Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course

By

Muy Aesthetico

To someone who often mistook “aesthetics” for “anaesthetic,” the aesthetic experience stood foreign for a very long time. After a brief introduction, I have currently concluded its criteria for a quality experience as:

a) Vivid – an absolute, potent sensation which leaves you hapless or euphoric
b) Distance – contrary to traditional conventions, one should feel incredibly far or close to the sensation
c) Tension – as discussed in class, illuminates the direct tension between finite and infinite, god and mortal

One should strive for quality aesthetic experience, whether it dwells on the negative: anguish and devastation or the positive: resilience and ecstasy. An aesthetic experience of worth requires a perceptive conclusion or better yet question to our infinite and finite selves. It increases the boundaries either ends of the spectrum, creating more room to play.

My aesthetic experience was rather dismal than a sunrise or ethereal moonlight glimmer. My experience belongs to an ER, the sullen sort at Eagle Ridge hospital without George Clooney. From my memory, or televised depictions, they’re lively places with pregnant women ready to burst, being denied registration without proper paper work by a sassy ethnic nurse. They’re places where men without limbs are wheeled spewing blood, doctors screaming “CLEAR” or “We’ve got to get this man a new brain. Luckily my evil twin brother from Chile who slept with my lover, Tatiana Gold, just fell down the elevator shaft by utter serendipitous accident. They’re a match!” They’re suppose to be full of distractions, screaming lovers, and new born babies, and crime scenes. No. Emergency rooms are not like that.

They’re complete opposite. If you walked into an ER, you’d question whether you’re in a medical facility, barren of medical professionals. Surely you can hear about Dr. Banner’s golf game or trip to Honolulu, but not your diagnosis. I know that his daughter Melissa and Carol are doing well in school. What I don’t know is whether I have appendicitis, although by this time I sure wish I did. *Note: to my knowledge, Dr. Banner doesn’t exist. He is fictional, as well as his recreation, vacations, and daughters and their academic success.

As a self diagnosed hypochondriac, I can definitely say things got out of hand somewhat. After four vials of blood, two throat swabs, and a chest x-ray, I was sitting among four or five patients receiving IV fluids. I was rather helpless, one could say. As two years prior I was diagnosed with neutrapenia with suspicion by a multitude of doctors of everything from leukemia to aggressive mono to even AIDS. After being viciously ‘housed’ and rising white blood cell count and a UFM (Unidentified Floating Mass) near my spleen I had been released from the hospital. In this ER, waiting for my results, my imagination ran into hyper-drive.

In a place that’s suppose to cultivate wellness and hope and help, I was sure feeling impotent. In that moment, my tests mean everything. On one hand I am a god, cheating death. This is just my superior body’s way of defending against a super-virus attempting striving for my ends. On the other hand, it’s back. The mysterious recovery, that UFM, a new disease. Across the way from my plastic vinyl recliner, there’s a clock that ticks. It ticks til my defeat or success. There is a computer with files and results, filing in to finish my anatomic puzzle. The night sweats and fever beat on through my skin, gluing my arms and nape to the seat. Mucus treads down my throat, seeping from my sinuses. I am infinite and finite, altogether. I am a superhuman and mere mortal. In that moment there is a strange tension, binding me through obliviousness and helplessness. I wish I had appendicitis. I wish someone would just come up and tell me anything, something. I wish I had tonsillitis. I wish they’d cut something out of me, make this pain, this wait, go away. Something simple. Put me under and take it away.

Really this was just an aggressive viral infection that took a rather long time. Four hours. I should start getting flu shots. Although, a hypochondriac nightmare, this experience as all aesthetic experiences illuminate a lot about general human experiences and myself. I find aesthetic experiences highlight limits of how far we are willing to go, to get them or something else. Aesthetic experiences attempt to extend our mortal existence. We become infinite. We are more than just one human being. Simple. We are everywhere; we become everyone, and it never ends. This impossible nature explains much of our personal limitations and ends, our aspirations and failures.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfbtRMm8i5A]

 

By

Airplanes, Sex and the City, Salinger, Butter Substitute, Titanic, Woody Allen, Hemingway, Gatsby – Julie

Feel the turbines heat. Buckle your seat. Take off. You’re flying! You’re weightless!

In neat rows you sit hours on end, staring ahead to the back of someone’s skull. The clicking boots of the flight attendant, whirring engines, crackling ginger ale, cool juts of wind. You’re flying. But flying is basically falling, just in a different direction. You’re weightless.

The worst part about flying is not what you’d think – the landing, crashing, dying. It’s the weightlessness. Sure, you’ve got those smart animated maps flipping through your altitude, longitude, latitude, but you’re not the pilot. What does it mean? Where are you? You are weightless.

Don’t worry; it will stop. You’re going to land, crash, die, but not right now. Right now, you’re weightless.

Return to your seat. Clutch onto your armrest. I’d be thankful for turbulence, really. Your only concern is the fragmented audio to your calming vicarious expedition: Sex and the City. Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, post nuptial cosmopolitans. Be thankful for turbulence.

Your arrival is imminent and eminent. The weightlessness is going to stop. You’re going to land, crash, die – but not right now. Right now, you’re weightless. Be thankful for turbulence. You thank in-flight entertainment. You are flying. You are falling. You are weightless.

You land, crash, die.

The rough pounding landing gear, driving eardrums, bitter tired voices, clapping landers, crashers, diers. In your seat you wait, peer onto the strip, and watch your baggage pass around. In lines you wait for an officer to badger you about your flight, and decide whether to let you in. What movie did you watch? What meal did you order? Who did you sit next to? Does it really matter? You landed. Grounded.

I guess you know how I feel about airplanes.

Unable to confirm or deny an objective reality, there is almost nothing we can conclusive agree on being as concrete knowledge. I can neither confirm nor deny a god or evolution. I know two truths and two truths only: I exist, and someday I won’t.

I am given truth, comprehensible, but unacceptable. People want truth, and it to be good, and certain, and simple. People want a Toronto mayor, and him to be sober, and honest, and lawful. People want not truth, but the impossible.

Strive to break time, space, consciousness. Exist forever, everywhere, and as everyone.“Live forever. Eat Kale!” “Disneyworld. Summer deals!” “Sex in the City: in theatres now!”And people cooperate, eating kale, traveling, watching movies in delusion that we can one day exist impossibly, and that we already have.

These delusions carry on into grandeur, until you can’t hear what Sarah Jessica Parker’s passively aggressively yelling at Kim Cattrall, because of the damn turbulence. Reality ensues. You turn up the volume, select a louder, more obnoxious film:  Sex in the City 2. Scientology here we come.

(Tom Cruise is a wonderful actor. I love the Mission Impossible franchise.)

As we extend our sense of existence into convoluted delusion, we strain our ability to utilize it. And as Ernest Hemingway said “All cowardice comes from not loving, or not loving well.” To which Woody Allen added in Midnight in Paris, “which is the same thing.” What is existence if not to use or use well? The one concrete truth and we water it down with cheap vicarious exploits of Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and the City, and Sex and the City 2.

There are two ways to watch Sex and the City. No. 1: watch hoping that the girls take up a hobby, like knitting or pottery. No. 2: knowing that the girls have sex in the city in ad attempted satirical commentary of the vapid wants of middle aged metropolitan women, and watch a different movie.

What happens is simple, and certain: we exist and then someday cease to. “Whats” never change: opening credits roll, someone has sex in the city. It is impossible to change what happens in Sex and the City or life, no matter how hard you try to delude yourself; reality ensues. However, why and how you watch both Sex in the City movies or live life is indefinite, controllable. But we know that, and that is why we are a “what” culture, hopelessly trying to defeat the confines of time, space, and consciousness in the quest for impossibility.

