Famously so. But “appropriate” is even better.
I agree the fascination is mainly what we achieve with computers, but I’m in awe of the ingenuity and brilliance that it has taken to design them. I was born 5 years too early for the home computing revolution, otherwise I suspect I might have taken a very different career path. Instead I did French and Russian and enjoyed it immensely. Then entered into a career where they had only very fleeting appearances.
I agree, although as I get older “why can’t I remember where I put the car keys?” is becoming steadily more prominent…
As for the first two questions, I’m just reading The Quantum Universe (Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw) and while I can’t truthfully say that I’m understanding much more than the general principles I’m entranced both by the complexity of the theories and the brilliance of their discoverers.
I’m also listening to a podcast on another aspect of the same question: Peter Adamson’s The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps (http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/) – an ambitious attempt to do the whole of Western thought in 20 minute bits. Perfect for listening to while I’m walking the dog – and as I’ve reached episode 20 and we’re only just got to Plato, it’s a pleasure that’s going to last for some time… Some of it is familiar territory of course, but it’s always good to hear an expert (Adamson is Professor of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at Kings College, London) talk with such enthusiasm.
I studied some very, very, basic linguistics for my degree but the course was primarily focused on literature. I can understand how fascinating it must be to delve into it properly. What would you recommend as a basic introduction to the subject? The last thing even vaguely approaching linguistics I read was AD Infinitum: A biography of Latin by Ostler and I have his Empires of the Word on the shelf to read (although it’s jostling with about 200 other candidates for that honour…)
Regards
David
Warning … Much of what follows could be mistaken for something other than what it is. What follows is a conversation between open minded adults discussing a potentially explosive topic. If you are a short fuse type, move on.
I think we’ve discussed this in some length previously (Ioa-iffer (previous to being simply Ioa) and I being chief participants) and while I still hold all the same views, opinions, etc, I find that … how do I say this … It isn’t easy to put into words … I guess I no longer care. I love to ponder the meaning and purpose, but honestly I am tired. I have given up too much. I have done my time.
I guess I slammed into a wall of realization that the questions are unanswerable. Even if we could answer the questions would it matter? The encampments (of which I am accused of being in one) would simply reject the findings if they were proven wrong. If there is no actual room for enlightening those of differing opinion, or of changing your own opinion then there is nothing to discover.
That said, I still discuss, explain, explore, delve, probe, and inquire. I just don’t care what the answer will be. I am in my camp and I am comfortable. I seek no enlightenment. I revel in the mind’s ability to simply ponder. It is that amazing component of man keeps coming back to one answer-question: Does any of it matter?
Which is where I stop.
Mr X. nothing has changed in my views. Just so you know.
The perfect device.
The paper clip.
It does its job well.
Until Microsoft made it leap about the screen offering unhelpful advice. That was when I first realized I could become, in the right circumstances, a mass murderer.
Yes, else this thread wouldn’t exist. Which raises the next, even more important, question: “Which parts matter to me?”
This is the most On Topic thread I’ve read, I think.
Ok you. Let’s get this straight. It only matters in context. And unless you know the context the answer to the question is meaningless. Since we are still attempting to put into context things as basic to our every day lives as love and hate then I doubt an individual can put into context the meaning of their own life. Would Samuel Clemens have put the meaning of his life in the same context as we do today? George Washington? (I’m American so use your own famous people I don’t know any of yours). Even if we fight for and arrive at an answer to that question, it is only accurate for a very brief time.
Instead of asking, wondering, or even caring if it matters, wouldn’t we be better off making sure that it matters?
That is a question that can be both answer and acted on.
Darn you and making me think this early in the morning!
I’ve spent years practising getting others to think, it saves effort at my end. 
Which can be rephrased, “Wouldn’t we be better off making sure that it matters to me?”
I’m not really trying to be obtuse, nor am I rabid individualist from the far right of the political spectrum. We will always value things from the context of our own life experiences, accumulated knowledge and associated perceptions of the world - all of which develop and change throughout our lives.
I suspect we are actually saying similar things, and that is a scary notion on these forums.
It would be. But I think we are safe.
Your inclusion of “me” is not what I intended. Yet my own logic locks me in the corner of agreeing with you. If I can not see the “context” then the only way to evaluate is through my own view of what is significant. Therefore “matters to me” becomes valid. But the view that I can not perceive a larger context, and then acting on that view, quickly causes society to call me bad names if I act only in my private context. I say “leave me out”. I am not playing the game anymore. My context stops where I choose. That does make me the rabid individualist that thinks the libertarians may be too liberal.
At least that is what I am when it suits my context.
Why are you making me think so late in the night. Stop it.