School and life have been incredibly busy these last couple of weeks. I will get around to compiling some of it (mostly philosophy and linguistics gibberish, but I think there is some literary and sociology stuff mixed in) in the next week or so. Things are going to be necessarily quiet around here because I’m putting in 40 hours a week at work, doing community service and going to school full-time with a couple of upper-level classes. I don’t have very many textbooks as much as I do original texts. Which is nice, but takes way longer to digest (the upside is that I’m probably getting a better understanding, yes?).

Even the reader unconvinced by my arguments should find that, in the process of maintaining and supporting his view, he has clarified and deepened it. Moreover, I like to think, intellectual honesty demands that, occasionally at least, we go out of our way to confront strong arguments opposed to our views. How else are we to protect ourselves from continuing in error? It seems only fair to remind the reader that intellectual honesty has its dangers; arguments read perhaps at first in curious fascination may come to convince and even to seem natural and intuitive. Only the refusal to listen guarantees one against being ensnared by the truth.

- Preface to Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.

Having read some things that I fervently disagree with yet have a difficult time arguing has made me open my eyes a bit. When I opened this book and read that, I knew why.

Related posts:

1. Whoa
2. You guys are funny
3. Oh hey, I have this blog thing, don’t I?
4. hey jerks!
5. hey guess what