It is the delusion that we are or someday will become impossible, that drives our thirst for knowledge and morality, not truth: good, and certain, and simple.

“…  – tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further…  So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” –The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Ludwig Wittgenstein reminds us “death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.” Those who take control over how and why we educate youth, love each other, or watch both Sex in the City movies.

So we ride on, passengers on planes, chasing the sun, breaking the sky, to realize we have stumbled into a cave with no chains and infinite flames, each burning true. More importantly we ride on curiously, out of pure and utter boredom and discontent with our own sun.

Did you know that Sarah Jessica Parker is married to Mathew Broderick who plays Ferris Bueller in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? That’s a great film.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSjS-iCPeW8]

“A man with such priorities out of whack doesn’t deserve such a fine automobile.” – Ferris Bueller

Sort of Citations:

The Catcher and the Rye: “All the kids kept trying to grab the gold ring, and so was old Phoebe, and I was sort of afraid she’d fall off the goddam horse… The thing with kids is if they want to grab the gold ring, you have to let them do it, and not say anything. If they fall off, they fall off, but it’s bad if you say anything to them.” (Salinger 273)

“You are all a lost generation.” -Gertrude Stein

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Ernest Hemingway

Woody Allen

The Sex and the City franchise

Plato

Ferris Bueller

And that’s what I got from the epistemology unit.

Again, sorry.

Julie

 

By

Wittgenstein, Yoga, Sushi, Ice-Cream, Mortal Kombat, Matisse, Spaceship Captain, Allen – Julie

Wittgenstein explores the notions of anti-metaphysics. The whole notion of meta cognition is identification of purpose through self discovery and self expansion in the name of purpose. We are given names, we choose to give purpose to them. Names have no underlying, certain, god-given, natural, or predetermined path for its patron. We are cogs in a machine, thinking we are the machine. We are frogs in a well; the sky is a circle. We are inmates in a cave; the world is a shadow.

Daunting. Horrifying. Meaningless.

So for my Phil’s Day Off I decided to go out to Yoga with my friend, that I refer to as Mick Jagger in my blog posts. While Mick had never gone, I had been quite a few times. Yoga’s an activity I like to treat myself to now and then. My mother always says “treat yourself like a princess.” Personally, I’ve never seen myself as a princess. In our society if I were to play a role, I’d like to be shoelaces. All the shoelaces, that have ever existed, will exist, and currently exist. I play a crucial yet misunderstood role in our society. Yes, technically society can continue without the shoelace, but so can society without a princess. However, society has built a role, a shoe culture around the shoelace. Like booze or cigarettes, theoretically unnecessary for human development and progression, I provide a somehow background meaning to our society. I hold the boots of soldiers fighting for freedom. I grip the dreams of athletes. I am the shoelace.

So Yoga. It was fine. I don’t have any pictures. You’re not really allowed or able to. A supposedly meaningful practice, in which one binds one’s natural bond of mind, body, and soul. Individuality. For me it’s just an opportunity to take an hour and stretch and really do nothing at all. Aryabhata, an Indian mathematician, in the year 498 AD began implementing the idea of 0, nothing. This idea of nothing, absolute absoluteness has shaped much of the Indian culture. The concept of nothing is powerful in itself and can lead to absolute enlightenment in which one can escape from their personal, petty strife and live in total objectivity, knowledge, spirituality, and… whatnot. So, reason for doing Yoga, doing nothing, is not cheapening the process. Which is my own personal delusion.

Anyways, afterwards, I went where the wind blew me. Mick Jagger detests impulsiveness… to say the very least. With my disgruntled and weary rocker, I did the following.

  1. Ate sushi
  2. Ate gelato
  3. Took the bus home
  4. Followed Mick Jagger home so I could watch him do math
  5. Watched Mick Jagger do math
  6. Reluctantly played a racing Mortal Kombat game
  7. And lost
  8. Reluctantly played Mortal Kombat
  9. And won victoriously where the heavens parted and crowned me king

Then I went home.

When I got home I watched a couple Woody Allen films, and a BBC documentary on Matisse.

Really what I gained from my day is nothing. My day meant nothing. My life, life means nothing. It’s uncertain, horrifying, daunting… yet freeing. Once you’re able to accept meaningless, uncertainty, and nothingness, you’re able to realize possibility, potential, and progress. We are not who we are, but what we do. People are like colors and chords. We can’t define hues or notes by what they are, their identities, but their capabilities. Red inflicts passion. B flat reminds stability. Mick Jagger invokes liveliness.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/mod/archives/2008/07/22/fashion-inspiration-mick-jagg

Through Wittgenstein’s metaphysical lens, metaphysics is useless. We have no real preset, predetermined purpose. We have potential; as we dwell on identity, potential diminishes. Existing is hard; it’s oh so very hard. If you look at the amount of things that don’t exist in comparison with the amount of things that do exist, things that exist are scarce. Why don’t we focus on something that we can do, and do something.

Sure. Who we are means something, but it doesn’t mean anything at all.

And that’s what I got from Phil’s Day Off, Wittgenstein, and Metaphysics.

Sorry.

 

By

Julie 2013

About Me:

My name is Julie; I am a Talons Philosophy 12 student. Likes include Woody Allen, BBC documentaries, and swordplay. Dislikes include sticky things, bad grammar, and dairy. Hope you enjoy my works this year in philosophy 12. Come converse philosophy!

Posts:

Introduction to Philosophical InquiryNegative Freedom is Not a Colon

LogicWhat Would Socrates Say?,  I’m Hilarious, The Late Mother

Scientific PhilosophyA Post Modern Outlook on Scientific Philosophy

MetaphysicsLudwig Wittgenstein , Phil’s Day Off

Epistemology – Airplanes, Sex and the City, Salinger, Butter Substitute, Titanic, Woody Allen, Hemingway, Gatsby – Julie

Ethics – Ethnics: Get Out

Aesthetics – Muy Aesthetico

 

By

Ludwig Wittenstein – Julie

Wittgenstein, the protagonist to the most dramatic life ever told, becoming the coolest man ever concocted.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Ludwig_Wittgenstein_by_Ben_Richards.jpg

Ludwig Wittgenstein, was born on April 26, 1889 in Vienna, Austria to a wealthy, industrial, Jewish family. To give you a picture of how wealthy the Wittgenstein were, take a look at this portrait.

http://www.all-art.org/symbolism/klimt3a.html

That’s a portrait of Margaret Wittgenstein, Ludwig’s sister, on her wedding day. This portrait was painted by GUSTAV KLIMT. Klimt painted masterpieces such as The Kiss, Danae, Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, which sold for 154.9 million dollars in 2006. Johanne Brahms gave frequently came over to give private concerts. Even during the great depression they owned 13 mansions in Vienna alone. They became the second wealthiest family in Austria, behind to only the Rothchild family… THE ROTHCHILDS.

Ludwig grew up with to an unsympathetic father, Karl, and an insecure mother, Leopoldine. He was the youngest of nine children. There were four girls, one of which died during infancy, and five boys – three of which committed suicide. The eldest, Hans, was a musical prodigy, able to detect a sour note from the age of four. The only other brother to survive, Paul, became a concert pianist despite losing one of his arms in WWI. Their father, Karl Wittgenstein was a stickler for private education and discipline. Many of them lacked the proper affection needed during adolescence.

Later on he attended Cambridge University to study mathematics, where he became acquainted with philosophy and Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell said that once he would get old and grey, Ludwig would complete the work he had not would be unable.

