Reading Shakespeare 1: Macbeth Tomorrow Soliloquy

     I am making this post because 2016 means 400 years of Shakespeare. I will try to get to a lot of the verses I know and maybe some of the more significant ones for 2016.

     And by "Reading Shakespeare", I mean reading his verse aloud. It's obvious to some, but if you want to get it, read it aloud. After all, this was meant to be performed. I have seen Kenneth Branagh do Macbeth (The National Theatre Live). I will also be seeing Patrick Stewart's soon.  Here is the soliloquy:

She should have died hereafter.

There would have been a time for such a word.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

 

I wonder how many who viewed Inarritu's Birdman (2014) notice it being recited there? I first encountered a snippet of this in Diane Barsoum Raymond's Existentialism and the philosophical tradition.  Then I saw Kurosawa's Throne of blood (1957) for a class on Shakespeare. I have yet to see the Justin Kurzel's 2015 adaptation of Macbeth (with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard).

 

 

3rd Call for Papers: Project Einstein 2015

www.theingeniousproject.org #CFP #100yearsofGeneralRelativity #Einstein

All Roads Lead to Philosophy: Pathways to Research 3 July Friday at De La Salle University Manila

De La Salle University Graduate School of Philosophy presents
All Roads Lead to Philosophy: Pathways to Research
3 July Friday. ADMISSION is FREE

Skepticism and the Problem of Knowledge: Passages from Rene Descartes 2

—      "So that after having reflected well and carefully examined all things, we must come to the definite conclusion that this proposition: I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it."

     "But what am I, now that I suppose that there is a certain genius which is extremely powerful, and, if I may say so, malicious, who employs all his powers in deceiving me? Can I affirm that I possess the least of all those things which I have just said pertain to the nature of body? I pause to consider, I revolve all these things in my mind, and I find none of which I can say that it pertains to me."

      "—What of thinking? I find here that thought is an attribute that belongs to me; it alone cannot be separated from me. I am, I exist, that is certain. But how  often? Just when I think; for it might possibly be the case if I ceased entirely to think, that I should likewise cease altogether to exist."

Skepticism and the Problem of Knowledge: Passages from Rene Descartes 1

   

     "I suppose, then, that all the things that I see are false; I persuade myself that nothing has ever existed of all that my fallacious memory represents to me. I consider that I possess no senses; I imagine that body, figure, extension, movement and place are but the fictions of my mind. What, then, can be esteemed as true? Perhaps nothing at all, unless that there is nothing in the world that is certain."

     "—But how can I know there is not something different from those things that I have just considered, of which one cannot have the slightest doubt? Is there not some God, or some other being by whatever name we call it, who puts these reflections into my mind? That is not necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of producing them myself? I myself, am I not at least something? But I have already denied that I had senses and body. Yet I hesitate, for what follows from that? Am I so dependent on body and senses that I cannot exist without these?" 

      —Not at all; of a surety I myself did exist since I persuaded myself of something [or merely because I thought of something]. But there is some deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, who ever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then without doubt I exist also if he deceives me, and let him deceive me as much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing so long as I think that I am something"

Project Einstein 2015's site: www.theingeniousproject.org

It's been up but still under construction. The deadlines have been extended too.



www.theingeniousproject.org

Why Albert Einstein and Philosophy of Science (see previous post too ;) )

Instead of writing and working on Einstein and his relation to philosophy, I have narrowed it to Einstein and his relation to philosophy of science. Part of it is significantly historical. For instance, one can look Einstein's connections to logical positivism/ logical empiricism. One can situate the classic problems of philosophy of science in terms of the issues raised by Einstein's theory of relativity (special or general). Or one might ask further of Einstein whether he was a verificationist, a conventionalist or a realist (none of the above?). I don't think it too problematic to say that "philosophy of science" is also just shorthand for "history and philosophy of science."

The other part is that there is much to learn from the study of philosophy of science for the layperson. If this claim is correct, then the implication there is that at the very least one can learn something from philosophy!  Hehe :)  What is there to learn from philosophy of science for the layperson? Well that would be another topic for another day.

Albert Einstein: The Scientist as Activist at De La Salle University Manila 20 March 2015

On the 20th of March, I will be one of 3 speakers on Albert Einstein. I will be talking about Einstein's relationship to philosophy of science (as contrasted to recent physicists like Hawking and deGrasse Tyson). Hawking's pronouncement is that philosophy is dead. DeGrasse Tyson claims that philosophy is distracting. Never mind if they both have, and are probably still making, philosophical comments and recommendations (i.e. with some of the classic issues/problems in philosophy). It is a different question, however, if their comments and recommendations that recall philosophy are any good.

It is true that many intellectuals, philosophers included, have neglected the advancements and contributions in/from science. But it would appear the a similar charge may be given to Hawking and deGrasse Tyson regarding the developments in philosophy of science. Yes they can really be quite different. Still Einstein was not averse to them.



Enough rambling for the moment :)  This particular series of lectures is also for Project Einstein 2015

Something to read and refer to :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2014/05/22/why_does_neil_degrasse_tyson_hate_philosophy.html

Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science 2015

More than a month ago, I received the notification of acceptance for CLMPS 2015. I will be fixing a number of things before I can really go there. From their page (http://clmps.helsinki.fi/history.php):

Starting from 1960 the International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science has been held every four years in capital cities and/or by famous university centres.

• 1960 Stanford, California, USA
• 1964 Jerusalem, Israel
• 1967 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
• 1971 Bucharest, Romania
• 1975 London, Ontario, Canada
• 1979 Hanover, Federal Republic of Germany
• 1983 Salzburg, Austria
• 1987 Moscow, USSR
• 1991 Uppsala, Sweden
• 1995 Florence, Italy
• 1999 Krakow, Poland
• 2003 Oviedo, Spain
• 2007 Beijing, China
• 2011, Nancy France