We had our postponed meeting last night, and I think a few people were sort of shaken by the change and hence stayed away, but I am starting to get a sense of the reality of this year’s novices. A few freshmen, a few sophomores, a reasonable number of people who don’t fall asleep when I bloviate for 45 minutes straight. That’s a tough initiation to get past, let me tell you. Next week they will entertain us with some selected (by them) readings, so we’ll get a sense of how well the present themselves as public speakers. An OI, in other words, usually prose. Speak up, Louise! Next week will also be parents meeting with me to run Bump and the doling out of team assignments, although as we said last night, with the institution of novice LD, if you’re an upperclassmen, you’re probably judging, if you’re a novice you’re running, and if you’re a Speecho-American, you’re at the table. The mystery is gone.
For a while, when everyone was assembled last night, we discussed Sept-Oct, a sort of last-gasp analysis. The consensus after the Pups is that there are a lot of examples out there, and if you ask me, a lot of them are bogus. You write them on the board and, hey presto, you see that they simply are not exemplary. At some point, their analogy to the resolution falls apart. Maybe the more innocents are not necessarily saved, or the killing is so redefined as to be meaningless. Seemed to me that what you have to do, when you hear a new example, is write it down and draw arrows from one step to the next and see where it falls apart. If it’s not something very much like the trolley, it will. The trolley is a true representation of the topic, both philosophically and experimental-philosophically (if you’re of that persuasion, which I might be myself, given my consiliency rants in the past about philosophy being rather hogwashian if science can’t back it up). The trolley forces you to argue the math versus the concept, the utilitarian versus the categorical deontologist. The problem with deontology is refining that reason for declaring an action right or wrong. If you squint at Kant long enough it ultimately looks like a popular vote, and let’s face it, in the popular voting, if Bush could beat Kerry based on their relative status as war heroes, anything goes. So, an interesting debate is possible. Likely? I don’t know. But yes, possible. I’ll bet the first-time novices will be closer to the intended debates originally envisioned by Rippin’ than any varsity rounds. In your H of Hs, you know it too.
We did hurry home last night for the debate. What a snooze! McCain’s Great Fem Hope wasn’t a total disaster as long as, if elected, you can put up with her failing-the-audition-for-“Fargo” accent. Obama’s Hair Plugs for Peace choice didn’t do anything particularly noteworthy either. (JB and I were in Syracuse at the same time back in our college days. Although as far as I can recall we never met, I can vaguely imagine the two of us sitting on the steps of Hendricks Cathedral assuring each other that, no, we’ll never lose our hair, not us. Let this be a warning to certain Montwegians…) Depending on the side you were on, your horse won the race. As I said, what a snooze. It reminded me a lot of a vice-presidential debate. I ended up spending most of the time polishing Regis for tomorrow, a much better use of my limited time on the planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment