The Ivory Tower

This is a place for me to think out loud (or 'on paper') all things that are interesting me, and to comment on things I want to remember. Naming my blog the Ivory Tower is a joke on the popular notion that philosophy and intelligence are something beyond the common man, somehow above the 'mean' act of living as a human. Rand's refutation of this is what immediately drew me to her. Feel free to introduce yourself.

6.24.2006

Contemporary Minimalism

"One of Britain's most prestigious art galleries put a block of slate on display, topped by a small piece of wood, in the mistaken belief it was a work of art."

This bit of news from Reuters, courtesy Nicholas Provenzo at Rule of Reason, is just too precious. The Royal Academy apparently doesn't know art from a paving stone.

I'm Not Usually Squemish About Bugs...


... But this thing is in my house! ::horrified girly scream::



"House Centipede
(Photo Courtesy of Lindy Miller, Vigo County CES Educator)"
Picture taken from The Plant and Pest Digital Library of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

6.23.2006

Famous Phrases #1

Nothing irritates me more than when you're trying to have a conversation and the other party uses these famous phrases to support their argument from a commonplace. Let me clarify, a 'commonplace' is my term for an idea/theory/prejudice/what-have-you that is common in society and nearly universally accepted [usually by training/default and without thinking about it]. Commonplaces range from the good [killing people is wrong] to the bad [faith heals]. I think Ayn Rand would call them bromides but I'm not sure of her exact use of the word, I've only seen it used as a derogatory. Anyway, people tend to use these ideas in arguments because they expect it to be a point of agreement. In itself, I think this is a pretty good strategy for communication because you can build from where you agree without having to review redundant material.

Now, what gets me is when you don't in fact agree with the commonplace that another is trying to use. More often than not the other guy hasn't even thought about it. He doesn't accept it because it makes sense, he accepts it because he's been told to or everyone else does or he's always thought that or any number of inexcusable reasons. And so, when you point out that you don't agree with some commonplace [for those familiar with arguing Objectivism, an example would be: "actually, I don't think taxes in general are a good idea"] they don't have a reasoned out response, they don't take a step back and first rationally establish the commonplace. Instead, they repeat an oft heard phrase which essentializes the idea beautifully with all the intellectual content of horse shit, on the premise that "some witty man said it and we all agree so it must be true, after all it rhymes". I cayn't stan' it!

So, in this series [and I hope it'll be a series] I'll introduce such a phrase, identify the commonplace it shelters, and explain why such an idea isn't cogent. Because I'm sick of being confronted with such "arguments" and being at a loss for words, I'll do this every time I'm thus confronted and hopefully I can use these ready-made retaliations in the future.

Our first subject is: "we can't really know".

At the surface this may seem simple lack of information, but in such a case one would say "don't know", as in the information is not presently available but may be pursued. No, 'can't' denotes an inherent lack of information, as in the nature of man is such that the information is impossible to retrieve.

There are two ways that a person can mean this and both have to do with how the purveyor of these catch-phrases thinks man understands his surroundings [epistemology]. The first is that he claims man's senses are invalid in some way and therefore one's perception of reality is flawed from True Reality. Just walk away, by his own admission this man can't deal with reality thus it's a waste to attempt to deal with him.

The second way in which he can use that phrase is in what is generally considered a scientific way. That is, he means that nothing is proved until you check every instance, that the only conclusive information we have is when something has been disproven. In order to really know something, he thinks that one must show that it is true in every instance throughout time and space, test every eventuality. He rightfully concludes that this is impossible because humans aren't omniscient, they aren't able to possess infinite knowledge.

His error lies in his understanding of what is true, he confuses truth with reality. He's right in thinking that one must look to reality to find what is true, but he's wrong in thinking that means that truth and reality are the same thing. Reality simple exists, it is as it is and nothing more. Truth is established from reality, but it must undergo a process of being established and it consists in the rational conclusions drawn from necessarily finite observations. Truth is not the same thing as reality though they relate intimately with one another there is a subtle difference. He errs in thinking that there is some sort of Real Truth, some omniscient understanding of reality that goes beyond observation, that is infinite observation. So when he says "we can't really know", he's admitting to a fallacious understanding of truth which leads him to believe that it's impossible to achieve and we have to get by on temporary guesses that don't mean anything because it's not Real Truth.

