Here is a statistic I’d love to learn: What percentage of Confederate officers own slaves versus enlisted men? Further broken down by field officer versus general officer, and by number of slaves. I have a feeling this would shed some interesting light on the “Rich man’s war, poor man’s fight” idea that went through the Confederate Army. If it exists, I can’t find it. If it doesn’t, some graduate student somewhere should use it for a thesis.
Author: skzb
I play the drum.
Re-Post: Philosophy and Light Bulbs
There’s been a bit of discussion on philosophy (which pleases me, by the way), so I thought it was time to resurrect this one from the vault of Livejournal about 6 years ago, with a few minor edits.
How many philosophers does it take to change a light-bulb?
A preposterous question. Obviously, it depends on what sort of philosopher we’re discussing. I’m sure this has been done before, but here are my answers:
Pragmatist: Hey, if holding the bulb while four of your friends turn the chair makes you happy, then that is the right way to change a light-bulb for you.
Empiricist: We can’t know how to change a light-bulb, we can only know how it has been reportedly changed in the past. But we can make lists of how big it is, the wattage, the thickness of the glass, the composition of the filiment…
Thomist: When we examine the concept of “light-bulb” one requirement is that it light up. Hence, if it does not light up, it is not a light-bulb. If it is not a light-bulb there is no reason to change it.
Aristotelean: Changing of light-bulbs can be divided into: manipulation of the old bulb, and manipulation of the new bulb. Bulb manipulation, in turn, can be divided into: Turning motion, raising motion, dropping motion. We cannot understand motion.
Kantian: While having light is a categorical imperative, by understanding the light-bulb-in-itself, it becomes, for us, a new light-bulb, and thus there is no need to change it.
Platonist: The closer our light-bulb gets to the Ideal Light-bulb, the less it requires changing.
Dialectical Materialist: None. The light-bulb changes because of it’s own internal contradictions.
Skeptic: We can’t know if we’re changing the light-bulb. We can’t know if changing the light-bulb is an improvement. In fact, we can’t really know if it’s dark. Especially with the lights out.
Hegelian: A light-bulb that will not produce light is irrational. When the light-bulb becomes irrational, it ceases to exist; when the light bulb no longer exists, it is irrational. Insofar as a new light-bulb sheds light on the Absolute Idea, it becomes a rational light-bulb and comes into being as part of our striving for the categories of logic. Thus the transition: burned out bulb, to changing the bulb, to a working bulb, recapitulates the process of our thinking within the phenomenon of light, which in turns raises our minds to truth and freedom.
Positivist: If we cannot demonstrate mathematically the process of light-bulb changing, the bulb is not important. If we can, then the mathematical demonstration is sufficient for our purposes.
Post-structuralist: By rejecting neo-Enlightenment notions that privilege “light” (which privilege we find textually included in the subject narrative), we can conceptualize the relationship between optically-oriented envisioning and those signifiers that address interpretations of post-colonial modernism as an established text within the framework of which, intertextually, we are lead to reject any causal relationship between the operands and the motivators, thus redefining darkness on an individual basis that turns the meta-narrative into its own form of de-categorized photonic emission.
Memetics: The speed at which the notion “a burned out light-bulb should be replaced” has spread is inexplicable unless one looks at the idea itself.
Existentialist: Why change the light-bulb?
I NEED to Know
Here is what’s been occupying my mind to the point where I can’t sleep, eat, or work. Except that I can still sleep, eat, and work, but the rest is true. Anyway, this:
A “zero-sum game” refers to a situation where for player A to win, player B must lose. In other words, if each has 5 wigets, conditions that will give A 6 wigets will give B 4 wigets.
A “non-zero-sum game” refers to a situation where both player A and player B can win. In other words, if each has 5 wigets, there are conditions that will permit each of them to go to 6 wigets.
So, my question is: Is there a term for a semi-zero-sum game? In other words, suppose there are conditions under which A can get 7 wigets leaving B with 4 wigets? I know this can happen, but is there a term for it?
This question has been tormenting me.
Okay, now I go roast the turkey.
What I’m Reading
There was a suggestion for a “What I’m Reading” section. I’ll start it as a topic, and we can decide if it’s interesting enough to maintain as a permanent feature.
So, I just finished Bruce Catton’s Grant Takes Command, the sequel to his Grant Moves South which I read last week. I’m now considering whether to reread O’Brian’s Master and Commander next; still haven’t quite made up my mind.
E-books of the Vlad novels
Because so many people have been asking, here is what I know about e-books of the Vlad novels: the ones published by Tor are out in various formats and ought to be easy to find. The ones published by Ace/Berkely are not, because my contracts have ambiguous wording that makes it unclear if I have the right to sell those, or if someone else has the right to publish them. I am checking into this now (or, rather, my agent is). I hope to know more soon.