Up@dawn 2.0

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Philosophers Guild H2

Last Tuesday our attendance was very low but that is ok. I presented on Cyberphilosophy/Cyberpolitics, and then Dr. Oliver spoke on our reading. We had some short discussion time and then left early. I hope everyone has had a great Thanksgiving and I hope to see all your smiling faces during our last class this tuesday :)

Philosophy of an Artificial Intelligence? Part 1 -- Final Project (17.2)

We live in a world where computers have the ability to think at capacities much greater than their very creators. Computers can assimilate, process, and store information at speeds no human could compare to. With today's technological advances, artificial intelligence is a concept that is commonly explored. Video gaming is an activity where people are commonly put up against artificial intelligence and as the field advances, so does the complexity of said A.I.

Before we embark on this study, I'd like to put you into the setting of one of my favorite video game series, Metal Gear Solid. Particularly the 2nd installment of the Series, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. I'm not going to spend much time talking about the plot, but enough to get an idea of what's going on.

The world of Metal Gear Solid 2 is essentially centered around a secret society of computer A.Is that has complete political, military, and economic control over the United States government with the purpose to guide the entire human race by means of information and how we perceive it. With control over the government, they have the ability to manipulate the masses, control information, and process what should be passed on.

Given such power, how would these A.Is interpret their role in society?

This is the video that started this conversation. One of the most intelligently written conversations that creates a realistic point of view of artificial intelligence. Watch this or you won't understand what's going on.

Screen on the left are the Patriots while the screen on the right is the character.

So after watching all that, a few issues are brought up:
-Freewill vs cause & effect
-Truth vs accepted truth
-Control vs Freedom

(All of which we have talked about in class, so I felt this was appropriate.)

To start off, The Patriots call themselves immortal. Is s possible to be immortal? Well by their definition, anything or anyone that creates information that is important in today's society. The video calls Einstein and Charles Darwin for their contributions to society which will always be remembered.

The Patriots continue to question the human race and what should be passed on into history. Genes are passed on naturally through evolution but human memories, ideas, culture, and history or "memes" are not completely passed on. So The Patriots questions whether or not these bits of information should be passed on. It's a question even intellectuals ponder over. We absorb so much useless information. Is it really information that we need? The A.I's argues that is it slows social progress and reduces the rate of evolution and the advancement of the human race.

Like I said their purpose is to guide information. Can an A.I do better at it than us? I'll leave ya'll to answer that.

To quote from the video:
-People are very subjective
-People don't like to have their feelings hurt
-People want to get along well with their group
-People like to avoid conflict and be politically correct
-People want to be right but don't want to have a conversation about it

In short, we tend to behave irrational at times and lookout for ourselves. But that's just human right?

Well from The Patriots' point of view, they think they are well qualified to do so being that their judgment isn't clouded by human endeavors. People are attracted to ideas they like; not because they are right or make sense but are convenient. A computer doesn't have to deal with personal emotions or come to a conclusion without having the other person's feelings in mind.

Lastly, The Patriots argue that unnecessary information and memory must be filtered out to stimulate the evolution of the human race. Having all this junk information does nothing that makes us no better off in the long run. It's having those immortal contributions to society which will be more efficient.

How do we know their decisions are the right one?

 Stay tuned folks....

Friday, November 29, 2013

NoPhi (16-3)

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I hope you all enjoyed it and perhaps had a stress free black Friday but I seriously doubt that. In class last Wednesday Dr. Oliver gave his lecture and discussed Wittgenstein, Arendt, Popper & Kuhn and Christopher Hitchens. 
Remember our in-class exam is on Dec.9th, and presentations start this monday!      

Thursday, November 28, 2013

NO SOX (17.2) 11/25/13

In Monday's class, Dr. Oliver talk about Wittgenstein, Arendt, Pepper and Kuhn. In our discussion we got to enjoy one of Gretta's classic stories which leaves us to say "shit happens." But hey! we're philosophical so we take life as it is.



Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Nameless Wanderers, Honors 1 Group 3

Tuesday's attendance was rather slim for some reason. Certain individuals of our group were not present (a la half the population), but that was true of most of the groups. Because of that, Dr. Phil used most of the time to talk about Wittgenstein, Popper, and others. At the beginning, Anna did her presentation on cyberphilosophy and cyberpolitics.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

(16-2) Plato's Beard

Yesterday we discussed Wittgenstein, Popper, Kuhn, Hitch, and others. In our group discussion, we talked about Adolf Eichmann and how he claimed innocence even though he was instrumental in Hitler's "Final Solution".

Philosopher's Guild

On Thurday, most of our group was missing. It was only Evan and myself. We talked with Dr. Oliver about our favorite presidents and had more of a layed back class period.

Monday, November 25, 2013

Critical Thinking Philosophers

Well since John was not here, I guess I'll go ahead and make the post for today.

Today during the lecture part of our class, we covered Wittgenstein and his beliefs on how the only limit to how we can interact with the world is language (and that he's not going to waste time talking in the presence of women), Popper and his views on the Scientific Method and how we should not spend our time looking for evidence to prove our hypothesis and instead seek to disprove it, and Hitchens' statements that we should not limit ourselves to merely accepting what we are told and to "take the risk" of thinking for ourselves. We also talked about Arendt and Kuhn, and there may have been one or two more, but they're not sticking out to me at the moment.

As I mentioned in class, I agree with Hitchens' view that we should not go about blindly accepting things so that we no longer have to think, but instead we should seek out knowledge on our own, and we should be constantly hungry for greater understanding of the things around us. However (and this is one big disagreement), I do not agree that you cannot be someone who seeks out knowledge and understanding, and someone who is a person of religious belief. Now, I can only speak on my own behalf, but I was not someone who cared for any sort of higher power for the better part of my life. The only reason that I picked up a bible in the first place was so that I could be more familiar with the very thing that I mocked. Granted, I had a different outcome than some people experience when they pick up a bible, but I came out of it with the insight that God was the answer to the questions that I had been asking my entire life. Did that stop me from pursuing higher education and knowledge in both math and science? No. If anything, becoming saved only served to push me further into caring and being fascinated by those two fields, because I see God working through them. But before I get all preachy and whatnot, I'll just go ahead and digress. My point is that being someone who has a thirst for knowledge and thinks for themselves and being someone who holds deep-seated religious beliefs do not inherently have to be mutually exclusive. Gaining knowledge and answers for yourself and understanding the reasons behind why things happen, and why you believe what you do are things that everyone should do, not just Christians or Atheists.

