Jump to content
  • entries
    49
  • comments
    169
  • views
    33,181

Hello Again


Razor

660 views

Hehe, I like philosophy class. I especially like the way baptists gang rape logic and philosophers pretend to be experts in the other sciences. I have also decided that philosophy is probably the most useless waste of brain power possible. There is absolutely no realm within philosophy anymore other than ethics; almost all of the other major questions they pose can be answered by one of the other sciences with concrete evidence, as opposed to shaky inductive arguments.

 

Don't even get me started on the God thing. Hehe, I do so love the way they figure these things, though. The ontological argument for God's existence is always fun. It goes something like...

 

1. God is, by definition, the greatest being one can think of.

2. Assume that God does not exist.

3. If God does not exist, then God exists only in the understanding and not in reality.

4. If God exists only in the understanding and not in reality, then it is possible to think of something greater than God.

5. It is impossible to think of something greater than God.

 

Therefore: It is false that God does not exist.

 

 

Did ya catch that wonderful little rhetorical somersault? :P Of course, as usual, there's a really good way to shove that right back in a Christian's face and completely belittle their intelligence and beliefs. For instance, this classic little flip...

 

1. I can think of the greatest possible <insert random thing>.

2. The idea of the greatest possible <random thing> is the idea of a <random thing> none greater can be thought.

3. Assume that the greatest possible <random thing> does not exist.

4. In that case, one can think of a greater <random thing> that has all the properties of the original <random thing> plus the property of existence.

5. But 4 contradicts 2.

 

Therefore: The greatest possible <random thing> exists.

 

I especially like substituting the words "hot, sweaty, gay anal sex" for <random thing>. :) It seems to me that most of philosophy is about people attempting to twist words in such a fashion as to dilute logic just enough to make it seem like their idea is plausible. Besides that, what is the point of ever studying an inductive argument? If it is not true, or at least extremely likely to be true, then why accept that as a strong possibility?

 

Anyway, I have fun with it. It's quite funny the way they feel this overwhelming need to be prepared against arguments that a three-year-old could come up with, and their responses would always make the three-year-old say "...that's stupid." :D Anyways, I'm kind of tired and slightly bored. I believe, therefore, that I shall go to sleep soon. But first, I shall regale you all with a teensy lil short story. It got me a 100 in English comp. ~shrugs~

 

 

 

I Didn’t Hear the Owl

 

“Did you hear that owl?” my mother asked me. I looked up from Pug to where she sat perched on the porch swing and nodded. “When an owl hoots in the daytime, it’s supposed to mean there’s been a death in the family.” I scratched Pug’s ears while I thought about this. In a ten-year-old mind, death is an abstract concept with no real form or figure; the tooth fairy has more solidity in everyday life.

 

“Really?” I asked. She nodded and smiled.

 

“It’s just superstition, though, it doesn’t really mean that.”

 

“Oh,” I nodded with a solemn face. Running through my head was a list of family members. My grandma, my memaw, both pepaws, older sister, uncles and aunts. I imagined what it would be like for them to cease to exist, but it wasn’t possible for me to actually grasp the concept of nothingness filling their niche in my life. The next day, I heard the owl again. Then again on the third day, the owl was just as loud. None of those family members disappeared, and the owl’s hoot lost its fearsome power.

 

Almost a year later, my mother walked into my room slowly. She was crying. I remember thinking that I’d never seen her cry openly before then. Her mouth opened to bite a chunk out of my world.

 

“Your pepaw Clark just died,” she said. “He had another heart attack while he was in the hospital.” My eyebrows furrowed in confusion as I thought she must be mistaken. I heard my older sister start to cry, and my mother hugged us both tight. I didn’t cry at all. It didn’t feel real, as if the concept had just been invented.

 

A week before that I had run up the driveway barefoot and stopped at the wooden gate around my grandparents’ lawn. My pepaw had a green thumb for certain. His yard was well-kept, always in bloom. I reached down for the long, L-shaped metal pin that kept the gate shut by sliding through a bracket and into a hole in the ground. For my efforts I received a nice jolt of electricity that knocked me back and made tears come to my eyes. My pepaw was in the lawn working on planting some four o’clocks and came running when he heard me yell.

 

“What happened?” he asked.

 

“It shocked me!”

 

“Oh hell, it must’ve sunk down ‘cause of all the rain and hit some line runnin’ under there. C’mon, we’ll go get grandma to check on you and I’ll fix this for you.” He took off his belt, caught the top of the upside down L-pin with it, and jerked it out of the ground. My pepaw scooped me up and took me inside where my grandma fawned over me and made everything better with fresh popcorn and the cartoon channel.

 

“Okay, buddy, I fixed that gate. You wanna come help me put this tire swing up on the jungle gym?” he asked me. I nodded and grinned, following him outside to the mini-playground he’d built for my sister and me. “Alright, first off, when you’re putting up a swing you wanna make sure it’s balanced. Can’t have one side longer than the other. Any idea of how we’re gonna do that?”

 

“Um, count the chain things on both sides?” He grinned and nodded at me.

 

“That’s my boy, smarter than the average bear.”

 

Even though my mother had just said he was gone, I kept thinking that the next time I did something even slightly clever, he’d be around to say I was ‘smarter than the average bear’. My dad was in the living room, sitting there with a blank stare on his face. He’d ran up the road when pepaw had the first heart attack and performed CPR while the paramedics were on their way. When I was older, my mom told me exactly what happened that day. When my pepaw regained consciousness, he told my dad “I wish you hadn’t done that.”

 

My mother packed us up in the car and took us to the store to get decent clothes for the funeral. She picked out the suit and shirt, but I picked my own tie. It featured Taz, the Tasmanian devil from Looney Tunes, whirling all around and hunting for that tasty wabbit. I felt defensive as I picked it up, thinking my mom would say no when she noticed it. I knew my pepaw, I watched cartoons with him enough to know that he liked Taz. Instead, she just smiled and nodded as she set it in the buggy and headed for the register.

 

We entered the funeral home to find it packed. People I didn’t know told me “you look just like Jimmy”, and “your pepaw was a real fine man”. One couple recounted to my mother how my pepaw had built a little pink playhouse for their daughters for Christmas because he knew they didn’t have the money to get anything like it. A local minister praised him for doing drafting and architecture work for free on his church.

 

My mother took my hand and squeezed it as she wiped her eyes and led me over to the casket. I saw my pepaw, arms folded, eyes closed. My dad put a hand on my shoulder.

 

“Do you want to leave your tie with him? I know he’d like it,” my dad asked me. I nodded, and took off the clip-on tie and laid it down beside my pepaw.

The tears started flowing, but I wasn’t crying because I missed my pepaw. I was crying out of anger and outrage. I was furious to the point of sobbing in frustration. The world had done me wrong.

 

Nothing signaled this for me. No one gave me a chance to give him one last hug, sneak one last pretzel from the giant jug in his study, or watch one more episode of Looney Tunes with him. I was angry because I hadn’t heard the goddamned owl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meh, I know, it's not really my bestest work ever, but I figure it's almost like a less happy Chicken Soup for the Soul story. Anyway, hope ya liked it. Have a wonderful whateverthehellitisrightnowwhereyoulive. :D

9 Comments


Recommended Comments

NaperVic

Posted

One of my good friends is a Philisophy professor, so I'm going to send her your musings about Philosophy :P

 

Oh, and I enjoyed your story! Although you thought it wasn't some of your better stuff, believe you me compared to the drivel I see being put out by Seniors in college here, you write good well. You don't want it to be too good otherwise your professors might be suspicious :lol: .

 

Take Care®,

 

Vic

Masked Monkey

Posted

I remember the first time I heard the ontological argument ... it reminded me of the proof of God's existence that summs up ALL the other philosophical proofs:

 

Either God exists or 1 + 1 =3

1 + 1 != 3

Therefore God exists

 

If that proof satisfies you, the so do all the others, if that one doesn't, neither will any of the others. I was raised Catholic (yes, I accept your condolences) and part of my misguided relationship with my wife got me involved with a somewhat fundamental church. I have to say that the pastor was just about everything I believe a true Christian should be, he did not judge or condem anyone. The ONE thing I got from him was a clear understanding that Christianity, as explained in the New Testament regardless of translation, was that being a "Christian" was a matter of FAITH and FAITH alone. IF the Christian God is the one true and existing God, then any "proof" of His (since it is the Christian one, he is male) existence would take Christianity out of the realm of Faith and break that fundamental key to everlasting life offered by that religion. I cannot make claims about the other major monotheistic religions, nor about the polytheistic ones, but I believe that reliance on Faith is a key ingredient to the power and pervasiveness of any religion.

 

As for philosophy, I disagree with your statement as an absolute. The philosophy engaged in by ancient and medieval philosophers is not the philosophy of today. Much of modern philosophy is ethics, or at least what we identify as philosophy. The pieces you don't see are in art, literature, political science, sociology, science, religion, business administration ... The very battle for equal rights goes beyond a simple "ethical" one but into a philosophical one. I call myself a "Physicist" because that is the modern term for my chosen career, but in truth, that modern term does not describe who I am in that career, nor how I behave in that career. I am not just a physcist, but rather I prefer to think of myself along the lines of a much older term to describe my career. I am a Natural Philosopher.

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

CarlHoliday

Posted

Nice story, kind of reminded me of my in-laws down in rural Arkansas and all the other animal signs.

 

Funny thing about philosophy, you can't learn to be a philospher by studying philosphy. What seems to be the trick to being a good philospher is being a good storyteller and you've got that down pat.

 

Carl :boy:

Conner

Posted

Hey Jamie-dude!! :D

 

I took an introductory pilosophy couse in my sophmore year in university. Btw, we're talking 35 years ago. It was mandatory for all science students...along with some other drivel. I didn't care for it at all and just barely passed. Mostly it made my head hurt. :wacko: Philosophy is up there with pure mathematics.

 

I liked your story. Chicken Soup? Indeed!! I believe the relative greatness of any written work must also be measured by what people get out of it. I lost my grandpa when I was 12. I remember a deep sadness as I, too, had not been able to say goodbye.

 

Conner

Rigel

Posted

Philosophy can be some of the best, most practical courses you'll ever take--if you learn the rules of logic, you'll always be able to parse out when crap is being served.

 

Read Plato, and you'll learn that the important thing isn't necessarily to have the right answer as it is to ask good questions.

 

Or you could engage in the storytelling musings of the late James Gamble Rogers IV, troubador of the South, and a mouthpiece for his character, the philosopher Agamemnon Jones.

 

--Rigel

Masked Monkey

Posted

Philosophy can be some of the best, most practical courses you'll ever take--if you learn the rules of logic, you'll always be able to parse out when crap is being served.

 

--Rigel

 

The problem with that is that the logic taught through philosophy is based on the woefully inexact medium of language. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, they don't exist in mathematics. It is only when you apply language to things that a paradox can exist.

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

Rigel

Posted

Philosophy can be some of the best, most practical courses you'll ever take--if you learn the rules of logic, you'll always be able to parse out when crap is being served.

 

--Rigel

 

The problem with that is that the logic taught through philosophy is based on the woefully inexact medium of language. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, they don't exist in mathematics. It is only when you apply language to things that a paradox can exist.

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

 

 

That's why I studied Wittgenstein, or even better, J.L. Austin, who dealt with the inexactitude of language and the need to be specific, in order to perform logic using plain language. Let me recommend "Three Ways of Spilling Ink," which is a damn fine entertaining read even if you're not a philosophy major. He talks about the differences between doing something deliberately, doing it intentionally, and doing it on purpose--though they seem to be synonyms, he carefully distinguishes the nuances between them, and suggests a similar carefulness is needed everywhere, in order to do "plain language philosophy."

 

And symbolic logic tries to remove the uncertainties of rhetoric by taking the thoughts beyond mere linguistic twists by assigning non-linguistic units to the various parts of the arguments.

 

--Rigel

Razor

Posted

Philosophy can be some of the best, most practical courses you'll ever take--if you learn the rules of logic, you'll always be able to parse out when crap is being served.

 

--Rigel

 

The problem with that is that the logic taught through philosophy is based on the woefully inexact medium of language. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, they don't exist in mathematics. It is only when you apply language to things that a paradox can exist.

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

That's why I studied Wittgenstein, or even better, J.L. Austin, who dealt with the inexactitude of language and the need to be specific, in order to perform logic using plain language. Let me recommend "Three Ways of Spilling Ink," which is a damn fine entertaining read even if you're not a philosophy major. He talks about the differences between doing something deliberately, doing it intentionally, and doing it on purpose--though they seem to be synonyms, he carefully distinguishes the nuances between them, and suggests a similar carefulness is needed everywhere, in order to do "plain language philosophy."

 

And symbolic logic tries to remove the uncertainties of rhetoric by taking the thoughts beyond mere linguistic twists by assigning non-linguistic units to the various parts of the arguments.

 

--Rigel

 

 

I like this concept... I've always thought it was a bit annoying when someone who doesn't know a lot of words whips out the thesaurus. Synonyms are great and all, but if you haven't been in close contact with the word before then you seem to miss out on the connotations of the word that everyone else has, and so you can misuse it even though the definition is in context with what you were aiming for. Maybe I'm weird, but I'm very, very picky about which word goes where. :)

AFriendlyFace

Posted

Philosophy can be some of the best, most practical courses you'll ever take--if you learn the rules of logic, you'll always be able to parse out when crap is being served.

 

--Rigel

 

The problem with that is that the logic taught through philosophy is based on the woefully inexact medium of language. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, they don't exist in mathematics. It is only when you apply language to things that a paradox can exist.

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

Life without paradoxes, particularly linguistic paradoxes, would be horribly boring. :(

 

I like this concept... I've always thought it was a bit annoying when someone who doesn't know a lot of words whips out the thesaurus. Synonyms are great and all, but if you haven't been in close contact with the word before then you seem to miss out on the connotations of the word that everyone else has, and so you can misuse it even though the definition is in context with what you were aiming for. Maybe I'm weird, but I'm very, very picky about which word goes where. :)

 

Not weird, "sensible", which certainly has a different connotation than "sane" or "reasonable" both of which are listed as synonyms according to the thesaurus. ;)

 

BTW, awesome story Jamie! I thoroughly loved it! :2thumbs:

 

As for philosophy...personally I quite like it.

 

Have an awesome day and take care! :D

Kevin

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...