Jim Barcelona's Philosophy and Food Blog

You can help out tsunami victims via Amazon, who will donate money to the Red Cross. This is a good idea if you already have an Amazon account. I sent a small amount.

The Amazon site so far has raised $5.5 million (USD).

There's a debate over at KrisKraus on the invalidity of obscurantism in philosophy.

On the one hand, you have something like Hegel's philosophical writing:

"Self-consciousness exists in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it so exists for another; that is, it exists only in being acknowledged." (Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit," section 178.)

On the other hand, you have Nietzsche's writing which is supposedly clearer:

"Sibi scribere. -- The sensible author writes for no other posterity than his own, that is to say for his old age, so that then too he will be able to take pleasure in himself." (Nietzsche's "Human, All Too Human," II.i.167.)

Now, how do you determine which quote is more obscure? Does defining vagueness as indeterminacy help here?

There's an interesting article over at SF Gate on a Texan who spent $50,000 to clone her dead cat.

Here's how the article ends:
"I can completely sympathize with people who become so attached to their pet that they want to bring it back at any cost, but there is nothing that can bring that animal back," Magnus said." Attempting to do so is unhealthy. It's trying to pretend that death doesn't exist, which speaks to a larger symptom in our culture of not dealing with death. It's better to just move on. There is no good reason why anybody would do this."

Is there a good reason for cloning a pet?

I dusted off my Greek lexicon and grammar books, and started to translate the Phaedrus. Not too far from the beginning, Socrates refers to himself as a "tou twn logwn erastou." (228c2) This roughly translates to "an erotic lover of words." The word for word in Greek can be "logos." It can also be "epos," too. In the Apology, Socrates often says, "ouk alethes epos epein." (Not a word did they speak truly.) Logos in Greek implies account or argument.

I was translating some of the Phaedrus at the Blue Front Cafe on Haight Street. This place has really good gyros and schwerma platters. I had the lighter of fare of just an Orangina this time because I was going to meet Dave, Sharon and Jess at Ploy II for some delicious Thai Cuisine.

Anyway, people would walk by with their shopping bags more full and heavy than usual because it's the holiday buying season. I would see couples, groups of people, individuals pass by, and asked myself, "What is erotic about words?" What is erotic about an account?

There's no denying that words strewn together in the right way can be very erotic, but Socrates is claiming that he is a lover of words in general. For him, there is something erotic about every logos. What is that erotic something?

There's a little cafe on California and Sansome in downtown San Francisco that makes really good desserts for afternoon coffee breaks. It's called Cafe Madeleine and it's on 300 California Street by Sansome. A math friend introduced me to the place, and I know when she's in downtown because she parks her dark green bicycle with a brown basket on it right in front.

Anyway, the night before, I stopped reading the Gorgias up until the point where Socrates talks about the afterlife. The feeling that I get is after all that talking and argument, Socrates' interlocutors (Gorgias, Pollas and Callicles), aren't at all convinced. They were forced into agreeing with Socrates, and didn't really expect such a rhetorical beating from a sculptor. Socrates' cash cow job was sculpting.

The dialogue starts off so simply. Socrates just wants to know what Gorgias does, and how what he does benefits the city. "What do you do?" is a question that I always here at parties, and many people resent the question, whereas others glory in their answer. I'm neither of these. With pride and a smile, I'll say, I'm a programmer.

Gorgias was smart. He's a famous sophist, and within getting beat on two or three points, he quickly withdraws and cuts his losses. Pollas butts into the conversation and loses the argument because "he was ashamed to say what he thought." (482e) Callicles gives a summary of the argument so far, and intends to best Socrates by exposing a distinction apparently abused by Socrates: the morality of nature and the morality of human beings, i.e. convention. (482e - 483a).