We also discussed very briefly how Popper had done both the scientific community and people as a whole a great service by presenting the idea that, instead of constantly seeking to prove our on beliefs and hypotheses, we should begin searching for things that disprove our ideas so that we can take things back to the drawing board more regularly, which results in stronger beliefs and ideas. If you are only reaffirming what you believe and you're only looking for what meshes with your ideas, you're only going to find what agrees with you, and that does not help you grow as a person, or with building a better scientific hypothesis and argument.

But anyway, I believe I've made a big enough wall of text for this time.

I do hope that you all have a great Thanksgiving break, and if you go Black Friday shopping, remember that your cashiers and the staff at the stores are under a whole lot more stress than you are, so be kind and polite!

With that, I shall see you all on Monday!

Plato's Beard (16,2)

Okay, I don't know who was supposed to post, but I guess I'll take care of it.
Wednesday, we walked around and philosophized, so I don't know what everyone talked about.
The topics included Existentialism (French) and the nature of choices we make. I hope everyone enjoyed the weather last week, because today is pretty chilly.
See y'all,

Friday, November 22, 2013

NoPhi (16-3)

In class we discussed American Hedonism but primarily French Existentialism and the works of French philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. Sartre was very heavily influenced by the World War II and it's aftermath, and how philosophers should handle such dark matters in time of war. One of the more interesting points was Sartre's view on freewill, in that Humans always have the choice to do as they please. Simply because a waiter is acting as a representative of his restaurant does not mean that he is defined by the role he is taking. Humans are to take full responsibility for their actions under every circumstance.  
One point of contention in America the Philosophical was perhaps the use of the word philosopher to describe Hugh Hefner. What is your take on that description?

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Nameless Wanderers, Honors 3 Group 3

It occurred to me the other day that I've gotten the section of this class wrong pretty much since the beginning: H3 vs. H1. Maybe I'm just confused when I shouldn't be, but anyway today we engaged in a little more peripatetics. We began by talking a bit about existentialism, but then devolved into reading Shannon's boyfriend's face. We're just a bit distractible, I think. Anyways, we qualified our existence through our travels about the campus.


Last class we talked about Cults. We talked about the Heaven's Gate cult which believed that a meteor was going to take them to heaven. We also discussed Jim Jones and the Jonestown massacre where he made his followers drink poison laced Kool Aid. We talked about the mindset of people who join cults and how they may not necessarily be crazy, but rather just lonely.

Philosophers Guild(H)

Great discussion last class.  We decided to stay behind and in lieu of walking had a riveting discussion with Dr. Oliver.  If anyone has seen my philosophy notebook please let me know, i believe i may have left it in the room last class as well.  On last class and the idea of truth what do you believe defines "truth." Curious to hear everyone's thoughts. 

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

NO SOX (17.2) 11/20/13

Today in our discussion group we decided to have it peripatetic style. Our discussion included the philosophical questioning of Hue Hefner. The philosophy of Hef definitely took him to far places.

The A Team 16-1

In class today we talked about Fussell and his theory of 9 classes and his category X people. Fussell did this as a joke.

We discussed Hugh Hefner as a philosopher. Carlin Ramono may have used Hef to generate some sales for his books but sexual morays were buttoned down and Hef turned that around.  Hef wrote Playboy Philosophy in a series of essays that may have been in response to America's hypocrisies. So do you think Hef was a philosopher? He doesnt seem to be a perverted hedonist. From his writings it seems like he actually thinks things through.

We also talked about JP Sartre and he belief that we have to fashion our own essence. We do not have a precise nature, man creates his own nature. So should it be human natures, because every human has a unique path. Mary Warnock didnt seem to be a fan of Sartre. She stated that he was "rightly forgotten". Just seemed a little harsh to me. According to Sartre we are all free, are we truly free if we have a car payment? a house payment?

Quote from Simone de Beauvour that i liked: "Man is defined as a human being, and women as a female- whenever she behaves as a human being, she is said to imitate a man."

"Dismal" existentialism?

Some think existentialism is bleak or despairing or (in Mitchell's word) "dismal," because it insists that we're each personally responsible for all our choices, and that those choices define human nature and possibility.The late Robert Solomon didn't see it that way. Check out his cameo in the film Waking Life, on this point. His book The Joy of Philosophy also addresses it:
But what is beautiful and revealing about... Camus (and Sartre, too) is precisely their refusal either to dismiss the question [of life's purposes and meanings] or to despair at the answer. They provoke an irresolvable tension, not between reason and passion but between our passionate commitments and our awareness that, nevertheless, our lives are ultimately not in our hands.

pedestrianly pondering nameless 6(17-1)

Today group 1 had another peripatetic discussion ranging from life's analogous snooze button to the worthiness of a sisyphusian life to Hefner's philosophical revolution. I don't really have anything else to say except see you all Monday. and happy hump day!

Sedentarian Philosoraptors 17-3

Hey dudes,

We, being lazy or what have you, decided to stay in the classroom with Dr. Phil today after lecture on several French existentialists, and oddly enough--Hugh Heffner. Dr. Phil and John began the discussion on moral duty, in context of Sartre's concept of "bad faith." Where does this duty come from, is it guilt, is it obligation, etc. This led into a discussion on choice, especially how Sartre conceived it. Basically, the only thing I'm taking home from his philosophy and our discussion is that we must be more aware of our choices.

Nameless Wanderers (H3)

For group discussion on Tuesday, our group decided to venture over to the art building to survey people's expressions of emotion.  On our journey there, we quoted the famous philosopher, Captain Jack Sparrow himself.  "It is not so much the destination as it is the journey" (On Stranger Tides).  Upon our arrival, there was very modern and mathematical- yet unusual and seemingly meaningless- art forms on the wall; one could have related it to Bertrand Russell. We ended with very briefly surveying the Amazing Face Readings book that Mitchell so thoughtfully brought.

The A Team 16-1

I dont see a post from our group so i guess i will make one.

In class we talked about Bertrand Russell. I think the fact that  John Stuart Mills was his godfather is amazing. What are the chances of two great philosophers being so closely linked?  I like Russell, but i find some of his stuff on language a little boring. I find the views of the pragmatist philosophers easier to read. Personally, i do not care for dissecting a sentence to try and find truth or falsifiable words or meaning. If there is no king of France why are we worried if he is bald? What is the point of making up some fictional story about barbers and people needing to be shaved? Why cant someone else shave the barber? A J Ayers Boo! Hooray theory seems like an argument a 5th grader would have. Im sure they both have a lot of good things to say, and maybe i should actually read some of their works and not base everything off of what Nigel Warburton says, but i have not got there yet.

