Quotes from "The Tick"

"Ah ha-ha, chess. The ancient contest of wits. Two opponents: mano a mano. Braino a braino. And look: magnets for ease of travel. You could play chess on the moon." - The Tick

"And so, may Evil beware and may Good dress warmly and eat plenty of fresh vegetables." - The Tick

"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - The Tick

"Sanity, you're a madman!" - The Tick

"Arthur, you have no historical perspective. Science in those days worked in broad strokes. They got right to the point. Nowadays, it's all just molecule, molecule, molecule. Nothing ever happens big." - The Tick

"Can't lose my name, it's on all my stationery!" - The Tick

"Deadly Bulb. I'm about to write you a reality check. Or would you prefer the cold, hard cash of truth?" - The Tick

"Destiny's powerful hand has made the bed of my future, and it's up to me to lie in it. I am destined to be a superhero. To right wrongs, and to pound two-fisted justice into the hearts of evildoers everywhere. And you don't fight destiny. No sir. And, you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future, or you get all... scratchy." - The Tick

"Don't ever try to swim against the mighty tide of justice." - The Tick

"Don't make us bite you in hard-to-reach places!" - The Tick

"Eating kittens is just plain... plain wrong! And no-one should do it, ever!" - The Tick

"Everybody was a baby once, Arthur. Oh, sure, maybe not today, or even yesterday. But once. Babies, chum: tiny, dimpled, fleshy mirrors of our us-ness, that we parents hurl into the future, like leathery footballs of hope. And you've got to get a good spiral on that baby, or evil will make an interception." - The Tick

"Gravity is a harsh mistress." - The Tick

"Hey! You in the pumps! I say to you - stop being bad!" - The Tick

"I am mighty. I have a glow you cannot see. I have a heart as big as the moon. As warm as bathwater. We are superheroes, men, we don't have time to be charming. The boots of evil were made for walkin'. We're watching the big picture, friend. We know the score. We are a public service, not glamour boys. Not captains of industry. Keep your vulgar moneys. We are a justice sandwich. No toppings necessary. Living rooms of America, do you catch my drift? Do you dig?" - The Tick

"I don't know the meaning of the word "surrender". I mean, I know it, I'm not dumb... just not in this context." - The Tick

"I'm betting that I'm just abnormal enough to survive." - The Tick

"I'm sure millions of viewers out there are just wondering what it's like to wear the tights of justice. Well, it's tingly and it's uncomfortable, but it gets the job done and, oh, the job of it." - The Tick

"I'm taking off the kid gloves, and putting on the very mad gloves." - The Tick

"It's starting to smell a little like danger in here, or heavily-fried food." - The Tick

"Let your journey into hugeness teach us all a lesson. Absolute power is a sticky wicket. And, Arthur, chum, you were the stickiest. Don't you get it, good friend? Some of the best things come in small packages. But large things can't. Unless they're inflatable, or require some assembly, or unless they're hearts. Yes, giant, juicy, loving hearts. As big as the moon, but much, much warmer." - The Tick

"Man. Today is so loopy." - The Tick

"Oh, look, Arthur, it's a completely rehabilitated villain. She's comfortable with herself. Comfort, commitment, marriage, what do these things have in common? The letter 'C' except for marriage, and if people get all British whenever they get knocked on the head, what do British people get? I know... comatose. Another 'C'." - The Tick

"Oh, science... boring... interest... fading..." - The Tick

"Oh, what a goofy work is man." - The Tick

"Poppa's got a brand-new bag... of fish!" - The Tick

"So once again, we find that evil of the past seeps into the present like salad dressing through cheap wax paper, mixing memory and desire." - The Tick

"Space aliens have neat stuff. Their space cookies are good, too." - The Tick

"Thank you for teaching us all that love is thicker than most bodily membranes. But not quite as sticky. And that a heart full of love is better than a body full of people. Merrilly, the feet that carried us on the heart's path today will be the feet that soak in the steaming brew of happiness tomorrow." - The Tick

