I have trundled all the way down to Lublin to hear two weeks of lectures about that kind of philosophy where they never seem to talk about any actual reality ever.  The lectures are in the hall in which bl JPII bored students for hours with his dense, read, lectures 🙂  (so the biographies say)(re the lectures, I have no reason to suppose it’s not the same room). After eating lunch I lie on the sunny lawn under a magnolia and read, and waves of nostalgia wash over me.

I discovered there’s a series of lectures on Gilson at the same time. It’s so much more interesting to read God and philosophy, even the bits about Plotinus, than to try to care about whether extreme epistemic egoism can be justified.

But then, I spend most of the time in the Institute of Theoretical Philosophy’s parlour ogling my beautiful, and murderously uncomfortable, new blue shoes (I bought them constrained by potent circumstances). So I suppose it doesn’t make much difference which text I am ignoring.

 (Hey, this is them. But mine are all blue. And the strap doesn’t look so tacky in blue. They were only £20. Well, I say only, but the old lady I was chatting to in the park admired them and asked how much they were, and when I said “100 zł” she said “Oh, well, they were expensive”. )

Update: This post seems rather unfair to the  lecturer on the fact that extreme epistemic egoism cannot be justified. I thought she was excellent. It’s just that she was conducting a book-length spiritual work of mercy: taking a position, and showing, on grounds acceptable to the folk who hold (more or less consciously) hold it, that it is incoherent. The thing is, it’s a position held, among the people I meet, by nobody. Moreover, it’s just silly.  To persuade people who hold it, the good lecturer’s approach is probably more effective than saying “och, that’s just silly”! If I’m once more in an environment where it’s a popular position, I will dig out the lecture notes and read them with gratitude.