Quod erat dumbass

I’m pretty stupid. Saying as much might actually be a cop-out, a way of expressing aggravation for the fact that I’m just not as intelligent as I’d like to be, but on examination, I find that what other folks seem to respond to about me has to do with vocabulary; I love words and I like knowing the precise words for things, so this lends me a pretense that apparently creates this impression. In practice, actually learning anything is a grueling process, something I more or less accomplish by pounding my head into something until I remember it.

So when I come across something like this, I read it, even though it’s pretty much second-nature to me. Regrettably, it’s written appropriate to a fairly limited audience and worse, is the sort of thing liable to become more submerged in coming years, rather than more predominant.

  • Trackback are closed
  • Comments (2)
    • Tina
    • November 7th, 2010

    Great link. Still reading.

    • Max Bell
    • November 7th, 2010

    Identity, non-contradiction, excluded middles and syllogisms. The problem is that if the textbook actually worked, everybody would get this stuff in philo 101; wandering head-on into the section on deductive reasoning is where I usually wind up getting lost.

    A has 12 donuts. C has a gluten deficiency. B doesn’t like maple bars. D doesn’t wear hats. Based on this, how many were going to St. Ives?


    Given time and a free hand, I’ll eventually work out the answer, even if I come in dead fucking last of a group of 100. But that isn’t a form of abstraction I’ve ever been especially good with, and it definitely isn’t how most people are going to break down an argument to determine it’s validity — as an example, it isn’t especially helpful.

    Maybe I should try rewriting it.

Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: