Alumni Profiles: Danielle Isaacs

(Core ’07 CAS ’09)

Danielle in 2013.

  • Years at Boston University: 4 years.
  • Current location: Washington DC.
  • Company and Title: Fine Art Specialist at Weschler’s Auctioneers and Appraisers
  • Recent activities: Danielle writes:

I completed my MA in fine and decorative art at the Sotheby’s Institute in London in 2011. I organized a sale of vintage film posters at Weschler’s from the collection of the law firm Dewey and LeBoeuf to much success in March 2013.

Danielle with her fellow Core Polytropos winners!

  • Benefits of the Core: Danielle writes:

I try to utilize a lot of my experiences from the Core in my daily routine. Aside from trying to find humor in the mundane, the thirst for knowledge given to me is never ending. I try to research each painting I place for sale to the full extent, so I can create a story around it, which usually helps with the selling part! Also, all the bits of historical facts I was taught by the Core professors have surprisingly helped with my art history education! I’m also able to identify a trireme in a classical painting, much to the shock of my colleagues!

  • Hobbies or interests that started at the Core and have continued to become life-long interests: Danielle writes:

I am still very much a cinephile!

If Everyone Were Reading Cervantes, Maybe We’d All Be a Bit Nicer

We know; it's getting to be the hard part of the semester. Midterms are just over, or they're just winding down, or you're one of the smart few looking ahead a couple weeks to see them starting right back up again on the horizon. Finishing The Republic or Don Quixote, Paradise Lost or the Odyssey: an infinite task swallowed up in the huge necessity of just taking a break for one second. I mean, just look at those stacks of books! When you've got some free time, it's the most beautiful thing in the world. When you don't, it just plain isn't. Don't worry, we at the Core understand. We're all readers ourselves, and we all know that feeling. Sometimes that last fifty pages might as well be the Everest of Infinite Jest.

But how about some fun facts to get you back in the mood to make it through those final pages. Jordan Bates, who writes the blog Refine the Mind (a bit of a pretentious name, but hey, the posts are what count), set out to tally up some of the great boons of reading literary fiction as opposed to non-fiction and not reading at all in this post listing three of the many benefits of reading fiction.

They found that fiction exposure correlated positively with empathy, while non-fiction exposure had a negative correlation. They also found that one’s tendency to become absorbed in a story was positively correlated with empathy. Their 2009 study re-confirmed the result and showed that the link persisted even after factoring in the possibility that empathetic individuals might choose to read more fiction.

One of three reasons Bates lists along with links to the articles citing the studies. This isn't looking so bad now is it?

And if this fact doesn't make you want to keep reading, I don't know what will:

An intriguing 2013 study published in Creativity Research Journal demonstrated that people who have just read a short story have less need for “cognitive closure” than people who’ve just read a non-fiction essay.

As college students drawing ever nearer to graduation, we would just like to say "PLEASE LET US BE OK WITH AMBIGUITY".

Oh yeah, and this:

Ok, so we're getting a bit caught up in these pictures of books, but hey, we've still got Plato to deal with and nothing makes that seem a little more possible than a cup of tea. . . . Or some artistic coffee. . . .


(It's meta cause the books are about coffee)

But enough pictures! Read that article! It's not too long, and you'll feel completely ready to bury your head in something a little more serious after. As for the studies about books benefiting you cognitively, what have you heard? Is reading actually worth something more than just knowing the cannon and being able to talk intellectually about it? Is there really something to these big questions, and is there something to what the very act of sitting down and reading a book can do? Let us know in the comments!

Oh, and one last picture!

SIgh.... Nothing like a good book.

Shakespeare’s Sonnets, Sung

In anticipation of the lecture on Shakespeare's sonnets by Prof. Ricks next week in CC 201, here are performances of the Bard's fourteeners, set to music.

 

Jay Samons & ‘What follows Democracy?’

Prof. Samons gave his famous Trireme lecture last Tuesday - a most exciting highlight of CC101 according to our alumni!

Refresh your memory with some select quotes from previous years:

  • “Triremes were built to kill. You can’t have fun on a trireme. You can’t water-ski behind one. You can’t hold an afternoon BBQ on one. You can’t do anything but kill on a trireme.”

  • “Why did the Athenians beat the Persians? Because the Persians showed up to the wars with wicker shields. Wicker. The Persians showed up with Pier 1 armor.”

  • “What do you know about Sparta? Leather underwear (because you have all seen that terrible movie. Look, even the Greeks didn’t wear leather underwear and do you know why? Because chafing is a universal concept, scholars.”

  • “The poets said Pericles’ head was shaped like a ‘sea-onion’. I don’t know what a sea-onion is but you don’t want your head to be shaped like one. It’s not a good look.”

  • “Some gods like their wine poured on the ground because that’s how they like it: dirty. It’s good to be a god.”

  • "Assembly of Citizens is the most important organ of the polis. Are we going to war? These are the types of issues the Assembly directly voted on. Imagine that… You came into this place thinking democracy is great for you have freedom to vote, to occupy. Because we are the 99%.”

  • Prof. Samons speaks more of democracy:

    “How would Plato describe America? We are primed for tyranny.”

    “Plato would be so appalled by the television and internet that he would commend us for keeping it together this long.”

    Indeed, a centerpiece of our Alum Advice for new Core students, is:

    Beware the man whose trireme or codpiece is more impressive than yours.
    ~ Jonah Blustain (Core 2007, CAS 2009)

    A most relevant post from Gawker, titled 'Americans Done With U.S. Democracy, But What Will They Choose Instead?'

    Having learned what happens when giant babies are elected to govern the United States, Americans are very disgusted with their government. They like the Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and Obamacare and Prescription Drug Benefits, but they don't like democracy, which is a pretty weird way to run a country.
    ...
    This republic has dragged on for a very long time, and once the Capitol is burned down, nobody will really miss it. That rich white people were expected to do their lobbying and governing from a poor black city with no government representation was always a cosmic prank, and few will mourn the end of the "federal city." But what's next?
    ...
    Millions may be killed in house-to-house combat, what with the hundreds of millions of guns in this country, or people might just continue to stay inside with their TVs. California will likely join Oregon and Washington and maybe British Columbia, and the South will finally get to fly that Confederate Flag as it sinks deeper into poverty and environmental degradation. New York and coastal New England will probably unite as the Republic of Acela, while the fracking corporations will seize as much of the interior as they can. Life may be better or it may be worse or it may be roughly the same, with the very rich still very rich. (There will be no appreciable change in Florida.)

    The post proceeds to provide a poll, asking what the next form of government should be. Funny stuff:

    Machiavelli’s notion of truth

    Earlier this week we discussed Machiavelli's potent shock-value. Now, Arts & Letter Daily has linked us to The New Criterion's post on Machiavelli's philosophical musings of truth. The claim is that they are just as important as his political work. ALDaily writes:

    “I depart from the orders of others.” With that, Machiavelli reconceived both politics and philosophy. He was not a product of his time, but the father of ours...

    Here is an extract from The New Criterion's post:

    To see how important Machiavelli was one must first examine how important he meant to be. In the Discourses he says he has a “natural desire” to “work for those things I believe will bring common benefit to everyone.” A natural desire is in human nature, not just in the humans of Machiavelli’s time, and the beneficiaries will be everyone, all humanity—not just his native country or city. He goes on to say that he has “decided to take a path as yet untrodden by anyone.” He will benefit everyone by taking a new path; he is not just imitating the ancients or contributing to the Renaissance, that rebirth of the ancients, though obviously his new path makes use of the them. In the middle of The Prince he declares: “I depart from the orders of others,” also emphasizing his originality. One soon learns that he departs from the tradition of thought that begins with Greek, or Socratic, philosophy, as well as from the Bible. All this he refers to elsewhere as “my enterprise.”
    ...
    Is Machiavelli a philosopher? He does not say that he is. He uses the word very sparingly and does not openly address those he calls “philosophers.” He seems to confine himself to politics, but politics he refers to expansively as “worldly things” (cose del mondo). And yet he indicates that he is a philosopher, and repeatedly, insistently, in several ways. To expand politics to include the world implies that the world governs politics or politics governs the world or both. In his day the notion of the “world” immediately raised the question of which world, this one or the next? Here religion and philosophy dispute the question of which world governs the other and whether politics can manage or God must provide for human fortunes—Fortuna being, as everyone knows, a prominent theme of Machiavelli’s.
    ...
    To reform contemplative philosophy, Machiavelli moved to assert the necessities of the world against the intelligibility of the heavenly cosmos and the supra-heavenly whole. His nature, as opposed to that of Plato and Aristotle, lacked the lasting or eternal intelligibles of nature as they conceived it. To assert the claim of nature against theology Machiavelli changes nature into the world, or, more precisely, because the world is not an intelligible whole, into “worldly things.” This world is the world of sense. In replacing the world of intelligible nature with the world of sense, he discovered the world of fact underneath the reason of things. In doing so he laid the foundation for modern philosophy, which is modern epistemology (as it came to be called) and its two modes, modern empiricism and modern rationalism. To see how Machiavelli discovered “fact,” we may return to his “effectual truth of the thing” in the paragraph of The Prince being featured. That notion was contrasted to the imagination of the thing that led to making a profession of good, from which he drew a moral lesson for the prince or indeed for man as such: You will come to ruin if you base yourself on what should be done rather than on what is done.

    Read on here.

    A New Bubble

    Remember the Quebec student protests of two years ago? Those students were protesting the rise of their tuition from $2,168 to $3,793. This seems almost ridiculous to us at the Core office. Our tuition has been raised that much almost every year that we have studied here to increase our tuition from roughly $54,000 (with room and board) to $58,000 this year. How do the majority of us pay for this increase in tuition? Federal student loans, one of the few ways many of us can afford college.

    Student loans seem like a wonderful government program at the outset. The government, the institution we, newly 18 Americans, can now elect, helping us immediately achieve the education that has been glorified by our high school guidance counselors for the past four years. There's a darker side though. These loans, according to this Rolling Stones article, could be crippling us as much the lack of a college education could leaving us with tens of thousands of dollars of debt for...what? Fancy dorms? 3-star dining halls? A gym, an olympic sized pool, celebrity professors who teach one, maybe two classes a semester, and constant new construction projects as colleges and universities compete to attract the most students for the upcoming years. Where will these debts leave us? Other students who have already graduated paint a dismal picture. Most of them can't pay the money they borrowed to pay for college:

    The Chronicle of Higher Education charges that the government "vastly undercounts defaults." In 2010, it estimated that one in five had defaulted on their loans since 1995, that 31 percent of community-college students default and that an astonishing 40 percent of students attending for-profit schools end up defaulting. A report by the Inspector General of the Department of Education has come to similar conclusions about the reliability of the absurd and arbitrary "cohort" figure.

    And a government that has almost complete power to exact these loans from us:

    "Student-loan debt collectors have power that would make a mobster envious" is how Sen. Elizabeth Warren put it. Collectors can garnish everything from wages to tax returns to Social Security payments to, yes, disability checks. Debtors can also be barred from the military, lose professional licenses and suffer other consequences no private lender could possibly throw at a borrower.

    To many, it seems that the large amount of debt and lack of jobs due to horrible credit makes college unnecessary at best, hurtful at worst to a whole population of middle and low-income class students attempting to make a better life for themselves. Yet, it seems we are stuck between a rock and a hard place:

    There's a particularly dark twist to the education story, which is tied to the collapse of the middle class...: College degrees are actually considered to be more essential than ever. The New York Times did a story earlier this year declaring the college degree to be the "new high school diploma," describing it as essentially a minimum job requirement. They found an Atlanta law firm that requires even clerks, secretaries and runners to have four-year degrees and cited research that everyone from hygienists to cargo agents needs to have graduated from college to get hired.
    Because of the poor job market, young people may have less of a chance than ever to actually get a good job commensurate with their education. If they don't have the degree, then they have no chance at all. So if they even want a clerking job, they must dive face-first into the debt muck and take their chances that they won't end up watching the federal government take bites out of disability checks while their law degree gathers dust downstairs somewhere. So, yes, a college education is a great thing, and you probably need one now more than ever – the problem is that it may very well be mandatory, may have less of a chance of ever getting you a job, and you may still be paying for it on your deathbed no matter what.

    It seems that this year has prompted very little love for our new government. Despite the recent elections and the popularity of Obama that allowed him to be re-elected only a year ago, recent developments from the discovery of the NSA to the weeks long government shutdown, nothing seems to be going right up on Capital Hill.

    Yet perhaps students should have been running to the streets earlier, bemoaning the loans that not only forces them into a slave-like relationship with their own elected officials, but also can ruin their life by accruing credit debt beyond what a normal person could ever accumulate in their life time for a degree that can only maybe lead them to a job.

    So what do you think? Is college, even at its increasing costs, still necessary for everyone, or does something have to be done, now, about the rising tuition and federal student loan interest? Let us know in the comment.

    Visiting Writers Series: Joseph Campana

    The News Report covered Joseph Campana's campus visit on Friday September 27th as part of the creative writing program's Visiting Writers Series. Joseph is a Renaissance poet, scholar and critic, and has been a Core instructor!

    Audience members listen to Joseph Campana discuss his work.

     

     

     

     

    Members of the UC community filled the Elliston Poetry Room for Campana's reading.

     

     

     

    Joseph Campana is the author of "The Pain of Reformation: Spenser, Vulnerability, and the Ethics of Masculinity" as well as two poetry collections titled "The Book of Faces" and "Natural Selections."

    "The Pain of Reformation: Spenser, Vulnerability, and the Ethics of Masculinity"

     

    "The Book of Face"

     

    "Natural Selections"

    Core Alums Saying Hi From Morocco

    Core Curriculum alums Lola Adewunmi and Zoe Guy (Core class of 2013) send us greetings from these beautiful Moroccan ruins. With midterms still haunting our dreams and the cold weather sneaking in through the window, I bet we all wish we could join them.

    Machiavelli: still shocks 5 centuries later

    source: http://bit.ly/16GRMxO

    CC201 has started off the semester by dabbling, among other things, in Machiavelli's The Prince. Many were acquainted with the work from their high school years, and many were not - all admit it remains potent and relevant today. This post for The National Interest highlights the way in which The Prince still shocks today. A sample:

    Drawing on examples from the Roman emperor Caracalla to the Florentine Cesare Borgia, Machiavelli offers advice for any would-be prince. First and most fundamentally, do whatever is necessary to preserve your power and secure your state. Beware of causing another to become powerful, or of joining forces with a more powerful state, for you will only bring ruin on yourself. Second, be skilled in warfare, “the only art expected of a ruler”. Keep the state on a perpetual war footing and maintain sufficient arms and soldiers to secure your realm from outside aggressors and internal rivals. Treat “peace” as nothing more than breathing space to prepare for another conflict. Ignore just war theory. A war is “just” when it is necessary—no more, no less.
    ...
    Wicked stuff. And yet Machiavelli is no sadist. Unscrupulous means are justified only if they serve one specific end, in the words of Kenneth Waltz, preserving “your power in the state and your state among others.” He does not advocate mindless violence or gratuitous cruelty—not because he is squeamish, but because they are counterproductive. Machiavelli thus counsels prudence as a core element of princely leadership.
    ...
    Particularly disturbing to contemporary readers is Machiavelli’s lack of remorse about the ruthless statecraft he advocates. There is no sugar-coating for him, no effort to comfort the reader. Wholly absent is the tragic tone of later realists like Hobbes and Rousseau—or, more recently, Morgenthau, Waltz, and Mearsheimer. For these writers, power politics and recurrent war are existential, dispiriting, and regrettable facts, the unavoidable structural byproducts of an anarchical, self-help system that compels each state, like the participants in Rousseau’s famous “stag hunt”, to look after its own interests—and devil take the hindmost.
    ...
    Machiavelli’s contributions to the tradition of political realism are enduring. They include his admonition to take the world as it is, rather than it should be; his recognition that power and self-interest play a paramount role in political affairs; his insight that statecraft is an art, requiring political leaders to adapt both to enduring structures and changing times; and his insistence that the dictates of raison d’état may conflict with those of conventional morality. It is this last contention—that the public and private spheres possess their own distinct moralities—that remains so jarring today.

