So we've gone over some methods of philosophy by now.
1) The Analytic method - is just math. Get your math out and rock it. We've had more on this before and after.
2) The ordinary language method - take your favorite idiomatic expression and then stretch it out in order to reveal some larger truth (re: Gilbert Ryle's The Concept of Mind).
3) The dialogue method - just talk to people in order to get down to foundational beliefs. (re: any number of Socratic Dialogues by Plato).
4) Eastern Philosophy - Stopping the "thinker" by using breathing exercises and meditation. The "thinker" here being mind-flows; and therefore involves consideration of the stream of consciousness (I'll get a post here one of these days on some of my findings; re: Thich Nhat Hanh's Peace is Every Step, Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth).
5) Some Romanticism and Post Modern Schools - argue for the exact opposite of 4). They recommend just writing and writing and writing.
6) Thinking of how things ought to be - The imperative or subjunctive nature of philosophy is all over. These people feel the ethical need to write and convince people. (re: any number of Christian Apologists (is this really philosophy?) or Atheists; and I guess Kant sort of slips into here)
7) Thinking of how things are - Describing our world in a way that shows a coherent or foundational knowledge (Like Sosa's "Raft and the Pyramid" Article? maybe.....)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Many possible words in many possible worlds!!!
What am I doing here?
Getting an education!
I thought it was a stupid idea. Leibniz has this idea of many possible worlds. Dude this is totally a 20th century idea. They brought it back.
That is, if you accept certain dynamics of reality, then you almost always get to Determinism whereupon people don't have free will.
But hold the phone because Leibniz's stake in the Free will debate was contingency and the idea of many possible worlds.
There are 20th century philosophers, even analytic mathematical weird ones, who actually believe this.
I remember going to Modern Philosophy and hearing about old Gotty Leibniz and his wacko idea of many possible worlds for the sake of Free Will and contingency, and thinking about how kooky the idea was; and then going to Philosophy of Language (a 20th century course) and watching my weirdo professor draw circles on the board and dots in them.
I guess it would be funny here to mention that yes this professor was tenured.
But they seriously believe this stuff. In fact, it's a great way for them to consider the contingency of logic. Some stuff is necessary and some stuff is less necessary. (New word proposal: Lessecary?)
Getting an education!
I thought it was a stupid idea. Leibniz has this idea of many possible worlds. Dude this is totally a 20th century idea. They brought it back.
That is, if you accept certain dynamics of reality, then you almost always get to Determinism whereupon people don't have free will.
But hold the phone because Leibniz's stake in the Free will debate was contingency and the idea of many possible worlds.
There are 20th century philosophers, even analytic mathematical weird ones, who actually believe this.
I remember going to Modern Philosophy and hearing about old Gotty Leibniz and his wacko idea of many possible worlds for the sake of Free Will and contingency, and thinking about how kooky the idea was; and then going to Philosophy of Language (a 20th century course) and watching my weirdo professor draw circles on the board and dots in them.
I guess it would be funny here to mention that yes this professor was tenured.
But they seriously believe this stuff. In fact, it's a great way for them to consider the contingency of logic. Some stuff is necessary and some stuff is less necessary. (New word proposal: Lessecary?)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Existentialism's Guerrilla Philosophy: You are living your philosophy
On my year off, I ended up visiting Hamilton College, up the street from where I live.
I studied and I explored.
The first one is more surprising than the second.
But what was I doing up there and why? I don't meet Raleigh people at North Carolina State University parties in the same way that I myself was a Clinton resident at Hamilton College.
This outsider experience prepared me for attending the historically black university North Carolina Central University.
While I attended North Carolina Central University, I visited my friend James. My outsider experience prepared me for visiting my friend James when he went to Duke University.
At North Carolina State University, which is known for its preference of North Carolina residents, I have been asked this question over and over again.
All four schools, North Carolina State University, North Carolina Central University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Duke University, have preference-quotas for North Carolina High Schoolers who apply; so does Hamilton College. The Duke family did support James E. Shepard when he founded of North Carolina Central University. The basic reason is: we have to help out those around us.
The black people of NCCU and the rich people of Duke or the North Carolinians of NC State all ask me this out loud so often. The question everyone asked me (and asks me) over and over is: "What are you doing here?"
This sounds like a creation story for a philosopher. But this is absolutely seductive. It spins a lot of emotional pain that I have had. I've had a lot of joy, too.
This is the paramount existential question(with an operational definition for me simply being the question of existence) for obvious reasons.
At its worst it racks my brain. In other words, I have been asked out loud what people go through internally or at least through their own volition.
It would not be a problem if I knew what I was doing here. I mean, besides what I am ostensibly doing here, as in college.
What am I doing here?
I'd give a bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
I don't know. (is this a breakthrough?)
They wanted to know why here instead of any where else in this country.
People are interested in purpose, but in strange ways, and they aren't willing to look too much into it if it gets boring (which the question's answer does and does often).
That's like all of us, except that we have different tolerances and interests. (Note: where is the difference between innate intelligence and personality? re: if a person's personality loves studying or studying enough to become a genius, isn't that an innate intelligence? aren't we sort of double dipping?)
People wanted to know why I was at Hamilton College partying. I never got bothered when I studied at the Library. What are you doing here?
People wanted to know why I was at North Carolina Central University because it is an all black school (I was one of 5 or six white kids; three of which I can name: red haired gang leader white kid, white girl with last name brown which I won't name here, and no comment on the irony, and a kid named Josh who was there studying music).
And I would tell them that I was there for the law school, which was-is true and for my friend James. Was it bullshit when I told them I was there for law school? Sort of?
People wanted to know why I was at Duke University and not doing other stuff, and then they would find out that I was hanging out with James. Was it bullshit when I told them I was hanging out with James? Sort of?
But that answer satisfied for those people asking.
There was one time when a beautiful black woman went into a fit (she was a friend of Makeda's, who's last name I won't write here) and she started shouting at me as in why I was there. I told her that I was just getting lunch, which is true at the time.
People ask me this all the time at NC State University, but it's not as much as when I attended NCCU and visiting Duke University.
This third round of people are wondering why NC State versus upstate New York colleges.
One of the most emotional incidents in the past year have been when I was in Israel and my friend Kenneth asked me over and over. I gave him bullshit about John Edwards, and Law School, and my friend James Ray.
Another one was I was out to eat with some friends and my friend's Dad was Irish. If you don't know, the Irish sense of humor is sarcastic, dry, and mocking. The Irish sense of humor is a gallows humor and also can be sort of brutal-spiteful. But always in jest and for laughs. Example of Irish humor: my friend Jim R. said, "Don't you look like Ben Stiller?" or "Do you know who Jerry Seinfeld is?" speaking to my average, long nose Jewish looks. In other words, making you feel bad helps others laugh at you but also helps you laugh at yourself.
At a dinner this particular Irish-American friend (different from Jim R.), brought up all of the great upstate New York schools (he himself attended the upstate New York Yale Sister Vassar College). He talked about SUNY Geneseo, and SUNY Binghamton, and SUNY Buffalo, and SUNY Potsdam, and all I could say was, "Yeah, those are great schools." What could I say?
Another one was where I talked to my friend Tom and the kid had a shift in his face. Later I thought of:
Sometimes I think freedom is like when you have freedom to be in the act. I define this as kinetic freedom and I think it's beautiful.
The greatest example of kinetic freedom is when you are free falling during a sky dive. There is nothing to do except fall. People talk about this as freeing and feeling alive. That's what I mean.
I thought of all the ways that people feel like they are being forced to attend college, and all of the lectures Tom might have gotten from his parents about money and being close to his parents.
I think of folklore: the Jewish Diaspora (which I originally learned the word from the blacks: they talk about the African Diaspora; it means spreading or disbursement; it has connotations of watering down and losing potency and strength through dilution; there are large bodies of literature dealing with Diaspora studies; what a Diaspora is). Jacob in the Bible is a representative of Jewish Diaspora.
I think of brute specific causality: my parents supported a digression that I made; they were sick of me being close to home, they wanted me to grow up, I had support from James, I was able to get into NCCU because of my minority status and despite my poor grades.
I think of general causality: The North Carolina Triangle is one of the fastest growing parts of the United States and there is a large immigration of North Easterners coming from the Rust Belt; places that look like Flint, Michigan; Midland city, Ohio; and my city Utica, New York. Imagery: these cities have big brick warehouses with broken windows.
This isn't my reasoning, but it allies me with the people around here. My friends Brian C. and Danielle K. and Katie A., were born in California, and my friend Audrey B. is from Ohio.
That is, there is a more general move of this country toward North Carolina because of various reasons. I immediately met up with two family friends when I came down here (they were part of our congregation up north).
Imagine how I felt coming down here and finding out where everyone who left Utica went. This is a more general (I daresay metaphysical) move of a population.
I think of superstition: The Sagittarius is known as a happy traveller; an inside outsider and an outside insider. Sagittarius rules travel, high culture, fringe culture, and foreign interactions. It also rules luck.
I'm thinking to myself: where am I going with this? Answer: I do know and I don't know. Why am I so embarrassed sometimes? Answer: I do know and I don't know.
Why am I here? I do know and I don't know. And I don't know.
What I've been saying here is that I've been giving a short answer and there are times when that short answer is not good enough at the time or in retrospect. The operational definitions don't work for that time or any time. Creation of reality indeed!
I studied and I explored.
The first one is more surprising than the second.
But what was I doing up there and why? I don't meet Raleigh people at North Carolina State University parties in the same way that I myself was a Clinton resident at Hamilton College.
This outsider experience prepared me for attending the historically black university North Carolina Central University.
While I attended North Carolina Central University, I visited my friend James. My outsider experience prepared me for visiting my friend James when he went to Duke University.
At North Carolina State University, which is known for its preference of North Carolina residents, I have been asked this question over and over again.
All four schools, North Carolina State University, North Carolina Central University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Duke University, have preference-quotas for North Carolina High Schoolers who apply; so does Hamilton College. The Duke family did support James E. Shepard when he founded of North Carolina Central University. The basic reason is: we have to help out those around us.
The black people of NCCU and the rich people of Duke or the North Carolinians of NC State all ask me this out loud so often. The question everyone asked me (and asks me) over and over is: "What are you doing here?"
This sounds like a creation story for a philosopher. But this is absolutely seductive. It spins a lot of emotional pain that I have had. I've had a lot of joy, too.
This is the paramount existential question(with an operational definition for me simply being the question of existence) for obvious reasons.
At its worst it racks my brain. In other words, I have been asked out loud what people go through internally or at least through their own volition.
It would not be a problem if I knew what I was doing here. I mean, besides what I am ostensibly doing here, as in college.
What am I doing here?
I'd give a bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
I don't know. (is this a breakthrough?)
They wanted to know why here instead of any where else in this country.
People are interested in purpose, but in strange ways, and they aren't willing to look too much into it if it gets boring (which the question's answer does and does often).
That's like all of us, except that we have different tolerances and interests. (Note: where is the difference between innate intelligence and personality? re: if a person's personality loves studying or studying enough to become a genius, isn't that an innate intelligence? aren't we sort of double dipping?)
People wanted to know why I was at Hamilton College partying. I never got bothered when I studied at the Library. What are you doing here?
People wanted to know why I was at North Carolina Central University because it is an all black school (I was one of 5 or six white kids; three of which I can name: red haired gang leader white kid, white girl with last name brown which I won't name here, and no comment on the irony, and a kid named Josh who was there studying music).
And I would tell them that I was there for the law school, which was-is true and for my friend James. Was it bullshit when I told them I was there for law school? Sort of?
People wanted to know why I was at Duke University and not doing other stuff, and then they would find out that I was hanging out with James. Was it bullshit when I told them I was hanging out with James? Sort of?
But that answer satisfied for those people asking.
There was one time when a beautiful black woman went into a fit (she was a friend of Makeda's, who's last name I won't write here) and she started shouting at me as in why I was there. I told her that I was just getting lunch, which is true at the time.
People ask me this all the time at NC State University, but it's not as much as when I attended NCCU and visiting Duke University.
This third round of people are wondering why NC State versus upstate New York colleges.
One of the most emotional incidents in the past year have been when I was in Israel and my friend Kenneth asked me over and over. I gave him bullshit about John Edwards, and Law School, and my friend James Ray.
Another one was I was out to eat with some friends and my friend's Dad was Irish. If you don't know, the Irish sense of humor is sarcastic, dry, and mocking. The Irish sense of humor is a gallows humor and also can be sort of brutal-spiteful. But always in jest and for laughs. Example of Irish humor: my friend Jim R. said, "Don't you look like Ben Stiller?" or "Do you know who Jerry Seinfeld is?" speaking to my average, long nose Jewish looks. In other words, making you feel bad helps others laugh at you but also helps you laugh at yourself.
At a dinner this particular Irish-American friend (different from Jim R.), brought up all of the great upstate New York schools (he himself attended the upstate New York Yale Sister Vassar College). He talked about SUNY Geneseo, and SUNY Binghamton, and SUNY Buffalo, and SUNY Potsdam, and all I could say was, "Yeah, those are great schools." What could I say?
Another one was where I talked to my friend Tom and the kid had a shift in his face. Later I thought of:
Sometimes I think freedom is like when you have freedom to be in the act. I define this as kinetic freedom and I think it's beautiful.
The greatest example of kinetic freedom is when you are free falling during a sky dive. There is nothing to do except fall. People talk about this as freeing and feeling alive. That's what I mean.
I thought of all the ways that people feel like they are being forced to attend college, and all of the lectures Tom might have gotten from his parents about money and being close to his parents.
I think of folklore: the Jewish Diaspora (which I originally learned the word from the blacks: they talk about the African Diaspora; it means spreading or disbursement; it has connotations of watering down and losing potency and strength through dilution; there are large bodies of literature dealing with Diaspora studies; what a Diaspora is). Jacob in the Bible is a representative of Jewish Diaspora.
I think of brute specific causality: my parents supported a digression that I made; they were sick of me being close to home, they wanted me to grow up, I had support from James, I was able to get into NCCU because of my minority status and despite my poor grades.
I think of general causality: The North Carolina Triangle is one of the fastest growing parts of the United States and there is a large immigration of North Easterners coming from the Rust Belt; places that look like Flint, Michigan; Midland city, Ohio; and my city Utica, New York. Imagery: these cities have big brick warehouses with broken windows.
This isn't my reasoning, but it allies me with the people around here. My friends Brian C. and Danielle K. and Katie A., were born in California, and my friend Audrey B. is from Ohio.
That is, there is a more general move of this country toward North Carolina because of various reasons. I immediately met up with two family friends when I came down here (they were part of our congregation up north).
Imagine how I felt coming down here and finding out where everyone who left Utica went. This is a more general (I daresay metaphysical) move of a population.
I think of superstition: The Sagittarius is known as a happy traveller; an inside outsider and an outside insider. Sagittarius rules travel, high culture, fringe culture, and foreign interactions. It also rules luck.
I'm thinking to myself: where am I going with this? Answer: I do know and I don't know. Why am I so embarrassed sometimes? Answer: I do know and I don't know.
Why am I here? I do know and I don't know. And I don't know.
What I've been saying here is that I've been giving a short answer and there are times when that short answer is not good enough at the time or in retrospect. The operational definitions don't work for that time or any time. Creation of reality indeed!
Portfolio 20: Diversify your Classes article
http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/diversify-your-classes-1.2040400
Diversify your classes
Published: Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Updated: Wednesday, October 28, 2009
 "Photo: © 2009 NCSU Student Media")
© 2009 NCSU Student Media
In choosing classes for spring semester, try something different. I'm speaking to everyone here, but especially students.
Choose classes that happen three or more days a week or late in the day. Choose classes your friends told you are great or those that are ultra-specialized. That is, you should specialize your classes.
We're not running out of space, and it's not OK to cram into classes with 250 or more students. The only occasion where it should be OK is when it's mass-engineered food for thought.
We might consider an analogy to food: it's OK to eat fast food once a month or once a week but it’s unhealthy to eat the stuff every day. It is not OK to be in large, packed, classes for four years in a row. These classes are watered down with little professor interaction. They do not have any checks and balances.
For these courses, professors absolve themselves from responsibility in the same way students do. Someone else beside us is doing the work (hopefully).
Make sure you do not get caught in the cracks. You want your professors to know you and be able to talk with you, not awkward anonymity. Speak loud and often in class. Be able to complain. At least there is dignity in complaining. Anonymity has no dignity whatsoever; it's a farce and a sham we tell ourselves.
One way to slim down class sizes is to choose classes that are ultra-specialized. The reason for this is because everyone is different and there is a ton of intermingling that could be happening that fails to occur. Ask your professors, friends and teacher assistants what classes they think you would enjoy. There are half a dozen N.C. State class raters that can tell you good professors and classes on campus. My Pack provides students the opportunity to see past grade distributions.
Not all classes beneficial to your career have to be taken for credit. For a specific example, people looking into law school might consider the Logic-225 or -335 courses taken for audit only (where you simply go to the class without any grades) or pass-fail. Engineering and math students might consider taking a graduate level course on these subjects. Another elephant in the kitchen is that these prospective courses are fun in the way that careers are supposed to be fun.
You could take an entire course seriously without wasting a grade and then take the class for the grade and get better scores.
Likewise, if you're going to have a professor you have not had previously, go audit one of his or her classes this semester; see what it is like. I recommend this in addition to asking other students about the course.
Specialize your classes. If you are in an obscure class, it will be a smaller class size because the course most likely limits students’ ability to take it.
A final word could be said to those of us in gigantic classes right now: don't let the professors or the teacher assistants off the hook. But most of all: don't let yourself off the hook.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Egads!-Begets-Vie Gehts?
Brute fact empiricism trumps ethics, sometimes at least.
I mean, that's what we could get down to with regimented utilitarian analyses in at least some cases.
This is part of the reason that Socrates said that people who knew what was truly good would not choose wrong. He sees the choices between good and bad as just ignorant.
Flagging this objective world for a second, isn't it obvious what we would do if we had that kind of knowledge?
If we knew that helium causes brain damage, would you still breathe in a helium balloon?
This seems remarkably similar to drug education. (Which sometimes works? I mean, the D.A.R.E. programs have been wiped out; were these worthless? do kids not learn like we thought?)
So if we have these educated people, they avoid crime, right? It's all too good to be true.
But as always, the difference between a low quality life and a high quality life is EDUCATION.
I have 3 hours until I hand in the worst essay I have ever written. Here's to passing!
I mean, that's what we could get down to with regimented utilitarian analyses in at least some cases.
This is part of the reason that Socrates said that people who knew what was truly good would not choose wrong. He sees the choices between good and bad as just ignorant.
Flagging this objective world for a second, isn't it obvious what we would do if we had that kind of knowledge?
If we knew that helium causes brain damage, would you still breathe in a helium balloon?
This seems remarkably similar to drug education. (Which sometimes works? I mean, the D.A.R.E. programs have been wiped out; were these worthless? do kids not learn like we thought?)
So if we have these educated people, they avoid crime, right? It's all too good to be true.
But as always, the difference between a low quality life and a high quality life is EDUCATION.
I have 3 hours until I hand in the worst essay I have ever written. Here's to passing!
Determinism Objection
Philosophy Professor: So you are a Determinist? Then why do you try?
Me: I don't know. Obviously I've got to do some furious hand-waving.
Me: I don't know. Obviously I've got to do some furious hand-waving.
Some mindless self-indulgence
When are you happiest? Do you have to realize when you are happiest? I mean, when you are in those feelings, do you have to recognize that you have them?
Memory is important to us; it helps us build our personalities. For practical purposes, it is our memories.
I say to myself, one of the lyrics from Cap 'n Jazz, they sing, "I can't stand, standing here like this, and I can't take taking any talk serious." And they repeat it over and over, and they have lyrics. The song ends, "We're trying so hard to forget who we are, We're trying so hard to forget who we are."
I have friends who are successful in the way that success can be obvious, in the way that skies can appear blue truly and obviously.
This we might call the Locke-Spinoza theories of knowledge 3rd kind, the third octane, where you don't have to do any sense recognition, or mathematical workouts, rather you just know knowledge. Spinoza talked about this as intuition, and knowledge of God. On this blog we also connected these three levels to Aristotle's levels of friendship: a) getting together for a group or partnered project, b) getting together because one of the partners wants to feel good, and c) being friends where both want what is virtuous in the other person.
I have friends who are successful and they are successful in ways that I am not. This is intentional: I like the sexiness of having these friends. I like having these people around because it makes conversation fluid, interesting, great. I like having these conversations and hearing about these ideas.
The converse of course hurts. The converse is where they talk about their achievements and I realize that I really don't have any sort of support for my own. What achievements do I have?
I read Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott. As a successful author, she had to write and write and write before having recognition. She has a small section about other author friends who are going great. She tells them, "gright, that's just gright." Finally, she simply says that she needs a break from the friendship.
I had something similar with a friend this semester, who is doing excellent. My grades are nothing like hers, and she is able to work and work and work and party and party and party and I had to say that I have to work these days and I can't hang out right now.
http://www.amazon.com/Bird-Some-Instructions-Writing-Life/dp/0385480016/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256609796&sr=8-1
That is, the very reason I hang out with these people is a reason to self-scorn, at times. I ride this fine line and I have to be careful.
Dr. Kasser, my philosophy adviser and a sampled essay for this blog, floored me one time. I asked him whether he believed in God, or Free Will. He said, "Why does it matter?" To which I did not have a reply. The point was that we were at an advising session and it was time to get back to advising.
When am I happiest?
I've written almost 200 blog entries, obviously some are shorter than others. I've been to more than enough parties, and coffee dates. My mom made fun of me in High School by calling them "play dates" when I was supposed to be working minimum wage.
My happiest times these days is usually across from a friend talking.
I've written over 500 letters to my sister Paige Saez. These are simply sculptures with words. That is, they are sculptures in that they serve no purpose except to keep writing and expressing. It's an open connection with my sister Paige.
That is, just because the Pyramids have no function or have a weird function (like harvesting or communicating with Aliens, or other countries) or are symbolic (like the Eiffel Tower or The Statue of Liberty) does not devalue them.
The truth is I don't think at this point I could help myself. Paige is essential because 1) She communicates with me on the phone about what I'm writing, 2) she does not communicate with me about what I am writing, 3) her universal audience is important: I'm telling all to a person I can tell all to, (it's also interesting: I end up deemphasizing some of my interactions and emphasizing others;) and 4) she's my sister she's encouraging and accepting.
Memory is important to us; it helps us build our personalities. For practical purposes, it is our memories.
I say to myself, one of the lyrics from Cap 'n Jazz, they sing, "I can't stand, standing here like this, and I can't take taking any talk serious." And they repeat it over and over, and they have lyrics. The song ends, "We're trying so hard to forget who we are, We're trying so hard to forget who we are."
I have friends who are successful in the way that success can be obvious, in the way that skies can appear blue truly and obviously.
This we might call the Locke-Spinoza theories of knowledge 3rd kind, the third octane, where you don't have to do any sense recognition, or mathematical workouts, rather you just know knowledge. Spinoza talked about this as intuition, and knowledge of God. On this blog we also connected these three levels to Aristotle's levels of friendship: a) getting together for a group or partnered project, b) getting together because one of the partners wants to feel good, and c) being friends where both want what is virtuous in the other person.
I have friends who are successful and they are successful in ways that I am not. This is intentional: I like the sexiness of having these friends. I like having these people around because it makes conversation fluid, interesting, great. I like having these conversations and hearing about these ideas.
The converse of course hurts. The converse is where they talk about their achievements and I realize that I really don't have any sort of support for my own. What achievements do I have?
I read Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott. As a successful author, she had to write and write and write before having recognition. She has a small section about other author friends who are going great. She tells them, "gright, that's just gright." Finally, she simply says that she needs a break from the friendship.
I had something similar with a friend this semester, who is doing excellent. My grades are nothing like hers, and she is able to work and work and work and party and party and party and I had to say that I have to work these days and I can't hang out right now.
http://www.amazon.com/Bird-Some-Instructions-Writing-Life/dp/0385480016/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256609796&sr=8-1
That is, the very reason I hang out with these people is a reason to self-scorn, at times. I ride this fine line and I have to be careful.
Dr. Kasser, my philosophy adviser and a sampled essay for this blog, floored me one time. I asked him whether he believed in God, or Free Will. He said, "Why does it matter?" To which I did not have a reply. The point was that we were at an advising session and it was time to get back to advising.
When am I happiest?
I've written almost 200 blog entries, obviously some are shorter than others. I've been to more than enough parties, and coffee dates. My mom made fun of me in High School by calling them "play dates" when I was supposed to be working minimum wage.
My happiest times these days is usually across from a friend talking.
I've written over 500 letters to my sister Paige Saez. These are simply sculptures with words. That is, they are sculptures in that they serve no purpose except to keep writing and expressing. It's an open connection with my sister Paige.
That is, just because the Pyramids have no function or have a weird function (like harvesting or communicating with Aliens, or other countries) or are symbolic (like the Eiffel Tower or The Statue of Liberty) does not devalue them.
The truth is I don't think at this point I could help myself. Paige is essential because 1) She communicates with me on the phone about what I'm writing, 2) she does not communicate with me about what I am writing, 3) her universal audience is important: I'm telling all to a person I can tell all to, (it's also interesting: I end up deemphasizing some of my interactions and emphasizing others;) and 4) she's my sister she's encouraging and accepting.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
1) I wish professors would say, "Memorize this and exactly this."
I wish professors would space out classes, even liberal arts classes, monday through friday.
My grades are terrible and I wish they were better.
2) People have to stop eating so much. I wrote in this blog that I read David Kessler's new popular science medicine-biology-eating-fad book The End of Overeating this summer.
I haven't written this on the blog, but I also read Paul Theroux's commentary on the food fad business, Milroy the Magician. In it, a carnival magician becomes a food guru, hypnotizing people into eating healthier. People who are hypnotized end up having superpowers and (surprise) feeling better.
In the book, Milroy says, "Only in America are the poor people fat and the rich people are skinny."
It's a wild book, and it has parallels to the other Theroux I read, Mosquito Coast, which was made into a Harrison Ford movie of the same name. I also read a short story which appeared in the New Yorker magazine a couple of years back.
In the former book, Milroy goes to fast food restaurants in America and watches the people eat and eat. It's his way of recharging.
Kessler pointed out in the first chapter of his book that the reason that people are overweight has been in question for some time, and now we know that it is because people eat too much. (When I read this, I said to myself, "No, duh." But now, consider it for yourself: try talking to people about why they think people are generally too fat. They will tell you lack of exercise, metabolism, and nutrition gaps.)
People need to stop eating too much.
Do we need to tell ourselves this? Do we need to tell each other? Do we need to stop each other?
3) Drinking is pretty bad in College. Most of us know exactly how bad it is. I have friends who have flunked out, but it's blurry. I have at least as many friends who have made it through college, and probably a few (but obviously not too many) friends who have done exceptional in college and are still able to have a beer every now and then.
Some conclusions from these three ethical urgencies:
1) Some ideas on causation take:
We do know exact correlations-causations (sort of).
I think this is back to our causation versus correlation problems.
People get us on the causation versus correlation counterargument so often. (We've been talking about this constantly on this blog
Spinoza thought that every cause has a necessary effect. He thought that every cause came from every effect necessarily.
In this way, 2+2 = 4, things necessarily fall toward the earth, and if you're ugly you're going to have a hard time getting a date.
But this isn't always a good way to look at things. I think correlations stand here as a problem. James Vincent Ray said that correlations and probability are a good way to look at the world.
We do not know what number of beers equals terrible grades in a causative way. We do not know that beer causes bad grades in the way that 2+2=4.
2) The Paternalism Debate:
I've been thinking lately: if you accept rigid Determinism, as I do and I want to do, I feel that you'll end up with a strictly paternalist system.