6.17.2006

Blog Feed

I'm currently reading up on blog syndication. I'm thinking I want to add a feed to The Ivory Tower. However, I'm new to this and I'm sort of teaching myself as I go. So ... DISCLAIMER: I can't program myself out of a box; The Ivory Tower may act wonky while I mess around with things. If anyone has any advice, or if you notice something wrong, please tell me. I'll update my progress.

Update [6.17.2006 @ 6:36 pm]: I went with Feedburner, which was recommended by Blogger. It was a lot easier than I had thought, but then these services are rather pre-packaged and user friendly, so that helped. When I got it all set up, I decided the side bar was getting way too crowded so I cut the quotes section, culled my links, and did a little rearranging. I think it still looks a bit busy but it's better, and at least it's organized. If you find it distracting, please tell me.

6.16.2006

What's New

Lately I've been spending a most of my time reading. Here's some of what I've read in no particular order:

Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott - A math nerd classic, it's a short novel relating the travels of a square through various spatial dimensions. It reads like a mini version of Gulliver's Travels. It gets tedious during the flights of fancy like when Square is describing, in terrible detail, the social ascension of shapes, but the narrative picks up after he's through detailing social conventions. I found it interesting because I'm trying to explicitly define concepts like 'shape', 'space', 'figure', and 'line'. It gives food for thought.

Have Space Suit-Will Travel by Robert A. Heinlein - I'm wary of Heinlein. He can be a great writer; moving, dramatic, insightful, and appealing to the individualist. But sometimes he's spectacularly disappointing. Take Stranger in a Strange Land for example, it started off nicely with the introduction of the main character to humanity then devolves into a surreal romp through religious fanaticism. Then there's Future History, which is full of brilliant characters [most of whom are trapped in impotence or suffering] and amazing stories [most of which either end abruptly without resolution or peter out pathetically]. So, I earlier concluded that Heinlein is a wonderful writer who also happens to be a pessimist and likes to torture his characters. I avoided him carefully. Have Space Suit-Will Travel has none of these faults. Heinlein hit a home run with this one. Just to illustrate the character of the novel, my favourite part was ... SPOILER WARNING ... in a scene where an alien race is on trial before an intergalactic committee, the speaker asks if anyone will speak on behalf of them, defend them, or be character witness; no one speaks. The main character says:
"That was my chance to be noble. We humans were their victims; we were in a position to speak up, point out that from their standpoint they hadn't done anything wrong, and ask mercy - if they would promise to behave in the future. Well, I didn't. I've heard the usual Sweetness and Light that kids get pushed at them - how they should always forgive, how there's some good in the worst of us, etc. But when I see a black widow, I step on it; I don't plead with it to be a good little spider and please stop poisoning people. A black widow can't help it - but that's the point."

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card - I read this book because I like science fiction and fantasy but I know very few who write in the genre and are, at the some time, competent or challenging writers. Most sci-fi/fantasy is the worst possibly fluff, literary cotton candy. A friend emphatically argued that Card is good, and he'd been recommended before, so I thought I'd give it a shot while I have time. This was my review [hurray for copy/paste, the great time-saver]:
"I flew through Ender's Game in only one day and you're right that Card's writing is much better than your average Joe Sci-fi. He handles plot/characters fairly deftly and I'm shocked [and professionally impressed] by how desperately painful the novel is. I had hoped, though, that this brilliant suffering was leading to some glorious climax. But the whole novel seems ... like there's no hope, no action, only manipulation and deceit; I found that disturbing. Ender never conquered the forces at work against him, he was used, abused, and cast aside to lick his wounds and go off on his own. I'm really hoping this is only the set-up for the next novel and that Ender, as brilliant as he is, becomes a true hero instead of a tool. That would be magnificent, but I can't help but think that the next novel will degrade into Ender's quest to atone for "crimes" of which he had no consciousness."

I haven't read the sequel yet, nor have I read anything else of Card's, but I suspect he's going to be a lot like Heinlein in the same hit-or-miss sort of way.

The Double Helix by James D. Watson - A first person narrative account of the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. It was interesting in a historical sense but I'm biased against Watson [I think he's a mooching twit], and his extensive explanations of how he was constantly trying to cheat out of the work he was given a fellowship to do didn't help my opinion of him. I couldn't finish it out of disgust, as much as Francis Crick interests me.

