settling...

well, i think i've been here long enough that i can start to come out with some definite opinions on my classes and classmates. i think it's definitely a mixed bag.

aristotle (which, admittedly, has only met once) i think will be good. at least its a class with fellow ancient people, which is quite refreshing... it can feel lonely sometimes out in the analytic world. however, the prof. does talk so quickly as to be unintelligible quite a bit of the time.

phil. of mind promises to rock, i think. despite (or because of?) the sometimes quite harsh british commentary from one prof. we're reading some good stuff, it's going along at a nice pace. i think it'll be good.

and then there's the first year seminar. so far, absolute diasaster. the title of it is analyticity. so, it's all analytic-synthetic distinction garbage. (obviously, it doesn't help that i think a lot of philosophy of language is meaningless garbage.) so, most of the stuff we read is horrid. and the stuff that is close to being any good gets attacked by the most inane arguments i've ever heard, but because we're doing hard-core analytic philo, they get termed 'good.' and really, i don't have the energy to play the game. i've tried before (like in some of my classes at western) and i just don't have the energy to do it most of the time. consequently, after the last two classes i've found myself desperately in need of a beer (or two, in the case of last night). so, here's hoping i survive... and that i find a paper topic.

as far as the peoples go.... yeah, that too is a mixed bag. there are a few who are absolutely awesome, many that i'm neutral towards, and so far only one that annoys me to peices. not bad, actually, for a group of academics. after all, we do have our reputation of awkwardness to keep up.