"Solitude"

I recall past Labor Days that marked the end of summer. Now, our three college-age grandchildren and the one still in high school, have been back on their respective campuses for over a week. It seems to me a sad finish to what in June seemed an endless summer. But they are all happy to be back among friends and the lives they are carving out for themselves.

 

In thinking about this essay on solitude. I wandered past a small pond and came across this lone Painted Turtle pondering its future.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

More Essays from Essex

“Solitude”

August 30, 2025

 

“In order to understand the world, one has to turn away from it occasionally.”

                                                                Albert Camus (1913-1960)

              The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, 1942

 

Man is inherently social. He craves company. He thrives on companionship. It is one reason there are an estimated 28,000 social and country clubs in the U.S. It is why solitary confinement is severe punishment. 

 

However, Camus was also right. In solitude, imaginations swell. Possibilities enter one’s mind, to be accepted or discarded. Goethe allegedly once wrote: “One can be instructed in society, one is inspired only in solitude.” In schools and universities, students learn from others – their teachers and fellow students. Yet there is truth in the quote attributed to educational reformer John Dewey: “We do not learn from experience...we learn from reflecting on experience.” Henry David Thoreau was unique in his desire for solitude. In Walden or, Life in the Woods: “I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating.”

 

While each of us is different, like most I am a social animal. For almost fifty years I worked on a trading floor, surrounded by salespeople and traders. My customers were in cities across the country and in London. I spoke to them daily and met with them regularly. It was a job I loved, requiring continuous contact. Despite being retired for almost ten years, I still stay in touch with many who became friends. Today, besides having a large family – my wife, Caroline, three children and spouses, ten grandchildren, and five surviving siblings – I belong to three ROMEO (retired old men eating out) lunch groups. I love the friendship and the exchange of ideas. Without that stimulation, I would shrivel up.

 

Like the late American novelist Patricia Highsmith who wrote of how her imagination functions better when she didn’t have to speak to people, I love being alone – to let my fancy take wing. Driving alone with the radio off, lying in bed before sleep arrives, or walking woodland trails, I identify with the Lord Byron’s words from “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage:” “There is pleasure in the pathless woods/...There is society, where none intrudes...” Treading well-worn paths, I ponder politics; the stock market; world events; friends I have known, especially those who have died; books I have read or am reading; as well as subjects for essays like this – Teddy Bears, eggs, and solitude. I bring a pen and paper, as my memory is not what it was, to jot down words or phrases that come to me. Sitting on a bench that populates these trails – sensibly placed for those my age – I watch a turtle ponder its future (pictured), an ant carry a load back to its nest.

 

But voluntary solitude is not forced loneliness. Social isolation is a health risk for the mentally challenged and the risks they impose to citizens, as we saw last Wednesday in Minneapolis; for the young, as they go through puberty when the desire to be accepted by one’s peers is paramount; and for the elderly when loneliness can lead to a poor quality of life and even premature death. It is why retirement communities, like Essex Meadows where we live, put a premium on social activities. According to the non-profit organization Trust for America’s Health, isolation imposed by restrictions due to COVID resulted in a 20% increase in deaths in 2020 from the effects of alcohol, drugs and suicide.

"Doubt and Skepticism"

 Friday’s disastrous meeting in the White House is a reminder of how doubt and skepticism can help us observers, and our political leaders. Certainly, there was enough blame for each of the three participants – President Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, and Vice President J.D. Vance – to take a share. Besides watching a re-run of the events on YouTube, I read twenty interpretations of the afternoon’s events, from all perspectives. Yet, I am still unsure how best to allocate blame. It is common knowledge that Mr. Trump is thin-skinned and likes to be praised. Mr. Zelensky is stubborn and theatrical – look at how he dresses. Mr. Vance is smart but immature, at least in matters of diplomacy.

 

All three made mistakes in that Oval Office meeting, but especially, in my opinion, Mr. Vance. He should have kept quiet. In debate or argument, Mr. Trump, right or wrong, does not need defending. He often digs himself into a hole, but just as often extracts himself. Mr. Zelensky would have been better served to have kept quiet, not argue with Mr. Vance, and let the offered deal play out. Mr. Trump, as everyone knows, shoots from the hip, but he is also quick to walk back what he has said. I feel confident he knows that Putin is a dictator and that Zelensky is not. Was he wrong to imply otherwise? Of course. But did Mr. Zelensky believe he could win over Mr. Trump by publicly disagreeing with him and his Vice President? It would seem so. Contrast Mr. Zelensky’s behavior with that of Emanuel Macron and Keir Starmer when they met with Mr. Trump.

 

Nevertheless, there is doubt in my mind as to who bears most responsibility.

 

I hope you find this essay of interest.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Doubt and Skepticism”
March 3, 2025

 

“The greater the artist, the greater the doubt. Perfect

confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation prize.”

                                                                                                                                Robert Hughes (1938-2012)

                                                                                                                                Australian author & art critic

                                                                                                                                “Modernism’s Patriarch”

                                                                                                                                Time Magazine, June 10, 1996

 

“Our doubts are traitors and cause us to miss

the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.” 

                                                                                                                                Lucio speaking to Isabella

                                                                                                                                Measure for Measure, 1604

                                                                                                                                William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

 

As the two epigraphs infer, doubt is personal. In her Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath, the American poet wrote “The worst enemy to creativity is self-doubt.” On the other hand, in The Selected Letters of Tennessee Wiliams, the playwright is quoted: “I don’t believe anyone ever suspects how completely unsure I am of my work…”

 

………………………………………………………….

 

Doubt, including self-doubt, and skepticism are not synonymous but are related. Doubt can be defined as uncertainty regarding one’s abilities (as Lucio infers). It also serves as questioning one’s judgement (as Robert Hughes suggests). It is intuitive, reflecting a lack of knowledge, as Thomas wanted proof of Jesus’ resurrection. On the other hand, a skeptic is one with an open mind who questions the truth of something stated or alleged, or at least who defers judgement until more facts are available.

 

This is not to argue that belief in one’s self is uncommon. When a youth, I was not skeptical about much and had few self-doubts. Many of us were raised on the American folktale, The Little Engine that Could. Theodore Roosevelt, allegedly, expressed a similar sentiment: “Believe you can and you’re halfway there.” All good advice, so long as it does not morph into cockiness, arrogance, or conceit. As I grew older, I read and thought more, I became more skeptical. I recall, when a teenager, the president of a brokerage firm who told me that the longer he worked in the business the less he felt he knew about finance.

 

Self-doubt is often a positive. Fyodor Dostoevsky struggled with doubt. In an 1855 letter to his friend Natalya Fonvizina, he wrote: “…the mind which does not labor will wither.”[1]Recently, I had a conversation with an old school friend, now living in Denver, and told him of my struggle with this essay. He reminded me of “Pascal’s Wager”[2] – that even if one cannot definitively prove the existence of God, it is better to believe in Him, as the potential benefits outweigh the risks of being wrong. Believe you can do it, he said.

 

But it is for our political environment I am most concerned, where skepticism has been overwhelmed by a tidal wave of hubris. In a 1901 letter to the Swiss professor of Greek and history Jost Winteler, the 22-year-old Albert Einstein wrote: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” In our hyper politically-polarized world, neither doubt nor skepticism is widely extant. Instead there is an attitude of “either you’re with me or you’re against me.” This fractionalization has set brother against brother and friend against friend. Conservative students are hesitant about speaking out. In schools and universities, speech that is deemed “harmful” is disallowed. The dogmatism of progressives on the left and ardent Trump supporters on the right are notably void of skepticism.

 

At the risk of widening even further the gulf between conservatives and progressives, I place most (but not all) of the blame on progressives. Certainly, there are some on the right who don MAGA hats, pump fists in the air and, incoherently, raise their voices for Mr. Trump. However, most on the left do not just disagree with Donald Trump, they hate him, and they let hatred drive their responses; reason falls victim to emotion. In part, their aversion to Mr. Trump lies in his muddled syntax. Like Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter, Mr. Trump speaks in unintelligible riddles. Whether he is negotiating a deal, reflecting whomever he most recently spoke to, or speaking from ignorance, I don’t pretend to know. But I suspect he is neither as stupid nor as uncompassionate as he sometimes sounds. His opponents would be wise to let skepticism replace their instinct for immediate condemnation. 

 

We witness this arrogant audacity from media disciples of both parties, especially on televised cable evening news programs, podcasts and video-sharing sites like YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion and Twitch. Social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) make it easier for viewers to limit their news to only that with which they agree. Do Rachel Maddow or Jesse Waters ever have moments of doubt, of questioning their loudly proclaimed ideologies? 

 

There are, of course, situations when conviction should be paramount – love for family, belief in freedom, and faith in God. “You are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think,” said Christopher Robin to Pooh. But generally, skepticism is healthy and doubt drives creativity.

 

True conservatives tend to be skeptics. In 1967, the prescient Daniel Patrick Moynihan was invited to speak to the Harvard chapter of Phi Beta Kappa: “Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from life what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government agencies to do good.” Conservatives are concerned of the power that accrues to political leaders and for the tendency of the state to expand inexorably. This concern is not only because of the difficulty of paying for ever more programs, but because such growth threatens individualism, the bed-rock of conservative thought. Doubt and skepticism are generally associated with reflection, not spontaneity.

 

“Skepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind” are words attributed to educator John Dewey. Like chastity, as the philosopher George Santayana is alleged to have once said, it [skepticism] should not be relinquished too readily. Truth (the holy grail of the skeptic) is illusive, perhaps never to be discovered; it is the search that is important.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

---

---

[1] As quoted by Gary Saul Morson, professor of Slavic languages at Northwestern University, in the February 28 issue of The Wall Street Journal.

[2] Blaise Pascal, 17^th Century French philosopher.

"COVID -19 Has Gone to College - Or Has It?"

                                                             Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“COVID-19 Has Gone to College – Or Has It?”

September 11, 2020

 

“Education is the most powerful weapon

you can use to change the world.”

                                                                                                Nelson Mandela (1918-2013)

                                                                                                Speech, July 16, 2003

 

A critical component of democracy is education. The perpetuation of our political institutions, as Abraham Lincoln warned in Springfield, Illinois on a January evening in 1838, is not a given. Passion, he warned, can be our enemy. “Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason must furnish all the materials for our future support and defense.” It is to teach one to reason, to think, to calculate that universities exist.

 

In his 1916 book Democracy and Education, the educational reformer John Dewey argued it is education that allows youth to become productive members of society. Franklin Roosevelt said that “the real safeguard to democracy is education.” It is a sentiment that has been expressed by hundreds of politicians and philosophers over the years. Today, in a risk adverse world, schools, colleges and universities weigh needs of students to learn versus fear of COVID-19 and lawsuits that might ensue. Nevertheless, online learning is no substitute for in-person classrooms.

 

Most would agree that a failure to open schools and colleges is harmful to students. However, there are some administrators and professors (as well as a few students) who are vulnerable, either because of age or comorbidities, so universities should proceed with caution. There are, however, some who want to keep the pandemic alive for political purposes, a view endorsed by mainstream media. A New York Times article last Sunday was headlined: “A New Front in America’s Pandemic: College Towns.” The article, which focused on the University of Iowa, reported there were “about 100 college communities around the country where infections have spiked in recent weeks as students returned for the fall semester” – a self-evident truth, as students did return to campuses. The article did add that “there has been no uptick in deaths in college communities,” but they failed to mention a subsequent decline in instances. For example, in Iowa City, there was a spike on August 27 and 28 (1,467 and 2,632 cases respectively), but, left unmentioned, by September 1 the number was down to 612 and on September 7 at 408, in line with where it had been before students returned to the campus. The headline was provocative and deceptive.

