Currently at Toronto Pearson: 7. High today: 9.
A couple of Old-Order Mennonites got on the bus at the Central Fresh Market in Kitchener yesterday, loaded down with--what? I always found it surprising and a little disappointing when the Mennonites showed up in the Central Fresh Market. What does the Central Fresh Market have that they can't grow or raise or whatever it is themselves? Well, anyway. I supposed to myself when they got on the bus that they wouldn't have voted in the election last week--I don't know; do Old-Order Mennonites vote?--and it doesn't matter to them who won. Maybe I'm wrong. I mean, it matters, sure, in that it makes some global difference if everyone keeps electing anti-environmentalists instead of environmentalists. Which reminds me of a story I read in highschool, in one of those anthologies of stories for highschool students, about somebody living in the northern woods of somewhere, who sees a strange light in the sky one day and then spends the next week, or month, or whatever it is, dying of radiation poisoning. (This was one of the most disturbing things I've ever read.) But look, it doesn't have to be a nuclear bomb; it might be an asteroid.
Anyway, I don't know anything about these Old-Order Mennonites really, but I imagine that what they do is they just live their lives. I'm probably wrong about them. I wonder, these people always make me wonder, and I see them fairly frequently in bus terminals, to what extent they live their lives reflectively. They must be aware that everyone, everyone, around them thinks they're crazy, or stupid, or both. Does it make them doubt themselves, or at least inquire into themselves?
The temptation to idealize a simple life is the temptation to idealize what Socrates calls the "healthy city" in the Republic. The healthy city, which lives within its means, is the "true" city, he says. The "kallipolis", the noble or beautiful city, which the Republic goes on to describe, is called the just city. (It just today struck me, unfortunately on my feet standing at the front of the classroom, that it is not clear that the Republic does not suggest that the just and the good are two different things and possibly in tension with each other--talk of "justice" has dropped out of the picture by the time the form of the good enters, and the good government of the kallipolis apparently requires the philosophers to neglect their natural function in order to rule.) The kallipolis is, by its nature, not healthy but feverish. It is founded on appetites run wild that engender conflict. The story implies that without conflict there would be no philosophy. As Heidegger says, you stop to examine the hammer as an object when it isn't doing the job. When everything is going smoothly, when there's no resistance, you don't reflect. Do you?
But what is reflection worth? "The unexamined life is not worth living"? Really? Heidegger points out (I don't know if this gets at the heart of the matter ... ) that for Plato the forms are images that guide the making of things. Plato launched productivism in philosophy. Eh, but mostly what Socrates wants to produce is some state of the soul. In the Republic, we want to know what justice is in order to be just in order to be happy. But "happiness" is stipulated as consisting in having your soul in order, not having one part pulling against another--which is to say, being ruled by reason, because reason tells you the one thing you should do, as opposed to the many different things you want to do. If you didn't want many different things in the first place, you wouldn't need reason's mandate to unify the soul and bring it peace. The happiness of the Republic is happiness for the complicated life. Glaucon's objection to the simple life is that it is a life for pigs. We human beings are complicated beings. Glaucon's objection is ambiguous between being an ethical claim and a natural one. The partisan of the simple life claims that we should not be so complicated. Socrates simply concedes Glaucon's point (though pausing to say that the healthy city is the "true" city. True to what?)
I'm the last person on the floor here tonight, which has made me the last line of possible assistance for two distressed students at mid-term time. Everyone seems so innocent when they're in distress.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
At noon release another leaf
Currently at UW: 8.3. First snow of the cold season yesterday. Nothing on the ground around here, but some up toward Georgian Bay.
Overheard in the WLU library: "Why's there even an apostrophe in French?"
Qu'est-ce que c'est, cette question stupide?
Man overheard talking to TTC fare collector last week: "I have a picture here of my elbow with the hair shaved off."
I have spent the last hour or more poking through stuff on the web about the is-ought debate from the '60s and '70s, mostly to do with Searle's "How to Derive an Ought from an Is". I was just thinking again yesterday or so that I really need to not do things like spend, cumulatively, several weeks writing about the Gettier problem, but unfortunately I am now thinking of writing a paper called "Hobbes on Deriving an Ought from an Is". I don't really know anything much about either Hobbes or the is-ought debate. But I've been teaching Hobbes this week....
Things that make teaching difficult for me:
1. I regard how to teach philosophy as an open philosophical question.
2. I think that teaching and learning philosophy both require doing philosophy.
2. a) I regard how to do philosophy as an open philosophical question. (There are very few philosophy departments, as far as I can tell, that offer courses called "Philosophical Methods". In my experience, "Intro to Philosophy" courses don't even suggest that there might be such things as philosophical methods. I was doing my PhD before I really had much idea what about doing philosophy is. But it's extremely important! You can't do serious work in philosophy unless you have some idea what doing philosophy is. Can you?)
