ChapterZero

As is self-evident, this is my first entry in a really long time. I’ve been busy with school (ironic, considering school has ended), recreational computing, and working. Yes, that’s right, working!

I thought this summer was going to be easy-going. But I as wrong: I just started physics class today, and that seems to be the least of my worries right now. But it’s a good sort of worrying– eustress instead of distress, as my high-school health ed teacher would put it. I’m enjoying having meaningful work to do instead of lazing around the house and destroying my hands on the computer.

All the reading I had planned to do will not happen. If any, I will be reading Chem books– it appears I can get by without doing so, but what would be the point of mindlessly doing experiments if I didn’t know why I was doing what I was doing? Conclusion: I probably won’t gain anything but semi-practical knowledge this summer. I.e. no metaphysics, just physics (and chemistry :).

I’m looking forward to the new REU student, as it will be cool to have another undergrad around.

On the web design front: the promised and threatened redesign of this site has been put on an indefinite hold. Not much of a change, just an official recognization of its de facto status. I’m concentrating more on my UH site, and the attendant blog: http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~aagitten. But I have seen some promising designs on oswd that I’d like to try out here. We’ll see…

It seems like Descartes was wrong with his Cogito. It does not follow that ‘I think, therefore I exist.’ That is actually an abbreviated syllogism which goes more like ‘Premise 1: Whatever thinks exists. Premise 2: I think. Conclusion: therefore I exist.’ Unfortunately, any sufficiently powerful demon could be manipulating him into believing in the truth of that logical construction. Even without the evil demon, syllogisms can already be faulted for infinite regress: particularly, they imply a third term that says ‘if Premise 1 and Premise 2 then conclusion’, which can only be justified by a fourth term. Nasty! But something can be salvaged of the Cogito. Most subjective experiences (with the obvious exception of self-deceptions) must qualify as true. For example, the Cogito states ‘I think’. That must be true, because I am experiencing it, and am the sole determiner of its truth value. No one but I can say and mean truthfully ‘I feel pain’, ‘I am hungry’, etc. Which leads me to the conclusion that we can know some noumena: subjective experiences. Isn’t it amazing that the noumena so avidly searched after should be found in something as nebulous as emotions and feelings? A wonderful reversal of the truth value of objective and subjective observations; not to mention a great argument for relativism.

Update: I just realized the unreason of my arguments. If I were asleep, I could dream I was thirsty, or I felt pain, but neither would necessarily be true. Aargh!

‘ve just realized how much reading philosophy has affected my reading and writing in general. Now anytime I come across a term that I don’t know like the back of my hand, even if I understand what is meant by it, or can use it in well-formed sentences, I look it up. In writing, I tend to the same cautiousness, but I’ve also gained a certain flair. I enjoy playing with words, particularly using their literal, etymologically correct meanings; it’s even more fun than punning. Speaking generally, I’ve gained a healthy respect of the role languages play in our lives, and a new found awe for competent wordsmiths. Everytime I hear a nice turn of phrase, or even just a novel one, I pause and soak up its details, savoring it and trying to memorize its essence. Of course, I inevitably forget it, but I feel multiple occurences of this type only contribute to the reshaping of my mental parameters. Hopefully it is true that you are what you read. I certainly believe it.

Crane Brinton is an awesome author. I bought a copy of his book ‘The History of Western Morals’ and just checked out his ‘The Fate of Man’; both are excellent works. If nothing else, I intend to finish them both before the summer is up (I’ll consider that my main philosophical fare). Of course, to check out his book, I had to make the dangerous trip to UH’s library; as usual, I got a few more books than I had planned, and will probably not finish any of them.

Since I’ve been reading so much philosophy stuff, today thoughts of the metaphysical have dominated my mind (btw, I found out that the term metaphysical, literally ‘after the physics’, was coined by Aristotle’s students to refer to his works after his Physics). The only thought I had worth mentioning isn’t really metaphysical, but it seems so at first blush: I was wondering about the relationship between physical beauty and intelligence. Particularly, why do most people say that both don’t coexist, and why, in my experience they do. Regarding the latter, I can safely say that at least part of the explanation lies in the fact that I think intelligence is attractive. And I rarely, if ever, remain attracted to a person on a physical basis (key word being remain :). But there is more to it than that obvious dimension. I think the human race is breeding for both attributes: beauty and intelligence. Consequently, as time goes on, beauty will cross increasingly more with intelligence, resulting in people who have both stunning physical features, and are insultingly intelligent. Something to be desired! As for the former belief, I think that is just a popular misconception which probably arose in the times before beauty and intelligence were found so commonly together. Perhaps at one time, beauty was something sought for as an end in itself (as a sign of verility or health?), but nowadays, beauty without a modicum of intelligence is usually insulted. At least, that is my take on it all.