Christian history to also just distinguish between good and bad? I don’t trust Pocock’s gambit into abstraction, here. He then says, (p. 36), “the problem living in the historical present is the problem of living with an unrevealed eschatology.” Also true. Although Christian history might say that God is in control of history and is working it towards his purposes, it is unlikely that we would know absolutely what that is at any given moment. We are surrounded by choices, and we do the best with the information we have.

If that’s Christian history, what would atheistic history be? Perhaps it would be the story of human progress in the world, or, alternatively, a list of all the terrible things that have happened without God’s intervention - an indictment of God.

Eschatology suggests progress. Things get better with the help of God. But I would admit that the idea of “progress” as we think of it now, probably did not exist in the medieval mind and that it required a change of perspective to acquire those concepts. They could have come about from within the Christian mindset, but probably, they did not. This is one of Pocock’s major points, I think.

Part of the problem between me and Pocock is that I don’t trust him. Perhaps as I see more of his arguments, I’ll agree with him more easily, but right now I don’t. Another part of it is that he builds his arguments on all these old sources that I haven’t read yet - Aristotle, Herodotus, Boethius, Augustine, Dante, etc. My bad, admittedly. But I like to investigate things on my own. I don’t like to have to take someone else’s word for it what a source says. That’s why this book is an extra challenge for me.

I did like the example Pocock gives in chapter one, part “II”. How the law in the late medieval period depended substantially on custom. How custom treated what was old as what was right and good (because it had lasted). I can see how that was a self-fulfilling thing. And also, he says it did not allow kings to judge cases or legislate. That left royalty in a “quasi-divine” role determining other issues, and possibly “policy”. I’m grateful to Pocock for that, because I see how that may have interacted with groups both privileged and unprivileged up to the present time. I don’t know anything about the law. Thank you, Pocock.

Don't mind at all.

I wouldn't say he is making claims about how the average medieval person experienced time. I think he is talking about the conceptual tools available to someone attempting to construct a political theory.

The paragraph above the one you quoted from seems like a good description of where he is headed. The main available option was the Aristotelian distinction between form and matter where only the universal timeless form can provide intelligibility. I think the following parts are meant to show how this started to be problematic.

But yes, the text is extremely dense. It's not an easy go by any means.

One of the reasons I turned to Skinner is the style of the exposition. It's a more straightforward survey of some of the same material. Seems like a better place to start.

As far as Aristotle was concerned, things and the ideas of those things differed, I guess. What I think you’re saying is that only the ideas were intelligible, i.e., made sense. That seems a very skeptical notion to me. Very modern maybe, because so skeptical, but skeptical.

Thanks for telling me that he’s not trying to say what a typical medieval person might think. I guess that’s another historian and another historical school. (Thank goodness!)

I hope to get to page 80, today. Then, I’ll be done with this first section. I could come back to this first section, if I have more problems. I’m thinking I may re-read the introduction again too.

I thought I’d try to explain my partial resistance to modern skepticism. In modern philosophy, there seems to be a lot of skepticism around the idea of language. But in the Christian church, especially the evangelical churches, there is an affirmation of language. That’s partly or mostly because of the existence of the Scriptures. Also, in the Bible, there is the emphasis on the Word, or the Logos. This can mean the Scriptures themselves or by metaphor the incarnation of Christ. People using language in an inspired way can also be involved - through preaching sermons, a so-called word of knowledge or wisdom, or even, in some denominations, prophecy. All these are affirmations of inspired language. So, for some of these reasons, conservative Christians have no problem with claiming there is “objective truth.” It exists in the Scriptures, in Christ, and in works of the Spirit. Most Christians would say there is one reality and it exists for all. Christians come down hard on what they call the secular tendency to deny objective truth. And mostly I agree with them. What can you do without truth? What can you talk about or agree upon without it? So, in a sense, siding with the church, I’m skeptical about skepticism. To be fair though, I’d say that Christians could use a bigger helping of skepticism, sometimes. With all that’s going on in the realm of language lately, the egregious abuse of language in culture and politics, Christians could use a bit more skepticism. They should be able to critique the abuse of language in our culture.

So, I realize that there is a long way for me to go to read up on philosophy and have a solid idea of what it’s all about. That’s why I’m being careful, and when I move into philosophical thought I want to have my feet on the ground. Right now though, and for a while, I’m doing a deep tour of history, especially early modern European history, of which this Machiavelli study is a part. Pocock is both a challenge and an encouragement to learn more philosophy, especially political philosophy, which I am also interested in.

Well, I have to admit I was defeated by this book. I read page after page, and had no idea of what he was saying. And then I’m left with the image of getting to the end of the book and still not knowing what he was saying. What’s the difference between not reading a book, and reading a book and not getting anything out of it? They’re the same thing. Wasted time and effort is the only thing.

I would like to offer my response also to the unreadability of this book. I think Pocock, and others like him, make their works so unreadable and so chaotic and disorganized for the sole purpose that no one can disagree with them. If you don’t know what a person is saying, then, obviously, you can’t disagree with them. Also, admitting that you’re not able to read it, you’d be opening yourself up to the criticism that you’re not a real intellectual, since you don’t have the patience to get through a piece of writing. Well, that may be, but I have plenty of other books to read, that will inform me more, inspire me more, and enlighten me more; and those are the books that are going to mean the most to me.

March_Hare, I do hope you will make it through the book. Maybe share with us as you move along. That would be a wonderful thing. You’re a better man than I, I hope you know. My next book will be Reading Machiavelli: Scandalous Books, Suspect Engagements, and the Virtue of Populist Politics, by John P. McCormick. It has chapters on Pocock and his Cambridge School, and also on Leo Strauss, the conservative writer. So, that will be how I get exposed to Strauss, and Pocock and his Cambridge School. (I’m also going to be reading Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories: A New Translation, by Laura F. Banfield and Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. This translation is supposed to be more literal and more accurate than most others.)

P.S. - I stopped at page 125.

My reading list is growing at an alarming rate since you drew me into this subject. Just picked up Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Probably read that, Skinner, Baron and Garin before continuing Pocock. May also re-read some histories of the Italian Wars and the primary stuff by Machiavelli and Guicciardini that I have on hand.

I don’t blame you. We’ll probably be reading some of the same stuff - Guicciardini (Dialogue on the Government of Florence) and Botero (Reason of State) - so I hope you don’t disappear altogether.

Baron is very detailed and methodical, so, in my opinion, not like Pocock. You get the first voices out of Florence in favor of republican ideas.

Didn’t know you had read about the Italian Wars. I’m tempted to go in that way, but I’m trying to get through the Florentine Republic to the English Reformation. I’m interested, though.

Other books I intend to read are in my post - “My Machiavelli and the Florentine Republic Study, 2024-2026.” If there’s anything you want to read together, let me know. I know my attitude towards Pocock was pretty negative. I’m not usually like that.

Probably tag along for Botero and Guicciardini. Have to pick those up though.

I think I’m going to try to read this book by McCormick, Reading Machiavelli. Should only take me a couple of weeks, I hope.

Finished Reading Machiavelli, John P. McCormick, today. It champions Machiavelli’s advocacy for the people as opposed to the aristocracy. The general idea is that the wealthy and well-connected will always have plenty of power in a republic, whereas the people need political structures that tend to give them the advantage. The people should be the ultimate arbiters of a democratic government, because they are the ones that actually bring honesty and compromise to bear on political conflict. So, there should be a deliberate effort to create checks on the powers of the wealthy and their corrupting influence in politics.

This book clears my head a bit on politics and who should be in charge. In the U.S., we’ve ceded a lot of ground to wealthy elites lately, and we’re suffering for it.

***

Next: I intend to read Guicciardini’s Dialogue on the Government of Florence (1520’s), edited and translated by Alison Brown (1994). This one is part of the series - “Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought” - which has a lot of important political works from prior centuries.

I’m halfway through Dialogue on the Government of Florence, by Guicciardini now. It’s a discussion on instituting a popular government in Florence. I’m not sure when the dialogue is supposed to take place, but Guicciardini wrote it in about 1524. The one discussant, who unfortunately is given a lot of leeway, promotes benevolent dictators, i.e., the Medici government. He says that a monarchy by one person, if that person is good, is the best form of government. The other discussants are in favor of a popular, or democratic, government.

Many things are discussed here. The abuses of the Medici’s when they were in power. The role of self-interest. How inequality creates envy. The so-called “ignorance” of the masses. Whether humans are inclined to goodness by nature. Whether large public bodies can act quickly enough or can keep secrets. How officials should be appointed. Etc. And I’m just a little over the halfway mark.

This was a formative period for democratic government in the West. People still think of the U.S. founding as the first time a people consciously created a democratic (or constitutional) republic, but Florence was doing this 2-3 centuries before we did, (although usually on the fly). It is surprising to me how something written 500 years before the present can seem so understandable and not at all arcane. (You only have to read the introduction or use some of the glossary in the back of the book to get it all.) It’s relevant, too, since we in the U.S., and in several other countries in the West, are playing with some of the more dangerous aspects of just such a discussion as this. As citizens of our respective countries, we should start thinking more about the “common good” than just strictly of our own self-interest. That’s really the key to a successful democracy.

March_Hare, I’m wondering what you’re reading now. I finished Guicciardini’s Dialogue on the Government of Florence. I kept waiting for there to be more discussion on the benefits of a democratic republic, but there wasn’t any. I’m not sure what Guicciardini’s point is here, but he’s not very vigorously defending the rights of the people to be heard.

Now I’m reading a book of Guicciardini’s collected writings. The introduction to the book is pretty bland. I’m hoping there is more to discover in Guicciardini’s writings. It’s called, The Defeat of a Renaissance Intellectual. I guess right now what’s being said is that Guicciardini depended in his life and writings too much on the power of self-interest.

I'm playing catch up. Read the Prince again and now I'm reading The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy. Going to Guicciardini after that.

Also dipping into Quentin Skinner's latest: Liberty as Independence.

You’re going strong, March_Hare, that’s good. I finished Guicciardini’s Dialogue on the Government of Florence. Let me know what you think of it. I’m reading a collection of writings by Guicciardini now called, The Defeat of a Renaissance Intellectual. I’m about halfway through.

Let me know what you think about Skinner. Hopefully, much easier than Pocock?

Skinner is very good.

Yes, of course it's easier. Most things are. He does refer to it so I will be giving it another go eventually. I'm just running further into the rabbit hole at the moment.

Also reading his Liberty before Liberalism and picked up Republicanism A Theory of Freedom and Government as he mentions that as influencing his account. The latest book is centered on Glorious Revolution so maybe a bit after the period you have selected but is it still traces the history of civic republicanism through the usual suspects.

March-Hare, wondering how you feel about the Cambridge School in general? McCormick felt that they focused too much on political philosophy and overlooked such things like society and institutions.

I will have to look up the Cambridge School (I'm assuming it's Skinner, Pocock, and others from the description of the book?)

I think I would be sympathetic to the criticism although I'm not sure Pocock ignores institutions. Ditto Skinner in that his focus is political thought so I don't know if he is ignoring as much looking as limiting his discussion to something else.

It's a deep topic and hard to comment without having read McCormick.

I know Skinner wrote a book on Machiavelli and I have not read that either. Maybe he is addressing that specifically.

I think you’re a bit more advanced than I am, March_Hare, picking up Quentin Skinner and not totally giving up on Pocock. I have about 7 or so books to go on this Machiavelli riff, and then I’ll be off to the English Reformation. I was thinking maybe you’d be interested in starting a LibraryThing group on Renaissance history or political philosophy. I haven’t had much success with the Reformation Era group but possibly you would do better. Something to consider.

I’m almost done with The Defeat of a Renaissance Intellectual, a collection of writings by Guicciardini. Next will be Reason of State, Giovanni Botero. I really need to re-read The Prince and Discourses on Livy. I’ve read The Prince a couple of times now, and Discourses only once, but having read other authors, I know a lot more now, and I think I would see a lot more (in Machiavelli’s books), if I read them again. Glad to hear you recently re-read them. Machiavelli is really the author to focus on in this period. He’s much better than Guicciardini, but more complicated in a way, which is why I think people misread him so much.

***

Also, I found an article on Wikipedia I’d like to read on the “Cambridge School” which has some basic information. It also has a link to an article about “Positivism” which may give some insight into Pocock and his gang. (The Cambridge School was ‘idealist,’ not ‘positivist,’ though. There’s an article on “Idealism,” also on Wikipedia, which explains a lot.) I’m such a novice on philosophy. Never had any philosophy in school. Vaguely remember reading a dialogue of Plato - that was it.

I’ve decided to go back and re-read The Prince and the Discourses on Livy before I go on to Botero’s The Reason of State.

Now that I’ve read a few discussions of Machiavelli, we’ll see if my perceptions of Machiavelli on my first reading of him were really correct.

I've never had much luck with close read discussions here.

Most of the posting is lists of what people have read, maybe with a capsule review attached. Even threads that start as "let's read Middlemarch" or whatnot usually peter out at less than twenty posts. Quite disappointing for me, but it is what it is.

Every once in while I check in with talk using the "my books" filter to see what shows up. 90% of those seem to be people asking questions about the high-end collector versions of the texts.

Quite disappointing for me, but it is what it is.

I can see how you feel. There have only been a handful of people that have posted to this Reformation Era discussion. I usually have blamed myself for the discussion not succeeding, because I’m not more of an orthodox Christian myself - who else would read about the European Reformation than Christians? But I think it may have more to do with the quality of discussions on the internet in general. People have just been hurt too many times. (Or, alternatively, we’re tired of hurting other people).

I’m happy you got involved in the Machiavelli thread here, though. Believe it or not, I’m still learning stuff from my collision with Pocock. I read a Wikipedia article on “Idealism,” which explains a lot about Pocock and his school, and I feel I could even read him now, if I wanted to. (Though with much more work.) Idealism is the philosophical school I tend to disagree most vehemently with. I didn’t know what it was, but now it has a label and some philosophers’ names attached to it, and even some books and philosophers refuting it. That’s a real gain for me. Wikipedia!

For refutations of Idealism, see:

George Edward Moore, A Defence of Common Sense, (1925), and The Refutation of Idealism, (1903).

Also, Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, (1912).

Of course, I haven’t read them.

Aristotle, Plato, Berkeley, and Hegel are probably the best known philosophers with ties to Idealism.

It seems to me that Idealism is a pretty big thing in philosophy. To me, maybe a bigger thing than it needs to be.

I wouldn't say it's a big thing. Not really a live option in current discussion for the most part. Henrich's Between Kant and Hegel is (IMHO) an excellent introduction to German Idealism's version. On at least some interpretations, there is quite a difference between e.g. Berkeley and Platonic/German Idealism. Another very big topic with quite a few threads to sort out.

Yes, it is a big area to scope out, with many schools of thought, individual voices, and so many nuances. But maybe, since I seem to feel so strongly about it, I should actually try to do some of it! Thanks for the book recommendation, March-Hare. Like you, my book lists are getting longer and longer - by the handfuls - and the books read only increase one at a time. The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.

March-Hare, I’m wondering if you’ve ever read Guicciardini’s The History of Italy? I’m thinking I may read it, and I’m adding it to my lists.

It's on my to read list along with Machiavelli's History of Florence.

I just finished my second reading of Discourses on Livy, by Machiavelli. I seem to be getting used to Machiavelli now. One thing that seems obvious to me about him now is that he’s talking about “how power works.” He’s not writing about how it should be or how we’d like it to be. He’s just saying, This is how it is. People are free to be more virtuous than some of the figures he describes in his books. He does show us some people who are virtuous, though, too. Just keep in mind, he seems to be telling us, unscrupulous politicians may not be so nice - and here’s how to fight them. I don’t think he is in any way prescribing bad behavior. He’s trying to get to good behavior all around - from politicians, the people, the nobility, and foreign countries - everyone.

He does advocate violence on some occasions. In his time period that would have been more acceptable. Let’s face it, times change. Another thing he says that is difficult for me to accept is when he says that the common people should be kept poor. He says that keeps them from getting too demanding. In our world we wouldn’t say it that way. When talking about the average person we would not want them to remain poor but be upwardly mobile. Being in the middle class is what keeps people out of trouble.

There’s still more to learn about Machiavelli and his times. I will probably continue on with Machiavelli for another year. It’s October of 2025. Then, if I’m still doing this discussion, I’ll start into the English Reformation. That will be a much bigger study and take up much more time to finish. Too much right now for me to contemplate.

P.S. - Actually, I’m on a side trip right now. I’m reading a book called, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, by Sissela Bok. “Lying” is a little out of date now, but I’d like to hear what the author has to say. She’s being prescriptive, so I don’t see her borrowing from Machiavelli too much.

March-Hare, I’ve just started Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories, Banfield and Mansfield the translators. Might take me a while, though. I’m also reading a book about lying in politics by Hannah Arendt and a collection of essays by Rebecca Solnit.

I'll get out my copy and read along. I think I have two translations.

The Banfield and Mansfield is supposed to be more literal. I like that, but it might make for slower going.

I’m on page 130 of Florentine Histories. The going is slow but not too slow. I can see how the major speeches might not be considered scientifically historical. Some of them sound like Machiavelli’s own viewpoint. I wonder how he did research for this, as well. He seems to know exactly what happened on days when there were riots or mobs.

Of course, there is a lot here on the internal strife within Florence. If this was an innovation of Machiavelli’s, I think he did very well with it.

I'm about 80 pages in. Not sure I will get much further in the short term. Busy at work.

Take care, March-Hare!

I think I’m going to continue in Florentine Histories and then The History of Italy, Guicciardini ahead of you. You can still comment if you have time to read them later. After that, I hope to read What Was History, Anthony Grafton. Still trying to read not only books “of” history but on the “how” of history.

@March-Hare, I thought I’d share this short video with you. About how to read difficult books. With your background in philosophy you may be doing this (instinctively) already. I think it’s fairly well communicated though. I know you still are hoping to finish The Machiavellian Moment, by Pocock. A little video like this might help with that. I certainly could use such advice.

https://youtu.be/hK9hkKgsj-s?si=Ik6BoKDBNyJPwJdG .

Thanks.

The non-linear aspect of Pocock is a big issue. Still making my way throughThe Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law. On the last section of my first read through. Probably be awhile before I can post anything worth reading. Side note, not a fan of Pinker.

Have never read Pinker. Right now, not within my scope of interests, I guess. If you feel like it, tell me why you don’t like him.

(If you want a common sense book about language, I really liked Don’t Believe a Word, David Shariatmadari. He comes out on the right side of a whole handful of issues. I thought it was a great effort.)

Just finishing up On Antisemitism: A Word in History for that other online book discussion group I told you about. After that, I’ll be reading Machiavelli’s correspondence with friends and some more Plato dialogues.

8 months left to my Machiavelli study.

Also, I think your perseverence with Pocock is very admirable, @March-Hare. Wishing you continued luck with it.

Regarding Pinker, not really his language stuff, he ventures into areas where he is not really competent. I thought his Better Angels of Our Nature book was not very well argued.

From what I’m reading, it’s definitely okay to disagree with Pinker.