Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
I like the idea of reviving the rating system. Here's the rubric I'm going to use:
1=not only was I not virtuous, I actually made myself and the rest of the world demonstrably worse
2=no virtue but no major negatives either.
3=average or slightly above average. Took care of my basic duties.
4=strong effort. Not only took care of my duties but was on-point throughout the day. If everyday were a 4, my life would be highly virtuous.
5=highest effort+virtue+excellent results. 5s will be rare, as they should be, and they will only be awarded on days when I do something truly exceptional, like a particularly virtuous act, or if I make a major breakthrough on a project as the result of pushing myself extra hard. These will be days where I either reach the highest level, or, better yet, actually redefine the highest level.
I will also be interested in posting monthly averages and other descriptive statistics. Days without posts will be treated as "2"s.
1=not only was I not virtuous, I actually made myself and the rest of the world demonstrably worse
2=no virtue but no major negatives either.
3=average or slightly above average. Took care of my basic duties.
4=strong effort. Not only took care of my duties but was on-point throughout the day. If everyday were a 4, my life would be highly virtuous.
5=highest effort+virtue+excellent results. 5s will be rare, as they should be, and they will only be awarded on days when I do something truly exceptional, like a particularly virtuous act, or if I make a major breakthrough on a project as the result of pushing myself extra hard. These will be days where I either reach the highest level, or, better yet, actually redefine the highest level.
I will also be interested in posting monthly averages and other descriptive statistics. Days without posts will be treated as "2"s.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
I became vegetarian for two reasons: one ethical and the other environmental. Regarding the environmental issue, it is possible to farm meat via environmentally sustainable practices (look at Polyface Farm in Virginia for an example). So assuming that a meat eater limits himself to environmentally sustainable meat, the only objection I have left is ethical.
Recently, I have been contemplating an ethical argument that might cause me to eat meat again, unless I can honestly refute it. The ethical position that I held up until now was based on the sentience principle. Animals can manifestly feel pain, and in some cases, it seems they can experience dread and other more nuanced forms of suffering. The idea is that inflicting pain on a sentient creature is wrong. Unless we must kill animals, then we shouldn't, because they have an interest in avoiding pain.
There are two objections that are commonly raised to my argument, but I think neither of them holds water. The first is that there is an inherent difference between humans and animals, and this difference justifies eating them. The second is that animals eat other animals in nature all the time, so for us to eat animals, which we have done for thousands of years, is just another instance of this natural pattern. I have counter-arguments for both of them, so e-mail me if you want, and I can address them. For the issue at hand, they are unimportant.
Anyway, back to my own argument. The idea is that we have a moral imperative because we can recognize an animal's interest in avoiding pain and suffering. The challenge that is bothering me so much relates to domestication. But first, let me state it in the abstract: if an animal is faced with two situations, one in which he experiences more pain and suffering and one in which he experiences less, even though he may not be able to understand the alternatives ahead of time in a fully human way, we can assume that the option with less suffering would be preferable, no?
Ok, so we've domesticated a host of animals like pigs, chickens, and cows. If everyone became vegetarian, what would happen to the animals? They'd either die or they'd enter the wild. If they died, my guess is that it would be from starvation or predation, both of which are presumably unpleasant. So let's imagine a hypothetical young chicken. He has five possible lives: he can grow up on a modern industrial farm and be slaughtered, he can grow up on a humane farm like Polyface and be slaughtered, he can be released into the wild and starve to death, he can be released into the wild and be eaten by another animal, or he can be released into the wild and die of old age. Can we weigh these options in terms of relative suffering? Conferring interval values on these scenarios, I would rate them as follows (with 10 being the highest suffering)
Commercial farm: 10
Polyface: 3
Starvation: 7
Predation: 6
Old age: 1
I know that's rough, but do you agree with the order of them? Or, at the very least, isn't Polyface the second most humane option after old age? But how realistic is it that chickens in the wild would live happily until they die of old age?
The argument that is troubling me arises out of those numbers above. If farming is done in a humane way, with conditions that allow the animals to fulfill their innate behavioral impulses, isn't it actually better than most other options, and arguably all plausible options?
One possible objection to this hinges on the idea of freedom, as in, making the above argument is akin to saying Southern slaves were better off in slavery because once they were released they would suffer tremendous hardship due to their lack of capital, education, and skills. In fact, freed slaves did suffer tremendously (and inversely, during slavery, from a purely material stand point, some slaves were in better shape than some freed whites--read Roots if that sounds false). However, no one would defend slavery on these grounds, because we recognize that humans have an inherent right to freedom. So perhaps even if humane farms are better than the wild, we should liberate them anyway because freedom is inherently more just.
