I recently went to see Neil Patrick Harris in "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" on Broadway. I'd seen the movie, so I was familiar with the story; I'd also listened to the soundtrack several times, and love the music. The review in the NYTimes was outstanding (and Ben Brantley is hard to impress). Plus, who doesn't love NPH?
All this is to say that I went into the show with sky-high expectations.
And I was completely blown away.
For those unfamiliar with the show, it's basically a 2-hour monologue by Hedwig, as she reflects on her life. It's punctuated with rock music, which Hedwig also performs. The actor playing this role is on stage, at the center of attention, for the entire time, singing and dancing and climbing all over the set. The physical stamina simply to get through the show is incredible.
Hedwig's life has not always been kind to her, and there are several quieter moments between the rock'n'roll - during these moments, NPH would take the time and allow Hedwig to process what has happened to her. Sometimes there would be absolute silence for a long stretch (it felt like at least 2 minutes to me), and you could hear a pin drop in that theatre. He had such command of the stage that the audience was his to do with, as he wished.
I can't imagine doing this show 8 times a week - the emotional roller coaster is so intense, even as an audience member, and I was at the 7PM show (ended around 9); there was another show starting at 10. It's completely unbelievable to me that anyone could do that entire show again with only an hour to recover.
Beyond simply the physical and emotional requirements of performing the role, I was blown away by NPH's command of the character. As I said, he's on stage without a break for nearly 2 hours. In that time, he did not break character for a single millisecond. He completely embodied his character, from the way he stood, the way he spoke, the way he moved, the way he carried himself, the way he had very natural-looking character tics. It was amazing to watch - he was completely invisible as himself.
In the movie, all the flashbacks are shown as they happened - with various other characters interacting with Hedwig. In the show, she merely tells us about her past. And I actually preferred this. Without the distractions of other performers, Hedwig's life (and pain) became much clearer. And with such amazing acting, it was impossible not to be affected.
I wanted to meet NPH at the stage door after the show - to get a picture and autograph, yes, but also to tell him how much I enjoyed his performance. (Unfortunately, with only one hour between shows, he didn't greet audience members.) On the one hand, I'm sure that he knows how much we (as an audience) appreciated his work - we were abundantly clear during the performance and curtain call. On the other hand, this was the best evening of theatre I've had in a very long time, and I wanted to tell him so.
On a personal note, while I was watching the show, it brought into focus why I love being in theatre so much. I want to be as good an actor as he is (I know I'm not that talented, but hey, it's a goal) - and I want to be on a stage, fully in character, singing and dancing and in the spotlight, holding the audience's attention completely. Something to keep working for. :-)
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Monday, June 9, 2014
Monday, April 29, 2013
The Opera
Recently I went to my very first opera. Wait, let me back up a bit...
The overture to the Magic Flute is on one of the Mozart compilation cd's that I own. I always liked it, so a few years ago I had the bright idea to get a recording of the whole opera. It's perfect study / work music, since all the lyrics are in German so I can't get distracted trying to sing along. And, it's about two and a half hours long - perfect for a study session. Anyway, I wound up listening to it a lot in grad school and I grew to really enjoy it. So I started checking the Philly Opera schedule from time to time, hoping they'd do a production.
Finally, this year, they did. I pretty much had to go (even though the tickets were more expensive than I'd expected). I didn't have anyone to go with, but that's ok. I got dolled up, took the train into town, and found my seat at the Academy of Music.
Quick sidetrack: the Academy is a beautiful building, with wonderful acoustics. There's a newer Performing Arts Center (the Kimmel) just down the street, and don't get me wrong, the Kimmel Center is very nice, but - the Academy is sort of what I picture when I think of going to the theatre. Maybe it's because, when I was young, my mom took me to see the Nutcracker there. Maybe it's the ornate decorations, the gilded instruments in relief lining the balcony, the painted ceiling murals, the chandelier. Maybe it's the gaslight lamps on the exterior.
I'll admit I was a little nervous before the show started. Opera has always had a veneer of the hoity-toity, and I was afraid it'd be too stuffy for me. I needn't have worried. "The Magic Flute" is a fairytale, about a prince who must pass several trials in order to prove himself and win the heart of the princess. It's also a comedy, and this production really played up the comedic elements of the story. The second male lead (Papageno) was hysterical. He was such a good comic actor that at times I'd forget what a wonderful bass voice he had - until he sang his next aria. The three "ladies" were also pitch-perfect (pun totally intended). Their voices blended beautifully, and they also played up the comedy, causing more than a few guffaws from the audience.
The set was also interesting. It was designed as a labyrinth through which the characters travelled as they moved from trial to trial. The pieces of "hedge" could be moved and reorganized to provide a variety of courtyards and corridors in the labyrinth; at one point the three "spirit guides" even appeared on top of the hedge and sang down to the princess wandering below them.
But my favorite was undoubtedly the Queen of the Night. She's the villainess, and she doesn't appear much - just one aria in each act, and a few minutes to be banished at the end. However, her two arias are the highlight of the vocal pieces (in my opinion). Her aria in the second act is my favorite piece in the opera. It's also incredibly difficult. As she stepped onstage to begin it, I had a moment of concern. Years ago, when I bought the cd, I'd done some research on which recording was considered the "best." So I was used to listening to this song being spot-on, each note perfectly placed and supported. Who knows how many takes they did in the recording studio to get that right? Would I be disappointed by a live version?
Yeah, that was unnecessary. She hit it out of the park. It was absolutely mesmerizing. I'd overheard two gentlemen sitting behind me when they were discussing the opera during intermission, and heard enough to realize that they come to the opera with some regularity. When the Queen of the Night finished her aria, I heard a soft "Wow" from behind me. And, yes, she was that good.
