Nile bridge

It’s an absolutely beautiful night in Cairo, which is far from a given– they can already be hot and muggy in early June. (The desert is dry; Cairo itself is not that dry.)

On nights like this, the best place to be is on one of the bridges over the Nile. It’s like sleeping under a ceiling fan, with that cool breeze rushing down the river, perhaps all the way form the Mediterranean.

It reminded me of my first night in Egypt, August 1 or 2, 2000. At that point even Zamalek was so confusing to me that I had to carry a map of the city when walking to the downtown area. I was really worried about getting lost and not being able to tell anyone where I lived. I walked across the bridge that night as well, and the breeze was similar.

In front of the Museum, a few little kids were kicking a soccer ball around, and I made a pretty good trap at one point; I thought it was headed out of bounds, but they seemed mildly dismayed, so I must have inadvertantly gotten involved in the game when I shouldn’t have.

I also remember cutting under Tahrir Square through the Metro, and at the time I was shocked to see that “American University” had its own exit sign. Then I exited the Metro and happened to see the facade of the main AUC building, which really is an impressive, palace-like structure (it really was a palace, after all).

Cairo seemed infinite at the time. It still seems huge, but obviously not infinite. But that was probably the biggest weeklong adrenaline rush I’ve ever had, since I’d never been any closer to here than Rome before then.

critical thinking for critical thinking’s sake

First, my condolences to the family members of passengers and crew of the lost Air France flight.

In reading the coverage, I saw this post from a reader. After making the usual (and somewhat useful) point that there are many more deaths in car accidents, he says the following:

“But, it’s worth asking why we’re so fascinated by, and give so much media coverage to these air tragedies, yet spend so little time reflecting on what can be done to save the lives of countless car passengers. If our fascination is centered on the romance, myth and grandeur of flight, or on the gruesome details of a plane’s wreckage, we should really get over it, and bring ourselves back down to earth.”

This is a fine example of critique for critique’s sake; a form of thought now well into its decadence. I would ask the gentleman the following questions…

1. How does media coverage of air tragedies cut into time for reflecting on car safety?

2. In this case in particular, there are no “gruesome details of wreckage.” Car accidents affect a few families at a time. Air crashes kill hundreds and affect thousands at a time, and these sorts of mass catastrophes have become relatively rare for us compared with ancient and even later times. So I don’t see what’s such a surprise about public horror and awe at these events.

3. Why does the reader need to end his letter by telling people to “get over” something? What’s the big problem with media coverage of a major disaster?

Obviously, one reader blog post in the NY Times isn’t worth worrying about. But what *is* worth feeling dismayed about is the general equation of thought with critique. To tell somebody “no”, to tell them to “get over it”, to tell them they’re worried about some trivial thing when they ought to be worried about something else, etc., are all variants of a fairly useless and stupid method of thinking. What’s useless about it is its parasitic character. It only succeeds at the expense of a statement that someone else has already made, while risking nothing in its own right. Philosophy is too often filled with the equivalent of the above letter.

ADDENDUM: I remember a phase at about age 12 when I started sending a few letters to editors. (They weren’t published, of course.) And I remember, at that age, being stuck in the rut of automatically thinking that a good topic for a letter to the editor was to tell them how outraged you were at something stupid they had printed. Not that I was actually outraged, just that it seemed like that must be the intelligent thing to do. And I remember being over that phase a couple of years later. Just saying.

a few thoughts on clarity

Premature clarity turns thinkers into ideologues. Clarity is a result, not a starting point. To explain things clearly is good, but there is no shame in being perplexed at the outset. Those who think by proceeding from a clear starting point through 4 or 5 other clear statements leading to a clear result were probably just skating along the surface of things. Real clarity is hard-earned.

Obama in Cairo

As most of you may have heard, President Obama will be in Cairo this week. The location of his speech is Cairo University, one of the gigantic state schools. (It will be impossible for me to get a ticket, so I will watch it on television.)

The choice of location makes sense, actually. The campus is already highly secure, walled off from casual entry. But the students there are a pretty good demographic cross-section of the country, both economically and politically. I actually can’t think of a better location overall.

Circus Philosophicus

It looks as though there is a deal for Circus Philosophicus; details forthcoming at some point. I’ve been meaning to revise that ferris wheel piece and supplement it with 5 or 6 other myths for quite awhile, and the chance has finally arrived. There’s also a fun framing device for the whole thing.

This will be the weirdest thing I have ever published but also, if it succeeds, possibly the most memorable.