(I have a strict no-spoilers policy, so if you haven't finished the book, don't worry about reading the following.)
About two weeks ago, a truly fantastic thing happened. The last Harry Potter book came out. My best friend and I dressed up and went to a midnight release party and had a wonderful time. We got to the Barnes and Noble at about 6:00 in the morning to get our tickets at 9:00, went and crashed until about 4:00, then got up and went to stand in line at about 5:30 in the afternoon. We actually overdid it a bit, because other people came to stand in line at about 10:00. (But being there so early meant that we got to meet a very nice reporter who interviewed us for the paper.) Perhaps the most exciting part of the evening prior to 12:00 was the drunk (or possibly high) lady who tried to cut in front of us. Those of us who were already in line were rather annoyed by this and the fact that the manager didn't seem to notice that the woman was not exactly sober. But in the end the drunk started cussing us out (in front of her eight-year-old) and the manager made her move farther down the line.
Reading the book took me about 12 hours (counting a two-hour nap at 4:00 AM). I absolutely loved it. In spite of how sad it is, it is probably going to be my favourite book of the lot. And, yes, I did cry.
Now, I know a lot of people don't like these books. I avoided the books myself until GoF because of all the hype. And until OotP I would have agreed that the books had rather repetitive plots and uncomplicated characters. But it is important to realize that the books mature, and the plots of the last three books cast the others into a very different light. As for the characters, it is important to remember the ages of Harry, Ron, Hermione, and others in each book. That's actually one of my favourite things about these books. Unlike many fantasy novels, the characters, their strengths, and their faults are much more believable.
If people still dislike the books for reasons similar to those I've mentioned, I understand. In that case it really is a matter of whatever floats your goat. However, I'm afraid it irritates me when people say that the books promote witchcraft or lawlessness. There are plenty of books, TV shows, movies, songs, operas, etc. that contain magic and rule-breaking and some of them really DO encourage those things. So if you're really worried about witchcraft, go pick on something that does a proper job of encouraging people to stand naked in buckets of eels' eyes by the full moon to cure freckles. Otherwise, condemn them all equally, don't single out HP just because it's popular. And please do read the books/see the movies and TV shows/listen to the music BEFORE passing judgement?
Finally, there is one theme in these books that I find most interesting. It is the idea that one's choices determine who one is, rather than ability, circumstances, or birth. I think that this is something that our culture likes to think it believes, but doesn't really. For example, if someone does well in school, we say that that person is smart (as compared to China, where they would say that that person works hard). And if someone does something wrong, we are rather quick to believe that that person is insane or was mistreated and is therefore not responsible for his or her actions. And just look at how many people are on medication for their (real or imagined) ADD! So we are really quite biologically deterministic in the end, despite our efforts kid ourselves into thinking otherwise. I really think JKR did a fine job of emphasizing free will in these books, right up to the end.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Summer Summary (plus Shakespeare)
Well, I had almost decided to take this blog down, seeing as how I do not have a very interesting life, but it seems that one cannot simply cancel these things. So I'll just keep it up a while longer, although my posts will probably only come once in a great while and be long, rambling accounts of why I haven't written in six months.
Nothing very major has happened so far this summer. I am working as an intern at UT but don't really know how that came to be. I'm also in a handbell ensemble and practicing the piano less diligently than I should be.
The highlight of the summer thus far has been the Shakespeare in the Park performance of The Taming of the Shrew. Last year it was Macbeth, which was so good it was scary, and TotS was almost as good. One of the biggest changes they made to the story was setting it in San Antonio, which was funny at times, but overall way too weird. (For example, "Of Mantua, sir? - marry, God forbid! And come to Padua, careless of your life?" became "Of Eagle Pass, sir? marry, God forbid! And come to San Antonio, careless of your life?") All the actors were very good and funny, but Petruchio was brilliant and absolutely hilarious. Poor Kate never had a chance. It's funny that even though I love to read, I always prefer seeing Shakespeare's plays performed instead of reading them.
Nothing very major has happened so far this summer. I am working as an intern at UT but don't really know how that came to be. I'm also in a handbell ensemble and practicing the piano less diligently than I should be.
The highlight of the summer thus far has been the Shakespeare in the Park performance of The Taming of the Shrew. Last year it was Macbeth, which was so good it was scary, and TotS was almost as good. One of the biggest changes they made to the story was setting it in San Antonio, which was funny at times, but overall way too weird. (For example, "Of Mantua, sir? - marry, God forbid! And come to Padua, careless of your life?" became "Of Eagle Pass, sir? marry, God forbid! And come to San Antonio, careless of your life?") All the actors were very good and funny, but Petruchio was brilliant and absolutely hilarious. Poor Kate never had a chance. It's funny that even though I love to read, I always prefer seeing Shakespeare's plays performed instead of reading them.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Morals and Evil Felines
Yay! A glorious weekend in which to slave away at blog posts! Question number 1:
At the beginning of the semester, the class, in general, expressed a great deal of disdain for NASA. NASA is the societal level technology driver for the US and arguably the world. What has lead to this disdain and mistrust? What would it take for NASA to regain your respect?
I am fascinated by almost everything (probably because I'm just dumb), so I'm ok with NASA taking my tax dollars simply for the sake of accumulating knowledge. But also, if we continue to use the earth as if it's disposable, we're going to need the information NASA collects for our survival. We're going to need it anyway when the sun dies (the Nahuas were right all along!), because it will fry the earth to a crisp when it expands.
I think the reason we don't have a lot of interest in NASA anymore is because we no longer have an enemy to compete with. When the U.S. and the Soviets were escalating the space race, the government and people were all for exploration and discovery, although it wasn't really about these things. So, as soon as we didn't have that excuse anymore, we wondered why we were so interested in the first place. Plus the whole thing about insane astronauts driving 900 miles wearing a diaper to kill a romantic rival really looks bad.
Next question:
No one has answered Adam's question fitfully - not even Adam. Do technics that are designed and created for the soul intention of doing something immoral inherently immoral themselves? Does form follow function? If the function is immoral, is the form as well? Can you come up with any other or "better" examples than a radar detector?
I don't think that objects created for an evil purpose are inherently evil. I think that humans are the only things capable of good and evil, and we sometimes try to project our human traits to other things. I have a cat and I often say that she is an evil little monster, but the cat isn't really bad. Humans tend to think of things in human terms, so when my cat leaps onto my face in the middle of the night, I might say she's mean, sadistic, and psychotic. However, the cat certainly doesn't think in terms of morals, so her evilness exists only in my own mind (at least I think so . . . ). I think it's the same kind of thing with radar detectors and nuclear bombs. We think of them in human terms, so our reaction is to call them evil or immoral, but these objects probably think in terms of good and evil even less than my cat.
If you're brave enough to gaze upon that pure, incarnated evil, here she is. . . .
Strikes fear into your heart, doesn't she? I really hope she never reads this. . . .
On to the next question:
How would you make an argument for sexual abstinence before marriage and faithful monogamy after marriage in the context of a natural law ethicist who argues from the viewpoint of evolutionary biology that man is driven to have sex with as many females as he can in order to propigate the species and that women perform similarly in order to propigate the species. Wouldn't abstinence and faithful monogamy lead to a contradiction of the natural right/need to procreate?
I think that if propagation of the species was all that was necessary, sexual promiscuity would certainly be acceptable. However, I think that the dimension of mental and emotional health are often overlooked. Yes, people are driven to propagate the species, but they (I exclude myself because I detest children and babies) are also driven to raise healthy young. So, yes, abstinence and monogamy go against the need to procreate as many children as possible, but they promote the social and mental well-being of the next generation. So from an evolutionary standpoint, it is better to produce few, healthy offspring than to produce many offspring who may have social or mental problems.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to make a phone call. The Bundle of Fur from Hades gets angry and accuses me of having a second cat if I don't talk to her at least once a day. . . .
At the beginning of the semester, the class, in general, expressed a great deal of disdain for NASA. NASA is the societal level technology driver for the US and arguably the world. What has lead to this disdain and mistrust? What would it take for NASA to regain your respect?
I am fascinated by almost everything (probably because I'm just dumb), so I'm ok with NASA taking my tax dollars simply for the sake of accumulating knowledge. But also, if we continue to use the earth as if it's disposable, we're going to need the information NASA collects for our survival. We're going to need it anyway when the sun dies (the Nahuas were right all along!), because it will fry the earth to a crisp when it expands.
