L`importance
d`un anus propre...bi/ Seb Cox
Some
would probably call this sodomy...
Although I am
very discreet I make no apologies for what I do. Putting it simply if
I ever needed to do that I would be looking for a new job. That's the
reason I always show my face when I am advertising for work. I am a
very proud man, and that's something I have earned, something I have
worked hard for. I approach my life with a philosophy, If I am going
to do it, I am going to to it well. There's a plan, no not on paper
but embedded in the prostate of my mind. It controls everything about me.
I believe in giving people time, because I am of the
opinion that even the time of day is precious. I am based in London
every sunday, monday and tuesday. Call Seb Cox 07974 805666.
Some
would probably call this philosodomy...
The First Law of Philosophy
For every philosopher, there
exists an equal and opposite philosopher.
The Second Law of Philosophy
They're both wrong.
*
* * * * * *
Question:
What do you get when you cross the Godfather with a philosopher?
Answer:
An offer you can't understand.
*
* * * * * *
Question:
What is a recent philosophy Ph.D.'s usual question in his or her
first job?
Answer:
"Would you like french fries with that, sir?"
*
* * * * * *
If
you put two philosophers in a room, you get two opinions, unless one
of them is Eddy Zemach, in which case you get seven opinions.
(Apologies to Winston Churchill)
*
* * * * * *
These
jokes posted with the permission of Pasi Kueppameki.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Descartes
is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he
would like another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in
a puff of logic.
*
* * * * * *
Jean-Paul
Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of Being and
Nothingness. He says to the waitress, "I'd like a cup of coffee,
please, with no cream." The waitress replies, "I'm sorry,
monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?"
*
* * * * * *
A
boy is about to go on his first date, and is nervous about what to
talk about. He asks his father for advice. The father replies:
"My son, there are three subjects that always work. These are
food, family, and philosophy."
The
boy picks up his date and they go to a soda fountain. Ice cream
sodas in front of them, they stare at each other for a long time, as
the boy's nervousness builds. He remembers his father's advice, and
chooses the first topic. He asks the girl: "Do you like potato
pancakes?" She says "No," and the silence returns.
After
a few more uncomfortable minutes, the boy thinks of his father's
suggestion and turns to the second item on the list. He asks, "Do
you have a brother?" Again, the girl says "No" and
there is silence once again.
The
boy then plays his last card. He thinks of his father's advice and
asks the girl the following question: "If you had a brother,
would he like potato pancakes?"
The
three above jokes were contributed by Owen Herring.
He
attributes the third to Elliot Sober.
*
* * * * * *
Question:
What do you get when you cross an aesthete with a phenomenologist?
Answer:
An interior daseiner.
Jeffrey
Glick
*
* * * * * *
Question:
How do you get a philosopher off your porch?
Answer:
Pay for the pizza.
Elizabeth
Hoppe
*
* * * * * *
An
engineer, an experimental physicist, a theoretical physicist, and a
philosopher were hiking through the hills of Scotland. Cresting the
top of one hill, they see, on top of the next, a black sheep. The
engineer says: "What do you know, the sheep in Scotland are
black." "Well, *some* of the sheep in Scotland are
black," replies the experimental physicist. The theoretical
physicist considers this for a moment and says "Well, at least
one of the sheep in Scotland is black." "Well," the
philosopher responds, "on one side, anyway."
William
Knorpp
*
* * * * * *
A
man does a good deed and as a reward his guardian angel appears and
offers him the answer to any question he wishes to ask. But she
says to take his time and she will return in two days. Well the
man immediately realized he could become very rich: Which stock
will go up the most over the next five years? Which horse will
win the Kentucky Derby? Who will win the next Superbowl? etc.
But then he thought, why waste this chance of a lifetime on money?
After all, money is only a means to happiness. With the right
question he can determine the secret of happiness itself! But
the more he
thought
about it, the more he worried about tricks the angel might play: for
example, suppose he asked, "What will make me the happiest man
in the universe?" And she answered, "Go live on planet
Rigel III" - perhaps true, but perfectly useless.
So
our careful questioner decided to take this problem to the nearest
philosophy department for assistance. He put the problem to the
chair. The chair loved the challenge and as it happens, they were
having a departmental meeting that evening anyway, so he told the man
to return the next day. When the man returned, the chair beamed
and informed him that the department put its best minds together and
came up with the best possible question to ask the angel - and
naturally he told the man the question to ask.
The
next day the angel appeared and asked, "Well, do you have a
question for me?" "Yes," the man replied with a
great deal of confidence in his voice. "What are the members of
the following ordered pair: the first member of the pair is the
best possible question I could ask you, and the second member of the
pair is the answer to that question?" The angel smiled and
said, "You know, you couldn't have asked me a better question.
In fact the first member of the pair IS the question you just asked.
But that means the second member is the answer I'm giving you now."
*
* * * * * *
A
philosopher falls asleep and dreams. In his dream, one by one,
the greatest philosophers of all time stand before him and
systematically state their views and arguments: Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Descartes, etc. But in each case
the philosopher, dramatically pointing his finger at the presenter,
was able to come up with a devastating objection that left the
presenting philosopher speechless and unable to effectively reply.
