If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, that would just be weird.

I was reading a rant from the creator of PVP about the state of comics, both the online kind and the newspaper variety. In it, he discussed how in the early days of newspapers most towns had two or so competing papers and that the comics were used as a draw to get readers to read theirs instead of the competition's. It was big business back when one paper could have exclusive rights to a particular comic. However, now that most cities and even larger areas have one exclusive paper, the comics are becoming nothing other than something akin to a loss of up to $150,000 a year for a paper. He says that it probably won't be too terribly long before papers start realizing that they do not need the comics at all and completely remove them. This is a bit disturbing on its own, although I don't even get the paper, so not too terribly much (although the only reason I ever do read the paper is for the comics).

The thing that I find most disturbing is something that should be pretty obvious, but we're all so used to it that we tend not to ever think about it. And the thing is, newspapers not only have a monopoly in the printed news in any given city, but also in large areas across the country. I mean, obviously any event only happens one way, but the spin a paper may give on said event is not really likely to be 100% unpartisan. In fact, most news anymore tends to have a slight slant. It makes me wish that there were more than one paper for any given place (perhaps there are in certain cities that I am unaware of, but since I am unaware of them, I can't really include them, now can I?). Competition tends to, if nothing else, give a broader view of any event.

Socrates

It's interesting to come back to reading Socrates again after all this time. I think it was a bit more than a year ago, and it surprises so very much to see just how much I have grown since first reading him. Reading the annotations on the sides of the pages at times makes me want to laugh at how silly they are. Other times I read it and go, well duh, why did I even bother writing that. But I remember that I was struggling to have something, anything to discuss in class every week, so it's understandable.

Really though, I find it so much clearer to understand now that I have read so much of C.S. Lewis' stuff. At times I can see so very clearly the line of thinking shared between the two great philosophers, but of course, it is not often long before Lewis leaves Socrates in the dust. The way I see it, Socrates was brilliant for his time and for what he had to work with. Working before Jesus and without the aid of having an extensive background in being a Hebrew, he really did understand as well as one might hope to. The thing is though, he didn't have it all because it all hadn't yet been here. He lacked that which Lewis knew and what we know now, and that is Jesus.

Reading C.S. Lewis is at times like reading Socrates had he had the new testament with him, well that, and without all the rather ego-filled, deceptive, and annoying qualities that old Soc. seemed to exhibit at times. But like I said, Soc. was before Jesus, and was only human, so of course he wasn't perfect. Not that Lewis is mind, but he was closer to the font of truth and a little less likely to be wrong in certain matters.

Anyway, reading Socrates, I notice slightly less the misinformed and human ideas of his, unless he gets rather long winded with them, and seem to notice those ideas that have that gleam of truth buried deap within them. I am given a new, slightly brighter perspective on Socrates now, I think. He did as well as can be expected from a man who didn't have God.