I think the reason we don't have a lot of interest in NASA anymore is because we no longer have an enemy to compete with. When the U.S. and the Soviets were escalating the space race, the government and people were all for exploration and discovery, although it wasn't really about these things. So, as soon as we didn't have that excuse anymore, we wondered why we were so interested in the first place. Plus the whole thing about insane astronauts driving 900 miles wearing a diaper to kill a romantic rival really looks bad.
Next question:
No one has answered Adam's question fitfully - not even Adam. Do technics that are designed and created for the soul intention of doing something immoral inherently immoral themselves? Does form follow function? If the function is immoral, is the form as well? Can you come up with any other or "better" examples than a radar detector?
I don't think that objects created for an evil purpose are inherently evil. I think that humans are the only things capable of good and evil, and we sometimes try to project our human traits to other things. I have a cat and I often say that she is an evil little monster, but the cat isn't really bad. Humans tend to think of things in human terms, so when my cat leaps onto my face in the middle of the night, I might say she's mean, sadistic, and psychotic. However, the cat certainly doesn't think in terms of morals, so her evilness exists only in my own mind (at least I think so . . . ). I think it's the same kind of thing with radar detectors and nuclear bombs. We think of them in human terms, so our reaction is to call them evil or immoral, but these objects probably think in terms of good and evil even less than my cat.
If you're brave enough to gaze upon that pure, incarnated evil, here she is. . . .
Strikes fear into your heart, doesn't she? I really hope she never reads this. . . .
On to the next question:
How would you make an argument for sexual abstinence before marriage and faithful monogamy after marriage in the context of a natural law ethicist who argues from the viewpoint of evolutionary biology that man is driven to have sex with as many females as he can in order to propigate the species and that women perform similarly in order to propigate the species. Wouldn't abstinence and faithful monogamy lead to a contradiction of the natural right/need to procreate?
I think that if propagation of the species was all that was necessary, sexual promiscuity would certainly be acceptable. However, I think that the dimension of mental and emotional health are often overlooked. Yes, people are driven to propagate the species, but they (I exclude myself because I detest children and babies) are also driven to raise healthy young. So, yes, abstinence and monogamy go against the need to procreate as many children as possible, but they promote the social and mental well-being of the next generation. So from an evolutionary standpoint, it is better to produce few, healthy offspring than to produce many offspring who may have social or mental problems.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to make a phone call. The Bundle of Fur from Hades gets angry and accuses me of having a second cat if I don't talk to her at least once a day. . . .
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Sleepy Scientific Thoughts
(This is way too late for my poor little insomniac self who hasn't had a good night's sleep in four days. But I'll have a go anyway!)
2. Is the scientific process fundamentally flawed?
Certainly. At best science is flawed because humans are a part of the scientific process and humans are fallible. We make assumptions we shouldn't make, we are often blinded by bias, our very presence may disrupt the experiment, and even when we're at our best, we still make errors. At worst, we can't trust science at all because how do we really know that our senses are reliable? Or if reality even exists and can be studied?
4. Is science controllable? Should it be? If so, by whom?
No, science is not controllable. We like to think it is, but it is not. We can't control what other people do with science and we can't control what influences science (like personal bias and politics, for example). Ideally, I think we could control science, but the world is not an ideal place. If someone were to decide that there are certain things which people just shouldn't know or use, there would always be someone else who would break the rules and do it anyway. And that puts the rule-followers at a great disadvantage.
7. It used to be that being a scientist was a big deal! People respected scientists. People valued a scientist's opinion and input. There were few professions more noble than dedicating your life to the advancement of science - not even being a medical doctor was more important! Our modern perception of a scientist is a pasty colored white male with thick glasses, a pocket protector, and no social skills. No one wants their opinion, let alone respects their opinion. Even you, as a class, expressed distrust of NASA - the US's leading science machine - and doubt in the value of the science being conducted by the organization. What changed? Can you point to a specific era in time? Why do we listen more to Al Gore than we do to leading scientist in climatology, biology and environmental science?
I once heard a quote from a naturalist named Gerald Durrell regarding his reluctance to be educated which went something like ". . . I liked being half-educated; you were so much more surprised at everything when you were ignorant." I think that once people knew more of the natural world, they were less impressed with new discoveries. Once we no longer valued knowledge for the sake of knowledge and were more concerned with the practical, we began to view scientists differently. As to our willingness to pay more attention to Al Gore than to proper scientists, I think the reason is simply that people are stupid. We are simply more inclined to pay attention to people who are famous (or beautiful).
