Something about Hobbits, Something about Politics, Something About Philosophy

[tcpip]

The works of Professor Tolkien were a big part of my adolescence. Reading "The Silmarillion" fitted well with Vangelis' "Chariots of Fire" (no, not the theme music to the movie which was called "Titles") and the Fall of Fingolfin is, imo, one of the finest pieces of English literature ever written. Whilst far from being immune to criticism, I am oft-drawn towards the epic if only largely an aesthetic level. Thus it is hardly surprising to discover that in the past week I joined not one, but two Lord of the Rings games (you know it was heading here, right?) and have taken up a role as part of the webteam at merp.com. Of course, I am also taking notes for my upcoming Fourth Age: Modernist Revolution game, although I suspect I might end up using a different game system. Decipher's LoTR is pretty damn buggy. On related news, my review of Rogue Mistresss has been published. Played Pantheon on Friday (fun!), and Illumanti: Crime Lords on Saturday.

Have competed a bit in the Special Olympics on el-jay this week, whilst I can take the issues seriously, I cannot help but be amused by some of the participants who seem to want to argue rather than learn. Still, if some anarchists think I'm some sort of crypto-capitalist for supporting LVT and the libertarians think I'm a wicked collectivist for arguing that AGW is real and important then I'm probably on the right track. On topic, Melbourne is trying to invite ideas, and the APEC conference has reached the state of a 'Kafkaesque nightmare'

A few weeks ago I gave a presentation at the Melbourne Unitarian Philosophy Forum on applied and pragmatic philosophy (.doc file, 2 pages). It covered a lot of the ground previously discussed and included a fair bit of examples and participation from those present. The paper itself could certainly do with more elaboration. I have been asked to continue the presentations and next Sunday will be talking on the subject of; "Women in Philosophy : Philosophy of Women" with the description: "Who are the great women philosophers? Where are they? Is their relative absence an indication of social forces; or is it biology? Do women havea different logic to men? Is logic 'a masculinist discourse'? Do women have a different epistemology - a woman's way of knowing?".

Comments

[angel80.livejournal.com]

"Melbourne... APEC" Was that part of some Sydney-Melbourne rivalry?

Richmond. Maybe that's where the Leader of the Free World will be arriving. But why the Icebergs??? That's really funny. I've heard they're having some function at the SOH, so that's more understandable.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

"Melbourne... APEC" Was that part of some Sydney-Melbourne rivalry?

Only a Sydney-sider would suggest such a thing! ;-)

Actually, being a Sandgroper I never really understood the rivalry... You're all the same to us! :D

[angel80.livejournal.com]

I'm a crow eater. So there!

Btw, the answer is no, but women have more logic than men ;)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

women have more logic than men ;)

Oh, there's an empirical test!

Actually one suggestion I have heard is that the intelligence bell curve for men is flatter in the middle with greater extremes; meaning than among men there are more genius and more complete idiots...

[angel80.livejournal.com]

"more genius and more complete idiots"

I can certainly confirm the last part of that statement! Mainly they get to be President (you know, on the same principle that causes corks to float).

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Do women have a different logic to men? Is logic 'a masculinist discourse'?

So many questions!

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The last session had lots of audience participation but reads rather dry... This one will undoubtably have much debate and will be an interesting read!

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

I'm a bit jealous! You get to have debate and a really cool topic, too.

(I've always been so strongly antagonistic to ideas by Nye et al. that classical logic should be completely kicked over because of its alleged male bias; and I've always had certain reservations about gendering logics in general. It's a topic I can see lots of juggling potential with, especially if the audience is unafraid to plunge into the more esoteric side of the whole thing.)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Nye, imo, confuses the application of logic with what its epistemological basis (heck, one could claim ontological basis even). Because logic has been used to justify witchhunts, Nazism and so forth, therefore logic is an example of such applications.

In a weird way, she's claiming that the witchhunts and Nazism were logical.

Although (here I am backing her up), her final words: "Logic in its final perfection is insane" could have a semblence of truth - if and only if the logic does not correlate with epistemology and ontology.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

There's always a lot of wasted effort involved when a fundamental confusion between logic and its object occurs. Logic is a thinking tool, after all. If you put garbage in, garbage is bound to come out. All axiomatic systems have their limitations, but to attack a way of analysing data because some people have poor data is not particularly fruitful. If a man has a genuine gender bias, and logic is his weapon of choice, it should reasonably speaking be much easier to attack his bad premises than assume logic must be abstractly "gendered".

Many other critics - some of them feminist critics, but not all of them - tend to offer grandioise replacement programs which all imply more vagueness. Fuzzy logics, untraditionally coherent logics, uncertainly logics, nondualistic logics, instinc logics, the series of bold new entrants is long and confusingly named.

Some of these are genuine attempts to develop a good product into something more useful. But others tend to take a systematic form of reasoning and make it into an increasingly unsystematic and incoherent form of reasoning, which by and large defeats the point of calling any of them a system of "logic". And yet others suggest improvements that Aristotle's many commentators suggested, say, several hundred years ago!

One or two from the feminist camp strike me as oddly misogynistic in themselves. By invoking explicit maleness in the field they seem to suggest that women are incapable of utilising classical logic - even when they argue that women could supply a better, or alternate, or somehow explicitly female system in its stead. And that is complete nonsense.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Logic is a thinking tool, after all. If you put garbage in, garbage is bound to come out.

Very true! One can start from false premises, reach insane conclusions and remain relentlessly logical all along!

Fuzzy logics, untraditionally coherent logics, uncertainly logics, nondualistic logics, instinc logics, the series of bold new entrants is long and confusingly named.

Paraconsistent logic is one of my favourites in this category :-)

One or two from the feminist camp strike me as oddly misogynistic in themselves.

This is very common in so-called "radical" feminism... I, rather unpopularly, often call it "reactionary feminism" in account of it wishing to advocate different political rights between men and women. It doesn't generate a positive response from those who wear such a label.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

We are living in logically interesting times! But - there's a good way, I sometimes quip, to spot logicians who don't get language and pitfalls. One should always ask people who suggest ways to reconcile an assertion with its negation to explain what particular use that serves that more precise nomenclature wouldn't. There's an extremely simple reason A should always signify the same A, and never some other A that simply looks the same A but is in actuality just the first A's distant cousin, long-lost sister, or evil twin.

(I might be showing my disproportionate appreciation for linguistics here, or then it might be the little analytic philosopher me ever calling out for more precise communication. But, alas, such are my prejudices here and elsewhere. :D )

This is very common in so-called "radical" feminism... I, rather unpopularly, often call it "reactionary feminism" in account of it wishing to advocate different political rights between men and women.

They're still around in any appreciable force - in an academic way? I'm slightly saddened by that. I always thought it was birth cramps, something like a 1970s demi-Marxist equivalent to how incredibly silly economics or history or basically any other discipline in history was when it first popped out in the open.

(I rarely have trouble with political aesthetics, and I suppose radical feminism is a-okay in that respect, but some of the academic work that presumably served as its impetus was just hair-raising.)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

In art I love the use of metonym and metaphor... In logic I think I fall it your camp..

They're still around in any appreciable force - in an academic way?

Well, only in a academic way really. A small force, a declining force no doubt, but vocal and increasingly aligning themselves with ultraconservatives. Hmmm... Like some predicted.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

In art I love the use of metonym and metaphor.

Well put. Art is a category of its own! And to be honest, a lot of scientists could benefit from taking a sneak peek at creative writing - if not for their enjoyment, then in order to learn how to put things down readably and elegantly.

Well, only in a academic way really. A small force, a declining force no doubt, but vocal and increasingly aligning themselves with ultraconservatives. Hmmm... Like some predicted.

Heh. I should've realised that its the academics who're still around. But hey, even well-fortified ivory towers must come down eventually. Siding with the ultras more and more is usually a sign of descent. Maybe their intellectual currency is going for good. If so, I don't think I'll miss them. But how to get rid of the ultras, too? (Or at least the ultras that are not me.) I wonder.