I'll admit that I don't know when I'll go to the opera again. Yes, I had a spectacular time, but I was also very familiar with the music. And, let's face it, The Magic Flute is an incredibly accessible piece of theatre. I even saw some teenage girls in the audience - not something I necessarily expected to see. But, having seen my first opera, I'm no longer intimidated by the concept. It can be a really fun night of theatre - even when sung in German, performing music that was written 222 years ago.
The overture to the Magic Flute is on one of the Mozart compilation cd's that I own. I always liked it, so a few years ago I had the bright idea to get a recording of the whole opera. It's perfect study / work music, since all the lyrics are in German so I can't get distracted trying to sing along. And, it's about two and a half hours long - perfect for a study session. Anyway, I wound up listening to it a lot in grad school and I grew to really enjoy it. So I started checking the Philly Opera schedule from time to time, hoping they'd do a production.
Finally, this year, they did. I pretty much had to go (even though the tickets were more expensive than I'd expected). I didn't have anyone to go with, but that's ok. I got dolled up, took the train into town, and found my seat at the Academy of Music.
Quick sidetrack: the Academy is a beautiful building, with wonderful acoustics. There's a newer Performing Arts Center (the Kimmel) just down the street, and don't get me wrong, the Kimmel Center is very nice, but - the Academy is sort of what I picture when I think of going to the theatre. Maybe it's because, when I was young, my mom took me to see the Nutcracker there. Maybe it's the ornate decorations, the gilded instruments in relief lining the balcony, the painted ceiling murals, the chandelier. Maybe it's the gaslight lamps on the exterior.
I'll admit I was a little nervous before the show started. Opera has always had a veneer of the hoity-toity, and I was afraid it'd be too stuffy for me. I needn't have worried. "The Magic Flute" is a fairytale, about a prince who must pass several trials in order to prove himself and win the heart of the princess. It's also a comedy, and this production really played up the comedic elements of the story. The second male lead (Papageno) was hysterical. He was such a good comic actor that at times I'd forget what a wonderful bass voice he had - until he sang his next aria. The three "ladies" were also pitch-perfect (pun totally intended). Their voices blended beautifully, and they also played up the comedy, causing more than a few guffaws from the audience.
The set was also interesting. It was designed as a labyrinth through which the characters travelled as they moved from trial to trial. The pieces of "hedge" could be moved and reorganized to provide a variety of courtyards and corridors in the labyrinth; at one point the three "spirit guides" even appeared on top of the hedge and sang down to the princess wandering below them.
But my favorite was undoubtedly the Queen of the Night. She's the villainess, and she doesn't appear much - just one aria in each act, and a few minutes to be banished at the end. However, her two arias are the highlight of the vocal pieces (in my opinion). Her aria in the second act is my favorite piece in the opera. It's also incredibly difficult. As she stepped onstage to begin it, I had a moment of concern. Years ago, when I bought the cd, I'd done some research on which recording was considered the "best." So I was used to listening to this song being spot-on, each note perfectly placed and supported. Who knows how many takes they did in the recording studio to get that right? Would I be disappointed by a live version?
Yeah, that was unnecessary. She hit it out of the park. It was absolutely mesmerizing. I'd overheard two gentlemen sitting behind me when they were discussing the opera during intermission, and heard enough to realize that they come to the opera with some regularity. When the Queen of the Night finished her aria, I heard a soft "Wow" from behind me. And, yes, she was that good.
I'll admit that I don't know when I'll go to the opera again. Yes, I had a spectacular time, but I was also very familiar with the music. And, let's face it, The Magic Flute is an incredibly accessible piece of theatre. I even saw some teenage girls in the audience - not something I necessarily expected to see. But, having seen my first opera, I'm no longer intimidated by the concept. It can be a really fun night of theatre - even when sung in German, performing music that was written 222 years ago.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
On the advantages of using LaTex
me (writing a report): Oh hey, Word has an automatic table of contents.
(inserts template)
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: Awesome.
(changes all appropriate bullet points to "heading" fonts)
(clicks "update table of contents")
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: Huh. Maybe at least one heading had to be set before I inserted the table?
(deletes table of contents, adds a new one)
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: What the?
(goes back, re-highlights several bullet points, clicks "update table of contents")
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: Dammit Microsoft, this would have been so much easier using LaTex.
As a former professor used to opine, "I don't consider myself computer-illiterate; I simply don't share the same perspective as Microsoft."
UPDATE: I found it. Apparently "headings" is different from "heading-style fonts."
(inserts template)
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: Awesome.
(changes all appropriate bullet points to "heading" fonts)
(clicks "update table of contents")
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: Huh. Maybe at least one heading had to be set before I inserted the table?
(deletes table of contents, adds a new one)
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: What the?
(goes back, re-highlights several bullet points, clicks "update table of contents")
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: Dammit Microsoft, this would have been so much easier using LaTex.
As a former professor used to opine, "I don't consider myself computer-illiterate; I simply don't share the same perspective as Microsoft."
UPDATE: I found it. Apparently "headings" is different from "heading-style fonts."
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Why I'm not afraid of dying
NB: This post is going to be a lot weightier than what I normally write. If you're only interested in my quirky inanities, go ahead and skip this one.
When people find out I don't believe in god, the first question they normally ask is, "What do you think happens when you die?" And the answer, for me at least, is pretty easy: I don't think *anything* happens. I think I'll just...stop.
That idea is really upsetting to most people, and I understand why. We all like existing - being aware of our surroundings, making decisions, loving our friends and family. The idea that some day, all of that will be gone, can be frightening. And I certainly don't mean to belittle that fear. Nor do I wish to seem condescending to those who do believe in an afterlife. I don't believe in a god; that doesn't mean you shouldn't.
That being said, I'm not particularly afraid of dying. I mean, I don't want it to happen soon (I have a lot I'd like to do with my life), but I don't feel overly sad when I contemplate the end of my existence. And here's why: just look at this.
That's about what our own solar system will look like, billions of years from now. Isn't it beautiful? Some day, that will be us - our sun, our planet, our pets, our own atoms and particles. Billions of years after I die, the atoms that once comprised my body will be part of a brilliant nebula, and maybe some astronomer in some distant star system will look at it and notice how beautiful it is.