Well, the meds are kicking in, so I'm off to bed. Goodnight.
2. Is the scientific process fundamentally flawed?
Certainly. At best science is flawed because humans are a part of the scientific process and humans are fallible. We make assumptions we shouldn't make, we are often blinded by bias, our very presence may disrupt the experiment, and even when we're at our best, we still make errors. At worst, we can't trust science at all because how do we really know that our senses are reliable? Or if reality even exists and can be studied?
4. Is science controllable? Should it be? If so, by whom?
No, science is not controllable. We like to think it is, but it is not. We can't control what other people do with science and we can't control what influences science (like personal bias and politics, for example). Ideally, I think we could control science, but the world is not an ideal place. If someone were to decide that there are certain things which people just shouldn't know or use, there would always be someone else who would break the rules and do it anyway. And that puts the rule-followers at a great disadvantage.
7. It used to be that being a scientist was a big deal! People respected scientists. People valued a scientist's opinion and input. There were few professions more noble than dedicating your life to the advancement of science - not even being a medical doctor was more important! Our modern perception of a scientist is a pasty colored white male with thick glasses, a pocket protector, and no social skills. No one wants their opinion, let alone respects their opinion. Even you, as a class, expressed distrust of NASA - the US's leading science machine - and doubt in the value of the science being conducted by the organization. What changed? Can you point to a specific era in time? Why do we listen more to Al Gore than we do to leading scientist in climatology, biology and environmental science?
I once heard a quote from a naturalist named Gerald Durrell regarding his reluctance to be educated which went something like ". . . I liked being half-educated; you were so much more surprised at everything when you were ignorant." I think that once people knew more of the natural world, they were less impressed with new discoveries. Once we no longer valued knowledge for the sake of knowledge and were more concerned with the practical, we began to view scientists differently. As to our willingness to pay more attention to Al Gore than to proper scientists, I think the reason is simply that people are stupid. We are simply more inclined to pay attention to people who are famous (or beautiful).
Well, the meds are kicking in, so I'm off to bed. Goodnight.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Philosophy and Math
Ah, here we are at the end of another week. I really enjoyed this look at math; it's given me a few new perspectives on math and systems of knowing.
3. Why is the study of mathematics considered to be the equivalent of the study of pure philosophy? What characteristics do they share in common?
Math and philosophy both seek truth. Math is based upon simple statements and presuppositions, as is philosophy. Both systems build upon those statements to come to new theories. The only real difference is math makes a whole lot more sense and is a lot easier to use.
5. Dr. Priest indicated that he believes math to be discovered, not invented or created. What did he mean by this? Being that, as indicated in the reading, a lot of mathematics is applicable to things in the physical world, what are some conclusions that we can reach following Dr. Priest's line of thought?
I believe Dr. Priest meant that math isn't invented because it always existed. Our knowledge becomes more complete and extensive as we discover more math and more ways to apply it, but we did not create it. If we extended this idea, we could say that nothing is really invented, we just discover ways of using what we already have. Of course this assumes that there is some absolute truth separate from our knowledge, this could get really nasty if we didn't make that assumption. . . .
(I didn't want to do the first problem because of how easy it is, but I'm more mathematician than writer, so here it is.)
1. if n is any integer and 2(n) is even and 2(n) +1 is odd:
the product of two odd numbers is odd because (2n+1)(2n+1) = 4n^2 +2n = 2(2n^2 +2n) + 1
and the sum of two odd numbers is even because (2n+1)+(2n+1) = 4n+2 = 2(2n+1)
3. Why is the study of mathematics considered to be the equivalent of the study of pure philosophy? What characteristics do they share in common?
Math and philosophy both seek truth. Math is based upon simple statements and presuppositions, as is philosophy. Both systems build upon those statements to come to new theories. The only real difference is math makes a whole lot more sense and is a lot easier to use.
5. Dr. Priest indicated that he believes math to be discovered, not invented or created. What did he mean by this? Being that, as indicated in the reading, a lot of mathematics is applicable to things in the physical world, what are some conclusions that we can reach following Dr. Priest's line of thought?
