Flamingly Liberal Aardvarks

Sometimes, I wish I had a real blog. By which I mean, a classic, turn-of-the-millennium style blog where I could just rant about my life. Like.... a livejournal. (Oh God... remember when everyone had a livejournal?) Because then, perhaps, I wouldn't go 3 weeks without making a post because I was down. Rather, I'd be making posts because I was down.

Instead, I have this, my book blog. On the bright side, however, this at least means that I have not become so self-centered that I explain my problems in excruciating details (and/or via obtuse poetry) to random people on the internet. And even if I suck at updating this when I'm sad, it's at least good in some ways. It motivates me to read books, and to think about books, and to try to make myself a better person through learning and writing. Unfortunately, that last item doesn't seem to be working. But hey. No reason to stop trying.

SO ARISTOTLE. (After that borderline livejournal rant.)

I intended to read Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington, once again by Catchcart and Klein, before I went on a trip with my chapter of Junior States of America to Washington D.C. This was a fail, due to immense amounts of work and drama prior to the trip, but I did get around to finishing it shortly after returning home.

If not the most educational of the books in this series, it was one of the more amusing ones. See, Cathcart and Klein, philosophy majors of course, are rather... liberal. Where "rather" here means "zomg extremely." The book essentially outlines the major ways that one can pose arguments. truly, it's a book mainly about the philosophy of logic and very little about the philosophy of government. A lot of time is spent covering informal fallacies, formal fallacies, doublespeak, personal attacks, post hoc ego proctor hoc, ad hominem, stuff like that. I reall enjoyed covering these a little more in depth. In my philosophy class, we touched on them briefly, but I didn't really get to see all that many details.

I did see examples in this book. Liberal examples.

Nearly every example of what not to do was a Bush example. Or sometimes a Reagan or Nixon example. Occasionally, they'd throw in a Clinton reference ("It depends on what the definition of the word is is." Which, funnily, is an entirely logically sound, if "illogical" argument). But mostly, it was all DOWN WITH REPBULICANS, all the time.

With all that I'm exposed to, I should be a flamingly liberal. My sister is an uber hipseter who is friends with various socialists in college, my mother is a raging liberal largely due to her views on education, I read Time magazine every week, and I read books like this. Yes, I do tend to lean democratic... but I'm not quite as liberal as Cathcart and Klein. Still, funny.

They referred to Bush frequently as "the greatest logician of our time" (har) and also cited Marx (Groucho.... not Karl) and Woody Allen often. 'Twas lolztastic.

I'd definitly recommend it to anyone into debate, politics, or laughter. Mayhaps not to a Republican, however, unless you'd like to be offended or converted.

And now, my favorite quote!

An example of syllogism:

(A delegate to the Utah Republican Convention was arguing that a fence should be constructed along the entire US-Mexican border, to prevent illegal immigrants from entering.)

GOP Official: What happens if the illeegals climb the fence?

Delegate: You electrify it. They won't touch it then.

Official: But what if they touch it? You would let them die?

Delegate: It would be there choice.

Official: What about a mother with a baby strapped to her back?Would you let the mother and the baby die?

Delegate: It would be the mother's choice to kill that baby.

Official: Then you're in favor of abortion?

Dead. Silence.

SO GOOD. Tidbits like this were why I loved this book.

Total Book Count: 17

NonFic: 2 (11.8%)

Memento Mori

To keep with the theme of my life, I should really be reading The Awakening by Kate Chopin right now (If you get that, you are such a creep). But alas, I am not quite that masochistic. Instead, I have read nothing new the past few days, but am going, today, to talk about death.

Specifically, what would happen if Heidegger and a Hippo Walked through Those Pearly Gates.

Like in Plato and a Platypus, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein sought to explain philosophy through a combination of jokes and funny stories. I enjoyed it, certainly, but I can't say that it was as good as Plato and a Platypus. It just wasn't as funny, and I didn't feel like I learned as much. Still, glad I read it.