My group split up and did the whole peripatetic thing. I really enjoy that method, i think it will do great in England. We talked about Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. I thoroughly enjoy Sartre. I love the idea that humans are not born with an essence. Starting from inception humans dont have a job. There is no God that designed us for  a reason, we have a blank slat and we can choose what we want to be. This holds true for many people, but not for everyone. Is it possible for a young girl from Somalia to become an astronaut? Does an Iraqi woman even have the option to go to school to become a doctor? Its possible, but unlikely. Just from our reading it seems that Simone just echoes what Sartre is saying but puts the woman's touch on it.

Damon McCook

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

the peripatetic namless 6 (17-1)

Once again our little group went on a peripatetic romp so I have no idea what the other groups talked about. As for us we talked on a range of topics from Sacks' take on artificial intelligence, Ayer's validity, the redundancy theory and fear and superstition. If you give a robot the ability to experience the world and make connections from it's experiences would you be able to call it human? I personally believe that the robot would not be considered human but alive. Although not alive in the since of you, me, or my cat but alive in that it is aware of itself. In order for that robot to become human it would need to be able to express and read emotions. If you are a fan of J.J. Abram then you might know that he has a new T.V. series on FOX called Almost Human. If not here is a brief synapsis of the show in the future all cops are required to have a robot partner but there is one that doesn't like robots so here is stuck with one that has what is called a "synthetic soul". Basically he was designed to feel emotions like Data and David, from Star Trek and Ai.

Monday, November 18, 2013


I wasn't there on Thursday, but I saw that there wasn't a post up. I'm not sure if ya'll have posted on other posts but just in case you haven't...here is a placeholder. If someone could post a summary of our discussion in the comments that would be awesome!

Mathematical Philosoraptors

Greetings, everyone!

Today in class, we mainly talked about Bertrand Russel and Alfred Jules Ayer, as well as touching on Ramsey and Sachs, the latter being portrayed in a movie by Robin Williams, which seems like something I should see, because I usually enjoy his movies.

In our group discussion, we opted to stay inside instead of wandering about outside. This left us being the only group left in the classroom, so Dr. Oliver joined our discussion. I made a remark about how much I was enjoying all of these mathematical philosophers we've been talking about lately, and how I was one of the "other guys" as Dr. Oliver remarked that enjoys some of the notions that Russel was making about logical philosophy and thinking, his work on Set Theory, and how his biggest contribution (in my opinion) was that he brought our logical thinking down to its most basic form so that we would not take statements for granted. Once I made those statements, the whole discussion seemed to center around that, as it appeared we had all fallen down that rabbit hole and there was no going back.

(I also made mention that I believe that math can be beautiful, but seeing as I could feel the eyes roll, I guess we'll just not talk about that.)

As my link, here is a video about the Fibonacci number/sequence, which is sometimes better known to be part of the Golden Mean. It's 6 minutes long, but I believe well worth your time, because knowledge is power. And John, I believe this might be of special interest to you, due to our discussion about using math do describe abstract things such as beauty. The Golden Mean, based on Fibonacci's sequence, appears in many things throughout our world and even our universe, such as the spiral of seeds in a flower, the structure of a nautilus shell, the bronchi in our lungs, shape of our galaxy, and most notably used in Greek architecture because they believed it to be the most visually appeasing structure. All based on math.

Seeing as you all are probably tired of listening to me go on about math, I guess I'll shut up now.

So with that, I hope you all have a great couple of days, and I'll see you all on Wednesday!

NoPhi 16-3

Hi, group!

Today we had the option of walking and philosophizing outside, but a few of us stayed inside and talked with Dr. Oliver. Mostly we discussed Russell and Ayer, truth and a little bit of atheism, but I'm curious to know what everyone else who was outside talked about. Please tell!

See you Wednesday,
-Hailey Lawson

Plato's Beard (16,2) 11/18/13

Hi everyone,
Today Dr. Oliver said we could do another parapatetic run, but our group opted to stay inside.
We went over a previous discussion of pragmatism, playing off a post by Dr. Oliver.
We also discussed Ayer's argument for "meaningless" language. I think the consensus was that Ayer makes sense, but "So what?". We probably are not going to only say things that are intrinsically true (meaning we would only state the obvious, which I would find pretty boring) or that are empirically verifiable, which would turn conversations very dry in my opinion.
We also briefly discussed religion and the motives for obeying laws.
That's about it.
See you all Wednesday,

Monday, November 18, 2013 No Sox (17-2)

Today, we talked about Russell who lived in both 19th century and 20th century, but was considered a 19th century philosopher. Russell was not a big reader of fiction and always wondered how we can have meaningful discussions about non-existent things? A.J. Ayers

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Philosopher's Guild- H

We need to pick Authors :)
We talked about various topics including some about freewill versus fate/God. Dr. Phil talked to us some on his opinion on the topic and I missed the last part of the discussion time so if someone wants to fill that in that would be great :)

Final solo reports

Unless your scorecard is "clean"- no more than two days absent, and complete daily base-clearing participation otherwise- you'll need to do a final report. It can be (1) a 10-15 minute presentation, (2) a five-page essay, or (3) blog post(s) equivalent to five pages. 

If you choose (1), I need to know this week.

If you choose (2) or (3), the essay or blog post(s) need to be completed by Dec. 4. Printed essays should be five pages in typescript, double-spaced. Blog posts should be the approximate word-equivalent, in length, of a five page printed essay. Blog posts need not include bibliography or footnotes, but sources should be explicitly named or hyperlinked.

For your final solo report, my preference is that you read and give an overview of Part 3, 4, or 5 in America the Philosophical; then, identify what you see as Romano's main thesis in one of the subsections (for instance, "African Americans" in section 3, "Cyberpolitics" in section 4, "Sophists & Sophistry" in section 5...) and critique (criticize or defend) it. 

Other options are indicated on the syllabus.

