Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar

Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes by Thomas Cathcart


My review


rating: 4 of 5 stars

Philosophy has interested me for deades, but I—unfortunately—have gotten lost in other authors' need to impress their peers. This book is for the everyman. It makes this esoteric subject readable, and, more importantly, understandable.

As an example of 'inductive logic' (reasoning from specific instances to a general conclusion, that is broader than what can logically inferred from the instances):

A man is driving down the road.
A woman is driving up the same road.
They pass each other.
The woman yells out her window, "Pig!"
The man shouts back, "Bitch!"
The man rounds the next curve, crashes into a huge pig in the middle of the road, and dies.

The "funny" here, is the man used 'inductive logic'. He reasoned that every time a woman has called him a 'pig' in the past, was because she was negatively describing his character; therefore he concluded that this woman must be doing the same, and called her a 'bitch'. His 'crashing into a pig' proves that his logic was faulty and that what has always come before is not proof of what will come in the future.

Previous Reviews

greypopcorn



 
          As you know, it is not enough for a reader to pick up the little symbols from a page with his eyes ... Once we get those symbols inside our heads and in the proper order, then we must clothe them in gloom or joy or apathy, in love or hate, in anger or peacefulness, or however the author intended them to be clothed. In order to be good readers, we must even recognize irony—which is when a writer says one thing and really means another, contradicting himself in what he believes to be a beguiling cause. — Kurt Vonnegut, Palm Sunday (1981)

Electoral College Opinion

Thank you, veterans. I am one, know many still serving and many more who once served. My thoughts are with you as I write:

I, like most, have been vaguely aware of our Electoral College system since a long-ago High School American History class (about the same time I learned we bought Alaska from the former USSR on the cheap). Since then, I have propped-up my end of several conversations by parroting some long-forgotten opinion-maker who must have decried loud enough for me to take note that: 'our antiquated system smothers the popular vote'. It was an effective way to pretend to have more intelligence than I held title to; everyone sounds more passionate riding a strong negative opinion.

Today I ask: why are so many people (who may not even understand the system, and the reasons behind it) against our electoral college?

The framers of our constitution certainly knew why a nation-wide popular vote was impractical. They were aware that we humans are supremely ignorant people. We (the royal we) are: too easily led; too stupid to be trusted with our own self-preservation; and should never, never, never, be given something as valuable and important as electing a president without oversight. Thus, we elect a group of intelligentsia-esque politicos who, in turn, elect the president and vice president. They provide a much-needed buffer by injecting careful and calm deliberation into the process of selecting the most qualified candidate. (I thank them for their future service every time the phrase 'Palin 2016' leaves the lips of some talking-supermodel-esque-head, whom I watch in HD but hope-dies-a-painful-videotaped-death for even forming the thought.)

The members of the electoral college are nothing more than judges; judging before the new president and vice president take over the Executive Branch of the US government. They are tasked with deciding for us, when we may be too stupid for our own good (please feel free to supplant the word 'stupid' with the word 'religious' as needed).

We (or, at least the Californian-we) needed an 'electoral college buffer' in place, when voting on Proposition 8. If they only had a group of people, smarter than the average stupid-fucknut (feel free: 'stupid-fucknut'/'religious-fucknut') then we would not be witnessing a reversal of civil rights. But...I guess there is a group of intelligentsia in place, isn't there?—and they are called California State Supreme Court Judges. Who will now need to do, after the fact, what the mentally infirm majority of Californian voters were incapable of doing: enforce equality under the law on the majority of stupid-haters who follow without question (the purest definition of 'stupid-belief') a few vaingloriously bigoted stupid-leaders.

Other states, as choc-a-bloc full of stupid-hating fucknuts as they are, will be force-guided away from their bigotry some day too. As will the entire country. Someday we will see a Federal Constitutional Amendment that will force equality in every aspect of 'sexual orientation' including the right of same-sex couples to bind themselves legally in a ceremony (which will last about 50% of the time). And, someday we will elect an openly gay US President.

This prophecy doesn't sound as hollow as it once would; does it?

As a retired member of the US Armed Forces, I served to protect the rights of Americans. Does that sentence require "all" in front of "Americans"? I protected against hatred and bigotry maybe MORE than criminal activity and physical harm. One positive thing: our ever-present 'enemy within' (unforgivably stupid, hate-filled American citizens) are eroding. Slowly. Much too slowly for me at times.

, , , ,

Non-Required Reading 2008

The Best American Non-required Reading 2008 (Best American Nonrequired Reading) The Best American Non-required Reading 2008 by Dave Eggers


My review


rating: 4 of 5 stars

A wonderful collection of articles, graphic shorts, lists, and blog posts, both fiction and non. Although I did not read everything, I greatly enjoyed: Steven King's short (Ayana - Paris Review); George Saunder's article (Bill Clinton, Public Citizen - GQ) informed me; Gene Weingarten's article (Pearl's Before Breakfast - The Washington Post) made me think about stopping and smelling the roses; and the excerpt from the graphic novel The Three Paradoxes by Paul Hornschemeier made me want to read the rest of it.

Previous Reviews

Portland OR — Reasons (#11)

Full Service Gasoline

A dozen rational reasons to enjoy living in Portland, Oregon: Number eleven

Self-service gasoline stations are illegal. In Oregon, all gasoline stations must either be mini- or full-service. At mini-service, they only pump gas. At full, they clean your windshield, check your fluid(s) and tire pressure, if needed. Mini = no tip. Full = tipping is suggested depending on the amount of added service provided (beyond pumping gas). It's wonderful to stay seated, out of the weather, and never get gas on your hands. This law also prevents environmental accidents (from fluid spills) and results in thousands of minimum-wage jobs (Oregon's minimum wage is $7.95).

We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we are hooked on. — Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country (2005)