thehappycon
I once took a class taught by a philosopher. It was entitled “Early Western History,” which was a damn dirty bit of untruth in advertising. Early Western History is hardly the exclusive story of philosophers.
But my main gripe with the philosopher is that he tore down everything I find holy and good in the world. Other than that, I suppose, I couldn’t say anything bad about him.
The problem with philosophers is that they fight dirty. Oh, yes, I’m certain that I’ll raise the cackles of all five thousand philosophers who frequent this blog hourly, but the fact that guys with birkenstocks and unwashed hair also play dirty should really come as no surprise.
It’s easy to bash other people’s ideas, find Marxian “contradictions,” and generally make a “gadfly” of yourself when you stand for nothing. It’s like cheating on computer games. As long as you’re invincible, you can always win. But, then again, cheating on computer games tends to ruin them. I suppose there is a little bit of momentary vengeance and vindication when you finally murder that last blood sucking Mongol or Gaul, but is it really fun when their arrows go through you?
That’s how philosophy works. As long as you stand for nothing in particular, as long as you’re simply “looking for answers,” no one can harm you. You’re invincible, because you don’t have issues with so-called “morals” or “tradition” or “religion” or “hell.” That’s how my dear friend Eric Brown played. It doesn’t matter which stance I decided to take, it happened to be wrong. No harm in shooting when you’ve got nothing to lose.
If you believe in nothing, you can never be wrong. But, oh, what courage you show in your quest!
Of course, if someone does figure out what truth is, philosophers will be out of a job. And perhaps cushy jobs as professors and humus in the tummy is something even they believe in. Birkenstocks aren’t free, ya know?
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: conservative, Education, liberal, morals, philosophy
Unlike science or other “hard” subjects, philosophy doesn’t undergo an experimental “test”. We were just visiting about hypotheses. I groaned about the memory of learning annually the importance thereof. Unfortunately, hypotheses are unbearably meaningful. But their importance is invariably taught in a sterile manner. We should teach the testing of hypotheses in real world settings…not too tough because we use this method constantly. It enables us to follow rules and maintain structure. Structure is a massive and uncomfortable concept for those who rely on the shadowy and slippery and fluid notion of relativity….rather like a dam and lock system making the Mississippi navigable and useful rather than unpredictable and wild. Philosophers can order our world…or throw it into chaos.