Another position

It has recently come to my attention that Montifax needs to come out against Zeno's paradox regarding Achilles and the Tortoise. Pure bunk, or at least something approaching pure bunk. In case you are concerned about the validity of this position there is really no need to worry, I spent a solid 15 minutes talking about it this morning. I am pretty sure that we have hashed everything out and reached the safe conclusion that it is bunk.

2004: Summer of Logic

A few years ago, I think it may have been the Summer of 2004, Neil and I took an undergraduate logic class (taught as a philosophy course) together, along with a few other math people. Not surprisingly, given their previous encounters with much of the material, most of the math guys did quite well with the material. Given my proximity to the math guys, and my unwillingness to be bested by too wide a margin by Neil, I also did pretty well with most of the content.

Unfortunately, many of the others in the class didn't have such an easy time with the material. One girl, try as she might, could never seem to make it through the practice questions without a handful of questions (most of which demonstrated her complete failure to comprehend the material). Another few also drew attention to themselves in a variety of ways, though one student in particular stood out, eventually getting the nickname Humpty-Dumpty as he thought words should be understood in terms of that which they were being used to refer.

Just moments ago I finally came across the passage (though I had heard the story paraphrased by the prof.) in Through the Looking Glass that gave rise to this guy's nickname. So here it is, the quote that was the reason for Humpty-Dumpty's nickname:

"When I use a word," said Humpty-Dumpty in a scornful tone, "it means what I want it to mean, neither more nor less."

I am sure all involved would be pleased to know that Neil and I still refer to Humpty-Dumpty all these years later.

A Few Quick Notes 240

-Yesterday and today have both been quite wet. Both days have been marked by periods of heavy precipitation. Fortunately, I seem to have managed to avoid some of these downpours on my way to school, which is nice as I am never a big fan of starting my day wet.

-A few days ago Neil, Rebecca, and I watched the documentary American Movie. The film follows Mark Borchardt as he attempts to complete Coven, an independently produced and financed short film. While there are many moments of humour, the film is in many ways strikingly sad. Not only does the viewer witness the mental and physical deterioration of the the protagonist's uncle, but the viewer also gets a rather close look

-It seems that the New York Times is reporting that in the near future the Christian Science Monitor will transition from a daily newspaper to an online newspaper with a regularly published magazine component. While this is not the largest of daily newspapers in the US, this change may be a sign of things to come in the very near future. One wonders how long other papers will be able to hold out in an era of declining circulation and increased competition from the online news media.

-My uncle was kind enough to forward me Gerard Damiano's obituary. For those of you who are not porn aficionados, Damiano was the director of the classic porn film Deep Throat. Surely fans of the film will be saddened by this news.

I am now curious to see if the Globe will carry his obituary, and if so how long it will take to appear.

-I managed to get through my lecture on Monday. While it likely wasn't the world's best lecture, I also don't think that it was the world's worst lecture. I am hoping that tomorrow's lecture on the American presidential system and elections will generate at least a modicum of excitement in the class. On Friday I will get the pleasure of talking to the class about writing and citing, with particular reference to the assignment that they have to do for me.

-For much of the evening I have been reading critiques of the work of George Grant, a Canadian political philosopher. Unfortunately, I haven't found these works particularly illuminating or accessible. I keep skimming my eyes over the page without getting much information. Hopefully I will eventually get some sense of what is going on by the time I decide to pack it in later tonight.

Due to philosophical differences

Over the past several days I have heard several reports about coaches leaving professional sporting teams because of 'philosophical differences' with the top brass.

I like to imagine that at some point in the recent past that management and the coach had a knock down, drag out argument about their own personal philosophical stances. I imagine that management wanted to follow a path based on Hegelian dialectics while the coach was more interested in making decisions based on his understanding of Hobbes's 'state of nature' (because life is "nasty, brutish, and short").

A more likely scenario than the one described above is that management wants a team that wins more of its games than it loses, while the coach's actions during the previous season would seem to suggest that he is more into losing than winning. While this is certainly a difference, I am pretty sure that I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is a 'philosophical difference.'