3. I think that philosophy has to dwell on the insights of great philosophers, because each of the great philosophers attempts to show an aspect of experience that is available to us all but difficult to attend to.
3. a) I think that any aspect of the thought of any great philosopher has to be understood in the context of their thought as a whole.
3. b) I think that philosophy must be read slowly and dialectically, moving back and forth between the abstract and the concrete.
3. c) I doubt that the thought of any philosopher is internally consistent. (The philosopher sees through many particular appearances, many eidoi, many forms, and attempts to describe the appearance, the eidos, the form. The form will only stand still if the same forms are seen through in the same way. This is not to say that there is no form, but that the form is indefinite and descriptions will not be consistent if they remain true to the shifting experience they are founded on. Thus the inconsistency of the philosopher is not a vice--rather, it is a virtue, because each inconsistent description provides a new perspective that deepens the whole--though the philosopher's failing to recognize it may be. On the other hand, the failure to recognize it may be a condition that makes it possible for the philosopher to go on, and it may be the condition that makes it possible for the student to go on with the philosopher. The student approaches the philosopher with the attitude of the judge, and witnesses who give inconsistent testimony are not reliable.)
4. I think that teaching philosophy well requires ongoing dialogue with each student individually.
(This is another thing that has become important to me about the many short assignments that I have my students do, which I often comment on extensively. These things are consuming my life! But I think they're serving an essential function.)
Overheard in the WLU library: "Why's there even an apostrophe in French?"
Qu'est-ce que c'est, cette question stupide?
Man overheard talking to TTC fare collector last week: "I have a picture here of my elbow with the hair shaved off."
I have spent the last hour or more poking through stuff on the web about the is-ought debate from the '60s and '70s, mostly to do with Searle's "How to Derive an Ought from an Is". I was just thinking again yesterday or so that I really need to not do things like spend, cumulatively, several weeks writing about the Gettier problem, but unfortunately I am now thinking of writing a paper called "Hobbes on Deriving an Ought from an Is". I don't really know anything much about either Hobbes or the is-ought debate. But I've been teaching Hobbes this week....
Things that make teaching difficult for me:
1. I regard how to teach philosophy as an open philosophical question.
2. I think that teaching and learning philosophy both require doing philosophy.
2. a) I regard how to do philosophy as an open philosophical question. (There are very few philosophy departments, as far as I can tell, that offer courses called "Philosophical Methods". In my experience, "Intro to Philosophy" courses don't even suggest that there might be such things as philosophical methods. I was doing my PhD before I really had much idea what about doing philosophy is. But it's extremely important! You can't do serious work in philosophy unless you have some idea what doing philosophy is. Can you?)
3. I think that philosophy has to dwell on the insights of great philosophers, because each of the great philosophers attempts to show an aspect of experience that is available to us all but difficult to attend to.
3. a) I think that any aspect of the thought of any great philosopher has to be understood in the context of their thought as a whole.
3. b) I think that philosophy must be read slowly and dialectically, moving back and forth between the abstract and the concrete.
3. c) I doubt that the thought of any philosopher is internally consistent. (The philosopher sees through many particular appearances, many eidoi, many forms, and attempts to describe the appearance, the eidos, the form. The form will only stand still if the same forms are seen through in the same way. This is not to say that there is no form, but that the form is indefinite and descriptions will not be consistent if they remain true to the shifting experience they are founded on. Thus the inconsistency of the philosopher is not a vice--rather, it is a virtue, because each inconsistent description provides a new perspective that deepens the whole--though the philosopher's failing to recognize it may be. On the other hand, the failure to recognize it may be a condition that makes it possible for the philosopher to go on, and it may be the condition that makes it possible for the student to go on with the philosopher. The student approaches the philosopher with the attitude of the judge, and witnesses who give inconsistent testimony are not reliable.)
4. I think that teaching philosophy well requires ongoing dialogue with each student individually.
(This is another thing that has become important to me about the many short assignments that I have my students do, which I often comment on extensively. These things are consuming my life! But I think they're serving an essential function.)
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I tried to remember things that the pastor used to say
Currently at Toronto Pearson: 11. High today: 14, at 1 a.m. and 3 p.m. Dewpoint's been slowly dropping all day from 12 at midnight to 3 at 4 p.m.
