I have nothing of what it takes to do genuine history of philosophy, which makes completing a year-old paper on Anselm difficult when I've just discovered Friendster. My paper's on Anselm's doctrine of freedom, which is couched in the language of medieval theology, so I'm finding myself writing about good and bad angels. To wit:

"If he didn't sin, it would either be because of the knowledge of punishment or because he willed rectitude for its own sake -> but we know the bastard won't keep rectitude for its own sake, so he'd be keeping justice from fear, which would not be just. There's something illicit going on here. VIZ- Why can't we apply the same fucking logic to the good angels? We know they'll keep justice for its own sake, so why not give the bastards the knowledge, too?"

This was my 2:00am breakthrough, but I suspect it will undergo some revisions before I'm through. Hopefully I won't offend any theologians googling for Anselm's doctrine of freedom.

The maddening thing about philosophy for me is that any juicy tidbit I can come up with is so f-ing simple that a. I'm convinced someone has thought of it before and it's thus best to refrain from reading any more of the literature till the paper is in, or b. I'm convinced it's gotta be wrong, but it's best not to think on it too much right now lest we lose this brief moment of glistening juicy tidbit. And those juicy tidbits are good parts. Long periods of frustration punctuated with maddening juicy tidbits. Now I'm ready for some more...  ¶ 1:56 AM