During my logic class this week, I decided what classes I will take during my first semester as a student at Afterlife University (or whatever facility of quite literally higher learning is available in Heaven, assuming I make it in). Here’s what my first semester as a freshmen on the flipside will look like:
Philosophy of Mathematics
Intermediate Guitar
Introduction to Physics
Gardening 101
Culinary Arts for Beginners*
*time permitting
Why save these for the afterlife? Well, it’s not as if I don’t want to learn them now. Obviously they wouldn’t be on my list if I weren’t interested in them. But these are kind of like my fantasy classes, the classes I’d take now if only I had all the time and money in the world, not to mention the ability to grasp all of the necessary skills and concepts that the classes would be designed to teach me. It seems there are things like this—things we’d really like to know how to do or know more about, but either we don’t have the time to give them the full attention they would require or we simply don’t believe we could really master the material. Well, this is my list. Intermediate Guitar is a questionable inclusion, since guitar is something I should/would (could?) make more time for in this life. But it’s hard to devote the time to it that I wish I could/would (should?). Yes, it stinks, but that’s why I sometimes live in a fantasy world, making up lists of classes to take in the afterlife.
So, what classes will you be taking?
Formerly Benj (& Purge); formerly Sucking on Oranges
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Belles of the Bawl
I can't help but feel incredibly annoyed by the events reported in this article, concerning a high school girl's basketball team who defeated their opponents 100-0. Apparently, the team is apologizing for their victory and seeking a retroactive forfeit, worrying that they demonstrated poor sports(wo)manship by crushing the other team to the extent they did. A few details might seem pertinent to the case. First of all, both schools are private schools. Secondly, the winning school is a Christian school. Thirdly, the losing school is incredibly small—there are only 20 girls in the whole school, eight of which play on the basketball team. Fourth, the losing school has not won a game in four years. Fifth and finally, the losing school caters to students with learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, ADD, and the like. Perhaps these facts are not relevant, but I assume at least some of them will influence the way at least some people react to at least some aspects of what happened.
Moving on, I think much of this is ridiculous. It seems like political correctness once again run amok. Now, it may very well be that the winning team acted poorly in some way. For example, if members of the winning team intentionally derided members of the losing team, we might claim they demonstrated poor sportsmanship. But this hardly calls for a retroactive forfeiture, and it certainly doesn't justify apologizing for winning. None of that makes sense to me. What, for instance, would forfeiting accomplish? It's clear that the losing team did not stand a chance of winning. So why should the winning team forfeit? They didn't cheat. If anything, forfeiting the game seems a bit condescending. It's not much different than just handing the other team the ball and intentionally letting them win. Does that really help anybody? Who could possibly feel good about that?
Anyway, the story irked me. People tend to think I'm callous because I've always scoffed at stories where the disadvantaged are catered to in such artificial ways. For example, when people with certain disabilities (be they mental or physical) are voted homecoming king/queen or given a spot on the varsity football team. It's one thing if people in the school genuinely admire the person's perseverance and think that person deserves the recognition he/she is given. But, sadly, I think people are often just trying to prevent hurt feelings or, even worse, save face. I'm willing to bet there are people out there without any official disabilities who are just as heartbroken at being excluded from certain activities as are those who are sometimes handed the opportunities merely because of their disabilities. It's the “merely because” that irks me, and it's the “merely because” that could (and should!) offend those who are sometimes the recipients of this “generosity.”
Blah. I'm sure I could have said something more interesting about all this. I first ran into this story a few days ago and wanted to blog about it right away, but I've procrastinated. On top of that, it's late and I need to go to bed so I'm rushing through this and trying only to capture my most basic thoughts on the matter. Nonetheless, does anyone even slightly agree with me here? Is anyone sympathetic? Just remember, if you don't validate my feelings, you're not being a very politically correct person—especially now that I have a permanent limp.
Moving on, I think much of this is ridiculous. It seems like political correctness once again run amok. Now, it may very well be that the winning team acted poorly in some way. For example, if members of the winning team intentionally derided members of the losing team, we might claim they demonstrated poor sportsmanship. But this hardly calls for a retroactive forfeiture, and it certainly doesn't justify apologizing for winning. None of that makes sense to me. What, for instance, would forfeiting accomplish? It's clear that the losing team did not stand a chance of winning. So why should the winning team forfeit? They didn't cheat. If anything, forfeiting the game seems a bit condescending. It's not much different than just handing the other team the ball and intentionally letting them win. Does that really help anybody? Who could possibly feel good about that?