There's a great quote (alternately attributed to Carl Sagan and Delenn) that says roughly: "We are the universe made conscious, trying to figure itself out."
I'm so happy to be a part of that. One of the things I really want to do in my life, one of my main driving forces, is to expand humanity's knowledge in some small way. That's why I'm getting a PhD; I want to do research, and learn things nobody's known before. I want to help "figure things out" - just a bit more. And that connection - to humanity, and ultimately, the universe, is why I'm not afraid of dying. Even when I'm gone, my contribution will remain.
When people find out I don't believe in god, the first question they normally ask is, "What do you think happens when you die?" And the answer, for me at least, is pretty easy: I don't think *anything* happens. I think I'll just...stop.
That idea is really upsetting to most people, and I understand why. We all like existing - being aware of our surroundings, making decisions, loving our friends and family. The idea that some day, all of that will be gone, can be frightening. And I certainly don't mean to belittle that fear. Nor do I wish to seem condescending to those who do believe in an afterlife. I don't believe in a god; that doesn't mean you shouldn't.
That being said, I'm not particularly afraid of dying. I mean, I don't want it to happen soon (I have a lot I'd like to do with my life), but I don't feel overly sad when I contemplate the end of my existence. And here's why: just look at this.
That's about what our own solar system will look like, billions of years from now. Isn't it beautiful? Some day, that will be us - our sun, our planet, our pets, our own atoms and particles. Billions of years after I die, the atoms that once comprised my body will be part of a brilliant nebula, and maybe some astronomer in some distant star system will look at it and notice how beautiful it is.
There's a great quote (alternately attributed to Carl Sagan and Delenn) that says roughly: "We are the universe made conscious, trying to figure itself out."
I'm so happy to be a part of that. One of the things I really want to do in my life, one of my main driving forces, is to expand humanity's knowledge in some small way. That's why I'm getting a PhD; I want to do research, and learn things nobody's known before. I want to help "figure things out" - just a bit more. And that connection - to humanity, and ultimately, the universe, is why I'm not afraid of dying. Even when I'm gone, my contribution will remain.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
4 books
I read an interesting hypothetical online today: "If you could prevent four books (or series) from being destroyed forever, which would you choose?"
There are two answers to this, I guess. One would be if I had to choose four books just for myself. That was the slightly easier question. I would choose:
Asimov's Foundation series
The Three Musketeers Saga
The Complete Sherlock Holmes
The Feynman Lectures on Physics
These are books I could not live without.
But, if I had to choose for all of humanity? That becomes a more difficult problem. Should I choose Great Works of Literature? By whose metric? What should I choose from Shakespeare, or Homer, or Dante; Goethe or Moliere? What about non-Western literature, about which I know far less than I should? What about science texts? Could humanity afford to lose Newton's Principia Mathematica? Or Darwin's On the Origin of the Species? Do I need to choose the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or some other religious or holy book?
Faced with these dilemmas, I think I'd have to choose books that challenged me personally, or forced me to think, or contained ideas I think others should consider. To Kill a Mockingbird makes the list, hands-down. So does Inherit the Wind. I would probably add 1984. And Jacob Marley's Christmas Carol, by Tom Mula.
Look for upcoming posts on what those books mean to me.
There are two answers to this, I guess. One would be if I had to choose four books just for myself. That was the slightly easier question. I would choose:
Asimov's Foundation series
The Three Musketeers Saga
The Complete Sherlock Holmes
The Feynman Lectures on Physics
These are books I could not live without.
But, if I had to choose for all of humanity? That becomes a more difficult problem. Should I choose Great Works of Literature? By whose metric? What should I choose from Shakespeare, or Homer, or Dante; Goethe or Moliere? What about non-Western literature, about which I know far less than I should? What about science texts? Could humanity afford to lose Newton's Principia Mathematica? Or Darwin's On the Origin of the Species? Do I need to choose the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or some other religious or holy book?
Faced with these dilemmas, I think I'd have to choose books that challenged me personally, or forced me to think, or contained ideas I think others should consider. To Kill a Mockingbird makes the list, hands-down. So does Inherit the Wind. I would probably add 1984. And Jacob Marley's Christmas Carol, by Tom Mula.
Look for upcoming posts on what those books mean to me.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
You Are Beautiful
Today on twitter, one of the trending topics is #youarebeautiful. Normally I don't pay much attention, but The Bloggess asked her followers to share the reasons they are beautiful. Our "assignment" really made me think. What do I love about myself? I've mentioned previously that I suffered from depression (still do, but the medication makes it a negligible influence these days), so finding reasons to love myself is still somewhat difficult for me.
The response I gave was: "I am resilient. Somehow, even when the world seems dark, I find a way to believe in myself and keep going."
This is true. I've been having a tough year, with lots of stress coming from various sources, but I keep telling myself that I'll get through it. And somehow, I will. I've been in tough spots before, feeling like a failure, and I've always managed to get through it, and come out the other end stronger. I'll do it again.
Why else do I love myself?
The response I gave was: "I am resilient. Somehow, even when the world seems dark, I find a way to believe in myself and keep going."
This is true. I've been having a tough year, with lots of stress coming from various sources, but I keep telling myself that I'll get through it. And somehow, I will. I've been in tough spots before, feeling like a failure, and I've always managed to get through it, and come out the other end stronger. I'll do it again.
Why else do I love myself?
- I care about others. I'm a self-described "bleeding heart." I genuinely like people, and I want to help. I feel that my purpose in life is help others, to improve the world in some way. That's what drives me.
- I give others the benefit of the doubt, probably to the point of naivete. I always try to assume that other people have good intentions, and to try to understand their point of view even when I don't agree.
- I try not to let the small things bother me. Life is so precious, it seems silly to waste time and effort worrying about little irritations.
