.mbtTOC{border:5px solid #f7f0b8;box-shadow:1px 1px 0 #EDE396;background-color:#FFFFE0;color:#707037;line-height:1.4em;margin:30px auto;padding:20px 30px 20px 10px;font-family:oswald,arial;display:block;width:70%}.mbtTOC ol,.mbtTOC ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mbtTOC ul{list-style:none}.mbtTOC ol li,.mbtTOC ul li{padding:15px 0 0;margin:0 0 0 30px;font-size:15px}.mbtTOC a{color:#0080ff;text-decoration:none}.mbtTOC a:hover{text-decoration:underline}.mbtTOC button{background:#FFFFE0;font-family:oswald,arial;font-size:20px;position:relative;outline:none;cursor:pointer;border:none;color:#707037;padding:0 0 0 15px}.mbtTOC button:after{content:"\f0dc";font-family:FontAwesome;position:relative;left:10px;font-size:20px}

Search

Friday 27 December 2019

MORCOism


MORCOism


"MORCOism" is a new philosophical current, based on the open discussion of subjects, spurred on by the enjoyment of MORning COffee (MOR.CO.), among persons, for which the minimum requirement is their mutual appreciation.

The essence of "philosophy", as it was embodied by Socrates, is precisely the approach through the search for truth, in other words, in order to enable people to live their lives more wisely. The very word "philosophy" is derived from ancient Greek and it is of course a compound word, with the first component “philo-” meaning "love" (in ancient Greek the verb “φιλώ” pronounced as philό means love) and the second component “sophy” meaning “wisdom” (in Greek the word is “σοφία”, pronounced as sophίa) meaning the reasonable/successful management of knowledge.



Already from the end of the 5th century B.C., the great philosopher, Socrates, laid the foundations of such debates – of philosophical and not rhetorical/forensic hue – with two famous phrases (recorded by Plato in his Dialogues):
·     “... (for a long time) it seemed brilliant to know the cause of everything, why it is created, why it disappears and why it exists. I kept going back and forth, as I was examining such issues...”, Plato’s ‘Phaedo’. He, therefore, sets out the basic principles of philosophical search.
·  “... these (means the orators), therefore, with their art succeed in convincing, not with documentation (translating the word “διδάσκοντες” which means “teaching”) but by building (translating the word “ποιούντες” which means “making”) their expressed opinion”, Plato’s ‘Theaetetus’. He sets out, here, the essential difference between, on the one hand, the exploratory hue of philosophy and, on the other hand, the practice of the orators, who build the opinion which they provide.

Therefore, based on the above, philosophical search takes place in debates when the participants – experts or not – are investigating views on issues posed and not when they are rhetorical, that is, when, in the Socratic sense, they build (with the appropriate arguments) the view which they at times want to formulate.

In MORCOism we are taught by Socrates not so much his personal views on philosophical or other issues – otherwise we ourselves are not philosophers – but his approach, the methodology of the management of opinions raised in an open discussion with experts and non-experts. This is Socrates' greatest contribution to the world's philosophical thought.



When the MORCOists meet to enjoy their morning coffee, what they really share is their mutual appreciation, the kindness of everyone who speaks and the respect to the opinions of others.

The MORCOists perform in-depth analyses of issues that are put on the table and while they have a philosophical disposition – under the Socratic exploratory concept – they do not seek from any participant any philosophical background, no specialised opinion if such an opinion may not exist. The mere aim is to seek an exploratory disposition and respect for the ideas and opinions of others.

MORCOism has nothing to do with an academic exercise or an intelligence contest, nor does it aim to confuse non-philosophical members with "deep" and dark thoughts. 

For the MORCOists, this seems to be the original philosophy. And this is an experiential finding which is provided through the experience of MORCOistic debates.

Every MORCOist has the right to issue his/her opinion on a subject. Another participant in the debate may submit a contrary opinion, respecting, always, the right of others to have, each, their own opinion. The comments and reviews that will be heard relate to the subject and are not addressed to persons. For the MORCOists, the zero tolerance policy for humiliating, offensive or abusive language or behaviour against others is spontaneously applicable. Therefore, MORCOists constitute a civilised and polite society of people.

In this context, some base axes of this philosophical current are shown, such as:
·    The the debate is open and there is mutual appreciation/respect: Although participants in such debates feel passionate about their ideas, some may not think in the same way as others, but in this way, they can create triggers for discussion. Whatever is included in the agenda, there are no personal attacks.
·      The MORCOists make up discussion groups, not treatment groups: We all have different life experiences that have influenced our perceptions, opinions and beliefs, and sometimes we may also be able to discuss issues that cause strong emotions. Although some of us are skilled scientists and some are working as advisors, everyone in his/her field, the purpose of the group is to discuss the issues of the day, as thoroughly as possible. It's not about discussing personal issues. There is, of course, no shortage of moments when exclamations are heard showing that the team is having a good time.

