Could you find out what the reading list is? I'm intrigued.
Sure Aurelia. Gimme a sec and I'll find the syllabus.
Here you go: [link]
Wash: Little River just gets more colorful by the moment. What'll she do next? Zoe: Either blow us all up or rub soup in our hair. It's a toss-up. Wash: I hope she does the soup thing. It's always a hoot, and we don't all die from it.
'Objects In Space'
Natter .38 Special
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Kat - Aug 23, 2005 1:30:25 pm PDT #655 of 10002
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
§ ita § - Aug 23, 2005 1:30:50 pm PDT #656 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I had a thought, and now it's gone. I may blame Chinese Burn flashbacks.
Or the PRE FUCKING MIGRAINE and the popcorn smell from one cube over. Go, Maxalt, go!
Lee - Aug 23, 2005 1:31:47 pm PDT #657 of 10002
The feeling you get when your brain finally lets your heart get in its pants.
I vote no more migraines or pre-migraines for ita.
tommyrot - Aug 23, 2005 1:32:48 pm PDT #658 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Sure Aurelia. Gimme a sec and I'll find the syllabus.
I'm curious too - can you post here?
Vortex - Aug 23, 2005 1:32:53 pm PDT #659 of 10002
"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman
seconded. Let's put it to a vote.
Bob Bob - Aug 23, 2005 1:32:56 pm PDT #660 of 10002
ita wrote,
So it's only about the conclusion? Not about the axioms or the process of getting there? Because you could just pick a good conclusion, rig the argument, and booyah!
No, it's also about the premises you use to get to the conclusion. For instance, Peter Singer uses some plausible-looking premises and rules of inference to get to the conclusion that we all have a strong moral obligation to give all the money we make over $30,000 to Oxfam.
msbelle - Aug 23, 2005 1:33:36 pm PDT #661 of 10002
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb
fluffy bunny.
Bob Bob - Aug 23, 2005 1:35:00 pm PDT #662 of 10002
It'd be more interesting, to me, to prove that an all-powerful and all-loving god would make faith a test, the losing side of which gets eternal damnation.
I can do this, if you want (it's not an argument I buy, but it's an argument that William Lane Craig buys).
Kat - Aug 23, 2005 1:35:48 pm PDT #663 of 10002
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
I did Tommy, on edit, link to the syllabus...
But, in a nutshell
How do you philosophize about the absolutely unknown? About the (perhaps) unknowable? Death may present philosophy with its most profound questions . . . How do you think the unthinkable? How do you conceptualize the entirely other? For philosophy, death is the limit of certainty, and the certainty of (a) limit. It is (at) the limit of philosophy, which is why it makes an interesting philosophical subject. Is it also the end? Of the subject? Of philosophy? And how are we to understand that end? We’ll take up these questions in the works of four contemporary thinkers: Martin Heidegger, Georges Bataille, Emmanuel Levinas, and Jacques Derrida.
Texts
Georges Bataille, Erotism: Death and Sensuality. City Lights, 1986. ISBN: 0872861902 (paperback)
Jacques Derrida, Aporias. Stanford University Press, 1994. ISBN: 0804722528. (paperback)
Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death. University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN: 0226143066. (paperback)
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time: A Translation of Sein and Zeit, Trans. Joan Stambaugh. State University of New York Press, 1996. ISBN: 0791426785 (paperback)
Emmanuel Levinas, God, Death, and Time. Stanford University Press, 2000. ISBN: 0804736669
§ ita § - Aug 23, 2005 1:38:28 pm PDT #664 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
For instance, Peter Singer uses some plausible-looking premises and rules of inference to get to the conclusion that we all have a strong moral obligation to give all the money we make over $30,000 to Oxfam.
Okay, this I totally get. I mean, argument for argument's sake -- what's not to love? What's the pay scale like?