Fuck You Zeno

Hi everyone, it's Erik. Sorry I haven't posted for a long time, just been busy and such. Anyways, I'm here because in one of my classes my teacher brought up a physical paradox that I found disturbing.
It concerns the philosopher Zeno, a pre-Socratic guy who was born around 490 BC. His paradoxes are one of the only things that survive of his work, and are cunning devices.

Zeno's paradox states that:
An arrow can never reach its target, and thus motion is an illusion. He arrives at his conclusion thus:
An arrow goes toward its target, and it has to get halfway there. So you divide the space by half. And then it has to get half of the rest of the way there, so you divide it by two again. And then again. And then again, into infinity.
So an arrow is going 10 feet. It reaches the halfway mark at 5 feet. Then it reaches the halfway mark of the rest of its motion at 2.5 feet. Then 1.25, and so on and so forth, getting infinitely smaller, which takes an infinite amout of time.

My argument is that you can do the math better by saying the arrow goes 10 feet, and that it goes 2 feet every 1 second ( a slow fucking arrow ). So by 1 second it's at 8 feet, 2 at 6 feet, and so on until it reaches 0. Of course, dividing is a more precise mathematical tool than subtraction, so technically Zeno is right. But, if anyone remembers chemistry, a quanta is an indivisible amount of energy/matter/time/whatever. But perhaps you will say that there is no such thing as an indivisible amount.

This is where my second argument comes in. It is helpful to look at it like this:

A bear is charging Zeno from 40 feet away. According to Zeno's argument, it will take an infinity of time for the bear to reach him, and thus he has no problem. If he truly believes in his paradox, he will stand stock still, and the bear will never be close enough to maul him.

A bear ------------(40 feet)----------> Zeno

A commonsense realist will say, "Oh shit! A bear!" and start running. Of course, you can't really run from a bear, they can outrun, outclimb, and outswim you. Basically, you're fucked.
But a rationalist who accepts Zeno's paradox will stand there, to this result of the above logic equation:

A bear (mauling) -> Zeno

In beling mauled to death though, Zeno could rationalize that too. He could say, "Oh look! I'm only half-mauled. It will take an infinity of mauling for me to die. Thank god I'm immortal now."
Or maybe by then all he could do is moan lowly in sickly horror.

A true measure of a philosophical theory is whether or not the philosopher can survive the "bear example."

Bear Example: You take whatever the idea the philosopher comes up with about how matter isn't real, and then you put the philosopher into a room with a bear. If the philosopher refuses to go in the room, he obviously doesn't believe what he's saying and knows he's just spewing bullshit.

The bear example is a highly developed and potent philosophical tool for Socratic dialogue; it has even been called the "philosopher's Swiss Army knife."

So if you truly buy Zeno's paradox of motion, please, drive in the other lane, jump from tall buildings, and play basketball in the streets.


Fuck You Zeno,
Erik.

One Size Fits 70 Million

Here’s my latest contribution to the Beacon’s opinion page. This piece is similar in subject matter to one I did in August (I think it was August), but I used different arguments and did not use the first person. The following is as I submitted it (slightly longer and more pompous). I’m going to try something new and include the links where I got my information. I haven’t been accused of making shit up, but I don’t wanna be. The links to the respective webpages are at the bottom, after the article. You can find the article as it ran on the Beacon’s website (http://www.berkeleybeacon.com/home/) if you like. This week’s pieces weren’t posted when I went to look for them. Alas, who needs to read opinion at 2:30am anyways? I’ll take the hint. Goodnight.

Chris

On Sunday mornings, the Emerson campus is just about dead. However, a number of students rise early on Sundays, braving the deserted campus to go to church. More than 40% of Americans regularly attend religious services, but among college students the share is significantly smaller. This is especially true at Emerson, a secular school with no religious affiliation.

This is not to say that religion is absent from Emerson College. In fact, at Emerson there is an active dialogue on the validity of religion, and the effect it has on our society. This discussion focuses around Christianity, the largest religion in the United States and the world. In these discussions, Christians—especially evangelical Christians—are often characterized as ignorant, easily-led fools who are exclusively white and live in the South and Midwest.

This is extremely un-post-modern belief to be held by a student body that claims to adhere to the post-modern school of thought. Is it possible to paint an entire population of people with such a broad brush? Haven’t Emersonians agreed that racial stereotypes are sadistic and unfair? Haven’t we debunked such mistruths in our classes and amongst our peers?

An estimated 70 million Americans consider themselves evangelicals—the same amount of people who live in Turkey, the seventeenth largest country in the world. The 2000 Census found that 41 million Latinos and 35 million African-Americans live in America. Are blacks lazy? Are Puerto Ricans dirty? Do all Turk villages have an operating Turkish Twist designated for communal use?

Emerson is not a school that excels in mathematics, but we should realize that if we cannot make generalizations about blacks and Latinos because the size and diversity of their demographic, we cannot possibly generalize about evangelical Christians—a group nearly two times as large.

It is sad to see that we have relapsed so far into the pitfalls of “knowing” through generalization instead of experience and fact. Stereotypes are borne of kernels of truth—but they can’t be extrapolated to make popcorn that conveniently substitutes for first-hand experience.

The prominence of these views of evangelicals raises some questions: have the people espousing these views ever been to a church service at an evangelical church? Have they ever met, talked to, or befriended an evangelical Christian? Or better yet, have they ever known that the people they live and know—coworkers, professors, friends—are evangelical Christians?

Evangelical does not mean fundamentalist or conservative. Evangelical Christians are very much like other Christians, with a few distinctions. Evangelicalism is expressed more overtly than how Christianity was in the past—it has been updated so modern Christians can adapt their practices in the current culture. In medieval monasteries, monks were harshly punished for laughing. Others were forbidden from making music. In Christian circles today, laughter and music are cherished and embraced.

Accusations that evangelicals are hateful and ignorant are in themselves hateful and ignorant. Applying common labels to any racial, religious or cultural group is misguided and wrong.

It cannot be denied that some evangelical Christians are out of their tree, and the portrayal of evangelical Christians in the media does not help. The most provocative, controversial talking heads get the most airtime, and leave the impression that all evangelicals are red-faced bags of hate and hot air. Christianity is a humble religion, but humble voices are too quiet to be heard, so we’re left with the ranting and raving of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Really, evangelicals don’t like these guys much more than anyone else: a poll of white evangelicals showed approval ratings for the two were 44% and 54%, respectively.

There are some evangelicals who are bigoted and hateful, but it has nothing to do with being an evangelical Christian. People are hateful. People are bigoted. It is not an exclusive trait dominated by any one group.

Emerson students must look at the facts. Evangelicals are not solely responsible for the presidency of George W. Bush or for gay marriage bans in effect in twenty-six of our states. In fact, an ABC poll taken last June indicates that 58% of Americans believe same-sex marriage should be illegal. While about one in four Americans are evangelical Christians, the other three are not.

Statistically speaking, no matter where one lives, they are sure to know plenty of evangelical Christians. So go out and talk to them—you can’t not. Break your pre-misconceptions, make some friends, and change the way you look at things. You know, by actually looking at them, not by taking rumor or someone else’s word for fact.

“An estimated 70 million evangelicals”: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/05/60minutes/main598218.shtml

Robertson/Falwell poll:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=1610

“More than 40% of Americans regularly attend religious services”: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

“58% of Americans believe same-sex marriage should be illegal”:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/story?id=2041689&page=1

Fat guy in a little coat...

This is my draft of an opinion piece that ran in this past Thursday’s issue of The Berkeley Beacon—the Emerson’s newspaper. The editors decided to change the point of view from second person singular to first person collective, along with additional, slight changes. I know my editors know a hell of a lot more about newspapering than I do, but I think the title the piece was given, “America: Don’t Blame the Big Mac”, was trite and a misrepresentation of the real focus of the article: personal accountibilty and behavioral change. The piece as it ran is here:

http://media.www.berkeleybeacon.com/media/storage/paper169/news/2007/02/01/Opinion/America.Dont.Blame.The.Big.Mac-2691992.shtml?sourcedomain=www.berkeleybeacon.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

Let me just say that I do not mean to offend. If people think I’m being mean or unfair, I would disagree, but you certainly have the right to voice your objections in comments. This is a subject we do not talk about nearly enough. The national dialogue on the obesity epidemic is severely lacking, and I thought I needed to bust through the door on this one, not knock on it. --Chris

America, you’ve gotten fat. No, you’re not just portly, big-boned, large-framed, husky, solid or rotund. That isn’t winter weight. It’s not baby fat either. America, let’s face it: you have a weight problem.

It doesn’t mean you’re bad people, America, you just need to lose some weight. Obesity is just like any other problem people deal with—a bad temper, personal debt, selfishness—it can be rationalized and explained away, or it can be recognized and attacked at its root. Obesity isn’t the plague; you don’t need to deny it or make excuses, it’s really quite common in our culture. You have plenty of moral support: 63 percent of adult Americans are overweight. The chances are good that someone very close to you is struggling with their weight as well. Dieting and weight loss can be isolating, make sure to do it with a friend. It makes your effort easier and more sustainable. Until we face up to our national weight problem, that percentage—and our waistlines—will keep growing.

And please America, don’t “genetics” or “slow metabolism” me. Be honest with yourself: you need to change. Sure, some people have slower metabolisms, and some people have historically overweight families, but don’t expect your metabolism to speed itself up without exercise, and don’t expect to stay thin while eating more food than you need. Obesity is the result of bad habits and behaviors, and if these bad habits can be replaced with good ones, you can get into shape.

These habits are pretty easy to recognize. In 1970, you consumed 2,200 calories a day. Today, you consume 2,700. America has been called “the land of plenty,” but today it should be called “the land of too much.” Portion sizes have ballooned out of control, making it impossible for you to maintain your weight. The statistics are eye (and pants button) popping. Check this one out: Americans consume more than 23 quarts of ice cream and other frozen products a year.

Yet despite this increase in caloric intake, you lead increasingly sedative lives. Today, 90% of American travel takes place in cars, buses, or trains. Only 15 percent of you exercise vigorously for at least 20 minutes three times a week. Our country spends $33 billion a year on food designed for weight loss, but without exercise, reduced fat Oreos can’t help you lose weight. And this is pretty embarrassing America: you spend more money on fast food than higher education. Many of you go to Big Mac U multiple times each week.

But America, don’t blame McDonald’s, blame yourselves. It doesn’t matter if the nutritional information isn’t posted on the wall, you should know that a large two cheeseburger meal with a Coke is packed with calories (1480 without ketchup), and that you should probably have a salad for your next meal. America, don’t have sympathy for the people who blame McDonalds for making them fat. When the consumer pushes their own money across the counter to buy food they put into their mouths, the corporation is not at fault. Use your head America: fast food is not health food.

That’s what this is all about America: you taking personal responsibility, you not pointing fingers at someone else. Don’t rely on food companies and restaurants to shield you from their most fattening foods. These companies exist to make money, what do you expect? Don’t talk about not having time to go to the gym. If you have enough time to watch Desperate Housewives and Grey’s Anatomy every week, you have enough time to work out. Don’t pass the buck America, seize it. And put it towards the purchase of a Stairmaster.