2005 Favorites

Aletheia just did something like this. I guess its something you think about at the end of the year. Well if any one cares I am going to give you my favorites for Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi 2005.

Favorite person (that is, the person who let me sleep on her floor for three nights, bought drinks a few occasions, and generally just showed me a good time in the Big Apple.)

Marian Kummerline

Favorite unpaid job,

Independence Institute

Favorite paid job,

(Blank)

Favorite discovery of mine that got me the nick-name 'dildo Dan'

Favorite web site discovery,

Wikipedia

Favorite new blog,

First things

Favorite old blog that I found this year,

Joey McKeown

Favorite blog post,

Joey, free and liberal man

Favorite new movie (I only saw about ten movies this year),

King Kong

Favorite concert, show, opera I saw,

Opera Colorado's The Marriage of Figaro

Favorite new book (published in the last two years),

Anne Applebaum Gulag: A History

Favorite old book,

Eberhard Bethge Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography

Favorite philosophy book,

G.W.F. Hegel Elements of the Philosophy of Right

Favorite Book that was written about my college, or by someone who went to my college,

Naomi Schaefer Riley God on the Quad

Favorite painter I did not know existed before I went to an exhibition of his paintings,

David Alfaro Siqueiros

Favorite painting I always knew existed, but had never seen before,

Favorite purchase that has made my life better,

Glenn Gould (1955): Bach Goldberg Variations BWV988

Well that's all I can think of right now.

Pat Robertson is a Jerk ... But so is Daniel Dennett

The problem with free will is that some real jerks can agree with you without your prior consent. For example, being a Christian, with political leanings towards the right, I sometimes find myself in cahoots with a bunch of crazies. On the other hand, going into analytic philosophy means that sometimes I'm bed fellows with a bunch of bastards. When I become King of the World I won't let Pat Robertson or Daniel Dennett ever speak again!

I have noticed that Joseph Bottum, of First Things, shares my predicament. Especially in regards to "intelligent design". Over at FT's blog he writes,

Once again, for the third or fourth time in the last century and a half, the battle over evolution has reignited. In some ways, this is unintelligible. How can we still be having this fight? But in another way, the return of agitation about Darwin is perfectly predictable, for the mainstream consensus has finally failed us. Except that it wasn't the Bible-only people who broke the great compromise. It was instead the Darwin-only people.

Amen, brother Bottum. Can't we just go back to the good old days, and let science be science and philosophy of science be philosophy of science. (To the end of my days, I'll never know how religion got in there. After all, say you "prove" a designer, well your left with the 'god of the philosophers'. A god who is as far from the 'God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' as you can get.)

On the other hand, I love how the neo-Darwinians are shootingthemselvess in the foot every time the get a chance to. For example, check out the debate between William Dembski of Baylor and Lee Silver of Princeton. Dembskiwipess the floor with him. Silver never actuallyrespondes to Dembski's points, and by the end the audience (a Princeton audience no less) is rooting for the IDer. It's great; check it out.

Mad Mel

Mel Gibson has been going crazy ever since he did a movie called Mad Max. He has now reached the point of clinical insanity. In the teaser for his latest crime against good filmmaking, Apocalypto, he inserted a picture of himself hanging out with decrepit lepers. If you haven't checked it out yet, here is what you do. Play the teaser (I don't think it works on the hi-def one) go to 1:46 or around there. Pause the player and advance frame by frame. You'll jump out of your seat when you see this,

Rag Update

Its been a while since I've done this, and I am pretty sure no one reads the articles when I do. Still its my blog, and I want to update you on all the great articles I've read in recent days, in case you missed them.

First Things

I think Fr. Neuhaus has the best article on Katrina and New Orleans that I have read.

St. Andrew's resident 'Analytic Thomist' John Haldane has a great article on the current state and end of philosophy. Side note, when I told him I went to TAC, he actually knew the school, and had the blue book in his library.

About Last Night

Terry Teachout, who is the drama critic for the Wall Street Journal and music critic for Commentary, almost died two weeks ago. He has been posting about going to the hospital and not wanting to die. It's quite interesting and provoking. There is also a great NYC moment, when he the paramedic asks him,

"So youre a drama critic, huh?” one of them asked as they carried me down the stairs. My grandma is coming to town for Christmas—I want to take her to a show. What do you suggest?”

New York Times Magazine

Also about death, this article is quickly becoming a classic, I have ran into references to it all over lately. Its by David Rieff about the death of his mother Susan Sontag. Quote

There are those who can reconcile themselves to death and those who can't. Increasingly, I've come to think that it is one of the most important ways the world divides up. Anecdotally, after all those hours I spent in doctors' outer offices and in hospital lobbies, cafeterias and family rooms, my sense is that the loved ones of desperately ill people divide the same way.

National Review

Kathryn Jean Lopez and Peggy Noonan talking about John Paul II. Noonan says about the male-cenuniverseveras of the Vatican,

They [the bishops and Cardinals] have limited categories — "a woman is my mother who put me through seminary and taught me my faith." [... ] I think they need some Teresa of Avila's ... how to put ... kick their ass.

The New Atlantis

One year out The New Atlantis gets around to reviewing Tom Wolfe's I am Charlotte Simmons. It is by far the darkest of all the reviews I've read. Not because of the sex, but because of the scientific theories underlying Wolfe's understanding of human nature. As a corrective of this article see this one from the New Pantagruel.

At the Cemetery

I decided to go walking through the St. Andrews cemetery today; which is less morbid than it sounds. The cemetery is on the cathedral grounds and is right in the middle of town. The above picture is of Adam Ferguson's grave, who was a one of the great philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenmen, and the author of Essay on Civil Society. Here is the inscription,

Here rest the Mortal Remains of Adam Ferguson, L.L.D. Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh. He was born at Logierait in the County of Perth, on the 20th June, 1722, and died in this City of Saint Andrews, on the 22d day of February, 1816. Unseduced by the temptations of pleasure, power, or ambition, he employed the interval between his childhood and his grave with unostentatious and steady perseverance in acquiring and in diffusing knowledge, and in the practice of public and domestic virtue. To his venerated memory, this monument is erected by his children, that they may record his piety to God and benevolence to man, and commemorate the eloquence and energy with which he inculcated the precepts of morality, and prepared the youthful mind for virtuous actions. But a more imperishable memorial of his genius exists in his philosophical and historical works, where classic elegance, strength of reasoning, and clearness of detail, secured the applause of the age in which he lived, and will long continue to deserve the gratitude and commend the admiration of posterity.

And here a a few more photos.

War and Peace, 4

I finished War and Peace and it only took nine weeks. Well kind of finished, I still have the second epilogue but I should read that tonight. I talked to Hope (she wrote her thesis on it) last night about the book. I hashed out my pet theories with her, some where just wrong, some tautological. When I read it for class senior year I was surprised by every one thinking that you either like Pierre or Andrey. Unless you are Mr. Wodzinski, in which case you don't like either. Hope belongs to the Pierre crowed; I belong to the the Andrey crowed; it was a long conversation.

I just cannot read the first epilogue without thinking that Pierre will fail in what he is trying to do. He will try to change Russia, join the Decemberists, be sent to Siberia, which will kill Natasha, and destroy his family. Not only that but the Decemberist revolt brought about the repressive regime of Nicholas I. Tolstoy, in his architectonic-no-free-will sort of way, thinks that Andrey and Nikolay Rostov do more for Russia by treating their sefs well, and living life for their families. You think Pierre learns this lesson, but he doesn't. On the other hand, Tolstoy greatly admired the Decemberists, so we can't say that Pierre is a bad man. I have a lot of thought about this, but they are far from organized.

As for the new translation, it is adequate. Anthony Briggs (the translator) did try to make the soldiers a little more soldierly; which is a needed corrective. My favorite example is when Kutuzov is giving his speech about 'seeing the French off' One of the older translations says,

But after all is said and done, who asked them to come here? It serves them right, the b— b—.

Ah, the good old days when you couldn't put swear words in print. I do like the way the new translation puts it,

They asked for it, the fucking bastards!

