Thursday, September 09, 2004
Goddammit
I've got a whole queue of posts I've been trying to publish for the past couple of days and Blogger keeps timing out or giving me other weird errors. I'm exasperated. I'm not doing anything differently so I'm assuming it's a problem on their end. But I'm damned if I'm going to spend 20 minutes trying to publish posts that have taken me 10 minutes to write. Forgive my silence while I wait for Blogger to straighten their shit out. (I'm hoping I can post this because it's so short and has no formatting or links or anything and I've written it so quickly Blogger can't possibly time out.)
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Aargh Again
Today's Almanac: a buried church, a mobile dune, and the secret to touring with newborns. Also, still not enough time.
Yesterday I got into an interesting discussion about the Beslan massacre with some of my Studieskolen classmates. Like most of the European media, they were reluctant to blame the perpetrators of that atrocity. Yes, yes, they agreed, civilization has no room to accommodate the deliberate slaughter of children for any cause, under any pretext, ever. But...
One classmate, whose conversation I generally enjoy and whose mind has always struck me as very well functioning, brought up the spectre of relativism without knowing it was my philosophical sore point.
"Just because we think it's so wrong to kill children..." she began, and sort of trailed off. As I said, her mind functions appropriately and an appropriately functioning mind cannot complete that sentence in its originally intended direction. Still, she shrugged and went on. "But it's all relative, isn't it, from one culture to another?"
Well, no.
Here's the problem with relativism as any kind of a philosophy: it's bullshit. Why? Because its central thesis is the idea that all values are relative, that there are no absolutes. If that's true—that is, if the theory of relativism is a valid theory—then the theory of relativism is itself only valid in a relative kind of way. Meaning it's only valid in certain times and places to certain kinds of people. Meaning the theory that relativism is bullshit is exactly as valid as the theory of relativism itself.
Call me crazy, but a theory whose definition contradicts itself isn't much of a theory. And if you want to defend the indiscriminate slaughter of children, you're going to want a pretty robust theory.
But the real question is: why would you want to defend the indiscriminate slaughter of children? Again, what's wrong with saying that the people who did this are sick, evil, twisted malignant bastards whose right to dwell among us in this world has been waived by their repulsive and murderous behavior? Why can't we say that anyone who rounds up and murders children needs to be hunted down and eliminated with extreme prejudice? Say something like that to my classmates and they'll look at you like you just ate a bug.
I speak from experience.
"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," one classmate observed in the startled silence that followed my prescription for remedial action. Hasn't anyone read The Social Contract, for God's sake? Cliche or not, social life isn't just a right, it's a privilege. And that privilege can be revoked. Even Rousseau said so, and believe me, I'm the last person on earth to want to quote Roussau. But isn't he one of the icons of enlightened liberal thought?
Yes, friend. An eye for an eye. That's just what I was saying. I was saying, let's help Russia go down to Chechnya, round up a few hundred Chechen kids, torture them for a couple of days, then kill them.
Criminy. I can't make myself understood to such people. I just can't. Dale Carnegie, why hast thou forsaken me?
(P.S. sorry for the failure to get back to emails quickly, but I'm drowning in deadlines and it's all I can do just to keep up with my blogging. I'll get back to everyone eventually!)
Yesterday I got into an interesting discussion about the Beslan massacre with some of my Studieskolen classmates. Like most of the European media, they were reluctant to blame the perpetrators of that atrocity. Yes, yes, they agreed, civilization has no room to accommodate the deliberate slaughter of children for any cause, under any pretext, ever. But...
One classmate, whose conversation I generally enjoy and whose mind has always struck me as very well functioning, brought up the spectre of relativism without knowing it was my philosophical sore point.
"Just because we think it's so wrong to kill children..." she began, and sort of trailed off. As I said, her mind functions appropriately and an appropriately functioning mind cannot complete that sentence in its originally intended direction. Still, she shrugged and went on. "But it's all relative, isn't it, from one culture to another?"
Well, no.
Here's the problem with relativism as any kind of a philosophy: it's bullshit. Why? Because its central thesis is the idea that all values are relative, that there are no absolutes. If that's true—that is, if the theory of relativism is a valid theory—then the theory of relativism is itself only valid in a relative kind of way. Meaning it's only valid in certain times and places to certain kinds of people. Meaning the theory that relativism is bullshit is exactly as valid as the theory of relativism itself.
Call me crazy, but a theory whose definition contradicts itself isn't much of a theory. And if you want to defend the indiscriminate slaughter of children, you're going to want a pretty robust theory.
But the real question is: why would you want to defend the indiscriminate slaughter of children? Again, what's wrong with saying that the people who did this are sick, evil, twisted malignant bastards whose right to dwell among us in this world has been waived by their repulsive and murderous behavior? Why can't we say that anyone who rounds up and murders children needs to be hunted down and eliminated with extreme prejudice? Say something like that to my classmates and they'll look at you like you just ate a bug.
I speak from experience.
"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," one classmate observed in the startled silence that followed my prescription for remedial action. Hasn't anyone read The Social Contract, for God's sake? Cliche or not, social life isn't just a right, it's a privilege. And that privilege can be revoked. Even Rousseau said so, and believe me, I'm the last person on earth to want to quote Roussau. But isn't he one of the icons of enlightened liberal thought?
