Blither-blather about gobbeldy gook

So, uni's back now. I have readings up the butt. Soooo many readings.

With regard to social possibilities, it's all over the place. On the plus side, the gaming society's having a meet-and-greet on the Wednesday after I perform (which I'll write about when the competition ends, at least for me :P). So that means I'll get to meet people and have something unique to talk about--pretty fuckin' good!

On the minus side, the other group I was considering, PhilSoc, only meet on Mondays, and the time they meet is during a tutorial I have. This tutorial is the most evil of all the tutorials I have ever enrolled in: it turned a 7 hour day with 5 hours of classes into a 7 hour day with 7 hours of classes in a fucking row. Fuck that shit. I've done 7-hour grinds before; by the end of it, you're barely able to process anything. I had to pick this tute because another subject I enrolled in was cancelled, and this was the only tute left because it was way past the time when tutes are organised. So along with making my Monday even more of a drainer than it already was, it's also prevented me from even being able to see what PhilSoc does. Thanks a lot, lone-wolf tutorial, you asshat.

But that may not be the only issue. Let's say for the sake of argument that there were no schedule conflicts, and that I could attend the meet-ups. This is what I originally thought, as I only discovered the correct dates for their activities moments ago. So what was the issue I faced before?

To explain that, I have to explain my studies. As far as I can tell, studying philosophy at uni can be split up into two sections: the content, and the process. The content is the arguments themselves and the philosophers they come from: what they argue for, their strengths, their weaknesses, their motives, the implications, etc. This is the stuff usually covered in lectures. The process is about how a student deals with arguments: deconstructing them, identifying and rectifying flaws, as well as making their own arguments and putting them forth in a discussion setting. This is what you deal with in tutes; it's also the reason why I don't like tutes. And seeing as PhilSoc meetings will have a similar discussion format (they seem to have a half-hour seminar followed by a half-hour discussion in smaller groups), it doesn't seem like the most appealing thing in the world.

I usually feel uncomfortable in philosophy tutes because I'm never sure of my own ideas, and thus live in constant fear of being asked to talk. It sounds weird coming from someone whose dream is to stand in front of hundreds of people only so he can spout his ideas at them, but the reasoning behind each activity is different. In comedy, I'm dealing with issues for laughs; accuracy can be important, but isn't the be all and end all. So long as you're funny, you're usually fine. In philosophy, being convincing is all that matters. Just cos I can make people laugh doesn't mean I can change their minds, nor does it mean I'm right about anything; it just means I can be funny. When I'm in tutes, I prefer to just listen and absorb--and if such passivity were permissible, I'd be totally comfortable in tutes. But no: you're expected to talk. Of course, this is the only way the tutor can assess you in tutes, so the thoughts I'm having in my head, as relevant as they may be, can't be assessed (I do think of things; I just don't say them). That's my fault, though, not the tutor's, so I don't care much.

So if I don't like tutes, why would I like PhilSoc seminars, given the discussion element? Well, for one thing, they're optional. Tutes, on the other hand, are mandatory. I'm not 100% sure if you can simply listen in during the talks rather than contributing, but it seems to be that if you make the effort to show up, people would expect you to talk anyway, cos choosing to attend implies a strong interest in the subject, and thus a strong inclination to participate. And I'm usually more inclined to do things when I don't have a metaphorical gun to the back of my head, which might help. Also, the group is aimed at students who don't necessarily study philosophy, so high-level skills aren't expected, and the topics also seem simpler and more general than those tackled in my classes. That may facilitate my talking in that it takes less time for me to do the analysis required to come up with something worth saying. But that's a maybe.

All in all, I'm not too disappointed that I can't go. I would go if I could, particularly cos the topics sound really interesting and appealing. Most of the topics I see in my subject outlines produce indifference on my part, with the occasional 'oh god, that's gonna be hard as fuck'; but these topics sound intriguing, like "What Makes a Good Philosopher"... well, what does? I don't know! And I'd like to know. I also can't really know the format of the meetings until I actually go; it may be nothing like my classes at all, so I must reserve judgement. Perhaps I'll go next semester! But I at least have the gaming stuff, which, while safer, is better than nothing.

Gotta go practice stand-up now; the RAW semi-finals are imminent. Toodles :)