Have I told you about the paper I've been procrastinating working on for months? That first original proof of mine (well, except for the part where my advisor told me what to try every week when I got stuck)? That one little brick I'd polished up and was planning to mortar to the grand edifice of mathematics, thereby beginning in earnest my mathematical career?
After reconsidering my political views over these several months, I've judiciously and provisionally decided to vote for Barack Obama in the California primary. Once politics is stripped of the fictive deontologies of both sides, it seems best for the nation and the world if we move to the left on many social and economic matters, not to mention foreign policy. What works for Western Europe should to some extent work for the US. Also, Obama stands a better chance than a certain other candidate at bringing back, if not civility, at least some thoughtfulness to the archipelago of our nation's political "discourse".
And yes, this is the most stirring political endorsement ever to grace the pages of ONB. Can't you just tell my deep and abiding enthusiasm for American politics?
In case you were wondering where I've wound up on moral thought, I pretty much agree with Steven Pinker's outlook in his piece in The NY Times Magazine, The Moral Instinct. Much of our moral intuition comes from hard-and-fast rules (built into our emotional responses) that work in most basic situations, but tend not to produce good results when thinking about large-scale or complex issues. (This is an oversimplification, as is Pinker's piece.) Some more mature form of utilitarianism (one which takes into account human psychology and capacity for self-deception in moral thought, and thus is open to the need for at least a few absolutist principles) seems to be the best way to go.
As for my moral principles, I want to help save the world if that's at all possible; more particularly, I want human life to survive the next century and explore the cosmos. To that end, while climate change is a concern, I think the more pressing one is that we will exterminate ourselves (and most or all other life on Earth) through nuclear war, or engineered plagues, or nanotechnology, or something we haven't even imagined yet.
And while the more outlandish scenarios don't seem to have easy means of prevention, I can at least start to show interest in nuclear disarmament. It seems unrealistic with the present forms of global politics that the U.S. would dare disarm completely; but the major powers could be convinced that second-strike capability doesn't require enough warheads to completely exterminate all human life. If a nuclear war would be devastating but not the end of all humanity, that would be an improvement; because in our current situation, it seems to be only a matter of the wrong circumstances coming together that would launch one. On an unrelated note, Edge Magazine asked a great number of leading academics a smart question: What Have You Changed Your Mind About? The answers are stimulating (even if- or because- they coincide on certain themes).
Every philosopher has probably had a bad hour when he thought: what do I matter if one does not accept my bad arguments, too? — And then some mischievous little bird flew past him and twittered: "What do you matter? What do you matter?"