To be honest, Ludwig Wittgenstein might be the most interesting man on the planet. His philosophy revolves around logic, being, life, and eternity. Working the questions of metaphysics, he works in incredible passion and infatuation with his work… which is essentially life. He was rumored to be quite the lady and man charmer. He fought in the war. Wittgenstein wrote the massive “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.” He had a one armed pianist for a brother my goodness sake. His views on life and being revolve around moments. Moments are atoms, in a sense.

My favorite quote that I came across whilst researching Wittgenstein either…

“If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done.”

Due to the fact, now whenever I’m off doing silly things, I get to do them in the name of intellect.. which I will later cultivate.

OR

“Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.”

What I take from this is if we look at our lives as simply the duration of time between birth and death we may only live those years. If we look at life  as simply time, moments, the present, the future… no inevitable end, we are living eternally. We experience timelessness as we stay present.

If we look at the teachings of Nietzche, “God is dead,” he is removing conventional meaning from life. Life is essentially meaningless. People take this as “we have no purpose, why go on”, OR “this thing, this life, it’s meaningless. I am free.” We look at liberation through being, how to be, what to be. “What is” in the first place?

If we are able to unbind ourselves from the one thing we are truly bound to, time and ourselves, we achieve ultimate liberation. Then we use our ultimate liberation to continue to seek other things in which we are bound. Curious stuff, huh?

 

By

A Post-Modern Outlook on Science – Julie

As a byproduct of the horrors of the Holocaust, a lost outlook on art, literature, and science arose rampant. From the works of Kurt Vonnegut to Jackson Pollock, a taste for confusion and abstract perspectives is obvious. After the war, in debt and longing for war, the ambiance was rather angsty… skeptical if you will.

The whole objective of science is to create an objective method to find an objective truth. However, how can one be continued objective in this world of context and personal bias. In the post modernist view, the world should be objective, looking and searching for a single truth… or a set of certain truths. But science is a way of thinking, in which no one can be objective. We have a set of lenses in which we choose what to search for. What can we tolerate? What do we need to discover? The softest, shiniest hair or a cure for the common cold.

“Nothing is outside of the text.” Of Grammatology, Jaques Derridas

If you think about it… in a completely post modernist view… science is rather is silly. Just a bunch of farts really. On insisting that they are indeed searchers for the truth, they are ignoring the influence of context and personal bias. Of course, we can distance ourselves from it, but we can never detach anything human led study from our culture and its detriments. With the abstract view of a post modernist, there are multiple truths to each journey. Outcomes and experiments can mean different things to different people.

No. There’s no such thing as climate change… according to the fat check signed by Exxon Mobil. Somehow, the Tesla-esque curious nature of humans have been replaced by financial responsibility to donors and grants. It has been swayed, but has it been erased?

Since the introduction of currency, it has left a permanent residual mark upon our culture. In my personal opinion, our education system in which we are all supposed to be lawyers, doctors, and movie stars has swayed halted our progress. In all honesty, not all of us were meant to be models, scientists, or politicians. Some of us were meant to be factory workers, clerks… and teachers. Sorry, teachers.

You’ve all heard, “You want to be a what? A teacher?

The way we view different roles in our society has become perverse in regards to who and what we value. We value only but the wealthiest, powerful, and famous individuals; that shouldn’t be the case. In this North American culture of individualism and personal liberty (which I love and cherish), we have lost sight of the power of the group. Hate to get all socialist on you.

Indeed we are only as powerful as our weakest link. If we look at all the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, sloth, greed, wrath, envy, pride, they are all deadly because they are all aspects of self righteousness. They become self-induced as one stops thinking of others, valuing others. If we look at the European education systems, particularly in Germany, towards the end of their secondary education students indulge themselves in either academia or vocational practices. And when you read the word “vocational”, if you are from North America or perhaps Asia, you probably cringed. Vocational… what’s wrong with that? Nothing. Some people were meant to be factory workers, fantastic factory workers… teachers, amazing teachers… and above that people.

In the BBC documentary Modern Masters, in regards to Andy Warhol, someone mentions that his greatest work of Warhol was Warhol himself. Personally, the Generation Y “dilemma” of self-entitlement and depression is due to the ideals and goals set before us. As Tyler Durden says in the novel, Fight Club, “We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars, but we won’t.” And is there anything wrong with that? I’d like to think a rather arrogant thought, when I leave this earth. I became the best person I could possibly be. I am the best THING I have created on this earth. Sorry, non-existent, potential, future children.

…then again… that’s all subjective.

No. Science will never be objective. Science is a way of thought, induced by our thirst for knowledge and darned curiosity, and tainted by our own personal lens and responsibility to grants and donors. This idea of individual success is wayward. I mean, you wouldn’t teach a school of fish that someday everyone would become a bird. Only two or three would become birds… obviously. Be the best fish you can be.

Great steaks for the sake of great steaks! Great science for the sake of great science!

I’m not saying, stop dreaming to be the next mover or shaker. We all like to dream… make believe… pretend to be something we’re not. That’s sort of how we get our Teslas and Turings, Zuckerbergs and Spielbergs. I guess that’s how we are bound to achieving true personal success. Progress for the sake of progress!

There is no such thing as out of context… but we can sure try. It’s a funny thing, science. It’s the most certain uncertainty there is.

 

 

 

By

The Late Mother – Julie

To get something out of the way, my mother is alive and well, however, always late. Today was no exception. As I exited the doors of my secondary school, with my unnamed pal with an untouchable lemon pound cake. We waited for my mother to pick me up. And then… we waited some more. FINALLY, we waited some more.

During this waiting period, my unnamed pal, that shall be further referred to as Mick Jagger, and I had a conversation where I was able to share my unwanted knowledge of syllogistic logic.

Me: Where is my mother?
Mick Jagger: Same question.

When Mick said “same question,” was he referring his mother or my mother? The questions are the same: where is my mother? However, the propositions, the underlying meanings were different. When I asked “where is my mother”, I was asking where Sue was. (Sue is my mother.) When Mick asked “where is my mother”, Mick was asking where Eva was. (Eva is Mick’s mother.) Mick proceeded to complain about my need to share necessary rules of logic which I manipulate to proved my comedic abilities.

SPEAKING OF DOUBLE MEANINGS… on to the argument.

Mother is late
Zombies are late
Therefore mother is a zombie

If we look at the word “late,” it has two different meanings. Late could refer to punctuality or live presence. If I substitute late for descriptive terms that offer the same proposition…

Mother is never on time
Zombies are dead
Therefore mother is a zombie

It doesn’t quite work. However, the original argument, as is proves both validity and soundness, but is actually false. Does each descriptive term require its own descriptive term as well as proposition? Does a descriptive term imply the singular proposition?

Would the form be…

A is B
C is B
Therefore A is C?

Or..

A is X
C is Y
Therefore A is C?

The first form is definitely valid. This can be proven through the use of counterexamples…

Miley Cyrus is a popstar
Hannah Montana is a popstar
Therefore Miley Cyrus is Hannah Montana

I’m beginning to notice lately the use of connotations and multiple meanings to justify arguments in media and general conversation. Media and socialization is definitely a war of words. But does that justify their soundness or validity if they win due to their word-smithing?

Not my mother. http://www.hercampus.com/school/wm/how-do-zombie-makeup-ampocalypse

 

By

I’m Hilarious- Julie

I’m hilarious, and I refuse to believe otherwise; however, it seems I’m not very good at selecting jokes to steal. Like this one…

“My puns are just bad, they’re tear-able.” *rips piece of paper with the word pun written on it*
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIyrjdkQRKU Bo Burnham)

However, the one that comes under most scrutiny is from a Bo Burnham song called “Men and Women.”

“Women are like puzzles because prior to 1920, neither had the right to vote. Puzzles still don’t”

I find this joke hilarious, but I finally figured out why people never laugh at this joke through the use of syllogistic logic.

No women can vote prior to 1920
No puzzles can vote prior to 1920
Therefore some women are puzzles

Alternatively…

All women can vote post 1920
No puzzles can vote post 1920
Therefore no women are puzzles

“No A can B
No C can B
Therefore some A can be C

All A can X
No C can X
Therefore no A can be C”

Premises: all true in regards to voting regulations

Conclusions: Understanding this, we can identify the direct correlation between women’s suffrage and the ability to be a puzzle. Before 1920, some women were puzzles; not all but some. Therefore some women had the ability and possibility to be puzzles. However, after the acceptance of women’s suffrage in 1920, all women were given the right to vote, but no puzzles were given the right to vote. Since all women can vote, but no puzzles can vote; no women can be puzzles as they retain the right to vote, but puzzles do not. As women are given the right to vote, they are removed from their ability and possibility to be a puzzle.

There is indeed validity and soundness to both these individual arguments; however, what these two arguments reveal is MUCH more important. Why this joke is not hilarious.

Historical photograph prior to 1920. two women: one feminine and one masculine, highlight the present view of women (objectification of their bodies), to the desired view and role of women (value of their mind). The one one the left is in traditional female garb: dress, hair, make-up, while the one on the right is wearing a suit, displaying the traditional dress of a man: suit, jacket, and tie. Little did they know obtaining the vote would disable their famed ability of being a puzzle. http://imgfave.com/view/2642612

This does not receive any response not due to the face that it’s not funny. It’s simply Bo Burnham illuminates this correlation upsetting feminists and suffragists, because they realized although they gained the right to vote, they lost the ability and possibility to be a puzzle. Women have lost the mystique and allure they once possessed prior to 1920. We have lost the right to be puzzles. It’s very upsetting, the loss of women’s rights, any rights. How does this correlation work, and how can we reverse it if we so choose?

It couldn’t possibly be that I’m not funny. I’m obviously hilarious.

 

By

What Would Socrates Say? – Julie

As he looks over Bonaparte’s unconscious body, deciding whether or not to kill him thus preventing war across Europe, Woody Allen ponders the insight of Socrates in the 1975 film, Love and Death.

As seen here…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iX6HxF-zDM

PS. Please read this in a Woody Allen voice for optimum enjoyment.

“… but murder.
What would Socrates say?

All those Greeks were homosexuals…
Socrates is a man…
All men are mortal…
All men are Socrates
That must mean all men are homosexuals”

To fix this up in simpler syllogistic logic, we have two arguments, resulting in two conclusions to support a final conclusion of all men being homosexuals…

All Greek are homosexuals
Socrates is Greek
Therefore Socrates is a homosexual

Socrates is man
All men are mortal
Socrates
is mortal 
Therefore all men are Socrates

Therefore all men are homosexuals”

Woody Allen, or rather Boris, ponders whether the murder of Napoleon Bonaparte is justified. If Bonaparte is killed, Boris will prevent many wars across Europe; however… murder? He begins to ponder possible insight of the great philosopher Socrates as to whether murder is for a cause is justified. Just to note, he mentions all those ancient Greeks were homosexuals (who probably took a house together up the creek). This leads into Boris’s conclusion that all men are homosexuals.

If all Greeks are homosexuals, and Socrates was Greek, Socrates must be a homosexual. If Socrates is mortal, and all men are mortal, all men must be Socrates. Since Socrates is a homosexual, and all men are Socrates, by default all men are homosexual. Now I am not a man; therefore I cannot confirm or deny this claim, but I will take a wild guess that it is factually false. This is due to the initial premise that all Greeks are homosexuals.

