Welcome back to the new Thinkery. My name is David Barr. With me as always is Greg McBrayer. How are you Greg?
Even David, good to hear from you. Greg, and you've grown a beard, I guess in honor of Halloween to scare children or we did scare the children. I went as a 10 man. My wife thought it was appropriate for me to go as a character from the Wizard of Oz who lacks a heart.
That's what she said. That's good. And Alex, how are you Alex? Doing well.
How are you David? Good. And we are honored to have a guest whose books are listeners who have been read before his book on ambition as a favorite of mine. I also like the way that the book feels in your hand too because it's sort of like thin and tall.
It's this wonderful book and a wonderful cover. But who are we with Alex? We're here with Robert Faulkner, research professor in political science at Boston College. He's the second Robert from Boston College with interviewed.
But unlike the prior Robert, this one is a student of Leo Strauss and Herbert's story at the University of Chicago. As David mentioned, he's the author of a number of books on political thought, including books on John Marshall and Richard Hooker. Like David, my favorite is actually the case for greatness, honorable ambition and its critics. It's a really impressive work with chapters on Aristotle's, Xenophon, Thucydides, Plato, George Washington.
It's very wide ranging. But after reading a few chapters from his book, Francis Bacon and the Project of Progress, I think I may have a new favorite. It was a really eye-opening book on Bacon's roots and influence. I think we'll see why today because he's actually here with us to talk about Bacon's project.
Professor Faulkner, thanks for joining us and welcome to the New Thinkery. It's a pleasure to be here. So why don't you give us a little background about how you came to be interested in political philosophy, where that took you in your studies and where it's taking you over the course of your career? Oh, well, when I was in college, I had a teacher of literature who studied Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain.
And there were all these characters from European intellectual history, Marxist, existentialist liberals who were portrayed as sick people in the Sanitarium. And I certainly woke up to the fact that there was a variety of opinions out there. And I didn't understand them or know them. And so I was looking for several years, including in a bit of darkness, also in Oxford, when I came across people like Isaiah Berlin and J.R.
Austin, others, and found what I was looking for eventually, to my surprise, in Strauss and Chicago. He woke me up to the fact that I was complacent. So he's complacency. I saw in an interview that you were especially moved by the chapter on Hobbes in natural right and history.
Is that right? Well, put it this way. In Oxford, it was clear that Strauss's interpretation of that chapter and his remarks on Hobbes in this article or that was just superior to anything else I read. So it confirmed my very conventional reasons for going to the University of Chicago, rather than Yale or Harvard or some other place.
Professor Faulkner, I think that Herbert, if you could say a word or two about Herbert storing, I've heard so many wonderful things about him as a teacher. I think his name deserves to be more widely known. Did you say a word or two about what kind of professor he was? My dear David, you lead me to something that I love.
This was a very great man. He thought deeply. He was deeply moved by studies of political philosophy. And at the same time, he wanted to treat his native country according to its own likes and did not want to be.
He taught his students, if I can put it this way, by example, never to be ten dentures in their idealizing or interpreting the United States. He studied to the United States really wonderful. I was struck by an early remark on it. I think it was just very important for him, given the power of political philosophy or at least of Strauss's new teaching about it, very important that a student of American politics should stand on his own two feet and not be carried away by general thoughts.
He and another wonderful man named Marty Diamond, had a very good effect on students of American politics who came out of Chicago. Yeah, Diamond is wonderful. I remember, you know, they're, to find their writings now, you have to go and they're still in print, of course, and the anti-federalists, which story is so well known for is obviously in print, but say Diamond's collection of essays, which were beautiful, you have to go through AEI press. And so I hope there's a revival.
They're thought, storing to need the economy of his style in his essays is magnificent. And there are a few of Strauss's students that I think write in this summer, more beautiful writers than others, but by storing and Kennington books like that, it's just the amount of information and provocation, the subtle provocation they can pack into one essay is astounding. Yes. And of course, as you know, perfectly well, he has wonderful essays on Black Americans.
That's right. And the variety of of Black thought. One summer, I repeated his course at a Black college, largely Black College, down Southampton Institute. And it was just a wonderful introduction to that.
And this was at a time when this was most unfashionable, not by any means, generally, taught. Worrying the great man. So what did you teach in that class? Well, lots of things that you would expect.
The thing that I did not expect, and that was in a way very interesting, was further in court cases from the 20s, 30s, 1820s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and how they treated, especially, crimes against Blacks, and finds its slaves and free Blacks. And what was so interesting was the change in point of view, from Lincoln's words, from viewing slavery as an unfortunate necessity, nevertheless, he's done it as much, must enforce. But with the view of keeping in mind and the natural rights of the slave, to in fact, slavery has taken for granted or even a positive good. But apart from that, what made the most impression on me, I think, was Frederick Deltois's wonderful speeches.
He seemed to me at the time, to be second only to Lincoln, in the quality of his remarks. Yeah, his narrative, I teach it every year. And I'm just endlessly impressed with how perfectly it's written. It is, how tightly and compact and how you really see a human being, soul and fold and all that's dynamist and his courage and his knowledge that he's acquiring and how he finds a kind of source of deep resolve.
And I don't even know the word impetus to draw on as he seeks his freedom, an amazing writer. Now, maybe we can talk a little bit about what you've written on over the course of your career. It's pretty impressive how wide ranging, I mentioned just alone in the case for greatness is quite wide, but two books on John Marshall, one on Richard Helker, you've written on Locke, the ancients, the moderns. Is there some unifying theme to your work?
Or is there are these just very interests of somebody with a number of directions to their mind? Yeah, because I marked the date of the bacon book, it's early on. I was expecting more modern science. Yeah, no, no.
What an interesting question, Alex, or is my work just a mess reaching out here? I realized I realized that that's where my question was implying. I don't need to do that. Obviously, there must be some sort of theme.
That's kind of you. I was cautious at first about whether I wanted or could do political philosophy at a high level. And I was much moved by story. So, so the book on Chief Justice Marshall, which gave me a kind of overview of the American order in its origins.
And it was very useful instruction. I realized as I was completing the dissertation that constitutional law was not for me. And so that that shook me away from pursuing that field much, although I've done some work in it. And the book I was brought up in a piscopalian, the hooker was the sort of theoretical theological framer of the piscopalianism up until the 20th century.
And I had done a M.A. thesis on hooker and wanted to kind of follow it out. So that was next. Then I just found bacon fascinating.
It was with bacon for the first time that I understood what an experiment was. And then when I saw these remarkable works showing how the project of modern experimental science and in mastering nature required all kinds of new moral, social, civil institutions and bacon was sticking them out, I thought that was fascinating and illuminating. Finally, came to think that the ancients seemed to have a sound starting point. And being a nice boy from upstate New York, I found the Aristotle and good character very attractive and on friendship and such topics.
And so I wanted to investigate that and that led to the case of greatness. And it has the breadth that you mentioned. I spent a lot of time and a lot of teaching, understanding Plato, understanding Aristotle, understanding Xenophon in order to be able to write that book. Was time well spent.
And we're all thankful for it. I found the chapters on El Sabade is especially helpful when I was trying to do a wonderful case character. So on the topic of bacon, maybe you could talk a little bit about Bacon's relationship to Machiavelli. You point out rightly, I think that he speaks quite positively to Machiavelli, which is rare in any age, certainly very rare in his age, if not utterly unique.
So maybe you could talk a little bit about how he borrows from Machiavelli and what he changes in his all his own. And Professor, this will take up a thread episodes that have since been published, dealt with Machiavelli in bacon, a standalone episode. But we have to kind of draw the thread together. So this is quite useful.
Yeah, good. Good. Simply put, Machiavelli is famous as a tough guy. He relies on making new fear and he urges princes to use cruelty because being fair to people attracts them, putting fear into them really moves them.
They have no choice. Bacon thought that one could get farther in the long run by relying on hope rather than fear. That's the gist of the matter. So whereas Machiavelli urges bloody means and gives you lots of examples in the prints, bacon urges subtle means, namely, encourage people to go into business.
And if they profit, they will like you. So with with, there's a whole theories of ways in which Machiavelli, in which bacon varies from Machiavelli, the most important ones are to encourage hope through, especially through the economy. So bacon has very important economic essays, which may, I think, dress it, may very well set the tone from modern economics. That is, that is, he removes scruples as to, as to liberality, as to, as to moderation of in one's amorous and such.
He encourages, in fact, frugality and encourages, encourages, you could say, working hard, work rather than leisure, seeking money rather than honor, or at least seeking money rather than, rather than justice, for example. Bacon came to me plan something like the bourgeois, the bourgeois citizen. I think that's hard to believe, bacon's essays are written way back in the 50 90s and then finally in, in 1620s. It's hard to believe that the in a way plans something like modern economics shows you how you can manage people by, by, by rewards of various times, by carrots and sticks, but not least carrots.
He thought Machiavelli left out too much of the carrots and relied too much on the sticks. Yeah, I think the interesting thing, I think paralleling that is there are different relationships to Christianity in a way where bacon appropriates quite a bit of Christian rhetoric. I think before we met, we suggested that we read Afris in 129 of the first book of the New Oregon on, and certainly in the Great Institution, as we spoke up before in our prior episode on bacon, you see quite a bit of appropriation of Christian rhetoric and Christian, and Christian caretting humanism to this project, whereas with Machiavelli, it seems like he's really trying to encourage princes to not rely on profit and sorry, I think like that, or not to be charitable. So it's definitely a he sees great utility in that.
Would that be fair or? It is fair. And you bring up a matter that is really central to an explanation that is Bacon's elaboration of humanitarianism. So they can somehow learn from Christianity, the charity attracts.
He didn't have to learn the importance of humanity. Machiavelli had already turned the princes' virtue toward humanity. That is to say, caring for people. But he just he had learned that from Christianity, and bacon, bacon, retain that lesson.
But what Bacon does is make that much more important in just recommendations to statesmen. So that's the very great importance of essay 13, which I recommended of goodness and goodness of nature. That is, Christian charity is turned into humanity, and humanity turns out to be an instrument of the manager and prince. And true humanity involves teaching people to provide for themselves.
That is self-reliance. And true self-reliance requires one to be on top. So no one can topple one. And therefore, it true self-reliance is the kind of domination which nevertheless relies upon humane measures in order to attract people.
Simply put, this is central dialectic, this is central thinking. It's much more sage and various kinds of socialism to this day. And in many other kinds of modern thinking. That is to say, providing for human needs is a task of government and an efficient bureaucracy, civil service and such as a motive between them.
Professor, I have a question. Is there any indication that Bacon learned or appreciated Machiavelli's subtle manner of writing? Because yeah, Bacon is up to his own tricks as well, which again adds another layer of delight for people reading. And I know that he was famous for creating ciphers and things like this.
So did he learn anything from Machiavelli? I'm sure he did. I don't want to go too deep in the numerology stuff, but it's a question I've been meaning to ask. I can't teach too much on numerology.
I haven't studied closely his account of ciphers. Bacon's account of ciphers. But he is so subtle, so funny in a period and so consistent. He's unlike Machiavelli in this.
He starts with conventional opinions. He always begins with conventional opinions. In some ways, you could say he's somewhat like Plato, or for that matter Aristotle and such. But he then undermines them subtly as he proceeds.
And he ends up then drawing you into different opinions. The difference with Machiavelli could be put this way and Giderot put it this way. He was too wise to establish any one. Bacon doesn't shock you.
Machiavelli is to some extent a shock writer. Bacon is not. But he's, if Machiavelli is insidious, they can is much, much more insidious in his style. Can I say this a follow-up question, Professor Faulkner.
So one of the chapters you had us read that you were just referring to chapter 13 of Goodness and Goodness and Goodness of Nature. A little bit playful with the numerology stuff. This is the first mention of Machiavelli in the essays in the 13th chapter. Some of us think that's probably significant.
But more substantively, I guess, I'm just, can you speak a little more about the chapters of Goodness and Goodness of Nature? And this was the first time I read it. And I was a little surprised to see, and you spoke about this a moment a little bit, but he might identify in Goodness with Philanthropia or being humane or humanitarianism or something like this. Yeah, that's sort of a strange thing to do.
One might say, no, love of one's fellow man. Is this what more goodness consists of? Not justice or not, nobility, but I guess I was just surprised. Not that it's bad.
I was just surprised to see it this way. Yeah, but that's part of his difference from Machiavelli. I see. And he takes seriously Christian charity to start with, but immediately substitutes for humanity and then goes to Philanthropia.
But then he gives you an example of Turks, who in fact are cruel to Christians. And that makes him wonder just how deep this philanthropy is. And as I was wondering about that, he goes on to show, to suggest that Miss Anthropia or or malice is in some people. And then he illustrates how powerful it is in some people.
And then at the end, having taken one on this ride, he then indicates in the course of this, the importance for true philanthropy of encouraging self-reliance. So people provide for themselves. And that leads to his reform of moral philosophy. I guess to follow up still, I mean, that was very helpful.
Again, I guess maybe the reason I was put off a little bit by philanthropy or humanitarianism is it seems to transcend national boundaries. It seems that it's a bacon is sort of saying that moral concerns are for all of one's fellow humans. And in your book, I thought you connected this really well with his scientific progress that science, you know, a particular nation or particular people's can't have a monopoly on scientific inventions or progress or anything like this. That truly does benefit all mankind.
So do you think that there is something universal for what he's trying to do? He's trying to benefit all human beings? Yes. And do you think that this does connect into his, I guess I got it from your book, this connects his scientific project then overall?
Yes, yes. The scientists, as you see in the New Atlantis, the science is a way to win people's inventions, medicines especially. Well, look at the way my city boughs and is, can I put it this way? Lows in the hospitals?
And boy, are we happy about it. Especially we oasters. And if you look at the people in New Atlantis, they are young or old, they all see molds. Now they stand in order, they're perfectly orderly and such.
They are in the words of modern psychologists satisfied. That's because there's medical care, there's new medicines, there's new foods, there are luxuries, people tool around in their BMWs or they have nice new artificial fabrics and plastics and such. You have this remark in your book where you said, this is from your chapter on the New Atlantis where you said, the new land promises not milk and honey in heaven, but Gatorade and Nutra Suite on Earth. Not immortality, innocence and union with God, but security, luxury and power.
I thought that was pretty well said and certainly reminds you of things nowadays. So maybe one way of looking at the expansion of Machiavelli's project or the humanization or humanitarian rendition of Machiavelli's project in Baking is to talk a little bit about SA 29, which you have a very, I recommend it to our listeners as chapter eight of his book. You have a very close reading of that to show how there's a subtle project at play here. Maybe you want to tell our readers what that chapter is about and give us a sense of how it will replace and make its thought.
This is a chapter about what I call the great power. Baking plans the modern nation state. That's the kind of startling conclusion to which I can. There are ten prescriptions.
Let's be daring and say there are ten commandments. They can begin by speaking, in fact, of biblical things. But he emphasizes a new standard for the statesman. The next standard is growth.
What one sees, Tim, developing these ten commandments is five commandments for growing people, things like lots of immigration, for example, and five commandments for having a world like people who are able to defend themselves and provide for themselves and grow. Another word for growth is empire, political growth. This is a tough and Machiavellian chapter in Baking's work. I make the interesting suggestion that Baking means to enlist Machiavellians in his own more comprehensive plan.
It's more comprehensive because his plan relies on hopes as well as fears. And therefore, he's not essentially militarist. That's unlike Machiavellian. He could be for peace because he's having a pacific, economic population that builds a power through economic means, especially.
So on the one hand, he develops a strong nation state. On the other hand, it's not as imperial as Machiavellians. I know it's another one of those essays where you do those chapters where you do a very good job of showing how beneath it and apparently certain conventional proposals are sometimes very unconventional. I think you talked a little bit about the demotion of politics a little bit in that essay.
That's only the case in the New Atlantis as well. I know the New Atlantis ends with the suggestion of a more unified purpose. There's a small, I should explain for the listeners, but there's a small nation that lives on this island and it has a kind of a stigial king. But it's basically everything's organized around the scientific institute.
And some European travelers come there and eventually slowly, though with a very narrowing group and so it's just one person learn the secrets of how this island nation is run. And at the end, there's a suggestion that they go back and tell people about how things are done here, go back to Europe. And so there seems to be a kind of imperial element. So how would you link this, the imperialism of essay 29 with some of the almost sort of fabulous descriptions in the New Atlantis?
Can I jump in real quick and give Professor Faulkner a second to reflect? I think you kind of did this neatly, but the New Atlantis was kind of a utopian novel that Bacon wrote. It's fictional. listeners may or may not be aware of that.
So what's getting a little bit background, the main character is on a ship that sails in the Atlantic, right? Yes. And gets blown off course and finds this magical island. I'm going to have a closely over exaggerate.
It was run by scientists, kind of find out that seem to be extraordinarily powerful and may even have been responsible for the ships being blown off course. On this island, they're nominally Christian. There is a monarch, as Alex mentioned, but the island seems to be run according to how Bacon would set out science. And so scientists are undertaking inquiries and investigations and experiments they talked about in the Oregon.
And then at the end of the book, by the way, this is a book unfinished, if I remember properly, they get there. At the end of the book, the implore the narrator to go back to Europe and sort of tell the inventions, something like that. So that's all true. In my opinion, this is the first modern utopia.
That is to say, it's a future oriented utopia which can bring on earth an effectual good order. It's not something high and above us existing as Plato says, only in speech that we look up to. It can be planned. And to answer Alex's question with which which we began this little section.
This is imperial only in the sense of a spreading civilization. It may also be imperial in the sense that it's superior. It becomes much more powerful. It can take over other countries, but that's not quite what Bacon urges.
It's the spreading of a new civilization. And in New Atlantis in particular, you see in the flesh how Christian Europeans can be won over and become progressive Europeans. He shows you how that can be done and how it is done. So it is done, I work on many levels, because part of it is a conspiracy which most people don't understand and don't follow.
But they're drawn in by the goodies that the new inventions that the new science produces. So this new science with its new kind of induction leads to laws or what we call formulas. And therefore formulas for doing things, moving things, and therefore producing things. And that can make it generally attractive.
And the account, which is very clever and careful, can make it attractive to intellectuals and university people. Professor from your already hinted at this, but we talked at the beginning a little bit about how Bacon is influenced by Machiavelli. But Machiavelli was very opposed to utopias and fancy imaginary principalities and republics. But you were sort of already implying there's a sort of a conian response.
And his utopia is not utopian, it seems. You're saying that it's actually a plan that's realizable in the world. It's something to aim toward. Right.
Also, we have to remember that utopia that Machiavelli also present inspiring things for popular inspiration, namely, a patriotic republic. The last chapter of even the Prince is about, in fact, a winning back Italy, freeing Italy from the oppressor. So he too inspires, but he inspires more politically and militarily and empirially. Bacon has, I think, what he thinks is a safer way.
He inspires, he inspires, he inspires consumers generally. You don't have to fight. And it's pretty, I mean, he makes it more palatable, obviously, both figuratively and literally. And it's kind of empire that's achieved through the intellect or something like that, right?
He's not going to try to actually physically conquer you, but he's going to sort of win over your mind through these delights that can be had through modern science. But for that reason, it also seems more insidious, right? And it's harder to question or something like that. Or maybe you can comment a little bit on how this apparently charitable sort of creation of delights that will come, a kind of explosion of what Plato calls the feverish city, right, or the swollen city.
Somehow that seems to have a relation to the subtlety of his presentation, right? It's true. And one would have to think of the defects of humanitarianism, of being treated as if you're a creature of needs, as opposed to a creature of promise, a creature of, a creature of, especially bodily satisfaction, medicine, and, and, and I made a fairly subtle argument that Bacon is involved in also in the liberation of sex. And, and, and, and, also, rather than being free citizens or fierce patriots and such.
So there's, there's something that earns Rousseau's deep criticism and Nietzsche's utter contempt later on. Yeah, it's, it sounds like it's the kind of world in which, you know, you'd have no taste for greatness and somebody might need to come along and make the case for greatness at some point. What is so reduced, but Greg, I think as a, no, no, I just, I just was reminded of what, what are the Adam and Eve Bads or the Solomon's bed? Is that what you're talking about in the New Atlantis?
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Strange, the strange marriage practices of the folks on the New Atlantis. Yeah. Yeah. You get to see your perspective, mate, later, or rather you don't get to see it.
Your best friend does remember that, Alex. Your friend does. And there are all kinds of, of intimations there that this, that, that kind of evolutionist will follow from, from this. So I have a question that just kind of, just real quick, move on.
So I, I suspect, I mean, I just made this connection, but your emphasis on medicine, I suspect the idea here is that we can do away with some of the negative effects of a lot of these, what used to be considered moral vices through progress and science. So we can overcome moderation with food that tastes good, but doesn't harm you drugs that can please you, but don't harm you. And we can also get rid of some of the deleterious effects of sexual intercourse, for example. Yeah.
So like all, all this seems to be added, think about how well that all just sort of goes together. Yeah, very good. Go ahead, Alex. Sorry.