For the first time ever, the NDP has won seats in eight out of the ten provinces. The only two provinces they didn't win seats in are PEI and Saskatchewan. Ten years ago you could have won a lot of money betting that the NDP would someday win seats in eight of ten provinces but none in Saskatchewan, the home of Tommy Douglas and the heartland of the CCF. This is the third election in a row that the NDP has won no seats in Saskatchewan. The only other elections in which the NDP didn't win seats in Saskatchewan were the first three elections of its existence, when the prairie-populist Diefenbaker PCs won 50 of 51 seats in 1962, 1963, and 1965. The CCF was never shut out of Saskatchewan.
At least Bill Blaikie's successor beat Alex Steen's father in Winnipeg.
For the first time ever, the NDP has won seats in eight out of the ten provinces. The only two provinces they didn't win seats in are PEI and Saskatchewan. Ten years ago you could have won a lot of money betting that the NDP would someday win seats in eight of ten provinces but none in Saskatchewan, the home of Tommy Douglas and the heartland of the CCF. This is the third election in a row that the NDP has won no seats in Saskatchewan. The only other elections in which the NDP didn't win seats in Saskatchewan were the first three elections of its existence, when the prairie-populist Diefenbaker PCs won 50 of 51 seats in 1962, 1963, and 1965. The CCF was never shut out of Saskatchewan.
At least Bill Blaikie's successor beat Alex Steen's father in Winnipeg.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Deflation
Currently at Toronto Pearson: 11. High today: 14.
Now is that early-to-mid-October time when all us low-rent types shiver in our boxes until the landlord turns the heat on. I see the building across the road has heat, as people are opening their windows.
If you read the Globe regularly or otherwise keep up with the often-dizzyingly-contradictory pronouncements of the top Canadian economists, you will not be hearing this here first, but it bears repeating, because it's going to take a while to sink in, and a lot of people won't ever believe it: we could have deflation in Canada before long. There was one headline about this in the Globe last month; I've just gotten around to looking at the StatsCan inflation report for August, which the news was very excited about because it showed the highest rate of inflation since 2003 (!), and the signs are there: while the CPI for energy was up 20% year-over-year, it was down 3% month-over-month. Goods overall: +3.5% year-over-year, -0.5 month-over-month. Transportation: +5.8% year-over-year; -2.1% month-over-month. I guess--and I'm only guessing--the one that will determine whether we actually go into deflation or not will be shelter, which was up 5.8% year-over-year and up 0.4% month-over-month, which, incredibly, since we're all talking about the cooling real estate market and also about inflation in food prices, is still higher than the month-over-month rate of inflation for food. Then again, I guess the dollar losing a cent a day against the US$ might have something to say about it. I'm just guessin' here, like everybody.
My other favourite bit of statistics today: according to the latest Harris-Decima tracking poll,
the Conservatives are now in fourth place among single Canadian women. The Greens and the Liberals are tied for second, behind the NDP.
Uh, by the way, has anyone seen a TV ad from the Liberals during this campaign? I'm seeing Green ads just about every day, not to mention the bunches of Conservative and NDP ads; I don't specifically recall seeing a Liberal ad. I think I probably saw one or two, a couple of weeks ago, but I'm not sure.
Now is that early-to-mid-October time when all us low-rent types shiver in our boxes until the landlord turns the heat on. I see the building across the road has heat, as people are opening their windows.
If you read the Globe regularly or otherwise keep up with the often-dizzyingly-contradictory pronouncements of the top Canadian economists, you will not be hearing this here first, but it bears repeating, because it's going to take a while to sink in, and a lot of people won't ever believe it: we could have deflation in Canada before long. There was one headline about this in the Globe last month; I've just gotten around to looking at the StatsCan inflation report for August, which the news was very excited about because it showed the highest rate of inflation since 2003 (!), and the signs are there: while the CPI for energy was up 20% year-over-year, it was down 3% month-over-month. Goods overall: +3.5% year-over-year, -0.5 month-over-month. Transportation: +5.8% year-over-year; -2.1% month-over-month. I guess--and I'm only guessing--the one that will determine whether we actually go into deflation or not will be shelter, which was up 5.8% year-over-year and up 0.4% month-over-month, which, incredibly, since we're all talking about the cooling real estate market and also about inflation in food prices, is still higher than the month-over-month rate of inflation for food. Then again, I guess the dollar losing a cent a day against the US$ might have something to say about it. I'm just guessin' here, like everybody.
My other favourite bit of statistics today: according to the latest Harris-Decima tracking poll,
the Conservatives are now in fourth place among single Canadian women. The Greens and the Liberals are tied for second, behind the NDP.
Uh, by the way, has anyone seen a TV ad from the Liberals during this campaign? I'm seeing Green ads just about every day, not to mention the bunches of Conservative and NDP ads; I don't specifically recall seeing a Liberal ad. I think I probably saw one or two, a couple of weeks ago, but I'm not sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