"The human mind is a dangerous plaything, boys. When it's used for evil, watch out. But when it's used for good, then things are much nicer." - The Tick

"The night is young and we have umbrellas in our drinks." - The Tick

"We're sworn to protect The City. And we're just going to have to face it: that includes the sewers." - The Tick

"Well, once again, my friend, we find that science is a two-headed beast. One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences... But the other head of science is bad. Oh, beware the other head of science, Arthur. It bites." - The Tick

"When a nice clean brain tumbles into the dirty street to lay among the discarded wrappers and spat-out gum wads of wickedness, you can't just pick it up and wash it off with soap and water; you have to think it clean from the inside out." - The Tick

"Yeah, I agree, falling in love with a supervillain is trouble with a capital troub." - The Tick

"Yeah, well, don't count your weasels before they pop, dink!" - The Tick

"Yes, destiny has her hand on my back, and she's pushing." - The Tick

"Yes, my slimy friend, once again slime does not pay. You can't just coat yourself with artificial mucous and slip through the long fingers of the law. It's wrong and it's gross." - The Tick

"You know why super villains are so unhappy, Arthur? They don't treasure the little things." - The Tick

"You know, gang, when you're a superhero, you never know where the day will take you. You may find yourself halfway around the world in the shark-infested waters of true-to-life living. Or you may find yourself going down to the store for a lozenge. You can't know, can you? No. You gotta ride that wave, you gotta suck that lozenge. 'Cause if you don't, who will?" - The Tick

"You know, though today was the worst day of my life, I learned many things. First, the world looks a lot different when you're six inches tall and covered with feathers. Second, two heads are definitely not better than one. And finally, you can lay eggs and still feel like a man." - The Tick

"You're not going crazy. You're going sane in a crazy world!" - The Tick

"You know, evil comes in many forms, be it a man-eating cow or Joseph Stalin. But you can't let the package hide the pudding. Evil is just plain bad. You don't cotton to it. You gotta smack it on the nose with the rolled up newspaper of goodness. Bad dog! Bad dog!" - The Tick

"Are you aware your roommate is a hideous monster from another dimension with evil plans for world domination?" - Arthur
"Listen, a good roommate relationship is based on a respect for privacy." - Thrakkorzog's roommate

"Brace yourself while Corporate America tries to sell us its wretched things." - The Tick

"The eyes play tricks like tiny round devils." - The Tick

"The Fourth Dimension is just one big crazy do not enter clambake jungle of weirdity -- and how does it work? Never mind!" - The Tick

"This is one small step for The Tick, and one giant step for... say, a little bug. Or some guy who's been shrunk to the size of a penny." - The Tick

"Villain love goddess! You toy with the hearts of men!"-The Tick

"We spent all night learning an important lesson: You can't judge a sewer by its manhole cover. No sir, people can be very different under the surface than they might seem. Quiet, mild-mannered just might turn out to be roaring lions of two-fisted cool. And roaring lions of two-fisted cool just might have some crippling lobster problems. Listen, man, it's all crazy down there, under the surface. A lost wallet could bite you in half! A bar of soap could save your life! Egad! A disgusting mound of muck just my have some very compelling ideas! Do you dig my ditch?"-The Tick

Absolutes

"Only a Sith thinks in absolutes." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
"The only Absolute is that aren't any." - Me (as far as I know).

Rethinking philosophy - Clarification

N [After reading the post Rethinking Philosophy]:mm, the old cogito ergo sum
Me: *nod*
N: I think that the gist of it wasn't that there was a "point" to deceiving one, but that someone (the self) had to be experiencing the deception.
Me: again, I haven't read the whole thing just an excerpt and that was my understanding
but I take your point
N: "I think (feel, perceive) therefore I am."
Me: *nod* my understanding based on the excerpt was that the fact that you have thoughts capable of being deceived implies that you exist.
N: yes :-)
Me: in other words if everything your senses tell you could be completely invalid and false, you still exist to be deceived
N: it says nothing about whether anything outside of oneself exists.
Me: right
which I think I got across
well I hope anyway
maybe I didn't
N: Ah, I didn't really get that from the journal.
Me: but that's the difference the McInerny makes between "Classical" and "Modern" philosophy
N: what is?
Me: that in Classical philosophy reality exists outside of individual thought
and in Modern philosophy reality is based on the individual's perception of it
well that's what he says anyway
N: it can be approached that way, certainly
but I believe that there are modern philosophers that based their ideas on the existence of an objective reality (even if one's perception of it is always subjective in some degree).
Me: certainly - there are exceptions to any classification
I think this was intended to be a broad sweeping statement to separate theology from philosophy
N: :-)
Me: my counter point to that is if philosophy is based on the divisions that McInerny outlines then there needs to be a serious reconsideration of the foundations of both "camps" in order to validate them given our current understanding of the universe
N: I'm wondering how widespread this classification system actually is.
Me: *shrug* I have no idea
I only have McInerny to go on right now but it gives me a basis to pontificate from

Horrendous Space Kablooie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was I saying earlier about tiny contributions? This one wasn't as big as Thagomizer but pretty neat all the same. Horrendous Space Kablooie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rethinking philosophy

M [having just read the post An argument against philosophical extremism] : Funny thinking about the basis of modern western philosophy being the belief that our ability to be deceived makes us real
me: well that's what McInerny says - I think he's exaggerating to make his point but basically it does mark a shift in thinking from thinking that humanity's existence based in reality to reality being defined by the individual
M: Doesn't it make for a rather nervous philosophy though? thinking all the time that you can't trust your senses?
true it may be...but uncomfortable to really contemplate
me: well Descartes was apparently a nervous wreck when the thought hat he's constantly being deceived first came to him
It's sort of like the existential problem posed by Camus in the Myth of Sisyphus. You know, the one where Sisyphus was punished by the gods to constantly be pushing a spherical rock up a hill and having it roll back every time
The point is that because you can be deceived means that you exist otherwise there wouldn't be any point in deceiving you.
So out of the depths of despair there is always hope.
Sisyphus was the most hopeful man Camus can think of because every time he gets to the top of the hill, there is the possibility that this time he might succeeded
Descartes resolved his initial problem of how do we know we are real if our senses are deceiving by saying that we know we are real because we are capable of being deceived.
To think is to be able to be deceived therefor I know I exist.
I think therefore I am
Obviously there's more to the argument than this, and I haven't read the whole thing, just the excerpt, but its light years beyond what I knew about it before.
M: :)
me: you weren't expecting a discussion of self and reality when you woke up this morning, were you?
M: no!
The thing is --- well the phrase "any point in deceiving you": who's trying to deceive us? to me, deceivable senses just mean my senses are fallible.,..and that I'm aware of their fallibility...the world doesn't try to deceive us
me: I agree
but you are also seeing the world with the eyes of someone with the knowledge and understanding of today's world
Descartes was trying to find a proof of the existence of God (apparently he does but I didn't read that part).
But my point was that if Classical philosophy is based on the teachings of Aristotle and Plato and the Greeks and Modern philosophy is based on Descartes then they are both overdue for a rethinking
The Greeks based their thinking on the cutting edge science of their time and so did Descartes
To still rely on them without some reexamination is foolish but it appears to me that professional philosophers aren't willing to go there
possibly because they can't grasp the science.
This may also be one reason why Einstein is revered because he was pushing the boundaries of our understanding of reality. His statements reflect an understanding of and peace with the universe that isn't very common.
I think you will see that in people who've made realizations about the Universe and their place in it.
But that's just my guess
M: isn't physics in some way the modern philosophy?
me: it is and so is mathematics
of course the first philosophers were physicists and mathematicians but back then it was easy to know everything because not a lot was known
M: when you study philosophy at school, you study the history of philosophy; you examine different works applying different theories
physics, meanwhile, provides us with cutting edge science, and at this point a big part of physics (it seems to me) is trying to explain why the world is at is is
which is philosophy
me: that may be true but professional philosophers don't seem to speak in those terms in their works
they speak in absolute terms of reality and existence
if you are going to go there then stand up and do it right
M: looking at reality OR existence as "absolute" seems simply absurd, in any case
me: exactly!
M: i should think everyone would be interested in the possible shades of gray - how alive are we?
how real is this?
me: you hit the nail on the head
M: and as far as that goes, i think the Internet - speaking of cutting edge - is redefining reality
(for better or worse)
you can have relationships without ever meeting people
most people only see 2D art
me: some of the reasons this came up for me is that I'm trying to reconcile my religious upbringing as a Catholic with my belief in the LUE
The church does believe in absolutes and the argument is that if you are a Christian you have to as well and I think that's absurd and because so many people go along with whatever their religious leaders tell them a major rethinking is needed if we want to make the world a more tolerant place
M: well, especially because Catholicism had for one of its central figures - OK THE central figure - a guy who blurred the boundary of life and death; again, what is reality?
me: exactly!!!
if you read through some of my earlier postings you will find that I think there's a problem of definitions and people talking about God don't really know what they are talking about they don't define the argument in terms that make sense but make assumptions that are presumed to be universal when in fact they aren't but every one's stuck in their own way of thinking and even people who recognize that ideas need to be revisited never go back far enough to truly question what they believe in
M: i tend to like truly religious people even though i am not one of them, because they - like you, like MB, many others of course - THINK about their faith and don't just accept the vague impressions they received from an upbringing full of dutifully attended but generally ignored church/temple visits
me: thank you but try telling that to my mother lol
"The presence of those who are seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. "- Terry Pratchett
M: hear hear

