The Whale of Ignorance
Saturday, October 25, 2003
I just ate 10 hot dogs in 12 minutes. It's something to do on Friday night if you've given up on partiality.
It wasn't competitive eating, since only my roommate was present and she wasn't eating, but it shared the format of the most popular eating event: Nathan's 12-minute hot dog eating contest. The circumstances were less than ideal, though, since I'd eaten dinner only a few hours before.
The poorest decision, other than attempting to stuff myself with hot dogs, was buying the cheapest hot dogs available - Zacky Farms Chicken Dogs. As seen on tv, I separated the dogs from the buns and dipped the latter in water. I found that I only had to supress my gag reflex when I was eating the dogs (holding my nose helped), and that when I ate the buns my stomach calmed down. I didn't feel an urge to vomit afterwards, either, which leads me to think that I could have eaten 12 or 13 quality hot dogs.
¶ 12:24 AM 0 comments
It wasn't competitive eating, since only my roommate was present and she wasn't eating, but it shared the format of the most popular eating event: Nathan's 12-minute hot dog eating contest. The circumstances were less than ideal, though, since I'd eaten dinner only a few hours before.
The poorest decision, other than attempting to stuff myself with hot dogs, was buying the cheapest hot dogs available - Zacky Farms Chicken Dogs. As seen on tv, I separated the dogs from the buns and dipped the latter in water. I found that I only had to supress my gag reflex when I was eating the dogs (holding my nose helped), and that when I ate the buns my stomach calmed down. I didn't feel an urge to vomit afterwards, either, which leads me to think that I could have eaten 12 or 13 quality hot dogs.
¶ 12:24 AM 0 comments
Friday, October 24, 2003
My most recent encounter with unrequited affection has made me think harder about the rationality of partiality. There are many forms that partiality can take (as between friends and family) but i'm most interested in the interest expressed in romantic relationships. The most basic issue is this: how are our partial relationships compatible with our moral commitment to viewing human beings impartially? I haven't come up with anything, save that my own reasons for thinking such partiality might be valuable are sorely lacking - actually, it's a bit worse than that: they're probably inconsistent.
Of course, it'd be a real load off if there were no reason to treat people partially. ¶ 7:53 AM 0 comments
Of course, it'd be a real load off if there were no reason to treat people partially. ¶ 7:53 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
I'm sitting in my office for my office hours, having drunk a gallon of water in the past 12 minutes.
12 minutes ago, I realized I hadn't had any water to drink today, so I downed my 32 oz. Nalgene bottle in one tilt. Then I got the bright idea of seeing if I could drink a gallon of water in 30 minutes, which has been mentioned as a physical challenge to me (a variant of the more popular challenge of downing a gallon of milk in a half an hour). So I gulped down three more bottles of water in the next 10 minutes. I don't feel awful, as compared to the time I ate 96 pieces of sushi in an hour, which I take to be a sign that I won't suffer an ignominious end due to water intoxication. Perhaps I should help myself to a salty snack. Should I suffer any ill effects, I will blame my students for not coming to office hours. ¶ 2:22 PM 0 comments
12 minutes ago, I realized I hadn't had any water to drink today, so I downed my 32 oz. Nalgene bottle in one tilt. Then I got the bright idea of seeing if I could drink a gallon of water in 30 minutes, which has been mentioned as a physical challenge to me (a variant of the more popular challenge of downing a gallon of milk in a half an hour). So I gulped down three more bottles of water in the next 10 minutes. I don't feel awful, as compared to the time I ate 96 pieces of sushi in an hour, which I take to be a sign that I won't suffer an ignominious end due to water intoxication. Perhaps I should help myself to a salty snack. Should I suffer any ill effects, I will blame my students for not coming to office hours. ¶ 2:22 PM 0 comments
Friday, October 17, 2003
Yay! The universe is rational! (see item II in Monday's post).
¶ 10:57 AM 0 comments
Monday, October 13, 2003
Four points today:
I. What's up with people who ask, "what's up with those hand-dryers in restrooms - they never work," or "what's up American talking loudly and slowly to people who don't speak English - as if that's gonna make them understand"? I've found that hand-dryers work if you follow the directions (shake off excess water, rub hands lightly and rapidly) and that speaking loudly and slowly to someone who doesn't understand very much English works quite well too.
II. I've decided to root for the Yankees this postseason, in accordance with the consequences failure would have on the fans of the respective remaining teams. Here's my ordering and rationale:
4. Cubs. Fans are likeable, but would actually get more long-term benefit from seeing the Cubs remain lovable losers.
3. Red Sox. Fans are hateful, and would be devastated by another postseason failure, esp. to Yankees.
2. Marlins. No fans.
1. Yankees. Fans not likeable, but they would not be devastated by a postseason loss.
III. I had a dream that my friends and I were being pursued by Jason (as in Friday the 13th) and I was trying to figure out whether there were principles decideable from the original position that would tell us how to deal with him (there aren't, since Jason is presumably a non-compliant agent).
