“When asked by a disciple if there were one single word which could serve as a principle of conduct for life, Confucius replied, ‘Perhaps the word reciprocity will do. Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.'” — Analects

In Marriage and Morals (1929), Bertrand Russell mentions that, while “[c]ruelty is in theory a perfectly adequate ground for divorce, … it may be interpreted so as to become absurd”:

When the most eminent of all film stars was divorced by his wife for cruelty, one of the counts in the proof of cruelty was that he used to bring home friends who talked about Kant.

I haven’t been able to figure out who this is. Russell writes, “I hardly suppose that it was the intention of the California legislators to enable any woman to divorce her husband on the ground that he was sometimes guilty of intelligent conversation in her presence.”

05/11/2026 UPDATE: Russell was referring to the 1920 divorce of Mildred Harris from Charlie Chaplin. The two had married in 1918, when Chaplin was 29 and Harris was 16. In 2015, Silent Film Quarterly republished an interview with Harris: “He brought men home to dinner. But such men! Old, grave, and intellectual men! They were 50 years old or more. They talked of things I could not possibly understand. I was seventeen. What could I know of philosophy, or of Voltaire, or Rousseau, or Kant?” Thanks to everyone who wrote in about this.

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but the attempt of the lords to stop the progress of reform reminds me very forcibly of the great storm of Sidmouth, and of the conduct of the excellent Mrs. Partington on that occasion. In the winter of 1824, there set in a great flood upon that town; the tide rose to an incredible height; the waves rushed in upon the houses, and everything was threatened with destruction. In the midst of this sublime and terrible storm, Dame Partington, who lived upon the beach, was seen at the door of her house with mop and pattens, trundling her mop, squeezing out the sea-water, and vigorously pushing away the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic was roused. Mrs. Partington’s spirit was up; but I need not tell you that the contest was unequal. The Atlantic Ocean beat Mrs. Partington. She was excellent at a slop or a puddle, but she should not have meddled with a tempest. Gentlemen, be at your ease — be quiet and steady. You will beat Mrs. Partington.

— Sydney Smith on the Reform Bill, Taunton, Oct. 12, 1831

Suppose it were perfectly certain that the life and fortune of every one of us would, one day or other, depend upon his winning or losing a game at chess. …

The chess-board is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, just, and patient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance. …

My metaphor will remind some of you of the famous picture in which Retzsch has depicted Satan playing at chess with man for his soul. Substitute for the mocking fiend in that picture, a calm, strong angel who is playing for love, as we say, and would rather lose than win — and I should accept it as an image of human life.

Well, what I mean by Education is learning the rules of this mighty game. In other words, education is the instruction of the intellect in the laws of Nature, under which name I include not merely things and their forces, but men and their ways; and the fashioning of the affections and of the will into an earnest and loving desire to move in harmony with those laws. For me, education means neither more nor less than this. Anything which professes to call itself education must be tried by this standard, and if it fails to stand the test, I will not call it education, whatever may be the force of authority, or of numbers, upon the other side.

— Thomas Huxley, “A Liberal Education and Where to Find It,” 1868

The true test of happiness is whether you know what day of the week it is. A miserable man is aware of this even in his sleep. To be as cheerful and rosy-cheeked on Monday as on Saturday, and at breakfast as at dinner is to — well, make an ideal husband.

— W.N.P. Barbellion, The Journal of a Disappointed Man, 1919

From the Journal of Belles Lettres, 1838, an anecdote about Henri François d’Aguesseau, three-time chancellor of France:

The chancellor, observing that his wife always delayed ten or twelve minutes before she came down to dinner, and being loth to lose so much precious time daily, commenced the composition of a work, which he prosecuted only whilst he was thus kept waiting. The result was, at the end of fifteen years, a book in three volumes quarto, which has gone through several editions, and is much esteemed.

D’Aguesseau seems to have been an industrious man — Voltaire called him “the most learned magistrate France ever possessed.”

This is dismaying. Suppose that men and women are equally sexist, and imagine a group that’s 80 percent men and 20 percent women. If 20 percent of people (represented as squares above) will make sexist comments to people of the opposite gender, we might expect that the women will receive four times as many sexist comments as the men. In fact they receive 16 times as many. Computer scientist Ian Gent explains:

With 20% women the gender ratio is 1:4. So there are 4 times as many men to make sexist remarks, so 4 times as many sexist remarks are made to women as to men. But there are 4 times fewer women to receive sexist remarks, so each individual woman is four times as likely to receive a given remark than an individual man is. These effects multiply, so in this example the mean number of sexist remarks per woman is 16 times the number per man. This holds in general, so with a gender ratio of 1:r, women will receive r² times as many sexist remarks as men.

Above, after 70 sexist remarks (arrows) are made at random to members of the opposite gender, the women have received a mean of 5.6 remarks each, the men only 0.35. Gent first described the effect in 2013; the mathematical model was devised by computer scientist Karen Petrie.

Why is there so little money in politics? If a government subsidy is worth, say, a billion dollars to certain stakeholders, then we might expect them to spend nearly that amount in lobbying and bribes to secure its success.

Generally, this doesn’t happen. The potential beneficiary of a policy will typically spend only a small fraction of its value to bring it about. Economist Gordon Tullock first pointed this out in 1980; the reasons for it are still debated.