Takes?

Day #2 of the Vincent van Gogh puzzle. That should explain everything.


Meme stolen from annaxbanana

1. Pick 10 of your favorite TV shows.
2. Go to IMDb and find a quote from each show.
3. Post them here for everyone to guess.
4. Fill in the series title once it's guessed.
5. NO GOOGLING/using IMDb search functions.


( and on with it )



I realize I have three interview memes to answer, and I swear I am not forgetting to answer them. It's just that ALL THREE of you asked me questions about baseball, and I am formulating appropriate answers. And also wondering when retrosheet.org is going to put this season up. And also geeking out to a playoff bracket involving all 27 Yankees' championship teams and whatifsports.com (Mariano Rivera facing Babe Ruth? Whitey Ford vs. Alex Rodriguez with the bases loaded and two outs? Brett Gardner steals home against Yogi Berra? Oh, possibilities!). OH MY GOD YOU GUYS. SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM MYSELF.

Hi all,

I am a first year doctoral student with a dying Dell. Some of this is due to 3 years of use and abuse (my average computer-life), and some is due to a recent virus. Anyway, it's probably time to invest in a new laptop since I can't get anything done in the lab and I can't spend 30 minutes everyday doing a system restore anymore.

I have a few classmates who are recent Mac converts and love it so far. I saw Papers and thought that'd be great for organizing all my articles. I'm nervous about switching to a Mac, however, because I use SAS for most statistical analysis. Is there anyone out there who has had a good experience using SAS on a Mac? It looks like I'd have to get Windows for it and have Word installed on both the Mac and Windows side if I want to be able to cut/paste from SAS into Word easily. I want to be reasonably sure this is going to work nicely before I shell out the cash.

There is probably some other software packages that are not Mac-compatible, but I figure anything beyond stats, writing, and talk-prepping I can do in the lab.

My alternate plan is to buy another PC but not from Dell. I guess the appeal of the Mac is apparently high user happiness and lower likelihood for viruses.

Any input is welcome (yes, even the comment snarkfests that tend to happen here...)

Thanks.

Hume makes the following famous argument in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

1. When we experience the constant conjunction of one object (Object A) followed by another (Object B), we begin to feel that there is a causal connection there. This is why we think we know about causal connections in the world.


2. What accounts for this feeling is the habit of the imagination whereby it follows the idea of Object A with the idea of Object B whenever we think about it. This is because we've been exposed to this relationship between Object A and Object B so many times before.


3. This process is not sufficient to justify knowledge of the relationship between cause and effect between Object A and Object B, because mere constant conjunction is never enough to justify the law of induction necessary to derive a claim about causality


4. So much for knowledge of cause and effect!

There's a problem with this argument. The problem is that step (2) is wrong. Seriously, do any of you have the experience Hume described? I go into an elevator and push a button, expecting it to take me to another floor. I don't expect this because I suddenly imagine that I'm on the 12th floor as my finger approaches the button. I do feel (these are Hume's italics, by the way) that there is a cause and effect relation here, but that feeling is nothing like what Hume describes.

If this is true, then what prevents us from taking the feeling of a causal connection as a kind of perception that itself justifies causal knowledge? That's what we do, prima facie, with other sensations we have. That solves the whole problem of skepticism about causality and it doesn't even require a transcendental argument!

BONUS ARGUMENT

Step (2) is also bad news because it is itself a causal explanation inferred from the constant conjunction of constantly conjoined objects and the feeling of a causal connection. By the conclusion of the argument, it is impossible to justify this step.

"Plenty of colleges have a presence in Second Life. Pennsylvania State University is taking that a step further. Academic advisers at the university’s online campus are now required to be available for meetings with students in the virtual world every week..."

More here: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Second-Life-Duty-Now-Required/8770/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

And here: http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/advising-in-second-life.shtml

Good thing? Bad thing? Inevitable thing?

For those interested, there's a petition going to save the Classics program at Michigan State University. Cancelling the program is one of those administrative decisions that just doesn't make any sense: no savings will accrue, since faculty are tenured (yay, tenure), but course offerings will be cut. Your voice could help talk these guys back from the edge of the cliff.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/tell-a-friend/5899800

[cross-posted a couple places; sorry for any potential annoyance]

Got a question, but here's the dilemma, simplified:

I was raised by Christian parents. My whole life I ingested knowledge and understanding under the context that god provides ultimate meaning, purpose and direction. In recent years, I went to college. Then I began to use my head. About a year ago I arrived at the conclusion that god is no more real than any other 'idea'. I hate to sound like a sensualist, but I'm convinced that the matter of thought originates with the sensations that come from experiencing the natural world. Our innate cognitions and instincts are the tools that shape this matter of thought.

That being said, I have slipped into an existentialistic frame of mind, where I am the beginning and end of my existence. This has led me to challenge the legitimacy and significance of the values that contextualized life and progress. Meaning, purpose, and direction have become relative. In short, I'm having an existential crisis. It's lasted for about six months but has culminated into severe anxiety more recently.

Does anyone have anything to say about coping with an existential crisis? Any insight or suggestions from personal experiences? How the hell do you get over this?

Thank-you.

***
Edit:
The problem is this: accepting that one is ultimately, absolutely, and utterly free is paralyzing. It is as if the earth has unhinged from the sun, there is no up or down, achievement or defeat. The bottom line is, what matters? I am not depressed, but I find myself met with a profound and anxious sense of emptiness.

I am not passionately tied down to the ramifications of belief and disbelief. This freedom, where actions have no context other than the context you give them, is a paralyzing force. Principles no longer seem to fit nicely into a schema or order. It is not that my thoughts are upset, it is that the values that I coined to each thought have become worthless. These values changed from a static, stable state, to a relative state. My ends, chief wants and desires, seem to have lost value. Virtues seem to be useless because without ends, what matters of virtue? Ends, being relative, opened me up to a million different paths. Life has become a giant game where your beliefs offer a confirmation bias for every action and thought. You create value before value is found by believing that value exists. Does that make sense?

What I am asking is, how does one gain traction and motivation again? How do you go about deciding what matters, while convincing yourself that it really matters?

Was anyone else at last night`s show in Vancouver? I guess this post could be applicable to everyone given his type of shows, but am I the only one annoyed with how much the audience had this inability to sit still and watch something? Why would someone pay $50 for a ticket only to sit through half of the show because people were either late; came into the theater when they chose to, even though the show had already begun; just had to get some munchies in the middle of the show; or go to the washroom when they could have gone before the show or during the intermission? I understand emergencies happen, but with the sheer amount of people that got up and came back with water, I doubt it was an emergency. I didn`t pay for this show to get up every ten minutes for people, to hear people talk for the entire show with their friends, or to have flashlights flailing all over the place because people can`t get to their seats on time. I should have displayed public dissent of my own by refusing to budge when people were getting up.

Matt said he`s been doing sit down shows so people can relax, but clearly people can`t – they`re too distracted by either talking to their friends, pointing stuff out, getting up when they please, or answering calls. This sort of crap is rude at a movie theater, so how is this any different? It`s behaviour like this that makes me think ADD does exist and that it`s rampant in young adults.

Perhaps I`m a bit grouchy because I got stuck behind a couple who couldn`t stop talking to each and pointing stuff out, which subsequently blocked my view because they had to get their heads close together to hear each other. To the left of me was a couple of over excited youngsters who acted as if they were on crack or were retards, flailing about as if they were Kramar. Thankfully someone yelled at them to shut up. And then sitting next to me was some goth looking women who stared at her plastic, light ball for half of the show, indicating that she might have been on something.

So what was your concert experience?

Salvete, omnes!

I have, of late, become a rather frequent twitterer (primarily due to my interest in space exploration and the large community of "space tweeps" out there). At any rate, being a classics grad student, I am curious as to whether anyone out there makes it a habit to compose their tweets / converse in Latin. If so, I would quite enjoy the opportunity to continue practicing my compositional skills. (Plus, the whole "living Latin" phenomenon is just plain fun!)

НА САЙТЕ АПН ВЫШЛА НАША СОВМЕСТНАЯ С ИГОРЕМ ДЖАДАНОМ (igor_dzhadan) СТАТЬЯ "ИФ РАН: ВЫСЕЛЕНИЕ ИЗ РАЯ", ПОСВЯЩЁННАЯ БРОНЗОВОМУ БЮСТУ АКАДЕМИКА ГУСЕЙНОВА

Однако, странно, что в свободной демократической стране, в которой 85% населения этнические русские, интеллектуальной политикой по-прежнему довольно успешно пытаются рулить люди, откровенно стесняющиеся употреблять слово "русский" в своих произведениях и выступлениях. Платон и Аристотель специально подчёркивали, что пишут свои произведения для эллинов. Какая часть работ сотрудников ИФ РАН предназначена русским, абсолютно непонятно, поскольку слово "русский" в них встречается почти исключительно в историческом контексте. Эти люди в душе давно похоронили русский народ, и совершенно неудивительно, что теперь, когда речь ведётся о выселении их с насиженных мест – здания ИФ РАН в центре Москвы – русские не горят желанием выходить на улицу, чтобы защитить фальшивый "оплот философской науки".



Если таковы люди, получающие зарплату от российского государства за решение вопроса, кого считать философом, а кого нет, то плохи дела русской философии. Русская философия никогда не поднимется с колен, не освободившись от навязанных ей в период слабости русского государства институций, единственный смысл существования которых в том, чтобы кастрировать и топтать независимую русскую мысль. По большому счёту следовало бы не только выселить, но и ликвидировать как академическую институцию «Жёлтый дом». Это лишь ускорит движение страны к свободе, которое ей так необходимо. Периодическое заигрывание высших лиц государства с мастодонтами позорного (пост)советского безмыслия в свободной, независимой от этно-олигархических группировок России не только эстетически отвратительно, но и политически неприемлемо.

( Read more... )

In On Interpretation, chapter 7, Aristotle lays out two types of subjects which can be combined with a predicate to form a proposition: Individuals ("Socrates") and universals ("man"). Propositions with universal subjects can be further split into those of a universal character ("Every man is white") and those not of a universal character ("Man is white").

I have taken "universal subjects of a non-universal character" to refer to the group itself ("man"), as contrasted with a reference to each individual ("every man"), or one individual ("Socrates"). In this sense, Aristotle's statement that "man is white" and "man is not white" are not contrary is sensible, in the sense that there are both white and non-white elements of the group "man." However, other problems arise if this definition is used.

Again, in chapter 7, Aristotle states:

"...the proposition 'man is not white' appears to be equivalent to the proposition 'no man is white'. This, however, is not the case, nor are they necessarily at the same time true or false."

Does this not ruin my definition? If "man is white" means "the group of things that we call 'man' contain within them at least one thing that is properly called white," then surely "man is not white" is equivalent to "no man is white." In what case could they not be both true or both false?

Clearly my understanding of universals not of a universal character is wrong, which is unfortunate, because Aristotle spends a great deal of time on them later on. But then I am confounded by the following statement, in the same chapter, which seems to support my definition:

"...it is possible to state truly that man is white and that man is not white and that man is beautiful and that man is not beautiful; for if a man is deformed he is the reverse of beautiful, also if he is progressing towards beauty he is not yet beautiful."

Finally, is there a better term for these? My translation uses the term "distributed" once in regard to propositions with a universal subject of a universal character. Might I then say "non-distributed universals?" I'd like to avoid inserting modern terminology into my reading of Aristotle, especially since distribution has a very specific meaning in set theory, but he can be a wordy, awkward little bastard.

Hello, all!

First of all, I am jazzed to be part of this community. I have been learning so much from everyone these past few days about GTA rights and the complicated situation behind unionization.

My situation is this: I got my MA two years ago (Spring 2008), where two professors agreed to be my references for Ph.D. programs, but I waited until Fall 2008 (after graduating) to apply. Unfortunately, that round of apps was a bust, and I decided to stay as a part-timer at a hometown college through the 2009-2010 academic year.

I've kept their letters on InterFolio, but my question is this: are they outdated as references? Should I be looking more toward my writing program administrator and department chair for newer references? N.B.: I am switching concentrations from literature (my MA is in Renaissance) to Rhet/Comp pedagogy for the Ph.D. apps.

Thanks for all feedback!

This isn't exactly an orthodox question for this group, but I figured that if anyone had the answer to it that it would be you guys, so I will ask it.

The question is this: is a degree in Philosophy worth getting? Additional questions: what types of jobs could one get with a graduate degree in Philosophy? If you have an M.A. in another field, could you in theory skip the B.A. in Philosophy and get accepted into a graduate program instead?

I'm thinking about maybe going into Philosophy a couple years after I get my M.A. in May, depending on various factors.

In his Social Contract (translated, obviously) there's a footnote which reads:

"For the will to be general, it does not always have to be unanimous; but all the votes must be counted. Any formal exclusion destroys its universality." (Book 2, ch. 2)

Now, I understand the terms, but what does it mean for a formal exclusion to destroy the universality of the general will?

Был приглашён и участвовал в очередном заседании семинара Русской Христианской Гуманитарной Академии. С докладами выступили Ростислав Евгеньевич Ермилов и доктор философских наук профессор Александр Александрович Ермичёв.

Докладчики рассказали о таких русских философах как Фёдор Августович Степун и Борис Валентинович Яковенко.
Русский духовный ренессанс начала XX-го века очевидно имеет западные корни.
Нужно выйти на бытие и очистить содержание нашего сознания от различных форм субъективизма, чётко ограничить область философии, чтобы философ мог выйти на сущее.
Жизнь должна быть воплощением и реализацией философии. Философия и функционирует как смысл жизни.
ПРИВЕДУ НАИБОЛЕЕ ИНТЕРЕСНЫЕ ТЕЗИСЫ ИЗ ВЫСТУПЛЕНИЙ.
( Читай и смотри далее - ЗАЧЕМ НУЖЕН СМЫСЛ ЖИЗНИ )

Should we aspire to a single totalizing system of knowledge (i.e., one that includes everything in it), or should/must we strive for multiple systems, irreducible to each other, with no transcendent perspective or unifying metanarrative? Discuss.

Участвовал в работе "Ницше-семинара" на философском факультете СПбГУ на тему «Ложь во вненравственном смысле».
Наверное, семинар не стал бы таким интересным, если бы не казус. В программе тема Ницше-семинара была обозначена как «ложь во ВНЕнравственном смысле», а на объявлении, приклеенном на дверях аудитории Кагана, тема имела название «ложь во ВСЕнравственном смысле». Я обратил на это внимание участников семинара, и предложил выяснить, какое же название истинно. Как вы понимаете, это два совершенно противоположных понятия. И я считаю, что такая «опечатка» неслучайна. Это, что называется, «оговорка по Фрейду», когда подсознание вдруг подсказывает истинное, что ранее отвергалось рационально-логическим мышлением.

( Читай и смотри далее О ЛЖИ ВО ВНЕНРАВСТВЕННОМ СМЫСЛЕ )

What do you think about unions in universities?
Has your education been compromised by a striking union?
Have you been a staff or faculty member that has been severely underpaid?

Our strike is not the worst by far. I'd think York University's (Toronto, Canada, 2001 ?) might qualify though.

Brought to you by the fact that we are on strike

(cross-posted to gradstudents)

My university has recently swapped the way it is paying it's grad students.

We used to be paid by the hour.
We are now paid by the hour, up to a cap of 1 hour per lesson, 15 minutes prep time and 8 minutes per homework marked. (These figures are the average of figures given by postgrad students for the last year). Pay is £13.69 a hour.

The Postgrads are not terribly happy about this, as there are often times when courses take longer than average to mark and we don't really enjoy working for free. When we asked what we were supposed to do on the longer than average courses, we were told to judge which these would be in advance and mark faster to compensate. We also dislike the prep time, as last year it was 1 hour and now it is 15 minutes, and 15 minutes isn't long enough to prepare me for getting out of bed, let alone teaching 10-14 undergraduates.

We are attempting to argue this is an unfair system (in that other than minimising what we get paid and complicating our paperwork, it seems to have no benefit), and will lead to a lowering in quality of marking/teaching. It's not going well.

I was hoping there are other Math postgrads on here who would share how payment for marking/teaching works at their university. I'm primarily interested in UK based figures, but other answers would be helpful also.

Thanks in advance.

'Frustrated over cheating allegations, one professor at Middle Tennessee State University took the idea of a traditional honor code in a controversial direction. Suspecting that one of his MBA candidates had just cheated on an exam, Professor Thomas Tang had each of them sign a pledge that said if they had cheated, they’d be condemned to an eternity in Hell. The pledge went on to say if the student cheated they will “be sorry for the rest of [their] life and go to Hell."'



More here: http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=11445552

(Via improbable_blog.)