- I have a good sense of humor and love to laugh at myself. I try really hard not to take myself too seriously.
- I am strong. Not physically, but mentally. I have a lot of willpower and determination. I know I can get through whatever life throws at me without breaking.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Philosophy - #10 and 9
Both brain-twisters #10 and #9 suffer from an inconsistent definition. Let's take them one at a time, starting with #9.
Take a set of numbers. The "interesting" number is the smallest (in this puzzle). But then, after removing that one, there is still a smallest number. Keep removing the interesting (smallest) number, the argument goes, and you will be left with no "uninteresting" numbers.
But, when you remove the smallest number, you've created a new set! Start again with the initial set; there is a smallest number, but the rest are still uninteresting IN THAT SET. If there are "n" numbers, "n-1" of them are uninteresting. Just stop there. If you remove that number from the set, you've changed the system.
#10 has the same problem. (And actually, I really liked that this problem was included. I used to think along these lines in elementary school when I was home sick for the day. My mom insisted that I go to school unless I had a fever. I used to wonder when the exact minute was that I was officially "sick." And then I'd wonder if I could break it down further - into the exact second, or millisecond, or microsecond that I transitioned from being "well enough to go to school" to "sick enough to stay home." Apparently I was a 6-yr-old philosopher. But I digress.)
Few things in life are in a simple binary state. If someone showed me a millions grains of sand, I'd probably say, "That's a heap of sand!" If someone showed me a single grain of sand, I'd certainly NOT say, "That's a heap of sand!" But this isn't a simple on / off switch. Just as, when I was a child, illness would come on gradually, with an intermediate "take a nap, then see if you're well enough to go to school late" phase, there is a gradient between "heap" and "single grain." Maybe a hundred thousand grains is a "pile." And ten thousand grains is a "lump." There might even be a single-grain difference between what I'd call a "pile" and what I'd call a "lump." But I wouldn't necessarily keep calling a collection of sand a "heap" until I got down to one grain. At some point along that gradient, I'd go into the next label.
Take a set of numbers. The "interesting" number is the smallest (in this puzzle). But then, after removing that one, there is still a smallest number. Keep removing the interesting (smallest) number, the argument goes, and you will be left with no "uninteresting" numbers.
But, when you remove the smallest number, you've created a new set! Start again with the initial set; there is a smallest number, but the rest are still uninteresting IN THAT SET. If there are "n" numbers, "n-1" of them are uninteresting. Just stop there. If you remove that number from the set, you've changed the system.
#10 has the same problem. (And actually, I really liked that this problem was included. I used to think along these lines in elementary school when I was home sick for the day. My mom insisted that I go to school unless I had a fever. I used to wonder when the exact minute was that I was officially "sick." And then I'd wonder if I could break it down further - into the exact second, or millisecond, or microsecond that I transitioned from being "well enough to go to school" to "sick enough to stay home." Apparently I was a 6-yr-old philosopher. But I digress.)
Few things in life are in a simple binary state. If someone showed me a millions grains of sand, I'd probably say, "That's a heap of sand!" If someone showed me a single grain of sand, I'd certainly NOT say, "That's a heap of sand!" But this isn't a simple on / off switch. Just as, when I was a child, illness would come on gradually, with an intermediate "take a nap, then see if you're well enough to go to school late" phase, there is a gradient between "heap" and "single grain." Maybe a hundred thousand grains is a "pile." And ten thousand grains is a "lump." There might even be a single-grain difference between what I'd call a "pile" and what I'd call a "lump." But I wouldn't necessarily keep calling a collection of sand a "heap" until I got down to one grain. At some point along that gradient, I'd go into the next label.
Philosophy - #11 and #1
I'm going to start by looking at the first and last brain-twisters. In my opinion, they're kind of the same argument. The contradiction comes from a lack of clarity in the definitions.
If an object is "unmovable," by definition that means that NOTHING can move it. Similarly, if a force is "unstoppable," that means that NOTHING can arrest its motion. Clearly these two things cannot exist in the same universe, so the hypothetical situation doesn't even make sense. It would (almost) be like saying, "What if gravity were both attractive and repulsive?" According to what we know of physics, this can't happen. The question is meaningless.
(For what it's worth, I'm working really hard here not to throw in a discussion of coordinate systems and how motion is always measured relative to something else.)
Similarly, the "omnipotent" being needs a good definition of "omnipotent." What do you mean when you ask the question? Could this omnipotent being increase its own power? In which case the conflict dissolves - the omnipotent being could create a stone it could not (initially) lift, and then increase its power until it could lift the stone. There needs to be a baseline of power against which to measure the "unliftable stone;" but this contradicts the idea of a truly "omnipotent" being. Again, the argument is meaningless without further clarification.
If an object is "unmovable," by definition that means that NOTHING can move it. Similarly, if a force is "unstoppable," that means that NOTHING can arrest its motion. Clearly these two things cannot exist in the same universe, so the hypothetical situation doesn't even make sense. It would (almost) be like saying, "What if gravity were both attractive and repulsive?" According to what we know of physics, this can't happen. The question is meaningless.
(For what it's worth, I'm working really hard here not to throw in a discussion of coordinate systems and how motion is always measured relative to something else.)
Similarly, the "omnipotent" being needs a good definition of "omnipotent." What do you mean when you ask the question? Could this omnipotent being increase its own power? In which case the conflict dissolves - the omnipotent being could create a stone it could not (initially) lift, and then increase its power until it could lift the stone. There needs to be a baseline of power against which to measure the "unliftable stone;" but this contradicts the idea of a truly "omnipotent" being. Again, the argument is meaningless without further clarification.
Philosophy
I'm generally not shy about my hatred for philosophy. I think it's because I'm scientifically-minded; I like to test theories, not just debate them. And a lot of times it seems like philosophers argue about semantics and language so abstract that what they're saying has no real meaning. Other times, it seems like philosophers argue about things that could be tested or understood scientifically.
