Squared Circles
Squared Circles by Justin Schwartz 23 March 2002 23:32 UTC The curriculum goes from the Greeks to Descartes, Hume, and Kant. I had one (elective) class in the scholastics at Tigertown, and sat in on Michael Frede's class on Scotus's ontological argument. That was a scary experience. jks ^ Charles: What was scary about it ?
Re: Squared Circles
Why is it scary? It's a circular argument especially when applied to the concept of evil ( as in axis o'evil umpire) (I too, unfortunately sat in on (or through) a medieval philosophy course as an undergrad) Which raises another question, is an agnostic a Gnostic who graduates from a land-grant college? --Ann - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 2:28 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24295] Squared Circles Squared Circles by Justin Schwartz 23 March 2002 23:32 UTC The curriculum goes from the Greeks to Descartes, Hume, and Kant. I had one (elective) class in the scholastics at Tigertown, and sat in on Michael Frede's class on Scotus's ontological argument. That was a scary experience. jks ^ Charles: What was scary about it ?
Re: RE: Squared Circles
Naw, it's the squared circle like the substitutability of one commodity ( Paula Jones ) for Monica Lewinsky by Fox Television to box Tanya Harding. Truly ceteris paribus and maybe even pareto optimal since they showed it twice for those of us without Tivo. - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:15 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24253] RE: Squared Circles squaring the circle? is that like trying to reduce all macroeconomics to microeconomics (or vice-versa)? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Justin Schwartz wrote: Ken's joke is that Hobbes didn't believe this, he thought he had squared the circle. In the Court of the Goddess of Dulness: Mad _Mathesis_ alone was unconfin'd, Too mad for mere material chains to bind, Now to pure Space lifts her extatic stare, Now running round the Circle, finds it square. _Dunc._ IV, 31-34 Carrol _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
RE: Re: RE: Squared Circles
Ann Li writes: Naw, it's the squared circle like the substitutability of one commodity ( Paula Jones ) for Monica Lewinsky by Fox Television to box Tanya Harding. Truly ceteris paribus and maybe even pareto optimal since they showed it twice for those of us without Tivo. it's definitely pareto superior, since the bout made some people better off (e.g., Tonya Paula) without making anyone worse off (since you could always change the channel). What's scary is that the previous statment might actually be true. But of course, the theoretical framework in which pareto superior plays such major role doesn't treat the concept of time seriously, so the truth of the statement is irrelevant. It's like saying that one argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is better than another. J Devine
Re: RE: Re: RE: Squared Circles
Devine, James wrote: It's like saying that one argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is better than another. J Devine Every so often I get an urge to defend the scholastics. The angels thing was probably a whimsical classroom example -- the real issue, which had both metaphysical and political reverberations, was whether angels were material or immaterial. If they were material, then some finite number could dance on the needle. If they were immaterial, then the number was infinite. No one cared about the question itself. Carrol
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Squared Circles
Maybe it was about camels dancing on the head of that pin and fitting angels through the eye of the needle. - Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:35 AM Subject: [PEN-L:24265] Re: RE: Re: RE: Squared Circles Devine, James wrote: It's like saying that one argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is better than another. J Devine Every so often I get an urge to defend the scholastics. The angels thing was probably a whimsical classroom example -- the real issue, which had both metaphysical and political reverberations, was whether angels were material or immaterial. If they were material, then some finite number could dance on the needle. If they were immaterial, then the number was infinite. No one cared about the question itself. Carrol
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Squared Circles
I see now that Carrol already answered my query. Gene Coyle Carrol Cox wrote: Devine, James wrote: It's like saying that one argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is better than another. J Devine Every so often I get an urge to defend the scholastics. The angels thing was probably a whimsical classroom example -- the real issue, which had both metaphysical and political reverberations, was whether angels were material or immaterial. If they were material, then some finite number could dance on the needle. If they were immaterial, then the number was infinite. No one cared about the question itself. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Squared Circles
Devine, James wrote: It's like saying that one argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is better than another. J Devine Actually the question was how many on the point of a needle. Every so often I get an urge to defend the scholastics. The angels thing was probably a whimsical classroom example -- the real issue, which had both metaphysical and political reverberations, was whether angels were material or immaterial. If they were material, then some finite number could dance on the needle. If they were immaterial, then the number was infinite. The scholastics were awesome philosophers. No one has carried out philosophy at a higher level of technical skill than the likes of Anselm, Aquinas, Abelard, Scotus, Occam, Nicholas of Cusa. They actually havea lot to contribute to current debates about metaphysics, mind and language, too. Few nonreligious folks care about their theologicaol concerns anymore, and most religious folks aren't philosophically inclined. Their bad rap is due in part to the loss of interest in religious philosophy and in part to very successful propaganda by the new philosophers,--Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes and the like, who convinced everyopne that you didn't have to read thes cholastics anymore. By and large they are not required for a philosophy major outside a Catholic school, more's the pity. The curriculum goes from the Greeks to Descartes, Hume, and Kant. I had one (elective) class in the scholastics at Tigertown, and sat in on Michael Frede's class on Scotus's ontological argument. That was a scary experience. jks jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Squared Circles
Thanks, Carrol, that's great! jks Justin Schwartz wrote: Ken's joke is that Hobbes didn't believe this, he thought he had squared the circle. In the Court of the Goddess of Dulness: Mad _Mathesis_ alone was unconfin'd, Too mad for mere material chains to bind, Now to pure Space lifts her extatic stare, Now running round the Circle, finds it square. _Dunc._ IV, 31-34 Carrol _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
RE: Squared Circles
squaring the circle? is that like trying to reduce all macroeconomics to microeconomics (or vice-versa)? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Justin Schwartz wrote: Ken's joke is that Hobbes didn't believe this, he thought he had squared the circle. In the Court of the Goddess of Dulness: Mad _Mathesis_ alone was unconfin'd, Too mad for mere material chains to bind, Now to pure Space lifts her extatic stare, Now running round the Circle, finds it square. _Dunc._ IV, 31-34 Carrol _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
