which is found here. Don’t feel bad if you don’t do well; I admit to scoring only 7/12 (but at least one question was not fair!). Let me know if you get a perfect score and we’ll celebrate your achievement.
This site also hosts a “vote for the best philosopher” contest (yes, of all time), and guess who won? Who should have won, do you think?
Here is a short and interesting article about the nature of philosophical dialogue and progress. The main idea is that each philosophical claim put forward advances at most a partial truth, and encourages the next person to try to get it straight. What they put forward is a partial truth, which…..
Well, upon some assumptions. See the NYT article here.
I just finished reading Philip Kitcher’s Living With Darwin, and let me say that if you are going to read just one book on the God vs. science controversies, skip over Dawkins and Hitchens and read this one. The first four chapters explain, patiently and persuasively, what is wrong with intelligent design “theories” and why they don’t really provide a substantive alternative to Darwinism. The true gem, though, is chapter 5, where Kitcher very sympathetically explores what motivates some of us to try to hold onto religion despite the apparent success of Darwinism, and despite all the historical evidence which suggests (I would say “proves”)that the Bible really doesn’t convey more than a fascinating and powerful ancient mythology. The deep question: is there anything religion can provide, once providence and purpose are banished from the universe? His answer is a thoughtful and nuanced “yes,” though perhaps not one that will satisfy most religious folks.
(That’s all from me for a few days. I’ll be back to blogging after 8/18.)
Before I get started, let me confess that I am a ‘Pod-person. I have two of them, in fact. And I listen to them everyday, except in the now-routine occurence of losing them for a few days at a time.
In fact I think that the ending of cultural literacy began with player pianos. Before they existed, if you wanted to hear music, you had to either learn how to play an instrument or wait for a concert to come along. This put a great value in music, since it was either difficult or rare. And so people had fewer tunes buzzing around in their heads, and each one they knew pretty thoroughly and savored.
But with player pianos, and then radio, records, CDs, etc., music got cheaper and cheaper and much more easily available. Now, in fact, it is hard to go anywhere without some sort of music playing — “backgound music,” which is a phrase to resent.
With this automation comes a loss of cultural literacy, I think. Sure, any of these devices can be used to augment one’s own cultural literacy — I try to tell myself that’s what I’m doing — but usually that’s not the purpose. It’s just to create a soundtrack to whatever else we’re doing.
What do you think?
USUPhilosophy 