The Man So Nice, They Named Him Twice
July 27, 2004
There are reasons why I tend to not discuss philosophy, as much as I'd like to. Among them is that I tend to bore people. Due to my inability to articulate my thoughts very well, anything I try to convey tends to come up with gaping holes, or with me angrily gesturing with the frustration of "WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS?!". I would make a terrible schoolteacher, because I don't have the patience to answer trivial questions. I would, however, make an excellent professor, because I AM capable of teaching in a situation where I can fairly assume that everyone else has already done the legwork up to the advanced ideas.
I only recently read Flatland (by Edwin Abbott Abbott), but the theories behind it have popped up in my philosophy literature for as long as I can recall. The allegory is simple: imagine a 2D world. Now imagine that he somehow learns about 1D and 3D worlds. Then ask: what's to stop 4D or 5D worlds, outside of the limitations that A Square saw in King Line, and that A Sphere saw in both of them? The entire book is mathematically fun, but also a biting social commentary of.. something.. I don't really know because I'm not hip to British history. But you can bet that SOMEONE'S knickers got in a twist when this book was published!
By the by, this is the kickoff of a new story arc. I promise, it'll get more interesting.