I'm not gonna say that all philosophy is bunk; I understand that philosophy helps exercise logical and critical thinking muscles. However, a lot of times I read a philosophical argument or brainteaser and have to roll my eyes. For example, I recently read this article on "philosophical brainteasers" and they all seem to fall into one of two categories:
1) things that people think are paradoxes because they don't properly understand math and science, or
2) arguments based on contradicting definitions.
Over the next several posts, I'll go through them and explain my thoughts on each of the paradoxes. If there's a lack of science / math understanding, I'll point that out and do my best to correct the misunderstanding. If it's a semantics argument, I'll point that out too.
I realize that a lot of this is going to sound pretty snarky. And like I said, I have respect for philosophy as a means to sharpen logic and critical thinking. But I also hate it when people equate something scientific with something mystical or abstract. (I'm thinking mostly of brain twister #8. I did a facepalm as soon as I read that one. Basic misunderstanding of physics going on there.)
And yeah, it'll probably take a while for me to get through all of them. I'm not exactly regular about posting stufff...
(although as I have zero followers I don't think it's really an issue. If you've stumbled upon my blog, HI! leave a comment so I know my words aren't going into the great black hole of cyberspace.)
I'm not gonna say that all philosophy is bunk; I understand that philosophy helps exercise logical and critical thinking muscles. However, a lot of times I read a philosophical argument or brainteaser and have to roll my eyes. For example, I recently read this article on "philosophical brainteasers" and they all seem to fall into one of two categories:
1) things that people think are paradoxes because they don't properly understand math and science, or
2) arguments based on contradicting definitions.
Over the next several posts, I'll go through them and explain my thoughts on each of the paradoxes. If there's a lack of science / math understanding, I'll point that out and do my best to correct the misunderstanding. If it's a semantics argument, I'll point that out too.
I realize that a lot of this is going to sound pretty snarky. And like I said, I have respect for philosophy as a means to sharpen logic and critical thinking. But I also hate it when people equate something scientific with something mystical or abstract. (I'm thinking mostly of brain twister #8. I did a facepalm as soon as I read that one. Basic misunderstanding of physics going on there.)
And yeah, it'll probably take a while for me to get through all of them. I'm not exactly regular about posting stufff...
(although as I have zero followers I don't think it's really an issue. If you've stumbled upon my blog, HI! leave a comment so I know my words aren't going into the great black hole of cyberspace.)
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
"Moral Hotness" - Part One
Here are the first three entries for "Guys Who Have 'Moral Hotness'". For info on what that is, see the previous post.
Name: Mr. Rogers
Why He's Awesome: I think this article in Mental Floss sums it up pretty well. From everything I've read, he was much the same person on-screen and off-screen. He genuinely cared about people, especially children, and went out of his way to make sure everyone knew that they were special.
Name: Fr. Hesburgh
Why He's Awesome: Fr. Hesburgh has an incredibly high degree of integrity. Perhaps my favorite story is how a bunch of people were invited to a rally initiated by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A lot of them were afraid to go, but Fr. Hesburgh jumped right in his car and went to the demonstration. He's said that he didn't think twice about it - even though times were turbulent and it might have been a dangerous thing to do, it was the right thing to do. There's an awesome picture of him, arms linked with Dr. King, both of them singing at the demonstration.
Name: Nick Kristof
Why He's Awesome: In a world where the "news" often degenerates into celebrity gossip, one can always count on Nick Kristof to shine a spotlight on issues of importance. His editorials discuss human rights issues with anecdotes, statistics, and impassioned persuasion. This is a man who has been to the far reaches of the globe and wants his audience to understand how other people live. What I like best about his articles is that he also includes ways for his readers to help in a given situation. He'll provide information on organizations working to help those living in dire poverty, or suffering malnutrition, or whatever the issue of the day is. Through his writing, it's easy to see that he sincerely cares about people and wants to make the world a little bit better.
I've often said, "As long as there are people who care, I'll try not to worry too much." These men (and others like them) are the reason I sleep well at night. I know that there are men of integrity, compassion, and strong moral fiber who live the highest virtues. These men are an inspiration. And I'll take a Morally Hot guy over a Hollywood Hunk of the Week any day.
Name: Mr. Rogers
Why He's Awesome: I think this article in Mental Floss sums it up pretty well. From everything I've read, he was much the same person on-screen and off-screen. He genuinely cared about people, especially children, and went out of his way to make sure everyone knew that they were special.
Name: Fr. Hesburgh
Why He's Awesome: Fr. Hesburgh has an incredibly high degree of integrity. Perhaps my favorite story is how a bunch of people were invited to a rally initiated by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A lot of them were afraid to go, but Fr. Hesburgh jumped right in his car and went to the demonstration. He's said that he didn't think twice about it - even though times were turbulent and it might have been a dangerous thing to do, it was the right thing to do. There's an awesome picture of him, arms linked with Dr. King, both of them singing at the demonstration.
Name: Nick Kristof
Why He's Awesome: In a world where the "news" often degenerates into celebrity gossip, one can always count on Nick Kristof to shine a spotlight on issues of importance. His editorials discuss human rights issues with anecdotes, statistics, and impassioned persuasion. This is a man who has been to the far reaches of the globe and wants his audience to understand how other people live. What I like best about his articles is that he also includes ways for his readers to help in a given situation. He'll provide information on organizations working to help those living in dire poverty, or suffering malnutrition, or whatever the issue of the day is. Through his writing, it's easy to see that he sincerely cares about people and wants to make the world a little bit better.
