I believe I've hit on this before, but if a particular piece of legislation is scheduled to end, then it is not permanent. Further, if that particular piece of legislation was a non-permanent reduction of a certain number, then, when that legislation ends, the reduction will cease to be in effect and thus, the "original" number will be reinstated, not established. So, not creating new legislation that would maintain the current reduction would not seem to be an increase or "hike". According to her tweet on the eve of the congressional debate, Sarah Palin thinks differently. What is of notice is that she initially, using a non-loaded adjective, refers to the issue as the "tax changes". I gather from this that she views it as only her opinion, of which she entreaties her readers to agree with, that they are "hikes".
Sidenote: who is she tweeting to? I don't think the public has a say in the debate that is taking place this morning, as it is up to our elected officials to decide. So do our representatives read the tweets of ex-governors who quit in the middle of their term to professionally campaign, give speeches across the nation (including one at a private Christian primary school in Pennsylvania?), "write" two books, go on national book tours for both of those books, be a remunerated guest on Fox News, and have his or her family star in an 8-episode reality cable-tv show?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
McCain
On Meet the Press two Sundays ago, they played a clip from 2004 where Senator John McCain is saying the exact same thing, in regard to the Bush Tax Cuts, as Obama is saying now (viz. to not extend the tax cuts for the top 5% or so). McCain defends his own discord by saying that those were different economic times than now and that we shouldn't raise the taxes on anyone when in a recession.
What he meant to say is that him saying what he said in 2004 helped him out politically, and that what he says now, which is in opposition to his 2004 view, helps him out politically (because it is against Obama). Take a look at Stewart's onslaught of McCain flip-flops here. I can't seem to find it, but Stewart also has a shocking clip where McCain mentions that "the system is broken" and "Washington needs changed" about 15 times over the course of 1992-2010. It's sickening really; A politician can spout the same empty phrase over and over and continue to get reelected. McCain is more concerned with reelection than having his stay in Washington, however lengthy it is, be valuable to the American people. If the system does need fixed, perhaps we should have a new senator from AZ. in office...
What he meant to say is that him saying what he said in 2004 helped him out politically, and that what he says now, which is in opposition to his 2004 view, helps him out politically (because it is against Obama). Take a look at Stewart's onslaught of McCain flip-flops here. I can't seem to find it, but Stewart also has a shocking clip where McCain mentions that "the system is broken" and "Washington needs changed" about 15 times over the course of 1992-2010. It's sickening really; A politician can spout the same empty phrase over and over and continue to get reelected. McCain is more concerned with reelection than having his stay in Washington, however lengthy it is, be valuable to the American people. If the system does need fixed, perhaps we should have a new senator from AZ. in office...
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Race in Rhetoric: Body-scans and Race
In regards to an alternative to the much talked about body-scans that he so opposes, Steve Doocy says “I like the idea of profiling”.
Shortly thereafter, he says: “I’ve read some websites” that have said that when 3 year olds and nuns get patted down, the terrorists have won because our 4th amendment rights have been taken away (sidenote: this is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that today, facts only require the mere allusion to “some” speculation). But who is the “we” (whose rights are being taken away) in this statement? If he wants profiling, then he wants particular ethnic groups searched (read: “profiled”), and of course, their 4th amendment rights don’t matter in this. The rights that matter are the rights of white people.
On the same subject, Ann Coulter is in favor of checking “foreign” people, because all terrorists have been foreign. She is just as outraged as Doocy that her whiteness is not being enough to prove that she’s a safe person. (She is also the women who, within the past year, said that Christians are "perfected-Jews")
In the world of the Bush-signed Patriot Act, why wouldn’t they welcome such an invasion of privacy? Oh right, because its “our” freedom, not “their” freedom. As if that points out any thing but English-speaking, white-skinned people. Now if we can just get rid of a few unwelcomed, pesky ethnic groups that fit that criteria, this free land of ours will finally be pure… [← sarcasm!]
I understand that body-scans aren’t the best option, but if we’re so paranoid about our planes being blown up, measures must be taken. And if that means my body is seen for a few seconds, I’ll take that. I’ll take that over limiting the freedom of AMERICANS, who happen to have skin of a different color.
Shortly thereafter, he says: “I’ve read some websites” that have said that when 3 year olds and nuns get patted down, the terrorists have won because our 4th amendment rights have been taken away (sidenote: this is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that today, facts only require the mere allusion to “some” speculation). But who is the “we” (whose rights are being taken away) in this statement? If he wants profiling, then he wants particular ethnic groups searched (read: “profiled”), and of course, their 4th amendment rights don’t matter in this. The rights that matter are the rights of white people.
On the same subject, Ann Coulter is in favor of checking “foreign” people, because all terrorists have been foreign. She is just as outraged as Doocy that her whiteness is not being enough to prove that she’s a safe person. (She is also the women who, within the past year, said that Christians are "perfected-Jews")
In the world of the Bush-signed Patriot Act, why wouldn’t they welcome such an invasion of privacy? Oh right, because its “our” freedom, not “their” freedom. As if that points out any thing but English-speaking, white-skinned people. Now if we can just get rid of a few unwelcomed, pesky ethnic groups that fit that criteria, this free land of ours will finally be pure… [← sarcasm!]
I understand that body-scans aren’t the best option, but if we’re so paranoid about our planes being blown up, measures must be taken. And if that means my body is seen for a few seconds, I’ll take that. I’ll take that over limiting the freedom of AMERICANS, who happen to have skin of a different color.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Rhetoric in Real Life: Bush Tax Cuts
The Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003 and gave tax cuts to most of the tax brackets. The legislation terminates here shortly and, given our economic thin ice, it is a hot-button issue. Because this is only a temporary law, if nothing is done, the tax percentages will go back up to their 2002 levels. Those in favor of reinstating/upholding/maintaining the Bush tax cuts argue that, in more or less words, we should not raise taxes for small business owners or rather, employers. First, it is not “raising” taxes when there is an established law maintaining it at that level and the current numbers are only where they are for a determined number of years. And secondly, there is no daggum way that “small business owners” are those populating the top 5%.
But when people argue in favor of the tax cuts, and use this language, it sounds as if Obama’s administration is tying the hands of small mom and pop stores all over America. And of course that sounds horrendous!
A more convincing argument that side invokes is that we shouldn’t increase the taxes on those who provide jobs, because they won’t have the money to hire people. This is true, but again, misleading. The owners of companies are not the companies. Companies hire people, private individuals do not. Thus, this argument only supports the capital gains tax portion of this law, not the top-earning brackets of individuals.