Yeah. So something struggling when I was reading your book that in both your comments on essay 29, and on the New Atlantis, you draw attention to his illusions to both the New Testament, but also the Old Testament, right, the Ten Commandments on the one hand, and then obviously the names of Benselm, right? So maybe you could say, we talked a little bit about Bacon and Christianity, but what about Bacon and Judaism or the Old Testament? Why these illusions?
Obviously he's got, he's got some relation to Christianity. I mean, you read the Great Institution or the New Organon, and you can see him, you know, actively drawing attention to something like Christian charity, while also, again, focusing on say the Seven Days of Creation. So it just seems to be a pervasive theme of his work. Maybe you could comment a little bit on what he has to say on that, or what he thinks doing there.
With respect to Bacon and Judaism, the crucial thing is this, in the New Atlantis, the regime of the future, the order of the future, the leading civil figure, the man praised as wisest, is a Jew. This is in 1626, it's astonishing. And what he shows you is, I think, that he favors the more worldly biblical teaching. So there's a place for charity, there is, but in the people running things, the people running things, they are to be worldly, and he thus revises the judgment of the Jews.
It's very important and very impressive. As to his general opinion of the Bible, it would be put simply, it's one, w o n, the Bible is so powerful. How can we, in fact, overcome that by imitating its appeal? We've talked a good deal about the charity and the humanitarianism.
We also, I think, have to talk about the importance of law and law and such in his teaching. Another example of his transformation, the leading Jewish character is called Joab. It reminds of a character in the Bible, of Joab, a very tough general, of David, very tough indeed. But Bacon turns him into a merchant rather than a lawyer.
So worldliness is guided in that direction. One could go on, and I don't think I'm by any means, I'm doing adequate justice to this theme of his transformation and use of biblical appeals. Yeah, it's ubiquitous. I mean, the connection he makes, for example, between Adam in the Garden naming animals and the inductive method, is startling.
I think it's in the Great Institution, or maybe it's in the New Oregon itself. Yeah, it's a quite rich subject. One thing we haven't talked about and might want to talk about is just the singularity of the method. What is it that's novel about the method that is so important from his political point of view?
And I'll say I'll just say something very briefly, and then we can get off the topic as it seems too technical. But the gist of the matter is it's not turning to induction, but a new form of induction. The senses, in Aristotle's understanding of induction and Plato's, one sees particulars for some time, and then the mind manages to infer generalities, but it's about generalities in the form of kinds of things. So you see a number of animals with tails and such, and then some classify as dogs and summers, ground hogs, and such.
Those are applying words. That's the kind of induction. From Bacon's point of view, that's worthless, it's worse than worthless, misleading. Induction, true induction, in fact, is looking beneath the surface to see the laws of action whereby one thing affects another.
One is seeking, to use language familiar from Machiavelli, one is seeking the effectual truth. So one is looking for underlying causes that will press something. We call those laws formulas. But we also speak of the laws of science, and these kinds of laws.
That's what Bacon is turning science to, and that's why the new organon emphasizes the fact that this is radically different than what has come before. He states it was such a line in ways describing the second part of the project in the Great Installation, which becomes the new organon. He says, I might watch this, but he says, the mind is to judge the instrument and the instrument, the thing, or the experiment, the thing. And you think of magnifying glasses or telescopes, microscopes, but then you think you go fast forward hundreds of years, and you're talking about things like particle accelerators that allow you to observe things that you can never see with the ancient eye.
And it's at once this very powerful insight that he has about how we can enlarge our capacity to observe, and also a undermining of air subtle, because you're no longer trusting ordinary experience in ordinary language. But one must always keep in mind that this is an artificial way of looking at things, you put pressure on things and see what the effect is. But what the thing is, as such, that's unclear. You put pressure on whatever you want to study in order to see what it can affect.
If you if you rip this chemical on it, what will be the effects? That chemical, what will be the effect? And those effects may prove useful in some way. So you can get useful things.
That's right. So maybe we can round out a discussion of Bacon by just asking you, there's anything else that you think we should touch upon to tie this all together, or maybe a bit more practical, we have a lot of readers who might not have read Bacon or just kind of gotten their feet wet, what you suggest that they read first or primarily? Let's start out with your second question. Two Bacons, broad, intense, and the influence he's had, probably the New Atlases is the way to go.
