**PRESENTERS POST YOUR MATERIAL/ASSIGNMENTS FOR MON 3/15 HERE**

Hey fellow Sophia worshipers

Sam and me are still working on the details for our Monday presentation but just so you guys can get a head start, here is a short story from J.L. Borges to get your minds cranking on our topic

[I put the link to the story on here -- DW]

Tlön,Uqbar,Orbis Tertius.pdf

More info will be posted later on..

cheers

Sergio

.

 .

 Good morning fellow theorists

Just to get your heads turning (in all directions if possible) for our discussion of Hume this Monday

We would like you (you can always decide not to) to think about

What parts of Hume’s philosophy does Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius emphezice? And in what ways are they depicted? Examples of this would be: how does Hume’s ideas about belief get addressed in the story? Or think about what role do objects play in the story?

Also, thinking of genres and narrative, throughout Hume’s enquiries, we see that he makes use of examples to explain some of his arguments; If we were to compare his examples with Borges’s depictions through storytelling, what form of narrative do you think makes Hume’s philosophy more accessible to the reader? And why?

And "finally", think about the way in which Borges depicts Berkeley and Hume's philosophy within the story? What do you think he's trying to say?

postscrip. . .

           enjoy your Sunday

- ----

Hey guys.. This is I again

I know it’s a little late to post this (some of you might not read this) but i saw this in a Calvino essay titled Philosophy and Literature which I thought you guys might enjoy..

            Philosophy and literature are embattled adversaries.

The eyes of the philosophers see through the opaqueness of the world, eliminate the flesh of it, reduce the variety of existing things to a spider’s web of relationships between general ideas, and fix the rules according to which a finite number of pawns moving on a chessboard exhaust a number of combinations that may even be infinite. Along come the writers and replace the abstract chessmen with kings and queens, knights and castles, all with a name, a particular shape, and a series of attributes royal, equine, or ecclesiastical; instead of a chessboard they roll out great dusty battlefields or stormy seas. So at this point the rules of the game are turned topsy-turvy, revealing an order of things quite different from that of the philosopher. Or, rather, the people who discover these new rules of the game are once again the philosophers, who dash back to demonstrate that this operations wrought by the writers can be reduced to the terms of one of their own operations, and that the particular castles and bishops were nothing but general ideas in disguise.

cheers

- Sergio