On another aspect, the owner’s salary has a minimal effect on the profit of the company; typically, the big CEOs do not have ridiculous salaries. It is the bonuses, which are given from the company to the owner (a private person) that are the biggest deal. So really, saying that we shouldn’t tax the employers is a backward way of saying that the richest should get a tax break so they get bigger bonuses too. Of course, I understand that I’m conflating the top-earners with the CEOs (employers), but if this isn’t the case, then the opposing argument is even more faulty.
But when people argue in favor of the tax cuts, and use this language, it sounds as if Obama’s administration is tying the hands of small mom and pop stores all over America. And of course that sounds horrendous!
A more convincing argument that side invokes is that we shouldn’t increase the taxes on those who provide jobs, because they won’t have the money to hire people. This is true, but again, misleading. The owners of companies are not the companies. Companies hire people, private individuals do not. Thus, this argument only supports the capital gains tax portion of this law, not the top-earning brackets of individuals.
On another aspect, the owner’s salary has a minimal effect on the profit of the company; typically, the big CEOs do not have ridiculous salaries. It is the bonuses, which are given from the company to the owner (a private person) that are the biggest deal. So really, saying that we shouldn’t tax the employers is a backward way of saying that the richest should get a tax break so they get bigger bonuses too. Of course, I understand that I’m conflating the top-earners with the CEOs (employers), but if this isn’t the case, then the opposing argument is even more faulty.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Rhetoric on Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity
This post will be a continuation of the general theme found in my previous post and my newspaper article in The Munice Star Press: rhetoric in real life. The particular topic of this post is on one show’s coverage of The Rally to Restore Sanity.
I haven’t kept track of all the links, but everyone (from talkingpointsmemo.com, salon.com, the New York Times, Fox News, Chris Matthews and I’m sure many others) has conveyed at least some, if not outright, disapproval of Jon Stewart’s rally. As you can tell, there is not just a left/right divide here. If you’re interested in the full length points being brought up, searching Stewart’s name on the particular website will bring up the relevant stories. Below, I will summarize what the gists of the criticisms.
Some of the arguments include: 1) the media is doing the right thing in focusing on these big, divisive issues (Matthews); 2) the media doesn’t have the impact Stewart says it does (NYTimes); 3) there was no true point to the rally (salon.com).
My understanding of the rally’s impetus and argument goes as follows: 1) CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all use fear to get people to watch their shows 2) if things were truly as bad as they say they are, we’d all be dead (from bed bugs, STD’s, alcohol, and all the health warnings to Marxists, Muslims, terrorists, progressives, fascists and all the horrible people, who ‘we’ of course aren’t) 3) we should realize that we do get along and working with people does not mean the end of everything we ever believed in. In sum: “These are bad times; they are not endtimes.”
But all of that is prefatory to my main point which focuses on a brief segment on the Sunday edition of Fox and Friends on Fox News. I will provide a link here, as I want you to watch the rhetoric in action for yourselves. Its up to you if you watch it first, and then read what follows, or conversely, wait to watch it until after you read what I have to say.
This show, Fox and Friends, is not news. It is speculation at best, misleading on a neutral view, and deliberately misleading at worst; the clip typifies their approach to “news”. They say a lot of things and rather quickly, so I have brought up four main points each of which has at least one direct quote that you can find in the video.
1) The woman pointed out that they were comedians parading as “newspeople.” This is an immediate attempt to discredit any relevance the rally may have had. Her logic: if they’re comedians, they have nothing valuable to say. Of course this is almost entirely false; many, many comedians speak about important issues and usually convey, through their medium of comedy, opinions worth contemplating; George Carlin is paradigmatic in this regard. She must not have gotten anything from the great Greek comedic playwrights either. But more to the point, her rhetoric is inappropriate because comedy, to work, must make reference to a shared meaning. A person who does not get the meaning of a joke doesn’t laugh. In other words, the listener must understand the meaning being conveyed in order to discover the comedy found within it. Ever notice how you don’t laugh at a roast when you don’t know who the person is? This is because you don’t have all the background information on the roastee and so the meanings of the jokes are lost on you. Of course Stewart’s and Colbert’s version of comedy is satire, which is, albeit a circuitous one, one of many ways to make valid points. Yet this woman acts as if satire is no more relevant than a forth-grader’s opinion on state politics.
2) Gretchen Carlson then acts as if she doesn’t remember Colbert’s name or the name of the rally. Again this is a backhanded way to discredit any validity the rally may have. There is no way a news anchor (who is true to the title) would forget a name in a story. And even giving the benefit of that doubt, there is no way a news anchor would forget the name of a person they’ve played clips of countless times on their show and who’s show has a nightly national crowd of 1.5 million viewers. This point is the most pathetic one. Check here for Stewart’s bit on her “playing dumb” on an earlier topic.
3) Crowd estimates have become a big deal lately, starting with Glen Beck’s rally. As a result, Stewart and Colbert were preemptive and mentioned that it was pretty likely that the numbers would be distorted: Colbert had an early morning tweet that said he heard an estimate of 6 billion in attendance… So, knowing all of this, the smug gentleman on the left doesn’t even mention an estimate (because if he was accurate, he’d have to say that it was more than Beck’s rally, but if he underestimated, he’d be ridiculed by Stewart the next day. So he proceeds to go at the subject in a more subtle way. He only mentions that “we’ve heard some various estimates”. From this, the viewer, has no idea how big the crowd was… no idea. What the viewer does recognize is that there are several estimates, which presumably disagree and so what ever number I might hear on some other network must be an exaggeration which is obviously slanted to a liberal bias. Its genius really. All he has said is true, but certainly leads the viewer toward an obvious conclusion, which is that there weren’t that many people, not matter what number you hear.
4) He mentioned that there were “political overtones …….. to vote” Notice how long that pause is and what effect it actually has. The only overtones Stewart had was “to vote” but if he leaves it at “there were political overtones” one is led to believe that Stewart was overtly anti-right. And later, he goes on to say that the rally was overall, against the tea-party. Again, while no parties were mentioned at the rally (and the message was mainly against the media), the anchor leads the viewer into the opinion that it was overt and largely derogatory when he says that the signs “seemed kinda crazy”. He conflates the signs at the rally with Stewart’s message. But if you never saw the speech, you would think it was Stewart going on and on about how bad right-wingers.
