Whoops

I didn't do the reading for my seminar today.

I mean, I didn't even check what it was and pretend - which is all I usually manage anyway.

I have been very busy and working hard (term ends tomorrow!!) and, well, it was not feasible and I knew it wasn't the most important thing anyway. I have my essay idea sort of in-hand and anyway if you learn too much it pushes the old stuff out...

I really really really wish I had though. We were looking at two papers - opposing arguments type thing - and two boys in the group had to present on them. Easy. I sit and take notes on what they say and if anything relevant does come up then I go read it later. The first was by some bloke called Williamson: one interesting thing I actually heard was about how metalanguages (that is like English like) aren't fully logical but we do get them so what does it matter and if we have the choice between expressing ourselves and "technically making sense" then the first is totally the best one. I agree with this guy, semantic pessimism sucks arse.

I'll give you an example. "I've packed everything" clearly doesn't mean everything but we know what it is on about. Hell, we even get little annoying jokey retorts like "Even the kitchen sink?" from it. People know what we mean and why faff about the details?

The other day in class I actually ranted about this annoying semantical debate saying, and I do believe this is verbatim(ish), that "this whole course is just about saying the same thing in different ways then arguing about which is right. It doesn't matter... Can you model stuff? Yes. Then it works!" That didn't go down so well...

And I think deciding that the seminar was so boring I wasn't going to pretend to pay attention didn't either. It wasn't like it was anyone's fault, I just couldn't be arsed to try to get it. When the lad doing the response piped up I did have one thought, which was: "why didn't they say who the were presenting on? What is my subheading supposed to be?". Paper's are normally referred to by the author as though we all know the dude. Like, Boolos was all over it being about... I don't remember... Plural Quantification maybe? This one didn't even get named on the handout.

Halfway through looking like I didn't give a shit I realised WHY they hadn't introduced it. Despite the fact that the usually well spoken boy was talking in such a strange way along the lines of "you then do this and you say that" I didn't clock till I looked at the pages in his hand that the author was MY TUTOR. The dude that we DO all know. Sitting on my other side having himself (misre)presented to a room full of bored looking students. I could have died. The first week I haven't made any effort at all and he is so nice I just wanted to comment. But I really hadn't got a clue.

Oh deary deary deary. And what is more worrying is that I think he opposes everything I have ever thought (and expressed) about Philosophy of Maths. I suppose dedicating your life to it is already quite an opposing view point... Give me Evolutionary Game Theory any time. My friend wrote a paper about "Wishful Thinking", I'm planning on writing a model for "Disappointment", it's cool; I can't even begin to care about the best way to contrive set hierarchies or which language to describe them in - one people can UNDERSTAND.

I have reached my intellectual limitations and I'm not even close to being humbled.