Anyway, the story irked me. People tend to think I'm callous because I've always scoffed at stories where the disadvantaged are catered to in such artificial ways. For example, when people with certain disabilities (be they mental or physical) are voted homecoming king/queen or given a spot on the varsity football team. It's one thing if people in the school genuinely admire the person's perseverance and think that person deserves the recognition he/she is given. But, sadly, I think people are often just trying to prevent hurt feelings or, even worse, save face. I'm willing to bet there are people out there without any official disabilities who are just as heartbroken at being excluded from certain activities as are those who are sometimes handed the opportunities merely because of their disabilities. It's the “merely because” that irks me, and it's the “merely because” that could (and should!) offend those who are sometimes the recipients of this “generosity.”
Blah. I'm sure I could have said something more interesting about all this. I first ran into this story a few days ago and wanted to blog about it right away, but I've procrastinated. On top of that, it's late and I need to go to bed so I'm rushing through this and trying only to capture my most basic thoughts on the matter. Nonetheless, does anyone even slightly agree with me here? Is anyone sympathetic? Just remember, if you don't validate my feelings, you're not being a very politically correct person—especially now that I have a permanent limp.
Monday, January 19, 2009
A Belated Merry Christmas to Our Bottoms
Ever since Melanie and I got married, we’ve had the same couch. Theoretically, that’s not a problem, except for the fact that the couch was a hand-me-down from my brother and has long since seen its prime. With two small children, any tears that have appeared in the sofa have quickly been exaggerated by curious, prying hands. At this stage, the couch is suffering from myriad fatal wounds. What’s worse, Peter likes to snack on its entrails when given the chance, so if you’re holding him while sitting on the couch, you’re constantly trying to keep his hands to himself, which can be an exhausting task.
For Christmas, Melanie and I were blessed with some generous monetary gifts from both parents and grandparents. We accumulated enough that a new sofa became a viable option for us. And so, on Saturday, after having researched what we could on the Internet, Melanie and I embarked on a couch-shopping trip. One place we visited is called American Freight, which claims to sell unclaimed freight. Their store is literally a warehouse—not very store-like at all. Sofas are lined up back-to-back so that you can’t even sit on them without moving other sofas out of the way. But, from what we had seen elsewhere, the prices were fantastic. One sofa in particular caught our eye. We adjusted things so we could sit on it, and when we did, we found it extremely comfortable. We were smitten.
There was one catch. The sofa we liked was available only as part of a set that included a loveseat. We hadn’t planned on buying a loveseat at this point in our lives, although we thought we would do so within a few years’ time. Technically, we could afford to buy the set, but should we? We left the store and kept talking about it. Eventually, we decided it was a worthwhile purchase. It certainly wouldn’t be any easier to buy these items sometime down the road. And so, a few hours after leaving the store, we were back. We bought the set. A few hours later, it was in our living room.
I must say, our derrieres are happy. The only downside that we didn’t realize during our relatively brief stint sitting on the couches at the warehouse is that the seats aren’t quite as deep as the seats on our old couch. That is, the support doesn’t extend as far out (toward your knees) as on the old couch. So, in comparison, we feel like our legs are kind of dangling. I’m sure we’ll get used to it, but it’s one noticeable difference that doesn’t completely thrill us.
I thought I’d go ahead and share some photos of our new furniture, as well as a picture of our old couch, so you can see that it was truly time for a new one. Be forewarned, the image of the old couch is somewhat grisly. It looks more like a crime scene photo, especially because I’ve circled the most damaging injuries the couch has sustained over the last few years. Those with heart problems are advised not to view the photo. Young children should also be kept away.
The Old:
The New:
The Loveseat Too:
For Christmas, Melanie and I were blessed with some generous monetary gifts from both parents and grandparents. We accumulated enough that a new sofa became a viable option for us. And so, on Saturday, after having researched what we could on the Internet, Melanie and I embarked on a couch-shopping trip. One place we visited is called American Freight, which claims to sell unclaimed freight. Their store is literally a warehouse—not very store-like at all. Sofas are lined up back-to-back so that you can’t even sit on them without moving other sofas out of the way. But, from what we had seen elsewhere, the prices were fantastic. One sofa in particular caught our eye. We adjusted things so we could sit on it, and when we did, we found it extremely comfortable. We were smitten.
There was one catch. The sofa we liked was available only as part of a set that included a loveseat. We hadn’t planned on buying a loveseat at this point in our lives, although we thought we would do so within a few years’ time. Technically, we could afford to buy the set, but should we? We left the store and kept talking about it. Eventually, we decided it was a worthwhile purchase. It certainly wouldn’t be any easier to buy these items sometime down the road. And so, a few hours after leaving the store, we were back. We bought the set. A few hours later, it was in our living room.
I must say, our derrieres are happy. The only downside that we didn’t realize during our relatively brief stint sitting on the couches at the warehouse is that the seats aren’t quite as deep as the seats on our old couch. That is, the support doesn’t extend as far out (toward your knees) as on the old couch. So, in comparison, we feel like our legs are kind of dangling. I’m sure we’ll get used to it, but it’s one noticeable difference that doesn’t completely thrill us.
I thought I’d go ahead and share some photos of our new furniture, as well as a picture of our old couch, so you can see that it was truly time for a new one. Be forewarned, the image of the old couch is somewhat grisly. It looks more like a crime scene photo, especially because I’ve circled the most damaging injuries the couch has sustained over the last few years. Those with heart problems are advised not to view the photo. Young children should also be kept away.
The Old:
The New:
The Loveseat Too:
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Philosopher Kings: Don’t Rule Them Out Just Yet
The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the best (and worst) jobs in the United States of America. (Click here to see the article.) Interestingly, philosopher comes in at a very respectable #12. I’m just pleased they thought to include the job of a philosopher in the cited study, given that philosophy is often stereotyped as leading absolutely nowhere. Even more exciting is the fact that philosophy ranked so high when two of the five criteria used to determine the rankings were (a) employment outlook and (b) income. (The other three criteria, in case you’re interested, are: work environment, the physical demands of the job, and job-related stress.) It looks like philosophy’s not such a bad move after all.
Several people I know and/or love might find the rankings interesting. The #1 job on the list is mathematician. (Congrats, sis!) The #2 job is that of an actuary, and I’ve known a couple of people who have considered that line of work. #9 is Industrial Designer, which is relevant to Melanie’s brother, and #18 is computer programmer, which many of us seem to know one or two. On the opposite end of the list, the worst job is that of a lumberjack, while the seventh worst job is that of a garbage collector. (Sorry, bro!) The #9 worst job is that of a roustabout. I’d never heard of a roustabout. I looked it up on dictionary.com, and it looks like it could be anything from a wharf laborer to a circus laborer to someone who works in an oil field. I’m not sure which meaning the job rankings were supposed to reflect.
My main point in posting this, of course, is to promote philosophy, especially after my most recent post. Still, I wished I could find the link I had sent to me in an email that was an annual report from one of the Ivy League schools. (I can’t remember which one; I want to say Stanford, or perhaps Harvard.) Anyway, I couldn’t find the link, but it reported on the highest average earnings for those who earned graduate degrees at the university. Those who earned graduate degrees in philosophy had the highest average annual income when compared to graduates of all other graduate programs at the school. No, I’m not kidding. Of course, as the person who sent me the email pointed out, this is bound to be a severely flawed statistic. Because philosophy is such a small program, there are relatively few students earning philosophy graduate degrees. Thus, one or two of them making a large sum of money would throw off the statistics for philosophy graduates as a whole. Given that these are Ivy League students, it is possible that some of these philosophy students went off to work for their rich father’s company after graduation and are now earning a pretty penny. Nonetheless, it was an interesting (and somewhat amusing) piece.
Several people I know and/or love might find the rankings interesting. The #1 job on the list is mathematician. (Congrats, sis!) The #2 job is that of an actuary, and I’ve known a couple of people who have considered that line of work. #9 is Industrial Designer, which is relevant to Melanie’s brother, and #18 is computer programmer, which many of us seem to know one or two. On the opposite end of the list, the worst job is that of a lumberjack, while the seventh worst job is that of a garbage collector. (Sorry, bro!) The #9 worst job is that of a roustabout. I’d never heard of a roustabout. I looked it up on dictionary.com, and it looks like it could be anything from a wharf laborer to a circus laborer to someone who works in an oil field. I’m not sure which meaning the job rankings were supposed to reflect.
My main point in posting this, of course, is to promote philosophy, especially after my most recent post. Still, I wished I could find the link I had sent to me in an email that was an annual report from one of the Ivy League schools. (I can’t remember which one; I want to say Stanford, or perhaps Harvard.) Anyway, I couldn’t find the link, but it reported on the highest average earnings for those who earned graduate degrees at the university. Those who earned graduate degrees in philosophy had the highest average annual income when compared to graduates of all other graduate programs at the school. No, I’m not kidding. Of course, as the person who sent me the email pointed out, this is bound to be a severely flawed statistic. Because philosophy is such a small program, there are relatively few students earning philosophy graduate degrees. Thus, one or two of them making a large sum of money would throw off the statistics for philosophy graduates as a whole. Given that these are Ivy League students, it is possible that some of these philosophy students went off to work for their rich father’s company after graduation and are now earning a pretty penny. Nonetheless, it was an interesting (and somewhat amusing) piece.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Spring Semester Starts, Several Students Still Shockingly Stupid
The first week of the spring semester is over and done. I must say, I'm in very good spirits (aside from a minor cold I'm battling—mostly an annoyingly scratchy throat). I expected this semester to be an overwhelming one. I'm taking two required courses that are supposed to be extremely demanding (one called “Modern Logic I,” which is largely a philosophy of mathematics class, and the other being a “core course” on metaphysics and epistemology). I'm also taking a class on libertarian (not in the political sense) theories of free will and TA-ing for an intro to philosophy class, the latter of which involves leading two discussion groups per week. Fortunately, though it may be premature to say so, I am feeling quite hopeful about managing these responsibilities. Having gotten my first peek at them, I'm not sure they'll prove any more grueling than I am used to dealing with, and that's a great relief. If I stay on top of things, I am hopeful this semester will not be anything beyond exhausting, which is something I've grown accustomed to.