IV. I wore the "Defend Brooklyn" t-shirt that my sister gave me. Since people often feel the need to ask, "Is Brooklyn under attack?" or "What are you defending Brooklyn from?" when I wear the shirt, the last time I wore it I was advised to come up with a stock answer to such questions. I came up with: "Yes, I'm defending it from stupid questions." Alas, no one asked me today. ¶ 9:34 PM 0 comments
I. What's up with people who ask, "what's up with those hand-dryers in restrooms - they never work," or "what's up American talking loudly and slowly to people who don't speak English - as if that's gonna make them understand"? I've found that hand-dryers work if you follow the directions (shake off excess water, rub hands lightly and rapidly) and that speaking loudly and slowly to someone who doesn't understand very much English works quite well too.
II. I've decided to root for the Yankees this postseason, in accordance with the consequences failure would have on the fans of the respective remaining teams. Here's my ordering and rationale:
4. Cubs. Fans are likeable, but would actually get more long-term benefit from seeing the Cubs remain lovable losers.
3. Red Sox. Fans are hateful, and would be devastated by another postseason failure, esp. to Yankees.
2. Marlins. No fans.
1. Yankees. Fans not likeable, but they would not be devastated by a postseason loss.
III. I had a dream that my friends and I were being pursued by Jason (as in Friday the 13th) and I was trying to figure out whether there were principles decideable from the original position that would tell us how to deal with him (there aren't, since Jason is presumably a non-compliant agent).
IV. I wore the "Defend Brooklyn" t-shirt that my sister gave me. Since people often feel the need to ask, "Is Brooklyn under attack?" or "What are you defending Brooklyn from?" when I wear the shirt, the last time I wore it I was advised to come up with a stock answer to such questions. I came up with: "Yes, I'm defending it from stupid questions." Alas, no one asked me today. ¶ 9:34 PM 0 comments
Sunday, October 12, 2003
I was at a birthday party tonight and started chatting with a fellow aspiring to produce television. Upon hearing that I worked in ethics, he perked up and told me that there was a particular ethical dilemma that he's been wrestling with for months. He imagined a situation where a stranger rear-ended his car, and he was not seriously injured but the stranger was. If it was the stranger's fault, he wanted to know whether he should call an ambulance.
I was somewhat stunned by the question, and struggled to find a philosophical way of telling him that it was perfectly obvious that he must call an ambulance. After a moment or two, I asked him whether he thought he should call 911 if someone slipped off his balcony and fell to the ground, narrowly missing him but splattering blood on his shirt, and that seemed to do the trick. I also encountered a fellow who thought stealing music via file sharing was okay.
On a related note, the danger with being a philosopher is that one's expertise is in areas that are people are quite defensive about (unlike, say, physics). Much less likely to piss someone off or become an arrogant ass if you're a chemist.
On an unrelated note, I've come to think that Kant's wonderful turn of phrase, "an impartial rational spectator could take no delight in seeing the uninterrupted prosperity of a being without a good will," expresses my feelings about many a relationship, except that it should read, "an impartial rational spectator could take no delight in seeing a woman be attracted to that tool." ¶ 3:33 AM 0 comments
I was somewhat stunned by the question, and struggled to find a philosophical way of telling him that it was perfectly obvious that he must call an ambulance. After a moment or two, I asked him whether he thought he should call 911 if someone slipped off his balcony and fell to the ground, narrowly missing him but splattering blood on his shirt, and that seemed to do the trick. I also encountered a fellow who thought stealing music via file sharing was okay.
On a related note, the danger with being a philosopher is that one's expertise is in areas that are people are quite defensive about (unlike, say, physics). Much less likely to piss someone off or become an arrogant ass if you're a chemist.
On an unrelated note, I've come to think that Kant's wonderful turn of phrase, "an impartial rational spectator could take no delight in seeing the uninterrupted prosperity of a being without a good will," expresses my feelings about many a relationship, except that it should read, "an impartial rational spectator could take no delight in seeing a woman be attracted to that tool." ¶ 3:33 AM 0 comments
Monday, October 06, 2003
Let's see. I noticed some folks are coming to this page after searching for definitions of the veil of ignorance. So here's the passage where it's first introduced in _A Theory of Justice_ (Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1978) p. 12 (I am beginning to love this book):
"In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract... Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances."
Four is taken to be unlucky by many other chinese folks because of the similarity in both Cantonese and Mandarin of the words for four to the words for death. I learned today that four is not thought to be a horribly unlucky number for Manchurians. Or so my roommate's Manchurian friend told her after she apologized for accidentally bringing four oranges (the fifth was left in the car) to said Manchurian's dinner party.
Some observations on sport:
Dante Hall is sick, as are Peyton Manning/Marvin Harrison.
My friend informs me that Trot Nixon told a reporter that "he didn't swing the bat, God did" when Nixon hit a home run the other day. Pedro pointed to the sky when leaving the mound, either blaming the ionosphere for allowing the A's to get back into the game or crediting God for his performance. I take these to be legitimate reasons to root against the Red Sox.
