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%)
No comments:
Post a Comment