I've often said, "As long as there are people who care, I'll try not to worry too much." These men (and others like them) are the reason I sleep well at night. I know that there are men of integrity, compassion, and strong moral fiber who live the highest virtues. These men are an inspiration. And I'll take a Morally Hot guy over a Hollywood Hunk of the Week any day.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Feynman
This is my last day of work before my wedding, so naturally I was thinking about physics. (I'm trying to keep myself grounded and calm.) Earlier I was thinking, "Gee, it'd be nice to read an article or something either by or about Richard Feynman." And, lo and behold, Mental Floss posted several youTube videos of an interview of him. So I played them in the background while working. Nothing is quite as soothing as listening to a scientific explanation when you're all stressed out. At least if you're me. =) Perfect timing, Mental Floss.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Driving rant
Let me say upfront: I do not like driving. If I could move to NYC and never have to drive again in my life, I'd be pretty happy about that. Overall, however, I just kinda deal with it. But sometimes things happen that make the experience pretty...horrible.
Now, I'm not sure if this is just my township or if there's some sort of traffic-sign-makers' strike going on, but there are three (count 'em, THREE) places nearby with road work, but no indications of said road work beforehand.
One of these places is a bridge that's out. I know that the bridge is out; my fiance and I have talked about how annoying it is to have to drive way out of the way to get around it. But one day I was driving and was distracted and so forgot to avoid that route. Until I saw a sign saying "Road ends in 500 feet" and a giant barrier. No warning at the previous intersection; no real way to turn around; just a dead end.
Today I stumbled across two more of these beauties. I was driving to school when traffic suddenly stopped. People were moving in the other direction, but going East was just stuck. Finally I (and a lot of other drivers) started pulling into shopping centers and turning around. (Luckily there are shopping center entrances about every 20 yards on this particular stretch of road.) As I turn around, I notice that there's road work blocking both lanes of traffic less than a block away. And this particular area has a pretty even gridwork of roads; it would have taken minimal effort to set up "Detour" signs at the previous intersection and routed traffic around the mess. But no; instead everyone got stuck.
As I was driving back home, I approached a green light and watched in wonder (horror?) as an SUV made a left into the intersection while he had a red light. Luckily I was paying attention and didn't hit him. But as I went through the intersection thinking "What the...?" I noticed yet another big "ROAD CLOSED" sign. The poor guy probably had no warning that his road was going to suddenly stop.
Now, I'm not sure if this is just my township or if there's some sort of traffic-sign-makers' strike going on, but there are three (count 'em, THREE) places nearby with road work, but no indications of said road work beforehand.
One of these places is a bridge that's out. I know that the bridge is out; my fiance and I have talked about how annoying it is to have to drive way out of the way to get around it. But one day I was driving and was distracted and so forgot to avoid that route. Until I saw a sign saying "Road ends in 500 feet" and a giant barrier. No warning at the previous intersection; no real way to turn around; just a dead end.
Today I stumbled across two more of these beauties. I was driving to school when traffic suddenly stopped. People were moving in the other direction, but going East was just stuck. Finally I (and a lot of other drivers) started pulling into shopping centers and turning around. (Luckily there are shopping center entrances about every 20 yards on this particular stretch of road.) As I turn around, I notice that there's road work blocking both lanes of traffic less than a block away. And this particular area has a pretty even gridwork of roads; it would have taken minimal effort to set up "Detour" signs at the previous intersection and routed traffic around the mess. But no; instead everyone got stuck.
As I was driving back home, I approached a green light and watched in wonder (horror?) as an SUV made a left into the intersection while he had a red light. Luckily I was paying attention and didn't hit him. But as I went through the intersection thinking "What the...?" I noticed yet another big "ROAD CLOSED" sign. The poor guy probably had no warning that his road was going to suddenly stop.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Name change
I'm getting married soon, and I had decided a while back that in the event I ever got married, I would take my husbands name socially but keep my own name professionally. (And my fiance is ok with this.)
I was talking to a friend of mine, who said he vehemently disagreed with this decision. He felt that in marriage, "the two shall become one" and the couple should have the same surname as a symbol of this. I take his point.
At the same time, I'm working hard for a PhD. When I graduate, I want to be Dr. MyLastName, not Dr. HisLastName. I'm doing the work; I want to use my name.
So I was thinking back, and I think the whole thing started when I read the Foundation Series by Asimov. At one point, one of the characters is talking about his wife, and he says that legally she's Mrs. HisLastName, but he feels like that designation implies that he "owns" her. And he thinks of her as such an individual, and respects her so much as a person, that he always refers to her by her unmarried name. When I read that, I thought it was the sweetest thing I'd ever read. A man who loves his wife so much that he's completely unintimidated by her intellect; who respects her so much that he can't imagine her being anything but an individual.
I was talking to a friend of mine, who said he vehemently disagreed with this decision. He felt that in marriage, "the two shall become one" and the couple should have the same surname as a symbol of this. I take his point.
At the same time, I'm working hard for a PhD. When I graduate, I want to be Dr. MyLastName, not Dr. HisLastName. I'm doing the work; I want to use my name.
So I was thinking back, and I think the whole thing started when I read the Foundation Series by Asimov. At one point, one of the characters is talking about his wife, and he says that legally she's Mrs. HisLastName, but he feels like that designation implies that he "owns" her. And he thinks of her as such an individual, and respects her so much as a person, that he always refers to her by her unmarried name. When I read that, I thought it was the sweetest thing I'd ever read. A man who loves his wife so much that he's completely unintimidated by her intellect; who respects her so much that he can't imagine her being anything but an individual.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Weighted Vote
As I was watching the election results coming in last night, I got to thinking about the whole voting process. A democracy is based on the principle that the wisdom of the crowds will prevail - but that's making the assumption that people actually know what they're talking about when it comes to politics. And, as we've shown in previous elections, that's not always the best assumption.
So, what if we had a "weighted" vote? I know that this would be impossible to implement (talk about your logistics nightmares!) but what if?
Say, for example, you know pretty much nothing about the candidates, and you plan on voting based on a name or who "looks" more Presidential or who you'd want to have a beer with.* Your vote counts as one vote (same as now).
If, instead, you can articulate the positions of the different candidates and show a competent understanding of the issues, your vote counts as, say, 5 votes.
On the other hand, if you're voting based on what you've heard from rumors and smear campaigns, your vote counts as -2 votes. Whoever you vote for loses 2 votes.
