![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
so remember that debate?
Mar. 21st, 2003 04:23 pmWe lost, and it was at the very least partially my fault. I don't wanna assign percentages of blame cause that would be bitter and depressing and bring the cynicism in this journal to possibly heretofore unimagined heights, and we can't have that.
The annoying thing about losing: The judges evidently had a list of points they wanted to hear, and so far as I could tell this was the key to winning. Not whether you argued well and creatively -- heck, creativity would be a bad thing under the circumstances -- but whether you guessed what the judges wanted to hear. *sigh*
The bizarre and slightly amusing thing: In my little piece, I started off relating the beginning of the tale of the seven blind men and the elephant. You know, they come upon this elephant in the jungle, and one touches its ear and says oh, it's a blanket and one touches its leg and says aha, a tree and one runs into its side and says must be a wall and one gets its tail and says hm, a piece of string and so on and so forth. This, I announced, was an example of how one's senses can be deceiving, and building philosophy and a code of ethics upon them therefore a bad idea. Then the other team asked ok, what would Kant, Mr. Reason, say? And I floundered and flustered and screwed up, and finally said ummmmm... well reason can't tell them either, the blind men are kinda screwed. Which was right, except that I failed to relate the reasoning behind it: that according to Kant neither the blind men nor anyone else can know for sure what that elephant is, because like everyone they lack access to the noumenal world, the real world, being limited to the phenomenal world that we percieve through our senses.
Anyways. The point is: although that wasn't all I said, evidently it stuck. It was the ONLY example from the formal debate that the judges mentioned in their explanation. It was the ONLY example they mentioned when telling us how we failed to make the points they were listening for. Possibly it was the ONLY example they heard.
I think there's a lesson in here, but I'm not quite sure. I think it might have something important to do with philosophy and the real meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Or possibly merely with the fickleness of teenagers. :P Ah well. At least, given this day or two of separation from the verdict, I can smirk at it, if not outright laugh yet.
The annoying thing about losing: The judges evidently had a list of points they wanted to hear, and so far as I could tell this was the key to winning. Not whether you argued well and creatively -- heck, creativity would be a bad thing under the circumstances -- but whether you guessed what the judges wanted to hear. *sigh*
The bizarre and slightly amusing thing: In my little piece, I started off relating the beginning of the tale of the seven blind men and the elephant. You know, they come upon this elephant in the jungle, and one touches its ear and says oh, it's a blanket and one touches its leg and says aha, a tree and one runs into its side and says must be a wall and one gets its tail and says hm, a piece of string and so on and so forth. This, I announced, was an example of how one's senses can be deceiving, and building philosophy and a code of ethics upon them therefore a bad idea. Then the other team asked ok, what would Kant, Mr. Reason, say? And I floundered and flustered and screwed up, and finally said ummmmm... well reason can't tell them either, the blind men are kinda screwed. Which was right, except that I failed to relate the reasoning behind it: that according to Kant neither the blind men nor anyone else can know for sure what that elephant is, because like everyone they lack access to the noumenal world, the real world, being limited to the phenomenal world that we percieve through our senses.
Anyways. The point is: although that wasn't all I said, evidently it stuck. It was the ONLY example from the formal debate that the judges mentioned in their explanation. It was the ONLY example they mentioned when telling us how we failed to make the points they were listening for. Possibly it was the ONLY example they heard.
I think there's a lesson in here, but I'm not quite sure. I think it might have something important to do with philosophy and the real meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Or possibly merely with the fickleness of teenagers. :P Ah well. At least, given this day or two of separation from the verdict, I can smirk at it, if not outright laugh yet.