For section #H1, if you've not yet done your 10-page paper, the new option announced last week is to do a five-page essay plus a presentation.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

NoPhi (16-3)


Wednesday we cleared up a little bit of confusion about authors, but then I almost forgot I was supposed to post this time! Anyways, our group's discussion turned into several simultaneous discussions so I'm not sure what everyone ended up talking about, but the subjects of the day were Nietzsche and Freud.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Nameless Wanderers, Honors 3 Group 3

Today we continued the face-reading discussion, with me reading further the faces of classmates and the faces of their siblings. We did relate the art to philosophy by reading the faces (briefly) of James, Freud, and Nietzsche, all of whom have something in common: all had recessed eyes, indicating skepticism. Anyways, my apologies to my group for forgetting the book today. I shall endeavor to remember it on Tuesday.


Did you know that Captain Fitzroy nearly refused Charles Darwin his spot on the Beagle because his (Darwin's) nose did not meet the physiognomic profile of a naturalist? I think he missed that call.

Since Mitchell's confident face-reading in H1 has some of you enthralled, do be aware that some consider the practice no more reliable than palm-reading, or tea-leaf reading, or the old Roman practice of dissecting entrails. But it's definitely entertaining.

For what it's worth, this is from Wikipedia's entry on the subject:
Physiognomy (from the Gk. physis meaning "nature" and gnomon meaning "judge" or "interpreter") is the assessment of a person's character or personality from his outer appearance, especially the face. The term physiognomy can also refer to the general appearance of a person, object or terrain, without reference to its implied characteristics, as in the physiognomy of a plant community.
Credence of such study has varied from time to time. The practice was well-accepted by the ancient Greek philosophers, but fell into disrepute in the Middle Ages when practised by vagabonds and mountebanks. It was then revived and popularised by Johann Kaspar Lavater before falling from favour again in the late 19th century.[1] Physiognomy as understood in the past meets the contemporary definition of a pseudoscience.[2]
There is no clear evidence that physiognomy works though recent studies have suggested that facial appearances do "contain a kernel of truth" about a person's personality.[1]
The Skeptic's Dictionary says:


Physiognomy is the interpretation of outward  appearance, especially the features of the face, to discover a person's predominant temper and character.
Physiognomy has also been used as a kind of divination and is often associated with astrology. The faces depicted to the right are from Barthélemy Coclès Physiognomonia (1533) and show eyelashes of men who are proud, vainglorious, and audacious.
Coclès, like others before and after him, tried to create a science out of something each of us does from time to time: judge a person by his or her facial characteristics.from M.O. Stanton, The Encyclopedia of Face and Form Reading, 1920Physiognomists like Coclès are wont to say things such as "people with snub noses are vain, untruthful, unstable, unfaithful and seducers." The snub-nosed of the world tend to snub their noses at such pseudoscientific drivel.
Three hundred years later, M. O. Stanton would write of the pug type nose:
the interpretation of character is in consonance with the peculiarities of the form [of the nose], whether it be rounded, blunt, pug or a sharpened narrow pug. In regard to its meanings, it indicates lowness, coarseness, or commonplace mentality. If it be relatively sharp, the character is more acute and the subject quicker in his perceptions than where a blunt pug is exhibited, yet all of this class of noses have the same general meaning in absence of reasoning power, pugnacity, irritability, quarrelsomeness, and opposition. (The Encyclopedia of Face and Form Reading, 6th revised ed., 1920)
Stanton’s musings are clearly based on sympathetic magic.
"acquisitive eyes" from M.O. Stanton, The Encyclopedia of Face and Form Reading, 1920
In the 18th and 19th centuries, physiognomy was used by some of its proponents as a method of detecting criminal tendencies. Many bigots and racists still use physiognomy to judge character and personality. This is not to say that there are not certain physiognomic features associated with certain genetic disorders such as Down syndrome orWilliams Syndrome.

And guess which philosopher of our recent acquaintance was familiar with physiognomy?
That the outer man is a picture of the inner, and the face an expression and revelation of the whole character, is a presumption likely enough in itself, and therefore a safe one to go by; evidenced as it is by the fact that people are always anxious to see anyone who has made himself famous by good or evil, or as the author of some extraordinary work; or if they cannot get a sight of him, to hear at any rate from others what he looks like. So people go to places where they may expect to see the person who interests them; the press, especially in England, endeavors to give a minute and striking description of his appearance; painters and engravers lose no time in putting him visibly before us; and finally photography, on that very account of such high value, affords the most complete satisfaction of our curiosity. It is also a fact that in private life everyone criticises the physiognomy of those he comes across, first of all secretly trying to discern their intellectual and moral character from their features. This would be a useless proceeding if, as some foolish people fancy, the exterior of a man is a matter of no account; if, as they think, the soul is one thing and the body another, and the body related to the soul merely as the coat to the man himself... (continues here)
 That's none other than Artur ("Scrooge") Schopenhauer, whose face was not hard to read at all.

But he wasn't always so easy to read, was he?

Philosophers Guild(H)

Last class was a very interesting discussion.  Starting with child sacrifice our group tossed around the idea and determined that most people would not do such a thing.  Doctor Oliver jumped in  and interjected that maybe if a person cannot immediately say no they should not be allowed to have children.  We discussed how some people may take theology too far and begin to follow dangerous ideas like this one.  We really should decide on an author today in class.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

NO SOX (17.2) 11/13/13

Today in our discussion group, we talked about Sigmund Freud and his view on philosophy. The question arises, is he a philosopher? Well his studies were mainly in the psychoanalytic field, but much of that field is more theoretical than practical. Because Freud had theories and philosophical views of that particular field of science, he is deemed a philosopher.

Plato's Beard (16-2)

In class today we covered 'thousands' of people. In discussion, we mostly found pragmatism and the many truths mentality to be quite silly. There is generally one truth, and just because people could believe something is real and others do not, does not mean both are right. Most likely one of them is wrong and the other is right, but who are we to judge or care about the peace of mind of others.

Check out this really cool video explaining Neitzsche to children.

DQ) What are your thoughts on Chomsky and his stance on 'conspiracies'?
FQ) Which philosopher is credited as the beginning of pragmatism? (Peirce)

nameless 6 (17-1)

Today in group 1 we had another peripatetic day discussing Nietzsche's statement "God is dead" and Fletcher's loyalty. Since today I have been very tired today so I don't remember much of the conversation but I can give my side. I do agree with Nietzsche that if God is dead then there is no morality. With Fletcher's loyalty I'd have to say that loyalty is what we chose to believe in even when things go bad. Today I'm choosing to end on the warmer side because this week will only get warmer with a high of 67 and 73 on Saturday and Sunday respectively, and here is a neat video about Nietzsche
I'm Lee Gish and this is your philosophy forecast.