Because it is the first, last, and only time that a named character in War and Peace swears it holds special significance. In it comes all thhatreded that has been boiling over since the invasion started. It is shocking because in two words Tolstoy shows how much the Russians hate the French for invading, killing, pillaging, and raping. In a way its better than Andrey's speech before Borodino, or Kutuzov's 'I will make them eat horse flesh'.

So much for that. As for the rest of the translation. Any one will make mistakes in translating a 1400 page book, so I wont complain too much. Some of the more poetic moments in the book, however, don't come out very well in this translation. Like old Prince Bolkonsky's death. Also, in thdescriptionsns of Natasha the 'chit of a girl' is updated to 'slip of a girl'. Small point I know, but 'chit' and 'slip' don't mean the same thing. 'Slip of a girl' means that she is young and skinny. 'Chit of a girl' however means she is wild, exciting, youthful, and has a certain erotic charm; in other words Natasha. 'Chit' might not be a word used very much these days, but it is still the best word for Natasha and I see no reason to change it.

Vladimir & Gerhard: Two Peas in a Pod

I liked this, but why are they holding hands?

Philosophical Humor

This might be old news to all of you. But I just found a large diposit of Philosphical humor, funney songs, jokes, etc. All thanks to one of the greatest living philosophers David Chalmers. Everyone out here already knows about these, but you TACers might enjoy a few 'proofs for P'. I picked out most of the ones that where funney by there own lights and so you could enjoy them without knowing the philosopher.

Plato:

SOCRATES: Is it not true that p?
GLAUCON: I agree.
CEPHALUS: It would seem so.
POLEMARCHUS: Necessarily.
THRASYMACHUS: Yes, Socrates.
ALCIBIADES: Certainly, Socrates.
PAUSANIAS: Quite so, if we are to be consistent.A
RISTOPHANES: Assuredly.
ERYXIMACHUS: The argument certainly points that way.
PHAEDO: By all means.
PHAEDRUS: What you say is true, Socrates.

Stove:

While everyone knows deep down that p, some philosophers feel curiously compelled to assert that not-p, as a result of being closet Marxists. I shall label this phenomenon "the blithering idiot effect". As I have shown that all assertions of not-p by anyone worth speaking of, and several by people who aren't, are due to the blithering idiot effect, there remains no reason to deny p, which everyone knows deep down anyway. I won't even waste my time arguing for it any further.

Goldman:

Several critics have put forward purported "counterexamples" to my thesis that p; but all of these critics have understood my thesis in a way that was clearly not intended, since I intended my thesis to have no counterexamples. Therefore p.

Anselm:
I can entertain an idea of the most perfect state of affairs inconsistent with not-p. If this state of affairs does not obtain then it is less than perfect, for an obtaining state of affairs is better than a non-obtaining one; so the state of affairs inconsistent with not-p obtains; therefore it is proved, etc.

Fodor:

My argument for p is based on three premises:
q

r
and
p

From these, the claim that p deductively follows. Some people may find the third premise controversial, but it is clear that if we replaced that premise by any other reasonable premise, the argument would go through just as well.

Sellars' proof that p:

Unfortunately limitations of space prevent it from being included here, but important parts of the proof can be found in each of the articles in the attached bibliography.

Read all of them here

So, in the pit, you have a guy struggling on the natural horn; and on the stage you could have a guy dressed like Tinkerbell performing a sex act

In an article this weekend that is more than a little condescending from the Financial Times, "Opera in America may lag behind Europe in innovative stagings ..."

Damn good thing, I say.

Of course, I must inform my European readers that the American Opera companies are tripping over themselves trying to turn the opera halls of North America into look-a-likes of the Euro-trash Discotheque that was once the Salzburg Mozarteum. I've been pained by productions of Rigoletto that where supposed to be the "iconaclastic", and a Handel opera that was supposed to be MGM musical. In all the cases the evening was ruined and the music tainted. The opera companies are looking for relevance, but the audience will simply start staying at home, listen to recordings. Better than being "shocked" by something that is not shocking, only childish.

Nothing is worse than Salzbug! I have never been, but like the crazy man that I am, I keep up with what is going on at the Festival. Just read this article. But why can't Salzburg put on an opera without nude under-age children? Or transvestites? Or fetisheque sexual innuendo? Why, in other words, can't they just put on Operas like when I was a kid?