What is perhaps most significant here is the fact that these 4 points I just covered were all brought up in the first 43 seconds of the clip… and all before a single second of the video was shown. My last two points are found later in the clip and refer to 1) and 2) from above:
They again mention that the two speakers were comedians when they says that they “actually tried to be serious”; presumably this occurred only once, given the rhetoric’s implications. This is furthered when she mentions that Stewart looked “fancy in a suit”. Of course, Stewart and Colbert wear a suit for every show. And lastly, the speakers were comedians “so it had to be funny”, which again dismisses any validity that may have been found in the rally. What is perhaps the most ironic moment in the show occurs when their news correspondent for the rally was listed as a “conservative comedian”. They mention about 5 different times that comedians are only worth laugh at, and yet their correspondent was a comedian.
Lastly, the only number they did point out was the number of people the Huffington Post bused in: 10000 people (which is an estimate). So while they refuse to mention any number about total attendees, they do mention how many people they believe were bused in from New York by a liberal newspaper. But because they never give the total number, which was estimated at well over 100,000, 10,000 seems like a ton of people. Of course, it was at least less than 10%, but without mentioning the other number, the 10,000 stands out.
To be fair, they do raise a good point, pertaining to the use of Cat Stevens, at the end of the clip.
This general topic will probably become a regular theme for this blog as it has really begun to get on my nerves when watching news shows. News is about reporting; but sadly, when the reporters shade the stories with misleading commentary, viewers take it as just reporting, and are illinformed about those topics that at the heart of the story in the first place. More importantly, this all shows just how important our words are when we communicate, and this holds for all aspects of life, not just punditry.
I haven’t kept track of all the links, but everyone (from talkingpointsmemo.com, salon.com, the New York Times, Fox News, Chris Matthews and I’m sure many others) has conveyed at least some, if not outright, disapproval of Jon Stewart’s rally. As you can tell, there is not just a left/right divide here. If you’re interested in the full length points being brought up, searching Stewart’s name on the particular website will bring up the relevant stories. Below, I will summarize what the gists of the criticisms.
Some of the arguments include: 1) the media is doing the right thing in focusing on these big, divisive issues (Matthews); 2) the media doesn’t have the impact Stewart says it does (NYTimes); 3) there was no true point to the rally (salon.com).
My understanding of the rally’s impetus and argument goes as follows: 1) CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all use fear to get people to watch their shows 2) if things were truly as bad as they say they are, we’d all be dead (from bed bugs, STD’s, alcohol, and all the health warnings to Marxists, Muslims, terrorists, progressives, fascists and all the horrible people, who ‘we’ of course aren’t) 3) we should realize that we do get along and working with people does not mean the end of everything we ever believed in. In sum: “These are bad times; they are not endtimes.”
But all of that is prefatory to my main point which focuses on a brief segment on the Sunday edition of Fox and Friends on Fox News. I will provide a link here, as I want you to watch the rhetoric in action for yourselves. Its up to you if you watch it first, and then read what follows, or conversely, wait to watch it until after you read what I have to say.
This show, Fox and Friends, is not news. It is speculation at best, misleading on a neutral view, and deliberately misleading at worst; the clip typifies their approach to “news”. They say a lot of things and rather quickly, so I have brought up four main points each of which has at least one direct quote that you can find in the video.
1) The woman pointed out that they were comedians parading as “newspeople.” This is an immediate attempt to discredit any relevance the rally may have had. Her logic: if they’re comedians, they have nothing valuable to say. Of course this is almost entirely false; many, many comedians speak about important issues and usually convey, through their medium of comedy, opinions worth contemplating; George Carlin is paradigmatic in this regard. She must not have gotten anything from the great Greek comedic playwrights either. But more to the point, her rhetoric is inappropriate because comedy, to work, must make reference to a shared meaning. A person who does not get the meaning of a joke doesn’t laugh. In other words, the listener must understand the meaning being conveyed in order to discover the comedy found within it. Ever notice how you don’t laugh at a roast when you don’t know who the person is? This is because you don’t have all the background information on the roastee and so the meanings of the jokes are lost on you. Of course Stewart’s and Colbert’s version of comedy is satire, which is, albeit a circuitous one, one of many ways to make valid points. Yet this woman acts as if satire is no more relevant than a forth-grader’s opinion on state politics.
2) Gretchen Carlson then acts as if she doesn’t remember Colbert’s name or the name of the rally. Again this is a backhanded way to discredit any validity the rally may have. There is no way a news anchor (who is true to the title) would forget a name in a story. And even giving the benefit of that doubt, there is no way a news anchor would forget the name of a person they’ve played clips of countless times on their show and who’s show has a nightly national crowd of 1.5 million viewers. This point is the most pathetic one. Check here for Stewart’s bit on her “playing dumb” on an earlier topic.
3) Crowd estimates have become a big deal lately, starting with Glen Beck’s rally. As a result, Stewart and Colbert were preemptive and mentioned that it was pretty likely that the numbers would be distorted: Colbert had an early morning tweet that said he heard an estimate of 6 billion in attendance… So, knowing all of this, the smug gentleman on the left doesn’t even mention an estimate (because if he was accurate, he’d have to say that it was more than Beck’s rally, but if he underestimated, he’d be ridiculed by Stewart the next day. So he proceeds to go at the subject in a more subtle way. He only mentions that “we’ve heard some various estimates”. From this, the viewer, has no idea how big the crowd was… no idea. What the viewer does recognize is that there are several estimates, which presumably disagree and so what ever number I might hear on some other network must be an exaggeration which is obviously slanted to a liberal bias. Its genius really. All he has said is true, but certainly leads the viewer toward an obvious conclusion, which is that there weren’t that many people, not matter what number you hear.
4) He mentioned that there were “political overtones …….. to vote” Notice how long that pause is and what effect it actually has. The only overtones Stewart had was “to vote” but if he leaves it at “there were political overtones” one is led to believe that Stewart was overtly anti-right. And later, he goes on to say that the rally was overall, against the tea-party. Again, while no parties were mentioned at the rally (and the message was mainly against the media), the anchor leads the viewer into the opinion that it was overt and largely derogatory when he says that the signs “seemed kinda crazy”. He conflates the signs at the rally with Stewart’s message. But if you never saw the speech, you would think it was Stewart going on and on about how bad right-wingers.
What is perhaps most significant here is the fact that these 4 points I just covered were all brought up in the first 43 seconds of the clip… and all before a single second of the video was shown. My last two points are found later in the clip and refer to 1) and 2) from above:
They again mention that the two speakers were comedians when they says that they “actually tried to be serious”; presumably this occurred only once, given the rhetoric’s implications. This is furthered when she mentions that Stewart looked “fancy in a suit”. Of course, Stewart and Colbert wear a suit for every show. And lastly, the speakers were comedians “so it had to be funny”, which again dismisses any validity that may have been found in the rally. What is perhaps the most ironic moment in the show occurs when their news correspondent for the rally was listed as a “conservative comedian”. They mention about 5 different times that comedians are only worth laugh at, and yet their correspondent was a comedian.
Lastly, the only number they did point out was the number of people the Huffington Post bused in: 10000 people (which is an estimate). So while they refuse to mention any number about total attendees, they do mention how many people they believe were bused in from New York by a liberal newspaper. But because they never give the total number, which was estimated at well over 100,000, 10,000 seems like a ton of people. Of course, it was at least less than 10%, but without mentioning the other number, the 10,000 stands out.
To be fair, they do raise a good point, pertaining to the use of Cat Stevens, at the end of the clip.
This general topic will probably become a regular theme for this blog as it has really begun to get on my nerves when watching news shows. News is about reporting; but sadly, when the reporters shade the stories with misleading commentary, viewers take it as just reporting, and are illinformed about those topics that at the heart of the story in the first place. More importantly, this all shows just how important our words are when we communicate, and this holds for all aspects of life, not just punditry.
Monday, October 25, 2010
"Mosque" Debacle Became a Newspaper Article
I had had a blog up for about a week, discussing another take on the alleged "ground zero mosque" and then was told that the Muncie Star Press had agreed to print it. So I took it down immediately. But I forgot that some of you may not have gotten word of that so this post is just to pass along the link to the article. I wouldn't recommend the comments; they truly consist of bout 4 people blindly arguing about points not relevant to my article. But read them if you desire.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The Mosque Debacle
Well I can hold off no longer. The amount of commentary in the mass media, focused upon the proposed building of an Islamic mosque within a few blocks of the former WTC location, has caused a number of reactions by me, from interest, to confusion, to boredom, to outrage, to perplexity, and I’m sure others as well. But despite the mountains of words spewed on both sides, I feel I still need to express my, slightly limited, view. But hopefully that will work to my advantage, because, as usual, I feel that people are discussing things at the already-confused, diffused surface of the topic. In true philosophical form, I want to discuss something that I take to be at the root of this (or at least only what I can infer must be there, based on the rhetoric people have been using).
Things I want to point out: 1) the logic implemented by the people who do not want the mosque to be built. 2) how Obama's religiousity is related.
This is just one video, but does give you an idea of the sorts of logic being used. Where’s the argument in that video? “The mosque is wrong, so wrong.” There it is; that’s the argument being put forth in that video. Well that’s fine as a conclusion, but it doesn’t work so well as an argument, which is something you won't find in that video. So let’s keep going.
Please, please watch this 10-minute Daily Show clip. It is, in my opinion, one of the best Daily Show pieces they've done, although they typically are pretty good at reporting on things like this. Hopefully, that'll give you a taste of some of the points being made, and what sort of logic they are attempting to use.
Most (but not all) people realize it is not a legal issue, as they have the right to build there. Its not illegal because the constitutions only mentions of religion are stated in the first amendment and are as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And that mentions nothing about prohibiting a religious center, based on its location.
So it is not illegal, but "wrong". So what is wrong about it? They want to build a Muslim religious site close to a place where terrorists, who are Muslim, killed thousands of people. What's the connection? Apparently, they are not being sensitive, or respectful, to those who were affected by the attack. This isn't exactly a horrible plea. Out of all the jargon, I can respect this point more than any other. But nonetheless, to believe that an entire religion can be represented by the actions of less than 20 of its members is ludicrous. What about recent Christian leaders such as Ted Haggard, George Alan Rekers, Tony Alamo, Joe Barron, as well as the slew of Catholic leaders who have been accused or convicted of having sexual relations with children. Does this prohibit the building of Christian churches near schools? Does it make it "wrong" to have Sunday School? It hasn't seemed to be a problem yet. We isolate those "bad characters" from the rest of Christianity in attempts to retain the pristine character of Christianity. But when it comes to Islam, one represents all.
So here is my contention, which is nothing original, pertaining to the logic behind prohibiting the building of the mosque: muslim = terrorist = non-american = non-christian = immoral = wrong
The same logic is being used simply by the fact that Obama's religion is being questioned and that that makes it somehow relevant to the U.S. political realm. This is an extremely well-researched op-ed piece in the NYT on Obama’s religion. My point, which is one of the ones mentioned in article, is that it should not matter. But, according to that logic, if Obama is a Muslim, then he becomes all those things in that equation above. And if you don't trust that equation, notice how his nationality (which in America, perplexingly remains tied to ethnicity) and religion are always brought up together, always. And why, even when Obama says he is a Christian, do people not believe he is a Christian? That's usually good enough for most other politicians, even when their actions say otherwise.
Things I want to point out: 1) the logic implemented by the people who do not want the mosque to be built. 2) how Obama's religiousity is related.
This is just one video, but does give you an idea of the sorts of logic being used. Where’s the argument in that video? “The mosque is wrong, so wrong.” There it is; that’s the argument being put forth in that video. Well that’s fine as a conclusion, but it doesn’t work so well as an argument, which is something you won't find in that video. So let’s keep going.
Please, please watch this 10-minute Daily Show clip. It is, in my opinion, one of the best Daily Show pieces they've done, although they typically are pretty good at reporting on things like this. Hopefully, that'll give you a taste of some of the points being made, and what sort of logic they are attempting to use.
Most (but not all) people realize it is not a legal issue, as they have the right to build there. Its not illegal because the constitutions only mentions of religion are stated in the first amendment and are as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And that mentions nothing about prohibiting a religious center, based on its location.
So it is not illegal, but "wrong". So what is wrong about it? They want to build a Muslim religious site close to a place where terrorists, who are Muslim, killed thousands of people. What's the connection? Apparently, they are not being sensitive, or respectful, to those who were affected by the attack. This isn't exactly a horrible plea. Out of all the jargon, I can respect this point more than any other. But nonetheless, to believe that an entire religion can be represented by the actions of less than 20 of its members is ludicrous. What about recent Christian leaders such as Ted Haggard, George Alan Rekers, Tony Alamo, Joe Barron, as well as the slew of Catholic leaders who have been accused or convicted of having sexual relations with children. Does this prohibit the building of Christian churches near schools? Does it make it "wrong" to have Sunday School? It hasn't seemed to be a problem yet. We isolate those "bad characters" from the rest of Christianity in attempts to retain the pristine character of Christianity. But when it comes to Islam, one represents all.
