Sunday, June 29, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Just got back from a run with Tony on THE RIVER THAMES!!! Now settling down, maybe?, after a couple nights of relentless juggernaut debauchery. The trip here included the obligatory all day debacle at Satan's House of Fun (Chicago O'Hare). But oh well, here now. A quick initial scan of this place reveals that these two are unequivocal alcoholics. Yesterday we went for a walk around the colleges and the surrounding countryside. Very nice. Leapt some fences and got lost. The landscape makes me want to grab a gun, jump on the back of a horse, and sniff out the fox. Perhaps going to Wimbledon soon to admire Federer or Nadal, or any Slavic female.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
I have only just now fully appreciated the following argument that the reality of the existence of a qualified idea of a Christian, or any benevolent God, is defensible.
The traditional charge against a benevolent Being is that there is suffering and pain in the world and a benevolent Being could not have let this happen if it is in our interest to love Him. This is a valid and weighty charge. Specifically, a benevolent Being cannot be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient, or else ceases to be benevolent. Most Christians and proponents of the reality of benevolent Beings do not acquiesce to the charge, and hence the contradiction. But a benevolent Being could forgo His omnipotence by introducing free will and resultant suffering, with the condition that free will allows a world in which a greater degree of benevolence is realized in spite of the introduction of pain. I do not accept the possibility of a benevolent Being retaining his omnipotence and only desires not to intercede in the world. In my opinion, as soon as a benevolent, omnipotent Being decides not to save an innocent person from suffering that Being has ceased to be benevolent.
I do not like this position, and hope that it is untrue, but I believe that anyone must admit that it is defensible, i.e., it is possible. I do not like the position in the sense that I do not agree with the supposed God's contemplations of what constitutes benevolence, I think I'd rather remain in blissful ignorance. Perhaps that is only opinion, and thus we are led to the first dead end.
The other dead ends, more important, are highlighted by the fact that this position does not address more fundamental problems implicit in accepting it. It does not prove the reality of free will as against determinism, and it does not prove the reality of the existence of a benevolent Being, or any Being, for that matter.
Perhaps it does have some utility in justifying the reality of suffering, if an acceptance of free will is allowed, regardless of source.
The traditional charge against a benevolent Being is that there is suffering and pain in the world and a benevolent Being could not have let this happen if it is in our interest to love Him. This is a valid and weighty charge. Specifically, a benevolent Being cannot be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient, or else ceases to be benevolent. Most Christians and proponents of the reality of benevolent Beings do not acquiesce to the charge, and hence the contradiction. But a benevolent Being could forgo His omnipotence by introducing free will and resultant suffering, with the condition that free will allows a world in which a greater degree of benevolence is realized in spite of the introduction of pain. I do not accept the possibility of a benevolent Being retaining his omnipotence and only desires not to intercede in the world. In my opinion, as soon as a benevolent, omnipotent Being decides not to save an innocent person from suffering that Being has ceased to be benevolent.
I do not like this position, and hope that it is untrue, but I believe that anyone must admit that it is defensible, i.e., it is possible. I do not like the position in the sense that I do not agree with the supposed God's contemplations of what constitutes benevolence, I think I'd rather remain in blissful ignorance. Perhaps that is only opinion, and thus we are led to the first dead end.
The other dead ends, more important, are highlighted by the fact that this position does not address more fundamental problems implicit in accepting it. It does not prove the reality of free will as against determinism, and it does not prove the reality of the existence of a benevolent Being, or any Being, for that matter.
Perhaps it does have some utility in justifying the reality of suffering, if an acceptance of free will is allowed, regardless of source.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Ahhhh 6th Street; that is where I found myself, accompanied by Matthew and Antonio, on Saturday night, after a delightful afternoon at the Hutt's graduation party and a dissapointing finish at Belmont. We arrived on said street at a stately 12:40 a.m. and proceeded to imbibe as much as possible before the closing. This required Cheers Shot Bar, where tequila, flamins, and a host of I don't remembers were thrown back in due course. Our bid to exit last out of Cheers successful, I next asked 2 very attractive women if they had a dispensable cigarette, to which they replied, "No. We don't smoke." I assured them that I did not engage either, and then systematically lowered my standards until I obtained one (the one cig per night/week/month policy is working wonderfully).
