Be the first to know about breaking news, articles, and updates.
The Coast | News, events, restaurants, concerts and Burger Week for Halifax, Nova Scotia
Home of the Best of Halifax Reader's Choice Awards, the award-winning independent newspaper covers the Halifax news, politics, events, concerts, movies, restaurants, and nightlife scene.
You call your professor because you need a reference for a minimum wage job as a restaurant server. Not an undergrad professor but a master’s professor… because you are a Haligonian and you have two useless degrees and no job prospects. —Hungry
This article appears in Sep 15-21, 2011.
90 Comments
Try taking a degree or program that is in demand, then you can get a job. Or go elsewhere for experience then come back and bypass the entry level positions.
That’s when you leave town and move into a larger, more viable job market, just like the rest of us who found ourselves in similar straits. Your skill set is generalizable into other sectors. Move on, move up, keep positive.
You could work at the philosophy factory! They MAKE ideas!
OR.. you could take a proactive approach and, like Montrealman, just stay here and post your over-analyzed, self-absorbed, holier-than-thou, arrogant, painfully boring and non-ending musings about things that nobody cares about….The pay sucks cuz, well, let’s face it, no one would actually PAY for this stuff. But, what else are you going to do with a philosophy degree?
I get calls from people to act as their referee for positions which they applied and will decline if I cannot provide a good example to the employer where the person has demonstrated the required skills.
When contacting someone to vouch for you please have the courtesy to provide them with your current resume as well as a copy of the job advertisement. ~ In doing so, we are able to preview the posting and can address specific areas where you are most competent should the question be asked.
Nothing worse than a cold call from nowhere and a person on the other end of the line asking about someone that I am having a hard time trying to place! AWKWARD!
If it is my name that gets appended to your resume then I want to ensure that it is with my recommendation. The referee’s reputation goes along with this and employers will exclude the next hire if they use a referee that vouched for someone who turned out to be a total loser ~ be realistic in your expectations.
Op, is that you PK?
yepp.. Hope that degree keeps you warm at night.
I’m with Foothill, the job market here ain’t great, whether or not you have a degree, so move or stay. Your choice.
if you want a meticulous education, go to university. if you want a job, go to community college.
I’m not even kidding. If i’m ever unlucky enough to have kids, they’ll be doing both.
Most reference letters are generic. The reason being is that you’re not going to go back to your reference every single time you apply for a job. I know I would be pissed off if every employee or student, in case of a prof, came to me time and time again for a new letter.
That’s what you get for studying a subject and getting a degree in something completely unmarketable. Did you even research if that degree was in demand? Let me guess, costume studies with English lit. LOL.
Nope, not me, GV! But i will say: some of us just can’t up and move. It costs money to move, and if yOu’re working a min wage job….
Pk, I totally understand. Some people are stuck in the Chicago projects with gang related shooting all around them.
It’s good individual advice to tell someone to move, but certainly not all of them can move, nor would everyone moving be a solution to the problem.
RRSPs
: Avasto (Sept. 19, 1:27PM) – Avasto, aren’t you being a bit, um, over-judgemental? I mean, referring to my posts as “over-analyzed, self-absorbed, holier-than-thou, arrogant, painfully boring and non-ending about things that nobody cares about?” Very judgemental, Avasto, but what, of course, is you judgement based upon? I realize that you are without a credible response. Do you know why? You are without philosophy, Avasto, that’s why.
You ask, “But what are you going to do with a philosophy degree?” Well, Avasto, among other things, you will realize the poverty of your pragmatic and superficial “reflection.” But I’m sure you were never even aware of the pragmatic philosophical foundations of your own position, were you Avasto. Self-awareness, Avasto, that’s what it’s all about. But I know you’ll never understand that. Do you know why? It’s because, once again, you are without philosophy. Say goodnight, Avasto.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“What got philosophers talking about pragmatism again was the publication of Richard Rorty’s Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979)—a controversial tome which repudiated the basic presuppositions of modern philosophy with élan, verve, and learning. Declaring epistemology a lost cause…”
Did that publication rub you the wrong way or something? You sure do have a lot of hate for pragmatism, but hey…
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/me…
i’m not even touching on this shit. i employ myself, so no one to ask or blame, but myself.
That’s just BS, OP. I moved back to Massachusetts a few weeks ago, but still subscribe to career beacon. Every day there are more jobs in my field up there than down here.
And don’t believe the hype about undergrad majors. It doesn’t really matter what your undergraduate degree is in-the fact that you’ve got one is the big thing.
You need to fly your kite a bit higher. Go to the careers office at your school and network with alums. Get informational interviews with people who had your major. Intern for free (if you have to) while you support yourself as a barista in careers that interest you.
The world doesn’t owe you a living. Stop being such a whiney-ass crybaby and hit the bricks.
RSVPs
: The Turd (Sept. 19, 8:46PM) – Once again, Turd, you must give the full citation for your quotations, but I can guess the general direction the author is coming from, i.e., the “postmodernist” position which claims that there is no truth except, of course, the truth of their assertion that, um, there is no truth. This is what Rorty does and it’s called a self-refuting assertion, one which vitiates any further assertion he might care to make since, by definition, no truth can attach to his assertions.
I don’t “hate” pragmatism but, since it deals only in means and not in ends, it is necessarily mute on any philosophical question. When it purports to address philosophical questions, it is only an empty charade. (See “Xenophilia” below.)
