the last day I had an interesting though about god (im not sure how religous some of you might be, but this sort of works out no matter what your religon)
I used to argue with a friend of mine that the reason he cannot understand how god thinks, is becasue him trying to understand the tought processes of god, would be like, a goldfish trying to understand thew thought processes of a human, whats more if you tried to make youself know to your gold fish, the gold fish would not even be capable of acknowledging you at all, you would just be some sorf of thing to swin next to..
but I recently changes this becasue the analogy is flawed, for one a gold fish exists on the same physical plain as we do (which god does not) and secondly we did not create goldfish (as god would have us, and in his own image might i add, gold fish look nothing like us)
and so I looked for a new analogy, and I think I've found it: Sonic the Hedgehog
We created Sonic, we created his world, we sort of created him in our image. Trying to make Sonic understand who we are though would be impossible, and so if you can this point upon us and our creater (be it god, the universe, nature or whatever it is you believe in), So you will see that although there are many things we can learn about ourselves, our emotions and our universe, there are certain things about our existance (both physical and spiritual) that we are simply incapable of understanding becasue the force used to create us must have been able to exceed our own boundries of reality.
If we as Sonic's creators are capable of Imagination, Praxis amd freethough yet sonic isin't (nor is he capable of emagining what thay are) We in turn must also not be capable of even comprehend things thta our creator can comprehend and perform.
SO ironically, the point of the story is the following question:
what is the meaning of life?
Answer:
We are not capable of understanding the answer.
Religous philosophy?
Moderator: Moderator Team
-
Lithium_joe
- Power poster
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:45 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
What is the meaning of life?
I came to a conclusion sometime ago that there is no meaning to life. Not in the sense that people imagine there to be one. Sure there are meanings in life (lots of them) but there are no objective truths that will outlast the last human when they finally die or when the sun expands and consumes the Earth or all the stars wink out forever and the universe drifts apart of collapses in on itself. The poetry of Keats the genius of Shakepeare, The bible, the Koran, The Torah, Aristotle, Einstein, even Sonic The Hedgehog, all of it - *poof!*
There is meaning, but we create it and it will expire with us.*
Which brings me to God.
It is true enough to say that human experience is littered with examples of big fancy things create smaller less fancy things, blacksmiths and horseshoes or William Paley's famous Watchmaker analogy. are both examples and the later relies on this unquestioned assumption remaining true.
However I urge caution against thinking that we are created beings: there is simply no compelling evidence for it outside of religious doctrine. That was the genius of Darwin's theory of natural selection in evolution because what it does is provide the explanatory mechanism for considering how big fancy things can come from smaller less complex things.
I'm afraid to say the comparisson to Sonic The Hedgehog is to my mind, misleading because it repeats the fallacy that we, like Sonic, are created and while that is certainly true of Sonic (and I doubt anyone would attempt to argue otherwise) it is no longer necessary to say that this is true of us as humans nor of any living creature or animal or plant.
If you believe in irony, I think it was George Carlin who once said mankind evolved because the Earth needed plastic.
And that will be probably still be around long after we are all gone.
LJ - Not Going To
or 
*I recommend googling and reading the poem Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelly (Mary (Frankenstein)'s other half)
I came to a conclusion sometime ago that there is no meaning to life. Not in the sense that people imagine there to be one. Sure there are meanings in life (lots of them) but there are no objective truths that will outlast the last human when they finally die or when the sun expands and consumes the Earth or all the stars wink out forever and the universe drifts apart of collapses in on itself. The poetry of Keats the genius of Shakepeare, The bible, the Koran, The Torah, Aristotle, Einstein, even Sonic The Hedgehog, all of it - *poof!*
There is meaning, but we create it and it will expire with us.*
Which brings me to God.
It is true enough to say that human experience is littered with examples of big fancy things create smaller less fancy things, blacksmiths and horseshoes or William Paley's famous Watchmaker analogy. are both examples and the later relies on this unquestioned assumption remaining true.
However I urge caution against thinking that we are created beings: there is simply no compelling evidence for it outside of religious doctrine. That was the genius of Darwin's theory of natural selection in evolution because what it does is provide the explanatory mechanism for considering how big fancy things can come from smaller less complex things.
I'm afraid to say the comparisson to Sonic The Hedgehog is to my mind, misleading because it repeats the fallacy that we, like Sonic, are created and while that is certainly true of Sonic (and I doubt anyone would attempt to argue otherwise) it is no longer necessary to say that this is true of us as humans nor of any living creature or animal or plant.
If you believe in irony, I think it was George Carlin who once said mankind evolved because the Earth needed plastic.
And that will be probably still be around long after we are all gone.
LJ - Not Going To
or *I recommend googling and reading the poem Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelly (Mary (Frankenstein)'s other half)
Last edited by Lithium_joe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
I like that quote.If you believe in irony, I think it was George Carlin who once said mankind evolved because the Earth needed plastic.
but surly we ourselves are evidance that we were created, for what other way can a thing exist?However I urge caution against thinking that we are created beings: there is simply no compelling evidence for it outside of religious doctrine
I will agree with you that we did come about through evolution, but who or what created evolution? and for that matter, who/what created anything at all in which something may evolve?, ie time and space.
the answer to this question (and this is where religon, and all of it;s shortcomings come in) is that we are incapable of imagining what sort of thing can create our universe, because we ourselves ar bound by the rules of our universe.
I believe sience is very valuable to us because it truthfully explores our physical reality (something religous is woefully inadiquite to do) and religon in turn is valuable because it explores our spiritual existance(vice versa for science) but that neither Science or religon is able to break through the "aquarium glass" and even if they were, we wouldn't know how to intake what lies beyond it anyways. Just like if Lara croft or Harry potter somehow managed to exist in our world (which would be impossible anyways) they would not have the capacity to intake anything about it)
-
robyn
-
Lithium_joe
- Power poster
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:45 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
ive never thought of religion,i know its there,but its pointless,ive enough problems with having this disorder,i try to think rational.sonic the headshog was created by man,ever think religion was too?the human race has an imagination,many men with power are greedy/where greedy,so they use there imagination and create things for power,think Ron L. Hubbard,he created a religion,people are gullable enough to believe him,its def the same with other religions,people way back then lived in fear for there lives,these days some people still are,imagine someone like us living in a place where you had to learn religion and if you didnt you would die.
If you want to believe in something,believe in yourself,your loved ones and your friends..........
If you want to believe in something,believe in yourself,your loved ones and your friends..........
-
Lithium_joe
- Power poster
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:45 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
Still busy at uni - but here goes with my long held-back reply
We ourselves are evidence we were created.
Not so. See my explanation above about Darwin's argument. The power of it as an explanatory principle is that it does explain how through a process of natural selection across geological time how essentially random mutations are pruned by a non-random process to diversify groups of animals into separate species which share a common ancestor.
This is why our genetic code shares all but two dissimilar genes with chimps, but more divergence with, say, rats - since we, rats and chimps are all mammals so far enough back in history there will be a common ancestor that explains the similarity in our genes, but the differences are accounted for by random mutations across millions of years, and the separation into species by natural selection.
The difference is that we separated from rats long ago, but comparatively recently from chimps. A geneticist of the future who compared human and chimp DNA might find *more* variance because homo sapiens will have continued to evolve; not to mention the chimps!
As to species separation - it is physically possible, presuming you are brave enough, to mate with gorilla - the key difference is that fertilisation of an egg will not occur and so there is no lineage descending from it - hence it's a evolutionary non-starter. We and Gorillas have transmuted into separate species which share a common ancestry because sexual reproduction within our own own species has over time seen the successful reproduction and diversify according to natural selection of the genes we all carry.
A better example than ourselves and gorrilas might be mules - the offspring of a horse and donkey (a union which *still does* produce a fertilised egg and a fully grown 4 legged mammal at the end of it.)
And this would all be well and good but for one small snifter of a fact that kills it: all mules are infertile.
So it's not simply enough to fertilise an egg successfully, the offspring have to be able to carry the genetic heritage intermingled in their genes onward in their own offspring. Since there isn't a mule born that can do this - they are a sort of genetic adjunct - they are regarded as hybrids and not as a separate species since this necessitates the production of successful fertile offspring.
Who or what created evolution
Let's not confuse ourselves with words - evolution is just the name of the phenomena associated with a process: that process is natural selection. Within any population some individuals are born with genetic variations that enable them to be better suited to their environment. It is therefore more likely (no more strenuous than that) that those animals (or, indeed plants) will thrive in that environment compared to less advantageous adaptations. Therefore the advantageous genetic mutation will spread through the genepool until subsequent generations inherit it as a norm. The natural selection is just the likelyhood that given a change in environmental factors or the relationship of predator to prey that those with the advantageous genes will survive long enough to reproduce, compared to those that are not so well equipped for survival against all the odds.
Natural selection is just the process of elimination - and as such no-one 'invented it', it is just the natural thinning of populations competing for resources to survive where some have a natural advantage.
Natural selection does not produce 'better' animals - it merely produces outcomes of biology that are more favourable to survival. Which is why no biological creature is ever perfect (surly an expectation if they were created by a designing god?) but an amalgam of inherited (and sometimes quirky) left-overs. Appendicitis suffers may know of what I speak.
Evolution is the term (now) given to the genetic diversification that rises out of natural selection. Historically, evolutionary thought has a history that goes back as far if not further than the ancient Greeks (who coincitdently also coined the term 'atom') the sticking point was how such bio-diversity came to be. It was assumed to have be created as such and could not change.
Darwin (and Alfred Russel Wallce's and T.H Huxley's) contributions to this debate was to nail down the process by which change can take place. Hence, in favour of a better and more complete theory, creation is rejected according to the rational scientific mindset. The hypothesis accredited to Darwin has subsequently gone on to receive support from later unrelated scientific inquiry (into genetics - Gregor Mendel and later J.B.S Haldane and many others) and thus emerges as the theory we encounter today. Darwin himself only later applied what was implied in The Origin of Species to humans in his later work The Descent of Man - and then he got it completely wrong because the science of genetics was not developed by that point and he simply couldn't have known.
In so far then as Darwin's seminal contribution to this debate takes us, ihe provided the schema by which biology can be understood without the need to invoke creation but by natural phenomena alone
That this and the developement of genetic study could become mutal partners in explanation ultimately speaks to the symmetry of scientific rational enquiry to uncover the truth. This dogged determination to explain the inexplicable has achieved watershed moments like the understanding of the double-helix structure of our genetic code by Crick and Watson, the notion of the AGTC chemical structure of DNA and finally, and only within the last decade, the sequencing of the entire human genome.
We've come a long, long way together.
Who what created anything at all?
Good question. And an old one. Why is there something rather than nothing? No-one has a deffinitive answer and if they say they do they're telling fibs.
It was once thought that to exist was 'more perfect' than not existing, so therefore QED God exists. This is the Ontological Argument and it is tautological nonsense - but the question is still a good one and I'm not enough of an expert to explain it, but I believe the current thinking is that the big bang (which is the model posited to explain the expanding universe discovered by Edwin Hubble who the telescope was named after) and the discovery in 1964 of the background radiation of the explosion lent credibility to a theory that explained the start to the universe (and therefore space *and* time - Einstein remember, linked these) whichFred Hoyle mockingly called "The Big Bang" - but too bad for him the name stuck. Stephen Hawking later followed Roger Penrose and Einstein and posited that the start of the universe was a singularity where the rules of the universe break down to a single infinite point. Or to quote Terry Pratchett: "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
As to why there is something rather than nothing? Well the big bang was not uniform - so while an exact balance of matter and anti-matter would have cancelled down to energy - for some reason that is not yet understood it didn't and matter survived. It was this unequal balance that gives us the universe, the stars, the planets and us - to wonder about where it all came from and what it all means.
The not yet part is important.
As to what it all means - well I stated my view on that before, it all means plenty but meaning like our gods are created (and will die) with us.
We are incapable of imagining
It ain't easy, I'll grant you that....
And this is where religion comes in
Except that religion explanatory power is next to nil because just to take the bible as one instance of creation myth - they nearly all have them - saying 'god did it' does not advance us very far, and even if someone admitted to the physical processes over which science can describe with some authority and then still fled to the 'god did those things too' model, then I personally think they'd missed the point.