I believe Dr. Priest meant that math isn't invented because it always existed. Our knowledge becomes more complete and extensive as we discover more math and more ways to apply it, but we did not create it. If we extended this idea, we could say that nothing is really invented, we just discover ways of using what we already have. Of course this assumes that there is some absolute truth separate from our knowledge, this could get really nasty if we didn't make that assumption. . . .
(I didn't want to do the first problem because of how easy it is, but I'm more mathematician than writer, so here it is.)
1. if n is any integer and 2(n) is even and 2(n) +1 is odd:
the product of two odd numbers is odd because (2n+1)(2n+1) = 4n^2 +2n = 2(2n^2 +2n) + 1
and the sum of two odd numbers is even because (2n+1)+(2n+1) = 4n+2 = 2(2n+1)
Sunday, January 21, 2007
A Nahua Perspective
As I stated in my last post, one of my many obsessions is the culture of the Aztecs. (I should mention that "Aztec" is a very imprecise term, so from now on, I shall use the term "Nahua," which includes all those in Mesoamerica who spoke a language from the Nahuatl family.) Currently I'm reading an excellent book called Aztec Thought and Culture by Miguel Leon-Portilla. It is almost certainly the best book I've ever read on the topic, and some of the poetry I read just this weekend seemed to tie in very nicely with the questions we've been discussing in class. For example, a passage attributed to King Nezahualcoyotl questions if there is anything stable and true in the world: Truly do we live on earth?
Not forever on earth; only a little while here.
Although it be jade, it will be broken,
Although it be gold, it is crushed,
Although it be quetzal feather, it is torn asunder.
Not forever on earth; only a little while here.
Another poet asks:
Do we speak the truth here, oh Giver of Life?
We merely a dream, we only rise from a dream.
All is like a dream . . .
No one speaks here of truth . . . .
Sounds a bit like the butterfly question, doesn't it? Many more Nahuatl poets and theologians questioned the existence of man and truth. Others assumed that truth exists, but questioned whether humans could obtain it:
Does man posses any truth?
If not, our song is no longer true.
Is anything stable and lasting?
What reaches its aim?
The part about all this which I find most interesting is that the Nahuas began to ask these questions two centuries before Socrates's time.
Not forever on earth; only a little while here.
Although it be jade, it will be broken,
Although it be gold, it is crushed,
Although it be quetzal feather, it is torn asunder.
Not forever on earth; only a little while here.
Another poet asks:
Do we speak the truth here, oh Giver of Life?
We merely a dream, we only rise from a dream.
All is like a dream . . .
No one speaks here of truth . . . .
Sounds a bit like the butterfly question, doesn't it? Many more Nahuatl poets and theologians questioned the existence of man and truth. Others assumed that truth exists, but questioned whether humans could obtain it:
Does man posses any truth?
If not, our song is no longer true.
Is anything stable and lasting?
What reaches its aim?
The part about all this which I find most interesting is that the Nahuas began to ask these questions two centuries before Socrates's time.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Ok, I thought I might as well extrapolate a bit on some of the other ways in which I'm really nerdy. I'm a mathematics and Spanish major and a computer science and Bible and religion minor. I really like Doctor Who, The Twilight Zone, and Torchwood, but not a lot of other science fiction. My favorite TV program is Masterpiece Theater. I play the piano, the pipe organ, and handbells (I can even play four-in-hand!). I also like studying really random bits of history. Henry XIII (and the rest of the Tudor line) and ancient Aztec culture are amongst my favorites. I love to read, but I tend to get too obsessive about it, so I have to restrain myself during the school year, or I won't study. I like fiction best, but historical novels and the occasional work of non-fiction are also good.
And of course, I love opera. Except Mozart. I love Don Giovanni, but other than that (and a few random arias), I can't stand Mozart's operas. They're far too happy. I think my favorite opera is Lucia Di Lammermoor, but I also really like La Traviata. I also like Wagner, even though I've only heard two of his operas.
This has been a very brief look at just how nerdy I am. I hope it did not frighten you excessively.
And of course, I love opera. Except Mozart. I love Don Giovanni, but other than that (and a few random arias), I can't stand Mozart's operas. They're far too happy. I think my favorite opera is Lucia Di Lammermoor, but I also really like La Traviata. I also like Wagner, even though I've only heard two of his operas.
This has been a very brief look at just how nerdy I am. I hope it did not frighten you excessively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)