So here is my contention, which is nothing original, pertaining to the logic behind prohibiting the building of the mosque: muslim = terrorist = non-american = non-christian = immoral = wrong
The same logic is being used simply by the fact that Obama's religion is being questioned and that that makes it somehow relevant to the U.S. political realm. This is an extremely well-researched op-ed piece in the NYT on Obama’s religion. My point, which is one of the ones mentioned in article, is that it should not matter. But, according to that logic, if Obama is a Muslim, then he becomes all those things in that equation above. And if you don't trust that equation, notice how his nationality (which in America, perplexingly remains tied to ethnicity) and religion are always brought up together, always. And why, even when Obama says he is a Christian, do people not believe he is a Christian? That's usually good enough for most other politicians, even when their actions say otherwise.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Levinas on Discourse (or how to not have a monologue when talking to people)
Can objectivity and the universality of thought be founded on discourse? Is not universal thought of itself prior to discourse? Does not a mind in speaking evoke what the other mind already thinks, both of them participating in common ideas? But the community of thought ought to have made language as a relation between beings impossible. Coherent discourse is one. A universal thought dispenses with communication. A reason cannot be other for a reason. How can a reason be an I or an other, since its very being consists in renouncing singularity? …
But to make of the thinker a moment of thought is to limit the revealing function of language to its coherence, conveying the coherence of concepts. In this coherence the unique I of the thinker volatilizes. The function of language would amount to suppressing “the other,” who breaks this coherence and is hence essentially irrational. A curious result: language would consist in suppressing the other, in making the other agree with the same! But in its expressive function language institutes a relation irreducible to the subject-object relation: the revelation of the other. In this revelation only can language as a system of signs be constituted. The other called upon is not something open to generalization. Language, far from presupposing universality and generality, first makes them possible. Language presupposes interlocutors, a plurality. Their commerce is not a representation of the one by the other, nor a participation in universality, on the common plane of language. Their commerce ... is ethical.
But to make of the thinker a moment of thought is to limit the revealing function of language to its coherence, conveying the coherence of concepts. In this coherence the unique I of the thinker volatilizes. The function of language would amount to suppressing “the other,” who breaks this coherence and is hence essentially irrational. A curious result: language would consist in suppressing the other, in making the other agree with the same! But in its expressive function language institutes a relation irreducible to the subject-object relation: the revelation of the other. In this revelation only can language as a system of signs be constituted. The other called upon is not something open to generalization. Language, far from presupposing universality and generality, first makes them possible. Language presupposes interlocutors, a plurality. Their commerce is not a representation of the one by the other, nor a participation in universality, on the common plane of language. Their commerce ... is ethical.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Schopenhaur on the Will, Intellect, and Moral Judgments
Arthur Schopenaur: The World as Will and Idea, Chapter 19 On the Primacy of the Will in Self-Consciouness
If now it is said of one man, “he has a good heart, though a bad head,” but of another, “he has a very good head, yet a bad heart,” every one feels that in the first case the praise far outweighs the blame – in the other case the reverse. Answering to this, we see that if some one has done a bad deed his friends and he himself try to remove the guilt from the will to the intellect, and to give out that faults of the heart were faults of the head; roguish tricks they will call errors, will say they were merely want of understanding, want of reflection, light-mindedness, folly; nay, if need be, they will plead a paroxysm, momentary mental aberration, and if a heavy crime is in question, even madness, only in order to free the will from the guilt. And in the same way, we ourselves, if we have caused a misfortune or injury, will before others and ourselves willingly impeach our stultitia, simply in order to escape the reproach of malitia. In the same way, in the case of the equally unjust decision of the judge, the difference, whether he has erred or been bribed, is so infinitely great. All this sufficiently proves that the will alone is the real and essential, the kernel of the man, and the intellect is merely its tool, which may be constantly faulty without the will being concerned. The accusation of want of understanding is, at the moral judgment-seat, no accusation at all; on the contrary, it gives great privileges. And so also, before the courts of the world, it is everywhere sufficient to deliver a criminal from all punishment that his guild should be transferred from his will to his intellect, by proving either unavoidable error or mental derangement, for then it is of no more consequence than if hand or food had slipped against the will.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Certainty Without Religion
Certainty doesn’t require knowing. In fact, certainty doesn’t even require facts; except the fact which it itself creates. And in that case, such a requirement fulfills itself.
A little while ago at work, a lady I was working for began talking about god and Jesus and stuff and how (almost verbatim, but forgive my memory) “you may think you’re certain, but the only true certainty is with God.” I just smiled and nodded politely, as I didn’t have the desire to have any form of in-depth conversation given the circumstances. Well I didn’t agree with that statement when I heard it, and I disagree with it more and more as time goes on.
What she is telling me is that human certainty is no certainty at all. Ok then, what certainty is actually certain? Well her reply would be a certainty found through a relationship with god (whatever shape her god and her relationship to it might take). In sum, humans, on their own, are incapable of having certainty (how Cartesian of her). And as you can tell, I disagree.
I assume this religious relationship she is referring to involves a belief, and a faith. In which case, certainty seems to be precluded. Or would she say that? Does she gain a certainty from her faith? I bet she does; she just doesn’t want to grant me the same (godless) result.
But analogously, I think we create our own certainty by taking all sorts of leaps of faith, and without a religious figure in the picture. When two people, both possibly standing on quite uncertain ground, take a leap of faith and create something new through a pact or some sort of agreement, they create their own certainty. In other words (and somewhat perplexingly), through uncertainty, they gain their own certainty. This is because we can create it. And this is what a relationship (of any type) is; for if both parties agree to it, or in other words put their faith/trust in the other, then of course the relationship will be fulfilled. And in fact, that is the only way for it to work. I am not saying that her religious certainty is fake; rather, I am saying it is no different than a secular certainty.
We gain our certainty when we first cease to doubt; and we don’t need religion to do that. [and for the students of philosophy, this is one of the most critical and logically fallacious mistakes of Descartes’]
A little while ago at work, a lady I was working for began talking about god and Jesus and stuff and how (almost verbatim, but forgive my memory) “you may think you’re certain, but the only true certainty is with God.” I just smiled and nodded politely, as I didn’t have the desire to have any form of in-depth conversation given the circumstances. Well I didn’t agree with that statement when I heard it, and I disagree with it more and more as time goes on.
What she is telling me is that human certainty is no certainty at all. Ok then, what certainty is actually certain? Well her reply would be a certainty found through a relationship with god (whatever shape her god and her relationship to it might take). In sum, humans, on their own, are incapable of having certainty (how Cartesian of her). And as you can tell, I disagree.
I assume this religious relationship she is referring to involves a belief, and a faith. In which case, certainty seems to be precluded. Or would she say that? Does she gain a certainty from her faith? I bet she does; she just doesn’t want to grant me the same (godless) result.
But analogously, I think we create our own certainty by taking all sorts of leaps of faith, and without a religious figure in the picture. When two people, both possibly standing on quite uncertain ground, take a leap of faith and create something new through a pact or some sort of agreement, they create their own certainty. In other words (and somewhat perplexingly), through uncertainty, they gain their own certainty. This is because we can create it. And this is what a relationship (of any type) is; for if both parties agree to it, or in other words put their faith/trust in the other, then of course the relationship will be fulfilled. And in fact, that is the only way for it to work. I am not saying that her religious certainty is fake; rather, I am saying it is no different than a secular certainty.
We gain our certainty when we first cease to doubt; and we don’t need religion to do that. [and for the students of philosophy, this is one of the most critical and logically fallacious mistakes of Descartes’]
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Some Thoughts of Time, Part II
This post has no real main point that I’m trying to argue but, similar to my last one, is a flow of ideas on time and identity.
In my previous post I said: “As a single event, I do not have existence; as an event, comprised of a past, I take up my identity (or even seen differently, I find myself). For there to be an “I” which looks back, there must first be that past which can be looked upon by the “I,” as the self in the present.”
The self is always present and only immediate. To be now it must have destroyed itself and yet still recognize itself as having been then, as some thing removed and distinct from what it is now. It is only through this recognition that time is possible, and it is only through time that identity is possible. Seemingly paradoxically, an “I” can only be present and yet is possible only through a succession of those presents, in other words, through time.
But isn’t this how we view time anyways, as a succession of present moments? The past is no special aspect of time, rather it is just the collection of experienced presents, which can be recollected in some fashion. Similarly, the future is just the totality of the unexperienced, and thus only perhaps possible, presents, which can be imagined in some fashion. The tenses of time are always in relation to the present.
The Relatedness of Time
In a blog post awhile back, I repeated a theory I had heard once:
“After one year of life, that past year was 1/1, or 100%, of your experience. After your twentieth year of life…, the previous year was 1/20th of your experience. So each year, since we are unable to expand our brains, causes the percentages of our brain to get reconfigured.” So the span of a day (which we calculate by the rotation of the earth), actually goes faster the older that we get, because it represents that much smaller of an experiencing than it once did. If time is only relative, then it is the case that as we get older, time gets shorter.
So I’m not only purposing the relative theory of time that says time only occurs with movement or in the relation of physical objects to one another, but also one that says that time is also related to itself; in fact, that is how it is possible. Because as mentioned two paragraphs back, the past and future are only modes of the present, modes of the “I” experiencing. And notice how I must use the in-process verb of “-ing” to express what an “I” does. When we say that “I worked yesterday”, we are saying that I was working at that given time and thus that I recall an experience of a present that is no longer be”ing” experienced.
So if time is related to itself, then every past event is defined as an experience”ing” which can now be objectified and thereby experienced anew (and yet in a new, removed way) by a new present “I”. Thus, memory is a collection of presents, which have become objects accessible to the now-present “I”.
What is odd is that an “-ing” implies a duration, a succession of experience. So as soon as we try to talk of an actual present (not just the present, as today or this year, but rather as the moment where experiencing occurs), we reduce it to such a slice of existence that it disappears altogether. So it seems that while having this notion of present is useful, when thought through, it is really an impossibility. And if I just spent this whole blog saying that all of time is in relation to our notions of the present, and the present doesn’t exist, then what is time?
In my previous post I said: “As a single event, I do not have existence; as an event, comprised of a past, I take up my identity (or even seen differently, I find myself). For there to be an “I” which looks back, there must first be that past which can be looked upon by the “I,” as the self in the present.”
The self is always present and only immediate. To be now it must have destroyed itself and yet still recognize itself as having been then, as some thing removed and distinct from what it is now. It is only through this recognition that time is possible, and it is only through time that identity is possible. Seemingly paradoxically, an “I” can only be present and yet is possible only through a succession of those presents, in other words, through time.
But isn’t this how we view time anyways, as a succession of present moments? The past is no special aspect of time, rather it is just the collection of experienced presents, which can be recollected in some fashion. Similarly, the future is just the totality of the unexperienced, and thus only perhaps possible, presents, which can be imagined in some fashion. The tenses of time are always in relation to the present.
The Relatedness of Time
In a blog post awhile back, I repeated a theory I had heard once:
“After one year of life, that past year was 1/1, or 100%, of your experience. After your twentieth year of life…, the previous year was 1/20th of your experience. So each year, since we are unable to expand our brains, causes the percentages of our brain to get reconfigured.” So the span of a day (which we calculate by the rotation of the earth), actually goes faster the older that we get, because it represents that much smaller of an experiencing than it once did. If time is only relative, then it is the case that as we get older, time gets shorter.
So I’m not only purposing the relative theory of time that says time only occurs with movement or in the relation of physical objects to one another, but also one that says that time is also related to itself; in fact, that is how it is possible. Because as mentioned two paragraphs back, the past and future are only modes of the present, modes of the “I” experiencing. And notice how I must use the in-process verb of “-ing” to express what an “I” does. When we say that “I worked yesterday”, we are saying that I was working at that given time and thus that I recall an experience of a present that is no longer be”ing” experienced.
So if time is related to itself, then every past event is defined as an experience”ing” which can now be objectified and thereby experienced anew (and yet in a new, removed way) by a new present “I”. Thus, memory is a collection of presents, which have become objects accessible to the now-present “I”.
What is odd is that an “-ing” implies a duration, a succession of experience. So as soon as we try to talk of an actual present (not just the present, as today or this year, but rather as the moment where experiencing occurs), we reduce it to such a slice of existence that it disappears altogether. So it seems that while having this notion of present is useful, when thought through, it is really an impossibility. And if I just spent this whole blog saying that all of time is in relation to our notions of the present, and the present doesn’t exist, then what is time?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Some Thoughts on Time
Time, by its very nature, takes all up within it; thus, there is no outside of time. For anything posited outside of time, so long as it is put in relation to time, will be captured by time. And so as soon as we say a thing is outside of time, it then is taken up by time.
Humanity, at once both crossing time and, as a result, yet nevertheless caught up by it, can only know things through it. For one can only cross in time, and never across or out of it. All things in relation to us, accessible to us, are then tethered by time and, as such, have only finite existence; in fact, they can only ‘be’ through such tethering. We cannot say there is a timeless idea such as Communism or Christianity; rather, in time, things which receive such a name share some commonalities, but each takes up its own identity, specific to that era, to that people. Reciprocally, time makes us and we make time.