You point about the aquarium glass is kind of interesting since, we've come a long way from: the gods hold up the sky; from god puts things in motion; to there are laws of force, like gravity that can describe such movements; to mass bends space-time along which all matter moves in the shortest possible distance. All of which is very good but which doesn't address the more fundamental question of why there should be such laws (they're really just phenomena) in the first place and why they should be like they are.
It really bugs physicists, for instance, that you can stand on top of Mount Everest, bend down and pick up a paper clip with a magnet that is no bigger that the tip of your finger, from off of the floor. Despite the huge mass of the Earth pulling that paper clip toward the centre, a tiny magnet is able to exert a stronger force. If all the forces that are important to the fundamentals of the universe (things like air resistance and friction only apply when you have gasses and solids etc which require the subatomic world to be stable enough to produce atoms and element in the first place: so for this argument those key forces would be electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force since these dicate how stable atomic particles are.) These are all properties of the universe that has emerged out of The Big Bang which act upon the world and life as we know it. So why should gravity be so apparently weak? Or to put it another way why should gravity be just right to allow life to flourish? if it were any weaker - our atmopshere would drift off into space (just look at MARS!) or too strong the universe might not have expanded in the way that it has allowing separate galaxies and solar systems (like ours) to emerge and our bacterial ancestors would have been cooked.
The hunt is on for the sub-atomic particle called the graviton which it is hoped may explain some of this weirdness. But look - Science doesn't have all the answers so whatever they find our knowledge will increase but our theroies will adapt at the expence of wishful thinking and a fear of the dark (both possible evolutionary adaptations in behaviour) in pursuit of truth.
So science is often accused of having a mundane outlook on life - which is as it turns out actually accurate: mundane being a derivation of the latin 'mundus' which means 'concerned with the world'. and if the natural (rather than the supernatural) is our worldly concern then so much for the better I say.
I think science does explore the physical reality, in ways that far exceed our earliest and worst attempts to understand the world from the perspective of bronze age middle-eastern tribes that we laughingly give credence to and call religion. Even if there is a spiritual reality, which I rather doubt - but I will permit it's a possibility just at least until we define what spiritual actually means, I would remain sceptical that a religion could have ownership of that either - since religion seems to me to be a variety of contradictory dogmas built on unsound philosophy.
I think that addresses everything you set out above Auron, hope it provides some food for thought. I hope I may persuade you but even if we end up disagreeing - a civil dispute of ideas is always fun.
Oh -
and Harry Potter does exist in this world. I've read all about him.
LJ.
We ourselves are evidence we were created.
Not so. See my explanation above about Darwin's argument. The power of it as an explanatory principle is that it does explain how through a process of natural selection across geological time how essentially random mutations are pruned by a non-random process to diversify groups of animals into separate species which share a common ancestor.
This is why our genetic code shares all but two dissimilar genes with chimps, but more divergence with, say, rats - since we, rats and chimps are all mammals so far enough back in history there will be a common ancestor that explains the similarity in our genes, but the differences are accounted for by random mutations across millions of years, and the separation into species by natural selection.
The difference is that we separated from rats long ago, but comparatively recently from chimps. A geneticist of the future who compared human and chimp DNA might find *more* variance because homo sapiens will have continued to evolve; not to mention the chimps!
As to species separation - it is physically possible, presuming you are brave enough, to mate with gorilla - the key difference is that fertilisation of an egg will not occur and so there is no lineage descending from it - hence it's a evolutionary non-starter. We and Gorillas have transmuted into separate species which share a common ancestry because sexual reproduction within our own own species has over time seen the successful reproduction and diversify according to natural selection of the genes we all carry.
A better example than ourselves and gorrilas might be mules - the offspring of a horse and donkey (a union which *still does* produce a fertilised egg and a fully grown 4 legged mammal at the end of it.)
And this would all be well and good but for one small snifter of a fact that kills it: all mules are infertile.
So it's not simply enough to fertilise an egg successfully, the offspring have to be able to carry the genetic heritage intermingled in their genes onward in their own offspring. Since there isn't a mule born that can do this - they are a sort of genetic adjunct - they are regarded as hybrids and not as a separate species since this necessitates the production of successful fertile offspring.
Who or what created evolution
Let's not confuse ourselves with words - evolution is just the name of the phenomena associated with a process: that process is natural selection. Within any population some individuals are born with genetic variations that enable them to be better suited to their environment. It is therefore more likely (no more strenuous than that) that those animals (or, indeed plants) will thrive in that environment compared to less advantageous adaptations. Therefore the advantageous genetic mutation will spread through the genepool until subsequent generations inherit it as a norm. The natural selection is just the likelyhood that given a change in environmental factors or the relationship of predator to prey that those with the advantageous genes will survive long enough to reproduce, compared to those that are not so well equipped for survival against all the odds.
Natural selection is just the process of elimination - and as such no-one 'invented it', it is just the natural thinning of populations competing for resources to survive where some have a natural advantage.
Natural selection does not produce 'better' animals - it merely produces outcomes of biology that are more favourable to survival. Which is why no biological creature is ever perfect (surly an expectation if they were created by a designing god?) but an amalgam of inherited (and sometimes quirky) left-overs. Appendicitis suffers may know of what I speak.
Evolution is the term (now) given to the genetic diversification that rises out of natural selection. Historically, evolutionary thought has a history that goes back as far if not further than the ancient Greeks (who coincitdently also coined the term 'atom') the sticking point was how such bio-diversity came to be. It was assumed to have be created as such and could not change.
Darwin (and Alfred Russel Wallce's and T.H Huxley's) contributions to this debate was to nail down the process by which change can take place. Hence, in favour of a better and more complete theory, creation is rejected according to the rational scientific mindset. The hypothesis accredited to Darwin has subsequently gone on to receive support from later unrelated scientific inquiry (into genetics - Gregor Mendel and later J.B.S Haldane and many others) and thus emerges as the theory we encounter today. Darwin himself only later applied what was implied in The Origin of Species to humans in his later work The Descent of Man - and then he got it completely wrong because the science of genetics was not developed by that point and he simply couldn't have known.
In so far then as Darwin's seminal contribution to this debate takes us, ihe provided the schema by which biology can be understood without the need to invoke creation but by natural phenomena alone
That this and the developement of genetic study could become mutal partners in explanation ultimately speaks to the symmetry of scientific rational enquiry to uncover the truth. This dogged determination to explain the inexplicable has achieved watershed moments like the understanding of the double-helix structure of our genetic code by Crick and Watson, the notion of the AGTC chemical structure of DNA and finally, and only within the last decade, the sequencing of the entire human genome.
We've come a long, long way together.
Who what created anything at all?
Good question. And an old one. Why is there something rather than nothing? No-one has a deffinitive answer and if they say they do they're telling fibs.
It was once thought that to exist was 'more perfect' than not existing, so therefore QED God exists. This is the Ontological Argument and it is tautological nonsense - but the question is still a good one and I'm not enough of an expert to explain it, but I believe the current thinking is that the big bang (which is the model posited to explain the expanding universe discovered by Edwin Hubble who the telescope was named after) and the discovery in 1964 of the background radiation of the explosion lent credibility to a theory that explained the start to the universe (and therefore space *and* time - Einstein remember, linked these) whichFred Hoyle mockingly called "The Big Bang" - but too bad for him the name stuck. Stephen Hawking later followed Roger Penrose and Einstein and posited that the start of the universe was a singularity where the rules of the universe break down to a single infinite point. Or to quote Terry Pratchett: "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
As to why there is something rather than nothing? Well the big bang was not uniform - so while an exact balance of matter and anti-matter would have cancelled down to energy - for some reason that is not yet understood it didn't and matter survived. It was this unequal balance that gives us the universe, the stars, the planets and us - to wonder about where it all came from and what it all means.
The not yet part is important.
As to what it all means - well I stated my view on that before, it all means plenty but meaning like our gods are created (and will die) with us.
We are incapable of imagining
It ain't easy, I'll grant you that....
And this is where religion comes in
Except that religion explanatory power is next to nil because just to take the bible as one instance of creation myth - they nearly all have them - saying 'god did it' does not advance us very far, and even if someone admitted to the physical processes over which science can describe with some authority and then still fled to the 'god did those things too' model, then I personally think they'd missed the point.