If you've steeped yourself in the Iliad, the tragedies, and the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, I totally recommend reading the Gorgias next, especially the following part:

Socrates: Pericles was in charge of human beings?
Callicles: Yes.
Socrates: Well then, if Pericles looked after them as a good statesmen should, ought not his charges to have become more virtuous and less vicious under his influence? That is what we agreed just now.
Callicles: Certainly.
Socrates: And according to Homer the virtuous are gentle. What do you say? Ins't this so?
Callicles: Yes.
Socrates: And yet Pericles made his charges fiercer than when he took them on, and, what is more fiercer towards himself, which is the last thing he would have wished.
Callicles: Do you want me to agree?
Socrates: If what I am saying seem true to you.
Callicles: Very well, let it be so.
Socrates: Now, if they were fiercer, they were more vicious and less good.
Callicles: Granted.
Socrates: Then by this reason Pericles was not a good statesman.
Callicles: That is what you say.

(516b - 516d)

I fully felt the shock of dialectics after having read Pericles' Funeral Oration and the Melian dialogue first, and then the Gorgias.

At Madeleine Cafe, all I had left to read was the part about the afterlife. I think that ending was tacked on because the interlocutors were forced to admit things that they couldn't believe. A cup of tiramisu with an espresso bean on top and cocoa powder, a double espresso, and a bottle of seltzer water ran me $7.38. It was a bit stiff, but well worth it because the tiramisu was delicious.

Over at Thoughts Arguments Rants there's an interesting proof for the notion that every truth is necessary. The simplicity of the proof which assumes a controversial set of modal logic called S5 made me say, "Ooh, neat."

Note: S5 is controversial because it can be used to make a simple and logically rigorous proof of God's existence, which I provide below for fun:

1. g --> N(g)
2. N(g) v ~N(g)
3. ~N(g) --> N(~N(g))
4. N(g) v N(~N(g))
5. N(~N(g)) --> N(~g)
6. N(g) v N(~g)
7. ~N(~g)
8. N(g)
9. N(g) --> g
Therefore, g.

Has an argument struck you in such a way that you had to run through it over and over again until you found the hidden assumption that made the argument work? I was struck that way by the following argument in Outlines of Skepticism:

Dogmatists "say that Sceptics either apprehend what the Dogmatists talk about or do not apprehend it. If they apprehend it, how can they be puzzled about what they say they apprehend? If they do not apprehend it, they do not even know how to talk about what they have not apprehended." (II.2)

The Greek for apprehend is katalambanein (literally "to take down"). The closest English phrase for this is: "to get it." So, the Dogmatists are saying, if a skeptic gets it, then he can't be skeptical about what he gets.

The skeptic overturns that argument by saying, "when a Stoic conducts an investigation in opposition to an Epicurean who says that substance is divided or that god does not show providence for things in the universe or that pleasure is good, has he apprehended these things or has he not apprehended them? If he has apprehended them, then in saying that they are real he utterly rejects the Stoa; and if he has not apprehended them, then he cannot say anything against them." (II.5)

The skeptic is saying if a Stoic argues against an Epicurean, the Stoic has to "get it" as far as Epicureanism is concerned, but on the Stoic's own definition of "getting it" he thereby refutes himself.

The skeptic is trying to make us not fall into the trap of saying, "If you really understood me, then you would believe what I believe." Understanding someone and believing what someone else believes are different things. That's the skeptics hidden assumption.

Are there cases when understanding what someone believes and believing what someone believes are the same?

Ever wonder about the relationship between film and skepticism?

While hanging out at the Reverie Coffee Shop on 848 Cole Street on Sunday, I got to talk to a friend that I hadn't hung out with in 6 years. This guy has seen more than 2500 films and has reviews of about 1000 of them stored in a database. He has a new theory that fits all the films, but he tries to view films that will throw his theory off kilter. He continually does this. He came to me to see if any of the philosophy I knew could help out in this film theory making.