That shows you a broad comprehensive plan for what is to be invented and how it can help convert the world. Very important. To press on, that work has a very interesting account of laboratory, sort of MIT squared, right before your eyes. There's a modern laboratory.
To understand the character of the new science for those readers who want to go that way, the little work called the Great Installation is really indispensable. And especially the so-called plan or distributional, in 30 pages, that gives you a real picture of the new science. And the six parts of his project, but I can put it that way. Finally, if one wants to see the practical side of his work, then I'm afraid you have to get into the essays, which are very difficult and complicated.
But essay 29 of the true greatness of kingdoms and estates gives you the biggest picture. And if you want to understand more than essay 13, which I mentioned of goodness and goodness of nature, I'm not sure that that answers your big question of what, how does one tie it all together? But I would put it this way. There's a negative side, which is a disgust at the rule of foolishness, which he identifies, especially with theology, but also with theology incorporating ancient philosophy.
And then there's a desire for massive reform. And the question is, what kind of reform can win in the face of medieval Europe? And a reform that's attractive to ordinary people and wins the affection of intellectual and people and above all of ambitious people. That's the striking thing about the new organ, and especially the first book of the new organ, which explains why the adopt the new science.
The reason to adopt the new science is the important reason is why is why ambitious people should adopt the new science. And that he tells you in in number in aphorism one 29. And that is you can win a great reputation, fame, and therefore a kind of eternal life, Nobel prizes, and even greater things from from from the inventions you have. Professor, one quick question.
What's going on with his King Henry VII? Is that book worth reading? Very much so. Okay.
The history of the reign of King Henry VII is Bacon's Prince. Okay. Okay. And and the way it and it shows you how to build a state.
That's one thing we haven't really talked of thematically. We've said scientists govern in the New Atlantis, for example, but in fact, there's also a state that present there. King Henry VII shows you what it takes to build a state and that's toughness. So King Henry VII is a rather Machiavellian work, but it's the biconian ingenuity, that is to say if Machiavellian looks for Italy as a place to start his revolution, they can look to Britain as a place.
So he he he brings forth a a Machiavellian prince who is very tough, betrays his allies, betrays decent people, not least kills them, executes them and stuff that's necessary to build a state. And then quietly, he indicates in various ways that this kind of king has to be ushered off away. There have to be rebellions against these kinds of king. Only thus can one have a civil state, which is what can last as opposed to a monarchical state which will not last.
So he introduces false accounts of the works of parliament and of king Henry's development of a middle-class farming population and such things. And the historians, when they finally got around to looking into the truth of this thing, couldn't find, can't find these things in the past. All the records don't show no such thing. Bigger has introduced his own kind of introductory work to his revolution.
Thank you. So Professor Faulkner, the way we usually end our interviews is our good friend Greg here has these. Can I ask one last question? Sure.
No. I mean, if we're over time, I won't. No, go ahead. Since we have Professor Rocker with us, this is a silly question.
But how do you suspect Bacon would have viewed these kinds of masters of the universe like Elon Musk today? Would he have considered his project to somehow have gone off the rails or misunderstood? Or would he be pleased with where we are scientifically today, but would suggest that at the same time that we need to focus on the political raining end of the scientist running a mock or something like this? I think you would be proud.
Okay. And of the iPhone inventors and such things. You see, and not only that, people are occupied with it with these things. They're fascinated by them.
And therefore, they're easier to cover. So then what's the role of philosophy then? How does philosophy take root under? I mean, are you saying that it's like we're, if we're all busy staring at our cell phones, that can have deleterious effects on the mind and the state of wisdom and the society?
Is he unconcerned with that? He's very concerned with the right opinions being present. Very good. And if you'll notice, and those of you who read the New Organon, you'll notice that there are two tribes.
One is the tribe of inventors, the other is the tribe of cultivators. That tribe is given more and more authority as we do work on. North and on goes on. Let those guys and the white coach think they're so great.
But in fact, they're following a plan laid down by someone else and that has to be preserved by thoughtful people. He would be very worried about postmodernism. Gotcha. Thank you.
In other words, the wrong philosophy can kill things. He also, in his last essay, in the last of the essays of the Viscisitutive Things, anticipates different philosophies coming. It isn't clear that this will always last himself. He's a remarkable thinker.
Remarkable. Yeah. I think you've given us a good sense of just how remarkable. I'm not read All Bacon's Works.