As a single event, I do not have existence; as an event, comprised of a past, I take up my identity (or even seen differently, I find myself). For there to be an “I” which looks back, there must first be that past which can be looked upon by the “I,” as the self in the present. For example, when encountering a stranger, that is what they are. They have no history for us, and so we cannot call them anything but a stranger, endowed with superficial attributes that even then, require a history of their own. If we notice a big scar across the cheek, we imagine the sort of past that person would have had.
But at the same time, what is time without a recognition of itself? Can there be a succession of events without some event (some thing in time) first recognizing that succession, and thus those events. That we say there is a time before man is only the necessity of succession being thrown upon the preexistence which lays dormant for us, hiding in shadows. We only infer a before-humanity because, as mentioned before, we need a past to have a present. We cannot be without at least some thing once having been. But notice again, there can be no outside of time; even when some thing lies outside humanity’s jurisdiction (i.e. the time before we were), we still find a way to account for it (our current theory is evolution). Thus, we create our past, even when it is inaccessible to us, and never ours to begin with.
Humanity, at once both crossing time and, as a result, yet nevertheless caught up by it, can only know things through it. For one can only cross in time, and never across or out of it. All things in relation to us, accessible to us, are then tethered by time and, as such, have only finite existence; in fact, they can only ‘be’ through such tethering. We cannot say there is a timeless idea such as Communism or Christianity; rather, in time, things which receive such a name share some commonalities, but each takes up its own identity, specific to that era, to that people. Reciprocally, time makes us and we make time.
As a single event, I do not have existence; as an event, comprised of a past, I take up my identity (or even seen differently, I find myself). For there to be an “I” which looks back, there must first be that past which can be looked upon by the “I,” as the self in the present. For example, when encountering a stranger, that is what they are. They have no history for us, and so we cannot call them anything but a stranger, endowed with superficial attributes that even then, require a history of their own. If we notice a big scar across the cheek, we imagine the sort of past that person would have had.
But at the same time, what is time without a recognition of itself? Can there be a succession of events without some event (some thing in time) first recognizing that succession, and thus those events. That we say there is a time before man is only the necessity of succession being thrown upon the preexistence which lays dormant for us, hiding in shadows. We only infer a before-humanity because, as mentioned before, we need a past to have a present. We cannot be without at least some thing once having been. But notice again, there can be no outside of time; even when some thing lies outside humanity’s jurisdiction (i.e. the time before we were), we still find a way to account for it (our current theory is evolution). Thus, we create our past, even when it is inaccessible to us, and never ours to begin with.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Devil
"Readers are advised to remember that the devil is a liar." - C.S. Lewis
That line is conveniently situated in the preface to Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters”. The next line goes on to say that even the lines written by the fictitious spirit, Screwtape, should not be taken as necessarily true. (Of course, should we doubt Lewis too?)
I immediately was drawn to that initial quote. I’ve often thought about what it must be like to be the devil of Christianity. For instance, why and how is the devil an individual being? Why must the devil be a man? Well, I suppose all angels must be men, and have a phallus.
Now that is the fascinating part; the devil is (was?) an angel. It must be. It must be a (the) fallen one, an antagonist, an opponent. But is this a pure negation? If the Christian God is pure spirit, shouldn’t the devil be purely physical?
I suppose any negation of the Christian god is a complete negation, or at least of a completely different sort of nature. I take humans as also being some sort of negation, but this must surly be a different type of denial than that of ‘the eternally fallen one’. (Strangely, humans are physical, yet the devil is still a spirit.)
Questions:
Must the devil always lie? Are all lies ones of the devil? What truths would the devil espouse? In what way are those truths ‘true’? What truths could aid the devil’s cause? What type of cause can the devil have? What type of cause does the Christian God allow the devil to have? What does it mean for the Christian God to allow an antagonist an agenda? What does it mean for the Christian God to have an antagonist? Questions are easy. Answers are not.
My Two Cents:
What a worrisome world to live in for that person for whom the devil is behind every corner and every claim. How great the doubt! How great the fear! My issue with a statement like Lewis’ is that it makes the Christian’s life extremely individualistic: “I must doubt all things (all people), except my thoughts attached to my God, which I must take on faith.” That individual is scared for his or her life, trembling from a different sort of fear …
That line is conveniently situated in the preface to Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters”. The next line goes on to say that even the lines written by the fictitious spirit, Screwtape, should not be taken as necessarily true. (Of course, should we doubt Lewis too?)
I immediately was drawn to that initial quote. I’ve often thought about what it must be like to be the devil of Christianity. For instance, why and how is the devil an individual being? Why must the devil be a man? Well, I suppose all angels must be men, and have a phallus.
Now that is the fascinating part; the devil is (was?) an angel. It must be. It must be a (the) fallen one, an antagonist, an opponent. But is this a pure negation? If the Christian God is pure spirit, shouldn’t the devil be purely physical?
I suppose any negation of the Christian god is a complete negation, or at least of a completely different sort of nature. I take humans as also being some sort of negation, but this must surly be a different type of denial than that of ‘the eternally fallen one’. (Strangely, humans are physical, yet the devil is still a spirit.)
Questions:
Must the devil always lie? Are all lies ones of the devil? What truths would the devil espouse? In what way are those truths ‘true’? What truths could aid the devil’s cause? What type of cause can the devil have? What type of cause does the Christian God allow the devil to have? What does it mean for the Christian God to allow an antagonist an agenda? What does it mean for the Christian God to have an antagonist? Questions are easy. Answers are not.
My Two Cents:
What a worrisome world to live in for that person for whom the devil is behind every corner and every claim. How great the doubt! How great the fear! My issue with a statement like Lewis’ is that it makes the Christian’s life extremely individualistic: “I must doubt all things (all people), except my thoughts attached to my God, which I must take on faith.” That individual is scared for his or her life, trembling from a different sort of fear …
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Deconstructing
Two prefatory points:
1) What follows is going to be something new for me. Rather than constructing and thinking about a piece of writing, this is just going to be a straight copying from some writing I did a few weeks back. I just started writing and the body of this blog will be word for word from that. As such, there is less argument and more contemplation. I'd love to hear feedback/criticism.
2) I don't believe I've read any explicit deconstruction literature; but I have read a good deal of recent literature that has all the general tendencies which I perhaps incorrectly presume to be a part of the deconstructionist goals. In general, I'm sure I haven't read near enough on this subject. I also believe that some people who are labeled deconstructionists, don't like the term. This may point to something about their thinking.
----
When one deconstructs, destabilizes, disfigures, fractures, delimits, or muddles the very concepts in question, what is left? More importantly, where is that person then left? On what basis can they discuss the given thing? By transfiguring the words, by doing all the things from the list above, what are they then talking about? Something new? What are they then critiquing? Can the deconstructionist talk? And thus, can the deconstructionist think?
