1. We totally know why there’s something rather than nothing. Our lips are sealed. Have fun guessing!
2. Plato’s forms of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness were recently found in a filing cabinet in the basement of Saul and Roberta Goldstein’s home in Massapequa, N.Y.!!! But keep this one on the Q. T., folks. Nassau County officials are worried about tourist traffic clogging the Whitestone and Throgs Neck bridges.
3. All of your experiences are indeed a dream controlled by an evil demon. Sorry for the inconvenience. But in the meantime, you may as well eat that second cupcake!
4. Many philosophers argue what is intrinsically valuable is either the exercise of rationality or the pursuit of knowledge. Totally coincidentally, those just happen to be what we do for our paychecks!! Aren’t we just the most valuable little things you ever did see?!
5. The word “philosophy” means “love of wisdom.” But, shhh, don’t tell. Most of us don’t like wisdom as more than a friend.
6. Derrida once said, “The question of the self: ‘who am I’ not in the sense of ‘who am I’ but rather ‘who is this “I”‘ that can say ‘who’? What is the ‘I,’ and what becomes of responsibility once the identity of the ‘I’ trembles in secret?” Yes, of course that makes total sense. As Derrida also said, “Certain readers resented me when they could no longer recognize their territory, their institution.” Please understand: if you don’t understand a philosopher, it cannot be because the philosopher wrote obscurely. It is because you are stupid and lazy.
7. It may be demonstrated a priori how much wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
8. Wittgenstein once said, “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.” He had obviously never been to a conference presentation at the American Philosophical Association Eastern Division.
9. People often accuse us of blathering on about questions with no answers. But at long last, we have proven a philosophical truth!!!!!! For all X there is a Y such that X and Y are letters in the alphabet. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, haters!!
10. The basic plotline of Highlander is based on a thought experiment described by Frege in “On Sense and Reference.”Report
Oh, well done.Report
Agreed. Love it.Report
Oh man, my totally hilarious joke (not really) about #6 got sent straight to the spam filter because there’s a philosopher whose name one can’t mention here, even in a url.Report
9a: On the off hand chance philosophers uses X and Y as variables, the function employed invariably takes all arguments to a preferred conclusion.Report
Whoops. This was not a response to Chris. The killfile is on a rampage.Report
The spam filter is so AI-brilliant, you can’t even comment about little girls who live with their grandfathers on a mountain in Switzerland.Report
I assume that the filter for the philosopher in question has to do with one of the first commenters ever to be banned, since he used said philosopher’s last name as his nom de commenting. I wonder what ever happened to him. I don’t know what other blogs he might comment on and ultimately be banned from.Report
I expect he’s waiting around for the next Republican president to appoint him head of FEMA.Report
THIS POST WAS O.G., DUDE!Report
7. It may be demonstrated a priori how much wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
On the contrary, this cannot be demonstrated philosophically, but the answer has been determined through economic modelling.Report
The amount that a woodchuck would chuck if he could chuck wood, is the amount of wood he (or his counterpart in that world, depending on what you think of transworld identification) does chuck in the nearest possibile world, where woodchucks do chuck wood.
Who ever said philosophers don’t answer questions? Crazy person.Report
I remember seeing some empirical evidence relating to this in video footage from a Geiko car insurance commercial. As I recall, each of two (2) woodchucks chucked about half a chord. So, there ya go.Report
I have empirical evidence that my teacup is not not a teacup.Report
I’ll take your word that it. But how ’bout your tea cup not being a not teacup? Any evidence of that?Report
Seriously, not five minutes ago, I broke a teacup in the sink. I think my teacup became a not teacup.Report
It became a teacup and a not teacup. Seriously, the law of the excluded middle is so 400 BC.Report
Screw that. It was only determined through controlled behavioral experiments comparing woodchucks to a control group.Report
Yes, that question’s clearly begging for Instrumental Variables Analysis.Report
James, I think you are the one who is begging the question.Report
“If a lion could speak, we could not understand him.”
This is crap. Crap crap crap.
I understand each of my cats.Report
Let me ask you this: have any of your cats told you that they are lions? If not, then the proposition still stands.
Are there apples in that basket?Report
If one of JB’s cats said he was a lion, he’s be lion.Report
“Yes”, he replied, and from then on we remained the best of friends.Report
The cats mostly say stuff like “You! Dispenser of various pleasures! Dispense!” and they want food or brushies. Sometimes they say “put me down!”Report
THIS POST WAS O.G., DUDE!Report
And you use that dumb notation with all the dots and parenthese just to screw the rest of us up.Report
The simulacrum is true.Report
Do they have these in the desert of the real?Report
A simulacrum of them, or the real them?
And, what do we mean by “real”?
And, what do we mean by “them”?
And, what do we mean by “what”?
I’m sorry, what were you saying…?Report
I assume that by them we mean Them.Report
Re #6: As the great philosopher once said, “Thinging, things are things.” I don’t think I need to say any more. I’d link to the quote, but naming, comments are spam.Report