"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" by Richard P. Feynman - This is somewhat autobiographical; it's a collection of stories told by Feynman. It reads like you are sitting down at a party with Feynman and he is regaling you with his adventures. I really would have liked to meet Feynman, he was humourous and honest and curious in a way that makes you stop. I think that if I had to sum him up in one word, I'd say "wonder". He was a great physicist. I don't think we would have agreed about a lot of scientific matters, but it would have been a wonderful conversation and we both would have tried to learn something from the other. My favourite quote is when he talks about his experience with mind-readers:
"All the time you're saying to yourself, 'I could do that, but I won't' - which is just another way of saying you can't."

Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams - Adams is the famous author of the Hitchhiker's Guide. Though it's amusing, I don't think the Guide is his best work. It's horribly fragmented from massive multiple conversions into different media and toward the end gets kind of over-drawn like a popular television series that's gone on one season too long. Adams wrote two novels around the character Dirk Gently: this and another, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. These are almost unknown, but are much better than the Guide. They both have the same delightful characteristic wit of Adams but they are each properly structured into a complete novel. And besides, Dirk Gently is a babe, there are few men half as interesting as him. To say that Dirk is eccentric and witty is to say that stars are rather hot. At one point a ghost tries to manipulate his thoughts and desires:
"He said in a low savage whisper, 'If anyone can hear me, hear this. My mind is my center and everything that happens there is my responsibility. Other people may believe what pleases them to believe, but I will do nothing without I know the reason why and know it clearly. If you want something, then let me know, but do not you dare touch my mind.'"
If you're familiar with the work of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, especially Rime of the Ancient Mariner, you'll appreciate the novel all the more because it draws many parallels and bases a lot of the humour on such inside knowledge. I also kind of think Adams is making fun of Scientology, either that or L. Ron Hubbard borrowed liberally from Coleridge. It's mystery novel, as well as a little science-fictiony, so you need to pay attention to details and follow conversations closely.

Other books I've read, by am not reviewing right now: Choke by Chuck Palahniuk, Newton Philosophical Writings edited by Andrew Janiak, The Character of Physical Law by Feynman. Currently reading: Number: The Language of Science by Tobias Dantzig. Planned future reading: The Universe by Isaac Asimov, From Copernicus to Newton: The Birth of a New Physics by I. Bernard Cohen, Dialogues Concerning Two Sciences by Galileo, and The Crime of Galileo by Giorgio de Santillana. If anyone has any information or advice about my future reading I'd be delighted to hear it. Especially about The Crime of Galileo, it's a biography that claims not to candy-coat the incidents in favour of Galileo by gratuitously lambasting the Catholic church. I was intrigued by that, but wary about the truth of it. ::raised eyebrow::

You Know You're a Bibliophile When...

... Having to move your books becomes a major factor in whether or not you're going to move to save $100 or more on rent.

Don't let this happen to you.

6.09.2006

Anniversary ... Say What?

Holy expletives, Batman, I've been doing this for a year! Well, happy birthday to me. ^_^

6.08.2006

Something Beautiful #5

If you've never heard of Art Nouveau or Art Deco, it's really time you had. They are of the more modern art movements and like most modern-ish art tend toward defying any sort of definition. And I'm not really interested in supplying a definition because, in my experience, there is always something someone will call Nouveau or Deco which will contradict whatever I could come up with [for example, Gaudi's fascination with formless blobs]. Instead, I'll explain what it is that I'm referring to when I say Nouveau or Deco and why it is I love that.

The wonderful thing that I think best characterizes both Nouveau and Deco is that it is functional art. They enliven menial everyday items with inspirational art, not by pasting art on top of things, but by making the style an integral/natural part of the structure of the things one creates. Nouveau does it in a flowing, curvy, often described as "whiplash" style (usually busy). Deco does it in a geometric, angular, bare-bones sort of way. But the same glorious idea that I adore applies to both: beauty and elegance are necessary in the structure of living, and not to be added as an after-thought. Here are some cherished examples:



A door by an artist I haven't been able to identify.




Cover art by Nick Gaetano of The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand.

Update [6.14.2006]: Special hello to visitors from Rule of Reason!