Every time I read philosophy, I find myself becoming more and more of an atheist. I hate when good theories become bad because a philosopher feels the need to bring in God (see the footnote of my last post) and I also become more aware, each time I read philosophy, of why religion was created. This book was the latter type. It spent a fairly significant amount of time explaining why humans created religion not because there was legitimate reason to believe in any religion, but because people want security after death- they want to know what is in the great unknown, and they want to think it's good. Although religions vary greatly, nearly every single one is based around the premise of some sort of afterlife, whether than be heaven, reincarnation, or something entirely different. It is thus logical to conclude that the purpose of religion is to satisfy the natural human need for feeling safe.

The book spent a fair amount of time talking about the different philosophies of how to "live in eternity now," which is a branch of philosophy that I was already fairly well educated on beforehand. I also wasn't all that interested in the parts about other-worldly contact, since I'm fairly confident that it's all bogus. What did interest me were the portions about "accepting death as a lifestyle choice" and biotechnology.

I think it's important to start off with saying that I am not afraid to die. That's not to say that I'm necessarily suicidal, but rather, that I accept that I will die, I have no control over that, and I don't think I'll care about it all that much a second after it happens, seeing as I'll be dead. I guess I am a bit of an existentialist in that I am completely comfortable with accepting my impending death- one of my favorite quotes is "Memento Mori" (Remember: you will die). I liked reading a little bit more about those philosophies.
There was a fair amount in the accepting death chapter about suicide- about how Camus spoke out against it and stuff. Plus some rather funny lines from Bill Maher like "Suicide is our way of saying to God, 'You can't fire me. I quit.'" Aside from the pointlessness of offing oneself, the book highlight some other points of view, like Hume's belief that it's a detriment to society, or how Kant believed (keeping with everything he ever wrote, bit of a one note guy) that it was our duty to not kill ourselves. I was familiar with these already, but liked reading them anyway.

The biotechnology portion was cool just because biotech is rather sweet. There was a lot about how life spans are being elongated by new technology, and how at some point, humans may indeed be immortal. And it wasn't schmaltzy either.

The one thing that I hated about this book though was "Daryl," the depressed character, terrified for death, who the book was essentially written to. The humor involving him was cheap and stupid, and I didn't like how the narrator spoke to him as if speaking to the greater audience. Ugh. Daryl was stupid. It was almost insulting to read lines directed at him that were also partially directed at the reader.

Still, You should read it.

Total Book Count: 12
Nonfiction: 1

Surely, this is the best of all possible blogs!

I read Candide ages ago (funny story,-to have something to talk about with a boy whom I liked) and rather enjoyed it. Yet somehow, I didn't find myself enjoying it nearly as much this time around. The way that the story progresses, from one short chapter to the next, annoys me. I like more development than that. I also dislike the flatness of all the characters, although I know it is intentional. Still... I like longer stories, with more character development and less LISTEN TO MY POINT OF VIEW.

That being said, it's a good point of view. I always thought Leibniz's philosophy was a wee bit stupid, as is most philosophy that is religiously centered*. Really on premise, I don't disagree with the fact that this is the "best of all possible worlds." As a hard determinist, I believe this is the only possible world. Causal principle states that this is the only world that could have existed according to the laws of physics, genetics, etc. Thus, being the only possible world, it is the best. The only thing is, it is also the worst. It is only what it is, and it could be nothing else. The only issue that I really have with the philosophy is that the rationalization is "God is perfect, ergo the world he created is." As an agnostic who is becoming increasingly more like an atheist, this is the part that  don't like. 

Also, do authors still make fun of each other in their works? Throughout the novel (novella?), Voltaire is constantly making little jabs at his critics, peers, and enemies. Perhaps I am reading books in the wrong circles, but I have not read a modern book that goes about criticism in this manner. I would like to though- suggestion in the comments? If you know of any?

I also like the little references to the historical events of the time. Granted, I don't understand most of them, as I'm not very well versed in the politics of that time period, but I understand enough of them to appreciate that they all must be almost equally amusing, if not more amusing.

Total Book Count: 12 (damn... I need to read)

NonFic: 1 (yes, I still need to get around to this one)

*Like George Berkley's theory. I love Berkley when he's not being religious. When he's just like "to be is to be perceived." So essentially, nothing we see/perceive officially exists. Everything is just a perception. But then he gets all "but GOD always sees" and I start to hate his philosophy. Ugh. Why must theology always mix with philosophy? Silly humans and their need for security in the after life. Religion is such a hindrance to philosophical debate.