My mom, who among many other things runs the blog 46 Degrees North, has been asking me to try and drum up some folk who might be interested in talking politics over there in the comments. She’s got some great posts up, but doesn’t have enough eyeballs to get a really interesting discussion going. So if any of you are at all politically inclined, you should head over there and put in your $.02.
*N. B. - The following is an off-handed rant and will likely include some arguments that may be made in a less-than-clear fashion. This is a topic which is of intense interest to me so PLEASE post any questions, comments, or arguments (pro or contra) in the comments.*
In his book Language, Truth, and Logic, the British philosopher A. J. Ayer puts puts forth a modified version of the weak verifiability thesis. Essentially, Ayer says that any statement about which empirical evidence cannot be gathered and which is not a tautology is nonsense. In other words, there are three classes of statements: 1.) Statements of fact (i. e. statements about which evidence can be gathered via sense data). 2.) Tautologies (i. e. statements which denote equality of two things or concepts). 3.) Nonsensical statements which may be grammatically correct, but don’t actually signify anything.
After explicating his thesis (of which I’ve given only a very brief description here), Ayer goes on to use as a switch to woodshed a bunch of popular metaphysical notions. Monism versus Pluralism? Both positions are senseless because they can’t be empirically verified or refuted. Realism versus Idealism? Neither position is wrong because both are nonsense.
Where I begin to quibble with Ayer, however, is that he tries to tar questions of ontology with the same brush as the rest of metaphysics. In essence he says that statements about the nature of Being (he capitalizes it in his book, possibly to take a swipe at Heidegger) are inherently senseless since no experiential evidence could possibly support or refute them. This position to me seem specious. At first blush, if, as he’s claiming, all metaphysics is comprised of non-sensical statements, then so too must be ontology. And he makes a compelling argument regarding other metaphysical issues. I would argue though that questions of being are of a substantially different kind then, say, questions of substance.
Take, for instance, Heidegger’s work on the relationship between Dasein (i. e. that being for which its own being is an issue) and time. Heidegger argues that time is the horizon of being and reality and that without it, the sort of being that we, as human beings have, would be impossible. While Ayer might be quick to point out that simply proving this logically from axioms is useless if the axioms are incorrect, I would argue that even working with Ayer’s own tools, such ontological claims can be evaluated. We can find sense data to support or refute ontological claims like the one Heidegger is making.
Take, for instance, motion. Motion invariably has two components, a locative and a temporal component. Without either the experience of motion would be impossible. Human beings experience motion. This tells us two seemingly trivial but exceptionally vital things: namely that place and time are real, meaningful concepts with ties to the world of our experiences.
That we experience motion, then, is a piece of evidence (a necessary piece, though certainly not sufficient) which pertains to Heidegger’s comments regarding Being. This means that we can gather evidence in support or refutation of Heidegger’s ontology. Therefore, by Ayer’s own version of the verifiability principle, Heidegger’s ontology isn’t the nonsense that Ayer wants to claim it is, but rather an empirical, evaluatable statement about the world.
This, at least to me, shows that Ayer is wrong on at least some Ontological claims.
Well, it looks like Ukraine’s recent political rifts continue apace. Ukraine’s pro-Europe President, Viktor Yushchenko, dissolved parliament earlier today, due to the (pro-Russian) Prime Minister’s inability to form a coalition.
I’ve been quite interested in the situation in the Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet states in the past year. It seems like all of them are fighting some sort of their own post-Cold-War Europe vs. Russia grudge match. The roots of the recent conflict in Georgia ultimately rest in the break up of the Soviet Union and in the current Georgian government’s desire to have closer ties to Europe and the West. Meanwhile Ukraine has had a great deal of political turmoil (this is, in fact, the second time this year that Yuschenko has dissolved parliament and called for new elections), huge parts of the government arrayed against one another.
Combine these wide-spread intranational power struggles with Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin increasingly flexing Russian military muscle and selling arms to anyone who will by them (Iran, Venezuela: I’m looking at you, here) and it looks increasingly like the Cold War may not be quite as over as everyone thought it was. To top it all off, the Bush administration continues to lay ground in Eastern Europe for a missile shield. Meanwhile, Medvedev is all hot to start development of a Russian shield, and both the Russians and the Chinese seem a bit miffed that the US doesn’t appear to trust them with nuclear-tipped ICBMs.
The result is a 2nd World that, well, looks a lot like a Cold War battle ground. The only difference is that this time the game is being played a little closer to the Kremlin. All over Asia and Eastern Europe there are intense struggles which are still aligned to the political poles of Washington and Moscow.
And then of course there’s the whole North Korea thing, where Mr. Kim is spending an awful lot of time, money, and energy on figuring out how to build nukes. Some dissenters in those parts seem to think that those resources would be better spent feeding his people, but I’m sure they’ll see the error of their ways eventually. Possibly shortly before they wind up on the wrong end of a Tokarev.
So with all that being the state of things in Eurasia, the Middle East, and assorted other parts, I’m well-comforted that our media and politicians are discussing the pressing international issues of our day. Like whether McCain’s evil or just senile and whether Obama is a terrorist or if he just hangs out with them.
Oy. If anyone needs me, I think I’ll be under my desk with a bottle of Monarch until further notice.
Pope Benedict XVI recently came out and claimed that “he who builds only on visible and tangible things like success, career and money builds the house of his life on sand.” He also said that only works of God have “solid reality.”
Let me put that another way. A man who lives in a palace, on what amounts to a 110 acre urban estate, and surrounded by opulence that would make Saudi princes blush had the temerity to say that money sucks and we should all focus ourselves on God. He leads a religion that claims to denounce conspicuous wealth, and yet his holdings made him over $8,000,000 in the 2000 fiscal year and lives surrounded by the finest amenities life has to offer.
Well I say, you first, Mr. Ratzinger. If “only God’s word is solid reality”, why don’t you just go ahead and throw open the doors of your palace to Italy’s homeless? Or sell off your jewels and trappings to feed the starving? How about tearing down St. Peter’s Basilica and replacing it with shelter for the world’s needy?
Or you could just keep up with your Janus-faced ways and try not be surprised when the rest of the world sees you for the wealth-bestrewn hypocrite you are. As far as I’m concerned it’s win-win.
Here’s a slick machining hack to get around the (much lamented) shortage of .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO ammunition shortages: make your own bullets from .22LR cases and lead wire. Now I’m a little skittish to try this myself (as tempting as it may be, since I have a beautiful Sig 556 which I haven’t taken to the range in far too long), but that’s mainly because I don’t trust my handloading skills enough to try something like this.
Still, I may show this to my dad (a cartridge collector and handloader extraordinaire) next I’m down his direction and ask if he thinks it’d be feasible to set myself up for it.
Of course, it doesn’t look like the .223 shortage will be getting better anytime soon. And even if it did, there’s still high ammo prices to deal with. Copper’s hovering at right around $3/lb according to COMEX, up from less than a $1 a few years ago. Lead’s up by a similar factor. For those of us who are morally opposed to running Eastern Block steel-cased, magnet-attracting ammo through our rifles, it means that a day at the range can be kind of a pricey proposition.
But hey, it least it means I’m getting PLENTY of trigger time on my trusty old Mosin 91/30. Nothing like half-century-old Bulgarian Mil-Surp ammo to make for (comparitively) cheap shooting.
SpaceX’s Falcon One reached orbit today, making it the first privately-funded space craft ever to do so. Welcome one and all to the era of private space flight.
Randall Munroe, the mad genius behind XKCD, serves up probably the best analysis of the “Airplane on a Treadmill” debate to date. Money quote (after comparing interpretations of the problem):
So, people who go with interpretation #3 notice immediately that the plane cannot move and keep trying to condescendingly explain to the #2 crowd that nothing they say changes the basic facts of the problem. The #2 crowd is busy explaining to the #3 crowd that planes aren’t driven by their wheels. Of course, this being the internet, there’s also a #4 crowd loudly arguing that even if the plane was able to move, it couldn’t have been what hit the Pentagon.
Well worth a read. He also links to some of the finest math/science paradoxes around, so be prepared for a heavy mental workout.
For the record: I’m firmly in the “plane takes off as normal” camp regardless of which interpretation of the problem one accepts. Any physically plausible construction of the problem can be resolved by the fact that the plane’s engines push against the air and its wheels are merely to provide rolling friction against the ground, instead of having to just scrape the belly of the plane across the tarmac. This is the same reason why a plane could take off from a frictionless surface (with or without the landing gear down.)
Man, today was awesome. It started with a long, relaxing early drive to the Tri-Cities (that is, once I got the van started) in my long-faithful van, Rosinante. Alas, that was to be my last time driving Rosinante. He’s a good steed, but getting old (175,000 miles) and he’s starting to fail. He’s been getting hard to start, he doesn’t shift like he used to, and many of his engine parts are making increasingly concerning noises. So today, I officially put Rosinante out to stud (read: he’s getting a tune up from my two older brothers, Bruce and Darrell, and then he’s being consigned to a life as a strictly around-town cargo van for Bruce, who often needs to haul around a lot of tools.)
In his place I went and acquired a brand new (2009) Subaru Forrester:
He’s a lot of fun to drive, and after a long drive through the hills this evening, I’ve decided to call him Montag.
(Side note: yes, I name my cars. I come from a long line of mechanically inclined, blue-collar men, all of whom find it utterly bizarre to name them. For some reason, I do it compulsively. Go figure.)
After signing all the paperwork and crossing the ‘i’s and dotting the ‘t’s, I brought Montag home, gave my parents a spin around the neighborhood, then took off to my good friend Matt’s bachelor party. Matt’s recently back from Iraq and, in the many years since he and I graduated high school and the few years since we graduated college, our friends have mostly dispersed themselves to the far corners of the country. As such, the bachelor party was pretty laid back, consisting of me, Matt, and our friends Mike and Charlie, who’d made it down from Bellingham for the occasion. So after steak, a couple of beers, and a few hours of comraderie, Matt went off to other engagements and the party continued without him.
So a long drive, a new car, and a celebration in honor of my oldest friend. Days like this are truly both wonderful and rare.
I mean, picking Hastur as VP? Seriously? There’s no way in R’lyeh that I’m voting for a Cthulu/Hastur ticket. If he wanted my support, He should have gone with Shub-Niggurath, the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young.
I mean, hell, that’s an extra thousand votes right there… (Assuming, of course, that the spawn of Great Old Ones can vote. Not quite sure on that.)
Update: I love the internet: the GeoHack entry for R’lyeh!