 

My wife and I have five grandchildren in college this fall, two sophomores and three freshmen. Their evidence is anecdotal but none the less, interesting. They attend five different universities in four states. The eldest is a sophomore at Bucknell, where their COVID-19 Dashboard reports three active cases, with 17,521 tests having been administered so far. She reported she was “not sure what percentage of classes are in person but all of mine meet in person.” She added: “We haven’t been able to play squash yet but the gym is open so I can go there which is nice.”  Our oldest grandson is a sophomore at Brandeis. All students are tested twice a week. For the two weeks ended September 6, 4,417 individuals were tested, with one testing positive. Two students are in isolation. As in all colleges, rules and regulations have been imposed. In an article for his student newspaper, he wrote: “This new regulation remains conscientiously observed to its necessary effect, but only to its necessary effect. The spirit of youth will find a method to express itself…” Youth will be youth! His classes are online and in-person.

 

Our third grandchild is a freshman at Notre Dame. Shortly after her arrival, a COVID-19 outbreak occurred, allegedly from an off-campus party. She wrote: “COVID definitely has a big presence on campus this year (we had to go online for two weeks because our numbers were so high), but now we are back in person.” 9,416 tests have been administered, with one positive case reported on Monday, which was down from 82 on August 19. The fourth oldest grandchild is a freshman at Wake Forest. According to their COVID-19 Dashboard, there have been forty-one positive cases since August 26 and only three in the last three days. He wrote: “COVID also has a big presence on how Wake operates. Most people only have one in-person class.” The fifth grandchild – she turned 18 yesterday! – is at Elon. She texted: “Elon only has 5 active cases and 78 people in isolation. All of my classes are in-person or hybrid, but the sports season is cancelled.” All five are doing well, as they adjust to a unique 2020 campus life.

 

As expected, infections rose as colleges and schools re-opened. But, critically, across the country, hospital occupancies declined, as did deaths – the latter peaked in the week ending April 18 at 17,039 and fell to 1,192 for the week ending August 29. (To put that number in perspective, about 55,000 Americans die every week.) As Dr. Scott Atlas, special adviser to the president and member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, wrote this week in The Hill: “We know who is at risk. Only 0.2% of U.S. deaths [from COVID-19] have been people younger than twenty-five, and 80% have been people over sixty-five.” Schools and colleges, exercising caution, should re-open. Michael Barone, in an op-ed in the New York Post on September 7, pointed out that COVID-19 “has been less deadly to those under 65 than flus were.” Who, when in college, did not get sick?

 

With an election looming, the economy was Mr. Trump’s strongest suit as the year began. Unemployment among minorities was the lowest on record. Wages were rising for those at the low end. The middle class was coming back. The Middle East had quieted. China was being challenged. Then the virus appeared; lockdowns were imposed, schools and colleges were closed, commerce came to a halt. Democrats saw a new opening – vilify the President for his handling of the virus and keep enough of the economy shut down, so Mr. Trump loses what advantage he had. Substitute election day in-person voting with ever-earlier, and less safe guarded, voting by mail. Then, another shoe dropped. Protests and riots followed the killing of George Floyd, a black man, by a white Minneapolis policeman. That led to the resurrection of the Marxist Black Lives Matter group and gave new life to the fascist Antifa organization. Riots occurred in more than a dozen blue-run cities. People were killed, cars were burned, and property was destroyed. Democrats stuck by the rioters, referring to them as peaceful protesters. They called for the defunding of police, no matter the damage they had done to the lives and property of law-abiding citizens.

 

It was inevitable that COV ID-19 would be politicized. We will leave it to future historians as to whether the lockdowns and school closings were necessary. While we do not have a vaccine for the disease, we know more than we did six months ago – who is vulnerable, who is not, what medicines work, which do not, the value of sanitizing, masks and social distancing. Nevertheless, incredibly, Democrat Vice President candidate, Kamala Harris warned people not to get vaccinated against COVID-19, if one is developed and approved by the CDC and FDA before the election. So, is science to be ignored when it does not fit the narrative?

 

In answer to the question posed in the title of this essay – yes, COVID-19 has gone to college, a nuisance but not deadly and largely abiding in seclusion. As much as we would like, we cannot live without risk. Colleges should accept what risks exist and open normally. To not do so is to deprive the roughly twenty million college students from opportunities they have earned, and which they deserve.