VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
beledi:
beautiful. 
hey, do you happen to have any fall nature photography that i could ogle?
hey, do you happen to have any fall nature photography that i could ogle?
It seems that I'm back. Likely it'll prove to be a mistake... signing up to the single most distracting WWW site in the world, as I try to finish up my degree. But we'll see.
Hi... in case anybody's listening...
Hi... in case anybody's listening...
beledi:
Yay! You're back
So long, and thanks for all the fish...
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
chezui23:
stick around you squirrel-luvin' freak..
we havent seen the zarina/anouck amazingness yet!
we havent seen the zarina/anouck amazingness yet!
adelina:
aww. 
Answers, answers, answers. I have too many answers. All for the same questions. If it were one per question, I could cope. But no... doesn't seem to work like that. Alas.
VIEW 12 of 12 COMMENTS
adelina:
Sigh. Your post was disheartening. To be over-educated yet by the same token supposedly "under-qualified" for employment is the maniacal absurdity that just kills kills KILLS me.
tiffanyjewel:
i HAD a girl cats but they never bothered her. I assumed it was because they were fixed, now I know otherwise 
Questions... questions... questions. I have too many questions.
I have lots of answers, too... the problem is I don't know which answers go with which questions.
On the plus side, Linux kernel 2.6.3 seems to be working well (provided I disable the APIC on my NForce2 motherboard). I guess that's some kind of answer. Not the one I was hoping for, though... I want the...
Read More
I have lots of answers, too... the problem is I don't know which answers go with which questions.
On the plus side, Linux kernel 2.6.3 seems to be working well (provided I disable the APIC on my NForce2 motherboard). I guess that's some kind of answer. Not the one I was hoping for, though... I want the...
Read More
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
beledi:
it's like a giant matching game.
never leave home without your towel.
never leave home without your towel.
alienprincess:
Of course I'm envious of your new linux kernal! I like your bird avatar.
I'm in the middle of configuring the latest Linux kernel (2.6.3) for my laptop. Aren't you envious?
C'mon, admit it... you're envious.
C'mon, admit it... you're envious.
VIEW 9 of 9 COMMENTS
zarina:
hahaha... we'll see
galvagin:
Now that I've totally dropped the ball on our conversation...
I'm not sure what kind of evidence you want for the idea that language (e.g.) is a shared phenomenon. You're right - if the point of language is to get you to have the same inner experiences that I'm having, there's no *proof* that we can accomplish that. That's not what I meant. What I mean is that we all get together and manipulate symbols with each other in various interesting ways - and that, unless there simply is no external world, is obviously shared and raises no *special* problems of mentalism.
As far as general skepticism goes... there are a few elements to my anti-skeptical position:
1. Of course we have *evidence* of the external world's existence! I see things, touch them, eat them, encounter them in various ways. All of these seem like good evidence of their existence. Of course, also, I might be wrong - but that just means that I maybe can't 100% deductively prove that these things are out there, it doesn't mean that I don't have good evidence for them.
2. But: foundationalism is a suspect epistemological doctrine, anyway. Most general skepticism is founded on a kind of foundationalism that basically says that, if you are warranted in believing something, you need to be able to trace that belief back (found it upon) some 100% provable indubitable claim, or a claim that we know indubitably and non-inferentially, without needing any background knowledge (basically, Descartes' view). This runs us into a problem Sellars called 'the myth of the given,' however. Not everything is going to be traceable back to deductively provable claims (e.g., pure mathematics). So we're going to need something like indubitable non-inferential observation claims to found any knowledge whatsoever. But any conceptualized claim can't be completely independent of inferentially articulated background knowledge (I can't look at an apple and say, "oh, that's red" without knowing a lot of stuff about how to use 'red'), and an unconceptualized claim can't function in an inference (going from "the apple is red" to the "the apple is colored" is a good inference, but going from *look at apple* to "the apple is colored" simply isn't an inference at all). So it's not just that we may not have any of the requisite sorts of observations, they don't seem to be in-principle possible. That would seem to indicate that the problem isn't that we're missing something, but that we've misconceived how evidence is supposed to work.
3. What to replace it with? Contextualism. Unmotivated doubt is pathological. If I have decent evidence for something, I should only doubt it (beyond bare fallibilism, saying "I could, of course, be wrong") if I have some *reason* to. I have no reason to doubt that I am sitting in front of my computer right now. If I were to learn that I'd just been dosed with LSD, I would then have reason to doubt it, and would be justified in seeking further evidence, not taking the computer's existence for granted, etc. Similarly, this is why skepticism has trouble keeping most people up nights. We should accept bare fallibilism with respect to the external world, but most wholesale skeptical scenarios are implausible - that is, if the competing hypotheses for explaining why things seem the way the are are a) for the most part, they are the way they seem or b) an omnipotent demon is controlling my perceptions, a) wins. It's just good sense to believe the more likely explanation, or the one that fits better with your background theory.
That was horribly compressed. I hope it made some degree of sense...
I'm not sure what kind of evidence you want for the idea that language (e.g.) is a shared phenomenon. You're right - if the point of language is to get you to have the same inner experiences that I'm having, there's no *proof* that we can accomplish that. That's not what I meant. What I mean is that we all get together and manipulate symbols with each other in various interesting ways - and that, unless there simply is no external world, is obviously shared and raises no *special* problems of mentalism.
