Do you even realize?

Woggie, is that you reaching out to me? For my part, you know how I yearn for your body, particularly when you’re wearing your little cap.

Or maybe it’s Boru. I know how you feel Boru, and your feelings are reciprocated. We must meet soon.

Come to think of it, maybe it’s NurseHezz but I doubt it. Much to forward for her.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: wogdog (10/3, 5:54PM)

Woggie, you can’t understand how rewarding it was for me to learn that you will wear your little cap while we are making love. I can barely control my excitement as I write this. Unfortunately dear, I don’t own a pair of sandals, at least not proper ones, but I will buy a pair if they will do it for you. Would you prefer sport or dress socks? Plain or patterned? Woggie, I want to provide for your complete orgasmic satisfaction. Write back soon, dear.

: NurseHezz (5:54PM)

Thank you NurseHezz for your forgiveness. In spite of your protestations to the contrary, I’m sure you have no faults of your own unless, that is, they involve unspeakable acts of sexual degradation. In that case, I’m sure I will come to love your faults along with you and we can mutually explore and enjoy them. But let’s return for a moment to that philosophically interesting expression, “No one’s perfect.”

This is, as you are no doubt aware, a “negative universal,” i.e., it applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. The question, however, is whether or not it is a coherent assertion. I see three senses in which it might be understood: (a) an empirical claim, (b) a conceptual claim and (c) an epistemological claim. Each raises questions as to the assertion’s coherence.

(a) An empirical claim is one which asserts a purported truth about the real world. To say that “No One’s Perfect” is to be understood in just that sense, i.e., that, in fact, no one is perfect. But empirical claims require supporting evidence. What would count as evidential support for the empirical claim, “No One’s Perfect?” Clearly, one must scour the earth in order to confirm it but, equally, clearly, this is an impossible task. There might, for example, someone living in a cave somewhere who is, in fact, perfect. This would then refute the empirical claim. It would then have to be rejected.

(b) A conceptual claim underwrites the empirical claim. In other words, one must be in possession of what it means to be “perfect” in order to proceed scouring the earth to find that perfect individual. But there are two senses in which the conceptual claim itself might be understood. There is the negative sense in which being “perfect” simply means the absence of faults. But this is still inadequate since the negative sense of “perfect” itself requires a positive or substantive component such that the “fault” can be identified as such. So, what is the substantive or positive concept of “perfect?” What, in other words, does it mean to be perfect. What virtues must one possess in order to claim the title? I leave this question open NurseHezz, for your further consideration.

(c) For any assertion the epistemological claim demands “noetic” grounds, that is, evidence based on knowledge. In response to the assertion, “No One’s Perfect” the epistemologist would reply, “How Do You Know?” In other words, on what noetic grounds do you base your assertion? Now “perfect” is a concept and so cannot be reduced to simple sensory observation in the same way that one can say, for example, “That Is A Cloud.” On the other hand, one who asserts the claim cannot say that it is just a private intuitive deliverance since knowledge, to be knowledge, must have commonly shared criteria of coherence. So what would these grounds be. just what would constitute an exhaustive list, and how would they apply to what is now becoming something of a conundrum, “No One’s Perfect”? I leave this question open NurseHezz, for your further consideration.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: wogdog (10/04, 7:23PM)

Woggie, why do you want to keep a cigar in your mouth while we are making love? Will it be lit and you will be smoking it? Woggie, I don’t smoke and I am not sure I will be able to perform under those circumstances. Write back with your thoughts.

: NurseHezz (9:17PM)

Thank you NurseHezz for your kind thoughts. As you say, our greatest challenges are often our own feelings, conceptualizations and perceptions. Your mentioning those three, particularly the last two, rings the fire-bell for the philosopher (i.e., me) who comes charging out of the fire-hall.

Feelings, of course, are more the province of psychology but psychology, from a philosophical perspective, is vacuous. Its “truths,” if they can be called that, are matters of commonplace commonsense of the “I’m okay, you’re okay” variety. Or, alternatively, there are the “multiple intelligences” of Howard Gardiner. He thought that if intelligence was restricted to the, um, intelligence it was too “elitist,” too undemocratic. So Gardiner posited “intelligences” for every conceivable human activity. There was the “physical intelligence” of the athlete, the “social intelligence” of the accomplished hostess, and so on. The problem was, he couldn’t answer the epistemological question. How did he know that? He claimed that the multiple intelligences were empirical in nature – they were seen to exist in the same way as trees or clouds – but philosophers exposed his theory as not being empirical as he claimed but rather was pre-supposed or imported into his psychology of multiple intelligences at the outset. In my view, all psychology is of this sort. For the philosopher, on the contrary, feelings must have a “cognitive core” to be coherent Otherwise they are irrational..

They say that you can tell a person’s philosophy by asking him how he views the activity of perception. The naive realist simply maintains that what we see is what we get. We are just passive observers. We are all just cameras. But the view fails to explain conflicting perceptions. Alternatively, the full-blown “constructivist” claims that we “construct” our perceptions. The objects of perception have no independent reality. Everyone is different. But the view fails to explain a stable external reality. There is “something out there” which refutes the constructivist’s chaotic claims of infinite variability. Of course, the constructivist really doesn’t believe his theory of perception is just another one among many. He believes his theory is correct but, of course, that undermines his own position since, by definition, there is no one correct theory of perception, not even his.

Finally, there is the matter of conceptualization, the keystone in the arch. How do we form our concepts? Concepts are necessary since they render reality comprehensible but where do they come from and how are they applied? What is their structure? What is it to “know” something? There is a strong parallel in the realist-constructivist debate in perception since while the “knower” actively engages in the process of coming-to-know, in the case of conception “truth” takes the place of the role external reality plays in perception. This, of course, is the fundamental concern of epistemology which, in my view, is the essence of philosophy.

So there’s your philosophy lesson for today. You may put down your pen.

You ask what my Mrs. will think about my offer to assist in exploring your unspeakable acts of sexual degradation. Good question. I’ll have to ask her.

: Boru (9:51PM)

Everything you say is true, Boru.

: wogdog (10/05, 5:42PM)

Woggie, can’t you be a bit more articulate?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!