(And yes, I realize people could say they're voting based on rumors and then vote for the other guy to make him lose votes. Again, I know this whole weighted vote thing would be impossible to implement from a practical standpoint; I'm just speaking hypothetically.)
Would this promote more civic involvement? Encourage more people to spend time learning about the issues and candidates' stances? Result in fewer smear campaigns? Or am I just punch-drunk from reloading cnn.com every 20 seconds last night?
*I know, I know, it should be "or the candidate with whom you'd like to share a beer." But that just sounds awkward.
So, what if we had a "weighted" vote? I know that this would be impossible to implement (talk about your logistics nightmares!) but what if?
Say, for example, you know pretty much nothing about the candidates, and you plan on voting based on a name or who "looks" more Presidential or who you'd want to have a beer with.* Your vote counts as one vote (same as now).
If, instead, you can articulate the positions of the different candidates and show a competent understanding of the issues, your vote counts as, say, 5 votes.
On the other hand, if you're voting based on what you've heard from rumors and smear campaigns, your vote counts as -2 votes. Whoever you vote for loses 2 votes.
(And yes, I realize people could say they're voting based on rumors and then vote for the other guy to make him lose votes. Again, I know this whole weighted vote thing would be impossible to implement from a practical standpoint; I'm just speaking hypothetically.)
Would this promote more civic involvement? Encourage more people to spend time learning about the issues and candidates' stances? Result in fewer smear campaigns? Or am I just punch-drunk from reloading cnn.com every 20 seconds last night?
*I know, I know, it should be "or the candidate with whom you'd like to share a beer." But that just sounds awkward.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
DO NOT WANT!
Seriously guys, seriously?
This is just such a bad idea. Sherlock Holmes is awesome. And yes, he's strong. But he doesn't go around beating people up. The most "action-y" scene in any of the canonical stories was a boat chase down the Thames. Which, granted, was awesome and suspenseful. But Sherlock Holmes is not James Bond with a plaid cape!
Grrr.
Update:
Noooooo!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I was afraid of!!!
"As for McAdams, she'll play Irene Adler, Holmes' love interest who only appeared in Doyle's 1891 short story "A Scandal in Bohemia," but is expected to return in any sequels for this potential new franchise."
FYI: Sherlock Holmes NEVER fell in love. NEVER. It didn't happen. Not once. Watson makes a point of saying so as he introduces "A Scandal in Bohemia." He starts the whole thing off my saying explicitly that Holmes was never ever in love with Irene Adler.
And I quote:
"TO SHERLOCK HOLMES she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex.
Stupid Hollywood.
This is just such a bad idea. Sherlock Holmes is awesome. And yes, he's strong. But he doesn't go around beating people up. The most "action-y" scene in any of the canonical stories was a boat chase down the Thames. Which, granted, was awesome and suspenseful. But Sherlock Holmes is not James Bond with a plaid cape!
Grrr.
Update:
Noooooo!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I was afraid of!!!
"As for McAdams, she'll play Irene Adler, Holmes' love interest who only appeared in Doyle's 1891 short story "A Scandal in Bohemia," but is expected to return in any sequels for this potential new franchise."
FYI: Sherlock Holmes NEVER fell in love. NEVER. It didn't happen. Not once. Watson makes a point of saying so as he introduces "A Scandal in Bohemia." He starts the whole thing off my saying explicitly that Holmes was never ever in love with Irene Adler.
And I quote:
"TO SHERLOCK HOLMES she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex.
It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position.
He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer--excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory."
In fact, that's why "The Three Garridebs" is so shocking...because for the one and only time in over 1000 pages, Holmes shows sincere emotion. It happens ONCE. And said emotion is concern for his friend of several years (Watson) NOT romantic love.Stupid Hollywood.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Being Girlie, part 2
Here's another article on the same topic as before. Two points I found interesting:
1. Being attractive is detrimental. "Beautiful applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss." Well that sucks. On the one hand society is telling women, "If you're not physically ideal, you're doomed to loneliness your entire life." And now there's a study saying if you are attractive, you're doomed to an unsuccessful career. I would argue the point a bit; I think it's possible to be both pretty and successful, but it does take more work to prove that you're more than just pretty. I was told in engineering school that while it might be easier to get a job as a woman engineer, it would be much harder to prove to my coworkers/superiors that I deserved the job due to the assumption that I only got the job to boost the equal opportunities numbers.
On the other hand, I think it would be great if more bosses thought like Dr. House:
This is why I like to watch "Voyager" (yes, I'm a Trekkie, I'm not ashamed.) Capt. Janeway has to look after her crew almost like a family, but no one would ever claim she's not tough enough. I'm always fascinated how the writers managed to make this character both competent and likable...and then try to figure out if how she acts would work when applied to the real world.
Comments welcome =)
1. Being attractive is detrimental. "Beautiful applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss." Well that sucks. On the one hand society is telling women, "If you're not physically ideal, you're doomed to loneliness your entire life." And now there's a study saying if you are attractive, you're doomed to an unsuccessful career. I would argue the point a bit; I think it's possible to be both pretty and successful, but it does take more work to prove that you're more than just pretty. I was told in engineering school that while it might be easier to get a job as a woman engineer, it would be much harder to prove to my coworkers/superiors that I deserved the job due to the assumption that I only got the job to boost the equal opportunities numbers.
On the other hand, I think it would be great if more bosses thought like Dr. House:
- Dr. House: Would that upset you, really? To think that you were hired because of some genetic gift of beauty, not some genetic gift of intelligence?
- Dr. Cameron: I worked very hard to get where I am.
- Dr. House: But you didn't have to. People choose the paths that grant them the greatest rewards for the least amount of effort. That's the law of nature, and you defied it. That's why I hired you. You could have married rich, could have been a model, you could have just shown up and people would have given you stuff. Lots of stuff, but you didn't, you worked your stunning little ass off.