BBC NEWS | Health | Bed sharing 'drains men's brains'

BBC NEWS Health Bed sharing 'drains men's brains'

Interesting. With my WoW schedule, my wife may as well be sleeping alone, but I do like having a warm body next to me in bed, especially if its one or both of the kids. After a few nights alone I miss the company.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Tut's gem hints at space impact

BBC NEWS Science/Nature Tut's gem hints at space impact

Not quite Stargate, but neat all the same.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Secrets of ocean birth laid bare

BBC NEWS Science/Nature Secrets of ocean birth laid bare
Wow! Tectonic shifts in real life!

SPACE INVADERS - Guillaume Reymond - vidéo / performance

SPACE INVADERS - Guillaume Reymond - vidéo / performance

The site's in french, but the movie is on the right about three screens down.

Thagomizer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thagomizer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hee hee! Some people change the world in little ways that makes life fun and interesting.

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Detective novelist Spillane dies

BBC NEWS Entertainment Detective novelist Spillane dies: "'Those big-shot writers could never dig the fact that there are more salted peanuts consumed than caviar. " Mickey Spillane

mental health

We had a lunch-time meeting with the director of the firms new Employee Assistance Program. Its basically a mental health outreach program that more than just drug abuse, depression, grief, counseling etc. Its supposed to be an anonymous program where anyone and their families can get help from as a first step for advice, etc. Before the session started someone commented aside that the people who needed to be in the room weren't. During the session the director commented on the need for preemptive and proactive action to address these issues. I raised the question that how would you know if you needed help if things appeared to be fine to  you. His response was that if smeone commented to you that something semed off, that's probably a good time to call. Although by the time people get around to making the call its a lot harder to fix things have have been going wrong for a root reason that could have been avoided years back.

 

I wonder of there is some gauge for mental health stnadards that one cuold take to figure out if you do have something wrong before you know it for certain. There probably is.

BBC NEWS | In pictures | Food for thought | Gastronomic journey

BBC NEWS In pictures Food for thought Gastronomic journey

Go through all the pictures in the series. Yum!

An argument against philosophical extremism

I spent most of yesterday afternoon and early evening digging 40 feet a shallow 6-in deep trench around the base of the split rail fence around my wife's garden and installing a wire rabbit fence into the trench. I secured the fence to the posts of the split rail fence and to the lower rail with staple gun and the occasional U-shaped nail. As you can imagine it was quite repetitive and gave me some time to my thoughts.

I was contemplating the book I'm reading right now. McInerny gave an excerpt from Descartes' work in which he summarizes the "I think therefore I am." argument. I never truly understood what Descartes was talking about because everyone plays the quote lip service, but as the foundation to modern philosophy and (claimed by McInerny) the reason why modern philosophy is flawed, I'm glad McInerny put the except in as it helped me understand where Descartes was going with it. The basic principle that Descartes was trying to explore was basically how does one know anything. Descartes started out by observing that our senses are flawed and limited and can be deceived such that we can never be sure of anything. The example he gave was a stick half-way in water appears bent but if you pull it out of the water it's straight (now right away I notice a limitation here in that science and observation has explained the apparent paradox - keep this in mind - a little bit of applied knowledge can remove the contradiction). Therefore if we can't trust our senses and we can be deceived in everything we perceive how do we know if anything is real? How do we know that we are real? Apparently this kept Descartes up at night and filled him with despair until he got the epiphany that the very fact that a mind can be deceived implies that the mind is real enough for someone or something to deceive it! To be able to think is to be able to be deceived. Therefore you know you are real because the mere existence of your thought to be deceived or not proves you are alive. I think therefore I am. According to McInerny, this is the central theory of modern philosophy - the emphasis on the individual as the basis from which all understanding of reality can be based.

McInerny contrasts this with what he calls classical philosophy which he says is based on the direct observation of the world and then recognizing that the mind is a part of it. McInerny says the the thoughts of Aquinas are based on this mold and follow from the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, etc. Sounds great except this is all based on the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. McInerny claims that classical philosophy is based on the truth that the world exists outside of self and therefore Classical and Modern philosophy are incompatible and inherently diametric opposites of which only one can be correct. He claims, of course that Classical philosophy is correct.

However, McInerny makes several fatal flaws in his reasoning. McInerny earlier stated that philosophy needs to be revisited all the time and earlier assumptions rethought. He also pointed out what he says is a fatal flaw in modern thinking - the idea that things can be and not be at the same time (basically, according to McInerny, if you follow what Descartes is saying, reality is in limbo because what the mind perceives may not be real even though according to the classical view it is no matter what the mind may think). In order to refute this he provides an excerpt form Aristotle in which Aristotle proves that something cannot be and not be at the same time - this thereby proves (according to McInerny) that modern philosophy is fatally flawed. But here's the problem - McInerny is relying on Aristotle's thoughts to make his argument. Aristotle, Plato, and the Greek philosophers of their time were the preeminent "scientists" of their time. The philosophy they were developing was based directly on the observations that they were making. There was no one else making those observations and no record of any previous scientific thought to refute them. They through that matter was made of earth, air, fire, and water in different proportions and that our heart did our thinking for us and gods alone knew what the brain was for. But nevertheless their ideas were based on the cutting edge science of their time. That Aquinas relied and Plato and Aristotle is understandable - science hadn't made that many strides since the Greeks and had gone backwards in many respects (with the burning of the Library of Alexandria the amount of knowledge lost to humankind is incalculable). But for McInerny to rely on Aquinas because he relied on Plato and Aristotle is ludicrous. McInerny is the one who said that philiosophy must be revisited. And a proof that this must be so can be seen in the Aristotelean piece he cites to refute moderninsm - i.e. the one about whether something can be and not be at the same time. I was watching the Stargate SG-1 premiers on Friday and the pre-show was a "documentary" on the science of Stargate. They had a brief discussion about quantum mechanics which brought to mind some of what I've read about the topic. One of the perplexities of quantum mechanics is that it utterly defies logic as we know it and its been proven that it defies logic. For example a particle moving from one point to another can take many different paths to get there and unless someone looks to determine which path it took, every possible path it could take is actually taken! That doesn't make sense at all, but its been proven to be true. In other words, to contradict Aristotle, we know that there can only be one path that the particle actually took to get from point A to point B, therefoer all the other paths should be invalid, but in truth unless we actually go to determine which path it took, all of the paths exist. Classical philiosophy has broken down! Everything is up for grabs and must be reexamined.

