User:Jtocci

Religion, philosophy, psychology and physics are among my weaknesses.

Among my qualifications I can emphasize that though I despise trivia, and have never pursued it, I frequently get asked odd questions by my friends. I have also edited books and periodicals, pro-bono.

Concerning religion, I've done several years of research involving quite a few 'undercover' style investigations.

My approach to Philosophy has always been to find ways to clear away the debris that clouds constructive thought. For instance, confronted with the 'problem' of whether or not a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it, I countered that the definition of the word 'fall' in the context of a tree would necessitate contact with the ground. This impact would by definition mean sound waves would be created as a result whether anyone was there to hear it or not. [Please don't flame] My point of course is that there are philosophers who need to create new philosophies so they can make their mark, and supporting the insupportable is more of a challenge and therefore more conducive to that end. My bias is I think, forgivably, toward positive construction.

I am a student of the human condition, what else can I say about psychology? My area of curiosity as of late is the mechanism which can trigger an average person to become an ethical/moral giant.

Physics is the study of the world around us. Fortunately, even those who deny it's existence can't be prevented from studying it. Perhaps they'll learn something from it.