Artificial Intelligence is both celebrated and feared. But what is it, and what does it portend? A brief reflection.

The next five essays, all written by Madison, may be thought of as the hinge on which the collection rests. Prior to these five essays Publius largely deals with the most consequential powers of the federal government under the Constitution, constantly stressing union as the solution to existing problems, and after these essays focuses more on the different branches of government.

Politicians often operate with a different set of values and virtues than other people do, but must they be able to keep promises? Why is promise-keeping so important in political life?

Publius often blurred the line between hortatory and argument. Thinking he had slam-dunked the Anti-federalists on the “necessary and proper” and “supremacy” clauses, Publius crowed about how the Constitution satisfied the passions and interests expressed in the Revolution.

In Federalist #44 Madison reviewed Congressional powers and suggested most of them were non-controversial.

Reviewing the Constitutional debates impresses one with the level of argument engaged by both sides. Members of both parties were serious students of history and political theory, demonstrating that a common education doesn’t necessarily produce agreement. What’s most striking about the arguments of that day is how comprehensive, detailed, and thorough they were.

Peter Berger in his classic essay “On the Obsolescence of the Concept of Honor,” demonstrated how societies where honor matters have a thick sociology while those with a thin social sphere are dominated by ideas of human “dignity.”

In Federalist #43 Madison continued the themes of the prior essays: an examination of the detailed powers given Congress in Article I, section 8, while also addressing some additional powers.

The commentary on Pope Francis’s passing indicates the extent to which the Catholic Church retains some cultural authority.

Two viruses that define our age and negatively affect our judgements are the tendency to read the past in light of present values and, conversely, to think the problems we face are unique to us.

I offer to the readers of these essays on The Federalist a bit of a breather.

Carl Schmitt, a German writer and thinker who achieved some notoriety after he joined the Nazi party, wrote his most important works in the decade prior to Hitler’s rise to power.

It’s late 1787 and you’re deliberating whether to affirm the plan for the new government.

I’ve argued that essays 37-39 are the hinge on which The Federalist turns.

In the past two Reflection essays I’ve pondered the question as to whether American had a founding and, if so, what difference it makes to think so.

In Federalist No. 1, Alexander Hamilton claimed that the Americans had to determine once and for all whether the formation of political institutions could result from reflection and choice or would forever be subject to fate and chance.

A story, perhaps apocryphal, has an audience member ask Albert Einstein why so many advances had been made in physics and so few in our understanding of politics.