Matt, a Spinoza's Coater, was sitting next to me. I had to nudge him, and say, "Matt, we've got a natural skeptic right here." Skeptics are continually investigating. Much of his approach to film and theory immediately reminded me of Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Skepticism, and the definition of skepticism:

"an ability to set out oppositions among things which appear and are thought of in any way at all, an ability by which because of the equipollence in the opposed objects and accounts we come first to suspension of judgement and afterwards to tranquility." ( Outlines of Skepticism, I.8 )

India produces 1000 films every year. I'd hate to guess how much the porn industry in Los Angeles produces. Anyway, if you haven't seen all the films, then you can't really come up with an all encompassing film theory. So, each new film you see is liable to overthrow whatever theory you had. The relation between film and skepticism is one of rate of production. The rate of production for films outpaces our ability to make all encompassing theories about them. So, skepticism is the way to go.

By the way, the Reverie Coffee Shop has a beautiful garden for talking to skeptics and those of other philosophical ilk. Also, the salads and piadinas are top notch. Dio made my turkey, pancetta, gorgonzola salad which was totally delicious, and cost just under $8. A bargain if you ask me.

Worried about the demise of civilization? Or the Death of Philosophy? No need to worry, there are a few folks I hang out with that's keeping the torch burning.

A group of friends, dedicated to reading the major works of Western philosophy in sequential order, meets at an apartment in the Upper Haight every Tuesday. The name of this group is Spinoza's Coat. The group got it's name from a story about the philosopher, Spinoza. Somebody tried to assassinate Spinoza for his political views. This assassin could only rip his coat. When Spinoza got home, he hung up his ripped coat in order to make the statement:

Human beings are not ready for free thought.

Anyway, I'm a part of Spinoza's Coat, and currently we're reading Outlines of Skepticism by Sextus Empiricus.

Dinner at Bia's

Before heading to philosophy group last night, I had dinner at Bia's Wine Bar on 1640 Haight Street and Clayton. My dinner companions, Sharon and Delman, were a study in contrasts. Delman walked in with a huge, red, puffy, winter jacket, and looked like Dig Dug. Sharon had on a nice, biege sweater and long black skirt.

Anyway, when the food came Dave said, "Your salmon! It's so small!" Well, at 15.95, it certainly was small, and was slightly burnt. I could've eaten that bitty piece of salmon in one bite! I almost sent it back. Sharon was quiet about the food most of the time, and knowing the kind of polite person she is, that says a lot.

The decor felt like some European restaurant where you knew the food would be okay, but cheap, too. It wasn't.

Bia's was over-priced for its small portions that tasted just okay. Frankly, I'd never go again.

Questions at Spinoza's Coat

After dinner, I went to philosophy group. Some questions that came up were:

1) How does tranquility (ataraxia) come about when two equipollent arguments are opposed to one another?

2) Is skepticism sophomoric in its continual investigations compared with Plato's notion of sufficient (ikanon) knowledge?

3) What implications does the absence of Truth have for everyday living?

On Relationships and Dating at Club Deluxe

After group, a few of us, Shannon, Matt, and Gania, went to Club Deluxe for Matt's Birthday drinks. His birthday was actually yesterday but he was working.

The gin martini I ordered had large olives with a slight sheen of ice on top. I love it when ice forms like that on a martini.

Shannon and Gania had Kahlua and creams. They looked pretty delicious.

Matt had a bottle of Sierra Nevada, a pretty fine beer if you ask me.

Somehow the question got onto dating. I blame Shannon: "This guy asked me what I thought about the dating scene? 'What dating scene,' I went."

I immediately went, "Eww," to show my gut reaction to the guy's question. A dating scene can't be a romantic scene, in my book.

Shannon went on to say, "I feel like I need a big list of questions to ask someone, and to check off each item."

Matt jumped in and said that people weren't like that. By that, I took him to mean that you couldn't reduce a person to a check list. Gania mentioned something about how it's the intangibles that get you hooked on someone.

The conversation went on to topics like:

1) What is the difference between love and lust? And how can you tell?

2) What really is going on when you have strong feelings of attraction that you confuse with love?

The comfy, black vinyl seats in the back could've made our conversation last hours. Deluxe is definitely a place for lounging, chatting, and listening to music.