Philosoraptors in Action

Hello, all!

I'm trying a new experiment today - writing the post for our group as we have discussion!

Let's see how it goes...

After a brief reflection on Monday's peripatetic experiment and the alarming absence of Anthony, a floater joined our group, and we moved into our discussion.

First up was Freud - especially penis envy, the Oedipus complex, and the eponymous Freudian slip. After looking up Freud's "Cat in the Hat," we moved on to talk about the Id, Ego, and "Superego." Then we discussed the influence Freud on A Brave New World and how awesome that book is, as well as George Orwell's 1984.

Next was Nietzsche, whom we decided was a baby-child and a "dick" with a superiority complex (going back to Freud again...). As Jami and Tyler listened to music and discussed Taylor Swift, the other side of the group discussed cats, especially fat ones... no love for Nietzsche here.

Well, we are out of time, so this post shall come to an end.

Ave atque vale my dear Philosoraptors,

Until next time!

The A Team (16-1)

In class today we talked about Freud's psychoanalysis and free association.  We also discussed William James and his influence on American pragmatism, although he gave all the credit to Pierce who, in returned, denied his impact pragmatism and subsequently changed his area of thought to pragmaticism. We went over Nietzsche's higher man theory. If not taken verbatim et literatim, i agree with Nietzshe's "superman". If you do not settle, and strive to do things that ordinary people dont do on a daily basis, then you can achieve something higher. Look at the outliers in America, the Steve Jobs, the Henry Fords, the Rockefellers, they never settled for mediocrity. They sacrifice while the average man succumbs to the lure of being lazy. Nietzsche says there should be a constant struggle, if you settle for mediocrity at any point, then you have lost. I like this approach on life. Dont be a sheep.

In our discussion we talked about the similarities between Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zaruthustra". Some of us thought that both seemed like a self help guide; as "The Prince" was aimed at future princes and Nietzsche's "higher man" theory for a breed of humans in the future that are trying to achieve "superman".

Have a great day. See everyone on Monday!

Damon McCook

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

NO SOX (17.2) 11/11/13

Last class we got to experience a peripatetic experiment which involved walking around campus and engaging in philosophical discussion. Class discussion was brief but included very interesting topics including the ideas of Marx.  

NoPhi (16-3)

For the last class, we got to walk around outside in groups. Our group started talking about Kierkegaard, which turned into a discussion of religion and how we feel about it. We also talked some about Marxism and communism.

What did you think? Was it fun being outside?

Nameless Wanderers, Honors 3 Group 3

Today we diverted from the normal track of discussion. We began on Kierkegaard and his tendency toward focusing only on one thing and probably missing the forest for the trees, especially as regarded his fiancee. We agreed that, while he may have been a serious guy obsessed with books, thought, and writing, jilting his fiancee was probably not the optimal solution.

The diversion came when I mentioned that some features in his face reflect the evident pain he felt throughout his life. LH notes that much of his writing had to do with determining whether or not one's decision was the right one. His face reflects his emotional nature, which led into a discussion of face-reading (also known as physiognomy) in general. I read partially the faces of Kierkegaard and the others in my group.

The Highlanders

We talked about child sacrifice and the bible which led to the loss of documents and how depressing that is...like the library of Alexander. The burning of the Library potentially started the Dark Ages. Hypatia, the librarian/philosopher of the library is considered the first modern woman philosophers.
Dr. phil chimed in by saying that he would discredit the god who told him to sacrifice his child. A child who puts such great trust in the relationship and taking the child's life is disrespectful throwing out the father son relationship for a "higher being". Leigh noted that parents are there to take care of you and it's hard to imagine making that sacrifice.

Anybody who is willing to sacrifice their child should probably not have children. It's one thing to make a self sacrifice for your faith but sacrificing another person for your faith is unethical and meant to be questioned.

(16-2) Plato's Beard

I apologize for the late post. Yesterday (11/12) we followed the paripatetics' method of philosophizing by walking around campus talking mostly about Keikegaard and Marx. I have to say this method is preferable for myself.

Posted for Xoe (16.1)

Can anyone suggest a fix for Xoe? Meanwhile, post comments here.

I have not been able to physically post anything for the last two Monday's now. My computer will not let me. I can comment on other posts, but it is not pulling up an option for me to create a new post or anything. Even when I go to my name on the list of authors or click on my dashboard it does not give me the option to post anything new. It is really aggravating because I like to give people the option to post early and have it done before Tuesday morning. Any way you can help?


Philosophers Guild(H)

Last class we were joined by a member of section 17.  Our faux group member added much to our discussion and helped keep the ideas flowing.  We really need to assign authorship at the beginning of class for sure.  We discussed Darwin, and John Stuart Mill and had Dr. Oliver clarify a few of Mill's ideas for our discussion. 


On Thursday we discussed evolution versus creator. For this discussion everyone seemed to agree on evolution, or a mixture of the two. What if the creator created evolution and meant for everything to happen the way it did. Leigh pointed out that there are parts of evolution we absolutely cannot deny. Daniel brought up the example of birds and their beaks, how they evolve to match their environment, pointy beaks vs curved beaks which ever matches the diet of the environment their in. We were in the middle of discussion when class ended.

Monday, November 11, 2013

Nameless 6 (17-1)

Today was very fun for me because of the whole outside walk around campus. In our group we started at the JUB with a conversation about the final solo reports and third test. Next we headed towards the KOM while talking about whether it is better to have more faith than reason. At the KOM we met up with the other two members of our group and continued our discussion. After which The five of us meandered over to the open air observatory and talking about Marxism versus communism. Upon leaving the open air observatory we wandered over to the SUB while talking about marriage and whether it is more of a legal or religious contract. Then getting us back to topic I asked which of Kierkegaard's life styles suited them or someone else as we headed to the library. At the library we met up with Dr. Oliver and continued the conversation which drifted to religion and that lead to scientology. Lastly back at the JUB our group met up with someone from group two who also said that she enjoyed this and wished that the class had done this earlier in the year and I would have to agree.

Lee Gish says QAUCK.

Philosoraptors 17,3

Hey dudes,

This post will be a short one. Today we tested out a peripatetic experiment, discussing philosophy while wandering from one designated place on the campus to another. An experiment most of my group found desirable in contrast with a classroom setting. We discussed Marx and how his philosophy could only work in hippy communes, Kierkegaard over Dr. Phil's question posed in class, how science and religion can, in fact, be compatible, and ended with how we are all ready to learn more about existentialism.

A peripatetic experiment

This (Monday) afternoon's local forecast is clear and sunny, ahead of tomorrow's cold front, so in CoPhi it may finally be time to try that peripatetic experiment I've been intending to run, as a foretaste of the Study Abroad in Britain course another colleague and I have up on the drawing board. Bring good (comfortable and functional, not stylish and heel-mounted) shoes, kids. A pocket notebook would  be good, too.

NOTE ALSO: Final report presentation sign-ups begin Wednesday/Thursday. Your other final solo report options are a written 5-pg essay, or a blog post (or series of blog posts) due by Dec. 3. See the syllabus for details.
Here's the link to an article on "Micro vs. Macro-evolution" that I referenced in a comment to Brandon's (16.2) recent post, fyi.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Plato's Beard (16, 2)

Hey guys!
Sorry for posting so late.
Wednesday we discussed the Hegel's Thesis+ Antithesis= Synthesis idea.
I think we all decided that the such continual reforming of ideas and society could go in the wrong direction as well as the right. In general Hegel does not inspire confidence, although collaboration is not a bad thing.
We also had a lengthy discussion on Darwin and his theory of natural selection/ evolution.
I cannot say we came to an agreement on the validity of it. Some withheld there opinion based on a lack of knowledge, some agreed with Darwin and others rejected it (myself in that mix).

Dr. Oliver recommended I clarify a point I brought up that seemed to cause some confusion.

I said I believed in Microevolution, not Macroevolution. In the most simplistic terms, I believe that all creatures can adapt to better survive, such as the Finches with a better beak shape for a particular food surviving and passing the characteristic to its offspring, but reject the idea that finches could change to any other animal but a finch.

An objection was brought up as to my usage of "bird" or "dog", in that it was not clear whether I was referring to a particular species or to an entire family of "birds" or "dogs". My answer is yes, meaning that while I believe species can change, the overall family does not change. Put in another way, long ago (thousands of years ago) a bulldog could, through some change in the environment, have produced a Labrador, if the characteristics of a lab were demanded from a bulldog to survive. However, bulldog or lab, they would have not sprouted wings to become a bird of any species. 

Essentially, you could call Microevolution a type of natural selection which outlines the adaptability of creatures. Macroevolution calls for a change beyond the boundaries of an animal's fundamental makeup which is only supported by shaky evidence ( you can disagree with me, but I have yet to read a book or hear a talk on Macroevolution that has convinced me otherwise.).

Okay, now that I am getting off my soapbox,  I welcome any objections, either in posts or in person.

See you all Monday!

Friday, November 8, 2013

Carlin Romano

I'm pleased to report that Carlin's flight from Philadelphia finally touched down late last night, he's in Murfreesboro this morning. Join us for lunch if you'd care to, at Boulevard B&G at 1 pm Friday.

He'll be signing books in front of COE 164 at 4:30.

The Lyceum begins at 5 in 164.

The post-Lyceum reception (free food!) will be at Dr. Principe's home, all are invited. Directions will be provided at the Lyceum. Come, post a comment, circle the bases on Monday/Tuesday.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Nameless Wanderers, Honors 3 Group 3

After receiving the news that Herr Romano was not going to be present in class today, we did our normal discussion (following Dr. Phil, of course). We began on the subject of John Stuart Mill's liberalism and whether or not we agreed with that, which we did. Finding no disagreement, we applied the principle to the concrete world and talked about the Second Amendment. Specifically, we talked about whether or not restrictions ought to be put on the exercise thereof. (Personally, I'm happy to be in a situation where people disagree with me significantly, since that yields substantive debate.) Anyways, good time.

Philosoraptors 11/6

Yesterday Dr. Oliver sat in on our group's discussion and we debated the question of "Can anyone be a philosopher?" which then turned into the debate between what makes a good philosopher and a bad one. It was an interesting debate and I believe I was the only one who didn't agree. Then we heard the other group having an excited discussion about off-brand candy bars and I think they concluded that there was no such thing. Don't forget about the Lyceum on Friday at 5:00 pm in the COE! I think it will be interesting and I'm going to try to be there (given I don't get called into work). I hope you all have a wonderful rest of the week/weekend! See you Monday!

The Highlanders

On Tuesday, we talked about quite about psychology and our brains and how children learn from their parents. We talked about Skinner and how he put his kid in a box. Moreover, we spoke about how kids will take the example of whats around them. For example, in preschool, kids who don't really like learning are put around kids who do and excel. The ones who are strugging will eventually begin to excel as well, through example. Some disagreed.

nameless 6 (17-1)

Hey guys sorry for the late post yesterday's drive home was very taxing. But enough about me, yesterday there weren't enough students to make three discussion groups so our group split up. I went to the no sox and had interesting talk about John Stuart Mill's freedom and then we talked about off brand candy. Mean while Kayla and Krysten went to group two, the philosoraptors, and talked about what is a philosopher.

here's hoping you have a happy day from Lee Gish

No Sox (17-2)

Today in class, group 1 split and merged with the other two groups.  In our group's discussion, we talked about Mill's idea of a perfect universe and, for the most part, came to the conclusion that his ideology is too selfish in nature. We also discussed the human perception of time.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

The A-Team (16-1)

In class today we discussed the impact of Darwins's On the Origin of Species on philosophy. In our discussion we brought up the scenario of the world ending and there actually being a God... considering he basically created atheism, how much would people and/or God hate Darwin?

We also talked about John Stuart Mill, who is my favorite thus far. Dr. Oliver talked about how JSM sought happiness by limiting his desires, and that had Buddhist feel to it. Our group seemed to disagree with Mill's theory that people will always prefer to do things on a higher intellectual level, some people just want to role in mud.

I am going skydiving tomorrow so if im not in class monday check the obituaries.

Damon McCook

NoPhi (16-3)

Wed. November 6th

In class we discussed the various stages of Darwinian evolution and the probablities of it's likely hood and if the factual evidence that supports it is being interpreted correctly. Also the discussion of religion and it's capability with evolution. Is science a road block for religion or can it work in harmony?

Dr. Oliver asked us to come up with any questions we might have for Carlin Romano and post them so he can access them in time for the Fall Lyceum.

Philosophers Guild(H)

Last class we scored our tests and enjoyed a riveting discussion about the upcoming lyceum.  Our group discussed Skinners box experiment and tried to theorize how placing a young child in a box for the first 2.5 years of life could possibly help them.  If anyone would like to add anything please comment below. 

Carlin Romano

Everyone, post your questions for Carlin Romano.

Here he is on the radio, WMOT, just the other day.

He'll visit H1 on Thursday at 1, JUB 204. All are invited.

He'll (probably) also visit Happiness class Thursday at 2:40, and Happy Hour at the Boulevard at 4:30.

Then, the big event: our first-ever FALL Lyceum, Friday at 5, COE (Education Bldg) 164. He'll be there to sign books at 4:30. An off-campus reception (free food!) follows.

Come to the Lyceum, post a comment, and you can circle the bases on M/T.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

No Sox (Group 2 Section 17)

Sorry for the delay in posting. Monday, we watched a video about Greeks playing the Germans. We then discussed that for Hegel history is a thing. Schopenhauer despised happiness as a form of self delusion. B.F. Skinner believed we consist positive in our society and /or family. Maslow is said to have a very high opinion of himself. And, Coles has a genuine feeling for the lives and minds and hearts of children, and especially the children of crisis. 

Nameless Wanderers, Honors 3 Group 3

Today was quite a lively discussion. Personally, I enjoyed it greatly.

We began with Shannon's motion that "We should talk about shoes. Red shoes, brown shoes, periwinkle shoes, or even blue suede shoes." This caused Seneca, true to her form at the beginning of discussions, to burst out laughing, mostly at the tone in which Shannon said it, I think. After finishing laughing, Kayla said we could talk about what kind of shoes Aristotle wore. I returned the question of what if Aristotle didn't wear shoes? We then moved on to whether or not Hegel would have worn clogs and whether or not he was a "closet-clogger." (Those latter two were brought into the play by the impetus of Shannon and Kayla.)

After laughing ourselves out at the beginning, we moved on to the more serious topic of whether or not we agreed with Schopenhauer's idea that we hurt ourselves when we hurt someone else. The conclusion was that, yes, we do hurt ourselves, but only on a moral level. Kayla and Shannon said that we become less human when we hurt someone else. I quipped that must be how evolution (assuming that way of looking at things) progressed: apes did nice things for each other. Shannon (or Seneca, or Kayla; one of those three) said that one ape may have said to another, "Here I'll share my banana with you..." Funnier if you're there, I suppose. At the end of class (also when Dr. Phil came to our group), we got onto the subject of suffering. I noted (once again) that the answer to the whole thing we had been talking about lies in the question of absolutes, which led into me expositing my view of the question as a Christian

Fun discussion indeed.


On Thursday we had a test, and we finished our discussion from last Tuesday while enjoy tons and tons of candy.

Monday, November 4, 2013

A-team 16-1

Today we graded our tests that we took on Thursday.We also had 2 floaters in our groups and discussed Schopenhauer and Hegel mostly. Hegel seeming more optimistic than Schopenhauer. Saying that there is no guarantee for progress but we may as well try. The next philosophers that we will be discussing are Mill and Darwin out of Little History, Reeves and Singer out of Philosophy Bites Back and Coles ,Gardner ,and Burke out of America The Philosophical.

Carlin Romano on the radio, in our classroom, & at Friday's Lyceum

The Carlin Romano radio broadcast/podcast from WMOT is here.

Carlin Romano will be visiting class on Thursday the 7th (everybody from all three sections: post two discussion questions each for Romano by Wednesday night, by replying to "Questions for Carlin Romano"); then he'll be delivering our inaugural Lyceum Lecture on Friday the 8th at 5 pm, COE 164. He'll be available to sell & sign books at 4:30 pm on the 8th.

(Rumor also has it: he may be visiting Happy Hour/Philosophy Club at the Boulevard on Thursday at 4:30.)

Nameless 6 (17-1)

In a philosophy class at MTSU four students attended class. Then the teacher and two other students sat down and we discussed whether Hegel's linear history is correct or not. most believed, like Anthony pointed out, that history is in a state of flux between increases and decreases. Another thing about Hegel is that he believed that our world is heading to something better. Later when Avery joined us the discussion began anew, although with a lot of the same points. It then shifted to how we perceive time. When the class dismissed the four students moved on with there lives, until this Wednesday at 2:20.

(16-2) Plato's Beard

Today we reviewed/graded exam 2 and then talked discussed Hegel, Schopenhauer, Skinner, Maslow, Coles. In one of the groups I floated to, we primarily talked about Hegel and his broad view of history and our understanding of it. Very interesting philosophy(for me).

Philosopher's Guild

Sorry that I am posting a little late. Last class we had our second test, and did not have much time to discuss in our groups. Graham was our floater this time. We spent a majority of our time discussing whether or not we can force someone to be free and if that is wrong to do. It was a great discussion as always and look forward to another tomorrow.

NoPhi (16/3)

Hey guys!

Today we started off our discussion talking about whether or not history always repeats itself. We went on to how there will always be humans who want more power. We talked about the population boom of the world, and what might happen if we need to start competing more over resources and territory. We also talked about Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and whether we think you can skip through the steps, or if they really apply every time.

After the floater change, somebody asked us the question of whether we'd rather be a ruler who rules through love or through fear. It went on to discussion of the deterioration of rights in America, if there could be another civil war, and if there were, who would make up the opposing sides.

The last floater change led to talk about Hegel, how he perceives the end times, and how we ourselves won't ever experience the "end."

Any other thoughts about it?

Philosoraptors vs. the World

Greetings, everyone!

I'm going to try to make this short and sweet, seeing as I have to drive to Nashville here in a few minutes.

Today we graded our exams, and John was exceedingly willing to remind everyone that he won't be needing to take the final exam. After that, we discussed Hegel and Schopenhauer, along with a little Skinner thrown in for good measure. When it was brought up that he had a box that he would place his daughter in known as the Heir Conditioner, I could not handle how punny that was. We also talked about how Schopenhauer was a bit of a charlatan, since he was all talk and no action.

