Last night makes up for Tuesday
Of Montreal: It was pretty awsome. I don't think it was the best technical gig I have ever been to, but it was certainly the most ridiculous. It was so good. Seriously, you haven't lived until you've seen a guy in a dinosaur mask wearing a superman costume playing drums for an encore sung by a guy in a tiger mask and a suit growling into the microphone. (I am not making this up) AMAZING. And then there was the guy in the cardinal costume who was blessing everyone, and then stripped off for the pentagram display on the screen. And the big gold thing costume. And the boxing match on stage. And the pigs for "Everyday Feels Like Sunday." (And this isn't even touching amusement of the ranga comment that Celia made to Red.Tom. I died a little inside).
Sideways now: I keep meaning to make a set of posts, but I can't be bothered getting around to it. The reason for them is that I know people who argue terribly. This is an exaggeration. But I don't know why some people even try to argue for the things they do in the way they do, because the ideas had gaping holes poked in them 80 years ago. There are a lot of arguments, ideas, etc. that are very important but which most people I know aren't aware of (or, at least, don't seem to use, so I have no reason to suppose they're aware of them), but which are Very Important (such as Kuhn, or Judith Jarvis Thompson) and I intend on summarising them. At some stage. Stay posted. For now, have some ramblings on Sen and the capabilities approach. Also a playlist.
The capabilities approach goes like this: the important thing to measure in terms of quality of life is what people have the capacity to do. Personal pleasure (which is one of the usual quality of life things) isn't very useful, because it seems like you could be starving, poor, homeless and still be fairly cheery about life. Or you could live a life of wealth, luxury and achievement, and be utterly miserable. This is also why you can't really look at what people do achieve. Because people may have plenty of opportunities, and squander them. Other things, like strict inequality, may also be measurable, but not very useful, because, again, you can theoretically have an incredibly unequal resource distribution and still have everyone able to do exactly what they want (remember the "to each according to his needs" part of Marx? Yeah). And there may also be other things that limit your quality of life. A pregnant woman and an 80 year old man may be given exactly the same amount of food, and this is very "fair," but not exactly great for the woman's quality of life. But you can, theoretically, measure what people have the capacity to do (the capacity to vote, to achieve adequate nutrition, to get an education, to go out for a meal in a restaurant, so on). And equivalence in capacity may be the best kind of policy and measurement for quality of life.
Being on geriatrics at the moment, I am having to put up with certain variants of bizarre ideas. Like the one where people with end-stage dementia have a better quality of life than pretty much anyone. Because they don't report being unhappy. However, if you're talking about capacities, and not self-reported quality of life, then I think there's a much better explanation, because people with severe dementia basically have no capacity for normal functioning: they may be quite cheery, but they basically can't do anything. (I also think that the happiness measure is dodgy because it may be that you could do all sorts of pretty terrible things to people with dementia without substantially effecting their overall happiness, and I find that a bit...off-putting). I think that the capabilities approach may also help explain some puzzles around various kinds of disability. Because, intuitively, disability isn't like normal functioning. But, at the same time, we think that people with disabilities live relatively normal and satisfying lives for the most part. Enter capabilities: most disabilities don't substantially change a person's capability to function (certainly, they'd have better functioning in day to day terms than "normal" people who were, say, illiterate for whatever reason). However, some kinds of disability may hugely diminish capacity, and it seems that these are the kinds of ones that get picked up on when people talk about why you can knock off people with certain kinds of disability (also children). This may be underlaid by some variation on capabilities as regards to quality of life.
Basically: Sen is fucking awesome, and everyone should read "Inequality Reexamined." And his Dewey lecture talks.
Playlist:
The Rainbow - Talk Talk
Lost Verses - Sun Kil Moon
In The Time Of The Lorry Low - Marissa Nadler
Cherry-Coloured Funk - Cocteau Twins
Courtyard - The Olivia Tremor Control
Lipostudio... And So On - Matmos
In The Flowers - Animal Collective
An Eluardian Instance - Of Montreal
Snowballs And Icicles - Broken Social Scene presents Brendan Canning
The Concubine - Realpeople
Sideways now: I keep meaning to make a set of posts, but I can't be bothered getting around to it. The reason for them is that I know people who argue terribly. This is an exaggeration. But I don't know why some people even try to argue for the things they do in the way they do, because the ideas had gaping holes poked in them 80 years ago. There are a lot of arguments, ideas, etc. that are very important but which most people I know aren't aware of (or, at least, don't seem to use, so I have no reason to suppose they're aware of them), but which are Very Important (such as Kuhn, or Judith Jarvis Thompson) and I intend on summarising them. At some stage. Stay posted. For now, have some ramblings on Sen and the capabilities approach. Also a playlist.
The capabilities approach goes like this: the important thing to measure in terms of quality of life is what people have the capacity to do. Personal pleasure (which is one of the usual quality of life things) isn't very useful, because it seems like you could be starving, poor, homeless and still be fairly cheery about life. Or you could live a life of wealth, luxury and achievement, and be utterly miserable. This is also why you can't really look at what people do achieve. Because people may have plenty of opportunities, and squander them. Other things, like strict inequality, may also be measurable, but not very useful, because, again, you can theoretically have an incredibly unequal resource distribution and still have everyone able to do exactly what they want (remember the "to each according to his needs" part of Marx? Yeah). And there may also be other things that limit your quality of life. A pregnant woman and an 80 year old man may be given exactly the same amount of food, and this is very "fair," but not exactly great for the woman's quality of life. But you can, theoretically, measure what people have the capacity to do (the capacity to vote, to achieve adequate nutrition, to get an education, to go out for a meal in a restaurant, so on). And equivalence in capacity may be the best kind of policy and measurement for quality of life.
Being on geriatrics at the moment, I am having to put up with certain variants of bizarre ideas. Like the one where people with end-stage dementia have a better quality of life than pretty much anyone. Because they don't report being unhappy. However, if you're talking about capacities, and not self-reported quality of life, then I think there's a much better explanation, because people with severe dementia basically have no capacity for normal functioning: they may be quite cheery, but they basically can't do anything. (I also think that the happiness measure is dodgy because it may be that you could do all sorts of pretty terrible things to people with dementia without substantially effecting their overall happiness, and I find that a bit...off-putting). I think that the capabilities approach may also help explain some puzzles around various kinds of disability. Because, intuitively, disability isn't like normal functioning. But, at the same time, we think that people with disabilities live relatively normal and satisfying lives for the most part. Enter capabilities: most disabilities don't substantially change a person's capability to function (certainly, they'd have better functioning in day to day terms than "normal" people who were, say, illiterate for whatever reason). However, some kinds of disability may hugely diminish capacity, and it seems that these are the kinds of ones that get picked up on when people talk about why you can knock off people with certain kinds of disability (also children). This may be underlaid by some variation on capabilities as regards to quality of life.
Basically: Sen is fucking awesome, and everyone should read "Inequality Reexamined." And his Dewey lecture talks.
Playlist:
The Rainbow - Talk Talk
Lost Verses - Sun Kil Moon
In The Time Of The Lorry Low - Marissa Nadler
Cherry-Coloured Funk - Cocteau Twins
Courtyard - The Olivia Tremor Control
Lipostudio... And So On - Matmos
In The Flowers - Animal Collective
An Eluardian Instance - Of Montreal
Snowballs And Icicles - Broken Social Scene presents Brendan Canning
The Concubine - Realpeople