Once the longer than necessary time was spent finding the car, we arrived at Antonio's place where he promptly passed out. Not keen on ending the night on such a sour note Matthew and I seized his keys, a mini Heineken keg, our wits, and set out. We ended up at River Place Park where 7 years ago an innocent water tower was thrust into an intoxicated Timothy's line of sight, where he infamously proclaimed that "the moon sure is large tonight," as if the celestial orb adjusted its size with the changing of the day. Interestingly, it did appear lunarlike with scrutiny, however, the many extra thousands of miles in diameter or the unexplained, sudden proximity required should have been immediate suspect.
After definitively identifying the future of our country and the impossibility of a solution I dropped Matthew off and drove home, both of us to enjoy the comfort of our own beds, falling asleep about 6:30 a.m. I woke up at 10, drove to Matthew's and woke him up. We filled ourselves with Cammie Pontrello-made egg, cheese, and bacon bagels and were jarred to life by a loud text message that read "Car location, status, plan of action?" I reassured Antonio in a responsive text that his car was at the police station, totalled, and we were merely awaiting his bond money.
The remainder of the day was spent at the lake, at Jason's parent's house. It was magnificent, a perfect day for laking, sunning, drinking, swimming, jumping, and listening to classical music. I couldn't think of a better way to spend turning a hangover back into a pleasant drunken state.
Once the longer than necessary time was spent finding the car, we arrived at Antonio's place where he promptly passed out. Not keen on ending the night on such a sour note Matthew and I seized his keys, a mini Heineken keg, our wits, and set out. We ended up at River Place Park where 7 years ago an innocent water tower was thrust into an intoxicated Timothy's line of sight, where he infamously proclaimed that "the moon sure is large tonight," as if the celestial orb adjusted its size with the changing of the day. Interestingly, it did appear lunarlike with scrutiny, however, the many extra thousands of miles in diameter or the unexplained, sudden proximity required should have been immediate suspect.
After definitively identifying the future of our country and the impossibility of a solution I dropped Matthew off and drove home, both of us to enjoy the comfort of our own beds, falling asleep about 6:30 a.m. I woke up at 10, drove to Matthew's and woke him up. We filled ourselves with Cammie Pontrello-made egg, cheese, and bacon bagels and were jarred to life by a loud text message that read "Car location, status, plan of action?" I reassured Antonio in a responsive text that his car was at the police station, totalled, and we were merely awaiting his bond money.
The remainder of the day was spent at the lake, at Jason's parent's house. It was magnificent, a perfect day for laking, sunning, drinking, swimming, jumping, and listening to classical music. I couldn't think of a better way to spend turning a hangover back into a pleasant drunken state.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
There is no magazine in existence on Evolutionary Theory, or even on recent advancements in evolutionary topics. This is a situation that demands rectification. I won't believe for a second that an insufficient amount of material exists and will exist to provide for a regular publication.
I always loved the explanation of why an open, empty hand signifies a friendly greeting. An extended and empty hand reveals to the other person or people that you possess no weapon and therefore do not pose a threat. In the old days, I think that if you were not a foe, you were by default a friend.
In an article about romantic love during a discussion about the chemical synchronization of women's menstrual cycles the author shared the results of a study which revealed that strippers who are ovulating make an average of $70 in tips while those who are not make an average of $50 (a night...the only stripper I ever knew told me she made about $60k a year). Male sensory apparatus in tune, check. But it is known that during ovulation women's breasts and lips swell, among other changes, so is the increase solely due to this or is there some more intuitive factor at work?
Finally, I ran into another snake on a run a few days ago. Every time it freaks me the hell out. I've become extra-sensitive as twigs and sticks that look even remotely like snakes elicit the same reaction. Still, when it turns out to be an actual snake I freak the hell out. It's definitely one of the strongest emotions I've experienced. It is a fact that our ancestors were much smaller than we are now, but I wouldn't be surprised if snakes were also much larger than they are now, and that the relationship between snakes, or their ancestors, and our ancestors was much more predatory. It would not be surprising because it would account for such a ridiculous reaction to an animal that is really quite benign. Even so, this snake decided to retreat my advances, and it did so with amazing speed. It slithered furiously, scaled a four foot rock (the time in which its body covered the length of the rock yet was still moving was a little longer than I would have preferred), and crashed through the further wood, the sound of which was also less than preferable.
I always loved the explanation of why an open, empty hand signifies a friendly greeting. An extended and empty hand reveals to the other person or people that you possess no weapon and therefore do not pose a threat. In the old days, I think that if you were not a foe, you were by default a friend.
