The first ramble…
I wasn't sure what to put in my first entry, but so there's something here I thought I would just write something entirely random…
On Friday I met another random philosopher (well student) and talked about theology with him.
This seemed like a good idea, as all previous philosophers I have talked to in the past present simplistic artsy–logic that is great fun to argue through. It normally involves a bit about relativism and then how it is isn't wholly logical and must be viewed as such and used as such when analysing things with it, this normally embarrasses them for a bit and then we go onto how you have to consider how feelings affect our judgement and the various ways of removing feelings via logic, and its relative merits (for example using logic to find truth only has value if the truth has consequences, otherwise it can just cause divisions… unless of course you subscribe to the "we must seek to increase out knowledge" point of view, which is what Universities seem to be about). This can go on for a while and take various different turns (including discussing the merits of a 'cup' over a 'mug' and whether either existed or was 'good') It's all good fun.
Anyway this guy didn't seem to understand philosophy and as such went for a very direct 'I believe… this is why…' approach. Almost like a scientist (except he didn’t refer to experiments or how to collect data to analyse), this took my by surprise, and whilst I tried to change my style to be more scientific, this failed because he didn’t know many of the facts I was trying to discuss (or indeed any), and I was still in shock that he was so scientific. This all made me very confused.
Oh well, maybe I'll be better at talking to people next time, I should really try to work out how to communicate to people who want to be scientific who don't know the facts, and I don't want to carry around a massive folder for the sake of random conversations
Anyway, now I have a choice between revision and tea… hmm Mario Kart it is then.