Sports announcers must desist from expressing outrage over official's calls when they have no idea what rule is being applied. Or they should try reading a rule book sometime. John Madden and Al Michaels, who are usually quite reasonable, were terrible in this regard on Simeon Rice's "leaping" penalty. It began with Madden asserting that he'd never heard of a "leaping" penalty and then going on about how Rice clearly did nothing wrong. I claim that it would be hard to know if Rice had done anything wrong without knowing what a leaping penalty is.
Why did Thom Brenneman think that it was his duty to moralize for 5 minutes about Manny Ramirez's showboating after a dramatic game-turning home run rather than talk about the on the field action? Kevin Millar got less criticism for not hustling and thus getting thrown out than Manny did for showboating after effectively winning the game. A simple, "that pointing wasn't really necessary" would have sufficed. I thought there were some uncomfortable inadvertent racial overtones sounded throughout the broadcast, as when Steve Lyons referred to the Sox's shaved heads as "the skinhead look."
That Boston bar scene was hateful, too, largely because of the inexplicable "watch game silently until camera is on, then turn to camera and scream to show how excited you are about the game" behavior.
¶ 11:57 PM 0 comments
"In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract... Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances."
Four is taken to be unlucky by many other chinese folks because of the similarity in both Cantonese and Mandarin of the words for four to the words for death. I learned today that four is not thought to be a horribly unlucky number for Manchurians. Or so my roommate's Manchurian friend told her after she apologized for accidentally bringing four oranges (the fifth was left in the car) to said Manchurian's dinner party.
Some observations on sport:
Dante Hall is sick, as are Peyton Manning/Marvin Harrison.
My friend informs me that Trot Nixon told a reporter that "he didn't swing the bat, God did" when Nixon hit a home run the other day. Pedro pointed to the sky when leaving the mound, either blaming the ionosphere for allowing the A's to get back into the game or crediting God for his performance. I take these to be legitimate reasons to root against the Red Sox.
Sports announcers must desist from expressing outrage over official's calls when they have no idea what rule is being applied. Or they should try reading a rule book sometime. John Madden and Al Michaels, who are usually quite reasonable, were terrible in this regard on Simeon Rice's "leaping" penalty. It began with Madden asserting that he'd never heard of a "leaping" penalty and then going on about how Rice clearly did nothing wrong. I claim that it would be hard to know if Rice had done anything wrong without knowing what a leaping penalty is.
Why did Thom Brenneman think that it was his duty to moralize for 5 minutes about Manny Ramirez's showboating after a dramatic game-turning home run rather than talk about the on the field action? Kevin Millar got less criticism for not hustling and thus getting thrown out than Manny did for showboating after effectively winning the game. A simple, "that pointing wasn't really necessary" would have sufficed. I thought there were some uncomfortable inadvertent racial overtones sounded throughout the broadcast, as when Steve Lyons referred to the Sox's shaved heads as "the skinhead look."
That Boston bar scene was hateful, too, largely because of the inexplicable "watch game silently until camera is on, then turn to camera and scream to show how excited you are about the game" behavior.
¶ 11:57 PM 0 comments
Thursday, October 02, 2003
On the other hand, I don't think Rush should have been forced to resign over it. Not that it much matters.
By and large, I don't think athletes are over or underrated because of their race, though they are certainly overexposed or underexposed because of it. The supposed paradigm of the phenomenon is Jason Sehorn, who was definitely overexposed because he was a good-lookin' fella who married an actress while playing in a media capital (cf. Rick Fox), and also because he was the only caucasian playing CB in the NFL (cf. Tiger Woods who is certainly not overrated, but whose exposure is greater because there aren't any other black golfers of note). But Sehorn's being overrated had to do with the fact that he never really recovered from his knee surgeries - before that he was an amazing corner, and he does after all have the two best interceptions I've ever seen ('97 going up against Cris Carter in the wild-card game and 2000 against Philly).
¶ 12:30 AM 0 comments
By and large, I don't think athletes are over or underrated because of their race, though they are certainly overexposed or underexposed because of it. The supposed paradigm of the phenomenon is Jason Sehorn, who was definitely overexposed because he was a good-lookin' fella who married an actress while playing in a media capital (cf. Rick Fox), and also because he was the only caucasian playing CB in the NFL (cf. Tiger Woods who is certainly not overrated, but whose exposure is greater because there aren't any other black golfers of note). But Sehorn's being overrated had to do with the fact that he never really recovered from his knee surgeries - before that he was an amazing corner, and he does after all have the two best interceptions I've ever seen ('97 going up against Cris Carter in the wild-card game and 2000 against Philly).
¶ 12:30 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Responding to the controversy over his statements on Sunday that Donovan McNabb has been overrated because he's black, Rush Limbaugh said, "All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something... If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sports writer community." I'm sure somebody thinks this makes sense.
¶ 5:16 PM 0 comments
