Some say that in order to accomplish a goal one should write it down, read it daily, and gain inspiration from this action. Henceforth, I will exercise this concept in an attempt not to veer off the course of accomplishing the goals I set. This is the fist step in becoming a wise, erudite, and scrupulous individual. The second step is to disassociate with the past negative events I’ve lived through, but not the consequences. The consequences of my poor life choices have served didactically in the sublimation of my negative propensities. Such tendencies have no place or bearing on my future decisions. Yet in a sense they will always have a place in the respect that they were the cause for the effect; the newfound choice of lifestyle. The third step is to engage in future situations with the reservation that events may not go as you plan. However, to figure the angles of failure and plan against probable failure, when possible, is the mark of a wise man. The fourth step is to develop the fortitude necessary to deal with such disappointments. One must realize it is pointless to succumb to grief in the face of failure. Instead it is more profitable to ourselves if we meet these failures head on with the notion that what misfortune has just befallen you certainly has been experienced by somebody previously. Consequently, you will have lost the right to wallow in such thoughts as, “why did this happen to me?” The fifth step is to first view yourself before passing judgments on somebody else. You must decide why you have come to such conclusions. By doing so you will be evaluating your governing faculties first and gain providence of self in future situations. For it is wise to remember that we are all human and make mistakes, but it is nobler to admit you can be disposed to the same behavior, under certain conditions. Also, keep in mind that you not be too quick to form judgments of others actions. For one is inclined to find out a great deal about a situation before rightly being able to deliver a properly founded judgment of others. It is through this manner you would like to be judged so is it unfair to ask the same of your own process? The sixth step is to not give way to frustration. To fly into a passion is not a sign of manliness, but rather, to be kind and even tempered. Not only are these qualities more manly, but they are also more human. It is the man who possesses such virtues who has strength, nerve, and fortitude, and not one who is ill-humored and discontented; for the nearer a man comes in his mind to impassibility, the nearer he comes to strength, and as grief is a sign of weakness, so is anger too, for those who yield to either have been wounded and have surrendered to the enemy. The seventh step is to be as careful not to flatter people as you are not to become angry with them, because both errors are against the common interest and lead to harm. The eighth step is to not be overwhelmed with the compunctions of others toward yourself, but rather bear through each situation and add the lessons learned to your foundation of strength. By doing so you will constantly be evolving for the better and be of more use to your fellow man. 

            “In writing and reading, you cannot be the instructor before you have been instructed. How much more so in the art of living.” Marcus Aurelius

"Had Hegel's philosophy of history embraced this age, Hitler's robot-bombs would have found their place beside the early death of Alexander and similar images, as one of the selected empirical facts by which the state of the world-spirit manifests itself directly in symbols. Like Fascism itself, the robots career without a subject. Like it they combine utmost technical perfection with total blindness. And like it they arouse mortal terror and are wholly futile. `I have seen the world spirit', not on horseback, but on wings and without a head, and that refutes, at the same stroke, Hegel's philosophy of history." (Minima Moralia, pg 55)

I recall reading about Odysseus when he wanted to see the Sirens.  I wondered why this aspect of the epic was significant, and worthy of being read three thousand years, or more, later?  I have not written much about it, but I have argued it was analogous to the philosophy of science.

The Sirens represent Metaphysics.  Metaphysics lulls some minds into a excessively fictitious reality that can destroy men, and even nations.  Edward Gibbon has commented on the subject, though in a historical context.

So what is it about Odysseus’ curiosity that makes it respectable, or even like philosophy of science?  First off, he knew that he would be tempted, and devised a way to experience the Sirens with minimal exposure to him or his crew.  The situation is inevitable to some extent, that humans would be curious about such things, so Odysseus’ behavior is not as reckless as many complain.

Second, he trusted his crew.  So in a way the scientific community is like Odysseus’ crew, and Odysseus is a scientist with a great conjecture.  He wants to see if his theory about the Sirens matches the reality of his experience, so what does a good scientist do?  You test your belief!  Nietzsche would agree 100% here – because belief translates into action: action such as verification. 

Fodor compares discursive representation to looking up a number in a phone book. Big phone books take up more space than small ones. It generally takes longer to find a number in a phone book than a small one and it takes longer to memorize or even just copy the contents of a large book of numbers versus that of a small one. Iconic representation, on the other hand, is like looking at a photograph. A picture of one hundred people takes up no more space than a picture of one person. Photographs are not sensitive to the number of items they represent, just like iconic representations. This should be unsurprising because iconic representations do not individuate what they represent; they do not represent a number of individuals as a number of individuals.

Here's the evidence: in 1960 George Sperling conducted an experiment in which he ran a sequence of letters across a subject's visual field. Afterwards, the subjects were asked to name the letters they had seen and the majority correctly insisted that they had seen more than they could name. Most interesting was the fact that though the subjects could remember only three letters, they could report seeing any three of them.

Fodor concludes that this experiment shows that the subject's ability to recall letters from their visual short term memory was not limited by the number of items registered in the memory (since subjects could report seeing any three), but the cost of conceptualizing the letters discursively as being 'A', 'R', or 'Q' far outstripped their ability to represent them iconically, as the subjects could report that they had seen many more letters than they could say.