Yes, friend. An eye for an eye. That's just what I was saying. I was saying, let's help Russia go down to Chechnya, round up a few hundred Chechen kids, torture them for a couple of days, then kill them.
Criminy. I can't make myself understood to such people. I just can't. Dale Carnegie, why hast thou forsaken me?
(P.S. sorry for the failure to get back to emails quickly, but I'm drowning in deadlines and it's all I can do just to keep up with my blogging. I'll get back to everyone eventually!)
Argh Again
Today's Almanac: a buried church, a mobile dune, and the secret to touring with newborns. Also, still not enough time.
Yesterday I got into an interesting discussion about the Beslan massacre with some of my Studieskolen classmates. Like most of the European media, they were reluctant to blame the perpetrators of that atrocity. Yes, yes, they agreed, civilization has no room to accommodate the deliberate slaughter of children for any cause, under any pretext, ever. But...
One classmate, whose conversation I generally enjoy and whose mind has always struck me as very well functioning, brought up the spectre of relativism without knowing it was my philosophical sore point.
"Just because we think it's so wrong to kill children..." she began, and sort of trailed off. As I said, her mind functions appropriately and an appropriately functioning mind cannot complete that sentence in its originally intended direction. Still, she shrugged and went on. "But it's all relative, isn't it, from one culture to another?"
Well, no.
Here's the problem with relativism as any kind of a philosophy: it's bullshit. Why? Because its central thesis is the idea that all values are relative, that there are no absolutes. If that's true—that is, if the theory of relativism is a valid theory—then the theory of relativism is itself only valid in a relative kind of way. Meaning it's only valid in certain times and places to certain kinds of people. Meaning the theory that relativism is bullshit is exactly as valid as the theory of relativism itself.
Call me crazy, but a theory whose definition contradicts itself isn't much of a theory. And if you want to defend the indiscriminate slaughter of children, you're going to want a pretty robust theory.
But the real question is: why would you want to defend the indiscriminate slaughter of children? Again, what's wrong with saying that the people who did this are sick, evil, twisted malignant bastards whose right to dwell among us in this world has been waived by their repulsive and murderous behavior? Why can't we say that anyone who rounds up and murders children needs to be hunted down and eliminated with extreme prejudice? Say something like that to my classmates and they'll look at you like you just ate a bug.
I speak from experience.
"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," one classmate observed in the startled silence that followed my prescription for remedial action. Hasn't anyone read The Social Contract, for God's sake? Cliche or not, social life isn't just a right, it's a privilege. And that privilege can be revoked. Even Rousseau said so, and believe me, I'm the last person on earth to want to quote Roussau. But isn't he one of the icons of enlightened liberal thought?
Yes, friend. An eye for an eye. That's just what I was saying. I was saying, let's help Russia go down to Chechnya, round up a few hundred Chechen kids, torture them for a couple of days, then kill them.
Criminy. I can't make myself understood to such people. I just can't. Dale Carnegie, why hast thou forsaken me?
(P.S. sorry for the failure to get back to emails quickly, but I'm drowning in deadlines and it's all I can do just to keep up with my blogging. I'll get back to everyone eventually!)
Yesterday I got into an interesting discussion about the Beslan massacre with some of my Studieskolen classmates. Like most of the European media, they were reluctant to blame the perpetrators of that atrocity. Yes, yes, they agreed, civilization has no room to accommodate the deliberate slaughter of children for any cause, under any pretext, ever. But...
One classmate, whose conversation I generally enjoy and whose mind has always struck me as very well functioning, brought up the spectre of relativism without knowing it was my philosophical sore point.
"Just because we think it's so wrong to kill children..." she began, and sort of trailed off. As I said, her mind functions appropriately and an appropriately functioning mind cannot complete that sentence in its originally intended direction. Still, she shrugged and went on. "But it's all relative, isn't it, from one culture to another?"
Well, no.
Here's the problem with relativism as any kind of a philosophy: it's bullshit. Why? Because its central thesis is the idea that all values are relative, that there are no absolutes. If that's true—that is, if the theory of relativism is a valid theory—then the theory of relativism is itself only valid in a relative kind of way. Meaning it's only valid in certain times and places to certain kinds of people. Meaning the theory that relativism is bullshit is exactly as valid as the theory of relativism itself.
Call me crazy, but a theory whose definition contradicts itself isn't much of a theory. And if you want to defend the indiscriminate slaughter of children, you're going to want a pretty robust theory.
But the real question is: why would you want to defend the indiscriminate slaughter of children? Again, what's wrong with saying that the people who did this are sick, evil, twisted malignant bastards whose right to dwell among us in this world has been waived by their repulsive and murderous behavior? Why can't we say that anyone who rounds up and murders children needs to be hunted down and eliminated with extreme prejudice? Say something like that to my classmates and they'll look at you like you just ate a bug.
I speak from experience.
"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," one classmate observed in the startled silence that followed my prescription for remedial action. Hasn't anyone read The Social Contract, for God's sake? Cliche or not, social life isn't just a right, it's a privilege. And that privilege can be revoked. Even Rousseau said so, and believe me, I'm the last person on earth to want to quote Roussau. But isn't he one of the icons of enlightened liberal thought?
Yes, friend. An eye for an eye. That's just what I was saying. I was saying, let's help Russia go down to Chechnya, round up a few hundred Chechen kids, torture them for a couple of days, then kill them.
Criminy. I can't make myself understood to such people. I just can't. Dale Carnegie, why hast thou forsaken me?
(P.S. sorry for the failure to get back to emails quickly, but I'm drowning in deadlines and it's all I can do just to keep up with my blogging. I'll get back to everyone eventually!)
About Time
Finally. Maybe the sounding of this alarm will do more than prompt yet another swack at the snooze button...
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Priorities
Today's Almanac is up... Intro to Danish Geography. It wasn't supposed to be a geography lesson—it was supposed to be the usual kind of moronic travelog I do when we go somewhere. It's been so long since we've gone anywhere that I've apparently forgotten how to do that. I got entirely carried away with the geography of the thing and ran out of time. More tomorrow, I guess.
The NFL kicks off in less than 72 hours. I'm guessing Molli will wake up at about 3am Friday morning and require about three hours of attention (barring overtime). The first weekend of football is a special time. I have my next round of Danish examinations next week, I have a huge October 1 deadline in my professional life, and my mother is arriving on Friday for her first glimpse of Molli (with my father coming a few days later), we're still trying to pull our apartment together, Molli's crying as I write this, and yet I'm still thinking football, football, football. Hell, the three of us actually hurried home from our first-ever family vacation just to be home in time for this year's online fantasy football draft. It may be pathological—it may even be mental illness—but as long as we're suffering the same disease and exhibiting the same symptoms, I suppose we can contain the problem.
Or is that what couples who shoot smack together say?
Monday, September 06, 2004
Argh
Quick, name the movie where the heroes round up a bunch of children and end up shooting the kids in the back when they try to run away from the bombs they ought to have been blown up by.
Or name the work of literature—any genre, any author, any epic—where the heroes do the same. And never mind all the bother about technology: it's enough for the heroes to gather a hundred kids into a cave and club them to death.
I've been trying to come up with one or another example because I'm trying to apply the theory of cultural relativism to the notion of massacring children. Try as I might, I can only find villains doing it.
Trine and I were in a hotel room up in Skagen (see tomorrow's Almanac) when we first caught the news of the massacre. We were watching BBC World News. The anchor was talking to a journalist out at the scene of the horror. He asked the correspondent how the government was expected to respond (Putin hadn't yet spoken; they were still sorting through prepubescent corpses).
"Well," the correspondent intoned gravely, "there's considerable fear that the government may retaliate, which might provoke a response." Of course, the old cycle-of-violence thing. People seize a school, take hundreds of children and adults hostage, then try to kill them all. That's just the right time to worry about making them angry!
The sentiments bleed through all the EuroCNN and BBC World coverage we've been hearing since. We're all supposed to be worried that Russia may over-react. For the love of God, when did journalists lose the capacity to distinguish between good and evil? People rounding up and slaughtering innocents are bad fucking people. The people trying to prevent such events, or round up the perps and put them to justice, are the good guys. How complicated and nuanced is that? What they hell are they teaching in journalism school these days? How can our media be so completely out of touch with the most rudimentary ethics?
This is the bitter, bitter fruits of political correctness. Sit down with the monster of relativism and sooner or later you're lunch.
I'm exasperated... obviously. Sorry.
Or name the work of literature—any genre, any author, any epic—where the heroes do the same. And never mind all the bother about technology: it's enough for the heroes to gather a hundred kids into a cave and club them to death.
I've been trying to come up with one or another example because I'm trying to apply the theory of cultural relativism to the notion of massacring children. Try as I might, I can only find villains doing it.
Trine and I were in a hotel room up in Skagen (see tomorrow's Almanac) when we first caught the news of the massacre. We were watching BBC World News. The anchor was talking to a journalist out at the scene of the horror. He asked the correspondent how the government was expected to respond (Putin hadn't yet spoken; they were still sorting through prepubescent corpses).
"Well," the correspondent intoned gravely, "there's considerable fear that the government may retaliate, which might provoke a response." Of course, the old cycle-of-violence thing. People seize a school, take hundreds of children and adults hostage, then try to kill them all. That's just the right time to worry about making them angry!
The sentiments bleed through all the EuroCNN and BBC World coverage we've been hearing since. We're all supposed to be worried that Russia may over-react. For the love of God, when did journalists lose the capacity to distinguish between good and evil? People rounding up and slaughtering innocents are bad fucking people. The people trying to prevent such events, or round up the perps and put them to justice, are the good guys. How complicated and nuanced is that? What they hell are they teaching in journalism school these days? How can our media be so completely out of touch with the most rudimentary ethics?
This is the bitter, bitter fruits of political correctness. Sit down with the monster of relativism and sooner or later you're lunch.
I'm exasperated... obviously. Sorry.