In fact, the philosopher realized it was the same objection in every
case - he had found the perfect philosophical move to make in
conferences and colloquia. He forced himself to wake up and
write the objection down on a convenient slip of paper, then, he
drifted dreamily back to sleep with a smile on his face. When
he awoke the next morning he read the words, ....
"THAT¹S
WHAT YOU SAY!"
These
two jokes were contributed by Reed Richter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROOFS
THAT P
Davidson's
proof that p:
Let
us make the following bold conjecture: p.
Wallace's
proof that p:
Davidson
has made the following bold conjecture: p.
Grunbaum:
As
I have asserted again and again in previous publications, p.
Putnam:
Some
philosophers have argued that not-p, on the grounds that q. It would
be an interesting exercise to count all the fallacies in this
"argument." (It's really awful, isn't it?) Therefore p.
Rawls:
It
would be nice to have a deductive argument that p from self-evident
premises. Unfortunately I am unable to provide one. So I will have to
rest content with the following intuitive considerations in its
support: p.
Unger:
Suppose
it were the case that not-p. It would follow from this that someone
knows that q. But on my view, no one knows anything whatsoever.
Therefore p. (Unger believes that the louder you say this argument,
the more persuasive it becomes.)
Katz:
I
have seventeen arguments for the claim that p, and I know of only
four for the claim that not-p. Therefore p.
Lewis:
Most
people find the claim that not-p completely obvious and when I
assert p they give me an incredulous stare. But the fact that they
find not-p obvious is no argument that it is true; and I do not know
how to refute an incredulous stare. Therefore, p.
Fodor:
My
argument for p is based on three premises:
(1)
q
(2)
r, and
(3)
p
From
these, the claim that p deductively follows.
Some
people may find the third premise controversial, but it is clear
that if we replaced that premise by any other reasonable premise, the
argument would go through just as well.
Sellars:
Unfortunately
limitations of space prevent it from being included here, but
important parts of the proof can be found in each of the articles in
the attached bibliography.
Earman:
There
are solutions to the field equations of general relativity in which
space-time has the structure of a four-dimensional Klein bottle and
in which there is no matter. In each such space-time, the claim that
not-p is false. Therefore p.
Goodman:
Zabludowski
has insinuated that my thesis that p is false, on the basis of
alleged counterexamples. But these so-called
"counterexamples" depend on construing my thesis that p in
a way that it was obviously not intended-- for I intended my thesis
to have no counterexamples. Therefore p.
Kripke:
Outline
of a Proof That P(1)
Some
philosophers have argued that not-p. But none of them seems to me to
have made a convincing argument against the intuitive view that this
is not the case. Therefore, p.
_______________________________________________________________
1.
This outline was prepared hastily--at the editor's insistence--from
a taped manuscript of a lecture. Since I was not even given the
opportunity to revise the first draft before publication, I cannot be
held responsible for any lacunae in the (published version of the)
argument, or for any fallacious or garbled inferences resulting from
faulty preparation of the typescript. Also, the argument now seems to
me to have problems which I did not know when I wrote it, but which I
can't discuss here, and which are completely unrelated to any
criticisms that have appeared in the literature (or that I have seen
in manuscript); all such criticisms misconstrue my argument. It will
be noted that the present version of the argument seems to presuppose
the (intuitionistically unacceptable) law of double negation. But the
argument can easily be reformulated in a way that avoids employing
such an inference rule. I hope to expand on these matters further in
a separate monograph.
Routley
and Meyer:
If
(q & not-q) is true, then there is a model for p. Therefore p.
Plantinga:
It
is a model theorem that p p. Surely it's possible that p must be
true. Thus p. But it is a model theorem that p p. Therefore p.
Chisholm:
P-ness
is self-presenting. Therefore, p.
Morganbesser:
If
not p, what? Q maybe?
Haack:
Unfortunately,
by the very nature of logical codationalism I cannot offer a proof
that P along the elegant lines of BonJour's coherentist proof.
Indeed, I cannot offer a PROOF that P at all, and for two reasons;
first, because PROOF (as opposed to proof) embodies a linear
foundationalist conception of justification that cannot survive the
"up, up and away" argument, and second because BonJour's
own account of justification falls prey to the "drunken
students" argument. Nor can I offer a proof that P, as I seem
(like Fodor) to have mislaid my theory of the a priori.
Yet
a case can be made -- in modest, fallibly naturalistic terms -- for
P. And if the criteria embodied in codationalism are in fact
truth-conducive (and if they are not, then every other theory of
justification is likewise a failure since codational criteria are
used by coherentists and foundationalists without proper appreciation
of their interconnections), then this will amount not to a PROOF nor
yet a proof that P, but simply a proof that P, based on the
explanatory integration of P with the rest of my beliefs that are
explanatorily integrated with each other.
The
explanatory integration at work in this proof is rather like that
found in a crossword puzzle. . . . [Remainder of the proof is left as
an exercise for the reader. For the solution, consult next Sunday's
London Times.]
Margolis's
disproof that p:
The
assumption that P -- indeed, the belief that P is so natural and
obvious as to be beyond dispute -- is so deeply woven into Western
thought that any attempt to question it, much less to overthrow it,
is likely to be met with disbelief, scorn, and ridicule. The denial
of P is a deep thesis, a theme of courage, a profound insight into
the fundamental nature of things. (Or at any rate it would be if
there were a fundamental nature of things, which there isn't.) Anyone
unfamiliar with the hidden brutalities of professional philosophy
cannot imagine all the nasty things that will be said about someone
who dares to mount an assault on P. (Just look at how neglected
Protagoras is now -- they even cut his writings up into tiny little bits!)
It
has repeatedly been alleged that the denial of P is self-refuting.
Extraordinary! As if one bold enough to deny P would feel bound by
the conventions of dialethism on which alone any charge of
self-refutation rests! Once we have seen through this delusion, we
are free to dismiss as nonsense our current vision not only of
philosophy and science but also that quaint notion of `the good
life.' We are also free to discard antiquated Hellenic prejudices as
to what counts as proof and disproof, whilst retaining (of course) a
proper sense of logical rigor. Hence, the foregoing constitutes a
disproof of P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Causes
of Death for Some of the Great Philosophers
By
Stiv Fleishman
Thales:
Drowning
Parmenides:
It wasn't anything at all
Ockham:
Cut while shaving
Russell:
Cut while being shaved by one who did not shave himself
Descartes:
Stopped thinking
Spinoza:
Substance abuse
Leibniz:
Monadnucleosis
Darwin:
Natural causes
Hume:
Unnatural causes
Kant:
Transcendental causes (although it was his own idea)
Paley:
By design
Heidegger:
By Dasein
Meinong:
Climbing accident
Neurath:
Boating accident
G.E.
Moore: By his own hand, obviously
Sheffer:
Stroke
Sartre:
Nausea
Pascal:
Became despondent after losing a wager
Wittgenstein:
Tried to see if death was an experience one lived through.
(Alternate: fell off a ladder)
Hegel:
Collision with owl at dusk
"From
the Editor," Ethics, Volume 104, Number 2 (January 1994), page 225.
Posted
with permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top
Ten List of Things Not to Say at an APA Interview
By
Torin Alter
10.
That's Mr. (Ms.) NN to you.
9.
Oh, that's just something I put in my CV for padding.
8.
Does everyone at your school dress like that?
7.
Would I be able to avoid administrative duties, if I plan to leave
the job after a year?
6.
Could we continue this later? American Gladiators is starting.
5.
Aren't you the one who wrote that article Putnam trashed?
4.
Well, I'd like to finish my dissertation this year, but I just
recently got into cajun cooking, and I want to explore that for a while.
3.
I really need to know whether you're going to offer me the job by tomorrow.
2.
I always figure that the really good students can learn just as much
from true/false tests as from papers, so that's my practice.
1.
Mind if I take off my shoes? My feet itch.
"Letters
to the Editor," Proceedings and Addresses of the American
Philosophical Association," Volume 69, Number 2 (November 1995),
page 131.
Posted
with permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academy
Jokes
Why
God Never Received Tenure at a University
Because
he had only one major publication.
And
it was in Hebrew.
And
it had no cited references.
And
it wasn't published in a refereed journal or even submitted for peer review.
And
some even doubt he wrote it himself.
It
may be true that he created the world but what has he done since?
The
scientific community has had a very rough time trying to replicate
his results.
He
rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
He
expelled his first two students for learning.
Although
there were only ten requirements, most students failed his tests.
His
office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.
*
* * * * * *
SCIENTISTS
DISCOVER NEW ELEMENT
By
Jose Luis Preza
The
heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by
university physicists. The element, tentatively named
"Administratium," has no protons or electrons and thus has
an atomic number of 0. However, it does have one neutron, 15
assistant neutrons, 70 vice neutrons, and 161 assistant vice
neutrons. This gives it an atomic mass of 247. These 247 particles
are held together in the nucleus by a force that involves the
continuous exchange of meson-like particles called "morons."
Since it has no electrons, Administratium, is inert.
However,
it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction with
which it comes in contact. According to discoverers, a minute amount
of Administratium added to one reaction caused it to take over four
days to complete. Without the Administratium, the reaction occurs in
less than one second. Administratium has a half life of approximately
three years, at which time it does not actually decay, but instead
undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons
and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Studies seem to show
that the atomic mass actually increases after each reorganization.
Research
indicates that Administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It
tends to concentrate in certain locations such as governments, large
corporations, and especially in universities. It can usually be found
polluting the best appointed and best maintained buildings.
Scientists warn that Administratium is known to be toxic and
recommend plenty of alcoholic fluids followed by bed rest after even
low levels of exposure.
Posted
with permission.
I spent almost 2 hours with Seb
and found him a really endearing guy with a big heart (Not to mention
cock I will see him again absolutely. James