Perhaps they are aware of this, and this is what leads to their abstruse rhetoric which obfuscates the reader into frustration, anger, and then dismissal. Their text leads to submission of the reader. Communication is relegated to a realm of errors and is thus done away with. This leads us back to the guiding question: how can the deconstructionist think. If its transmission, and thus logos itself, is unable to do its job, what does the intellect offer? Indeed, what progress is made from human discourse?
Perhaps something new is more appropriate. Let us hope progress is a concern. Correcting error is indeed progress, but to do away with so fundamental of an object, concepts themselves, is to do away with one's own progress. So the deconstructionists are inventive; forging ahead, and finding new concepts. They create a new form to human discourse. But can we then call it discourse? Earlier I mentioned there is a loss of communication. So maybe there is some vestige of discourse still present. At the very least, if there is to be any progress, there must be some resemblance to the former discourse and this new, "non-discourse".
1) What follows is going to be something new for me. Rather than constructing and thinking about a piece of writing, this is just going to be a straight copying from some writing I did a few weeks back. I just started writing and the body of this blog will be word for word from that. As such, there is less argument and more contemplation. I'd love to hear feedback/criticism.
2) I don't believe I've read any explicit deconstruction literature; but I have read a good deal of recent literature that has all the general tendencies which I perhaps incorrectly presume to be a part of the deconstructionist goals. In general, I'm sure I haven't read near enough on this subject. I also believe that some people who are labeled deconstructionists, don't like the term. This may point to something about their thinking.
----
When one deconstructs, destabilizes, disfigures, fractures, delimits, or muddles the very concepts in question, what is left? More importantly, where is that person then left? On what basis can they discuss the given thing? By transfiguring the words, by doing all the things from the list above, what are they then talking about? Something new? What are they then critiquing? Can the deconstructionist talk? And thus, can the deconstructionist think?
Perhaps they are aware of this, and this is what leads to their abstruse rhetoric which obfuscates the reader into frustration, anger, and then dismissal. Their text leads to submission of the reader. Communication is relegated to a realm of errors and is thus done away with. This leads us back to the guiding question: how can the deconstructionist think. If its transmission, and thus logos itself, is unable to do its job, what does the intellect offer? Indeed, what progress is made from human discourse?
Perhaps something new is more appropriate. Let us hope progress is a concern. Correcting error is indeed progress, but to do away with so fundamental of an object, concepts themselves, is to do away with one's own progress. So the deconstructionists are inventive; forging ahead, and finding new concepts. They create a new form to human discourse. But can we then call it discourse? Earlier I mentioned there is a loss of communication. So maybe there is some vestige of discourse still present. At the very least, if there is to be any progress, there must be some resemblance to the former discourse and this new, "non-discourse".
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
phenonmenology of time
Here is an article from NPR that talks about some of the same stuff I more or less parroted in a previous blog.
As far as an original blog from me, perhaps I'll write one soon.
As far as an original blog from me, perhaps I'll write one soon.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Update
Well since I almost never give personal updates on here, I decided to break up the academic-oriented posts and update my life (which, oddly enough, primarily consists of academic things).
Winter break was splendid and productive. I was able to hang out with all of my friends quite a bit: continued the tradition of New Year’s Eve at my friend Hugo’s; got a night of bowling in with the crew; watched a few football games with them as well; had a poker night; had two risk nights; played halo with the cousins (thanks Blake for the commentary); had a movie night with Carden; and visited some friends from Ball State who went to Wawasee.
I was also very pleased to spend as much time with my family as I did and really enjoyed drinking coffee with Shawn while he worked on the wireless and I read; we always had a sporadic little side-bar story from our respective work to tell the other person for a good laugh.
Speaking of reading, I was able to read:
- Kierkegaard’s “Fear and Trembling”
- -half of Hick’s “Faith and Knowledge”
- some of Pascal’s “Pensees”
- Sedgwick’s “Epistemology of the Closet”,
- Foucault’s “History of Sexuality”
- Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” (which had one of the best short essay’s I’ve ever read called ‘The Free Man’s Worship’)
- I am currently ¾ the way through Kojeve’s Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (by far my favorite overall reading of the break)
- and plan on reading Milton’s “Paradise Lost” before school starts back up.
On to the upcoming semester:
I am the editor-in-chief of Ball State’s undergrad philosophy journal, Stance. We’ve already received the papers and will begin the process to pick out the top papers over the course of the semester.
Like last semester, I’ll be a tutor for Phil100 and will also be a T.A. for an introductory Religious Studies course.
As far as “regular” classes, I will be taking Philosophy or Religion, Feminist Ethics and Epistemology, and Latin (we’ll actually be reading real, not textbook, latin this semester!).
It will be a busy, thought-provoking, exciting, eye-opening, interesting semester to say the least!
Winter break was splendid and productive. I was able to hang out with all of my friends quite a bit: continued the tradition of New Year’s Eve at my friend Hugo’s; got a night of bowling in with the crew; watched a few football games with them as well; had a poker night; had two risk nights; played halo with the cousins (thanks Blake for the commentary); had a movie night with Carden; and visited some friends from Ball State who went to Wawasee.
I was also very pleased to spend as much time with my family as I did and really enjoyed drinking coffee with Shawn while he worked on the wireless and I read; we always had a sporadic little side-bar story from our respective work to tell the other person for a good laugh.
Speaking of reading, I was able to read:
- Kierkegaard’s “Fear and Trembling”
- -half of Hick’s “Faith and Knowledge”
- some of Pascal’s “Pensees”
- Sedgwick’s “Epistemology of the Closet”,
- Foucault’s “History of Sexuality”
- Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” (which had one of the best short essay’s I’ve ever read called ‘The Free Man’s Worship’)
- I am currently ¾ the way through Kojeve’s Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (by far my favorite overall reading of the break)
- and plan on reading Milton’s “Paradise Lost” before school starts back up.
On to the upcoming semester:
I am the editor-in-chief of Ball State’s undergrad philosophy journal, Stance. We’ve already received the papers and will begin the process to pick out the top papers over the course of the semester.
Like last semester, I’ll be a tutor for Phil100 and will also be a T.A. for an introductory Religious Studies course.
As far as “regular” classes, I will be taking Philosophy or Religion, Feminist Ethics and Epistemology, and Latin (we’ll actually be reading real, not textbook, latin this semester!).
It will be a busy, thought-provoking, exciting, eye-opening, interesting semester to say the least!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
