Does it count as a cheap mystery if you narrate a story in everyday English, but change a few key terms to keep readers on their toes?
Modern programming requires you to be a philosopher: you have to understand what the world is made of and how those things interact to model them in code.
Computer programming is a creative activity in which you have to build coherent, rational systems. This can teach us something about faith.
What drew me to computer programming was getting to be creative. Later, I heard someone say the whole thing is like magic. They were right.
In the UK, people "take" decisions. In the US, we "make" them. Believe it or not, that difference actually makes a difference.
Our forebears asked: "Why go to school during war?" "Why fund science in addition to security?" Now we ask, "Why do anything but fight for justice?"
There are some things you don't like. And there are some things you don't like because you don't like the people who like them. Which reason accounts for the way people feel about Young Adult Literature?
"We ought to take middle reality as realest because it is what our senses lead us to focus on." But don't they reveal generalities first?
Last time, I argued that intellectual and perceptual maturity attunes us to middle reality -- if we judge the middle in terms of parts and wholes. The better we see and understand things, the more we realize that reality is in the middle. If, however, we judge the middle according to originals and copies, we do become better at seeing [...]
You'd expect organisms that survive to be attuned to reality, and most attuned to what is most real. We're attuned to things that are on the middle level of reality. So . . .
When I say reality is realest in the middle, what do I mean? Well, let me explain. No, please let me explain. This is so important to me. Pleeeeease
Imitating Aristotle leads us to conclude that reality is in the middle. And we should imitate Aristotle. Down with reductionism and its opposite!
Idea: Reductionism is incompatible with one form of generalism, but not the other. Reductionists believe reality is at the bottom. You don't really exist. You are just your parts, behaving and interacting in the various ways they do. In contrast, generalists think reality is at the top. But there are two versions of this belief. One version says wholes are primary. [...]
Idea: There are good reasons for believing that the more original a thing is, the realer it is. Let's call reality-is-at-the-top-ism in general, "generalism." The type of generalism we examined last time is what I called "unificationism." But there's another version. "Originalism" will be my name for the idea that a thing derives its reality from its [...]
There's a mix of reasons for believing that larger, more inclusive things are realer. Some of them seem perfectly reasonable. Others are questionable.
Starting October 1st, it is officially Pumpkintide. But what is Pumpkintide? Where did it come from? What is it's purpose?
"A Good Melody Needs Cohesion and Concealment" A good melody needs three pairs of properties. The first is cohesion and concealment. Without one, it falls apart. Without the other, it loses mystery. Read More The Top 40 Philosophy Blog
Idea: There are four good reasons for being a reductionist. At the cellular, molecular, or quantum level, you don't exist. But it's those lower levels of reality that are most real. The higher levels are just manifestations of their parts -- of how things at the lower levels behave and interact. This theory is called "reductionism." Reductionism's Theme Song Why believe [...]
Today's Top 40 Philosophy blog post continues the series exploring what makes a good song: "Melodies Are Growing Trees" Head on over and check it out. Or start here for the beginning of the series.
It does, and everyone (from Plato and Aristotle to you) agrees. In this post, we explore the various ways of dividing reality into different levels.