One reason I'm feeling a bit more optimistic is because of the weekly discussion groups I am leading. They are going to be more laid back than I had expected. That is, I don't think I'll have to be spending exorbitant amounts of time preparing for them. I wasn't sure that would be the case, so this is great news. However, I had the first of these discussion groups just a couple of days ago, and I was a bit disheartened at the students' ability (or inability rather) to differentiate between fact and opinion. I asked the class what they thought philosophy was, since I think most people do not know as well as they think they might. People tend to think philosophy is all about opinion and subjectivity. They think it's completely independent of objective truth. Many times I've had people tell me they don't like philosophy because they want to deal with “facts.” This is obnoxious to me, because I think what they really mean is that they want things to be super straightforward – they don't want to think about what the facts are, they just want to have the facts told to them. Philosophy is as much a search for objective fact as is science. In fact, philosophy is very often not as sloppy in its conclusions as is science.
But I digress. The point is, I had several students in my discussion groups tell me that philosophy is more about opinion than about facts. That they are misguided in this way is not the worst part. What is bothersome to me is that when I push them on what the difference between fact, opinion, and belief is, they don't seem to give a very good answer. I worry that they have been raised in a society that is so politically correct and tolerant that they honestly don't know the difference between fact and opinion. God's existence, some of them want to say, is an opinion. To clarify, whether or not God exists is an opinion, according to many of these students. One student said something along these lines: “I believe in God, so for me, it's a fact that God exists. But I wouldn't say that's the case for everyone. I know there are people out there who don't believe in God, so for them, it's an opinion.” Huh?!?!? That's not how it works, folks. I proposed the following thought experiment to the class: say we stumbled upon a sealed box that we could not open. Say some of us believed there was a certain object in the box, and others of us did not. I then asked the students if there would be a fact of the matter regarding whether or not that object is actually in the box. There was not much consensus in the classroom about that. Yikes.
So that's the beginning to my semester. The bottom line is that I'm hopeful. And happy. Talk to you again soon.
One reason I'm feeling a bit more optimistic is because of the weekly discussion groups I am leading. They are going to be more laid back than I had expected. That is, I don't think I'll have to be spending exorbitant amounts of time preparing for them. I wasn't sure that would be the case, so this is great news. However, I had the first of these discussion groups just a couple of days ago, and I was a bit disheartened at the students' ability (or inability rather) to differentiate between fact and opinion. I asked the class what they thought philosophy was, since I think most people do not know as well as they think they might. People tend to think philosophy is all about opinion and subjectivity. They think it's completely independent of objective truth. Many times I've had people tell me they don't like philosophy because they want to deal with “facts.” This is obnoxious to me, because I think what they really mean is that they want things to be super straightforward – they don't want to think about what the facts are, they just want to have the facts told to them. Philosophy is as much a search for objective fact as is science. In fact, philosophy is very often not as sloppy in its conclusions as is science.
But I digress. The point is, I had several students in my discussion groups tell me that philosophy is more about opinion than about facts. That they are misguided in this way is not the worst part. What is bothersome to me is that when I push them on what the difference between fact, opinion, and belief is, they don't seem to give a very good answer. I worry that they have been raised in a society that is so politically correct and tolerant that they honestly don't know the difference between fact and opinion. God's existence, some of them want to say, is an opinion. To clarify, whether or not God exists is an opinion, according to many of these students. One student said something along these lines: “I believe in God, so for me, it's a fact that God exists. But I wouldn't say that's the case for everyone. I know there are people out there who don't believe in God, so for them, it's an opinion.” Huh?!?!? That's not how it works, folks. I proposed the following thought experiment to the class: say we stumbled upon a sealed box that we could not open. Say some of us believed there was a certain object in the box, and others of us did not. I then asked the students if there would be a fact of the matter regarding whether or not that object is actually in the box. There was not much consensus in the classroom about that. Yikes.
So that's the beginning to my semester. The bottom line is that I'm hopeful. And happy. Talk to you again soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)