The discussions of the MORCOists are therefore open to comments and issues. Our philosophical society and mentality are reflected in our debates.


Monday 16 December 2019

Survival of the United Kingdom - The Scottish issue

- The Scottish issue





As the BrExit issue seems closer than ever before, the sovereignty of the UK, in the old sense, is no more of practical reality in a complex and inter-dependent world

Neither the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 nor the Brexit referendum of 2016 could have brought back the old nation-state. 

Whatever happens, Scotland, remains a nation, a distinct society and increasingly a self-governing community. It remains without a state because statehood itself no longer means what it once did but its future is unknown.

Wednesday 11 December 2019

Presidential impeachment in the US


Presidential impeachment in the US



Regarding the presidential impeachment, some questions are raised which may well become especially important for Mr. Trump's presidency.

In this context, there are some issues that would have to be explored corresponding to questions, such as:

  • Do high crimes and misdemeanors require actual violations of the law?
  • Can “impulsive, ignorant incompetence” serve as valid grounds for impeachment — or is the 25th Amendment, which allows the replacement of a president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the proper remedy for that sort of presidential incapacity?
  • Is it ever constitutionally legitimate to impeach a president: 
* for negligence and mismanagement?
* for firing qualified officers or appointing bad ones?
* for failure to adequately staff the executive branch?
* for “private” transgressions, unrelated to the exercise of       his office?
* for misconduct that occurred before taking office?
* for misuse of authorities — like the pardon power — the     Constitution clearly leaves to the president’s discretion?* for conduct unbecoming the office?

According to common sense, the answer to most of such questions is “no.” However, in most of such cases, common sense is wrong. The category of impeachable offenses is much broader than is popularly understood.

Impeachment wasn’t meant to be done lightly, but neither were Americans meant to avoid it when it becomes necessary. 

Monday 9 December 2019

In science, we know what we think we know


In science, we know what we think we know



In any question that its answer is based on – to consolidate this documentation – let’s say: the maximum universally accepted scientific knowledge, there should be no absolutes and certainty that it is properly answered, as this knowledge depends on the extent to which it has proceeded to its acquisition at the given time when the question arises.

Let us see, however, for example, a first, of prime importance question: Is the Earth flat? If anyone answered yes, the majority would have thought that the answer was wrong. But how do we know it is wrong? Is it not true that for thousands of years people thought they knew that the Earth is flat? So something made us change our minds. What else was that? Science was the reason for changing our opinion. And not only that, but it is also responsible for the breadth of our knowledge on the subject, namely what we think we know about this issue and ultimately about what we think we can know.

So, what is the way of acquisition of scientific knowledge? But what's more than research methods. When we refer to research methods we mean the organized, documented and systematic process of examining a subject.
Obviously even this quasi-rational way of obtaining knowledge can create uncertainties. One might even say, so what? Is our perception of our universe not governed, essentially (more strongly in the subatomic microcosm), by uncertainty in the sense of the Heisenberg’s Principle (e.g. location and velocity impossible to be precisely measured at the same time)?

Nevertheless, there are a few other ways for acquiring knowledge, such as:
  • The empirical (or informal) observation, in which knowledge is acquired by chance or atypical (i.e. without a deliberate and systematic process of examining a subject). The problem with empirical (or informal) observation is that the lack of  thoroughness and/or process of evaluating the observations leads to increased uncertainty.
  • Selective observation, in which the observer's model/pattern is adopted. Equally we would say that the observer "sees" what he wants to see or makes the assumption that there is what he has perceived/experienced/observed. The extreme scenario of this case is the overgeneralisation, i.e. the generalised (cognitive) conclusions based, however, on a very limited number of observations.
  • The imposed knowledge, which, over time, during human presence, comes mainly from the authorities and powers. In this way, the acquired knowledge and the formed "beliefs" were imposed/enforced by the power circles of each era/society. These circles defined/define what is true and what is not.

Therefore, on the basis of the above, one could ask the legitimate question: "What do scientists mean when they claim that they know?" Let us look for example. What can scientists mean when they say they know what's going on inside an atom or what happened in the first few minutes after the birth of the universe?

What they mean is that they have in mind a model of an atom or have electronically developed a model of the primary universe or have generally attempted to standardise the relevant research subject and have come up with a model that corresponds to the experimental data or observations.

Such models do not, of course, constitute a physical representation of the actual research, but they are mental standards described/supported by groups of mathematical equations.

Let us remember the standardisation of atoms, molecules, represented by small elastic spheres, etc.

This intellectual representation is only part of the model, as what makes this model to be scientific is the way in which these spheres move in space and bounce colliding with each other, to be described by various natural laws, translated into mathematical equations; in the aforementioned example, let us say, from Newton's kinematic laws. Even more so, by applying these mathematically expressed laws, it can become predictable what will happen to the pressure of a gas if it is compressed in half of its volume etc. If one does the experiment of this example, the result (doubling of pressure), which will be measured, fits almost perfectly with the predictions of the model. Well, this makes it a good model. Zero uncertainty, then? The answer is no, of course not.

Why not, then? But, because the model of an atom as a perfectly elastic sphere of very small size, may fit well to the calculation of changes in the pressure of a gas, as mentioned above, but if it has to describe how an atom emits or absorbs light, there will immediately be a requirement for a model of an atom which must consist of at least two components, namely: an extremely small central nucleus (which, it is true, can, in turn, itself be considered as an elastic small sphere) surrounded by a cloud of electrons.

The scientific models are representations of a reality, not necessarily the "true" reality. This, of course, regardless of how well these models fit the experimental data or observations or even further how accurate the (under appropriate conditions) forecasts are. Scientific models should therefore be considered as approaches (of some level of precision or correspondingly of uncertainty) and as support for imagination rather than real truth.

In this sense, when scientists say they know that the nucleus of each atom is made up of particles called protons and neutrons, what they should say is that the nucleus of each atom, under certain conditions, behaves as if it consists of protons and neutrons. Most scientists regard this wording as given, while others may ignore the importance of the distinction it advocates.

In the context of the finding we are examining here, namely that in science we think we know what we (anyway) know, it is the fact that many people – I hope there are not scientists among them – consider that the role of scientists is to perform experiments to confirm the accuracy of their (theoretical) models, that is to achieve even more accuracy, even more decimals.... Nothing could be further from the truth!

The reason for carrying out experiments, which evaluate in advance unaudited predictions of models, is to find out where the power of the models is limited. Let us again take an example from the field of physics, where the hidden hope of the researchers is to discover disruptions (requested data which the models cannot accurately predict or explain in detail) in their models, precisely because, these disruptions will highlight areas where a new cognitive approach is required, thus new models are needed, so that progress can be made. For example, Einstein's gravitational model (general theory of relativity) explains what Newton's model does, but also explains some delicate issues concerning planetary orbits and the bending of light. In this sense the new model (the Einstein’s one) is better than the oldest (the Newton's one), especially because it produces correct predictions for the universe in general, while the old cannot do it. But since we here compare these two great models, developed by those two major scientists, let us clarify that in calculating the movement of a spacecraft e.g. from Earth to the Moon either using Newton's laws or the general theory of relativity equations (in a more complex way) the result will be the same.

Here is one last example, regarding the review of the scientific knowledge which we currently have about the structure of matter. What in science we think we know, is included in the so-called ‘The Standard Model of particle physics’, where the existence of 4 elementary particles of matter in two pairs (electron and proton, upper & lower quarks), which, for unknown reasons, are repeated in two additional generations. The existence of only 3 interactions (gravitational, electroweak and strong), plus the Higgs field, is also adopted. So this package explains what is happening on earth and the operation of the stars.

However, we do not know issues such as the origins of the universe, the way that stars and planets arose, etc., although there is documentation of the existence of the universe (14 billion years ago) from a grain where energies were greater than it can experimentally be achieved and which through the Big Bang inflated to gradually emerge what we perceive today as universe.

To enable scientists to understand where the universe came from, it is obvious that they must go even beyond the Standard Model, subverting what we think we know.





Monday 2 December 2019

Is reinforced concrete, as a construction material, flawless or has it got its disadvantages?


Is reinforced concrete, as a construction material, flawless or has it got its disadvantages?







As is well known, reinforced concrete (commonly: béton armé) is a combination of concrete (a mixture of cement and aggregates) reinforced by steel rods.

This combination was devised precisely to be exploited in an optimum way, but also at the same time, under loading, the compressive strength of the concrete with the tensile strength of steel.

It is given and really has been proven that according to the construction experience to date, reinforced concrete is an economical construction material, so it is very popular. It is widely used in many kinds of constructions worldwide. 

However, along with its many advantages, reinforced concrete shows some disadvantages, possibly unknown and/or simply not been realised by the general public, although one might say that the consequences of some of them are being experienced in our daily lives. 

Because the aim of this text is mainly to highlight the disadvantages of this reliable material – so reliable that even for outside our planet constructions there are concepts and relevant studies to use it with a little different composition is true (e.g. adding a regolith simulation, molten pure sulfur and glass fibers) for shielding against radiation – I choose below to settle them before the advantages. 

Some main disadvantages of reinforced concrete 
  • Its tensile strength is approximately 1/10 of its compressive strength
  • The influence of the production process (mixing, casting and curing) of reinforced concrete during the construction on the final resistance
  • The relatively high cost of the casting forms
  • Regarding tall structures (e.g. multi-storied buildings) the static required height of reinforced concrete columns is greater compared to the corresponding metal columns
  • Reinforced concrete undergoes shrinkage (physical property of concrete), causing cracking and ultimately reducing the strength 
Some main advantages of reinforced concrete 
  • Reinforced concrete has a high compressive strength compared to other building materials
  • Due to the provided reinforcement (from the steel bars), reinforced concrete can also withstand a satisfactory tensile stress
  • Adequate fire and environmental impact
  • Reinforced concrete constructions are more durable than any other, where other materials have been used
  • Reinforced concrete, as a fluid material, at the beginning of the production, can be moulded in an economical way and of course using any type/shape of forms
  • The maintenance cost of reinforced concrete is very low
  • For difficult and big structures, such as foundations, dams, port works, etc. reinforced concrete is the most economical construction material
  • Even in cases of complex structures, their components which are of reinforced concrete act with minimum deflection
  • As reinforced concrete can be moulded into any type/shape of form required, it is widely used in precast structural components. It provides rigid members with minimum apparent deflection
  • Compared to metal, reinforced concrete structures require less skilled labour force 



Friday 22 November 2019

Why do people follow the powerful (tyrants)?


Why do people follow the powerful (tyrants)?








Should the question perhaps not be drafted as follows: “History repeats itself because of human nature”? 

Indeed, again and again in history and today even in workplaces and beyond, it seems that a certain personality type keeps arising in positions of power: the powerful – within the ancient Greek meaning of ‘tyrants’. They are usually markedly similar, i.e. charismatic and charming but also calculating and vicious. 

They are said that they tend to have a blend of narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder features such as a lack of understanding, grandiosity, insatiable lust for power and control, lying and deception, indifference to conventional laws or rules or ethics, etc. 

While people often discuss the history of diseased behavior and records of sadism and the horrific aftermath of these powerful humans (tyrants), what is discussed less often is that these – let us say – leaders do not and cannot rise in a vacuum; they come to power on the backs of the masses they ultimately hate and reject at will. It would be useful to examine the people who follow these coerce dictator types. Why do people worship and enable such leaders? More precise, the question arises as to what is it in human nature that makes humans vulnerable to a repeated cycle of cruelty and danger? 

Here are some of the reasons which make people follow the powerful (tyrants): 
When people feel a lack of control in their own lives, they turn to fantasy figures or escapist outlets to regain a sense of power and ego strength. Sometimes they turn to figureheads in their lives, be it politicians, celebrities, idols and people who possess charisma and strength. These charismatic types are masters of outward confidence, self-assuredness, which is reassuring and infectious for those who feel unsteady or insecure in themselves. 
  • A craving for strong paternal figures
One fundamental concern in human nature, that draws them to the idea of a higher authority or power, is the need for an idealised paternal figure.
Unfortunately, this thirst for such a figure can obscure one to the truth that no such perfect figure exists and a tyrannical leader can easily exploit and thrive off of this unquestioning worship. 
  • Cowardice/passivity/false safety/survival
Some people would rather stay in the seeming safety of the sidelines and let someone else run the show, perhaps due to fear of responsibility or compensation. This passivity can work to some extent in terms of hiding from initial attention or conflict, but it can be a dangerous way to enable powerful/tyrants to proceed unchecked. 
  • Assuming the best in others faith or naïve idealism 
Sometimes, unfortunately, it’s our goodwill and faith in human kindness that can doom us to manipulation. In a healthy society, mutual trust is a cornerstone of community strength, in exchange for abiding by general moral rules of community support. 
But sometimes that leaves us vulnerable to those who don’t play by the same rules we do. We assume that any human being will appreciate or exchange the same social contract of mutual respect and generosity and empathy and fairness that most of us try to strive for. But sadly, we underestimate the machinations of sociopaths who mimic and use this generosity while at their core, having no concern for others. We assume the best of each other, which works in many cases, but is also an Achilles heel to the cold exploitativeness of sociopathic behavior. 
Complicating matters is that such behavior occurs on a spectrum; clear and obvious “rulebreakers” like serial killers are one thing, but what about those who still abide by certain social graces on the surface, while at their core just pursuing their self-interest to varying degrees? Where do we draw the line between paranoid mistrust and oblivious innocence? This grey zone of trust is where sociopaths thrive. 
  • Wish fulfillment and admiration of infringing behavior         and confidence
Maybe people admire or envy the shark, even if we feel held back in our own lives for whatever reason from eating prey. Whether you are a secret shark lying in wait, seeing where you can bend the rules one day, or whether you envy what they win for themselves—confidence, power, or money—because you feel those are impossible goals for yourself, maybe you identify with and admire predatory behavior on some level. 
  • Drawn to superficial markers (money, looks, status) 
Humans are sadly status-oriented creatures, partly due to evolutionary behavior. The animal with the brightest plumage, who beats their chest the loudest, who appears with certain desirable physical attributes, who presents themselves as special or unusual gets more mating attention. Even babies and children are drawn to certain faces perceived as “attractive.” 
And particularly in our modern capitalist society, we are obsessed with markers of material superficial success: the clothes, the car, the name-brand degrees, the managerial titles, the fame and glamour, and more. On some level, we all fall for the simple gambit of admiring these markers, whatever they may be. Unfortunately, these markers usually have no correlation to morality or kindness or depth of human character. They are badges of entitlement for show, and we can’t help giving them credit. 
  • Power/popularity or even alignment with the ‘in’ crowd 
There is a great appeal to aligning with others who also fall in line, who are in sync with the group in charge. From grade school onward, peer pressure is massive, to avoid being the “nerd” or “oddball” who doesn’t look smooth or confident. To some extent, this social pattern doesn’t change, even in adult society, although thankfully the range of acceptable confidence and avenues for self-fulfillment are much more diverse. 
Unfortunately, certain career or social tracks remain narrowly defined, and the ones who align the best with the designated “norms” achieve more power and followers. Those followers enjoy basking in the glow of the successful leader’s approval and clique acceptance, even when the leader’s whims turn malicious or rely on putting others down. 
  • Lack of critical thought/logic/education
It’s easier to be exploited by a confident tyrant when you don’t doubt or examine their statements or motivations with a critical eye. Unfortunately, many people seem fine with going along with the status quo, unwilling to stay informed or read about issues of importance or question items that don’t make logical sense. 
They also don’t seem as skeptical or worried about too much power concentrated in the hands of any single individual, and what that can lead to. Or conversely, they are too cognitively rigid or overgeneralising, leading to scapegoating and prejudice, which can easily be exploited. 
In conclusion, there are understandably human tendencies, our eccentricities, insecurities, and aspirations that draw us to the boldness of the powerful (tyrant), but also leave us vulnerable to their ruthlessness, indifference, and exploitation. We need to maintain a healthy skepticism for any person who acts too good to be true, who never seems to doubt themselves, because ultimately, it’s normal to be incorrect and unsure about life sometimes, to push forward through mistakes and confusion and to forgive those who are still growing, changing. Overconfidence can be attractive but is ultimately a tactic, even a dangerous one. We cannot lightly follow the powerful (tyrants).

Tuesday 19 November 2019

The correct design and planning of pedestrian crossing structures [PedestrianCrossingStructures]


The correct design and planning of pedestrian crossing structures [PedestrianCrossingStructures]







The correct design and planning of pedestrian crossing structures has to be based on a thorough analysis of the situation concerning their use, how pedestrian crossing structures are affected by various influencive factors, and how sensible and accessible they are. 

The pedestrian subways are one of the energy measures aimed at elimination of conflict between pedestrians and vehicles at points of crossing. The source-reference for this paper is a detailed study of the pedestrian subway usage which concerns the variation between the pedestrian five-minute volumes during peak period, the relationships between characteristic factors and subway usage, the influence of the traffic flow and the distance and time ratios on subway usage, the pedestrian level of service and the accessibility of subways for specific pedestrian categories. 

Some of the more important findings of such research are set out in the above-mentioned paper. Four subways in the Sheffield, UK urban area are included in the research.



Wednesday 13 November 2019

Saint John (Golden-Mouthed) Chrysostom: “No matter how just your words may be, you ruin everything when you speak with anger.”

Saint John (Golden-Mouthed) Chrysostom: “No matter how just your words may be, you ruin everything when you speak with anger.”



Who can disagree with the incitement that we should bow our heads in memory of a great-great man; November 13 is the feast day of Saint John Chrysostom, bishop and doctor of the Church.


He was an Early Church Father best known for his preaching and public speaking, Saint John was given the name Chrysostomos, meaning “golden mouthed,” after death.

Born in Antioch in 349, John studied under a pagan teacher of rhetoric who taught him many skills of oratory and instilled in him a love of language and literature. After being ordained a #priest and bishop, John used these skills artfully in his homilies and catechesis.

What set him apart from others in his time period was his ability to apply scripture to everyday circumstances, teaching people how to incorporate the Gospel in all that they did. His practical sensibility has given his words an enduring quality, inspiring men and women across the world more than a thousand years after his death.

In the ordinary course of things Chrysostom might have become the successor of Flavian at Antioch. But on 27 September 397, Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, died. There was a general rivalry in the capital, openly or in secret, for the vacant see. After some months it was known, to the great disappointment of the competitors, that Emperor Arcadius, at the suggestion of his minister Eutropius, had sent to the Prefect of Antioch to call John Chrysostom out of the town without the knowledge of the people, and to send him straight to Constantinople. In this sudden way Chrysostom was hurried to the capital, and ordained Bishop of Constantinople on 26 February, 398, in the presence of a great assembly of bishops, by Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who had been obliged to renounce the idea of securing the appointment of Isidore, his own candidate. 

The change for Chrysostom was as great as it was unexpected. His new position was not an easy one, placed as he was in the midst of an upstart metropolis, half Western, half Oriental, in the neighbourhood of a court in which luxury and intrigue always played the most prominent parts, and at the head of the clergy composed of most heterogeneous elements, and even (if not canonically, at least practically) at the head of the whole Byzantine episcopate. The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome. Constantinople itself soon began to feel the impulse of a new ecclesiastical life.

The necessity for reform was undeniable. Chrysostom began "sweeping the stairs from the top" (see Palladius, op. cit., v). He called his oeconomus, and ordered him to reduce the expenses of the episcopal household; he put an end to the frequent banquets, and lived little less strictly than he had formerly lived as a priest and monk. With regard to the clergy, Chrysostom had at first to forbid them to keep in their houses syneisactoe, i.e. women housekeepers who had vowed virginity. He also proceeded against others who, by avarice or luxury, had given scandal. He had even to exclude from the ranks of the clergy two deacons, the one for murder and the other for adultery. Of the monks, too, who were very numerous even at that time at Constantinople, some had preferred to roam about aimlessly and without discipline. Chrysostom confined them to their monasteries. Finally he took care of the ecclesiastical widows. Some of them were living in a worldly manner: he obliged them either to marry again, or to observe the rules of decorum demanded by their state. After the clergy, Chrysostom turned his attention to his flock. As he had done at Antioch, so at Constantinople and with more reason, he frequently preached against the unreasonable extravagances of the rich, and especially against the ridiculous finery in the matter of dress affected by women whose age should have put them beyond such vanities. Some of them, the widows Marsa, Castricia, Eugraphia, known for such preposterous tastes, belonged to the court circle. It seems that the upper classes of Constantinople had not previously been accustomed to such language. Doubtless some felt the rebuke to be intended for themselves, and the offence given was the greater in proportion as the rebuke was the more deserved. 

On the other hand, the people showed themselves delighted with thesermons of their new bishop, and frequently applauded him in the church . They never forgot his care for the poor and miserable, and that in his first year he had built a great hospital with the money he had saved in his household. But Chrysostom had also very intimate friends among the rich and noble classes. The most famous of these was Olympias, widow and deaconess, a relation of Emperor Theodosius, while in the Court itself there was Brison, first usher of Eudoxia, who assisted Chrysostom in instructing his choirs, and always maintained a true friendship for him. The empress herself was at first most friendly towards the new bishop. She followed the religious processions, attended his sermons, and presented silver candlesticks for the use of the churches.

Unfortunately, the feelings of amity did not last. At first Eutropius, the former slave, now minister and consul, abused his influence. He deprived some wealthy persons of their property, and prosecuted others whom he suspected of being adversaries of rivals. More than once Chrysostom went himself to the minister to remonstrate with him, and to warn him of the results of his own acts, but without success. Then the above-named ladies, who immediately surrounded the empress, probably did not hide their resentment against the strict bishop. 

Finally, the empress herself committed an injustice in depriving a widow of her vineyard (see Marcus Diac., "Vita Porphyrii", V, no. 37, in P.G., LXV, 1229). Chrysostom interceded for the latter. But Eudoxia showed herself offended. Henceforth there was a certain coolness between the imperial Court and the episcopal palace, which, growing little by little, led to a catastrophe. It is impossible to ascertain exactly at what period this alienation first began; very probably itdated from the beginning of the year 401. But before this state of things became known to the public there happened events of the highest political importance, and Chrysostom, without seeking it, was implicated in them. These were the fall of Eutropius and the revolt of Gainas.

In January, 399, Eutropius, for a reason not exactly known, fell into disgrace. Knowing the feelings of the people and of his personal enemies, he fled to the church. As he had himself attempted to abolish the immunity of the ecclesiastical asylums not long before, the people seemed little disposed to spare him. But Chrysostom interfered, delivering his famous sermon on Eutropius, and the fallen minister was saved for the moment. As, however, he tried to escape during the night, he was seized, exiled, and some time later put to death. Immediately another more exciting and more dangerous event followed. Gainas, one of the imperial generals, had been sent out to subdueTribigild, who had revolted. In the summer of 399 Gainas united openly with Tribigild, and, to restore peace, Arcadius had to submit to the most humiliating conditions. Gainas was named commander-in-chief of the imperial army, and even had Aurelian and Saturninus, two men of the highest rank at Constantinople, delivered over to him. 

It seems that Chrysostom accepted a mission to Gainas, and that, owing to his intervention, Aurelian and Saturninus were spared by Gainas, and even set at liberty. Soon afterwards, Gainas, who was an Arian Goth, demanded one of the Catholic churches at Constantinople for himself and his soldiers. Again Chrysostom made so energetic an opposition that Gainas yielded. Meanwhile the people of Constantinople had become excited, and in one night several thousand Goths were slain. Gainas however escaped, was defeated, and slain by the Huns. Such was the end within a few years of three consuls of the Byzantine Empire. There is no doubt that Chrysostom's authority had been greatly strengthened by the magnanimity and firmness of character he had shown during all these troubles. It may have been this that augmented the jealousy of those who now governed the empire - a clique of courtiers, with the empress at their head. These were now joined by new allies issuing from the ecclesiastical ranks and including some provincial bishops -- Severian of Gabala, Antiochus of Ptolemais, and, for some time, Acacius of Beroea -- who preferred the attractions of the capital to residence in their own cities. 

The most intriguing among them was Severian, who flattered himself that he was the rival of Chrysostom in eloquence. But so far nothing had transpired in public. A great change occurred during the absence of Chrysostom for several months from Constantinople. This absence was necessitated by an ecclesiastical affair in Asia Minor, in which he was involved. Following the express invitation of several bishops, Chrysostom, in the first months of 401, had come to Ephesus, where he appointed a new archbishop, and with the consent of the assembled bishops deposed six bishops for simony. After having passed the same sentence on Bishop Gerontius of Nicomedia, he returned to Constantinople.

Meanwhile disagreeable things had happened there. Bishop Severian, to whom Chrysostom seems to have entrusted the performance of some ecclesiastical functions, had entered into open enmity with Serapion, the archdeacon and oeconomus of the cathedral and the episcopal palace. Whatever the real reason may have been, Chrysostom, found the case so serious that he invited Severian to return to his own see. It was solely owing to the personal interference of Eudoxia, whose confidence Serapion possessed, that he was allowed to come back from Chalcedon, whither he had retired. 

The reconciliation which followed was, at least on the part of Severian, not a sincere one, and the public scandal had excited much ill-feeling. The effects soon became visible. When in the spring of 402, Bishop Porphyrius of Gaza (see Marcus Diac., "Vita Porphyrii", V, ed. Nuth, Bonn, 1897, pp. 11-19) went to the Court at Constantinople to obtain a favour for his diocese, Chrysostom answered that he could do nothing for him, since he was himself in disgrace with the empress. Nevertheless, the party of malcontents were not really dangerous, unless they could find some prominent and unscrupulous leader. Such a person presented himself sooner than might have been expected. It was the well-known Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria. He appeared under rather curious circumstances, which in no way foreshadowed the final result. Theophilus, toward the end of the year 402, was summoned by the emperor to Constantinople to apologize before a synod, over which Chrysostom should preside, for several charges, which were brought against him by certain Egyptian monks, especially by the so-called four "tall brothers". The patriarch, their former friend, had suddenly turned against them, and had them persecuted as Origenists.

However, Theophilus was not easily frightened. He had always agents and friends at Constantinople, and knew the state of things and the feelings at the court. He now resolved to take advantage of them. He wrote at once to St. Epiphanius at Cyprus, requesting him to go to Constantinople and prevail upon Chrysostom at to condemn the Origenists. Epiphanius went. But when he found that Theophilus was merely using him for his own purposes, he left the capital, dying on his return in 403. At this time Chrysostom delivered a sermon against the vain luxury of women. It was reported to the empress as though she had been personally alluded to. In this way the ground was prepared. 

Theophilus at last appeared at Constantinople in June, 403, not alone, as he had been commanded, but with twenty-nine of his suffragan bishops, and, as Palladius (ch. viii) tells us, with a good deal of money and all sorts of gifts. He took his lodgings in one of the imperial palaces, and held conferences with all the adversaries of Chrysostom. Then he retired with his suffragans and seven other bishops to a villa near Constantinople, called epi dryn. A long list of the most ridiculous accusations was drawn up against Chrysostom, who, surrounded by forty-two archbishops and bishops assembled to judge Theophilus in accordance with the orders of the emperor, was now summoned to present himself and apologize. Chrysostom naturally refused to recognize the legality of a synod in which his open enemies were judges. After the third summons Chrysostom, with the consent of the emperor, was declared to be deposed. In order to avoid useless bloodshed, he surrendered himself on the third day to the soldiers who awaited him. But the threats of the excited people, and a sudden accident in the imperial palace, frightened the empress (Palladius, "Dialogus", ix). She feared some punishment from heaven for Chrysostom's exile, and immediately ordered his recall. 

After some hesitation Chrysostom re-entered the capital amid the great rejoicings of the people. Theophilus and his party saved themselves by flying from Constantinople. Chrysostom's return was in itself a defeat for Eudoxia. When her alarms had gone, her rancour revived. Two months afterwards a silver statue of the empress was unveiled in the square just before the cathedral. The public celebrations which attended this incident, and lasted several days, became so boisterous that the offices in the church were disturbed. Chrysostom complained of this to the prefect of the city, who reported to Eudoxia that the bishop had complained against her statue. 

This was enough to excite the empress beyond all bounds. She summoned Theophilus and the other bishops to come back and to depose Chrysostom again. The prudent patriarch, however, did not wish to run the same risk a second time. He only wrote to Constantinople that Chrysostom should be condemned for having re-entered his see in opposition to an article of the Synod of Antioch held in the year 341 (an Arian synod). The other bishops had neither the authority nor the courage to give a formal judgment. All they could do was to urge the emperor to sign a new decree of exile. A double attempt on Chrysostom's life failed. On Easter Eve, 404, when all the catechumens were to receive baptism, the adversaries of the bishop, with imperial soldiers, invaded the baptistery and dispersed the whole congregation. At last Arcadius signed the decree, and on 24 June, 404, the soldiers conducted Chrysostom a second time into exile.

They had scarcely left Constantinople when a huge conflagration destroyed the cathedral, the senate-house, and other buildings. The followers of the exiled bishop were accused of the crime and prosecuted. In haste Arsacius, an old man, was appointed successor of Chrysostom, but was soon succeeded by the cunning Atticus. Whoever refused to enter into communion with them was punished by confiscation of property and exile. Chrysostom himself was conducted to Cucusus, a secluded and rugged place on the east frontier of Armenia, continually exposed to the invasions of the Isaurians. In the following year he had even to fly for some time to the castle of Arabissus to protect himself from these barbarians. Meanwhile he always maintained a correspondence with his friends and never gave up thehope of return. 

When the circumstances of his deposition were known in the West, the pope and the Italian bishops declared themselves in his favour. Emperor Honorius and Pope Innocent I endeavoured to summon a new synod, but their legates were imprisoned and then sent home. The pope broke off all communion with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch (where an enemy of Chrysostom had succeeded Flavian), and Constantinople, until (after the death of Chrysostom) they consented to admit his name into the diptychs of the Church. 

Finally all hopes for the exiled bishop had vanished. Apparently he was living too long for his adversaries. In the summer, 407, the order was given to carry him to Pithyus, a place at the extreme boundary of the empire, near the Caucasus. One of the two soldiers who had to lead himcaused him all possible sufferings. He was forced to make long marches, was exposed to the rays of the sun, to the rains and the cold of the nights. His body, already weakened by several severe illnesses, finally broke down. On 14 September the party were at Comanan in Pontus. In the morning Chrysostom had asked to rest there on the account of his state of health. In vain; he was forced to continue his march. Very soon he felt so weak that they had to return toComana. Some hours later Chrysostom died. His last words were: Doxa to theo panton eneken (Glory be to God for all things) (see Palladius, xi, 38). 

He was buried at Comana. On 27 January, 438, his body was translated to Constantinople with great pomp and entombed in the church of the Apostles where Eudoxia had been buried in the year 404 (see Socrates, VII, 45; Constantine Prophyrogen., "Cæremoniale Aul Byz.", II, 92, in P.G., CXII, 1204 B).