I wonder what it *is* that I actually do? 14 Oct 2010 A note on credit: I have been accused elsewhere of having leached off Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, by Zack Weiner, whose cartoons I often use. Zack has not complained, and I am using the code he generates at his site, unmodified, and the images are from his site, not reposted here. But in case you are wondering who does these funny, insightful and personally directed digs at me, it is from Zack. Who has never heard of me. Philosophy Religion Science
Evolution Levitt on Fuller 19 Dec 2007 As I mentioned earlier, I love a good book review if it excoriates a stupid book. Norman Levitt, of Rutgers University, has an absolutely lovely piece of critical invective for Steve Fuller’s defense of Intelligent Design here. Fuller is a sociologist philosopher* of science who seems to dislike science intensely,… Read More
Biology Godfrey Smith’s book 27 Jul 2009 Peter Godfrey Smith is a leading philosopher of biology, a professor at Harvard. He has recently published an important book on the nature of evolution, Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection, in which he moves away from the gene centrism of Dawkins to a reproducer view in which objects that form… Read More
Administrative A busy fortnight 9 Dec 201122 Jun 2018 So, I have been rather active for the last fortnight (that’s two weeks for Americans). I visited Canberra to work on a species concept paper with a colleague, Brent Mishler. I attended a philosophy of biology workshop in Bundanoon, a sleepy little town outside Sydney. I got a love kiss… Read More
Oh come on, the answer to the top left is easy. God (or at least Oxford University) already has, it’s called PPE and it seems to fit one for being only a politician or similar position.
Your job, should you choose to accept it, Jim, is to solve the mystery of why cats seem to rule the world. This universe will self-destruct in ten seconds. Those of you following a different branch of the multiverse will not notice any change. Have a nice day!
Historians How to Stupefy – “So what exactly do you do”? (OR “Can you explain why history is relevant?”) How to make angry -” How wonderful that post-modernist approaches are being adopted by historians now”. How to make Happy – “I can always understand you historians, but philosophers baffle me”.
Yes, that’s even better, though the post-colonial school would say it doesn’t apply to them. Surely every “happy “column should have: “the University will now pay you [any extra amount]”.
Erm, bottom left would only stupefy an incredibly stupid theologian. At least of the Christian persuasion. See Matt 22:30: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:30&version=NIV The rest are amusing though. 😀
How odd that I think that the bottom right would only stupefy a particularly unreflective philosopher… the rest are amusing, though.
I want to see if I can elaborate on a single paragraph of Wittgenstein. Looks up Wittgenstein. Follows links. Scans. Finds paragraph 33 from “On Certainty: “Thus we expunge the sentences that don’t get us any further.” “And then, thinking better of it, we put them back again, lest we have nothing left to print.” Done. That was easy. (Runs away.)
That’s someone else: “There’s the part where you say it, and the part where you take it back” (Austin, I think). But try this: “611. Where two principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and heretic.”
There is a 16th cen. map of the world drawn within a fools cap with bells on its ears. The inscription reads, “what are you doing mad fellow… why paint fugitive shores? Tomorrow your face will be either new or nothing.” Applicable I think, in regard to the folly of the two fools of 611 and the manner in which they use knowledge.
I love the late medieval and renaissance emphasis on foolishness. Something we could usefully employ today.
Thanks Thony I had no idea it was such a mystery. Ive always just read it as an example of the somewhat standard line with regard to the fool. In order to seek wisdom you have to study the temporal but learn not to love it and seek the causes that are invisible. The danger of such study is it can lead to a love of the temporal which is folly and the downfall of the fool. “That but man is with nothing shall be pleased till he be eased with being nothing.” As the fool teaches Richard the Second in Shakespeare. The secondary sense is that the study of the temporal world and it’s creatures leads to an understanding of God. But it is secondary to its primary meaning even if it does get over inflected at times.
I hate how you assume that Christians (and scientist and philosophers) will not be able to answer the “How to stupify” question! Here are a few Biblical answers: The Bible tells us, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). This was Jesus’ answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life —whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-28)? Evidently, there will be no such thing as marriage in heaven. This does not mean that a husband and wife will no longer know each other in heaven. This also does not mean that a husband and wife could not still have a close relationship in heaven. What it does seem to indicate, though, is that a husband and wife will no longer be married in heaven. or: Most likely, there will be no marriage in heaven simply because there will be no need for it. When God established marriage, He did so to fill certain needs. First, He saw that Adam was in need of a companion. “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’” (Genesis 2:18). Eve was the solution to the problem of Adam’s loneliness, as well as his need for a “helper,” someone to come alongside him as his companion and go through life by his side. In heaven, however, there will be no loneliness, nor will there be any need for helpers. We will be surrounded by multitudes of believers and angels (Revelation 7:9), and all our needs will be met, including the need for companionship. or: God created marriage as a means of procreation and the filling of the earth with human beings. Heaven, however, will not be populated by procreation. Those who go to heaven will get there by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; they will not be created there by means of reproduction. Therefore, there is no purpose for marriage in heaven since there is no procreation or loneliness.
HAMLET: Oi! Slag! GERTRUDE: Watch your fucking mouth, kid! POLONIUS: (From behind the curtain) Too right. HAMLET: Who the fuck was that? [He stabs POLONIUS through the arras.] POLONIUS: Fuck! [POLONIUS dies.] HAMLET: Fuck! I thought it was that other wanker. Skinhead Hamlet, Richard Curtis. Demonstrating a diffrent approach towards debate, language and how to win an argument.