: Life Sucks (Sept. 20, 4:01AM) – Sucks, the fact you are self-employed is totally irrelevant to the issue. If you had philosophy, you would know that. But, sadly, you don’t and you don’t.
: Xenophilia (10:28AM) – “It doesn’t really matter what your undergraduate degree is in – the fact that you’ve got one is the big thing.”
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but Xenophilia isn’t able to realize that since he is simply a blinkered pragmatist. He sees a university degree purely in terms of its utility, in terms of “getting a job.” But a university degree, except in cases of pseudo-degrees like the B.Comm., aims at the furnishing the mind, not the bank account. Of course, this will appear laughable to pragmatists like Xenophilia – and their number is legion – because they can only see anything and everything in terms of its pay-off. The larger problem with pragmatists like Xenophilia, however, is that they pervert and undermine a university education, properly conceived.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM, you are such a moron that you think I’m a man?
A pragmatist, I should think, would get a degree in business. I think one should get a liberal arts undergrad degree and then get a graduate degree in business if that’s what you really want.
The real reason to get that B.A. is because it doesn’t take long in conversation to tell the well-educated from the autodidacts. It shows: They put too much emphasis on big words and not enough on their meaning. Yes, I’m talking about you, MM. Your slip is showing.
Look out annie!!! There’s something behind you =O
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkfXeOS6Ykc
“Avasto, aren’t you being a bit, um, over-judgemental? I mean, referring to my posts as “over-analyzed, self-absorbed, holier-than-thou, arrogant, painfully boring and non-ending about things that nobody cares about?” Very judgemental, Avasto, but what, of course, is you judgement based upon?” – Montrealman 19 Sep 7:58PM
Well, lets see, shall we….hmmmm…oh I don’t know….how about….almost every post you have put on this site. Far too many to list here. Take your pick. (And I don’t think I’m alone in this line of thinking either)
“You are without philosophy, Avasto…You ask, “But what are you going to do with a philosophy degree?” Well, Avasto, among other things, you will realize the poverty of your pragmatic and superficial “reflection.” But I’m sure you were never even aware of the pragmatic philosophical foundations of your own position, were you Avasto.” – Montrealman 19 Sep 7:58 PM
First, you say I am without philosphy, then you call my post pragmatic. Let’s look at the meaning of pragmatic, shall we? Oxford dictionary says it’s “dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations” Hmmm. Doesn’t sound so bad, now does it? (Why thank you MM. I’ll take that as a compliment.) Although I DO have some theories, I would say this accurately describes me. They also say that pragmatism is a “PHILOSOPHICAL tradition centred on the linking of practice and theory”. Interesting. But, according to you, I have no philosophy. Uh oh! How can this be? How can I be both? Which is it? You’re contradicting yourself, MM. (How very pragmatic of me.)
Secondly, “…aware of the pragmatic philosophical foundations of my own position”? Really? So, your response to my question of what do you do with a philosophy degree is this?…”Your honour, the prosecution rests.” lol…I’m sorry, but now you’re sounding like some mutant form of a Jehovah’s Witness, knocking on my door on a saturday morning, “Excuse me sir, but are you aware of the pragmatic philosophical foundations of your own position?” I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties. You sound like a social hand grenade. You could probably literally write tomes on your own take on philosophy or could probably quote, analize and discuss ancient philosophers for days on end but when it comes to real world, 1-on-1 human interaction, you freeze like a deer in the headlights. “Why did he say Hi to me? Is this an outward projection of his sincere emotional psyche or rather, is he conforming to the societal imprinting of acceptable interaction coping mechanisms? What IS acceptable? Is he aware he said Hi or does he THINK he’s aware he said Hi? Tell me about your father?” Pffft.
“Self-awareness, Avasto, that’s what it’s all about.” – Montrealman 19 Sep 7:58 PM
Is it really? Are you aware that it took you 19 1/2 hours to reply to my goad? I’m disappointed in you MM. I would have thought that you’d have dispatched me much sooner than that. You’re slipping, old man. Are you also aware that by replying to my post you have pretty much proven my point? What else are you going to do with a philosophy degree? “Why, you try to answer the tough, moral questions of the day like is it ok to yell “movie” in a crowded fire-house, and dump your self-formulated philosophical theories on everyday citizens who, quite frankly, don’t really give a shit about anything you have to say, but don’t really know it; because, hey! You have to justify those 4 years of university and you’re painfully “self-aware” of that super inflated student loan. Of course, you have to do all this on your breaks as the front counter tends to get a little busy leading up to lunchtime. Speaking of which, I think I’m on drive thru this afternoon.” Fret not. You’ll make assistant manager in no time. BTW, I’ll take a grande chai latte, montrealman.
The wait staff & other minimum wage earners in the Acadia area (Wolfville-Kentville corridor) are some of the most highly educated people I’ve ever had serve me.
When we were there shooting, the coffee shop ladies all had multiple degrees, same thing with the bars etc & not all of them were young people, many of them were in their 30’s & 40’s or older.
Must be the access to individual courses offered by that university.
Yeah, More, it’s the same in the college town where I am now… There’s a difference between qualifications and gumption, though, or even inclination. Some people may well want to spend a season waiting on table by the shore so they can rub elbows with film people and do other cool seaside stuff. Others just want a little time off.
Seems to me to be an awful waste of a professor’s time to give a reference for an hourly job. Doesn’t OP have any work experience?
sebastian forgets that consumers in any market don’t buy degrees and none of them are essentially marketable. Who wants to buy a piece of paper earned by somebody else any way? You don’t get the knowledge or skill set.
What a faggot.
Hey, this is the writer.
I should have mentioned my degree is in the health professions, not fine arts or philosophy or anything like that. The job is in high demand, just not in Halifax. I already moved from my hometown, assuming there would be jobs in the city.
I’m whining, but hey, this is the bitch section right?
Koda — Thanks for the advice. Its awkward asking referees if you haven’t spoken to them in a while and Ill make sure they have a resume/copy of the application.
RRSPs
Sorry for the delay in replying but I was otherwise engaged.
: Xenophilia (Sept. 20, 12:07PM) – Sorry for the gender mistake. Yes, it occurred to me later: “Xenophilia” – the Greek form for a lover of foreigners. Are you Greek or just love foreigners? But I was puzzled by your distinction between the degree-holder and the autodidact (among whom, flatteringly, you number me) as being based on the fact that the latter, unlike the former, puts “too much emphasis on big words and not enough on their meaning.” I don’t suppose that you would justify that assertion, would you Xenophilia? Take your time. Use examples where appropriate.
: The Turd (12:12PM) – ?
: Avasto (12:57PM) – You must recall – but come to think of it, you probably never knew – that “pragmatism” comes in two forms: the philosophical or reflective form and the everyday or unreflective form. I was using the term in its first sense – a “philosophical” viewpoint which, since it deals in means rather than ends, is not truly philosophical at all – while in its second or “unreflective” sense – the sense in which you and other unconscious pragmatists employ the term – the expression “pragmatism” (or perhaps more accuratey “instrumentalism”) has the broad, generic, and everyday meaning one finds in dictionaries. Therefore, Avasto, I engaged in no self-contradiction in claiming that you are, on the one hand a pragmatist and, on the other, that you were “without philosophy.” To improve your understanding of the foregoing, Avasto, it might help to read it over again to yourself. Try not to move your lips.
: More (3:04PPM) – Yet another in the tired old refrain about “the coffee shop ladies with multiple degrees.” The “old refrain” is intended to show the irrelevance of university degrees to the job market when all it really does is reveal More’s pragmatic presuppositions in respect to which, of course, one was never in doubt.
: Xenophilia (3:16PM) – I liked your distinction between “qualfications, gumption, thought, or even inclination.” Are these distinct ontological concepts, Xenophilia, or do they jointly have some Wittgenstein over-lapping “family resemblances” made famous, of course, in his (mistaken, in my view) theory of “language games?” Write back soon, Xenophilia,with your thoughts.
: Donairious (3:24PM) – Give it to him, Donairious!
: Ferret (10:53PM) – Obviously, you have failed to grasp my distinction between education and training. The first takes university, the second somewhere else. Reflect on the truth of this assertion, Ferret.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Montrealman was “otherwise engaged” because he’s on the planning comittee for Longueil’s annual festival “Limon Partido”, now entering it’s 37th year
http://search.it.online.fr/covers/wp-conte…
That’s why sebastian gets the Iron Sheik’s “Worse than Michael Jackson” Award, MM!
RSVPs
: Scrotum (Sept. 21, 7:20AM) – You must struggle to suppress your homo-erotic fantasies, Scrotum.
: Donairious (7:29PM) – I understand now Donairious. Good work!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Very good MM, you’ve learned to say “I know you are, but what am I ” without sounding like a third grader. But what exactly is it about the picture which suggests homo-eroticism? This you must explain, (or first, comprehend). You can do that , can’t you? Or have you already suppressed your urges in favor of a more cerebral form of onanism?
The pleasure was mine.
Oatmeal.
RSVPs
: Scrotum (Sept. 22, 9:29AM) – “I know you are, but what am I?”
That, as opposed to the obviously homo-erotic (with sadistic notes) photograph of a group of nude males, is the philosophically interesting question. That question, of course, is what, if anything, constitutes the ultimate ground of personal identity?
One can, of course, take one of two general approaches to this question, the passive and the active. In respect to the first, it has been claimed that memory constitutes the ultimate ground of personal identity. You ARE, in effect, your memories collectively conceived. In support, the proponents of memory point to the devastating effects of Alzheimer’s Disease on personal identity.
Others, such as myself, think that while memory is indeed a significant factor in the construction of personal identity, the view is too passive. They feel, in other words, that personal identity is nor so much simply a passive state but rather the outcome of action. They speak not of passive states but rather of “agency.” Man is what he does, not simply what he is.
Of course, the question is still contentious. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
He He, Moe is their leader.
http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Three%20…
“It ISN’T reasonable to bring the 3 Stooges back from the dead Bart, and even if it was I doubt they’d want to hang around with you!”
Hoo-Ah! This guy is GOOD!
MM: Why I called you an autodidact
1. You don’t know when to use which and when to use that.
2. You take forever to reply, which makes me think that you need to research and check your answer before posting. In my experience, autodidacts are very careful that way…
RSVPs
: Scrotum (Sept. 22, 10:28AM) – Moe? Does he have any relevant views on the philosophical question of identity? You must try to focus your mind, Scrotum.
: Xenophilia (2;46PM) – Thank you for your thoughts on why you thought I was an autodidact but I must say I found them unsatisfying and even possibly contradictory.
Your first reason, that I don’t know how to use “which” as opposed to “that” I found puzzling. I checked the relevant post – my reply to you (Sept. 21, 10:27AM) – and could find no confusion. Of course, I could be wrong and await your instruction, but please specify the date, the time, and the line.
Your second reason, that I take “forever to reply” since I need to research and check my answer, seems to contradict the first since, if that were true, I would have noticed where I used “which” instead of “that,” assuming of course that I knew the differenc in the first place. You do see my point, don’t you, Xeno? (May I call you “Xeno?”) Also, I did indicate at the beginning of my post that I was “otherwise engaged” but thankfully, not in the way Scrotum supposed. So, Xeno, you can see the sources of my puzzlement in respect to your two reasons.
Finally, I detect a note of urgency in your post, Xeno. Are you, um, building up a “head of steam” where I am concerned? Perfectly understandable, of course, but I must warn you that my standards are high. Reflect on that, Xeno. I always make the females “work for it.”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Show ’em who’s boss, MM!
Moe was more of a motivational speaker, or life coach if you prefer. Have you ever seen “You Nazty Spies?” It predated Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” by 6 months and is, in my opinion, the superior in both narrative and execution.
Bitch, please! (MM)
You wrote: if that were true, I would have noticed where I used “which” instead of “that,” assuming of course that I knew the differenc in the first place.
Well, duh. It all sort of hinges on that, right?
I mean, not to poke holes, but you have defied *all four* properties of logic….
And once again, how I was able to suss you out: If you were a scholar or the gentleman you claim to be, you would use language to enlighten and clarify, not to obfuscate.
And don’t flatter yourself. Suffering fools gladly is in my job description right now, but I will be DIPPED IN SHIT before I do it on this forum.
and make me work for it? Hahahahaha.
You want a piece of Xenophilia?
Go for it, chump, you’ll just be the next in a long line of whip dicks that were sorely outmatched in a game of wits with me…
RSVPs
: Donairious (Sept. 22, 5:05PM) – You bet, Donairious!
: Scrotum (5:13PM) – No.
: Xenophilia (6:17PM) – I have “defied all four” properties of logic? Hmm, Aristotle, the father of deductive logic, had only three. Could you specify the fourth, Xeno, and while you’re at it, could you respond to my “puzzlement” in respect to the two “reasons” you gave for calling me an “autodidact?”
I enjoyed your spirited response to the effect that I was just another “whip dick” who would fail in a “game of wits” with you. But Xeno, as I previously said, you must work for it. I do not bestow my favours lightly. Play your cards right and I might, just might, begin to cultivate the beginnings of physical feelings for you. But, as I say, you must play your cards right.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Four principles of logic:
1. A subject is equal to the sum of its predicates, or a = a.
2. No predicate can be simultaneously attributed and denied to a subject, or a ≠ ~a.
3. Of every two contradictorily opposite predicates one must belong to every subject.
4. Truth is the reference of a judgment to something outside it as its sufficient reason or ground.
logic of MM:
Xeno makes a point and uses the fact that I made a grammatical error as proof. Because I didn’t see the error in my previous post, I conclude that she doesn’t know what she is talking about. to paraphrase, “I didn’t see the error, therefore it doesn’t exist.”
You wrote: . I checked the relevant post –
well, no you didn’t. The ‘relevant post’ was one you had made earlier that day. I will not specify the date, the time, and the line, either; find it yourself, bitch! It was some long-winded reply you made trying to prove how smart you are — I remember snorting inwardly as I saw the error in the first sentence. I didn’t finish reading it, just long enough to confirm my suspicion, (tl; dr) so I threw it out there when I thought you were getting a little full of yourself.
M: Your second reason, that I take “forever to reply” since I need to research and check my answer, seems to contradict the first since, if that were true, I would have noticed where I used “which” instead of “that,” assuming of course that I knew the differenc in the first place. You do see my point, don’t you, Xeno?
logic of MM: Because I only looked in one place for the grammatical error, it means that I don’t always spend time carefully crafting my replies, therefore, once again, Xeno is wrong.
Q.E. Motherfucking D.
:Montrealman (7:48 PM) – Philistine.
RSVPs
: Xenophilia (Sept. 22, 8:24PM) – An interesting post, Xeno, but – need I say it? – not without its difficulties, some of attribution, some of explication, some of logical confusion.
My first problem relates to attribution. Whose “logical principles” are these? They’re not Aristotle’s, the father of deductive logic. Did you Google them Xeno?
Shame on you. The first principle is, of course, Aristotle’s Law of Identity (A is A); the second is his Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannnot be both A and non-A); the third MIGHT be his Law of The Excluded Middle (A is equal to B and B is equal to C: therefore A is equal to C) but the wording is obscure. The fourth is not a logical principle at all but rather a re-statement of the “Correspondence of Truth: a statement is true if it corresponds to an extra-linguistic state of affairs, i.e., the “Tarski Sentence” – “‘Snow is white is true’ if, and only if snow IS white.” It is an empirical claim, not the outcome of deductive inference.
My second problem relates to explication. Examples of logical principles must be provided to demostrate their logical force. I leave it to you to provide these next time.
My final problem, sadly in view of your presentation of your principles of logic, is your failure to think logically. One example will suffice. I put it in syllogistical form for ease of comprehension:
Major Premiss: Montrealman looked only in one place for a grammatical error.
Minor Premiss: This means that he doesn’t always spend time carefully crafting his replies.
Conclusion: Therefore, according to Montrealman, Xeno is wrong.
Not only is this illogical, Xeno, it is incoherent.
I’m still waiting for the date, time, and line where I confused “which” with “that” Xeno. Your entire case depends on revealing it to us all.
: Oberst (Sept. 23, 6:59AM) – Could you demonstrate the truth of your claim? Please provide examples.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
:Montrealman (Sept. 23, 4:45PM) No. You did that yourself.
Also, the word you seek is premise, as in Major Premise or Minor Premise. Unless it was your intent to refer to the Polish city of Przemysl which would tend to render your argument a bit fruitopian, would it not?
RSVPs
: Oberst (Sept. 23, 5:28PM) – It can be spelt either way, you fool.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
:Montrealman (Sept. 23, 7:28 PM) Citation, please.
RSVPs
: Oberst (Sept. 23, 7:55PM) – Before giving references, a little review class is in order.
1. Oberst (Sept. 23, 6:59AM) – Out of the blue, in the middle of my conversation with Xeno, Oberst, hunnishly, shouts “Philistine!”
2. Montrealman (Sept. 23, 4:45PM) – Politely, I ask The Hun if he would demonstrate the truth of his assertion and provide examples.
3. The Hun (Sept. 23, 5:28PM) – The Hun replied, “No. You did that yourself,” before yapping about the orthograpy of parts of the syllogism.
Not good enough, Hun. You failed to answer my initial question. What is required is (1) a complete description of what you happen to understand by the expression, “Philistine!” and (2) give examples from my post(s) – including date, time and line – that clearly demonstrate that I fulfill all the criteria constitutive of what it is to be a “Philistine.”
Only when these demands have been satisfactorily met, Hun, can we then move to the question of orthography.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
P.S. What happened to Xeno? Couldn’t she find examples of my confusing “which” and “that” and is now in hiding? Will the Hun suffer the same fate? Stay tuned.
MM
The fact that you can identify only one definition of logic simply underscores the gaps in your education: the hallmark of an autodidact.
Responding to your meager attempts to keep up has become tiresome…done with it for now.
RSVPs,
: Xenophilia (Sept. 24, 9:15AM) – I’m finding it tiresome too, Xeno. But see my postscript to “The Hun” below. I hope that your hiding place isn’t too hot and stuffy.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Xenophilia for PM! I love this bitch… it’s fun!
Oh very well, MM, if I must spell it out for you. You’ve never seen “You Nazty Spies”, and you’re a wordy cunt. Hence, a Philistine. But, worry not, your acolyte Donarious is is working hard to get you a homeland of your very own.
Chancres away!
Xenophilia, you’re being rather generous in your assessment of Montremoleman there, aren’t you? Personally I don’t think that he has the wherewithal.
“incoherent” – Only to you Sméagol, only to you. Poor little Stoor 🙁
On a different note. Seems that scientist at CERN, may have caused/detected/discovered that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light. Friggin awesome =)
Indeed. Could be why Annie is so shit-scared of you Hugo. He thinks you’re one of the Illuminati. >; )
*Sorry – Angels & Demons was on History Telly last Sunday (WTF) and I was lying on the couch drinking Hoegarden and too damned lazy to change the channel.*
RSVPs
: Donairious (Sept. 24, 9:15AM) – I love her too Donairious, but for PM? Only if she comes out of hiding.
THE HUN IN RETREAT!
Montrealman viewed the logical shambles of The Hun’s post (11:30AM) with such dismay that direct quotations are completely irrelevant to the issue. However, three observations are in order.
1. The Hun’s Logical Shambles
The Hun claims that I am a “Philistine” since I am “a wordy cunt” but there is no relationship between the two terms. To give some syllogistical shape to his “thought” perhaps he wanted to say this:
Major Premiss – All cunts are wordy.
Minor Premiss – Montrealman is wordy.
Conclusion – Therefore Montrealman is a cunt.
This, of course may be, at least syllogistically, true but what does it have to do with my being a “Philistine?” It doesn’t fit into the syllogism and is therefore syllogistically extraneous. But what about the “Philistine?”
2. The Philistine
Sadly, The Hun gave no content to the concept. Montrealman hoped The Hun would draw upon rich Biblical sources to give the concept substance – something he could get his teeth into, so to speak – but, not unexpectedly, was disappointed again.
3. “The Hun”
In the same way Montrealman could only blink in incredulity at the poverty of The Hun’s resources when it came to his own name. It seems the reference is not to his political views but rather to some marginal, infantile film called “You Nazty Spies” or some such idiocy. The Hun is right however. I have never seen it, and don’t intend to. Can you imagine? Montrealman seeing “You Nazty Spies?”
It beggars belief.
The Orthographic Question: Note the spelling of the syllogism in #1 above. There is a reason for that. Being a gentleman however, Montrealman will let The Hun rally what is left of his tattered defences on The Orthographic Question in order to stave off total “Gotterdamerung.” But his prospects are not propitious.
As a teaser, Montrealman can say that he doesn’t get his philosophy out of a dictionary. Get to work Hun. I’ll be waiting.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Silly Jism? You may wish to consult your Leech about that. An imbalance of bodily humours could lead to an advanced case of PMSS, with disastrous consequences for all concerned. In a similar vein, I wish you luck with your Orthographics. Dr, Scholl makes very comfortable shoe inserts that may ease your lower back pain and make you a more pleasant individual all around.
Tease on.
I think that I’ll go along with you Ivan, and consider annie’s post as uproariously funny 😉 rather than embarrassingly pathetic.
Generosity of spirit embiggens the smallest man, Hugo.
It was both >; )
You know you are a true Haligonian, when your best friend is Alexander Keith!
You know you are a Haligonian when the only 2 authority figures in your life are Dr. Seuss & Captain Morgan
Also, for the further edification of Montrealman, Nature Rules: Philosophy stutters & drools
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg
That, I’m afraid, is a fact.
Wrong *again* Momar,
So far from being in hot and stuffy seclusion, I was out experiencing the world and far from my laptop.
Imagine my surprise to find you are still asking me to provide something I already told you to find yourself.
You are like a child in the car who continues to prate about a cement mixer we saw long after my own interest has waned…
BlackRose, Thank you. Ironically, “I love this bitch” were the very words once used by a suitor who asked my father for my hand in marriage…PM? prolly not, but I have flirted with running for HRM council…
Of course I was referencing the thread, not calling you a bitch… how did that go over with your Father BTW?
And say what you will a gal can’t be all bad with a Cheetah-ra avatar (even if it is the redesign)
RSVPs
: The Hun (Sept. 24, 5:13PM; 7:29PM; 9:13PM) – Three posts all to conceal the fact that you were unable to meet Montrealman’s orthographic challenge, a challenge that you initiated. For shame! A pity, I suppose, but not unexpected.
: Xenophilia (Sept. 25, 1:40PM) – An excellent idea getting out and exploring the world Xeno. It should take your mind off your failure at logical thought. Oh, look! A cement mixer!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Thank you, Blackrose, but my avatar is based on Vindicator of Marvel’s newly reissued team Alpha Flight. She makes Cheetah-Ra look a little slutty, don’t you think? And of course, with the Canadian bio she aid also way cooler. Mind you, in the latest issue she turns rogue, but I think it will all be a deep cover mission, and anyway, I’m too busy to find a new avatar.
As for what dear papa said, he laughed, knowing that any guy dumb enough to ask HIM for MY hand wasn’t going to make the team. In fact, when he finally did walk me down the aisle, his answer to who gives this woman…was “with her mother’s and my blessing, she proudly gives herself.”
“your failure at logical thought” – Well if that ain’t the pot calling the snowbank black.
That’s a lovely story Xeno. At our wedding when the minister asked “If anyone has reason to object…” it was SOBova herself who spoke up. What a card. Although the 5 minute Powerpoint presentation was a bit much >: (
Okay I was wrong on my Cheetah-Ra guess… looks just like her. (I must now turn in my cape and Geek Club de-coder ring 🙁 ) I’m kinda old-school Alpha Flight… I remember when Vindicator was a man… lol! Y’know… before the wife took over… Your avatar is now making TOTAL sense!
RSVPs
: Xenophilia (Sept. 25, 8:27PM) – “My Avatar is based on Vindicator of Marvel’s newly reissued team Alpha Flight.”
You still read the funnies, Xeno? Hmm, I think we have the answer to your difficulties with logic in particular and with philosophy more generally. Time to get back to Alpha Flight, Xeno. (Try not to move your lips while reading to yourself, Xeno.)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Whoa, Momar,
Didn’t take long for you to change from bemused scholar to petty bitch, did it now?
I found out about the new Alpha Flight in a Maclean’s magazine article I read in July. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? It’s a Canadian news magazine.
Don’t want to swell your head old boy, but I brought you up in a conversation yesterday with an old school chum who majored in Philosophy. I pulled up your post on my Ipod and read your comment:
“I have “defied all four” properties of logic? Hmm, Aristotle, the father of deductive logic, had only three. Could you specify the fourth, Xeno…?”
I looked at my friend and deadpanned: “can you imagine a philosopher who accepts only one definition of logic?” She performed then what I believe is called a ‘spit take’ in the theatre: that is she was so surprised by her laughter, she lost a little of the iced latte in her mouth at the time. It was quite droll. She then supposed that you were either going alphabetically or chronologically and never got past A.
RSVPs
: Xenophilia (Sept. 26, 12:37PM) – I was intrigued by your quotation suggesting that I was the one who said “You have defied all four principles of logic” when, in fact, it was you who said it Xeno (Sept. 22, 6:17PM). An interesting tactic, Xeno, but, as the old saying goes, “Any port in a storm.” (Yes, yes, I know it comes from Fielding’s “Moll Flanders” and was said by the Captain as he flipped up the back of Moll’s skirt as she was bending over attending to other matters.)
I was also intrigued by your friend who did a “spit take” on hearing my reference to Aristotle as the “Father of Logic” and that I had failed to get beyond him either alpabetically or chronolically. Go for another latte with her Xeno, and ask her to specify precisely just how he has been superceded, either alphabetically or chronologically. If she can’t, Xeno, you can do a spit take.
Report back soon, Xeno. In the meantime, return to your “Alpha Flight” or Maclean’s, as the case might be.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Pull your head out of wherever it has been lodging, Momar, and read again.
1. There are quotes within quotes–I pulled what I alleged to be your statement right from your post. While I find a philosophical argument diverting, arguing over who said what is just tiresome and annoying.
2. Moll Flanders was written by Defoe, and I take leave to doubt that the quotation originated there.
3. My friend did not laugh over the fact that Aristotle is the father of Philosophy. The way you willfully misunderstand what I am writing is very vexing. Focus! What we both found amusing is the fact that someone who considers himself a philosopher would adhere to only one definition of anything. That’s pretty much the antithesis of a philosopher. She was in the philosophy club at school and the T shirts she designed said “what is printed on the other side of this shirt is a lie” Of course, it was printed on both sides. Philosophers, like good debaters, can take an idea and run with it. They are not dogmatically chained to one ethos. (Mind you, large overarching generalizations are the hallmark of my major-anthropology)
This segues back to the very beginning of our argument, when you called me a pragmatist. I am a firm believer in a liberal arts education, and in fact many successful lawyers have BAs in philosophy. I totally eschew majors such as marketing, business, et al at the undergrad level. Learning is important for learning’s sake, not as a career ladder.
I am not a bully, nor a troll. You hit first. Not realizing yours was the flailing of a drowning man, I hit back. How I roll: if you’re going to fuck with me, you better have your ducks in a row.
Check and mate, momar. If you want to run with the big dogs, you can’t piss like a puppy.
Xeno – https://ideas.hmh.spigit.com/resources/fil…
Bit of a Lunch-bag-let-down though isn’t it, when you realize that annie can’t cut it as an academician, he’s more like an intellectual bully, sans intellect.
Thanks, Hugo!
There are times when I find his intellectual aspirations diverting, I must confess… then he starts begging for another smackdown, one which I am only to happy to give him… Am I cruel to toy with him this way?
and why do you call him annie?
He bores people on another site under the name “Annie” Annie was one of his whippets (yes , he does have a human side, he loves dogs). Best to not take him seriously, he’s just another Harlequin, capering on this stage in cap and bells.
Xeno – “annie” – is another screen name for Montremoleman, at this site…
http://communityherald.ca/bl.php
I found it last year, when I was calling him out on his bullshit.
He’s had quite the career. He fought with Castro in the Sierra Maestre. Fidel bloodied his nose and sent him home in tears.
He testified before HUAC and named so many names that even Tail-gunner Joe asked him “Have you no decency, sir?” He wrestled professionally for a short time under the ring name “The Pedant” In the late 60’s he urged his students to “Tune In, Turn On and Drop Acid” which was a bit unfortunate as he was a chemistry teacher at the time. He even claims that Dan Brown modelled the character of Lionel Teabag after him in the porn classic, “The Da Vinci Probe”
A regular Rennaissance man is our Annie
Oh, OK. Gotcha, Hugo…
I was trying to figure it out…all I could come up with was
1. Aninordinate amount of time on his hands or
2. Anintellectual poser
knowledge is power
lol, Oberst
‘the pedant’
(and your name? Is if short for ‘aburst of laughter’?)
>: ) Oberst is German for Colonel. Once I’ve gone through my teutonic phase I’ll go back to being plain old Ivan Sonovabitch. I too, enjoy capering & skylarking in cap and bells here.
Are you related to Ivan Awfulitch?
He is my cousin, back in home village of Novoyachelyabinsk. My family sell him to the Gypsy (p*tuh) for money to buy liquor. Great success.
LOL, boys,
Obi wrote : “He bores people … under the name “Annie” Annie was one of his whippets…”
(snort) why he can’t run with the big dawgs…
LOL – He takes the inspiring words of Devo to heart.
“Whippet. Whippet good”
we saw devo at massey hall, bill maher is there on saturday. i less than three him http://wittmeier.files.wordpress.com/2009/…
RSVPs
: Xenophila (Sept. 27, 10:13AM) I shall just be replying to you Xeno and not the other lightweight beancounters on this thread or their ilk on “Racism Alive and Well in Nova Scotia.” Their comments are without merit.
At the end of your post you claim that you are not a “troll” and take no interest in the tedious debate about who said what first. That said, you go on to claim that I “hit first” – but see your post of Sept. 20, 10:28AM – it was you who “hit first” Xeno. THAT said you then rebuked me for fluffing the author of “Moll Flanders” i.e. WHAT was said, in spite of your initial claim. Xeno, do you see any contradiction betwee what you CLAIM and what you actually DO, Xeno?
For the record, I did fluff the author of “Moll Flanders” – I was just writing from memory – but the quotation, “Any port in a storm,” in spite of your misgivings to the contrary, is exactly accurate. The reason I employed it, Xeno, is interesting: It was a metaphorical reference to your seeking refuge from your mistaken claim that – wait for it – that I “hit first.” A bit of irony there, don’t you think Xeno? Now, let’s get serious.
You write that you and your friend found it “amusing” that I adhere to one definition of logic which is “pretty much the antithesis of a philosopher.” Is it really Xeno? According to whom? The reason I adhere to one definition Xeno – are you sitting down? – is because the definition embodies the TRUTH. As it happens Xeno, I found your assertion itself amusing since it revealed where you, or more properly I suppose, your “philosophy-major” friend, was coming from. This was made obvious in the T-shirt example reading “What is printed on the other side of this shirt if false.” You friend is clearly “dogmatically chained” to one ethos, that of a discredited “post-modernism.” The shirt does not announce the multiple “ethoses” of philosophy as you suppose Xeno, but rather – are you sitting down again? – the post-modern dogma that there is no extra-linguistic reference point in terms of which a proposition may be assessed. But the post-modernists fail to recognize that their assertion that there is no extralinguistic truth-reference is, of course itself extra-linguistic. The assertion is “meta-linguistic.” But post-modernists, self-contradictingly, claim, that language is all that there is.
The usual rendering of the T-shirt model comes in the form of a reader who, on the top of page 5, reads, “The sentence on the bottom of page 10 is false.” Turning to the bottom of page 10, he then reads, “The sentence on the top of page 5 is false.” In purely linguistic terms, Xeno, the conundrum is unsolvable. However, clearly, one sentence is true and the other is false. But how is this to be determined? It will be determined exactly by reference to that which post-modernists deny: The existence of an extre-linguistic reality in terms of which truth may be determined. It’s called “philsophical realism.”
A pleasure as always, Xeno.
Cheerio!
P.S: Here’s one for you Xeno. “The Cretan said, ‘All Cretans are liars.'” Get to work Xeno. Call on your philosophy-major friend if necessary. And I don’t mean just what the saying means, I mean what the philosophical basis of the saying is.
Moman,
Wow–it took you two days to respond–hope you got out of your ivory tower while sweating out your reply!
Once again, you have willfully misconstrued my meaning. Way at the other end of this raggedy thread, you wrote:
“… Xenophilia isn’t able to realize that since he [sic] is simply a blinkered pragmatist… The larger problem with pragmatists like Xenophilia, however, is that they pervert and undermine a university education blah, blah, blah”
It was this statement that I was referring to when I said that you ‘hit first.’ By this I mean that you took the first swing. You made erroneous assumptions about me that you have yet to correct.
Yes, I GET the parallel you were trying to make with your literary reference. I still take leave to doubt the origin of the quotation. (It seems more likely to be from Tom Jones, but I maintain it was a sailor’s saying long before it was written down.)
Next, I ain’t buying your excuse for “The reason I adhere to one definition Xeno … is because the definition embodies the TRUTH.” ah, yes, THE TRUTH! Perhaps some Socratic questioning is in order…What is truth? What is knowledge? Why would someone who claimed to be a philosophy professor spout such nonsense and display such ignorance?
Anyone in the Greek chorus have a question to throw in?
Xeno, you must remember that, mm is a very selective man.
selective comprehension
selective memory
selective attention
selective perception
selective vision
RSVPs
: Xenophilia (Sep. 28, 1:55PM) – “Two days!” Xeno cries. You mustn’t be in a “heated rush” Xeno. I hope you’re not that way in your sexual encounters. You must have consideration for your partners, Xeno.
Just a few brief observations, Xeno. Let’s not sweat the small stuff – ie. the “first swing” – anymore. Boring, Xeno, boring. You must read “Moll Flanders”, Xeno. You will find the exact quotation. What possible grounds do you possibly have for claiming that it was “a saying long before it was written down?” Give grounds, Xeno.
I see that you still have a primitive conception of Truth, Xeno. In philosophy, Truth takes the form of a “regulative ideal,” that is, that which must be pre-supposed in order that one does not descend into self-contradictory incoherence like the post-modernists generally and your philosophy-major friend in particular.
I thought your last comment sounded more like “The Turd” than Xeno. Sad.
I see that you funked my request in respect to “The Paradox of the Liar,” i.e.,
“The Cretan said, ‘All Cretans are liars.'” The paradox, of course, is that if the Cretan were telling the truth, then he must be lying. This illustrates the absurdity to which those who espouse an entirely-language based philosophy – much like your philosophy-major friend in particular and post-modernists generally – must descend in the absence of philosophical realism where “reality” functions (like Truth) as a regulative ideal. In other words, Xeno, the concept must exist in order not to descend into incoherence.
Speaking of “reality,” Xeno, I suppose you also espouse the primitive equation of “reality” with tangibility. Am I right, Xeno?
Don’t look for any assistance from “the chorus,” Xeno. Philosophy for them is a closed book. It is out of their depth.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Getting bold again eh, Sméagol?
Know anything about Quarks? And I don’t mean…
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/ima…
But you’ll never take me up on any challenge, will you? Of course not, you’re too chickenshit.
Montremoleman – I bet you see yourself like this…
http://www.great-danes-of-the-world.info/i…
…but you’re more like…
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/44/…
..and I kepp kickig your ass, because I’m….
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/m…
Oggle, why should I answer your questions? You will answer them yourself in order to display your knowledge. ‘Right, let’s not bother over who started this, let’s just indulge my need for prolixity’
You might as well make up some childish body part name for me, because I am in the ranks of those who will likely disagree with you. I’ll give you the smackdown you so sorely need when you ask for it in the future, but I’m done with it for now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luKmSLXukaw…
RSVPs
: Xenophilia (Sept. 29, 2:54PM) – Well, I guess Xeno’s giving up the ghost. Too bad, really, since our discussion raised some interesting philosophical points. But, in standard fashion even in this short post, she engages once more in self-contradiction, that mortal philosophical “sin.” She rebukes me in respect to “making up some childish body parts” for certain commenters and implying that I’ll be doing the same for her. Well, I could think of only two examples, and the second could only be considered a “temporary” body part and so doesn’t fill the bill. That said, Xeno posts a link which refers to me – are you ready for it? – as A BODY PART! But I would never give you a body-part nickname, Xeno. I’m too much of a gentleman.
Being a gentleman, Xeno, I was going to analyze my last question for you, you know, your “primitive equation of reality with tangibility,” an issue that lies at the heart of contemporary philosophical confusion. But, Xeno, judging by the tenor of your post, I won’t bother since, in your incomprehension, you would simply charge me with “prolixity.”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!