As far as general skepticism goes... there are a few elements to my anti-skeptical position:
1. Of course we have *evidence* of the external world's existence! I see things, touch them, eat them, encounter them in various ways. All of these seem like good evidence of their existence. Of course, also, I might be wrong - but that just means that I maybe can't 100% deductively prove that these things are out there, it doesn't mean that I don't have good evidence for them.
2. But: foundationalism is a suspect epistemological doctrine, anyway. Most general skepticism is founded on a kind of foundationalism that basically says that, if you are warranted in believing something, you need to be able to trace that belief back (found it upon) some 100% provable indubitable claim, or a claim that we know indubitably and non-inferentially, without needing any background knowledge (basically, Descartes' view). This runs us into a problem Sellars called 'the myth of the given,' however. Not everything is going to be traceable back to deductively provable claims (e.g., pure mathematics). So we're going to need something like indubitable non-inferential observation claims to found any knowledge whatsoever. But any conceptualized claim can't be completely independent of inferentially articulated background knowledge (I can't look at an apple and say, "oh, that's red" without knowing a lot of stuff about how to use 'red'), and an unconceptualized claim can't function in an inference (going from "the apple is red" to the "the apple is colored" is a good inference, but going from *look at apple* to "the apple is colored" simply isn't an inference at all). So it's not just that we may not have any of the requisite sorts of observations, they don't seem to be in-principle possible. That would seem to indicate that the problem isn't that we're missing something, but that we've misconceived how evidence is supposed to work.
3. What to replace it with? Contextualism. Unmotivated doubt is pathological. If I have decent evidence for something, I should only doubt it (beyond bare fallibilism, saying "I could, of course, be wrong") if I have some *reason* to. I have no reason to doubt that I am sitting in front of my computer right now. If I were to learn that I'd just been dosed with LSD, I would then have reason to doubt it, and would be justified in seeking further evidence, not taking the computer's existence for granted, etc. Similarly, this is why skepticism has trouble keeping most people up nights. We should accept bare fallibilism with respect to the external world, but most wholesale skeptical scenarios are implausible - that is, if the competing hypotheses for explaining why things seem the way the are are a) for the most part, they are the way they seem or b) an omnipotent demon is controlling my perceptions, a) wins. It's just good sense to believe the more likely explanation, or the one that fits better with your background theory.
That was horribly compressed. I hope it made some degree of sense...
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
nopantsdave:
I do love philosophy, I just don't know if I love academia. I know I want to concentrate in Ancient Philosophy, but I don't have any clue about what I would do for a thesis.
I graduated in December, I was planning on getting into to Grad school starting in January '05 or August '05. My problem is, I haven't taken a philosophy class in a few years because I loaded up on them early and filled my major out when I was still a junior. Then I took some time off before finishing up undergrad. Unfortunately, this means that some of my teachers have moved on to other schools and I doubt the ones that are still there would remember me well enough to write a letter of recommendation for one. So, I don't know if I will even have any letters of recommendation and I need three of them. I am hoping maybe I can slip in on probationary status or something, I can't imagine I am the only one who faces a problem like this.
I graduated in December, I was planning on getting into to Grad school starting in January '05 or August '05. My problem is, I haven't taken a philosophy class in a few years because I loaded up on them early and filled my major out when I was still a junior. Then I took some time off before finishing up undergrad. Unfortunately, this means that some of my teachers have moved on to other schools and I doubt the ones that are still there would remember me well enough to write a letter of recommendation for one. So, I don't know if I will even have any letters of recommendation and I need three of them. I am hoping maybe I can slip in on probationary status or something, I can't imagine I am the only one who faces a problem like this.
aster:
i took this one!
Currently reading: "Beyond the Post-Modern Mind", by Huston Smith
His intent is pretty clear from the title: how to rescue philosophy (and human thought generally) from the relativism and lack of meaning that is postmodernism. He suggests that our current non-worldview is merely a transitional stage to a new, better way of looking at the world. I'm only a little way in, but I have...
Read More
His intent is pretty clear from the title: how to rescue philosophy (and human thought generally) from the relativism and lack of meaning that is postmodernism. He suggests that our current non-worldview is merely a transitional stage to a new, better way of looking at the world. I'm only a little way in, but I have...
Read More
VIEW 9 of 9 COMMENTS
beledi:
mmmm...salmon. the BEST meal i had when i was on Vancouver Island last summer was this absolutely amazing wild salmon BBQ that was held at the Leading Edge conference. i still salivate when i think of wild salmon grilled with a little lemon on top. *drool*
pihka:
Love your userpic.
Memo to self: Do not drink and post. The reputation you save may be your own.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
juliana:
Addendum to Note to Zork:
Posting profile pics often serve to portray pic poster in a flattering manner.
... in the new pic, you look like you gained a little weight.
... and my, those legs!
p.s. i'm in a weird mood today.
Posting profile pics often serve to portray pic poster in a flattering manner.
... in the new pic, you look like you gained a little weight.
... and my, those legs!
p.s. i'm in a weird mood today.
beledi:
nice pic 
when i was in Victoria this summer a glaucous-winged gull decided to visit the balcony of the hotel i was staying at. he came back multiple times to beg bread from me. then he bit my finger. boo.
when i was in Victoria this summer a glaucous-winged gull decided to visit the balcony of the hotel i was staying at. he came back multiple times to beg bread from me. then he bit my finger. boo.
Happy 2006!
yep, another year. remember i had those "resolutions" from last year to dread my hair and get a tattoo or two?! i didn't follow through. maybe this year.