| Which philosopher are you? Your Result: Aristotle Truth does not exist in some transcendent realm. We get to truth by applying reason to the physical world. The world follows logic and commonsense. Science if done properly is not to far from philosophy. | |
| Plato (strict rationalists) | |
| Early Wittgenstein / Positivists | |
| Immanuel Kant | |
| Sartre/Camus (late existentialists) | |
| Nietzsche | |
| W.v.O. Quine / Late Wittgenstein | |
| Which philosopher are you? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz | |
- (no subject)
-
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1)
fidesquaerens- May 25th, 23:15
I'm actually more of a Platonist than an Aristotelian on most topics, but the questions they asked tended to focus on ethics and other issues where I think Aristotle is on to something. Other than that (and the seeming assumption that philosophy jumped from Aristotle to Kant), this quiz actually was pretty accurate.
- Why should atheists have all the best thinkers?
-
- fidesquaerens
- May 24th, 20:38
Recently I read an article about Miley Cyrus and how she wasn't acting like she was twelve anymore. Miley says some really interesting things about what it means to find yourself when you're a child-star, and also talks about sex and the double-standard women face in Hollywood. Now, say I posted a link to that article here with a comment along the lines of how nice it would be if she turned out to be a Christian.
Something like that happened recently on a friend's FB page, only there my friend posted a link and a third party commented saying he hoped Miley was an atheist. That comment really got me thinking, because if I had said something similar coming at it from a Christian perspective, I'd expect some raised eyebrows around here. At a minimum. Such a comment would imply one of two things: either I thought Miley's comments couldn't be good unless they came from a Christian, or else I wanted all good things to be associated with Christianity. Either way, I can see how you guys might get a bit offended, or at least be confused why I should be concerned. A claim like that, if I heard someone else make it, would strike me as oddly provincial. And also selfish; whatever's good, I'd want to make it available to the most people possible. And since people tend to listen to their own groups more than they do "outsiders," that means I'd want wise people and thought-provoking comments coming from all corners of society – not just mine.
( Read more... )
- things I learned walking to campus today
-
- fidesquaerens
- May 21st, 11:03
- Around here, charmingly dreary can apparently change to cats-and-dogs downpour in the space of a ten minute walk.
- My jacket is apparently only water-resistant, not water-proof as I originally thought.
- Jeans, once soaked, don't dry. An hour on the intercampus bus and these are still soaked.
- There cames a point when it's not worth stepping back from the curb to avoid getting soaked.
Also, apparently there's nothing quite so hilarious to my perverse sense of humor as seeing a baboushka on a walker trying to ford an intersection with six inches and more of water. I should be ashamed, but mainly I was tickled. It's been a long morning.
If you can't tell, apparently we're putting the mon(soon) back in Monday around here today. I'm sure someone somewhere needs all this moisture more than we do. Help yourself!
- because the children are our future
-
- fidesquaerens
- May 19th, 19:47
From the popular site, "Sh*t my students write":As you know I also have not been keeping up with my HW assignments, this is due to the fact of not having the course book.
Not quite sure whether to laugh or cry...
- the joys of public transportation
-
- fidesquaerens
- May 18th, 20:57
I took a huge bag of books down to the Fordham library today - last day of the semester, and we'd gotten to the "we won't renew these anymore, so get them back to us NOW" stage of library communications. I ended up taking a bus to campus on account of the weight. Definitely the right call, though it was a lovely day and normally I'd walk.
(Well, not all of the books. I forgot one and the other, I need for a paper I'm working on. Here's hoping the $.10/day will motivate me to finish this weekend.)
Thing is, there were these two high schoolers at the back of the bus, practically yelling lewd comments at each other. They were jerks; not so you'd feel unsafe, but just incredibly offensive to the other passengers. Occasionally I'd look over at them, by reflex, and whenever I did that one of them grabbed at his crotch and readjusted himself, then would cock his head and look right at me. I didn't mean to get into a thing with him, but it was a fairly empty bus and so hard to ignore.
I don't want to make generalizations about the gender based on two sixteen-year-old guys, but it disturbs me that this is how these soon-to-be-grown-men treated a single woman and a mother traveling with an infant (the only other passenger on the bus). Is this what most guys (or even a sizable portion) think of women most of the time, and are just better at covering up? It was degrading in the worst way.
And then I got to get off and turn in my books and scan in my readings for my summer class, like an adult quasi-professional. But something about those teenagers interacting with me on that level has staying power. It doesn't seem fair somehow; do guys have to deal with this, either from other guys or from women? :-S
- reasonable belief?
-
- fidesquaerens
- May 17th, 23:37
Over at FB a friend posted a link:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/15/kansas/
We all remember conscience clauses for a while ago; basically there's a new law in Kansas that sets up something similar for doctors and pharmacists. They can refuse to write or fill a prescription that "they 'reasonably believe' might result in the termination of a pregnancy."
Last night I got a call from my doctor, saying to call immediately - at home if necessary. Now, I'm fine. A biopsy of a cyst I had removed showed an infection, and the doc was out of the office the next day. He just needed me to start a special antibiotic. But for the hour it took me to get in touch with him, I was convinced it was something serious. Think cancer. And I knew I had dinky student insurance, so if it was something serious I wasn't sure if I would have to pay for it myself. I'm still shaken up from the whole experience emotionally, even though I'm fine physically and much better than I was yesterday. The thing is, I get how scary it is to not have control over your medical care. To have to trust in someone else's help to get the treatment you feel like you need - I don't know that it matters whether we're talking about your back or your uterus.
So I feel really bad that I'm not more empathetic here. I should be. I think I'm just worn out with all the talk over contraception coverage and access lately; it all seems unreal and remote, somehow. So what really got me was the "reasonable belief" thing. If we read that literally, it seems like it could actually help the situation, because - going by the dictionary definition of reason - you'd need a fact for why such-and-such a drug is likely to actually terminate a pregnancy. Now, maybe we can split hairs over whether a pregnancy just means having a conceived fetus inside you or whether it also requires that fetus is part of you (i.e. it's implanted). And maybe you can say that some emergency contraception prevents implantation (so a conceived fetus is essentially killed, or at least denied what it needs to live).
But there are many other pills that don't work that way. As you guys have explained to me on this very blog, there's some BC you can take after sex that prevents fertilization. That keeps the pregnancy from ever happening in the first place, even if you want to say pregnant means "there's a fertilized egg inside me."
But is that what the lawmakers mean? From past conversations I know this isn't how many people will read "reasonable." (I'm speaking generally, about students and fellow adults I've seen use the word time and time again - not necessarily the Kansas lawmakers.) The word reasonable literally means having evidence, having facts; but I suspect for a lot of people this will be read as "having followers." So if a certain % thinks the morning-after pill terminates a pregnancy, then that pill can be denied to women who want it. Facts be damned.
Which is a scary state of affairs, indeed.
- on little cat's feet
-
- fidesquaerens
- May 16th, 6:36
The fog comes
on little cat feet.
It sits looking
over harbor and city
on silent haunches
and then moves on.
The power was off this morning in my apartment (I'm thinking blown fuse, which only my super can change - will call in an hour or two). The lack of white noise from my fan woke me up, and as I didn't have a functioning alarm clock, I chose to go ahead and get up. And then because I needed a Latin reference and no power means no internet, I decided to come on over to campus.
Anyway, the upshot was that I was out for the day by around 5 AM. This is a first for me, the being out at that hour (I've certainly been working at 5 AM, from both ends of the day), and I'm privileged enough and enough of a romantic that I found the city really beautiful at that hour. "City" here is the Bronx, so it's hardly what you think of when it comes to NYC, but there was a surreal quality to it all. Some people were already out on their way to work, but for the It was also raining and all foggy, and the people who were already out were on their way to work. Nurses, and waitresses, and cleaning ladies mostly judging by the uniforms. There's a beauty to that exhaustion, at least from the outside.
Hence the poem above. It's by Carl Sandburg and has long been one of my favorites. I was reminded of it this morning because it captured the mood better than anything I've been able to manage.
I also can't quite help imagining Denethor on a morning like this. He'd slip a worn cloak low over his face and sneak down into the Third Circle market, watching as the various people set up shop for the day (the boy driving the cart full of water cisterns taller than him; the girl with a basket of flowers slung over her arm; the old matron who sells strong tea by the mugful for a copper groat to people trying to get their day started, and who'd be gone by midday; and, perhaps, a reveller from the night before passed out behind a garbage heap) - I'm sure he'd like letting his cares away for an hour or two on a morning like this when the fog hung thick around. My muse even came up with an old line his mother once told him: that great cities, like armies and trysting lovers, never truly slept.
I'd like to think I'd turn that into a proper vignette, but I don't know how long the mood will last and I'm really too sleep-deprived to attempt it just now. I hope the mental image is a good start to the day for some of you, at least.
P.S. - This is meant as my 100things post #2, which is about quotes that have touched me.
- yet more on gay marriage
-
- fidesquaerens
- May 14th, 2:38
My last exam is graded (well, except for the one student who has to make up the exam next week), and while I still have some research due for my advisor, I can breathe a bit at last. So I want to go back to a point I just mentioned at the end of my last post. Namely: if you vote against gay marriage, does that mean you're just a homophobe? The story-line is pretty standard: Gay marriage won't destroy straight marriage since straight men aren't going to suddenly leave their wives or anything; the only impact it has is letting homosexuals marry; so if you're against gay marriage you must be homophobic. Is it really that simple?