What this also calls to mind is the other principle I live by which is if there are two diametrically opposing viewpoints, the Truth is generally somewhere in the middle. I think this is the case here as well. McInerny says modern philosopy is too extereme - I agree. But I also think classical philosophy is also too extreme. Whether or not a mind percieves reality as it truly is, is irrelevant to reality. "I think therefore I am" is the proof that there is a reality If a mind can't percieve other minds in the same way that the mind percieves itself does not make a difference to those other minds if those other minds are equally real. Those other minds could be figments of the mind's imagination, but the fact that the mind is perceiving something is proof that there is some reality at some level. Given the existence of some reality, the ability for humans to percieve that reality is essential to humans to be able to say that there is a reality. "I think therefore I am" is really " I think therefore I know there is an existence" but without "I think" there may as well not be an "I am" or an "existence". Classical philosophy requires modern philosophy as much as modern philosophy requires classical philosophy.

So where does this leave us? In my mind it says that philosophy today (whether modern or classical) cannot be truly be taken forward by thinkers who can't the outer edges of scientific thought. Which is why Einstein, Hawkings, Feinmann, etc. are so revered - they had an insight into reality that I don't think most people can appreciate. An understanding of "God", however you define, and our place in the universe can only begin if we understand what the universe is to begin with. To try to base any philosophy on science that's over 2,000 years out of date is misplaced and some serious rethinking must be done to get it back on track.

*Grin* we'll see how far we can go here ...

Debt.

I sat on the scholarship committee for the local bar association this morning. We had 7 applicants for which we could select whom to award up to $6,000 in grants to. These were all area residents currently in law school. As there are no local law schools, all of the candidates study out of town. There were a number of straight A candidates, but most of them had mostly B's a few C's. What set them apart was in the range of debt that they each had. One guy had about $150,000 in student loan debt. Everyone has more than $19,000. We agreed that we couldn't base the decision on scholarship - even C students can become Presidents and that it was probably easier for A students to get funding and A students are more likely to get higher paying jobs on graduation. So need was considered a better indicator. That said, should an award be given to the person least able to manage their debt or to the person that lived frugally and made conscious decisions and choices to reduce her debt load? We ended up each scoring the candidates and tallying up the scores. I turned out that the person with the six-figure debt scored 4th in the tally and the top two were next two without any corresponding aid. We ended up splitting the $6,000 equally between the top two. The one applicant was the youngest of 11 and him and all his siblings were financially independent since they  turned 14. They all paid for all their schooling expenses from high school on. The other winner was the middle of three and her parents paid for her undergrad and no more. Descpite their diverese backgrounds, they both had about equal student load debt - about $75,000. Interesting.

Work

I had a very odd client meeting today with two partners. One of whom has developed an idea that could help a lot of people. The inventor is a recovered drug addict and the other partner has recently developed ALS and is in a wheelchair. I hope i can do them justice. Well not necessarily justice but not dissapoint.

Now reading

I stumbled across what I think is a better way to track what I'm reading that's more permanent than the side bar I have to keep updating. For now on, I'll just put the book and an image here in the blog. Therefore, I'm currently reading A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas By Ralph McInerny - inconveniently enough I can't find an image of the cover).

The previous three books I was reading (to save space, I'm putting them as one) were Philip Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy (The Golden Compass; The Subtle Knife; The Amber Spyglass) :


Before that it was The Drowned Book : Ecstatic and Earthy Reflections of Bahauddin, the Father of Rumi:

Before that it was Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett:

Before that it was Night Watch by Terry Pratchett:

I've lost track of what came before that...

Definitions

Aquinas stated that in order to be able to discuss a topic with someone else, you have to properly establish the basic principles - the facts that all parties agree are true and properly lay out the definitions intended. To not do so is to not teach or learn but to speak blindly and ineffectively.

