Monday, October 1, 2007
Weekend Update
For reasons that continue to elude me, I've retained readers. So, for those of you who've stuck with me, here's an update: I'm off to Seoul in mid-late October. I should have a specific departure date Real Soon Now. I'm confident about the job--the whole situation, really--I'm heading to. Notwithstanding my confidence, though, I'm starting to realize that I'll miss Saskatoon and its people. Still, my excitement more than balances out my anxiety.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Dexter
I spend only a fraction of my time in front of the TV, not least because only a fraction of that time is decently spent. Occasionally, however, I stumble across something worthwhile. Showtime's Dexter is one example from tonight. I saw the fantastic opening sequence on Youtube a few months ago after reading positive reviews online. Tonight I noticed one of my favorite TV actresses cast as the title character's girlfriend, so I decided to give it a try.
As I said, it's an example of a worthwhile TV show. Dexter is the surprisingly likeable title character. Also, he's a sociopath. He's likeable, though, because he only kills serial killers. His sociopathy distances him from the rest of the world; but, at the same time, it's hard for us to distance ourselves too greatly from him. We see the world through his eyes. The effect, of course, is to humanize him. Perhaps this is ironic, given how often Dexter makes us think about the (large) part of humanity that he lacks. If the psychology of sociopathy interests you, it's worth a look.
I hung on after the credits for a show called Brotherhood. I can't say it engaged me, but I stayed with it long enough to hear Lou Reed's "Heroin" playing during one of its scenes. This came as a surprise, since I had been listening to The Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Session, which includes a justifiably well-regarded cover of "Sweet Jane." Naturally, the confluence of these two events sent me to my music collection to play my too-long neglected copy of The Velvet Underground & Nico. So, you see, watching TV isn't always a waste of time.
As I said, it's an example of a worthwhile TV show. Dexter is the surprisingly likeable title character. Also, he's a sociopath. He's likeable, though, because he only kills serial killers. His sociopathy distances him from the rest of the world; but, at the same time, it's hard for us to distance ourselves too greatly from him. We see the world through his eyes. The effect, of course, is to humanize him. Perhaps this is ironic, given how often Dexter makes us think about the (large) part of humanity that he lacks. If the psychology of sociopathy interests you, it's worth a look.
I hung on after the credits for a show called Brotherhood. I can't say it engaged me, but I stayed with it long enough to hear Lou Reed's "Heroin" playing during one of its scenes. This came as a surprise, since I had been listening to The Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Session, which includes a justifiably well-regarded cover of "Sweet Jane." Naturally, the confluence of these two events sent me to my music collection to play my too-long neglected copy of The Velvet Underground & Nico. So, you see, watching TV isn't always a waste of time.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Money Matters
While I was a student, my bank refused to increase my credit limit on my Visa above $1500. This frustrated me because I regularly reached my limit with tuition, books, and all my other expenses. The moment I graduated, however, they asked me if $4000 was high enough (or too high). Granted, my income tripled and my discretionary income skyrocketed from $100/month to $1200/month, but my budgeting skills didn't change. I didn't suddenly acquire an aversion to debt; I've always had that.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Giving (A) Hand (To Steve) Jobs
I'm writing this on an iBook with an iPod attached to it, so I'm hardly anti-Apple, but I'll never get over the fawning press the company gets. Love letters to its CEO, like this one, are proof positive that hipster yuppies are at least as inanely consumerist as anyone else. Just in case the organic food industry wasn't proof enough.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Hell Is The Absence Of God
God is not just, God is not kind, God is not merciful, and understanding that is essential to true devotion.
Read the story. Courtesy of Andrew Vestal.
Read the story. Courtesy of Andrew Vestal.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Philosophy & Science From A Scientist & A Philosopher
I haven't had much motivation to write lately. Not sure why. I have, however, had plenty motivation to read. Among the books I've been reading are Richard Feynman's The Meaning of It All and Paul Feyerabend's Against Method.
I've read three or four of Feynman's books before. This one is a collection of three lectures on science, religion, and philosophy. The lectures are transcriptions. And it shows; they're not very well written. But there are lots of Feynman's always-interesting anecdotes used to illustrate abstract ideas. I like this argument style a lot--although I can follow abstract arguments, I don't have a lot of faith in them to demonstrate anything important. Only when they're woven together with concrete examples do I really pay attention to the conclusions. Like Feynman, my allegiance lies with empiricism, not rationalism.
The book itself is most interesting for its exposition of science and scientific thinking. The main idea is that there's... not a method, exactly, but a set of values intrinsic to scientific thinking. These values are crucially important for truth-seeking, and they ought to be better respected, but truth-seeking isn't the only important thing in the world. Values themselves, for example, can't be discovered by the scientist. And values, of course, are valuable. Feynman, by his own admission, is not a philosopher, and some of his arguments are dubious, but they're all thought-provoking.
Feyerbend's book is a polemic on the philosophy of science, written by a philosopher. The thesis is interesting: Feyerbend argues for methodological "anarchy" in epistemology and science. The actual evidence to support the thesis isn't very impressive, however. There are too many controversial claims with too few--or zero!--specific citations to back them up. For that reason, it's hard to accept the claims of a philosopher about science over the views of an actual physicist--and a highly respected one at that. But don't take my word for it. Feynman wouldn't want you to.
I've read three or four of Feynman's books before. This one is a collection of three lectures on science, religion, and philosophy. The lectures are transcriptions. And it shows; they're not very well written. But there are lots of Feynman's always-interesting anecdotes used to illustrate abstract ideas. I like this argument style a lot--although I can follow abstract arguments, I don't have a lot of faith in them to demonstrate anything important. Only when they're woven together with concrete examples do I really pay attention to the conclusions. Like Feynman, my allegiance lies with empiricism, not rationalism.
The book itself is most interesting for its exposition of science and scientific thinking. The main idea is that there's... not a method, exactly, but a set of values intrinsic to scientific thinking. These values are crucially important for truth-seeking, and they ought to be better respected, but truth-seeking isn't the only important thing in the world. Values themselves, for example, can't be discovered by the scientist. And values, of course, are valuable. Feynman, by his own admission, is not a philosopher, and some of his arguments are dubious, but they're all thought-provoking.
Feyerbend's book is a polemic on the philosophy of science, written by a philosopher. The thesis is interesting: Feyerbend argues for methodological "anarchy" in epistemology and science. The actual evidence to support the thesis isn't very impressive, however. There are too many controversial claims with too few--or zero!--specific citations to back them up. For that reason, it's hard to accept the claims of a philosopher about science over the views of an actual physicist--and a highly respected one at that. But don't take my word for it. Feynman wouldn't want you to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
