Top 10 Melancholy Songs of ALL TIME!!!

I've been mulling this post over for a few days. I'm a big fan of melancholy music, and in the spirit of all of the countdown shows that have permeated the airwaves lately I thought I'd compile a list of the top ten melancholy songs of all time. Of course, by all time I mean this century and the last, and mostly the second half of the last, and by top ten I mean my favorites. I haven't settled on a definitive list yet and am soliciting contributions from my fellow melancholics. Here are my candidates so far in no particular order.

1. Walk Away Renee- The Left Banke
2. Everybody's Talkin'- Harry Nilsson
3. Adia- Sarah McClachlan
4. Twilight- Elliot Smith
5. What'll I Do?- Written by Irving Berlin
6. Oh Girl- Chi-Lites
7. Linger- The Cranberries
8. And now the pick everyone's sure to hate, You Were Meant for Me- Jewel

As you can see the list is far from complete, and who knows which of these will make the final top 10? Post some suggestions and we'll see what we come up with. I've already had suggested: Silent Lucidity by Queensryche, Cat's in the Cradle by Harry Chapin Carpenter Montgomery and Gentry, Candle In the Wind (1987 Live Version - Not the Butchered Princess Di rewrite), Look Away - Chicago.

Instapundit, Abortion and Duty to Rescue

Instapundit made an interesting post yesterday regarding abortion. He was responding to Jonah Goldberg's observations about the treatment of Abortion on TV (in dramas and sitcoms, not news shows). The basic idea of Goldberg's piece was that the characters who consider abortions never have them and then their babies are suddenly transformed by the power of that choice into full-fledged human beings from the lumps of cells they once were. This is where Instapundit comes in.

Using the 'duty to rescue' scenario as a guide, he comes up with a formula as to how he can support abortion rights and still advocate punishment for mothers who take drugs or drink while pregnant. He sums up his idea thusly: "decide not to have the abortion, and assume the duty to avoid dangerous behavior." Legally, one thing that has been pointed out to me is that the parent/child relationship imposes a new set of duties on the parties. I have a duty to rescue my son if he is drowning, so the analogy to the 'duty to rescue' scenario is flawed.

Another interesting question has to do with the legal status of the fetus itself. If at the time of the action by the mother (let's say she uses crack) the fetus does not have legal status as a person how can she be held responsible for harm done to that fetus at any point? She can be punished for using illegal drugs, but how can the law punish her for harming a person that was not even a person (legally) at the time of the act? I'm no expert, but I think the law regarding the personhood of the fetus is a bit of a mixed bag. Some laws favor personhood, some laws (i.e. abortion laws) reject it. Perhaps the pro-life community should put more of a focus on this aspect of the abortion debate.

Explaining my Absence

It's been a long time since I posted and fewer people have been coming for visits so I thought I'd explain myself. Election day was doubly good for me with the George W. Bush victory and the birth of my second son, Leo. He was 10 lbs. 4 Oz. and 21 1/2 inches long. Both mother and baby are doing quite well. I'm really surprised at how quickly my wife has rebounded. It's a real blessing. Anyway, after a few weeks off I'm back and I hope to start blogging a bit more. I should have one coming on some interesting things Instapundit says on the topic of abortion.

By the way, I've also been working on a novel for National Novel writing month, aka Nanowrimo. Once it's finished, it's guaranteed to be an Oprah Winfrey book of the month. I'll make millions I tell you! MILLIONS!!!

Elliot Smith: A Year Has Passed

It's been just over a year since one of the best songwriters I've ever encountered died. On October 21, 2003 Elliot Smith died of two stab wounds to the chest. I've never heard whether the death was finally ruled a suicide or a murder. Elliot was one of those tragic characters we see every so often in the world, and I suppose that's why he captivates me (and many others) so much. He had so much talent, but he was so fragile. His earliest songs were simple, often just Elliot and his guitar, but they had such emotional depth it is impossible for me to listen to them and be unmoved.

I am saddened not only by Elliot's death, but by the fact that I didn't become a real fan of his until after his passing. Just recently I was in Borders with my wife, bragging on Elliot's music when I noticed a book with him on the cover. I showed it to my wife and began reading the dust jacket. I was more than dismayed to see that Elliot had died the previous year. WHY do so many of the most brilliant people die so young? Is it the price they pay?

I am well aware of the tendency of people to romanticize the fallen, and I know that I'm doing that in Elliot's case. But it somehow seems appropriate because his situation was so tragic. Just when he was coming out of his drug-addled lifestyle, just as what was to be his last project was taking shape, he is cut down. I think the aforementioned CD, From a Basement On the Hill, will win even more fans. I listened to the preview on MTV.com and I think the CD is one the most creative, touching pieces of music I've heard in a long time.

Elliot, I'm sorry I never got the chance to fully appreciate you while you were with us. You are missed.

Jacques Derrida Dies

I orignally had a post here joking about Derrida's passing, but after reading this post by John Depoe I had a change of heart. The state of one's soul is no laughing matter.

Pro-Lifers for Kerry!?!?

I was talking to my wife last night when she dropped a bombshell on me: three people whose judgment I (at least partially) trusted are voting for John Kerry. These three people are conservative folks, and I think they are pro-life as well.

I don't get angry easily, but I when my wife told me the news I was furious. How could a pro-lifer vote for John Kerry? He has acknowldeged that he will do nothing to stem the tide of abortion in America. To him opposition is a religious matter that should not have an effect on public policy. To me (and to most pro-lifers) it is murder. Abortion is the single most important moral issue in America today. How can these people give their vote to someone who is not on their side regarding abortion?

I haven't spoken with them, but there are a few answers I predict they might give. Remember, these arguments assume the people in question are pro-lifers.

1) They like Kerry's economic policy better. To put it bluntly, this makes me sick. Since when did it become acceptable to place our bank accounts over the lives of the innocent? I would vote for a pro-life communist (if there ever was such an animal) before I would vote for a pro-abortion capitalist.

2) Bush is equally guilty of killing innocents when soldiers die in Iraq. This is dead wrong. Whenever someone signs up for the military it must be with the understanding that we could go to war at any time, whether said war is just or unjust. This doesn't justify soldiers dying in an unjust war, but those who enlist must know coming in that the possibility exists. In abortion the child has no choice in or knowldege of its own fate, therefore abortion is the worse of the two and must take precedence.

3) Bush is equally guilty of killing innocents when children die as casualties of his war. This is a modified version of the previous argument. I begin by pointing out that many terrorists have used children as shields in their campaigns, such as the Chechen rebels. Beyond that, it is a sad fact that children do die as casualties of war. However, there is a difference between children accidentally dying in missile strikes and the intentional killing of a child by an abortionist. Neither are good; the latter is far worse.

4) Kerry is better on other moral issues. First, I'd be curious as to what moral issue Kerry is better on, but I'll let that slide. Second, I'd ask if any of these moral issues have to do with the murder of innocent human beings. If not (perhaps they deal instead with the quality of life), then they must take a back seat.

I'm sure there are other answers these people will give me, or perhaps they will just try to avoid the topic. It doesn't matter, because they'll probably get an ear full from me if the topic comes up anyway. Pardon me, I have to go scream at the top of my lungs.

Why Should I Watch the Debates?

I suppose it's the duty of every conscientious blogger to comment on last night's Presidential debate. In light of that, here's my commentary: I didn't watch it. Nor will I watch the other debates. I know folks who are always watching debates and speeches on television as though the President (or John Kerry or whomever) is going to say something new. Why should we expect that? If you give the news a passing glance or here a candidate speak once you'll already know their 'talking points.' Why put yourself through it again?

The only thing, I think, that changes voters' opinions about candidates is how they personally come across. If Kerry comes across as arrogant or smarmy he loses points. If Bush comes across as stupid he loses points. I don't remember who said it, but it's a good quote: "In politics today the make-up man is more important than the speech writer." I already know who I'm voting for and why. No sound bite or make-up man is going to change my mind.

Marshall Beats Miami (OH)

I've been out for a while, but I wanted to get the ball rolling again with a post celebrating Marshall University's victory over the Miami University Redhawks. The final score was 33-25, but I think that Marshall turned in a more dominant performance than that. The Redhawks had a good game plan early, which allowed them to turn in a decent rushing performance, especially in the first half. The Marshall defense, however, tightened up. Marshall's D-linemen were in Miami's backfield all night. Jonathan Goddard (DE) harrassed Miami's QB Josh Betts to the tune of 4 sacks, 2 fumbles and a couple of QB pressures for interceptions.

Marshall's offense looked a little better, but I'm wondering if we'll ever hit on all cylinders. We should get back RB Ahmad Bradshaw next week, so that will be a big help. He's a true freshman and he is going to be a lot of fun to watch for the next few years. I'll post more on weightier subjects soon.

How to Name a Bar

A bar called 'Banana Joe's Island Party' recently opened in my hometown. My reaction was: whatever. I'm not a bar kind of guy. The interesting part is this: Next door another bar opens. This one's called 'Pineapple Tom's Peninsula Bash'. My brother and I thought that was pretty humorous so we decided that we would name our own (fictitious) bar on that model, and I thought it might be fun if everyone who visits this blog would contribute a bar name on the fruit/person's name/geographical phenomenon/festive event model. Ours was: "Cumquat Moishe's Isthmus Cotillion." Now everyone must participate or else I'll feel ridiculous.

Belated Thanks

Some thanks are in order, I think, for all those who have added me to their blogrolls. So, without further ado, thanks to: Fides Quaerens Intellectum, White Poet Warlord, Yankee from Mississippi, Maverick Philosopher and Siris.

Thanks also to those who have linked any of my posts to their sites, like Philosophy Et Cetera, Under the Sun and several of those who added me to their blogroll. You guys are great!!

On the Death Cab Bandwagon

I first heard of Death Cab for Cutie a year or two ago, but I never bothered to check them out. I guess it was because I didn't want to seem like a bandwagon jumper. Anyway, fast forward to this past weekend. I laid my hands on Transatlanticism at our local Borders and have been thoroughly impressed. Great CD. I'm a bit of a songwriter myself (emphasis on 'a bit') and I must say I found myself wishing I could write lyrics like Ben Gibbard. By that I don't mean to give short shrift to the music itself. Also very very good. So to all you Death Cab For Cutie afficianados out there: I'm a new convert. Make room on the bandwagon.

Noetic Glue: Dead in the Water?

My previous post dealt with the concept of 'noetic glue.' An interesting comment on the topic was written by Andy, and he linked a slightly longer version of the comment to his blog, Under The Sun. At first his criticsims seemed to severely undercut my theory, but as I reflected on it I was not quite so ready to pronounce noetic glue dead. His first criticism was that the concept of noetic glue begs the question. "Is noetic glue rational?" he asks. "If so, then emotions-as-noetic-glue are redundant. If not, then emotions-as-noetic-glue are wrong."

At the risk of sounding like a moron, I'm not certain I follow his objection. Is he saying that if it is rational to believe in noetic glue then noetic glue keeps that belief in place and that is question begging? I think it is evident that this is false because noetic glue and the idea of noetic glue are two different things. Noetic glue can hold a belief in noetic glue or a concept of noetic glue in place without resorting to question begging. Since that seems evident, I doubt that was the true nature of his objection. Or if it was, perhaps he has some counter to the argument I just stated. The last thing I want to do is be uncharitable with my characterizations of someone else's idea.

What else could he mean? I'm not certain, so I'm going to depend on Andy here to expand on his objection.

Regardless, Andy goes on to say that he believes that noetic glue is not rational. He then says, "if a question is close enough then one should vacillate, or (usually better) suspend judgment." Lets deal with vacillating first. I don't think it's ever better to vacillate, but I also don't think I was clear about what I had in mind when I first mentioned it. I did not mean someone who might lean one way and then the other for a while but never settles on a position because they think the arguments on both sides are good. I was referring to the kind of person who is 'fully convinced' of one position until a rhetorician who holds the other comes along and then he switches because of smooth talk. Then the person could switch back to the first position whenever presented with a slick (not necessarily rational) argument. I don't think anyone believes that this is good.

As far as suspending judgment goes, I think noetic glue can be a good mechanism for just that purpose. There are times when arguments seem to weigh heavily in favor of the position one is against ('seem to' being the operative words). It is in this sort of circumstance that our emotions can actually keep us from being swept away to a false position. To remain tethered by emotions, however, is wrong. We have certainly surrendered rationality if we do that.

Johnny Dee also had some good comments. I think he is right to say that saying that these concepts are the glue is probably extreme. He then suggests that truth itself should probably fill that role, but it's the very point when the truth of a proposition is in doubt that noetic glue would be showing its effects the most. I'll have to do further research on the intellectual virtues (any book recommendations will be gladly received).

Most of what I've posted has come from the 'thinking out loud' mode. I had toyed with this idea for a long time, but never written anything or put it up for a challenge, so thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion. I hope it continues. You never know, we may be on the ground floor of discovering something exciting!

Emotion and Knowing

I started this blog with an eye toward writing on philosophy and theology. So far I've done little of that, so I'll start trying to remedy that now.

I've often wondered what is the proper role of emotion in our noetic structure? (I'm sure that this has been treated extensively, but I'm just going to be flying blind here. Maybe someone else could point me to some resources on the topic) If we approach this question from a theistic perspective, or more specifically, a Christian theistic perspective, we have to recognize that we have emotions for a reason. When trying to settle on a single reason we find a variety of options. For instance, it could be that we have emotions simply because God has something akin to them and He wants us to mirror Himself. Or perhaps we have them so we can better relate to other people. Something most of us recognize, however, is that emotions often compel us to act against the dictates of reason. Assuming that God wants us to be reasonable, why must emotions be involved at all? Why not have two distinct modes, one in which we relate to people, and one in which we reason? It seems to me that there must be some positive interplay between emotion and reason.

My theory is that emotion can act as a sort of 'noetic glue.' Very often in listening to debates on topics, I'll find the side I disagree with has a persuasive argument; the kind which only further study and thought can counter. If I have no answer to an argument should I immediately abandon my position? I don't think anyone would advocate that. In fact, I think most people would lose respect for someone who was constantly vacillating between two positions just because they heard a somewhat persuasive new argument. In my experience, what often keeps me from going back and forth is that sense of 'wrongness' that some ideas have. This is noetic glue.

When ideas become entrenched in our thoughts they are not just placed in by reason, but also by emotion. It is difficult and often disturbing to surrender propositions central to your worldview. This is because of the effect emotions can have on our systems of thought. Not only that, but in the right 'dosage' the effect is good. This may seem strange at first because emotions so often cloud rational discussion, but I think as we reflect on it more it becomes clear. It is emotion that gives us that sense that we need to hang on to our beliefs.

It is certainly true, however, that the glue can get too thick. We've all seen those who will do anything to maintain a foolish belief of some sort because they have so much tied up in it. For instance, there are those within the Christian world who maintain that the King James is the only translation that God has ordained, and that all others are evil. There are [b]no[/b] arguments that can be mustered to support this idea, but it persists. Why? Because in there minds these men are the guardians of the truth and the truth must be defended at all costs. The only problem is that their beloved truth is blatantly false. They can't maintain it through reason, so they do it through emotional rhetoric, peppered with enough pseudo-scholarship to ease their consciences. This is noetic glue run amok. It holds fast what should never have been held in the first place.

I hope I've communicated clearly, here. I think emotion plays a vital role in noetic structure as the glue that keeps beliefs in place, even when the shadow of doubt has been cast upon them. When beliefs prove to be false, obviously the glue should 'dissolve' and we should discard the belief, but that doesn't delegitimize the role of emotion in knowing.

Watch Out for Snow Patrol!!

A friend recently turned me on to a great band called Snow Patrol. I bought their CD 'Final Straw' a couple of days ago and I've been listening to it constantly since then. There are some great tracks on there, and I think this band is going to make some noise in the US (they're from Ireland). Check out their website here. I'm going to rate the tracks on a five star system: no stars=nausea inducing; 1 star=skip it and get to the good tracks; 2 stars=not painful, but not that fun either; 3 stars=enjoyable; 4 stars=very good songs; 5 stars=songs that move me.

How to Be Dead: ***1/2
Wow: ***
Gleaming Auction: ***1/2
Whatever's Left: ***
Spitting Games: *****
Chocolate: *****
Run: ****
Grazed Knees: ***
Ways & Means: **
Tiny Little Fractures: ***
Somewhere a Clock is Ticking: ***
Same: *****

As you can see, the CD is worth buying. If you're a fan of a lot of the music coming from the British Isles these days, I highly recommend it.

More On Democracy and Aristocracy

Olen (White Poet Warlord), has posted some more of his thoughts on what I wrote about democracy and aristocracy (read them here), and it's about time for me to take a look at what he had to say.

I actually like much of what he had to say. The only things I have to add would be some clarifications of how I see things. Olen believes that democracy is the 'best alternative' and that it still has an aristocracy, although they are not permanent. I really wasn't concerned with what would be best, just with what is. However, if we are talking about what is best, if democracy is contrary to human nature, as I think it might be, then can we truly say it is best? Perhaps a benevolent, moral aristocracy would be best. I'm just 'thinking out loud' here.

One more thing: Olen talks about a group of people 'decid[ing] upon its initial aristocracy.' In my view it's much more organic. People may set up some form of government or they may just live in community with no clear cut government. Either way, government tend toward aristocracy.

Commenting on Maverick Philospher

I just found out from Johnny Dee (from Fides Quaerens Intellectum) that Bill Vallicella (Maverick Philospher)does welcome comments. He doesn't care for spammers or personal attacks (and who can blame hime?) so he disabled the 'comment' function on his blog. He instead subscribes to a service that tells him when other sites have linked him. I don't want to misrepresent him on my blog, so I wanted to let anyone who reads this know.

Read Mallard Fillmore

Mallard Fillmore is pretty funny today.

Ain't it the truth!

The Maverick on 'One Man, One Vote'

I've been alerted to an interesting post on the subject of democracy here:

Maverick Philosopher

While your there check out his entry regarding Kierkegaard and the chamber pot. Great stuff. I'm curious as to why he doesn't address an 'issues test' (as I advocate below) at all in his essay. I haven't read much on his site, but he doesn't seem the type to overlook obvious choices. He apparently doesn't invite commentary (or at least I couldn't find a link) so I can't ask him. That's life, I guess.

An Eerie Coincidence, or Evidence of Conspiracy?

Obviously the government is trying to use this comic to discredit my ideas... :P

The Warlord Weighs In

In my last post I said something about making people take a test before could vote. I don't think it will ever happen and I'm not inclined to kick into activist mode so it will get done. Now my good friend Olen (aka the White Poet Warlord) has posted a response to the idea and the practicality of 'the test' and to my ramblings on democracy here. He makes some very good points. For instance, he says "Governmental rule is always frustrating, regardless of form or philosophy, formality or informality." He's right on this point, I think. There are always going to be problems. I disagree, though, that people want self-determination. They may think they do for a little while, but for most people it's too much work. The most efficient way to keep everyone satisfied is to give them the illusion of self-determination.

Olen also raises this question: "But what about other folks that...are not that interested in all the issues...?" I don't think it's necessary to be interested in all of the issues. All we need, as I see it, is to have a couple of issues that are the most meaningful to us and to know them fairly well. For me the issues might be something like abortion and marriage. For others economics would be most important. He later asks about those who "don't have the time or means to educate themselves to a level that I or others might be more comfortable with." I suppose an educational apparatus would have to be set up.

Also, as Olen suggests, 'the test' would probably not pass Constitutional muster (but that's what amendments are for, right?). He hits on the most severe problem, in my opinion, when he talks about the mess that would be involved in developing, proctoring and scoring the test. The opportunities for corruption are numerous. It's enough to make you want to just climb back into bed, but I guess I'm just going to have to go on grumbling.

One last response to Olen: "The form of the test may be as problematic as actually developing the governmental apparatus to implement the test." I agree, but developing the Constitution was also problematic. The difficulty of the task doesn't mean that it shouldn't be undertaken.

I look forward to the rest of Olen's respons to "Democracy and Human Nature". To me, the meat of the post is the part about aristocracy and what humans want from a government. I'm eager to see what anyone has to say about that.