Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Observations on a Rainy Tuesday Morning

Went out this morning to have a smoke underneath the backyard patio cover. I watched as Little Voice, the last dog I'll have in a lifetime of dogs and other pets, crept out into the rain and took a leak on the spot where I buried my cat, Graystar, 2 years ago this month.

Half the people on my alley will be losing their homes this year; including my ex-wife, more than likely. None of them have paid their mortgages for between 1 and 2 years. It's a sad state of affairs.

I'm on hold this morning, waiting for my boss to call and tell me I have an extra day off. Maybe I'll go bowling. I have 2 free games coming. Why waste them?

Some guy accused me on his blog of being all emo the other day. I'm realizing it takes a certain perspective to see things the way I see them. Working on the book, I often thought about how I'd answer this or that hypothetical objection, but I realize there's no way to answer the objections that flow from other than misunderstanding. I've seen it with the critics of Benatar's book. They don't read, they just skip over, looking for rhetorical weaknesses that can be exploited. I'm not bitching, mind you. Just observing, and thinking about my cat. Flesh, and fur, and bone, and piss, and soil, all back into the blender over and over again. God's margarita, with a twist of apathy.

I hope I don't work today. Not in the mood, not even a little bit. But we'll see.

4 comments:

TGGP said...

Emo? I'm guessing he hasn't seen your photo.

Annoying hipsterish comment: I used to bash emo all the time, and then somebody told me "That stuff isn't real emo. Real emo is stuff like Rites of Spring". And I said, "Oh, I like Rites of Spring".

Why did you have the first day off?

The objection sounds like a form of Bulverism.

your host said...

TGGP: It's just an extra day off, 'cause business is slow.

I had to look up Bulverism. Here's what wiki said:

"Bulverism is a logical fallacy in which, rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person instead assumes it is wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held that argument. It is essentially a circumstantial ad hominem argument. The term "Bulverism" was coined by C. S. Lewis. It is very similar to Antony Flew's "Subject/Motive Shift".

I guess all of us do this from time to time. Perhaps a not too careful extension of 'consider the source'? I guess it depends on how the original assumption is packed. What kind of background informs it, you know?

We see this a lot in discussions about the psychological underpinnings of this or that particular belief system. It seems valid enough in its own right, as long as it's not used as a replacement for the premise(s) of the argument being made. To the extent that this happens, it becomes a logical fallacy, the way I see it.

Anyway, thanks for the new word. I see the term was coined by C.S. Lewis? Fascinating, seeing that the last ditch apologetical claim is that unbelievers don't see the logic behind Christian dogma only because they are in a state of rebellion against God, and simply refuse to acknowledge the facts. That IS a basic premise of the more fundamentalist stripe of Christian teaching.

Kalki02 said...

Jim, when will the book be all ready and available for purchase? I'm chompin' at the bit!

your host said...

Kalki:

Very soon. Mostly doing last minute proofing stuff. Glad you're interested!