h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A626212

This is a short guide for all Hitch-Hikers who have an interest in Life, the Universe and Everything. But, unlike Douglas' approach, it's based on the view of a major thinker. Not that DNA wasn't absolutely serious too, in his own way.

The Story So Far:

This Entry has already appeared in Peer Review under controversial circumstances. The previous Review, (the thread 'Heidegger's Ultimate Question') can be seen at the same place as the article - at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A626212

The Entry has changed considerably, so I'd like the opinions of previous contributors on its new form. Hope you still like it.

Grime

Ayup Grime

I haven't been over to see the old thread as time presses, so can't imagine why the eds didn't like it. This version looks good too. A couple of things struck me.

One was the footnote about children. I was that child. Blown away by the incredible unlikeliness of it all at the age of about 3.

The other was the paragraph under the heading "Can there be any sort of answer". I think I might be taking issue with Heidegger here, not you. I agree with the 'no' part of the answer but not the 'yes' part. I'm not sure about the reason given for the 'no' part though.

If it turns out that there is an answer, we can't tell whether it's beyond the limits of language because we don't know what it is, yet.

I can't see how the *actual answer* could be in the way we perceive the world. That seems as big a cop out as saying it all exists because a god made it. It's as though he's devoted all this time to thinking about the ultimate question just to conclude "oh, isn't it all lovely?" A bit of a disappointing answer really - like 42, it answers nothing. But that's not a beef with the entry, if that was what he concluded, then you told it like it is.

It has my vote (again)

likewise, just having seen this I haven't read previous comments, but I will later. I like this entry.

I'm not qualified to comment on the content (although I have read JPS), but it's nicely presented and I'm very interested in the subject matter.

Would have my recommendation if I was able to (but I'm not), so good luck!

Thanks for your vote, SC, and for your comments.

These were really helpful, and I've made changes to that section - and improved it - because of them.


Grime

Many thanks for your support, ZSF. I'm glad you liked the piece.

Grime

Hi ZSF,

Three further points, if I can test your patience further -

1.this Entry is not meant for philosophers, although we're all philosophers at times. It's meant for anyone who's interested - the door's wide open.

2. I'm very fond of a bit of the old JPS too.

3. Please bear in mind that the earlier version was simpler, more direct than this one as you read the comments.

Thanx again for your interest,


Grime

Hi, Grime!

I liked this one better. There have been a couple of TV programmes on recently about how science is having to look at the god question again in the light of recent discoveries. All facsinating cutting edge stuff, with scientists violently disagreeing - don't they always!

I particularly like the whizzy quote - is that a pullquote (having looked at comments from the previous entry)?

As Chief Seattle said in his famous letter to an American president (can't remember which) 'All things are connected'. Some of the stuff you quoted in this are surprisingly relevant in this day and age.

Hi ZSF !

Yes, it's a strange old world all right. In 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat', on Quantum theory (highly recommended) John Gribbin points out that time slows and slows until you reach the speed of light, when it stops. At this point time, and speed, have no meaning - they're only factors from our perspective. A photon from a star a million light years away would not experience its journey as lasting a million years, (that's only our perspective), but as a static state. If it could see, it would see the big bang, creation of stars etc and the end of the universe as all existing together. This is actually about Einsteinian Relativity rather than on the book's main subject.(Sorry to others if this is a bit off-topic).

The quote was a marquee, stolen from somewhere:

>Why is there anything rather than nothing?

If you're interested, which you seem very much to be, and if you haven't found it already, the Could Heidegger's Question Be Scary? thread is well worth reading, (on my Home Page - can't remember if it's on the Entry page or not) Enjoy!

Although that thread hasn't been used for some time, it's still open.


Grime

Thanks, Grime

I'll follow it up. This does ring bells.

You've just reminded me about poor old Marvin - 'Life - don't talk to me about life!'.

Very interesting.

If I am to pick a fault (), it is that the number of footnotes tends to be distracting... and some appear on the wrong side of the full stops.

The marquee is snappy; but I think it will be replaced by a blockquote to conform with 'the look'.

A suggestion: you might relegate the references to Sartre, Marx, and Derrida to a second paragraph, as the opening salvo of philosophors is a bit daunting. It would be better (inmeyumbulopinyun) to establish Heidegger's identitity in a simple sentence or two first, before bringing in the others.

A famous Australian drinking song would come in handy...

JTG

Oops... spelled philosufuz wrong

Hi JTG.

I've cleaned up the first bit as you suggested and it definitely looks better. I've also tried to clean up the superscripts, but I've left the footnotes in as they form a sort of commentary on the text with an interest of its own.

I do hope the marquee stays, as it forms a sort of demonstration of the question as well as a statement of it.

Thanks for your help,


grime

Hey Grimes - about that last posting - Why was there nothing instead of something
ps I like the new version, and I liked the old version. I am also heartened to see that I'm not the only one that likes John Player Specials.

Grimethorpe, I really can't comment on the philosophy of this entry, but I can point out a few places where the spelling, punctuation and general phrasing can be improved:

1. In the first sentence, the phrase "in addition to his academic duties" appears to be tagged on to the end. It is not clear what it is referring to.

2. "wasa" in the firs sentence should be "was a".

3. In the Question itself, there is a stray ">" in front of it. Why is there something in front of it, rather than nothing?

4. "The Tractatus" should be in italics.

5. The sentence which starts:

This is OK, necessary even, for Heidegger,

is punctutated wrongly. It should read:

This is OK, necessary, even for Heidegger,

6. The sentence starting:

Which means for Heidegger caring for the world

should read:

For Heidegger, this means caring for the world

7. The next sentence which starts with "For Heidegger" should now be changed to avoid repetition:

For Heidegger, this is definitely not mysticism but ...

becomes:

Heidegger considered this to be not mysticism but ...

8. At the start of the paragraph "Reading", the words "Reading Heidegger" should be removed.

9. I think the entry would be better if you did not use Bold characters. Use Italics where necessary to highlight things. Just a personal opinion.

Thanx Frogbit,

Grime

Many thanks, Gnomon, for your close reading of the article and your helpful comments. I think I've taken action on all your points, most of them at least, and I've been prompted by your Posting to clear up other points too. Hope you like the new version.


Grime

Just popping by in case you thought I wasn't paying attention

As I may have suggested before, possibly in another reality, this is an excellent article, in whatever reality it happens to be in, in or outside of the universe, before or after time, semantically speaking or not, and limited only by whatever it is that limits such philosophical questions...

Technically, I think everything has been covered, so I think we should let it rest in PR for only a bit longer, to allow one or two others to have a 'kick at the '.. metaphorically speaking... ( I wonder if Shrodinger even really had a ? )

Hi,

Just wondering what's happening with this one?

Where in der Black Forest? There's a kind of greeting card breeziness to the entry. Maybe that's the point. The humor of a footnote that says,"The least said about that, the better," is lost on me. Now I want to know what the entrytist didn't want to say. Or is it an 'in' joke? The Marx joke is out of place.
Just thought I'd take a look. Gotta go now. I've got a terrible pain in all the diodes on my left side.