I'll just cover three sections in this post, in order to finish up the sequence on the Self-interest theory, S.
In these sections, Parfit argues that S might tell us to believe things that are not true. For example, S might tell us to believe that it is rational to ignore threats, even though that is not in fact true, because it will lead to better results, at least some of the time.
Parfit's final statement about S, in section 9, is that even if S told everyone to believe some other theory, this would not mean that S was not in fact the best theory:
That's it for S. The next sections deal with Consequentialism, C.
Reading a serious book of philosophy is a substantial commitment, but Parfit's Reasons and Persons has been recommended to me a number of times, so I'm taking the plunge. The book is made up of four parts, containing 20 chapters consisting in total of 154 sections, each section dealing with a particular topic, like "How Consequentialism Is Indirectly Self-defeating" or "The Effects of Population Growth on Existing People". That's approximately all the introduction that Parfit gives the book, so I'll leave it at that, as well.
You can click through to the book for my detailed notes, but I'll summarize here my thoughts on the first six sections.
The book begins by discussing the Self-interest theory, S:
This theory, he claims, is indirectly individually self-defeating because a person who always follows it (in Parfit's terms, a person who is never self-denying) may, in many circumstances, actually do worse than if he did otherwise. He gives a couple of interesting examples of such situations, though I don't agree with them fully.
He rescues S by saying that, after all, S does not tell us we must believe S if it is worse for us, so it is not failing in its own terms.
Parfit argues that it could be rational to cause oneself to act irrationally, using an example of an imaginary drug that causes one to behave irrationally, which he employs as a defense against blackmail, more or less. He says that this is a rational irrationality, but I'm not very happy with that term or, frankly, the hair-splitting he's doing.
Parfit claims that it's okay if a theory about rationality tells us that we cannot avoid acting irrationally.
That's it for the first six sections. The next few also deal with S, and then Parfit takes up Consequentialism.
At last, I have finished (re-) cataloguing the books in the fiction section of my library. For the most part, the data that was already in the catalogue wasn't too far off, though there were lots of books with series info in the title. Most books, though, needed the page numbering cleaned up (e.g. they often had the numbering type set to roman numerals, which breaks ordering by number of pages). Anyway, lots of validation done, and a few mis-shelved books rearranged, and it's done. Now, I just have to shelve the rest of the totally uncatalogued fiction... and the children's books... and the nonfiction... well, it's progress, at least!
The 1995 ifcomp had two first-place winners: Andrew Plotkin's A Change in the Weather took first place in the Inform division, and the winner of the TADS division was this game, Uncle Zebulon's Will by Magnus Olsson. A more recent version is available, but I played the original comp release.
Uncle Zebulon's Will is a fantasy game: your uncle Zebulon, a wizard, has died, and named you in his will. You may remove one item from his home--which your relatives have already picked clean of anything remotely valuable. Make the best of it!
UZW is a short series of fairly simple puzzles, but it's fun. For the most part, it's clear how to proceed, and just a little thought is required to solve the puzzles, when you come to them. I did find the puzzle involving a tomato to be non-obvious; the only thing hinting at it was a conspicuously useless item.
Coming to this game after years of more modern IF, I nearly forgot to make a save before an (obviously) irrevocable action. Happily, I caught myself in time. It's differences like these that make me interested in playing though old IF, in particular, so that was not a negative experience!
We'd expect more of a game that ranks first in the ifcomp, today, but it's clear why UZW did so well. It's full of character, and the puzzles are entertaining. Sadly, the promised sequel didn't materialize.
This is a parody of Looney Tunes cartoons, featuring (parodies of) Elmer Fudd, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and the Tasmanian Devil.
The puzzles proceed linearly, and the solutions work largely according to cartoon logic--if you haven't seen the classics, then, for example, it may not occur to you to draw a door on the wall to escape the first room. If you are familiar with the cartoons, then the solutions will largely be familiar, too.
The implementation isn't too deep, and there are a couple of flaws, for example:
Which cliff do you mean, the canyon, or the canyon?
Additionally, feeding Taz an object doesn't actually remove it from your inventory.
I got stuck for a few minutes when I needed to reach the mesa, but that's not really the game's fault--I just didn't notice obvious solution, and guessed that I was supposed to do something else first.
All in all, it's an amusing game, though not one I'm likely to turn to again in the future.
With the current global crisis, people are eager to find a silver lining--"now there's time to play all those games I've been saving!", or such. I'm fortunate enough that this isn't impacting me much (I already work from home), but in solidarity with everyone else, here's one from my backlog: Mystery Science Theater 3000 Presents "Detective", an entry in IFComp 1995.
If you're familiar with MST3k, you know what to expect. It's a bad IF game, Detective, its text interspersed with jeering commentary by the characters of MST3k.
The jokes don't make the game more playable, but they are entertaining. The sheer incomprehensibility of the original game makes the despairing comments relatable. They're not just funny; they give a sense of camaraderie that is just enough to keep you going to the end.
There was a later release of this game featuring a brief interview with the author of Detective: he made the game when he was 12 years old, and he's fine with the parody. Honestly, I'm glad to know it. This parody was, apparently, written without his knowledge, and Detective is so obviously the work of a child that it seems mean-spirited to make fun of it. This story was entertaining, but I'm glad we didn't see a deluge of these in the ifcomp in the following years.
The IFDB only lists two other stories tagged 'MST3K', but MST3k was popular enough to inspire works in various media. I have an email in my archives dated 1996-03-04, Mystery Fanfic Commentary Theatre 3000 comments on "Natsumi, the Magical Girl, chapter one.", and there were plenty more like it in the succeeding months and years.
It took me seven months, but I have finally finished reading Shatner: Where No Man..., the biography of William Shatner by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath. It was an exhausting read. Besides being sheer hagiography, it is written in M&C's usual self-satisfied style, and getting through a chapter means enduring pages and pages of their self-congratulating, pseudo-philosophical mumbling. The bits that were primarily transcripts of interviews were fairly interesting, and Shatner's musing on the practice of acting was worthwhile, too, but then you also have to deal with stuff like this:
Since I've been reading so much sf, lately, I thought I'd try one of the non-sf-related books on my reading list: Tetralogue: I'm Right, You're Wrong. It's a kind of beginner's introduction to epistemology and ethics, in the form of a dialogue. The dialogue is set off by a question of whether witchcraft is real, and whether a scientific explanation of events is really any better than an appeal to witchcraft as a cause:
Ethics are also discussed, and the question of moral relativism vs. absolutism, e.g.:
It's very easy to follow, and entertaining enough, but also very elementary. A good pick for someone who has never read anything about philosophy, I think.
I've now finished If on a winter's night a traveler, which I've been reading on and off for the last 18 months. The drawback of reading so many books at once--individual books can take a while to get through. But how could one put off starting a book that begins like this?
If on a winter's night a traveler is very interesting, and uses some literary tricks to great effect. I enjoyed the first half of the book more than the second half, but it was well worth reading. My review, linked above, gives a little more detail (and, unusually for me, without spoilers).
This has been a good month for finishing books. So, in the spirit of sabotaging my progress on my TBR pile, I picked up The Vine Witch using some credit Amazon gave me toward a Kindle book, and started reading The Fourth World, which was free.
As projected, I finished up OMNI, April 1979. It was pretty slim pickings, this issue. Bester's Galatea Galante was probably the best story in the issue, for pure atmosphere, but it still wasn't great.
I also read Lemony Snicket's The Bad Beginning. Those books have been on my reading list forever, and I finally took the time to read one... and didn't like it at all. Oh well. At least that knocks its sequels off my TBR list, so it's not a total loss.
I've made some more progress with Great Themes of Science Fiction: A Study in Imagination and Evolution. I read its predecessor, Foundations of Science Fiction: A Study in Imagination and Evolution, back in 2018, and found it poor as literary criticism, but great as a sort of annotated bibliography of scifi, showing the development of various ideas through the years. So far, the sequel looks like more of the same, which is to say enjoyable, if not terribly enlightening, and tending to increase my TBR list... a dangerous book for me to read. It's full of stuff like this:
I've begun reading Science Fiction, Second Edition, a book in The New Critical Idiom series. So far, it's devoted a few dozen pages to defining SF, and the started on trying to trace the history of sf--where does it start? Verne? Shelley? Gernsback? This is pretty unenlightening stuff, for anyone with more than a passing familiarity with sf, but the book's short enough that I'm willing to read the whole thing in hopes of it improving.
I finished up Fool Moon. Its story is much better than Storm Front, and the writing is superior, too, but it still has plenty of room for improvement. The biggest flaw in this one is that it's predictable who the villains will turn out to be, and even the way the final showdown resolves is pretty easy to see coming.
I also finished Galaxy Science Fiction, January 1951. None of the stories was that great, but they were generally decent enough. As usual with old scifi (or anything else, I suppose), these stories are very much products of their time. Dark Interlude is a pretty good indictment of racism, while Made to Measure is positively dripping with sexism (and that story is probably meant to be at least partly anti-sexist). Rule of Three just isn't very interesting, nor is Susceptibility. The final story, The Reluctant Heroes is competent, and while it doesn't have any really big idea, it examines the idea it does have well enough.
I'll probably finish up OMNI, April 1979 before I read any more of Galaxy Science Fiction or The Dresden Files. That one's been on my 'currently reading' list since last July. OMNI has some good stories, but I hate the way they break everything up like a newspaper, 'continued on page 103'. It's annoying.
We're well into the new year. I didn't make any resolutions other than the permanent one: work on the TBR pile. And I've even done a little of that, in the past few weeks. Links below are to my reviews.
I have finally--finally--finished reading Storm Front. I read the first fifty pages or so back in 2012, and there I left it. The story is passable, but altogether the book is average at best. If I didn't have a pretty solid belief that the series really does improve--and not just in the minds of its fans--then I'd probably break off here. But I do believe it will improve, so... I've begun the next book in the series.
I picked up ZZT in a bundle last year. I read Galaga and wasn't impressed, so I put off reading the other books. Happily, ZZT is a much better book than Galaga was.
I'm also making some progress on my project to read old scifi: I've begun reading Galaxy Science Fiction, January 1951, which begins the serialization of Asimov's The Stars, Like Dust. Having read the first installment of that... I'm not too impressed. Asimov has written much better books. Here's hoping the short stories in the issue are more rewarding.
On that note, I've also finally typed up some of my notes on stuff I've read in the past year for that project: A Stone and a Spear has some nice anti-war monologuing, and The Tunnel Under the World is almost painfully relevant.
Looking back, it was six years ago today that I finished reading Robert Frost's North of Boston. Perhaps this year I'll read New Hampshire. Can't let the TBR pile get too low, after all...