In an article about romantic love during a discussion about the chemical synchronization of women's menstrual cycles the author shared the results of a study which revealed that strippers who are ovulating make an average of $70 in tips while those who are not make an average of $50 (a night...the only stripper I ever knew told me she made about $60k a year). Male sensory apparatus in tune, check. But it is known that during ovulation women's breasts and lips swell, among other changes, so is the increase solely due to this or is there some more intuitive factor at work?
Finally, I ran into another snake on a run a few days ago. Every time it freaks me the hell out. I've become extra-sensitive as twigs and sticks that look even remotely like snakes elicit the same reaction. Still, when it turns out to be an actual snake I freak the hell out. It's definitely one of the strongest emotions I've experienced. It is a fact that our ancestors were much smaller than we are now, but I wouldn't be surprised if snakes were also much larger than they are now, and that the relationship between snakes, or their ancestors, and our ancestors was much more predatory. It would not be surprising because it would account for such a ridiculous reaction to an animal that is really quite benign. Even so, this snake decided to retreat my advances, and it did so with amazing speed. It slithered furiously, scaled a four foot rock (the time in which its body covered the length of the rock yet was still moving was a little longer than I would have preferred), and crashed through the further wood, the sound of which was also less than preferable.
Monday, June 2, 2008
I have discovered the accessible, free, and superior online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It will wholly supplant Wikipedia in consultation, for it is more reputable, explanatory, succinct, and the writing is of a higher caliber. I find it very exciting; it discusses philosophical topics, movements, histories, and notable individuals. Please check it out for yourself.
Yesterday I went out on the back porch to find my 83 year old grandfather reclining in the shade on the rocking chair, gulping down some suds. We talked for a while about everything and nothing, some of my college courses, and interestingly he started asking some of the same fundamental questions that I am always asking myself, like whether thoughts are substantial or not. In the course of clarifying his question, he mentioned that thoughts occupy time, and I immediately realized that that affords a very good argument, in my opinion, against the immaterial nature of thought.
The reasoning is as follows:
Given the limitations of current science and the inability of deduction or other methods to convincingly demonstrate the immaterial nature of thought, questions of space or position, and causality pertaining to, cannot address the issue. However, no one would deny that thought occupies time; that is, thought processes inherently use the property of time. Because time and space are the same thing, thought must occupy space, and therefore must be material. Even if you think the idea of space and time the same fantastic, you can only fall as far back as Einstein, who indisputably (unless you reject science) revealed that space and time are related, that is, they affect each other, i.e., a change in one induces a change in the other. The changes are usually too small to notice in our humble worldframe, but nevertheless they do occur. Thus the most credible position an immaterialist could take is that thoughts are related to space, and that is very dubious and most unsatisfactory, indeed.
I came across these humorous Pearls of Wisdom today in Thoreau:
"One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with; and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plough along in spite of every obstacle. Some things are really necessaries of life in some circles, the most helpless and diseased, which in others are luxuries merely, and in others still are entirely unknown."
"Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes."
Yesterday I went out on the back porch to find my 83 year old grandfather reclining in the shade on the rocking chair, gulping down some suds. We talked for a while about everything and nothing, some of my college courses, and interestingly he started asking some of the same fundamental questions that I am always asking myself, like whether thoughts are substantial or not. In the course of clarifying his question, he mentioned that thoughts occupy time, and I immediately realized that that affords a very good argument, in my opinion, against the immaterial nature of thought.
The reasoning is as follows:
Given the limitations of current science and the inability of deduction or other methods to convincingly demonstrate the immaterial nature of thought, questions of space or position, and causality pertaining to, cannot address the issue. However, no one would deny that thought occupies time; that is, thought processes inherently use the property of time. Because time and space are the same thing, thought must occupy space, and therefore must be material. Even if you think the idea of space and time the same fantastic, you can only fall as far back as Einstein, who indisputably (unless you reject science) revealed that space and time are related, that is, they affect each other, i.e., a change in one induces a change in the other. The changes are usually too small to notice in our humble worldframe, but nevertheless they do occur. Thus the most credible position an immaterialist could take is that thoughts are related to space, and that is very dubious and most unsatisfactory, indeed.
I came across these humorous Pearls of Wisdom today in Thoreau:
"One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with; and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plough along in spite of every obstacle. Some things are really necessaries of life in some circles, the most helpless and diseased, which in others are luxuries merely, and in others still are entirely unknown."
"Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)