It's quite massive. I've read a few of his plays, Mcgath, and so on. But maybe now we can't. That was the joke, Alex.
He should spend stuff. Yeah, I should say it's the joke. Yeah. It's a running joke we have about Shakespeare.
I thought it was a joke. Yeah. But so the way we like to end our interviews is with Greg, he has these silly lightning rounds. You don't like to end it this way.
I like to end these. And it gives him something to contribute since he's still so little besides. So maybe Greg can come in. These are very short questions meant to give us a sense of our interviewees as an individual.
Take a break. All right. So they'll range from the series to the trivial, but just meant to be kind of quick questions. Do you have a favorite philosopher?
Aristotle. Okay. Favorite work of philosophy? I love the ethics.
That's two Bobs from BC saying the ethics. That's good. All right. How about a favorite literary work?
The Tempest by Shakespeare. Oh, very nice. Favorite place you've ever lived? London in the old days.
Very nice. I'd like to hear more about that. But how about a fair place you've ever visited? Why am I missing the name?
I would say the English theater scene, but what is the name of that? Just beautiful Moorish. Quarterback. Quarterback.
Thank you. Oh, wow. That's the most beautiful thing. Yes.
I don't know what's my favorite. Okay. Very nice. The most beautiful.
Have you ever had any nicknames, Professor Faulkner? Well, I mean, I'm called Bob all the time. That's Nick name. And I'll.
Fair enough. How about a favorite sports team? Home. Home.
Well, I admire the picture. It's a lot, but they're hard to love. Well, I think Bill Belichick is beyond even my capacity. But I'll leave it at that.
Okay. They're so good. So regularly. They are very good.
Yeah, this year is an unfortunate exception. What was your first car? A 1950 Dodge. To give you an idea of the quality of that car.
When I asked about it, I discovered it had over the transmission. I've never been disappointed with that question, by the way. The answer is that question has always been good. Do you have any non-philosophical or non-academic hobbies to speak of?
I like to play band and I enjoy rolling. I have a disgusting number of ancient decaying wooden boats, including one nice double-ender that I enjoy rolling. Oh, wow. All right.
Last question. Since we're doing bacon and he's saw about scientific progress. What is your favorite technological invention? Huh.
Oh, my. I'm not sure whether it's the automobile or my iPhone. Can I ask one more question? Who is that over your right shoulder on your wall?
Tally-rands. I was trying to figure it out. I couldn't. Well, there's a drawing by an American, John Grobowski, who chose Tally-rands with a nasty smirk on his face.
So my father is French and he's a great admirer of Tally-rands. He has all these books on him and he loves reading up on him. What's the interest? Why the picture of telegram?
It's more for the art than the topic, to be honest with you. There's something American about portraying him with a sneer or smirk as Grobowski. That's very fair. Because he fooled around a lot in the actualizing of fear with the American negotiators.
I'll be back, including my dear friend John Marshall. So Professor, and this is absolutely the final quote. He's so generous with your time. So the essays, the Newark and on the history of the reign of King Henry VII.
Are there any works of Bacon that are either too untranslated into English? How much of his work is available to us? A lot is in Latin. I mean, so there's stuff we haven't worked that are not translated.
Yeah, I'm just trying to get a sense of just how much is yet to really be looked at carefully for people that don't know Latin. Because you're saying we don't have access to some of his Latin speakers who don't have access. That's true. There are many small works that have not been translated.
On the whole, all the major works have been translated. And people are retranslating them as we speak. In fact, Martin Yaffey, for example, is working on the Newark and on right now. But I would say the major works are translated.
And although the translations by studying in Ellis are not great, they're serviceable for most cool purposes for students and such the translation seem to be adequate. Okay. Well, thank you, Professor Faulkner-Hawks, I'm going to take us up. I think I think Greg was going to do it.
He just came in and he was so eager. So Greg, you go for it. All right. Well, I think we should thank Professor Faulkner for having so generous this time and joining us.
I'm going to talk about Bacon. I really enjoyed your conversation. I think our listeners will have learned a lot and maybe we can have you on again. Let's talk about some of your other works on ambition or talk about your own education.
But we appreciate your time very much for our listeners at home. Please like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, or else should they follow us. Everything with any technology has led them in true opinion, short final fashion. I want to thank you for a very good time and also for the privilege of being interviewed by an Old Testament prophet.
Goodbye everybody.