I don't think so. Now, I'm actually in favor of the state having one status (civil unions, marriage, whatever – I'm not picky about the label) open to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. As a Christian, I actually think Christian churches should open up the marriage sacrament to gay couples as well, but that's a totally different topic. But I also get why some people think of marriage is for straight couples only. And it has next to nothing to do with homosexuality, let alone homophobia.
( Read more... )
- more thoughts on Amendment One
-
- fidesquaerens
- May 12th, 21:17
I was going to leave well-enough alone over the North Carolina amendment. It was really hard to think of "my" state doing this, and like many people I felt a bit of shock and almost mourning over the law's passage. For a day or two I'd see talk of organizing boycotts against NC and graphics painting Tarheels as uneducated and rednecks. But then President Obama made his announcement and the focus shifted away from NC (sort of), so as I said, I was just going to back away from this topic.
I still see wisps of NC-bashing every now and then, though. Case in point is Leonard Pitts's latest column, where he referred to NC's amendment as "one state's atavistic backwardness" and "the stubborn intransigence of those who desperately need to wake up and smell the 21st century." So maybe it's best to write another post on the topic. Because, really, I'm not sure NC did too badly here.
To be clear: I'm not defending the constitutional amendment. I think it's a badly-written amendment and a bad policy position, and also that it's needlessly hateful toward homosexuals since gay marriage was already illegal in the state. But I also think that, first, the bill didn't pass as solidly as it seems like at first glance, and second, that people might have a first-flush opposition to gay marriage in NC without that meaning they hate gays. I'll explain why in a minute. This wasn't NC's finest hour, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as some people seem to be implying it is. So let me take some of the various charges I've seen floating around one by one and try to explain why.
( Read more... )
- thoughts on Amendment One
-
- fidesquaerens
- May 9th, 0:28
Tonight North Carolina voted to make it not only illegal but also unconstitutional for two adults to build a legally-recognized family unit, simply because those adults are the same gender. It's a bit odd - I haven't lived in NC since 2006, but I still feel like a Tarheel at heart, and NC news tends to hit me harder than NY news does. For me, this amendment isn't academic, it isn't general - it is a slap in the face to all affected, no matter the remove.
I have my own history with a good friend from my undergrad days who happened to be gay. And I remember the way he was impacted by homophobia he experienced. It breaks my heart to think of the gay, lesbian, whatever kid who's sitting in his college dorm room hearing that his state doesn't think whatever love he might find should be protected by law. The one consolation I have is that this kid, if he's been following the news all along, might have seen that many people in his state didn't feel this way. But I know how news media works. All those clergymen who signed the petition saying they opposed the amendment are dwarfed by ( that shameful Billy Graham ad )
This amendment process is offensive and insensitive to a minority group. It's also harmful to families with heterosexual parents but that aren't married. As has been pointed out many times, it makes it harder to deal with domestic violence, child welfare and any other range of things that affect stable but unmarried couples. But things like this are really and truly discouraging because they point to how little value we place on rational argument in this society. The bottom line is, in an amendment ratification process like this the best argument doesn't become law. Direct democracy like this doesn't give any weight to how well-considered your reasoning is. Are you voting because you have thought things through and one way or the other decided on a position, or are you voting out of fear or on a whim? The votes add up the same.
Also, it should not need to be said, but in case it does: not everything is up for a vote. I can't speak to legal rights - I heard somewhere that some Supreme Court case decided marriage was a right, but I don't recall the details - but philosophically, the ability to form a family unit and receive legal protection of the same is a right. Sometimes the state has a good reason to keep two people from marrying, like with incest or pedophilia where consent is iffy, but there's just not a reason here. (As a side note, it actually amused me to no end that if we're looking for a biblical definition of marriage, polygamy probably comes closer to the mark than the one man, one woman formula. But that's neither here nor there.)
I know I've quoted this passage here before, but on nights like this, I have to go back to Dr. King. He wrote in the Birmingham letter:
( Read more... )
Laws like this are a kind of segregation. And they make me sick.
One other thing: I know a lot of people will say that this is an instance of religion needing to stay out of politics. One thing I have seen over these last few weeks, though, is that religious people have been among the most active in challenging stereotypes and unchallenged beliefs some people have. The backward pastors encouraging parents to beat their limp-wristed children get all the attention, of course, but then you also have pastors like this guy:
( Read more... )
I'm not convinced that this had much to do with religion, and to the extent it did, I'd suspect it was more religion used as a crutch for hatred and us-vs-them mentality.
Enough of that, though. And enough of these high-brow words. Tonight, I just wanted anyone hurt by this amendment (in any way) to know how sorry I am. It's not right, it's not just, and you don't deserve that pain.