This is why I like to watch "Voyager" (yes, I'm a Trekkie, I'm not ashamed.) Capt. Janeway has to look after her crew almost like a family, but no one would ever claim she's not tough enough. I'm always fascinated how the writers managed to make this character both competent and likable...and then try to figure out if how she acts would work when applied to the real world.
Comments welcome =)
Monday, January 28, 2008
Vegetarianism
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Best food advice I've heard in a while. Here's an article with more reasons to eat mostly plants.
Best food advice I've heard in a while. Here's an article with more reasons to eat mostly plants.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Who would you meet?
If you could meet anyone (real, not fictional characters), alive or from history, who would you want to meet?
The way I've come up with a list is to imagine that I'm going to have lunch with someone, and I try to figure out who would be really interesting to talk to, and who I think I'd actually get along with.
My list:
Fred Rogers
Fr. Hesburgh (I've met him, actually, and he's completely awesome)
Richard Feynman and Isaac Asimov
Fareed Zakaria
Archibald MacLeish
Separately, here's a list of people I feel I could learn a lot from, but I think I'd be too intimidated to actually be able to speak in their presence:
Martin Luther King Jr. / Frederick Douglass / Lucretia Mott
Gene Krantz
Oprah
Nancy Pelosi
Richard Branson
Thomas Edison
Euler
Buzz Aldrin
Bob Gates / Maj. Gen. Doug Stone
The way I've come up with a list is to imagine that I'm going to have lunch with someone, and I try to figure out who would be really interesting to talk to, and who I think I'd actually get along with.
My list:
Fred Rogers
Fr. Hesburgh (I've met him, actually, and he's completely awesome)
Richard Feynman and Isaac Asimov
Fareed Zakaria
Archibald MacLeish
Separately, here's a list of people I feel I could learn a lot from, but I think I'd be too intimidated to actually be able to speak in their presence:
Martin Luther King Jr. / Frederick Douglass / Lucretia Mott
Gene Krantz
Oprah
Nancy Pelosi
Richard Branson
Thomas Edison
Euler
Buzz Aldrin
Bob Gates / Maj. Gen. Doug Stone
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Bloomberg
OK, I promised myself when I started this blog that I'd stay away from serious or controversial topics (like politics). But after reading this, can I just say, I really hope Michael Bloomberg runs for President. If he does, he immediately gets my vote.
And then I was thinking about the movie "The American President." The President in that movie is very popular, very likeable, etc...basically the writers tried to make a character that the audience would vote for if he was real. And the two big political issues that come up in the movie? Gun control and the environment. And he's a bachelor. Yup, Michael Bloomberg is Andrew Shepherd. Sort of. (What? I thought it was funny.)
Now of course there's a good argument that an Independent candidate could never win. However, here's a devil's advocate argument to chew on:
In the current political atmosphere, many people want a non-Republican President. So I'm going to assume that the Republican candidate will lose, and ignore him. (Feel free to challenge this assumption if you like.)
So for the Democrats: if Obama wins the nomination, he has a seriously good chance of winning. People like him. If, however, Hillary wins the nomination, she'll be fighting a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment in this country.
Thus, if Hillary wins the nomination, we'll have 2 not-so-popular choices for President. I argue that this could leave a significant number of votes open for a 3rd-party candidate, particularly if he's smart, politically savvy, and rich. Bloomberg is all three. There's a good chance that in this scenario, the campaign would become NOT Hillary vs. Republican, but Hillary vs. Bloomberg, with the Republican candidate left as an afterthought.
Comments welcome, but please keep things civil. =)
And then I was thinking about the movie "The American President." The President in that movie is very popular, very likeable, etc...basically the writers tried to make a character that the audience would vote for if he was real. And the two big political issues that come up in the movie? Gun control and the environment. And he's a bachelor. Yup, Michael Bloomberg is Andrew Shepherd. Sort of. (What? I thought it was funny.)
Now of course there's a good argument that an Independent candidate could never win. However, here's a devil's advocate argument to chew on:
In the current political atmosphere, many people want a non-Republican President. So I'm going to assume that the Republican candidate will lose, and ignore him. (Feel free to challenge this assumption if you like.)
So for the Democrats: if Obama wins the nomination, he has a seriously good chance of winning. People like him. If, however, Hillary wins the nomination, she'll be fighting a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment in this country.
Thus, if Hillary wins the nomination, we'll have 2 not-so-popular choices for President. I argue that this could leave a significant number of votes open for a 3rd-party candidate, particularly if he's smart, politically savvy, and rich. Bloomberg is all three. There's a good chance that in this scenario, the campaign would become NOT Hillary vs. Republican, but Hillary vs. Bloomberg, with the Republican candidate left as an afterthought.
Comments welcome, but please keep things civil. =)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Telekinesis
I just read a summary of the horror flick "Carrie." In brief, a socially-outcast girl discovers she has telekinetic power, and decides the best thing to do would be to use this new-found power to burn down the school and everyone in it.
Now, maybe I totally missed the point, but I feel like if I suddenly discovered I had telekineses, there are about a million and a half things that would be a better idea than burning down my school. Here are a few top contenders:
What would you do with telekinesis?
Now, maybe I totally missed the point, but I feel like if I suddenly discovered I had telekineses, there are about a million and a half things that would be a better idea than burning down my school. Here are a few top contenders:
- Fly. I'd levitate myself all over the place.
- Go to an intensive care unit and cure diseases by pulling viruses, cancer, etc out of people without hurting them (I'm thinking like Magneto pulled iron out of that guy's blood in X2, except way less painful).
- If there were enough of us telekinetics, we could each take a portion of the world and move everyone's cars around with our minds. Oil problems solved! And everyone would probably be so happy to be saving gas money that they'd give us food and money for the mortgage, so this could be a full-time job.
- Redistribute fresh water so that the people without potable water can get their share.
What would you do with telekinesis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