I for one rather enjoyed reading Hegel, not because I particularly agreed with him, but because his ideas were very interesting and enjoyable to ponder for a bit. It also strongly reminded me of one of my favorite shows, a mid-nineties anime by the name of Evangelion (I doubt that anyone in my group is familiar with it, but if you are, we should be friends) which had something in it known as the Human Instrumentality Project, which stood to create a world in which the individual ceased to exist, and all of humanity would come together to form one consciousness, which was bolstered by the fact that all negatives and flaws of individuals would cease to exist, since they would be reinforced by the strengths of others. And since the end result was a unified consciousness, this also meant the end of all pain, anguish, selfishness, etc. since everything was now for the good of the "whole", so to speak.

An extreme digress, I admit, but reading Hegel's idea of the Spirit (or Geist) gave me an eerie sense of deja vu, and now I know why: Hegel's Spirit was the unification of humanity into a joined consciousness. Although admittedly I feel Hegel is referring to a common consensus type of thing, where we reach a sort of common understanding and acceptance to where everyone is striving for the greater good.

Anyway, that's my rant for the day. Not quite as short and concise as I'd imagined, but with that, I am off to go see one of my favorite bands, August Burns Red.

I shall see you all on Wednesday!

NO SOX (17.2) 10/30/13

Today we took our exam and then decided to go outside for our discussion.  We talked about the philosopher Kant and the way he felt towards abiding by the laws.

Forgetful Philosoraptors (17-3)

So, I believe that I was supposed to make the post for this Monday, but I forgot, and I am sincerely sorry. That being said, I am getting out of the way tonight, so that you can still post Monday before class. Once again, I am sorry for such a late post!

Last Wednesday we had our lecture outside on the steps of the JUB and we kicked off our discussion group with the issue of whether or not certain animals can express certain emotions and whether or not they have souls. Even though "All Dogs Go To Heaven" is a great movie, I think my theology and philosophy does not line up with that sentiment. I loved my dog even more than I love some people that are close to me, and when we had to put him down it was one of the worst experiences of my life, but I don't feel that he ever "loved" me in the traditional sense and I don't believe that I will see him in the great beyond. We then moved on to a deeper discussion of what makes us human and why we believe what we believe. I don't remember much more than that because of how long ago it was, but I do remember the interesting conversation that Jami and I had with Dr. Oliver after class was over. We talked about how fraternities could be beneficial because they provide a powerful support network for their members and they work for the uplift of mankind through the discussion of ideals. Dr. Oliver also told Jami and I about everything he had to do to get his doctorate. It was pretty interesting!

Going back to last week's readings, I've always loved Immanuel Kant, but Bentham presents a better moral philosophy than the great metaphysician and epistemologist. Utilitarianism has always been a political philosophy that I have agreed with, even to the point of Machiavelli's "Do the ends justify the means?" judgement of what is wrong and what is right. As Bentham puts it - "The greatest happiness for the greatest number." Moving on to this week, I am really glad the we finally got to Hegel. His dialectic finally addresses the problem I had been noticing with almost all of our other philosophers: they assert the perfection of their ideas and completely reject the ideas of those that went before them. Hegel confronts this process and as Robert Stern says, "Hegel presents it, that is, by going back to Plato and to dialogue and to discussion, but adding to that the particular concern that Hegel had, which was that, especially in philosophy, one should avoid dogmatic presentation of your views..." We should all work towards attaining the Golden Mean and the "via media." That is one of the reasons that I love the Anglican Church so much. While mainstream Protestantism went to the polar opposite of orthodoxy to avoid the Catholic stereotype, the Anglican Church retained the orthodoxy, but fixed the heresies to make a synthesis out of the Catholic thesis versus Protestant antithesis.

Here's an image that shows how Marx used Hegel's dialectic:


Sunday, November 3, 2013

NoPhi (16-3)


Wednesday we had our test, and then we talked about adding new authors. We should have two more now, but seeing as how I couldn't find a post for the group, there may still be confusion about who posts when. If this was supposed to be my turn, then sorry for the late post everyone!

Kristin Barton

Friday, November 1, 2013

Questions for Carlin Romano

Post your questions here for our author & distinguished guest by Wednesday the 6th. Come see him in person if you can, in JUB 204 at 1 pm on Thursday the 7th (if it gets too crowded we'll move to the TN Room or the lobby) AND at our first-ever FALL LYCEUM on Friday the 8th, 5 pm, COE 164. Bring your copy of America the Philosophical for him to sign before the talk, and buy another copy (signed books make great Christmas gifts!) there too.

I'll kick us off:

  • Can you discuss the aphorisms at the beginning of America the Philosophical: why did you choose them, what is their significance for your thesis that America is a far more philosophically-inclined civilization than is generally realized? (Especially James's statememt about there being no "rules of the game," and Rorty's that philosophers' definitions of philosophy tend to be exclusive.)
  • Why do you prefer Isocrates to Socrates? Were they both "sophists" in your opinion? Would that be a bad thing?
  • What do you think of the Colin McGinn sexual harassment scandal? What does it say about the status of women in philosophy and in academia generally?
  • Who besides Isocrates and Richard Rorty are your personal favorite philosophers? Why, briefly?
  • How did you get to be "Critic-at-large" at the Chronicle of Higher Education? What do you like most and least about that job?
  • You recently wrote a feature in the Chronicle about the rise of Chinese philosophy in America. Can you talk about that? Is there any kind of parallel to the popularity of American philosophy in China in the 1920s & '30s?
  • What do you see as the future of higher education? Will the online alternative (MOOCs etc.) be the death-knell of the traditional university as we've known it?
ANNOUNCEMENTS. (My digital post-it is acting up again...) M 4/T 5 - HEGEL, SCHOPENHAUER (LH); STERN (PB); Common-sense, Skinner, Maslow, Coles... (AP 182-197). WE'LL GRADE EXAM #2 IN CLASS.

W 6/Th 7 - Mill, Darwin (LH); Reeves, Singer (PB); ...Coles, Gardner, Burke (AP 197-212)

Carlin Romano will be visiting class on Thursday the 7th (everybody from all three sections: post two discussion questions each for Romano by Wednesday night, by replying to "Questions for Carlin Romano"); then he'll be delivering our inaugural Lyceum Lecture on Friday the 8th at 5 pm, COE 164. He'll be available to sell & sign books at 4:30 pm on the 8th.

(Rumor also has it: he may be visiting Happy Hour/Philosophy Club at the Boulevard on Thursday at 4:30.)

Nameless Wanderers HNRS

and we also talked about each of our discussion questions!!

...still could have used more laughter though

anyway, Post Away, My Peeps