My response to this is that freedom (in a philosophical sense) is valueless to most animals because they can't experience it. I doubt (and I know I can't prove it) that a chicken on Polyface, despite his lovely surroundings everyday, laments the constraints placed on his movement by his owners. He may not even know he is captive. Furthermore, these animals are domesticated, meaning that their natural state is to be in the care of humans! What would it mean to release all the cows, domestic pigs, and chickens into the wilderness--wouldn't their species go extinct? Accordingly, I reject the freedom objection to the argument I've outlined above.
I've been vegetarian for over 10 years. It has become a fundamental part of my life, to the point where I would fear losing some aspect of my identity if I switched back to eating meat. However, I am committed to living an examined life, and after examination, I have found an argument in favor of eating meat that I cannot refute. If I decide to start eating meat again, it will only be under very specific circumstances. No Taco Bell, no Tony Luke's. All of my meat would need to come from a farm like Polyface, without exception. Please post thoughts.
Recently, I have been contemplating an ethical argument that might cause me to eat meat again, unless I can honestly refute it. The ethical position that I held up until now was based on the sentience principle. Animals can manifestly feel pain, and in some cases, it seems they can experience dread and other more nuanced forms of suffering. The idea is that inflicting pain on a sentient creature is wrong. Unless we must kill animals, then we shouldn't, because they have an interest in avoiding pain.
There are two objections that are commonly raised to my argument, but I think neither of them holds water. The first is that there is an inherent difference between humans and animals, and this difference justifies eating them. The second is that animals eat other animals in nature all the time, so for us to eat animals, which we have done for thousands of years, is just another instance of this natural pattern. I have counter-arguments for both of them, so e-mail me if you want, and I can address them. For the issue at hand, they are unimportant.
Anyway, back to my own argument. The idea is that we have a moral imperative because we can recognize an animal's interest in avoiding pain and suffering. The challenge that is bothering me so much relates to domestication. But first, let me state it in the abstract: if an animal is faced with two situations, one in which he experiences more pain and suffering and one in which he experiences less, even though he may not be able to understand the alternatives ahead of time in a fully human way, we can assume that the option with less suffering would be preferable, no?
Ok, so we've domesticated a host of animals like pigs, chickens, and cows. If everyone became vegetarian, what would happen to the animals? They'd either die or they'd enter the wild. If they died, my guess is that it would be from starvation or predation, both of which are presumably unpleasant. So let's imagine a hypothetical young chicken. He has five possible lives: he can grow up on a modern industrial farm and be slaughtered, he can grow up on a humane farm like Polyface and be slaughtered, he can be released into the wild and starve to death, he can be released into the wild and be eaten by another animal, or he can be released into the wild and die of old age. Can we weigh these options in terms of relative suffering? Conferring interval values on these scenarios, I would rate them as follows (with 10 being the highest suffering)
Commercial farm: 10
Polyface: 3
Starvation: 7
Predation: 6
Old age: 1
I know that's rough, but do you agree with the order of them? Or, at the very least, isn't Polyface the second most humane option after old age? But how realistic is it that chickens in the wild would live happily until they die of old age?
The argument that is troubling me arises out of those numbers above. If farming is done in a humane way, with conditions that allow the animals to fulfill their innate behavioral impulses, isn't it actually better than most other options, and arguably all plausible options?
One possible objection to this hinges on the idea of freedom, as in, making the above argument is akin to saying Southern slaves were better off in slavery because once they were released they would suffer tremendous hardship due to their lack of capital, education, and skills. In fact, freed slaves did suffer tremendously (and inversely, during slavery, from a purely material stand point, some slaves were in better shape than some freed whites--read Roots if that sounds false). However, no one would defend slavery on these grounds, because we recognize that humans have an inherent right to freedom. So perhaps even if humane farms are better than the wild, we should liberate them anyway because freedom is inherently more just.
My response to this is that freedom (in a philosophical sense) is valueless to most animals because they can't experience it. I doubt (and I know I can't prove it) that a chicken on Polyface, despite his lovely surroundings everyday, laments the constraints placed on his movement by his owners. He may not even know he is captive. Furthermore, these animals are domesticated, meaning that their natural state is to be in the care of humans! What would it mean to release all the cows, domestic pigs, and chickens into the wilderness--wouldn't their species go extinct? Accordingly, I reject the freedom objection to the argument I've outlined above.
I've been vegetarian for over 10 years. It has become a fundamental part of my life, to the point where I would fear losing some aspect of my identity if I switched back to eating meat. However, I am committed to living an examined life, and after examination, I have found an argument in favor of eating meat that I cannot refute. If I decide to start eating meat again, it will only be under very specific circumstances. No Taco Bell, no Tony Luke's. All of my meat would need to come from a farm like Polyface, without exception. Please post thoughts.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
It's been great being in a routine lately. I work until 4 or 5, depending on when I get there in the morning, do 1 hour of statistics, 1 hour of GIS, swim at the pool, eat dinner, read for 1 hour, hang out with Shiva at some point, check e-mails, and then go to bed. Physically I feel vigorous even after only a few days of this.
On an unrelated note, I'm just discovering how good Bjork is, and although it's probably old news to most people, she's blowing my mind. This might be like getting acquainted with a fresh Radiohead.
On an unrelated note, I'm just discovering how good Bjork is, and although it's probably old news to most people, she's blowing my mind. This might be like getting acquainted with a fresh Radiohead.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
It seems that many people seek constant pleasure and ease in their lives, and I think this is misguided. Emotionally, I believe a range of feelings is healthy, and at times, intensity is a good thing. This is why I like the weather in the northeast better than California. Even keeled weather that is always pleasant dulls the soul, in my opinion. While of course the cold is bitter and the heat is oppressive, I value being physically involved in a dramatic procession. It is invigorating. It's what's lacking in the idea of being "chill". This is the idol of my generation, being chill. I think we're too chill. We should give more of a shit, be more discerning, and try harder. Too much tolerance is a bad thing.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Inertia is imparted upon our minds by culture, upbringing, education, friends, and other factors. In order to live freely we must be able to view ourselves critically and be able to reshape our beliefs. Fortunately, there are curricula that exist to accomplish this goal, and they work well. But I was thinking that there are many non-intellectual imprisonments that we suffer from, and there are fewer programs to address them. Two that come to mind are food and fashion. Yes, a motivated person could seek out magazines, books, and forums on these topics and expand themselves that way, but using these things and nothing more still makes it difficult, and that's assuming that a person would be highly motivated in the first place.
There's an additional factor that I think is less often recognized, but just as important. Comfort creates major inertia, and it's more than comfort--it has to do with your concept of self. Even if someone gives you explicit instructions about how to improve your diet or dress, the follow-through is not just dependent on your motivation--it depends also on your ability to venture outside of your comfort sphere. It's why the kids in the Wire wanted to go to McDonalds even after Bunny took them to that expensive restaurant downtown.
There's an additional factor that I think is less often recognized, but just as important. Comfort creates major inertia, and it's more than comfort--it has to do with your concept of self. Even if someone gives you explicit instructions about how to improve your diet or dress, the follow-through is not just dependent on your motivation--it depends also on your ability to venture outside of your comfort sphere. It's why the kids in the Wire wanted to go to McDonalds even after Bunny took them to that expensive restaurant downtown.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
+ What effects do the inputs into our imagination have on our ability to maintain a grasp on reality?
+ As far as our minds are concerned, there are infinite sources of valuable information and infinite possible worthwhile tasks. Sheltering yourself from the torrent of information allows a false sense of completeness, but once you open yourself to that stream, you must come to terms with severe personal limitation, and this is easier said than done.
The number of scholarships, conferences, projects, etc. that come through my inbox is staggering, but I must resist the urge to spread myself too thing. I think this is a problem in my academic program--people trying to do too many things. I'm going to stick with a few things that I see as having high value, develop them to the end, and then soberly pick new tasks (again, easier said than done).
+ I like the idea of building a framework for analytically evaluating the effectiveness of urban design in creating public space. I had recommendations to read The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces and the Social Logic of Space. I wonder how many architects are willing to accept such lines of thinking?
+ As far as our minds are concerned, there are infinite sources of valuable information and infinite possible worthwhile tasks. Sheltering yourself from the torrent of information allows a false sense of completeness, but once you open yourself to that stream, you must come to terms with severe personal limitation, and this is easier said than done.
The number of scholarships, conferences, projects, etc. that come through my inbox is staggering, but I must resist the urge to spread myself too thing. I think this is a problem in my academic program--people trying to do too many things. I'm going to stick with a few things that I see as having high value, develop them to the end, and then soberly pick new tasks (again, easier said than done).
+ I like the idea of building a framework for analytically evaluating the effectiveness of urban design in creating public space. I had recommendations to read The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces and the Social Logic of Space. I wonder how many architects are willing to accept such lines of thinking?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
I believe there is a weakness in the modern mind, and by modern I mean anything post renaissance. It is the resolution of action into two binary categories: those that are prescribed through rational principles, and those that are merely a matter of preference. So, for example, if I can't 'prove' my point in some discursive way, then I am merely stating my 'opinion', which carries no more weight than the opinion of any other person.
Obviously, I think this is false. I think a third option exists, which is a faculty capable of development that renders judgment and provides insight, and which is just as valid as rational principles, yet cannot be explained by them. Aristotle articulated it beautifully and called it φρόνησις, transliterated as "phronesis". Translators have used the words 'prudence' or 'practical wisdom' for φρόνησις, but I think they miss the mark. This faculty is something more than these things. Consider this analogy--jurisprudence:a judge::φρόνησις:a human in the capacity of a moral being. That makes more sense to me.
How would we know who has a more developed φρόνησις? Again, it's difficult to provide a calculus, but that doesn't undermine its reality. How would we be able to tell the difference between George Bush and Cato, both of whom used their "gut", or some equivalent concept, to justify their decisions? This is simply a matter of cultivation. The cultivated person will be able to tell that one is garbage and the other isn't.
This will be a tangent, but it makes me think of the demands we place on understanding. There is an expectation that a person should be able to string together a series of words and communicate any understanding--I think this is false. So, for example, if someone says, "tell me what makes the Odyssey a great book", it is an inherently impossible request, yet I firmly believe that the Odyssey is a great book. I think the request is absurd because a string of words attempting to convey the greatness will fail; in order to understand the greatness, you must read the work itself, many times preferably, contemplate it (not just think about it), talk about it, imagine it, and turn it over many different ways in your mind, and then one day, maybe prompted by a certain event, the whole thing explodes into color, and then you realize why it was great.
Obviously, I think this is false. I think a third option exists, which is a faculty capable of development that renders judgment and provides insight, and which is just as valid as rational principles, yet cannot be explained by them. Aristotle articulated it beautifully and called it φρόνησις, transliterated as "phronesis". Translators have used the words 'prudence' or 'practical wisdom' for φρόνησις, but I think they miss the mark. This faculty is something more than these things. Consider this analogy--jurisprudence:a judge::φρόνησις:a human in the capacity of a moral being. That makes more sense to me.
How would we know who has a more developed φρόνησις? Again, it's difficult to provide a calculus, but that doesn't undermine its reality. How would we be able to tell the difference between George Bush and Cato, both of whom used their "gut", or some equivalent concept, to justify their decisions? This is simply a matter of cultivation. The cultivated person will be able to tell that one is garbage and the other isn't.
This will be a tangent, but it makes me think of the demands we place on understanding. There is an expectation that a person should be able to string together a series of words and communicate any understanding--I think this is false. So, for example, if someone says, "tell me what makes the Odyssey a great book", it is an inherently impossible request, yet I firmly believe that the Odyssey is a great book. I think the request is absurd because a string of words attempting to convey the greatness will fail; in order to understand the greatness, you must read the work itself, many times preferably, contemplate it (not just think about it), talk about it, imagine it, and turn it over many different ways in your mind, and then one day, maybe prompted by a certain event, the whole thing explodes into color, and then you realize why it was great.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
I took a trip down to the Baltimore/DC area this weekend. Friday I went to Ben and Ada's in Baltimore. Saturday I went with Ben to DC, and we met up with Will, checked out his dad's studio, played frisbee by the National Cathedral, got dinner, and then talked philosophy for a while. Sunday I went to croquet in Annapolis and saw a bunch of old friends--Mark, Christian, Marie, Chris Harris, and several others. It was a good time, and it was refreshing to leave Cambridge for a few days.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
First of all, earlier in the week I had a day that Dan might find praise-worthy: it started around 9PM on Monday night when I was working on my climate change and agriculture report for the research team. I finished working at 7AM, slept for an hour, got up, ate breakfast, showered, went to statistics class from 9-10:30, attended my research team meeting from 10:30-12:30, searched for GIS data from 12:30-1:30, ate from 1:30 to 1:50, sent a fax, went to studio from 2-5 during which we hashed out our performance criteria for our site typologies and infrastructure technologies and assigned roles for the book production, met with my GIS team from 5-6:50 to work on our project, ate from 6:50-7:00, attended my responsive cities design seminar from 7:00-9:00, answered e-mails from 9:00-10:00, did some reading, and went to bed at midnight. So that was 27 hours of straight, intense work, interrupted only by an hour of sleep, an hour and a half total for 3 meals, and a bit of travel and hygiene time.
Today was less crazy, but still intense. I went to statistics, wrote some e-mails, searched for more GIS data, met with my research advisor, called some people in to get more data, had studio from 2-5, went to an international conflict resolution training from 5-6:30, went to a research team meeting from 6:30-8:30, and I've been answering e-mails and preparing for tomorrow since then.
Today was less crazy, but still intense. I went to statistics, wrote some e-mails, searched for more GIS data, met with my research advisor, called some people in to get more data, had studio from 2-5, went to an international conflict resolution training from 5-6:30, went to a research team meeting from 6:30-8:30, and I've been answering e-mails and preparing for tomorrow since then.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Today Shiva and I got lunch at Galleria Umberto and coffee afterward at a place in the North End, went over to the MFA and spent most of the afternoon there, walked to the Prudential Center via the Christian Science Monitor Plaza, went back, had dinner, and watched the Office.
The MFA was a pleasure to visit. The collection wasn't massive, but it was arranged beautifully, and the exhibit aids were tasteful and actually interesting, which is rare. The North End was also a lot of fun to visit. I want to go back and walk around more when the weather is nicer.
Tomorrow is a work day.
The MFA was a pleasure to visit. The collection wasn't massive, but it was arranged beautifully, and the exhibit aids were tasteful and actually interesting, which is rare. The North End was also a lot of fun to visit. I want to go back and walk around more when the weather is nicer.
Tomorrow is a work day.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
I worked a bit in the morning, went to a meeting for the Japan studio, met with Amber about the Co-Lab Op-Ed piece, set up my new external HD, continued working, and then went to Dante with Shiva. It's restaurant week right now in Boston, so they had a prix fix dinner menu tonight, which was great.
I'm taking another day to do work on Saturday. Tomorrow will be a day off, and Sunday may be as well.
I'm taking another day to do work on Saturday. Tomorrow will be a day off, and Sunday may be as well.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Today I filed my taxes, filled out my FAFSA, and did other miscellaneous administrative tasks. The pace is more moderate now that we are on Spring Break, and I'm trying to strike a good balance between work and rest for the week. Tomorrow I'm planning to relax. I might go to the Boston MFA or the MIT Museum.
Monday, March 02, 2009
It's important to be optimistic and maintain a good attitude, no matter how grim the outlook is, no matter how ridiculous the situation you find yourself in, and no matter how sad your circumstances seem. It's easy to throw your hands up and mock assignments that seem absurdly beyond the realm of feasibility, but I think the personal stretching that such assignments entail is excellent for growth.
I worked on my landscape planning homework with Anna, went shopping, ate dinner with Shiva, and finished up several administrative tasks. The snow outside is lovely.
I worked on my landscape planning homework with Anna, went shopping, ate dinner with Shiva, and finished up several administrative tasks. The snow outside is lovely.
Friday, February 20, 2009
I went to my R training session, got breakfast with Shiva, worked on the coal spreadsheet, met with Amber about wrapping up the coal project, got my hair cut, continued work on the spreadsheet, went to the department happy hour briefly, ate dinner, continued working on the spreadsheet yet again, checked my e-mail, did some admin, shortly I'll go to a party, and later I'll try to read a little in The Swamp.
It was good to start my weekend with discipline. Normally a let things slide on Friday, but I was on point today. I'm really pushing to be able to take off Sunday, which means that I need to get a lot done tomorrow. I think it'll be possible.
It was good to start my weekend with discipline. Normally a let things slide on Friday, but I was on point today. I'm really pushing to be able to take off Sunday, which means that I need to get a lot done tomorrow. I think it'll be possible.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
I've been jumping into a lot of new software lately, and I think my tolerance for uncertainty and mess is rapidly rising, which is good. In the last week or two I've used Illustrator, Indesign, Rhino, Endnote, and R all for the first time, happily with good results. I'm starting to care less about getting things perfect right up front, an attitude that I've struggled with for a long time and one that inhibits learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