I am not a Greek, therefore I cannot confirm nor deny the homosexuality of each individual Greek. Since argument lacks factual correctness, this argument is not sound. However, it does not stop the argument that all men are homosexuals from being valid. The definition of validity consists of…

To say that an argument isvalid is to say that IF the premises were true, then the conclusion would NECESSARILY be true”

So… say all the premises are true… then the conclusion would necessarily be true; however, since validity is a function of form, to test the functionality of the form we test with a counter example!

All A are B
C is A
Therefore C is B

C is E
All E are D
C is D
Therefore all E are C

Therefore all E are B”

All TV stars are celebrities
Kim is a TV star
Therefore Kim is a celebrity

Kim is a Kardashian
Kardashians are unnecessary
Kim is unnecessary
Therefore Kardashians are Kim

Therefore all Kardashians are celebrities.

Alright, alright I get it. There’s Kim Kardashian… and Kim Kardashian… and Kim… Kardashian. Not all Kardashians are Kim, but it sure feels like it. However, this does not stop our ultimate conclusion to be true. Does this make our argument valid because our conclusion is (sadly) valid, even though our premises are false? If you think about our two conclusion drawn from our arguments as the premises, and our ultimate conclusion as the conclusion, wouldn’t our argument be valid? In that case if the premises were indeed all true, then the conclusion could be valid.

There’s Kim and.. Kim. http://beauticianstips.com/kardashian-sisters-collection/

Since validity is all up to form, and the counterexample sees no fault, Boris’s conclusion that all men are homosexuals could be valid. None of us know the true sexual preferences of Greeks, or all men. Good job, Boris?

Although we know, obviously, Boris’s argument is not true. “Some men are heterosexual, and some men are bisexual , and some men don’t think about sex at all. They become lawyers.” (Woody Allen, Love and Death 1975) However, we see many a false argument in humor and comedy. Why? In comedy, wild and hysterical juxtapositions are made to show a common relation and make a point. And well in other words, “many a truth is spoken in jest.” (William Shakespeare, King Lear 1605)

Way to conclude in cliche.

 

By

Negative Freedom is Not a Colon – Julie

From what I understand “negative liberty” is opportunity to act where as “positive liberty” action in itself. We are not always entitled to the opportunity, however we are to the action.

Negative liberty the freedom FROM others providing limitations is often what we view freedom as. The freedom to marry who we wish, practice religion we wish, and express ideas we wish are all examples of what I thought of what freedom was. I was taught freedom is not something I can control. “It is a gift.” We are often told by our superiors “… I am giving you freedom.” You’d expect that freedom is like a colon, something that you’re born with. We’d expect life and liberty as a packaged deal, like burgers and fries, but that’s not the case.

As children, negative freedom is seen as a gift, something we can’t control. It’s like a box of dog treats. Dogs have to lift their paws, dance around roll over for a bite. That’s what they expect. Do dogs ever wish for the whole box? You bet! But that doesn’t mean we give it to them, or else they get chubby. Limitations on our negative freedom as children is necessary to teach, us youngsters to not abuse our negative freedom and identify when it’s being abused. As much as we’d like to think freedom is a colon, it’s a gift like a tonka truck – the most necessary tonka truck ever. Everyone deserves a tonka truck, but they have to learn to take care of it. Freedom is indeed a gift, but did you know you can give gifts to yourself?

(Don’t give yourself a literal colon though. One is good enough. Unless you were unfortunately born without a colon, in which in that case, my condolences. Go get yourself a colon!)

What I mean by this is that the idea of positive freedom, which I find, is enlightening. It’s freedom you give yourself. Although we are taught the concepts of “tonka truck” freedom, we are never truly taught about our actual “colon” freedom. Positive freedom exists the moment we do. The limitations constraining our actions our self inflicted. We have the capacity for brilliance.

“… and that’s all I have to say about that”

-Forest Gump, 1994

http://curezone.com/upload/_A_Forums/Ask_MH/colon_diagram.jpg Not a proper gift to give yourself. A day off, a good book, a gym membership? Yes. Colon? No.

 
css.php