I was tinkering with the settings here yesterday. There's a built-in RSS function that I added, confusing myself further over figuring what, exactly, is XML when it's at home. As compared to RSS. Insofar as this program reads this and that program reads that, and the results are apparently identical, and perish the thought you know what you're doing, but as long as you do get results, what are you complaining about?
Results. That's the key, isn't it?
I'm vacillating in my resolve to do a Fast Freddy lecture, because the bloody Greek never actually says anything useful. If one wishes to consider him a proto-pomo, I can see one getting away with it. The problem with philosophy (etymology: the love of wisdom) is, as I've said many times, it's abstractness. As a rule one turns to philosophy for two reasons: to find out what it's all about (ontology, the study of existence or being; epistemology, the study of knowlege, i.e., what do we know and how do we know it), and to find out what to do (ethics/morality). As for the former, I persist in believing that the modern thinker is better off studying hard science insofar as one has a desire to really know how the mind works. Even the tools of the modern social scientist (e.g. sociology, anthropology) are better at explaining culture and individual than philosophy (although cultural studies do seem to inhabit some vague intersection of philosophy and sociology). On the other hand, ethics and morality, which are purely intellectual concepts even if, perhaps, they are driven by physiology, are the remaining useful area of philosophical study. And obviously, if a book is entitled Beyond Good and Evil the author must have something to say about the subject of ethics and morality and right and wrong, but mostly what Fast Freddy does is criticize his predecessors who have addressed the field (when he's not criticizing religion or Europe or humankind altogether). Interesting, but jejune. He plants a stake in the ground, accurately enough, that the study of morality has been tainted by this or that, but I keep waiting for him to say the then what? Then what? But I don't see it anywhere. Lots of fun writing. Lots of great phrase-turning. Lots of spiffy aphorisms. But if our understanding of morals is incorrect, if we must be modern iconoclasts and go beyond good and evil, then what? Maybe he's saving it for the next book or something. Considering that he wrote this book as some sort of summa Nietzscheumma you'd think he'd get down to it sooner or later, but I'll be damned if I can find it. Scholarship on old Fast Freddy is notoriously vague, everybody claiming that nobody understands him (including him), and it's easy to see why. What a pain! In my utilitarian way (3rd Web 11 def, i.e., seeking utility) I want philosophical thought I can use in a debate round. If I am going to read books for debate, that is, I want to read books that will be useful in debate, otherwise I'll read something else. Life is too short.
In other words, this one is parlously close to be tossed out the carriage window. Long live Becky Sharpe!
On another note altogether, I'm pondering throwing up a little AdSense stuff here. (I know; you're just contemplating throwing up. I'm way ahead of you and your dumb jokes, you spalpeen!) Not that I expect to make a fortune through the Google business model (which, I understand, works quite well in the aggregate) but I'm curious to see what sense, exactly, Google would make of the coachean musings. I mean, let's say I write a thousand words on Nietzsche but use one of my nicknames for him. How will Google make sense of that? How will Google know that Uncle Wiggly is neither a retro game (spelled differently, btw) or a Salinger story? Will Google be able to direct us to the spalpeen's MySpace page? I'm curious about this.
And thanks for all the cards and letters to Tik pronounced teek, welcoming him to the fold. All right, one card, no letters, but that's a record for the chez feline contingent. Neither Pip nor Stripe (nor their various predecessors) ever even got any occupant mail, much less a greeting card. If Tik pronounced teek weren't clinically insane, I'm sure he'd thank you himself.
1 comment:
We finally disagree! I'll spare you the details, but I think that the idea of hard science is still going to leave you a bit lacking. There are all sorts of cool things like psychoanalysis that allow you to get a good idea of how we are. Just knowing what each lobe does won't do you much good, but a comprehensive understanding of what we do with those lobes and why will get you somewhere. I mean Freud had to be on to something, right? That is just one example of some useful philosophy (one of many). We can chat about this over some homemade marzipan if you'd like. The HMers are famous for their homemade marzipan and I just stole a quick peak at the recipe.
Post a Comment