* Thom Brooks discusses Martha Nussbaum's argument from dignity against the use of shaming punishments. Part of Nussbaum's argument is that shame and disgust, unlike other emotions, have no place in a proper account of law because they are unreliable. I think they only turn out to be unreliable on her account because she rigs it that way (she does some weird conflating of the possible objects of disgust, for instance); and think that by her more general principles they should have as much place (and as little, if it comes to that) as any other emotions. And I don't think there's any significant sense in which shame involves a loss of human dignity (although some shaming things involve treating people as having less than human dignity). And indeed, I think it is absolutely necessary to defense of human dignity to have a concept of the shameful, i.e., of the sort of thing that any reasonable, decent person would be ashamed to be caught doing due to principles of conscience (note that this notion does not appeal to guilt, which has to do with the mere fact that one has done wrong, but to shame, which has to do with failing to live up to a reasonable ideal), even though it obviously needs to interact with and be supplemented by other principles. To violate another's dignity as a human being is shameful, the sort of thing of which any decent person will feel ashamed, and this is one of the key rational bulwarks against violations of human dignity. So I think her argument is flawed at its root. But I find Brooks's argument interesting, because he gives her the basic argument, but notes that it doesn't close the door against shaming punishments as tightly as she suggests.
* Amy Wellborn has an interesting post excerpting a recent address by Benedict XVI on the book of Revelation and vision of the Lamb.
* Ralph Luker hunts down sources for the famous Appointment in Samarra story.
* Christian Carnival #136 is up at "Parableman".
* Catez Stevens describes a Maori royal funeral and ascension ceremony.
* Exactly one year ago today I wrote a post called Must-Read Science Fiction Novels, listing twenty classic science fiction novels. The post, which has been far and away my most popular post, has recently been deluged with visitors because Coturnix has re-posted his response to it at the time, Essential Science Fiction. Dynamics of Cats responded to the repost; Uncertain Principles responds to them all. I largely stand by my twenty. The list is not exhaustive, of course, because I only chose one work from an author, and there are several authors -- Jules Verne most notably -- who clearly wrote more than one essential science fiction novel. If I were to write the list today, however, there would be some differences. Sharon Howard mentioned very early in the comments that I was missing an obvious candidate: Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. There is no doubt that this is a must-read that should have been on the list; and it would also deal with something that bothered me, namely, that I had only one must-read after 1969. Also, Coturnix mentioned Charles Kingsley's Water Babies, which is also an excellent candidate worthy of being on the list; and, while it's borderline as science fiction, Steven Riddle convinced me that H. Rider Haggard's She is at least as good a candidate as Bulwer-Lytton's Vril (although I stand by Vril as a good choice). For Stapledon I also would list Sirius rather than Odd John; Odd John is much more influential, but Sirius is such an exquisite story that I've never been entirely comfortable with my choosing Odd John. I am very picky about science fiction, unfortunately -- I love the genre, but despise most members of it (I have the same problem with fantasy) -- so I'm not impressed by most of the suggestions offered in the comments and elsewhere. Some of them are clearly bad, and can only be explained as suggestions by quirks of taste. A lot of them are good, at least for leisure-reading, but not so good, and certainly not so important, that 'must-read' isn't stretching it. Nonetheless, there were a lot of good ones suggested that certainly are likely must-reads that I didn't put on the list. Blish's Cities in Flight is an excellent example, as is L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time. No one mentioned him, as far as I can recall, but someone who definitely should have made the list was Emilio Salgari. If I made a list today, it would certainly have to be longer.
* Shulamite at "Assimilatio Dei" has a good post on Aquinas's Third Way. The Third Way is the trickiest of the Five; it is a rare case in which there is a split in the textual tradition -- we have two different versions of the argument, in different manuscripts. The versions are verbally similar, but differ significantly in a premise (Lawrence Dewan is notable for usually taking the trouble to consider both versions). And people have often been puzzled by the use of 'necessity' in the argument, although I think the shulamite is right that there isn't that much mystery in the context of the argument itself. Interpreting 'necessary from another' in such a way as to describe prime matter is something I haven't seen before anywhere (although conceivably it's just been something I've always missed in expositions), but makes a lot of sense.
