First off, I moderate all my comments. Mostly it’s to eliminate comment spam, but it also means the rare death threat is not going to post without me approving it.
Second of all, why would you think you have the evidential basis to discern the religious convictions (or lack thereof) of either this blogger or her offspring? Even if you did, why would that be germane to a discussion of a classroom snake? And why, in any case, would it make you feel justified in asserting “you have forfeit your life”?
Obviously, you feel like you have an important message to convey to someone. I would like to suggest that I am not the right audience for that message (and that the readers of the Friday Sprog Blogging feature probably aren’t, either). And, I’m disinclined to let you hijack my soapbox to convey it.
You may have better luck getting your message out by way of a blog of your very own. You can get one for free from Blogger and WordPress.
Category Archives: Passing thoughts
Pitching an idea for a new show in the Star Trek franchise.
Like a good nerd, I love me some Star Trek. I will confess to having a strong preference for the original series (TOS), on account of that was what my parents watched with us when we were wee young nerds growing up. (My dad had a freakish ability to tell within the first few words of Kirk’s “captain’s log” at the opening which episode it was going to be.)
Something I didn’t realize until I was a mature nerd was just how regularly, in TOS, Kirk and/or the rest of the crew of the Starship Enterprise violated the Prime Directive, which, as Wikipedia tells it:
dictates that there can be no interference with the internal development of pre-warp civilizations, consistent with the historical real world concept of Westphalian sovereignty. It has special implications, however, for civilizations that have not yet developed the technology for interstellar spaceflight (“pre-warp”), since no primitive culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or the existence of extraplanetary civilizations, lest this exposure alter the natural development of the civilization. Although this was the only application stated by Captain Kirk in “Return of the Archons”, by the 24th Century, it had been indicated to include purposeful efforts to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept completely secret.
From the point of view of plotting a gripping episode on a strange new world, you can kind of see where breaking a non-interference rule would come in handy. (It also increases the damage for those drinking along at home.) But we viewers hardly ever saw any official repercussions from these Prime Directive violations.
Here’s where the idea for a new show in the Star Trek franchise comes in.
One parenting mistake we are unlikely to make.
(From here.)
Not that we won’t make plenty of other mistakes, but they’ll run more to Nietzsche than Rand.
Come to think of it, the eternal recurrence test is probably just right for bedtime stories, isn’t it?
An open letter to the powers that control our classrooms.
To whom it may concern,
I can deal with the third story classrooms, really I can. Running up and down stairs to get to and from class helps give me the exercise I wouldn’t get otherwise because I’m grading papers instead of hitting the gym.
And, I can live with the back-to-back class meetings in third story classrooms located in different buildings across campus from each other. That’s just more physical exercise, plus a chance to live by my resolution not to view other people primarily as obstacles. I appreciate the opportunity for personal growth.
I even understand the wisdom of filling every seat in the classroom, from a resource utilization point of view.
But, do you know what would be nice?
Information that may undercut my credibility with you as a professional philosopher.
I guess I suspected that this might be a problem, but it really sank in when a close colleague told me the other day that he was freaked out by it. And I’d hate to have you hear it from anyone else but me.
First day of classes at the exploding monkey factory.
Because we’re all in the same exploding monkey factory together.
So far, no paper jams of consequence to report at the department photocopier, but the toner ran out at 11:58 AM Pacific Time. We are hopeful that the student assistant who comes on duty at 1:00 PM will be able to change the toner swiftly while whispering soothing words to the photocopier.
(Faculty are not allowed to change the toner, because as a group we have demonstrated little competence at this messy task. Also, the crying makes onlookers uncomfortable.)
Today’s policy ponderable:
Reader mail.
In my inbox today:
I’m curious, what credentials (academic or otherwise) does one need to become a philosopher?
For the purposes of employment in a university philosophy department, a graduate degree in philosophy (usually a Ph.D. but sometimes an M.A.) is standard. Kind of like a chemist can be expected to have a degree in chemistry, or a biologist to have a degree in biology.
If you’re an off-the-books philosopher, I imagine this requirement might be relaxed.
Now, whether there are good reasons to accept the degree-linked-credentialist status quo (for philosophy or any other academic field) is a separate question. Commenters are welcome to take a swing at that if they so choose.
Welcome back.
My guess is that the first faculty meeting after one’s sabbatical year is never an easy one, but when that faculty meeting happens during a state budget implosion the likes of which no one can recall, it’s kind of like parachuting into an exploding monkey factory.
The high point:
Dem’s fightin’ words!
It was decided that the Free-Ride offspring are maybe, kind of, old enough to watch Raiders of the Lost Ark without having nightmares. Even though they haven’t seen it before, they seem to have picked up at least some general information about Indiana Jones as one of the canonical figures in American pop culture.
Dr. Free-Ride: So, what do you know about Indiana Jones?
Younger offspring: He’s a hero.
Dr. Free-Ride: Actually, he’s an archaeology professor at a university.
Younger offspring: No he’s not!
Dr. Free-Ride: Yes he is! He’s a professor just like me! Maybe I’m a hero, too.
Younger offspring: You’re not a hero or a professor! You’re a philosophist!
Dr. Free-Ride: Oh no you didn’t!
* * * * *
We’re watching it now, less than an hour in. The sprogs were unconvinced that the guy in the suit and horn-rimmed glasses writing stuff on the chalkboard in the classroom was actually the same guy with the bullwhip who defeated the booby-traps in the opening sequence.
Meanwhile, I’m now wondering whether his collection of artifacts falls within the bounds of international treaties and professional ethics. And I kind of hate that traitorous monkey.
When an image makes an argument.
Ethan Siegel at Starts with a Bang shares some thoughts about productive argumentation and a graphic to illustrate various approaches:
I find myself fascinated with the graphic itself. In particular, I’m pondering what rhetorical work the pyramid does here.