I'm reading this book by Ralph McInerny, A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas. Its written as an introduction to Aquinas and lays out a lot of basic principles of philosophy that I agree with. McInerny is a Catholic philosopher and his slant is one of advocating a position for the supremacy of Aquinas's thought. He starts out by presenting Aquinas's writing that I've paraphrased above, and then goes on, IMHO, to not follow the same advice. McInerny talks about the deplorable state of modern philosophy in which a theologian cannot discuss God with a modern philosopher butneglects the fact that he has not laid out the definitions well. How can one have a discussion on creation and try to bring God into the argument without defining what one means by God? Do not do so would be leaving a big hole in the discussion.

Religious figures point out the time the fact there are limits to what science can teach without contributing to the discussion. Science already knows there are limits to what it currently knows. That's the whole point of science - to push the boundaries of human knowledge. For relgion to say that science is flawed because it has limits is to not contribute but to sit on the sidlelines and heckle. Its petty and immature.

Where was I going with this? I don't remember. I think it just annoys me when relgious people try to tell me what I should believe in when they haven't really examined what they believe in. Paying lip service to what someone else has told you without truly reflecting on the implications of what is said is at best intellectually lazy and could be dangerous.

Gender in Gaming

I had a very interesting conversation with C about my female characters getting hit on in World of Warcraft. Much of it was background as she hadn't read this blog yet, but we got into discussions of women having to deal with unwanted attention from men all the time. I certainly know that I'm as much of a perpetrator as any other guy. (This dovetails with another conversation I had with N, concerning stalkers and unwanted advances, but deals with the less physically threatening aspects of sexual advances.)

We also talked about why I would feel disturbed by being flirted with online when in real life I enjoy the attention. There's the obvious point that I knew I was being flirted with by guys, and open minded or not, I'm not bi (...although I did flirt back with that one guy... lol). C pointed out that WoW is a role playing game and I should really see it as no more than that. I agree with that. I have no trouble separating myself from my character, but when I start chatting with someone I don't RP the character - I'm me, so the flirt from a male character is more... odd? I think I will put a little more distance between myself and Lindera and go with it that way.

I always thought this was cool...

BBC SPORT Photo Galleries What is the haka?

Weirdness

On Friday I was questing with my male Paladin character, Benzoin. I was hanging around with some of my guild mates in the central gathering point in Stormwind City outside of the group raid instances (if you don't get the reference, don't worry - that part isn't important). I turn Benzoin around to just look around and I see the Paladin that was hitting on Lindera a few days earlier (guy #3).It took me a couple of seconds to recognize the name and I suddenly felt awkward. Well, maybe not awkward, but a little more self-conscious. I wondered if I should have said hi to him and tell him, that it was Lindera! That would have been amusing.

It happened again!!!

Lindera got hit on again and this time I know I didn't do anything! Lindera was waiting for the ship from Darkshore to Darnassus to get going so I decided to do a little fishing while I waited. A male Night Elf comes up to me and asks if its possible to fish when the ship starts moving. I respond in the negative and tell him I was just fishing to pass the time. He comments that that was a good idea. The ship lands and he wishes me good luck on my questing, I did the same and we parted ways. A few minutes later he sends me a message something along the lines of "By the way, you're cute."!!!! This just completely leaves me speechless yet again, because we didn't even say any more than two lines each to each other! I was a bit stunned and the best I could manage was "Thank You". I didn't hear from him again.

Lindera is still just a freaking avatar!!! I DO NOT HAVE POINTY BLUE EARS IN REAL LIFE AND NO, I'M NOT REALLY A NIGHT ELF, NOR AM I A FEMALE!!!!

On studying the works of others...

"Learn not only that they truly said such-and-such, but also whether what they said is true - that is the point of studying them."- Ralph McInerny in A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas

This could be the motto of this blog...

"This book contains truth, but not the whole truth. Much of what is said, being said with great brevity , could be extended indefinitely. But that is what philosphy is, the endless pursuit of knowledge, the constant addressing of objections, the willingness always to go back to the beginning." - Ralph McInerny in the Preface to A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas