I Know What You Did Yesterday Afternoon

FARTING & BISHOP BERKELEY

The well-known 18th. century English idealist philosopher Bishop Berkeley once famously asked whether a tree falling in the forrest would make a sound if there were no one there to hear it. The basis of his claim was his “idealism,” the philosophical view that what we believe to be an independent reality is in fact simply a mental construct. Berkeley would have answered the question in the negative, i.e., there would be no sound is there were no one around to hear it.

The 18th. century lexicographer Samuel Johnson would have none of it, claiming that if he kicked Berkeley in the shins that would be proof enough of the existence of an independent reality. But, of course, Berkeley could simply reply that the pain he was feeling was itself simply aother mental construct.

The question, “mutatis mutandis” (as we say in Latin), applies to farting. If there were no one around to smell it, could the fart be said to stink? (Excluding Pretty Kitty’s farts, of course.) The falling tree caused perturbations in the air but, to make a sound, those perturbations must fall on ear drums. No ear drums, no sound. Similarly, the fart causes perturbations in the air but, to cause a stink, those perturbations must fall on a nose. No nose, no stink. I think we have to come down on the Bishop’s side on this one.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

ONE BRAIN CHALLENGE

“Annie would make Montreal smoked meat outta the stupid little fuck. This is one brain challenge I’d like to see.” (TTFN, April 24, 10:04PM)

“Now, perhaps Horatio would like to tackle Montrealman’s critique of Berkeley based on the performative contradiction.” (Montrealman, April 22, 4:25PM)

Montrealman is still waiting, Horatio. Would you like pickles with that?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

NOTES FROM THE PHILOSOPHICAL POWER SWIMMER

Once again Horatio (April 25, 1:45PM) is to be thanked for his thoughtful reply to my last post (“Hold The Pickles!”). However, three difficulties – what the philosopher Gilbert Ryle called “intellectual cramps” – can be seen to arise in connection with your response to my observations:

(1) You write, “I will, however, counter your notion that I might be a radical empiricist. I am just as much a believer in theoretical physics as I am a believer in applied physics.” The difficulty here is that this does not counter the attribution of radical empiricism but simply passes it by. In other words, theoretical physics provides the conceptual framework in terms of which applied physics operates. But radical empiricism itself operates at the conceptual rather than the applied level. Further, it does not just “operate” at the theoretical level but defines the concepts in terms of which theoretical physics itself proceeds. So your first response misses the point of my observation.

(2) In addition to the mind recording the data from the environment (a very empiricist observation) you write, interestingly, that it “also uses this data to travel outside the realm of ‘reality’ and as a result outside the notion of things in themselves.” I must say, Horatio, that I suffered severe intellectual cramps on reading this, principally since I didn’t know what it meant. What, exactly, is there “outside” the realm of reality? What is there “outside” the notion of things in themselves? Are you suggesting some sort of transcendental function of the mind? I need your help with this one, Horatio.

(3) In a similar fashion, I suffered further intellectual cramps on reading your revised account of matter, that is, that “matter is the basis for what defines reality (which is) much like saying knowledge is the basis of what defines reason. For obviously merely possessing knowledge is by NO means proof that one also posseses reason.”

Once again, Horatio, I’m having difficulty here. First, it’s not clear just how your revised definition of matter is subtantially different from your first, i.e. “matter is what defines reality.” In both cases reality is reduced to its material manifestations which, of course, is just what radical empiricism maintains but in respect to which you reject any allegiance. Once again, Horatio, I need your help here in order to dissolve those intellectual cramps.

Second, it seems to me that you have the reason-knowledge relationship reversed. Rather than knowledge being the basis of what defines reason it would seem more plausible that reason is that by means of which knowledge is acquired. But then, to cloud matters further, you advance a disjunctive relationship between the two when you say that possessing knowledge is by no means proof that one also posseses reason. I suppose the obvious question would be, “Well, then, what DOES demonstrate prooof that one posseses reason?”

Well Horatio, once again thanks for participating in our discussion. One usually gets something like the note from my stalker, “The Parasite” (aka Hugo Phurst) who, of course, lacks both the knowledge or ability to engage in discussions like ours.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

P.S. Do not worry. PK will never be able to take that first step in realizing the true value of philosophy since both concepts (philosophy and value) are beyond her.

UNDERCLASS MAN OF THE YEAR: PRELIMINARY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

The backwash to the philosophical debate between Horatio and me turned up a number of inane comments which might provide the preliminary criteria for the selection of the “Underclass Man of the Year,” the one who manifests the intellectual and social deficiencies of the Halifax Underclass in general. One must remember (if one ever knew) that all discourse is self-referential, i.e., that what one says does not so much reflect on the object of their criticism but rather on the minds of the commenters themselves. That said, six such criteria have emerged. They are:

1. Money Worship: zZz (9:27AM) provides a chart showing ten occupations that employ persons with a Bachelor’s degree in Philosophy. As expected, these occupations have little remuneration, a fact which earns them, and the BA in Philosophy himself, zZz’s unreserved contempt. That is because zZz knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

2. Winking Reference to Homosexuality: Wheeliep (10:15AM) finds homosexuality immensely amusing but, given the power of political correctness, refrains from outright homophobic catcalls.

3. Anti-Intellectualism: Perhaps the defining feature of Underclassman’s mind. Pretty Kitty (12:30PM) disdains engaging on “pointless issues,” that is on philosophical questions which mean the same thing. But what issues do have point for Pretty Kitty? See #1 above.

4. Intellectual Resentment: Pretty Kitty angrily asserts: “I resent your implications.” While I didn’t think I “implied” anything – I stated outright that philosophy was “beyond her” – her resentment must be traceable to her sense
of intellectual inferiority which, of course, ties in with all the other ingredients of the Underclass mind.

5. Class Resentment: For Pretty Kitty Montrealman is “typical academic snob who knows nothing outside of what’s taught in books.” This, of course, is the social side of the coin. It introduces the class element of snobbery. But how does Pretty Kitty know that I know nothing outside of what’s “been taught in books?” (Anti-Intellectualism) Do I expect Pretty Kitty to support her claim? Of course not.

6. Conceptual Confusion: Anglo (3:52PM) writes, in response to The Parasite’s vacuous question, that “without the multiverse the collective thought of idiots converging on one meme could drastically alter the possibilities and change the odds of something extraordinary happening.” Would Anglo explain his assertion? References to Richard Dawkins are, of course, very acceptable.

Well, there it is. It looks like it’s going to be a tight race. It’s going to be exciting.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

REDUCED COGNITIVE ATTAINMENT

Reviewing the on-going criteria constitutive of the Underclass Man of the Year, I felt them to be too diverse, ranging from zZz’s “Money Worship” to Pretty Kitty’s “Class Resentment” (who, by the way, currently leads the pack).

Applying my considerable powers of intellectual synthesis (the counterpart of my equally considerable powers of analysis), I asked myself, “Could there a sort of omnibus catch-all criterion that might provide a criteriological baseline which might then serve to unify these criteria?” Yes, I thought, of course there is. The primary or primitive Baseline Criterion unifying the secondary criteria would be “Reduced Cognitive Attainment,” a quality that the members of the Halifax Underclass share to varying degrees. Of course further work needs to be done. A fine-grained analysis of Reduced Cognitive Attainment” itself is required since all to not share in it to the same degree. In any case, Montrealman will be listening to the quality of your minds on future threads and assigning to each one the appropriate secondary criteria. Good luck to all!

One or two thoughts on subsequent comments since my last appearance. TTFN’s clip featuring the small whippet was very interesting but it seemed so small it might have been an Italian Greyhound. Perhaps Paingirl, the resident expert on Greyhounds, can provide a decisive ruling.
(By the way, I enjoyed your clip on the famous philosophers. A bunch of drunks, as I always suspected.)

Anglo’s reference to a “meme” as an instance the sixth criterion (“Conceptual Confusion,” Montrealman, April 26, 4:59PM) suggested that he was about to engage the thought of the British botanist and thinker Richard Dawkins. Dawkins maintained that, in addition to “the selfish gene” which determined behaviour at the individual level, there also there existed a similarly hereditary social gene, the “meme,” which determined behaviour at the social level. My latest reading of Dawkins (“Reweaving the Rainbow”) did not, as I recall, explore the concept in any depth. However, Anglo’s subsequent comment dispelled any illusions of an investigation of Dawkins’ thought. He (Anglo) remains “conceptually confused.”

On the walk with the whippets this morning I spied a worm lying on an asphalt driveway. It seemed to be in some distress since there was a heavy rain last night. It was wriggling, but only slightly. Carefully, I picked the worm up and placed it gently onto a patch of grass. I want to leave you with that thought.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

“ANNIE”

My beloved Annie closely resembled the middle whippet in colour but was more beautiful. Annie died in 2000 but, like the inscription on the triplicate metal frame in our TV room showing different poses of her says, we will always be “Best Friends Forever.”

Cheerio!