Skip to main content

my word processor says the antonym of philosophical is "realistic"

(c) Rembrandt (1632), 'The Philosopher in Meditation'

Bertrand Russell once referred to Kant as the greatest catastrophe in the history of philosophy. C. D. Broad commented that this position surely belonged to Hegel. Russell and Broad were wrong, because this title undoubtedly belongs to Martin Heidegger.
- Paul Edwards,
two citations needed.


In eighteenth-century Europe, as in modern times, passports — quite literally documents which allowed the bearer to 'pass through a port' — had to be carried on most long-distance journeys... For identification purposes they contained a detailed description of the bearer. 'It is commanded to safely and freely let pass: Jacques Cazanua Italian thirty-two years old, five foot ten and a half inches tall or Thereabouts Face long, plain Swarthy. Heavy long nose. Large mouth. Brown, highly intelligent eyes.'"
- Judith Summers

People's passports used to have descriptions of them instead of pictures! Casanova's one could be made better though, something like: Irascible of brow, his heavily intelligent brown eye fills one's apprehension, and his cheek tapers down to a full, high chin.
Here, Arts students! Jobs! (Verbal portraiture.)


(which help in drawing neat lines through large clouds -
which is to say, "producing knowledge")

  1. "Unbiased" - (N/A) - Having great expectations.

  2. "Consistent" - The more there is, the more I am.

  3. "Free" (v) - Having lots of things to talk about relative to the complexity of the grammar.

  4. "Significant" - (t, F, P) - Having the right to say I am not nothing.

  5. "Efficient" - (N/A) - I do the best I'm able.

  6. "Sufficient" - (N/A) - You're all that I need to get by.

  7. "Unskewed" (γ) - Keeping an even keel in different waters.

  8. "Goodness" (R^2) - What stones do you leave unturned, my child?

Maths is very human, isn't it though? These are virtues in everything we do.


Everyone thinks their taste is eclectic.


Epigram to an essay on Russell's Paradox that I'll never write:

- Groucho Marx


Some literature prof (or Cultural Theory bod) must have done the legwork on a theory of monster movies. They're so great at expressing our nastiest fears, endlessly workable as satire, and have been doing it throughout history. From primal fear, to fear of science; to fear of sex; fear of Jews; or the trauma of nuclear genocide; fear of the anger of Gaia; fear of Communism; fear of McCarthyism; fear of atavism; physical insecurity; epistemic uncertainty...
Additions to dark symbols in very recent years (mostly single lumpen Ideas than anything elemental):

Worms do not posses any sense of hearing. They took not the least notice of the shrill of a metal whistle which was repeatedly sounded near them. Nor did they hear the deepest and loudest tones of a bassoon. They were indifferent to shouts if care was taken that the breath did not strike them. When placed on a table near a piano which was played as loudly as possible they remained perfectly quiet.
- Darwin

Good christ, science used to be fun.

EDIT: My mate Johnny says it still is, and he's made a fractal exclamation to prove it:


Is it any wonder he lost it in later life? Is it any wonder he pissed on nun's heads?
- James, possibly confusing Benjamin Britten for Little Richard



  1. I really thought the cartoon thing was "for fun", 'till I happened upon some pomposity such as the kind you describe here.

    I chose "Care Bears" as a joke because it feigns that I had a fucked up childhood - I did it for the lulz. (My reasoning is that the show is sooooo cringe-worthy (and not at all manly) so why would a grown man want it as his Avatar aside from being fucked in the head?)

    So, given my reasons for participating, I found it pretty funny anyone could take it so seriously.

    Also: Science is STILL FUN! Check ma wee fractal

    Also, I reckon there must be a great disparity in earnings between those qualified in various scientific disciplines, so it's a bit unfair to lump them all together. Do archaeologists in the field earn as much as computer science PhDs; and do they earn as much as researching biologists?

    Perhaps I could find the answers if I saw that report.

    The chemical engineers have everyone pwned btw. But I definitely think that too few people study the boring stuff, with all the numbers in - there just isn't enough. I find it hard to believe the world could be too full of competent engineers and scientists. For instance: why is everything broken all the fucking time? The answer: not enough good scientists and engineers.

    I'm just being a missionary because I really don't think there is a big enough focus on science and engineering in general. They make *everything* - and the good ones are the ones who actually have jobs too. So why don't more people want to do it? Perhaps it's boring.


Post a Comment