    We live, after all, in an age of democratic sovereignty, in which “princes” are elected by citizens and, as government officials, are expected to conduct themselves with probity, transparency and accountability. The global normative context for statecraft has also changed profoundly, thanks in large measure to the expansion and international codification of individual human rights. Much of the state-sanctioned violence taken for granted in Machiavelli’s day—whether the conquest of empires, the taking of slaves, or the commission of atrocities—is both legally and morally impermissible today, thanks to the expansion of human-rights law, humanitarian law, the laws of war, and the proliferation of international norms, treaties, and institutions defining certain acts as beyond the pale, authorizing sanctions or intervention to put an end to them, and providing judicial mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable. Atrocities and illegal acts still occur, as Darfur or Syria remind us. But standards of legality and legitimacy have evolved, making these the exception rather than the norm.

    In other respects, though, The Prince holds up well as a guide to politics, domestic and foreign. His accounts of official corruption in Florence, of decadence in the late Roman empire, and of deception by Italian popes would raise few eyebrows in contemporary Washington, D.C. Nor would modern readers be surprised to learn that in political life, it is more frequently the sinners than the saints that rise to power and cling to their positions.

    A beguiling work.

    Read up on our previous posts, What Machiavelli Knew, Formichelli introducing Corgan on Machiavelli, and on a lighter note, Recipe for Bolognese Machiavelli!

    A Little Bit of Romance

    Novels seem to have a love affair with the questionably romantic. Authors definitely love to make us flinch and shiver at their pseudo-rape/incest/Sadomasochistic, generally self-destructive, all consuming romances. This Huffington Post article provides a short list of 17 of the most screwed up, abusive, and down right disturbing relationships that circulate through the literature we read today.

    Who could question the destructive effects of Lady and Lord Macbeth's love (even if you didn't join Prof Hamill and those of us at Core who had the time to watch Kenneth Branagh's wonderful interpretation), and we don't have to read 50 Shades of Grey to know if we ever enter into a relationship like that, we might just call the police and have our lover and whatever inner goddess keeps telling us this is a good idea arrested.

    Some of these books are less obvious though. We've read The Sun Also Rises countless times, yet we still puzzle about the exact nature of Brett and Jake's relationship. Yeah, we know we don't want to emulate it, but still. It's strange. She keeps introducing him to her other guys yet they love each other yet....Oh Hemingway. We're confused. We just want to go to Spain and watch a bull fight.

    The messed up relationship between Lolita (pictured above as a disturbingly sexualized 12-16 year old) and Humbert needs no convincing; same goes for Oedipus and Jocasta. There are some on the list we question though. Odysseus and Penelope? Alright Core Scholars: you just read the book, you tell me why they're unhealthy. Aren't they supposed to be the sweet ones who waited and fought for each other? And what about Crime and Punishment? She wants to save him doesn't she?

    So is it love gone sour or is it circumstances? Is this list missing anything huge and obvious (what happened to Tomas and Tereza from The Unbearable Lightness of Being)? And what do you think? Is literature simply obsessed with the morbid and twisted or is there some truth in these impossible yet seductive (no Christian Grey, we are NOT talking about you) relationship? Let us know below and have a great Tuesday!