The Marketplace of Ideas

This is what passes for "intelligent" baseball commentary

2005-05-15T18:31:00.000-04:00

At Sons of Sam Horn. Do a little research, guys. How about reading Bill James or Baseball Prospectus? The stuff is available online. It's not hard. Strong lineup protection, like most "common-sense" baseball lore, is a myth. It's not even really controversial, if you look at the data. SOSH members pride themselves on the quality of the discussions that go on at the site...I'd hate to see what they consider low quality!

At first I thought sports were great because they gave me something that I could talk about with almost anyone...then I realized that almost everyone who likes sports knows nothing about them and thinks he knows everything...sigh.

By The Way

2005-04-05T16:55:00.000-04:00

Yes, I did notice that UNC won the title last night. No, I don't really care. Why?

1) Most of their players will leave, so I'm not scared of playing them next year.

2) It probably is a good thing for Duke to have an ACC team represent; just shows everyone we are the best league.

3) Baseball season's here! Fuck this basketball shit.

Seriously, though, good job UNC. I can't really knock the accomplishment. Ol' Roy is not a choker after all, I guess. See you next year!

The NBA continues to sicken me

2005-04-05T16:51:00.000-04:00

Marvin Williams, the UNC freshman, is likely to make the jumpt to the NBA. Some scouts are calling him a potential number two or three pick.

This kind of idiocy is emblematic of what's wrong with the way the NBA is run. Marvin had, what, eight points in the title game? Yet he'll go above Sean May? The NBA GMs obsession with "upside," with physical features and speed above talent is just insane. If you draft a high schooler, you're first of all taking a huge gamble on whether he'll turn into a superstar of the Garnett-Kobe-Lebron variety. But even if that does in fact happen, he'll probably only really add value to your team in the final year of his initial rookie contract (except for Lebron, but he is such an exception it doesn't make sense to bring him up). So in essence, you are taking a huge risk in order to play an incompetent player for several years, just so he _might_ turn into a superstar who you _might_ be able to re-sign after four years. Wouldn't all that effort be better spent just trying to sign emerging superstars as they get out of their rookie contracts? Rather than wasting fans' time, forcing them to watch these teenagers struggle to compete.

MLB has it figured out--if you're intrigued by a pitcher's velocity, you draft him and put him in your minor league system. There he gets a chance to develop, and if he turns out to be good, you bring him up. You get six years of his service for developing him, and fans aren't forced to watch untrained bunglers try to play the game at the highest level. Dear God, will the next commissioner figure this out?

It's good to know...

2005-04-01T22:15:00.000-05:00

...that there are still some state governments that believe that people have a legal right to get their legitimate prescriptions. Even in dark times, glimmers of hope...

It really doesn't speak well of religions....

2005-03-31T00:43:00.000-05:00

When the only thing the major ones can agree on is how much they hate gays. While I realize objectivity in morals is largely an illusion, this is clearly one of the issues where the other side really has absolutely no ground to stand on. Their best arguments come down to "It's gross! Stop!" Sigh.

Leiter's Suspicious Hermeneutics

2005-03-26T17:02:00.000-05:00

Just read Leiter's article "The Hermeneutics of Suspicion". I think it's a good article for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it provides a healthy defense of the relevance of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud to analytic philosophy. However, I'm not sure that Leiter needs to provide as much justification for his project as he seems to think he does. In making the case for the importance of a "naturalistic" approach to studying the real causes of human motives and beliefs, he refers us back to Edmund Gettier, who offered what is considered to be a decisive counterexample to the "knowledge=justified true belief" analysis of that concept. I won't get into Gettier here, or my feelings on the significance of his objection, but I will say this: Do we really need Gettier to make the case for the epistemological importance of M., N., and F.? It seems to be me that--even if we use the outmoded "justified true belief" definition--you can just as easily offer reasons for the relevance of the suspicious, naturalistic account. For wouldn't it show, that if I believe something for different reasons than I think I do--that is to say, I believe I have rationally assessed capitalism to be the best and only viable form of human life, when in fact I believe this because I've been indoctrinated by the ruling classes--that my justification, broadly construed, is suspect? Perhaps the old-style analysis of justification would lead to the conclusion that my beliefs are justified, even with such a hidden origin, but that would seem to me to speak to a problem with our theory of justification, not of knowledge itself.

Leiter's Naturalistic Project

2005-03-24T00:24:00.000-05:00

Brian Leiter has an interesting article up called "The Hermeneutics of Suspicion" in which he tries to make the case for a naturalistic interpretation of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud--and thus their ultimate inclusion withing and relevance to Anglo-American Analytic Philosophy.

In some ways, I find what Leiter is doing appealing. The Analytic/Continental divide in philosophy is ridiculous, and has caused real harm to both sides in many ways, and thus ultimately to the whole endeavor known as "philosophy." Certainly, work that makes stodgy analytic types reconsider such interesting figures as those three is of great value.

But is Leiter's solution really a solution at all? Does reading continental philosophers as naturalists really help us mend this divide, ultimately? I think not--first of all, while I'm certain a convincing case can be (and is, I haven't finished the article) made for such a reading, I think it might overlook a lot that is valuable within those thinkers' works. And what of philosophers who cannot be easily read naturalistically? Are they then the "frauds," the "charlatans" that M, N, and F were until Leiter rescued them by calling them naturalists? Does Leiter really solve the problem of the divide, as he claims, or doesn't he just push the dates a little forward?

The real problem, it seems to me, is not that a naturalistic reading is wrong--I think that many interesting readings can be made of any truly deep thinker--it's just that it misses the whole point. Philosophy doesn't need an external justification for doing what it does; it will tick right along regardless of its contiguity, or lack thereof, with the natural sciences. Literature needs no such justifying explanation, and whenever one is offered--such as Harold Bloom's claim that one should read because "only deep, constant reading fully establishes and augments an autonomous self"--end up sounding pompous and absurd. The reason is not that a good definition hasn't been found; it's just that there isn't one definition that fits. Philosophy, like literature, is many things to many people; Its inestimable value to human history can't be boiled down to a subservience to science. People call Heidegger a fraud because they think his claims are not false; but isn't inspiring generations of other brilliant philosophically minded people an accomplishment? I suppose the problem is that I see philosophy as an end unto itself, whereas for others it clearly is not, and cannot, be thus. Its only purpose is to serve the greater good, that of augmenting the collection of true propostions.

Entering Legal Academia

2005-03-12T17:28:00.000-05:00

Lots of posts on becoming a law professor here. Sigh. It's definitely what I want to do with my life--there definitely is no other career better suited to my interests and inclinations, and it's nice that law professors actually make some money, as opposed to, say, philosophy professors--but it won't be easy. At least I know I actually enjoy working hard, and this year has been good for me as I've been able to become less conflicted about work/relaxing--I see my life much less in terms of such a dichotomy. Now, I am just really, really looking forward to getting this ball rolling. A new set of challenges will be exciting.

Zizek Article

2005-03-12T05:12:00.000-05:00

An interesting article by Slavoj Zizek here. The stuff about Heidegger piqued my interest, due to my recent reading. I've read a couple of extremely short summaries of his life, but I still don't really understand his relationship to Nazism--he briefly collaborated, but then fell out of favor with the regime. Was he really sympathetic, or was he just trying to protect himself? Did he change his mind about Hitler? I should read a full length biography at some point...

UPDATE: After reading a bit more, it seems that Heidegger was a true believer, at least for a time. While he fell out of favor, he was definitely on board with the Nazis for a while. Not good.

I Shouldn't Have a Credit Card

2005-03-12T04:51:00.000-05:00

On impulse, yesterday I bought five of those little Oxford "A Very Short Introduction To" books. I decided to get one, and then I sort of wanted to get all the ones I'd been desiring. So I got Hegel, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Wittgenstein. Hopefully they will prove helpful in my philosophical endeavors...the Heidegger book has been useful so far.

I Want to Learn Ancient Greek

2005-03-12T04:48:00.000-05:00

Really. Wouldn't reading Plato and Aristotle in the original be awesome?

So Says Ludwig

2005-03-08T22:21:00.000-05:00

"Where our language suggests a body and there is none; there, we should like to say, is a spirit."

Reading Continues

2005-03-08T22:17:00.000-05:00

Last night, I got to the halfway point in Being and Time, and then started reading some of the Philosophical Investigations. I'm still a bit lost with Heidegger, but Wittgenstein is making more sense to me now than the last time I tried to read his later work. So far, he seems to be arguing for (although, Wittgenstein doesn't argue so much as suggest, imply, ask pointed questions towards) an instrumental conception of language. Sentences, words, etc. are to be viewed only in the context of the language game in which they are used. Makes sense so far.

Concering Heidegger, today I bought a book of his essays that I hope will prove helpful. I'd like to read The Concept of Time, but $25 for a 40-page book is steep. Onward...

I Love Books

2005-03-07T21:36:00.000-05:00

My long-term reading project is to read--or at least seriously grapple with--the most important work by each of the major figures of the history of philosophy. My undergraduate education exposed me to Plato and Aristotle, and the major early moderns through Hume. While I know I didn't get as much as I should have out of these philosophers, I figure I should branch out before going back and doing them right. On my own, I've read: Kant's Critique of Pure Reason; Foucault's Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality, Volume 1, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy of Morals, and The Birth of Tragedy; Some of Kierkegaard's Either/Or; Wittgenstein's Tractatus; and now I'm working on Heidegger's Being and Time. I also have been reading in Louis Menand's Pragmatism: A Reader. I'm liking William James.

What's most important to do next? I'm thinking I should do Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, as that looks like one of the top two or three books of the twentieth century, in terms of influence. After that, i'll probably check out Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, as he relies on W. and H., both of whom I will have just read. After that--I'm not sure. I've got Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, but smarter people than I have told me it's impossible. Maybe I'll give it a try anyways. I'm also interested in doing more with the Pragmatists, and reading some of Habermas. And then there's all the legal philosophy I want to get familiar with. Hopefully I'll get to it all eventually...Vita Brevis, Libri Longi!

Sein und Zeit

2005-03-07T02:26:00.000-05:00

I've been struggling with Heidegger's Being and Time recently, with a little help from a from friend who understands H. better than I do. I feel like I get the gist of what he's trying to say, some of the time, but a lot of it is just going right over my head. Still, perhaps I have to read it once with little comprehension to better understand it later. I'm finding it pretty exciting reading; perhaps that's because it represents a different way of doing philosophy than I'm used to.

My interest in philosophy recently has been pretty meta--that is, I am really interested in the entire history of philosophy, broadly construed, and the whole possibility of a philosophical enterprise. For people who supposedly spend their lives thinking "deeply," professional philosophers that I've met seem fairly uninterested in philosophical questions about philosophy itself--they mostly just take the methodologies given to them by their teachers, journals, whatever and then start plugging away at problems. That's not me. I doubt I'll be able to contribute something to "Philosophy," in the broad sense, but at the very least I want to have some conception of how the whole history of the field hangs together.

Bloggers Are Really, Pathetically Desperate...

2005-03-04T01:44:00.000-05:00

...If they are reading this blog because they think the bloggerette is hot.

More on BTK

2005-02-27T04:45:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-27T04:39:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-25T15:13:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-25T14:51:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-25T14:41:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-25T14:34:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-25T03:56:00.000-05:00

"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

2005-02-25T03:53:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-25T03:49:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-25T03:37:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-23T22:33:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-12T14:32:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-09T17:50:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-09T17:30:00.000-05:00

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.

Poll Insanity

2004-10-27T17:16:00.000-04:00

With six days until the election, the steady trickle of tracking polls has become a barrage. What to make of all the conflicting national and battleground state numbers?

First of all, I do agree with the general liberal blogger consensus that most of the polls in use are seriously flawed. If more Democrats than Republicans voted in 2000 in a given state, it doesn't make sense to have significantly more Republicans in a sample for a poll for 2004, especially when the Democratic base is much more energized than in 2000. Also, minority voters are consistently underestimated, and could make the difference, as even a Republican pollster admits.

However, another piece of dem blogger gospel--that the undecideds will break for Kerry 2 to 1--may not be a sure thing. I certainly hope it is true, but the polls that take "leaners" into account seem to be calling this into question. While this has been true so often in the past as to seem like a sure thing, the fact is a significant portion of the electorate thinks of this as wartime, and that may cause them to break for Bush. We'll know soon how this works out.

All that being said, I don't think we should pay that much attention to polls right now. We know the race is going to be close, both campaigns are pretty locked into their plans by now and this thing will be won on the ground by GOTV (and, possibly, by Republican voter suppression). Virtually all of the last week polls in 2000 had Bush leading, and Gore won by half a million votes. Until Nov. 3rd, all we just have to keep our eyes on the prize and get out the vote. Keep the Faith.

The Red Sox go up 3-0...

2004-10-27T14:41:00.000-04:00

And the Nation begins wondering if this is could be the second act of the most heartbreaking collapse imaginable. In deference to the superstitious, I won't say this team has got the series in the bag; but if these guys don't win, it would seriously alter my whole understanding of the universe. If they somehow managed to blow it, I would have little choice but to conclude that there is, in fact, a God; that he takes an interest in baseball; and that he would have designed the outcomes of all the postseason games so far just in order to maximize the suffering of one particular group of people with little in common other than team allegiance.

Why is that the common wisdom about baseball is seemingly the most riddled with nonsense about "clutch," "curses," and so on, when it is almost certainly the sport in which psychology, character, etc. matter least? I often find talking about baseball with most fans infuriating, due to their lack of a basic understanding of what true skills are and what a batter or pitcher can control in a single game or at-bat. As much as I'd like to believe in a story about the unbelievable character and dedication of the Boston Red Sox, and the Yankees totally choking, it's kind of a sham. Winning in the postseason is about getting lucky and getting hot at the right time. Given enough time, certain "storylines" will emerge that seem to reveal truths about the teams they involve, but basically if you buy into this you're just attaching values to the "ability" of a person to win or lose repeated coin flips. Boston's failure to win a world series has a lot to do with poor management, of which the Babe Ruth sale is but a symptom, rather than the cause of all the trouble.

Then again, I wasn't really aware of baseball in 1986, so perhaps if I had been a Sox fan then I wouldn't be quite so rational about all this. I did survive the 2003 postseason, however; a huge difference in the abilities of the Yankees' and Red Sox's managers to make tough decisions was the reason for the Game 7 loss, not a curse.