More on BTK

He lived in Park City, a community of only 6,000 people. And he was able to go unsuspected for 31 years. How well do any of us know what's going on next door?

BTK Finally Caught

Great to hear that they finally caught BTK. A couple of years ago, it seemed like he and Green River would go down as the two biggest uncaught serial killers since the Zodiac. And now, despite years of inactivity, they both finally got caught. Modern police work is by no means perfect, but they're getting better at catching these guys.

The really interesting detail is that the BTK suspect's daughter is the one who alerted police--i can't begin to imagine what it would be like to grow up with a serial killer for a father, feeling that something was wrong, and ultimately suspecting that he was a monster...really chilling.

Antidepressants

Is it wise to go on antidepressants? I know I have a depressive personality. I also know that I am capable of being highly functional and reasonably happy when not on antidepressants. But I've found that's only possible if I'm getting fairly intense daily exercise. If I stop exercising, I often experience a huge crash in my emotions. I don't want to take antidepressants instead of exercising, but it might be nice to have some insurance in case life gets in the way at times. I don't want to suddenly experience a huge crash come exam time just because I'm too busy to work out.

On the other hand, I have a natural reluctance to use antidepressants. Will they change me in some ways that I won't notice? Will I ever be able to stop taking them once I start? I'll have to decide soon.

Meta-Post

I've been posting a lot more recently. A few changes have made it easier:
1) Focusing on shorter postings. Before, I would start writing long posts that would begin to meander, and would never end up hitting "publish."
2) Writing a short post whenever I have anything to say about something I've read. I'll expand to comment about music and film, too, I think. It helps me get my thoughts straight and to keep a record of my first impressions.
3) Not worrying about quality of posts. Sure, I end up saying lots of things that look somewhat sophomoric--but nobody reads this anyways! I haven't given out the URL.

Rorty and Cavell

I've just gotten interested about Richard Rorty and Stanley Cavell, but lack much first-hand experience with their scholarship. They seem interesting because both managed to work both within and outside of the analytic tradition--and that's what I ultimately would like to be able to do. I think there's valuable stuff in both strands of philosophy; and more importantly, I think a dogmatic insistence on one or the other is a real intellectual laziness. I'll have to investigate Rorty and Cavell over the next few months, to see if they could be models for me later on. In any case, it's nice to know that its possible to transcend the divide, and get real recognition as a scholar.

More on Pragmatism

I've just read Peirce's basic pragmatist essays, and found them pretty interesting. The basic idea is that all concepts which cannot be reduced to experience--or some possible experience--are meaningless. Any metaphysical distinction that goes beyond possible experience is pretty much nonsense. I'm not sure what pragamatism says about ethics, and how legal theorists end up using it. But the main thing that annoys me about philosophy are the endless debates about minor technicalities that serve no purpose. Is a boat whose planks are replaced one by one the same when all the planks are replaced, or is the boat built with the discarded planks the original? Who can say? I don't think there is a right answer to such questions; they merely exist to illuminate the vagueness of the concepts we use. If a pragmatist could cast aside the nit-picky questions in legal philosophy I found so obnoxious, I'd be all for it.

Justice Holmes

"Read the works of the great German jurists, and see how much more the world is governed today by Kant than by Bonaparte. We cannot all be Descartes or Kant, but we all want happiness. And happiness, I am sure from having known many successful men, cannot be won simply by being counsel for great corporations and having an income of fifty thousand dollars. An intellect great enough to win the prize needs other food besides success. The remoter and more general aspects of the law are those which give it universal interest. It is through them that you not only become a great master in your calling, but connect your subject with the universe and catch an echo of the infinite, a glimpse of its unfathomable process, a hint of the universal law."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The Path of the Law

The Impulse to Destroy in Philosophy

I've been curious for a while about a strange phenomenon in philosophy--the impulse to wreck the whole enterprise. Ayer apparently had the goal of "ending" philosophy. Wittgenstein exhibits some of these same impulses too. Where does it come from? Is it only present in the analytic tradition? Is it because analytic philosophers think they're getting a better theory of "truth," and that they can find such an ultimate theory, like string theorists looking for M-Theory? Do continental types not have this impulse, as they might think of what they as literature? I doubt any novelist ever desired to write something that would destroy fiction.

Rorty on Derrida

I just read Richard Rorty's essay "Philosophy as a Kind of Writing: An Essay on Derrida." I don't pretend to know (or understand) much about Derrida, but I thought Rorty's analysis of the rift between analytical and continental philosophy (or as he calls them, Kantian and Hegelian) was absolutely brilliant. His main point--in my limited understanding after a brief reading--is that the difference between the two types is not that they hold opposing viewpoints on a set of fundamental questions--it's just that the Hegelians don't want to approach the issue in those terms. It's not Catholics vs. Atheists; its Catholics vs. Secularists who don't want to address God at all. Both are simply "kinds of writing;" but the Kantians don't enjoy writing as such, as they find it an inadequate representation of "truth." Hegelians don't see the issue in those terms, and thus they enjoy writing. Rorty seems to think the two types can and must coexist, which seems to be reasonable--I've long been dissatisfied with the animosity between the two sides, and an approach that avoids that seems great. I'll have to read more Rorty to see if I really like him, but I approve of what I read so far.

The Coming Assault on Abortion

This kind of thing will become increasingly common--and much worse is on the way--in the next few years. Let's hope the pro-choice Justices somehow manage to stay alive, at least until 2006 when there's a reasonable chance we could take back the Senate. What bothers me the most is that lots of pro-choice people don't really seem to understand what's at stake--they think Roe can never be overturned. It can and will be, if Bush gets to make two or three appointments. But the right doesn't really need to overturn Roe if they can do stuff like this--they'll just make it so hard to get a "legal" abortion that no one will be able to get one. I heard recently that the only place to get an abortion in Oregon is in Portland--if that's true, it's shameful.

Pragmatism

I just bought
Pragmatism: A Reader by Louis Menand. I've gotten interested in pragmatism as a possible way to do philosophy while avoiding the metaphysical nonsense I could never get into. It's also a plus that so many legal thinkers call themselves neopragmatists. I'm hoping I'll find it interesting enough to want to do some serious work on it in the future, perhaps when and if I get a PhD. The first few essays are pretty interesting...In addition, I have some love for pragmatists since this blog takes its name from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., one of the founding figures.

There's a bunch of work wasted

No Fulbright scholarship for me. It's what I expected, but did they really have to make me wait the extra three days to find out? And did my school interviewers have to be quite so mean?

I Hate Blogs

My love-hate relationship with blogs continues. I read them frequently, I find them entertaining and useful; but I also find that the bloggers I read usually seem pretty despicable, or odd, or unpleasant somehow. Not people I would like to go out drinking with.

However, it's a medium with its purposes, and I'm feeling more tempted to blog myself. Not having a job or being in school is no doubt a contributing factor. I briefly gave blogging a try a few months ago, but never really got started. Perhaps this week I'll post a couple times a day and see if I get hooked. Check back, lecteurs...

I Loathe the IIE

I applied for a Fulbright scholarship; in my application I gave them the address where I was living at the time, and my permanent address. I noted that my address expired on Nov. 29, 2004. I found out that initial decision letters were sent out on January 31, 2005. Having not received mine by February 9, I called up the IIE, which administrates the scholarships. It turns out they sent my letter to my old address, despite having an indication that it had expired. So I sent a functionary at the IIE this email:

I applied for the Fulbright to study in Germany. After calling your office today, I learned that my preliminary decision letter was mailed to my old address, despite my noting on my application that that address expired on Nov. 29, 2004.

I have contacted the management of my old apartment building, but they think the new tenants of my old apartment probably threw out the letter.

Given these circumstances--that my letter was not sent to the correct address--is there any way I can get an expedited decision, via fax, phone, or email? I realize that you probably have many people contacting you these days trying to get decisions, but it's clear that my letter will not be coming in the mail.

And got back:

Sorry, but we cannot tell you of the decision by phone or email until February 15. You are welcome to call me on that date. You are right - we should not have used your old address, but when processing 5,000 applications sometimes you miss a few that have addresses expiring before the letters go out. It happens.

Would you like to call on the 15th, or would you like me to send you a new letter to your home address?

So I replied:

There's no way you could make an exception to your policy, as the mistake was your organization's? I understand that it is a difficult task to process so many applications, but I don't fully understand the harm of making an exception, for the specific reason that the letter was sent to the wrong place.

Of those two options, I would prefer a letter be sent immediately to my permanent address.

And got back:

No, we cannot. And it wasn't our mistake - just an oversight. And to be honest, you really shouldn't have used an address that expired before the end of January as we do very clearly state in the application instructions that your mailing address should be valid until the January 31, 2005.

We will send out a new to your permanent address.


Now, I'll say a couple of things here because it's probably better than writing them in an angry email.

1) There is little I despise more than a "rules are rules" attitude. Dear Lord, let me never become one of the soulless people who gets pleasure from enforcing such a policy.

2) I am EXTREMELY tempted to reply, including this piece of information:

o·ver·sight     P   Pronunciation Key  (vr-st)
n.
An unintentional omission or mistake.

But that really would be a bad idea, wouldn't it? At this point, I don't really expect that I'll get the scholarship, and I don't have my heart set on it. But knowing would be nice. And not having to deal with idiotic bureaucrats would be nicer.