You point about the aquarium glass is kind of interesting since, we've come a long way from: the gods hold up the sky; from god puts things in motion; to there are laws of force, like gravity that can describe such movements; to mass bends space-time along which all matter moves in the shortest possible distance. All of which is very good but which doesn't address the more fundamental question of why there should be such laws (they're really just phenomena) in the first place and why they should be like they are.
It really bugs physicists, for instance, that you can stand on top of Mount Everest, bend down and pick up a paper clip with a magnet that is no bigger that the tip of your finger, from off of the floor. Despite the huge mass of the Earth pulling that paper clip toward the centre, a tiny magnet is able to exert a stronger force. If all the forces that are important to the fundamentals of the universe (things like air resistance and friction only apply when you have gasses and solids etc which require the subatomic world to be stable enough to produce atoms and element in the first place: so for this argument those key forces would be electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force since these dicate how stable atomic particles are.) These are all properties of the universe that has emerged out of The Big Bang which act upon the world and life as we know it. So why should gravity be so apparently weak? Or to put it another way why should gravity be just right to allow life to flourish? if it were any weaker - our atmopshere would drift off into space (just look at MARS!) or too strong the universe might not have expanded in the way that it has allowing separate galaxies and solar systems (like ours) to emerge and our bacterial ancestors would have been cooked.
The hunt is on for the sub-atomic particle called the graviton which it is hoped may explain some of this weirdness. But look - Science doesn't have all the answers so whatever they find our knowledge will increase but our theroies will adapt at the expence of wishful thinking and a fear of the dark (both possible evolutionary adaptations in behaviour) in pursuit of truth.
So science is often accused of having a mundane outlook on life - which is as it turns out actually accurate: mundane being a derivation of the latin 'mundus' which means 'concerned with the world'. and if the natural (rather than the supernatural) is our worldly concern then so much for the better I say.
I think science does explore the physical reality, in ways that far exceed our earliest and worst attempts to understand the world from the perspective of bronze age middle-eastern tribes that we laughingly give credence to and call religion. Even if there is a spiritual reality, which I rather doubt - but I will permit it's a possibility just at least until we define what spiritual actually means, I would remain sceptical that a religion could have ownership of that either - since religion seems to me to be a variety of contradictory dogmas built on unsound philosophy.
I think that addresses everything you set out above Auron, hope it provides some food for thought. I hope I may persuade you but even if we end up disagreeing - a civil dispute of ideas is always fun.
Oh -
and Harry Potter does exist in this world. I've read all about him.
LJ.
Last edited by Lithium_joe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:34 am, edited 9 times in total.
"You don't get anything worth getting by pretending to know things you don't know."
~ Sam Harris.
~ Sam Harris.
-
Lithium_joe
- Power poster
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:45 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
-
Where did I put that?
- Getting settled in
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:09 am
- Location: Norwich UK
- Contact:
After reading that lengthy post I think I am in love with Lithium_joe. 
Though I love anyone who types roughly what I am thinking and therefore negates the need for me to type it myself. I'm not sure why people think that things need to be created anyway, some things just happen. Beautiful randomness rules in my world and I like it that way.
Though I love anyone who types roughly what I am thinking and therefore negates the need for me to type it myself. I'm not sure why people think that things need to be created anyway, some things just happen. Beautiful randomness rules in my world and I like it that way.
"I only want to live in peace, plant potatoes and dream!"
-
Lithium_joe
- Power poster
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:45 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
-
Lithium_joe
- Power poster
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:45 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
I've been doing some light reading of late: have bought a book with extracts from Hobbes, Hume and Shelly (and others - but I'm only on page 52!) on the subject of deities and disbelief therein - fascinating stuff.
Hume particularly has been captivating to return to; I never found him so interesting when I was an undergraduate.
Funny the things you miss first time around.
Hume particularly has been captivating to return to; I never found him so interesting when I was an undergraduate.
Funny the things you miss first time around.
"You don't get anything worth getting by pretending to know things you don't know."
~ Sam Harris.
~ Sam Harris.