and the hangman’s noose loosen slightly

I had just cleared one assignment. Right on the deadline itself. the hangman’s noose that was threatening to tighten around my neck, threatening to hang me to death if I should miss the deadline, loosen just so slightly. I gulped in air. I had forgetten just how sweet and fresh air outside an air-conditioned (with cold recycled air) room could be. then I realised, I have two more assignments due on 30 June 2005. yes. on the same day. online submission closing at the same time. death hour: 30 June 2005, 23:59:59 hours. When will June 2005 ever come to an end?!?!

我已把一个专题作业给做完了。就在截止日期的当天。那悬钓在我脖子上、随时就要把我勒死的绳稍微解开些。我大口地把新鲜空气吞入肺里。我已忘了没经过冷气机的空气有多么的鲜甜了。然后,我随即发觉,我还有两个专题作业要交。两个专题作业。同一个截止日期。网上交专题作业。网上截止日期:30 June 2005, 23:59:59时。六月几时才会结束啊?!?!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to and the hangman’s noose loosen slightly

  1. ni says:

    Just for your information, last time I checked, June 2005 ends when July 2005 begins. I believe this will be the case as long as the sun rises everyday from now till July 1st. However, this may not be a fact since Hume has proved that proof-by-induction is illogical and unreasonable. Sun rose everyday in the past is not enough to justify it will rise tomorrow morning, since in the justification for induction, one usually adopts the following technique:

    1) In my experience all Fs have been Gs.
    Conclusion: All Fs are Gs or at least the next is likely to be.

    But drawing to that conclusion, or making the prediction that the next F is G, one is claiming that “What has happened in the past relatively
    predict the future or at least warrants generalization,” such that the argument becomes:

    1) In my experience all Fs have been Gs.
    2) What has happened in the past relatively predict the future or at least warrants generalization.
    Conclusion: All Fs are Gs or at least the next is likely to be.

    In order to prove this is a sound argument, the 2nd claim (also known as the uniformity principle) needs to be justified. However, the
    justification of 2) then becomes:

    1) In my past experience what happened in the past predict the future.
    2) What has happened in the past relatively predict the future or at least warrants generalization.
    Conclusion: what happened in the past predict the future.

    So, basically the only way to prove that 2) holds is to use 2) itself. Such argument is circular… or as some philosophers like to say, the
    argument is begging the question.

    What I’m trying to say is that I’m not exactly sure the end of June will ever come.

  2. YL says:

    hmmmmm…. this is so…. so…ni!! :D

    all the best!!

    cheerio,
    yl.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *