It's good to warm my bones beside the fire

By -
In the snowy Poconos, sitting in front of a blazing fire in my wood stove, feet up, sipping some port and reading the new A Companion to Michael Oakeshott: does life get any better?

(I've limited Internet access here, but I am piling up posts for when I return to the civilization of Brooklyn.)

Comments

  1. Anonymous2:59 PM

    I can't believe that I missed the Pink Floyd reference the first time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah3:04 PM

      That's because it wasn't there!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:25 PM

      Well, not consciously.

      Delete
    3. Ken B4:51 PM

      Yes it can, unless you already have Stravinsky on.

      Delete
    4. gcallah4:53 PM

      I can't read (or write) and listen to music!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more