I'm talking, of course, about the one thing that academically grates on my nerves every week. Last week, it was references to Duchamp's 'Fountain'. (I still swear that if I see another reference to it in my reading for Aesthetics, the shotgun's coming out.)
This week, it's two things.
1. Journals and anthologies published with two columns of text on the page. What do you think you are, the Bible? It just makes things so much harder for me to read, especially if I'm reading the article electronically and I can't remember if I need to scroll up or scroll down once I hit the bottom of the page. This should be simple, folks.
2. 'Phlogiston' and 'caloric'. If I see another reference to either of those in Philosophy of Mind, once again, shotgun.
This is a short post because I still have reading to do to prep for my tutorial tomorrow morning, so ta for now and expect better entries this weekend.
- Jen -
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have no idea what you're talking about for most of that, except for the part about two columns. But, for no real good reason, I tested how much HTML is allowed in these posts -- and it won't let me use the Table tag to get two columns of text for you. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteJen,
ReplyDeleteYou have a shotgun?
Found art is not art. Or if it, we need to redefine art such that is it not. Duchamp is a fool. All I had to do was good Duchamp Fountain to figure that out. No essay writing required.
Why does philosophy of mind use a bunk theory? phlogoism does not exist, done. Last week, Christine tried to make the argument that she liked Bohr's model of the atom because she thought is painted a very nice picture, and our TA tore her to pieces because the theory is wrong, plain and simple. Why can't you do that in philosophy?
Gangle - not sure if I follow that, but there is enough html so that I cannot post example problems from my Quantum Homework because it flips out at all the brackets and whatnot.
Phlogiston and caloric were referred to in much the same sense as Ptolemaic astronomy - clearly wrong, superceded in history by other, more accurate scientific theories. The claim wasn't that these are correct theories - in fact, the claim was that, by analogy, we should reject a certain theory in philosophy of mind... Except that there was some major analogy!fail involved, much facepalming on my account, and now I never want to read those two words ever again.
ReplyDelete