Simplified Argument:
1) If people don't have the will to choose, then it does not matter if you give them a political "choice"
2) people don't have the will to choose
3) Conclusion: it does not matter if you do not give them a political "choice"
How does this plug in? Hopefully it's a little bit more obvious now. When I say that your will is determined, then it behooves us to try to stop you from hurting yourself. We know you're going to mess up, and that you cannot help yourself.
If you can't stop yourself, we have to stop you.
These three urgencies are problems of paternalism. We know that people have to help themselves. But where do we stop them? How can we stop them? Why do we have to stop them? How can we help them best?
Here's a Nine Inch Nails Song while you think all of this over:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-m4oZLfYU
I wish professors would space out classes, even liberal arts classes, monday through friday.
My grades are terrible and I wish they were better.
2) People have to stop eating so much. I wrote in this blog that I read David Kessler's new popular science medicine-biology-eating-fad book The End of Overeating this summer.
I haven't written this on the blog, but I also read Paul Theroux's commentary on the food fad business, Milroy the Magician. In it, a carnival magician becomes a food guru, hypnotizing people into eating healthier. People who are hypnotized end up having superpowers and (surprise) feeling better.
In the book, Milroy says, "Only in America are the poor people fat and the rich people are skinny."
It's a wild book, and it has parallels to the other Theroux I read, Mosquito Coast, which was made into a Harrison Ford movie of the same name. I also read a short story which appeared in the New Yorker magazine a couple of years back.
In the former book, Milroy goes to fast food restaurants in America and watches the people eat and eat. It's his way of recharging.
Kessler pointed out in the first chapter of his book that the reason that people are overweight has been in question for some time, and now we know that it is because people eat too much. (When I read this, I said to myself, "No, duh." But now, consider it for yourself: try talking to people about why they think people are generally too fat. They will tell you lack of exercise, metabolism, and nutrition gaps.)
People need to stop eating too much.
Do we need to tell ourselves this? Do we need to tell each other? Do we need to stop each other?
3) Drinking is pretty bad in College. Most of us know exactly how bad it is. I have friends who have flunked out, but it's blurry. I have at least as many friends who have made it through college, and probably a few (but obviously not too many) friends who have done exceptional in college and are still able to have a beer every now and then.
Some conclusions from these three ethical urgencies:
1) Some ideas on causation take:
We do know exact correlations-causations (sort of).
I think this is back to our causation versus correlation problems.
People get us on the causation versus correlation counterargument so often. (We've been talking about this constantly on this blog
Spinoza thought that every cause has a necessary effect. He thought that every cause came from every effect necessarily.
In this way, 2+2 = 4, things necessarily fall toward the earth, and if you're ugly you're going to have a hard time getting a date.
But this isn't always a good way to look at things. I think correlations stand here as a problem. James Vincent Ray said that correlations and probability are a good way to look at the world.
We do not know what number of beers equals terrible grades in a causative way. We do not know that beer causes bad grades in the way that 2+2=4.
2) The Paternalism Debate:
I've been thinking lately: if you accept rigid Determinism, as I do and I want to do, I feel that you'll end up with a strictly paternalist system.
Simplified Argument:
1) If people don't have the will to choose, then it does not matter if you give them a political "choice"
2) people don't have the will to choose
3) Conclusion: it does not matter if you do not give them a political "choice"
How does this plug in? Hopefully it's a little bit more obvious now. When I say that your will is determined, then it behooves us to try to stop you from hurting yourself. We know you're going to mess up, and that you cannot help yourself.
If you can't stop yourself, we have to stop you.
These three urgencies are problems of paternalism. We know that people have to help themselves. But where do we stop them? How can we stop them? Why do we have to stop them? How can we help them best?
Here's a Nine Inch Nails Song while you think all of this over:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-m4oZLfYU
Friday, October 23, 2009
Poetry Portfolio 2: Life and Bethany
Life and Bethany
Yes there is life after Beth
trying as one might to love her to Death
because trying so hard means you did your best
doesn't mean she'll ever say yes
Like ghosts you'll see each other again at the grocery mart
Like victimized villagers you'll both look up with a start
maybe before's hurt will again begin to smart
simply push along your shopping cart
There are fates worse than heaven or hell
like terrible car rides if that rings a bell
where talking is creeping upon egg shells
and your soul is absent as far as you can tell
so take it from me and don't wish for death
because you're here right now
and you're not there, yet
Yes there is life after Beth
trying as one might to love her to Death
because trying so hard means you did your best
doesn't mean she'll ever say yes
Like ghosts you'll see each other again at the grocery mart
Like victimized villagers you'll both look up with a start
maybe before's hurt will again begin to smart
simply push along your shopping cart
There are fates worse than heaven or hell
like terrible car rides if that rings a bell
where talking is creeping upon egg shells
and your soul is absent as far as you can tell
so take it from me and don't wish for death
because you're here right now
and you're not there, yet
Poetry Portfolio 1: Machinations
"Machinations"
Machines trust Love just like anything else
people used to have to smack their televisions
in order to get reception
a Buddhist monk wouldn't yell at
the cabbage in order to make it grow
but the machine's creator might yell
might tell it to create itself at 4:00AM
she doesn't care anymore (the inventor)
she might have yelled at her inventions
Machines don't care when you yell at them
when a person yells at something
no one blames a person who doesn't have a choice
no one blames a toaster oven, say
or a car for breaking down
saying you stupid car you stupid piece
of something you broke my heart
and I know the inner-workings
of this madness and I am still upset
you broke my heart you smacked my heart
for reception, to perceive
and my inventor has left the vicinity
to be with her other robots she designs
and I felt it!
Machines trust Love just like anything else
people used to have to smack their televisions
in order to get reception
a Buddhist monk wouldn't yell at
the cabbage in order to make it grow
but the machine's creator might yell
might tell it to create itself at 4:00AM
she doesn't care anymore (the inventor)
she might have yelled at her inventions
Machines don't care when you yell at them
when a person yells at something
no one blames a person who doesn't have a choice
no one blames a toaster oven, say
or a car for breaking down
saying you stupid car you stupid piece
of something you broke my heart
and I know the inner-workings
of this madness and I am still upset
you broke my heart you smacked my heart
for reception, to perceive
and my inventor has left the vicinity
to be with her other robots she designs
and I felt it!
Take your passion and make it happen
Lately I've been saying to myself, "This self-fulfilling prophecy is pretty unfulfilling."
What I mean is: If we are going to write a self-fulfilling prophecy, it might as well be awesome.
One time I wondered why people (my friends) don't post names, *like mine*, to their blogs.
Clearly I would have the idea in discussion. I would lead them to the idea that they were blogging about. They would then blog the idea that we talked about without citing me.
One reason that they were doing this is-was obviously selfish. They were-are doing it because they want to look like they had all these ideas, just for you the reader, but they invented them and had them by themselves.
This might compound with the fact that during conversation, it is a little more difficult to tell the synthesis of ideas (who had the ideas first) and it's even harder in retrospect to consider who had the idea first.
Another reason why they might not put my name or your name in their blog is because of real shyness and perceived shyness.
One person might be shy, and the blogger would account for this by not putting her name in. Another time the blogger might perceive that the person with the idea was shy and not write the idea person in.
I have been talking about Love these days with my friends and family. Here's a citation, my friend Joe said, "You could talk for hours and hours about what love is." He did not say this ironically or cynically. It was a kind statement of fact.
Gandhi said that we should use soul force and nonviolence to change the world. he said that we do not notice soul force, when things are going right in the world, because we usually notice when things are going wrong. In psychology this is called the representativeness heuristic, or the convenience heuristic, or the availability heuristic.
Love is a force, and in philosophy it is ever-abundent because it is to some extent one of the Fundamentals.
One is meaning. Another one is purpose. Another one is skepticism.
But against God, I think we have a more concrete knowledge of what love is. God is a little bit more intangible.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love
love
AC_FL_RunContent = 0;
var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FL03%2FL0390900.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=9801bdcd&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();
/lʌv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [luhv] Show IPA noun, verb, loved, lov⋅ing.
Use love in a Sentence
See web results for love
See images of love
–noun
1.
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.
4.
a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5.
(used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?
6.
a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7.
sexual intercourse; copulation.
8.
(initial capital letter) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
9.
affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.
10.
strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
11.
the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love.
12.
the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
13.
Chiefly Tennis. a score of zero; nothing.
14.
a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.
–verb (used with object)
15.
to have love or affection for: All her pupils love her.
16.
to have a profoundly tender, passionate affection for (another person).
17.
to have a strong liking for; take great pleasure in: to love music.
18.
to need or require; benefit greatly from: Plants love sunlight.
19.
to embrace and kiss (someone), as a lover.
20.
to have sexual intercourse with.
–verb (used without object)
21.
to have love or affection for another person; be in love.—Verb phrase
22.
love up, to hug and cuddle: She loves him up every chance she gets. —Idioms
23.
for love,
a.
out of affection or liking; for pleasure.
b.
without compensation; gratuitously: He took care of the poor for love.
24.
for the love of, in consideration of; for the sake of: For the love of mercy, stop that noise.
25.
in love, infused with or feeling deep affection or passion: a youth always in love.
26.
in love with, feeling deep affection or passion for (a person, idea, occupation, etc.); enamored of: in love with the girl next door; in love with one's work.
27.
make love,
a.
to embrace and kiss as lovers.
b.
to engage in sexual activity.
28.
no love lost, dislike; animosity: There was no love lost between the two brothers.
Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lufu, c. OFris luve, OHG luba, Goth lubō; (v.) ME lov(i)en, OE lufian; c. OFris luvia, OHG lubōn to love, L lubēre (later libēre) to be pleasing; akin to lief
Synonyms:1. tenderness, fondness, predilection, warmth, passion, adoration. 1, 2. Love, affection, devotion all mean a deep and enduring emotional regard, usually for another person. Love may apply to various kinds of regard: the charity of the Creator, reverent adoration toward God or toward a person, the relation of parent and child, the regard of friends for each other, romantic feelings for another person, etc. Affection is a fondness for others that is enduring and tender, but calm. Devotion is an intense love and steadfast, enduring loyalty to a person; it may also imply consecration to a cause. 2. liking, inclination, regard, friendliness. 15. like. 16. adore, adulate, worship.
Antonyms:1, 2. hatred, dislike. 15, 16. detest, hate.
What I mean is: If we are going to write a self-fulfilling prophecy, it might as well be awesome.
One time I wondered why people (my friends) don't post names, *like mine*, to their blogs.
Clearly I would have the idea in discussion. I would lead them to the idea that they were blogging about. They would then blog the idea that we talked about without citing me.
One reason that they were doing this is-was obviously selfish. They were-are doing it because they want to look like they had all these ideas, just for you the reader, but they invented them and had them by themselves.
This might compound with the fact that during conversation, it is a little more difficult to tell the synthesis of ideas (who had the ideas first) and it's even harder in retrospect to consider who had the idea first.
Another reason why they might not put my name or your name in their blog is because of real shyness and perceived shyness.
One person might be shy, and the blogger would account for this by not putting her name in. Another time the blogger might perceive that the person with the idea was shy and not write the idea person in.
I have been talking about Love these days with my friends and family. Here's a citation, my friend Joe said, "You could talk for hours and hours about what love is." He did not say this ironically or cynically. It was a kind statement of fact.
Gandhi said that we should use soul force and nonviolence to change the world. he said that we do not notice soul force, when things are going right in the world, because we usually notice when things are going wrong. In psychology this is called the representativeness heuristic, or the convenience heuristic, or the availability heuristic.
Love is a force, and in philosophy it is ever-abundent because it is to some extent one of the Fundamentals.
One is meaning. Another one is purpose. Another one is skepticism.
But against God, I think we have a more concrete knowledge of what love is. God is a little bit more intangible.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love
love
AC_FL_RunContent = 0;
var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FL03%2FL0390900.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=9801bdcd&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();
/lʌv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [luhv] Show IPA noun, verb, loved, lov⋅ing.
Use love in a Sentence
See web results for love
See images of love
–noun
1.
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.
4.
a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5.
(used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?
6.
a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7.
sexual intercourse; copulation.
8.
(initial capital letter) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
9.
affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.
10.
strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
11.
the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love.
12.
the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
13.
Chiefly Tennis. a score of zero; nothing.
14.
a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.
–verb (used with object)
15.
to have love or affection for: All her pupils love her.
16.
to have a profoundly tender, passionate affection for (another person).
17.
to have a strong liking for; take great pleasure in: to love music.
18.
to need or require; benefit greatly from: Plants love sunlight.
19.
to embrace and kiss (someone), as a lover.
20.
to have sexual intercourse with.
–verb (used without object)
21.
to have love or affection for another person; be in love.—Verb phrase
22.
love up, to hug and cuddle: She loves him up every chance she gets. —Idioms
23.
for love,
a.
out of affection or liking; for pleasure.
b.
without compensation; gratuitously: He took care of the poor for love.
24.
for the love of, in consideration of; for the sake of: For the love of mercy, stop that noise.
25.
in love, infused with or feeling deep affection or passion: a youth always in love.
26.
in love with, feeling deep affection or passion for (a person, idea, occupation, etc.); enamored of: in love with the girl next door; in love with one's work.
27.
make love,
a.
to embrace and kiss as lovers.
b.
to engage in sexual activity.
28.
no love lost, dislike; animosity: There was no love lost between the two brothers.
Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lufu, c. OFris luve, OHG luba, Goth lubō; (v.) ME lov(i)en, OE lufian; c. OFris luvia, OHG lubōn to love, L lubēre (later libēre) to be pleasing; akin to lief
Synonyms:1. tenderness, fondness, predilection, warmth, passion, adoration. 1, 2. Love, affection, devotion all mean a deep and enduring emotional regard, usually for another person. Love may apply to various kinds of regard: the charity of the Creator, reverent adoration toward God or toward a person, the relation of parent and child, the regard of friends for each other, romantic feelings for another person, etc. Affection is a fondness for others that is enduring and tender, but calm. Devotion is an intense love and steadfast, enduring loyalty to a person; it may also imply consecration to a cause. 2. liking, inclination, regard, friendliness. 15. like. 16. adore, adulate, worship.
Antonyms:1, 2. hatred, dislike. 15, 16. detest, hate.
Technician Portfolio 19: Successful studying
http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/three-takes-on-successful-studying-1.2025890#
Three takes on successful studying
By Jake Goldbas, Staff Columnist
Published: Sunday, October 18, 2009
Updated: Sunday, October 18, 2009
© 2009 NCSU Student Media
There are courses and books available at the library that can help us work toward successful studying.
One of Richard Palmer's tips from “Studying for Success” is to study in 35-minute blocks with five or ten minute breaks in between. This will keep your focus up. If you can focus for longer than that, you can and should. But forcing yourself to focus when your brain cannot is counterproductive.
Another tip from the same author is to have fun. If you dig into a project, dig into studying; what makes it easy is what makes it fun. This is difficult to break into because it is almost taboo to say that people have fun with what they’re doing, what their majors are. I suspect this is because people get jealous of each other.
The text “Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology” by Ronald Riggio gives six relevant motivation techniques. The book is the course text for the self-titled class taught by Professor Adam Meade. The techniques are Reinforcement Theory, Goal-Setting Theory, Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, the Job Characteristics Model, Equity Theory and Expectancy Theory.
Some very abbreviated definitions: Reinforcement Theory states humans need to recognize rewards and consequences for their work. Goal-Setting Theory states that people will work toward goals that they set for themselves, but the goals cannot be too hard or too easy.
Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory recommends getting things that bring satisfaction (motivators) and having things that make work unappetizing by their absence (hygienes). I think in this case a motivator would be a good grade, whereas a hygiene would be the absence of reward criteria. My relevant advice about the Job Characteristics Model is to set up courses to meet your needs for motivating yourself. For example, if your professor does not offer feedback, consider going to the tutoring centers to get reliable feedback.
Equity Theory states people are motivated by circumstances. If something does not have equity, it is unequal. People are motivated to maintain feelings of equity. For example, if you view school as an incredible gift, you might work harder to show that you are worth such a gift.
Expectancy is the “perceived relationship between the individual's effort and performance of a behavior.” Riggio then writes, “Given what you know about your own abilities, study habits, and effort, what is the probability that you will actually be able to achieve the required grades? Here you might consider your willingness to sacrifice some of your social life to study more, as well as considering your past academic performance... individuals unwilling to expend the time and energy, motivation will be much less.”
For a last text,” Keys to College Studying” by Carol Carter, Joyce Bishop and Sarah Lyman Kravits, recommend these tips to get motivated for studying: spend time reflecting on why your goal is meaningful to you; make a decision to take one step toward your goal; examine and deal with your obstacles; and begin or begin again.
I understand these last authors as stating that simply starting to study and being in the act of studying are self-motivating. Forming mental maxims, what these authors call “commitments,” establishes rules to mind, which minds then follow. In other words, setting up the mindset to do work welcomes the task of doing work.
These last authors also point out that one Chinese word for “chaos” is the same as “opportunity.” The authors wrote that the “character communicates the belief that every challenging, chaotic, and demanding situation in life also presents an opportunity.” This word reminds us that we need to challenge ourselves in order to face opportunities, and that in fact, they might be one in the same.
Three takes on successful studying
By Jake Goldbas, Staff Columnist
Published: Sunday, October 18, 2009
Updated: Sunday, October 18, 2009
© 2009 NCSU Student Media
There are courses and books available at the library that can help us work toward successful studying.
One of Richard Palmer's tips from “Studying for Success” is to study in 35-minute blocks with five or ten minute breaks in between. This will keep your focus up. If you can focus for longer than that, you can and should. But forcing yourself to focus when your brain cannot is counterproductive.
Another tip from the same author is to have fun. If you dig into a project, dig into studying; what makes it easy is what makes it fun. This is difficult to break into because it is almost taboo to say that people have fun with what they’re doing, what their majors are. I suspect this is because people get jealous of each other.
The text “Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology” by Ronald Riggio gives six relevant motivation techniques. The book is the course text for the self-titled class taught by Professor Adam Meade. The techniques are Reinforcement Theory, Goal-Setting Theory, Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, the Job Characteristics Model, Equity Theory and Expectancy Theory.
Some very abbreviated definitions: Reinforcement Theory states humans need to recognize rewards and consequences for their work. Goal-Setting Theory states that people will work toward goals that they set for themselves, but the goals cannot be too hard or too easy.
Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory recommends getting things that bring satisfaction (motivators) and having things that make work unappetizing by their absence (hygienes). I think in this case a motivator would be a good grade, whereas a hygiene would be the absence of reward criteria. My relevant advice about the Job Characteristics Model is to set up courses to meet your needs for motivating yourself. For example, if your professor does not offer feedback, consider going to the tutoring centers to get reliable feedback.
Equity Theory states people are motivated by circumstances. If something does not have equity, it is unequal. People are motivated to maintain feelings of equity. For example, if you view school as an incredible gift, you might work harder to show that you are worth such a gift.
Expectancy is the “perceived relationship between the individual's effort and performance of a behavior.” Riggio then writes, “Given what you know about your own abilities, study habits, and effort, what is the probability that you will actually be able to achieve the required grades? Here you might consider your willingness to sacrifice some of your social life to study more, as well as considering your past academic performance... individuals unwilling to expend the time and energy, motivation will be much less.”
For a last text,” Keys to College Studying” by Carol Carter, Joyce Bishop and Sarah Lyman Kravits, recommend these tips to get motivated for studying: spend time reflecting on why your goal is meaningful to you; make a decision to take one step toward your goal; examine and deal with your obstacles; and begin or begin again.
I understand these last authors as stating that simply starting to study and being in the act of studying are self-motivating. Forming mental maxims, what these authors call “commitments,” establishes rules to mind, which minds then follow. In other words, setting up the mindset to do work welcomes the task of doing work.
These last authors also point out that one Chinese word for “chaos” is the same as “opportunity.” The authors wrote that the “character communicates the belief that every challenging, chaotic, and demanding situation in life also presents an opportunity.” This word reminds us that we need to challenge ourselves in order to face opportunities, and that in fact, they might be one in the same.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Comic Book Stories 2: The Hobgoblin, and a Discussion of Ugly Truth
Okay, so the main villains of the Spiderman series are not as well known as Batman or Superman villains, but they are just as compelling.
Facadesaside has talked about the nature of comic book supervillains as they are created parallel, opposites of their corresponding superheroes.
In literature, we call these characters foils, which are defined as characters who reveal the main character.
So for example, when a main character gets a glass of water from a servant, the interaction shows the protagonist's characteristic of getting water from a servant.
We just learned some Hegelian dialectic in class about the master-servant relationship, which in turn would have ramifications in Nietzche and Karl Marx, and Hegelian dialectic is looking sort of familiar with this particular example. I've wondered about the dual nature of supervillain-superhero relationships. Actually, as do they. There is a cliche scene where the hero and the villain look at each other and tell each other about how similar they are (2 come to mind very very easily: Austin Powers, where Mike Myers was satirizing the cliche scene by playing both the hero and the villain; and also Green Lantern's Burning in Effigy Comicbook arc, way way back when it was written by Ron Marz). In this way, the superhero is the master and the supervillain is the servant. But let's get back to the master-servant relationship when I understand it better, and I have more to say on it.
One of Spiderman's greatest villains is the Green Goblin, immortalized by like 4 or 5 generations of different alias characters (like Norman Osbourne, and then his son, and so on), including a short lived comic book series about a superhero version of the Green Goblin.
Q: How does the Facadesaside villain formula work for the Green Goblin (Parallel and Opposite to the Superhero)?
A: Green Goblin's most well-known alter ego is Norman Osbourne. He is a mad scientist, where Peter Parker (Spiderman) is a sane scientist. Goblin is a materialist and wants to be rich, Parker is poor and wants to get through college. Goblin-Osbourne has a frustrated and sadistic humor where Parker has a light hearted and pragmatic sense of humor. Spiderman uses simple tools (webbing) and simple reasoning where Goblin uses complex tools (goblin glider: a machine, and bombs) and convoluted reasoning.
One of the fascinating incarnations of the Green Goblin is the Hobgoblin, which is obviously just a variation on the Green Goblin character and his aliases. In fact, I think in the comics there was actually a plot where the illusion-revealed at the end of the story arc was that instead of the Green Goblin, it was the Hobgoblin who was to blame. (works cited: I of course got most of my information from the television series, and not the comic books).
So as I was foreshadowing-implying, I argue that Hobgoblin's major character traits are negligible. Instead of a mad military scientist like Norman Osborne, Hobgoblin is a computer scientist.
The relevance to the blog is that Hobgoblin varies from Norman Osborne in one respect: Hobgoblin is not wearing a mask where Norman Osborne is. The ugly mask he wears is his face, a victim of acid or whatever plot twist they put in there.
This seems like a twist on the Abraham Lincoln joke. The Lincoln joke is, "If I had two faces, why would I be wearing this one?"
I hypothesize, and again I haven't read a lot of the spiderman comics, but I think that this would make the character's actions in the comic books to be more crazy. Writers would write the character necessarily as having less to lose than the Green Goblin character. There is no alias, here.
It's a commentary on ugly truth.
Bonus Facadesaside: Smurf story and the Problem with Beautiful Truth
There's an episode of the smurfs where they are trying to imitate Papa Smurf all day.
When they were trying to cure one of the sick smurfs, who had the flu, they feed him some nasty onion-and-gross-foods soup. They said, "It smells so bad, it must be healthy."
And Keats wrote, "truth is beauty, beauty is truth."
The Hobgoblin character represents when truth is ugly, and there's enough of a mystery revealed problem that we can acknowledge it as a common mistake.
I have the problem of, after finding out that the uglier thing is true, romanticizing the ugly thing. For example, I like spiders, and although they are ugly to most people (perhaps they are objectively ugly?), I have conditioned myself to like them better by romanticizing how victimized and misunderstood they are.
I think that we 1) have wishful thinking that what is true is beautiful, 2) have conditioning that says that what is beautiful is true, and 3) have a pragmatic standpoint of what is true is useful (to humans).
Further explanation of 3): so when we notice that something is true or beautiful to us, we do some existentialism where we create or created that truthfulness. Wild stuff!!!
What is the nature of this problem?
How can we avoid it?
How is this different from the book by its cover and iceberg facadesaside?
Facadesaside has talked about the nature of comic book supervillains as they are created parallel, opposites of their corresponding superheroes.
In literature, we call these characters foils, which are defined as characters who reveal the main character.
So for example, when a main character gets a glass of water from a servant, the interaction shows the protagonist's characteristic of getting water from a servant.
We just learned some Hegelian dialectic in class about the master-servant relationship, which in turn would have ramifications in Nietzche and Karl Marx, and Hegelian dialectic is looking sort of familiar with this particular example. I've wondered about the dual nature of supervillain-superhero relationships. Actually, as do they. There is a cliche scene where the hero and the villain look at each other and tell each other about how similar they are (2 come to mind very very easily: Austin Powers, where Mike Myers was satirizing the cliche scene by playing both the hero and the villain; and also Green Lantern's Burning in Effigy Comicbook arc, way way back when it was written by Ron Marz). In this way, the superhero is the master and the supervillain is the servant. But let's get back to the master-servant relationship when I understand it better, and I have more to say on it.
One of Spiderman's greatest villains is the Green Goblin, immortalized by like 4 or 5 generations of different alias characters (like Norman Osbourne, and then his son, and so on), including a short lived comic book series about a superhero version of the Green Goblin.
Q: How does the Facadesaside villain formula work for the Green Goblin (Parallel and Opposite to the Superhero)?
A: Green Goblin's most well-known alter ego is Norman Osbourne. He is a mad scientist, where Peter Parker (Spiderman) is a sane scientist. Goblin is a materialist and wants to be rich, Parker is poor and wants to get through college. Goblin-Osbourne has a frustrated and sadistic humor where Parker has a light hearted and pragmatic sense of humor. Spiderman uses simple tools (webbing) and simple reasoning where Goblin uses complex tools (goblin glider: a machine, and bombs) and convoluted reasoning.
One of the fascinating incarnations of the Green Goblin is the Hobgoblin, which is obviously just a variation on the Green Goblin character and his aliases. In fact, I think in the comics there was actually a plot where the illusion-revealed at the end of the story arc was that instead of the Green Goblin, it was the Hobgoblin who was to blame. (works cited: I of course got most of my information from the television series, and not the comic books).
So as I was foreshadowing-implying, I argue that Hobgoblin's major character traits are negligible. Instead of a mad military scientist like Norman Osborne, Hobgoblin is a computer scientist.
The relevance to the blog is that Hobgoblin varies from Norman Osborne in one respect: Hobgoblin is not wearing a mask where Norman Osborne is. The ugly mask he wears is his face, a victim of acid or whatever plot twist they put in there.
This seems like a twist on the Abraham Lincoln joke. The Lincoln joke is, "If I had two faces, why would I be wearing this one?"
I hypothesize, and again I haven't read a lot of the spiderman comics, but I think that this would make the character's actions in the comic books to be more crazy. Writers would write the character necessarily as having less to lose than the Green Goblin character. There is no alias, here.
It's a commentary on ugly truth.
Bonus Facadesaside: Smurf story and the Problem with Beautiful Truth
There's an episode of the smurfs where they are trying to imitate Papa Smurf all day.
When they were trying to cure one of the sick smurfs, who had the flu, they feed him some nasty onion-and-gross-foods soup. They said, "It smells so bad, it must be healthy."
And Keats wrote, "truth is beauty, beauty is truth."
The Hobgoblin character represents when truth is ugly, and there's enough of a mystery revealed problem that we can acknowledge it as a common mistake.
I have the problem of, after finding out that the uglier thing is true, romanticizing the ugly thing. For example, I like spiders, and although they are ugly to most people (perhaps they are objectively ugly?), I have conditioned myself to like them better by romanticizing how victimized and misunderstood they are.
I think that we 1) have wishful thinking that what is true is beautiful, 2) have conditioning that says that what is beautiful is true, and 3) have a pragmatic standpoint of what is true is useful (to humans).
Further explanation of 3): so when we notice that something is true or beautiful to us, we do some existentialism where we create or created that truthfulness. Wild stuff!!!
What is the nature of this problem?
How can we avoid it?
How is this different from the book by its cover and iceberg facadesaside?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Some Bible Stories about Jacob the Patriarch
In Genesis (Bible Book: meaning Beginning), there's the third Father (Patriarch) of the Israelites, the guy's name is Jacob.
1. Jacob was born unto Isaac with his brother Esau. At the last second before their birth, Esau grabs Jacob by the heel and comes out first. Esau then has the birthright. The name Jacob in name books sometimes reads, "held by the heel."
Me: Moral meaning of this story is uncertain
2. Jacob is his mother's favorite son, while Esau is his father's favorite. One is a farmer and one is a herder, but I always forget who is who. The mother dresses Jacob in sheep's clothing in order to seem hairy like Esau, and on Isaac's dying day, he feels Jacob's clothed arms and blesses the boy. Therefore another meaning of Jacob is, "The supplanter," because he supplanted his brother. Another meaning of Jacob is, "the Trickster."
Me: Moral meaning of this story is uncertain
3. Jacob somehow gets exiled and has to sleep in the desert. He sleeps on a rock in the desert, and in some kind of pneumonia-and-peyote acid trip, dreams about angels in heaven climbing a ladder. He sees them move up and down the ladder, working in heaven and earth. I cannot remember if he went up there with him. One of the meanings of Jacob is not, however, break on through to the other side.
Me: Moral meaning of this story is that Jacob saw angels work on heaven and earth.
4. Jacob works for Laban the herder for a long time. Being blessed by God, Jacob works really hard. Jacob asks Laban to marry his daughter Rachel (ask.com says Hebrew meaning is Little lamb or purity). Laban says okay, but you got to work for 7 years for me. Jacob works for 7 whole years. At the wedding, Laban veils his other daughter Leah (Hebrew meaning: weary) and Jacob marries her by accident. Without getting frustrated in the least (because, hey) Jacob works another 7 years and marries Rachel.
Me: Moral meaning of this story is to keep working and not complain too much.
5. While on his journeys, Jacob wrestles with an Angel, and at the end of the night he has a new name, Israel. Everybody pretty much understands this to mean that Jacob wrestled with God, but some people say it wasn't Jacob who wrestles with God, but rather Israel who does.
Me: Moral meaning is that the wrestling match itself is good, because such a battle already posits the existence of a God to wrestle with.
Me on another possible meaning: This is part of the reason for the naming of Israel the country (formally Canaan, Palestine, and different names through time). There was a fierce transgression and people came out differently. In this case, however, the fierce wrestling match was more like the Holocaust. Obviously there's a whole lot more to write here that I'm not getting at.
6. After establishing a farm and a big, big family with all kinds of kids, the baby of the family, Joseph is kidnapped (sold by his older brothers?) to Egypt. Joseph becomes royalty in Egypt. Jacob moves the farm and the big, big family down to Egypt. Generations later, the Jews become slaves of Egypt, and the rest is in another blog post.
Me: Moral meaning is to have a good life.
Wikipedia says that where Abraham had a steady climb, and Isaac had a steady climb, Jacob has more of a rocky transgression, including an emigration from the Holy Land. In this way Jacob represents and foreshadows the Diaspora of the Jews. Diaspora means the spreading out of the Jews.
1. Jacob was born unto Isaac with his brother Esau. At the last second before their birth, Esau grabs Jacob by the heel and comes out first. Esau then has the birthright. The name Jacob in name books sometimes reads, "held by the heel."
Me: Moral meaning of this story is uncertain
2. Jacob is his mother's favorite son, while Esau is his father's favorite. One is a farmer and one is a herder, but I always forget who is who. The mother dresses Jacob in sheep's clothing in order to seem hairy like Esau, and on Isaac's dying day, he feels Jacob's clothed arms and blesses the boy. Therefore another meaning of Jacob is, "The supplanter," because he supplanted his brother. Another meaning of Jacob is, "the Trickster."
Me: Moral meaning of this story is uncertain
3. Jacob somehow gets exiled and has to sleep in the desert. He sleeps on a rock in the desert, and in some kind of pneumonia-and-peyote acid trip, dreams about angels in heaven climbing a ladder. He sees them move up and down the ladder, working in heaven and earth. I cannot remember if he went up there with him. One of the meanings of Jacob is not, however, break on through to the other side.
Me: Moral meaning of this story is that Jacob saw angels work on heaven and earth.
4. Jacob works for Laban the herder for a long time. Being blessed by God, Jacob works really hard. Jacob asks Laban to marry his daughter Rachel (ask.com says Hebrew meaning is Little lamb or purity). Laban says okay, but you got to work for 7 years for me. Jacob works for 7 whole years. At the wedding, Laban veils his other daughter Leah (Hebrew meaning: weary) and Jacob marries her by accident. Without getting frustrated in the least (because, hey) Jacob works another 7 years and marries Rachel.
Me: Moral meaning of this story is to keep working and not complain too much.
5. While on his journeys, Jacob wrestles with an Angel, and at the end of the night he has a new name, Israel. Everybody pretty much understands this to mean that Jacob wrestled with God, but some people say it wasn't Jacob who wrestles with God, but rather Israel who does.
Me: Moral meaning is that the wrestling match itself is good, because such a battle already posits the existence of a God to wrestle with.
Me on another possible meaning: This is part of the reason for the naming of Israel the country (formally Canaan, Palestine, and different names through time). There was a fierce transgression and people came out differently. In this case, however, the fierce wrestling match was more like the Holocaust. Obviously there's a whole lot more to write here that I'm not getting at.
6. After establishing a farm and a big, big family with all kinds of kids, the baby of the family, Joseph is kidnapped (sold by his older brothers?) to Egypt. Joseph becomes royalty in Egypt. Jacob moves the farm and the big, big family down to Egypt. Generations later, the Jews become slaves of Egypt, and the rest is in another blog post.
Me: Moral meaning is to have a good life.
Wikipedia says that where Abraham had a steady climb, and Isaac had a steady climb, Jacob has more of a rocky transgression, including an emigration from the Holy Land. In this way Jacob represents and foreshadows the Diaspora of the Jews. Diaspora means the spreading out of the Jews.
Facade Saccade
The saccade in psychology is the break between fixation points for sight.
For example, for reading, we can only read about 7 letters at a time. This is different for different languages, for example, Hebrew reads left to right, and Chinese characters have more information per character.
Take a load off!
Take off your shoes and relax your socks!
So I read Margaret Gullan-Whur's Within Reason, the Life of Spinoza, and in it there's a group of scholars who say, "Nil Volentibus Arduum."
This phrase is Latin and it means, "Nothing is Difficult for those who Show Will." Broken down, for those who care, it's Nil = Nothing, Volentibus = those who show will, and Arduum = which I'm guessing is like Arduous.
Now, with our philosophical tool of application, wouldn't it be cool if we created the world?
When I was younger my Dad used to talk about Lucid Dreaming, before or around the time when he would tell me stories before bed. The coolest part about these stories was that he would make them up on the spot. There was a new one, every night.
The answer that my dad gave was this: In a dream, you can do anything. You can fly. That was the big one that he posited, that I remember. He must have said something.
The question is: What could you do if you knew you were dreaming?
Now, let's go from a conservative standpoint of reality (as in, not asking too much of reality. Reality here being universal, objective, the most acceptable definition of reality possible; the most agreed-upon between a whole bunch of people).
In this case, it is still powerful to ask what you could do if you had the ability to do what you would want.
That was a great justification when I was doing the baloney of Logic 335. It's not always the point to argue for the existence of flight so much as what would we do if we were able to fly.
You might remember that until recent times, people did not have the ability to fly. Mechanical, analogue miracles (conservative in the sense that they do not bend the laws of reality), happen. No one questions the miracles of flight, say, the miracles of the Civil Rights Movement, or the miracles of modern technology.
So that's our conservative standpoint. We could apply this to other situations. Kant believed it was possible and necessary to postulate God and Free Will. Free Will and God come in when a person looks like she has no other options.
Message to everyone: I think We could postulate Love if we were not sure of its existence.
I think this is one place where Fichte comes in, as a predecessor to Existentialism (the philosophy of radical freedom, and the individual's creation of her reality).
So here's some pocket philosophy: you're living the dream. You're creating reality. You can fly (in a plane), you can postulate your own rules.
Question: Now what? Now what? Now what?
For example, for reading, we can only read about 7 letters at a time. This is different for different languages, for example, Hebrew reads left to right, and Chinese characters have more information per character.
Take a load off!
Take off your shoes and relax your socks!
So I read Margaret Gullan-Whur's Within Reason, the Life of Spinoza, and in it there's a group of scholars who say, "Nil Volentibus Arduum."
This phrase is Latin and it means, "Nothing is Difficult for those who Show Will." Broken down, for those who care, it's Nil = Nothing, Volentibus = those who show will, and Arduum = which I'm guessing is like Arduous.
Now, with our philosophical tool of application, wouldn't it be cool if we created the world?
When I was younger my Dad used to talk about Lucid Dreaming, before or around the time when he would tell me stories before bed. The coolest part about these stories was that he would make them up on the spot. There was a new one, every night.
The answer that my dad gave was this: In a dream, you can do anything. You can fly. That was the big one that he posited, that I remember. He must have said something.
The question is: What could you do if you knew you were dreaming?
Now, let's go from a conservative standpoint of reality (as in, not asking too much of reality. Reality here being universal, objective, the most acceptable definition of reality possible; the most agreed-upon between a whole bunch of people).
In this case, it is still powerful to ask what you could do if you had the ability to do what you would want.
That was a great justification when I was doing the baloney of Logic 335. It's not always the point to argue for the existence of flight so much as what would we do if we were able to fly.
You might remember that until recent times, people did not have the ability to fly. Mechanical, analogue miracles (conservative in the sense that they do not bend the laws of reality), happen. No one questions the miracles of flight, say, the miracles of the Civil Rights Movement, or the miracles of modern technology.
So that's our conservative standpoint. We could apply this to other situations. Kant believed it was possible and necessary to postulate God and Free Will. Free Will and God come in when a person looks like she has no other options.
Message to everyone: I think We could postulate Love if we were not sure of its existence.
I think this is one place where Fichte comes in, as a predecessor to Existentialism (the philosophy of radical freedom, and the individual's creation of her reality).
So here's some pocket philosophy: you're living the dream. You're creating reality. You can fly (in a plane), you can postulate your own rules.
Question: Now what? Now what? Now what?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Portfolio 19 or 20
http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/now-rally-for-integration-1.1940059
Now, rally for integration
Published: Monday, October 5, 2009
Updated: Monday, October 5, 2009
In a controversial opinion editorial in the April 26 edition of “The New York Times,” a Columbia University religion professor wrote, “End the University as We Know it.” The author said that graduate education is the Detroit of higher learning. It exclaimed the systematic abuse of graduate students and the corruption of tenured professors, but above all the lack of basic integration between departments, students and faculty.
Because I am a philosophy major, I look to our own philosophy department as both the symbol of lack of integration and a symbol of positive integration.
For example, the philosophy department has integrated a mathematics and computer science initiative based on argumentation and logic. In order to build and maintain this initiative, the department works with the math and computer science departments, as well as GlaxoSmithKline’s research department. Last year, the first graduate of the major, Melissa Schumacher, was accepted into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s ultra-competitive language program.
In parallel, the philosophy department has integrated a class on biological ethics from the biology department. Two professors of the philosophy department are active in the Slow Food Club, an agricultural club devoted to healthier and ethically produced food for campus.
The department is less connected in any number of respects. But this seems counterintuitive considering that philosophy exists both as a system of existence in and of itself and as the further masterful consideration of any field. For example, there are certainly academic moral arguments to be made about last years’ water shortage or the impending shutdown of the Natural Resources Library.
Perhaps you have read any number of Paul McCauley’s scathing attacks of the University’s bureaucracy, or my attack on the Atrium. Any well-intended critic of the school or its parts is really encouraging the betterment of material and mental gains.
The first problem is that of facts and changes that we make in our lives. Rally4Tally is a perfect example of this. We know the exact cost of what we voted for or against yesterday.
We know approximately how much work we do, how much work we need to do, and how much work we should but are not doing. We notice when our football team wins or loses. We notice when our friends are working hard enough that they show that they are happy or depressed. People who have a general comfort about their lives, the people who are happy, are able to work harder than those who are depressed.
To the extent that this student body battles factual problems that are solved by hands-on means, columnists tell students again and again to physically build this school. Every column is an invitation to enrich this school: shacking up at Shack-a-Thon, doing your homework to the best of your ability, talking to Greek Life, talking to diversity programs, volunteering through clubs and organizations, meeting with professors outside of class and generally calming down the very human chemicals that make these processes difficult and exciting the passions that make these challenges easy.
The second problem is that of consciousness. If we do not know that the school is great, we cannot tell anyone how great the school is. If we do not know that some departments are isolated, we cannot think to integrate them.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Facadesaside: Life changing moments?
This blog went over life changing moments as perhaps philosophically dubious or empirically dubious.
The case seems radically similar to the problem of contingent truths.
One only knows about change in her life because of difference between similarities.
We believe in contingent truths because everything looks the same.
So when you go into a forest and all of the trees look the same, you believe that you have a choice to cut down a tree between any tree in the forest.
If you went into a "forest" of one tree, you would of course be limited to that one tree.
Okay for option three, put all of your trees back. But this time, recognize the fact that they all look different. One is knotty and therefore impossible to use for chopping wood. One is just a baby tree and should not be cut down. Some wood is better for fire-building than others. It starts to look more and more like the second option more than the first. You are limited after all.
This is merely a thought experiment to show that contingency is a difficult concept.
Applied to our initial topic, this is even more difficult. At what point is something life changing? If your life is necessitated as opposed to contingent, every little thing counts.
The case seems radically similar to the problem of contingent truths.
One only knows about change in her life because of difference between similarities.
We believe in contingent truths because everything looks the same.
So when you go into a forest and all of the trees look the same, you believe that you have a choice to cut down a tree between any tree in the forest.
If you went into a "forest" of one tree, you would of course be limited to that one tree.
Okay for option three, put all of your trees back. But this time, recognize the fact that they all look different. One is knotty and therefore impossible to use for chopping wood. One is just a baby tree and should not be cut down. Some wood is better for fire-building than others. It starts to look more and more like the second option more than the first. You are limited after all.
This is merely a thought experiment to show that contingency is a difficult concept.
Applied to our initial topic, this is even more difficult. At what point is something life changing? If your life is necessitated as opposed to contingent, every little thing counts.
Kant to Skeptics: Drop Dead
I Kant on Knowledge
Kant to Skeptics: Drop Dead
The Kantian Copernican Revolution was that reality has to conform to minds, and minds do not have to conform to reality.
Kant also divides reality into phenomenal and noumenal. Phenomenal is experience and potential experience, noumenal is things in themselves.
He makes a move like time and space are transcendentally ideal. This means that time and space are objective and absolutely outside of minds, and so are objectively real. This also means that they are subjectively real, they exist in minds.
He makes a move from mathematical, without-experience truths, such as the physical laws of nature (e=mc squared, rules of logic, and rules of math) and with-experience truths, such as natural facts (anything from experience, like looking out the window or having an apple fall on your head).
He makes a move from what can be known from analysis of definitions (analytic truths) and what comes from our minds (what he calls synthesis).
He then states that the greatest information about our worlds is what we supply from our minds' without-experience knowledge. These is synthetic, a priori truth.
The synthesis comes from a simultaneously controversial (because its in our brains only) and modest (well, is the right to substance that big of a deal?) ownership of each mind of a series of Categories. To basically everyone, the Categories are very controversial because they come from our individual brains. To me, they seem pretty modest because they are stuff like the ability to differentiate one thing from a whole bunch of things.
Space and time introduce this argument because they are a premise to step on. All of this happens in our conceptions of space, which are subjective, but exist necessarily in the world.
II Morality
Kant then takes all of these important lessons and applies them to Morality.
The Categorical Imperative says that every means should be treated as an end in itself.
That is, the ends never justifies dubious means.
This is a swell answer to promised Utopias achieved from heinous means.
So the Holocaust is right out because the means do not justify the ends.
Kant's Categorical Imperative is not just above the (obvious) abolition of the Holocaust.
The CI is above all consequences!
But more on this later.
Kant to Skeptics: Drop Dead
The Kantian Copernican Revolution was that reality has to conform to minds, and minds do not have to conform to reality.
Kant also divides reality into phenomenal and noumenal. Phenomenal is experience and potential experience, noumenal is things in themselves.
He makes a move like time and space are transcendentally ideal. This means that time and space are objective and absolutely outside of minds, and so are objectively real. This also means that they are subjectively real, they exist in minds.
He makes a move from mathematical, without-experience truths, such as the physical laws of nature (e=mc squared, rules of logic, and rules of math) and with-experience truths, such as natural facts (anything from experience, like looking out the window or having an apple fall on your head).
He makes a move from what can be known from analysis of definitions (analytic truths) and what comes from our minds (what he calls synthesis).
He then states that the greatest information about our worlds is what we supply from our minds' without-experience knowledge. These is synthetic, a priori truth.
The synthesis comes from a simultaneously controversial (because its in our brains only) and modest (well, is the right to substance that big of a deal?) ownership of each mind of a series of Categories. To basically everyone, the Categories are very controversial because they come from our individual brains. To me, they seem pretty modest because they are stuff like the ability to differentiate one thing from a whole bunch of things.
Space and time introduce this argument because they are a premise to step on. All of this happens in our conceptions of space, which are subjective, but exist necessarily in the world.
II Morality
Kant then takes all of these important lessons and applies them to Morality.
The Categorical Imperative says that every means should be treated as an end in itself.
That is, the ends never justifies dubious means.
This is a swell answer to promised Utopias achieved from heinous means.
So the Holocaust is right out because the means do not justify the ends.
Kant's Categorical Imperative is not just above the (obvious) abolition of the Holocaust.
The CI is above all consequences!
But more on this later.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Tobias Wolff on Lying
To read a collection of Wolff's work that spans the years is to realize that he is obsessed with the act of lying. Asked in an interview why so many of his characters lie, Wolff replied, "The world is not enough, maybe? … To lie is to say the thing that is not, so there's obviously an unhappiness with what is, a discontent." A recent outbreak of faked memoirs has set off a storm of outraged pontification about why people pass off false histories as their own, so it's satisfying to read about liars who lie for interesting reasons rather than the usual despicable ones. Wolff is, in fact, a genius at locating the truths revealed by lies—the ancient and holy tongues, you might say, the otherwise inexpressible inner realities that lies give voice.
From the slate article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2186951/
Which I found on the anthology page I posted before this.
From the slate article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2186951/
Which I found on the anthology page I posted before this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)