Thursday, May 20, 2010


I consider myself a cologne connoisseur; I wear different colognes for different seasons: citrus-tinted ones in warmer months, spice-tinted ones for cooler months; my cologne choice also depends on the time: more noticeable ones for the daytime, more subtle ones for the nighttime.

My first cologne was Curve, which I started wearing in grade seven. I continued wearing that cologne until my sophomore year in high school, when I took a brief hiatus from it and wore a sandalwood-based cologne marketed by Hollister, a clothing company I frequented at the time. I continued wearing that cologne for several months, but I eventually migrated to a Black, a more subtle and cinnamon-tinged cologne. I've continued wearing that cologne through high school, and my sparing use of it [don't overuse a good cologne] allowed one bottle to last several years; during that time, I returned to using Curve, and also began using Polo Blue, though I reserved the latter for the winter months. Since graduating high school, I've used umpteen other colognes [I've forgotten most names, unfortunately], and I've begun experimenting with mixing different colognes. In short, I consider myself a cologne connoisseur. And this bring me back to my point: don't wear Axe.

Monday, May 17, 2010


New York Times has started a new philosophy section, "The Stone":

I've always understood philosophy to be an implicit science: every discussion--political, biological, psychological, etc.--is implicitly and necessarily philosophical. Yes, you can have explicitly philosophical discussions [the nature of "good" and "evil", for example], but that leads to my second point[s]:

Many of those questions have been answered, contrary to book sales figures; the questions have survived the centuries only because people cannot tolerate [or even comprehend] being wrong. Consider how ideas propagate:

Teach Idea A, while demonizing Idea B. Idea A is logically disproved, but Idea B has already been demonized, which effects cognitive dissonance: logically, Idea A cannot be tolerated, but Idea B has been so demonized that it is impossible to accept. Unfortunately, most individuals will adapt reality to Idea A, and the disproved idea continues.

Which brings us back to the New York Times article: it's going to tolerate disproved ideas; philosophy tolerates disproved ideas, because many "philosophers" tolerate disproved ideas. That the notion that people can be completely wrong is apparently a radical thing to suggest ["Everyone has their own reality, and we have to be tolerant."] is ridiculous: most people are completely wrong about many things--I've been wrong about many things; the difference is, I've adapted to the logical things, rather than the illogical; I only wish we [philosophers, society, etc.] expected everyone to do so.