I was approached by a guy outside my local Safeway and I figured he’d ask me for money but he said he was hungry so I went inside and bought him a premade Safeway deli sandwich. He took it and walked down the street eating it.
Gene, I disagree with your analysis of the philosophy exam. You said that the student complied with the professor's false claim that there was no chair. I disagree. By asking "What chair?" the student is placing the professor in the position of identifying the chair and thus showing that it does exist. It's a wonderful FU to a professor trying to demonstrate how clever he is.
Why is it that every time a professor poses a challenging or paradoxical question, in reality or in a joke, it is interpreted as the "professor trying to demonstrate how clever he is"? Speaking as a professor, my purpose in asking such questions is for the student to demonstrate how clever they might be, either by solving the problem in a satisfying way, or by evading the question in an unsatisfying way that nevertheless meets the nominal criteria for success and thus solves a Gordian Knot type of problem.
BTW, I do not think that Alexander the Great actually solved the problem of the Gordian Knot by cutting it with his sword. Swords of the day would not be super-sharp and it would take quite a bit of sawing and hacking for even a modern sharp cutting tool to fully sever a thickly tied rope knot. A the G solved the problem by surrounding the elders of Gordium with an army that firmly and pointedly agreed that Alexander had solved the problem, to the point that the Gordian people saw the wisdom in praising Alexander's cleverness.
As you may know, there is another version of the legend (as there often is with legends) where Alexander "solves" the knot in less dramatic fashion by removing a linchpin thereby fully exposing it and then untying it.
Tim, I suppose that there are situations in which a philosophy professor would ask students to disprove a reality, but it would be unrealistic as the only question in a final. I therefore conclude that the professor is (a) fictional and (b) a jerk.
Please remember that Gene presented this as an analogy to Trump asking us to believe whatever he tells us and understood the student's answer as complying, whereas I envisioned it as refusing to comply with the falsehood. Trump is (a) unfortunately not fictional but certainly (b) a jerk. I believe we should all turn his lies back on him. (E.g., what are the actual statistics on immigrants committing crimes?)
To be tiresome, I will also contest your version of the Gordian Knot. It's a myth. Of course heroes solve insoluble problems or they wouldn't be heroes. The story postdates Alexander's being a hero, and remember, the story begins with the people making their king the next man to ride in on an ox-cart.
The car washing question was way too simplified. Too many factors. If the temperature stays below freezing, car washes tend not to operate and, no, I’m not running a bucket of hot water from my house to toss on my cold car.
If the weather report calls for rain, why bother? If it turns really warm, snow melt is going to put more road spray on a newly washed car.
I also noticed the photo of Trump not putting his hand on his heart as the flag draped coffin passed by. But in another photo where everyone else had their hand over their heart I noticed that Trump had his firmly planted on his rather large belly. Does that mean his heart is in his stomach?
Here is my big thinking: Starting a blog on Substack, that I call “Interesting Times.”
Trump may or may not follow through on his plan to arrest people who oppose him. I figure that, if he does, the really well-known opponents will be first — people in politics and the press who make clear their disgust with Trump. I’m thinking of people like Joe Biden, Liz Cheney, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris, Dan Rather, Anthony Fauci, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and the other most famous MSNBC commentators — folks whose names and faces are well-known to Americans.
The second tier will consist of lesser-known people who may or may not be able to walk down the street unrecognized but who are doing their part to challenge Trump, and whose names are reasonably well-known, although not necessarily household words. These folks will become targets when the first tier members are carted off to jail or Guantanamo. This tier consists of journalists and politicians, such as Gene Weingarten, the rest of MSNBC and most CNN on-air personalities, Democratic Senators and House Members, and the women in charge of Planned Parenthood.
We could have numerous other tiers, but let’s assume just three. I figure that my anti-Trump Substack blog, which , for now, I’m distributing at no cost, puts me in tier three. But, whether I eventually charge for a subscription or not, other tier three writers and I will be there to keep supporting the First Amendment and the resistance, even if tiers one and two have been carried off.
If Darth Vader and crew get disgusted enough with us, we may have to make sacrifices akin to those that the better known resistors are forced into. But I’m 70 years old and have lived most of my life. I owe a great deal to the pre-45-47 United States, including that it allowed my parents to immigrate, saving them from the Nazis. If I have to sacrifice to help save the USA, so be it. Oh, and please subscribe to “Interesting Times.”
Don't think it's denial so much as it is avoidance coping and purposeful distraction. As for the cult members themselves, they have built houses of cards using lies and disinformation. The truth or acceptance of another point of view would send them tumbling down and with them, self-esteem.
So, I wanted to find out the specifics of "death by roo-roo," so I followed the link. And found that I could only read it if I re-subscribed to WaPo. Is Bezos holding Rachel prisoner until you drum up 1000 new subscribers?
The parable reminded me of Vladimir Nabokov's novel, "Invitation to a Beheading." I read it decades ago, and the only thing I remember about it is that, as in the parable, the protagonist is not told the date of his execution. But Wikipedia fills us in:
While confined, Cincinnatus is not told when his execution will occur. This troubles him, as he wants to express himself through writing "in defiance of all the world's muteness," but feels unable to do so without knowledge of how long he has to complete this task. Indifferent to the absurdity and vulgarity around him, Cincinnatus strives to find his true self in his writing, where he creates an ideal world. Taken to be executed, he refuses to believe in either death or his executioners, and as the axe falls the false existence dissolves around him as he joins the spirits of his fellow visionaries in "reality."
The Wikipedia article on the novel has a lot more, if anyone is interested.
None of the choices in the car washing question work for me. We have three vehicles: a new one, a 13 year-old one and a 17 year-old one. The new one definitely will go the car wash as soon as the snow has melted. The other two will get washed....in time.
I have yet to figure out when the real-time chat starts. That doesn't seem to be posted anywhere. I'm left with the feeling that I missed a meeting, which is the feeling life has been giving me since at least junior high school.
The "real time" chat exists only now, on Thursdays at 11 oclock. The Substack model is that newsletters occur when they occur -- I still take and respond to questions and observations, but seldom in real time; usually, just a day delay.
So now we have "Roo-roo: The Undead." When we last encountered roo-roo as a punchline in these here parts, it was being badly beaten about its existence and mercifully (I thought) left for dead, assuring it would never again be found even amusing, let alone guffaw- or chortle-worthy.
Apparently, I was wrong. "It's alive, it's alive."
Re: Safeway guy
I was approached by a guy outside my local Safeway and I figured he’d ask me for money but he said he was hungry so I went inside and bought him a premade Safeway deli sandwich. He took it and walked down the street eating it.
Gene, I disagree with your analysis of the philosophy exam. You said that the student complied with the professor's false claim that there was no chair. I disagree. By asking "What chair?" the student is placing the professor in the position of identifying the chair and thus showing that it does exist. It's a wonderful FU to a professor trying to demonstrate how clever he is.
Why is it that every time a professor poses a challenging or paradoxical question, in reality or in a joke, it is interpreted as the "professor trying to demonstrate how clever he is"? Speaking as a professor, my purpose in asking such questions is for the student to demonstrate how clever they might be, either by solving the problem in a satisfying way, or by evading the question in an unsatisfying way that nevertheless meets the nominal criteria for success and thus solves a Gordian Knot type of problem.
BTW, I do not think that Alexander the Great actually solved the problem of the Gordian Knot by cutting it with his sword. Swords of the day would not be super-sharp and it would take quite a bit of sawing and hacking for even a modern sharp cutting tool to fully sever a thickly tied rope knot. A the G solved the problem by surrounding the elders of Gordium with an army that firmly and pointedly agreed that Alexander had solved the problem, to the point that the Gordian people saw the wisdom in praising Alexander's cleverness.
As you may know, there is another version of the legend (as there often is with legends) where Alexander "solves" the knot in less dramatic fashion by removing a linchpin thereby fully exposing it and then untying it.
Tim, I suppose that there are situations in which a philosophy professor would ask students to disprove a reality, but it would be unrealistic as the only question in a final. I therefore conclude that the professor is (a) fictional and (b) a jerk.
Please remember that Gene presented this as an analogy to Trump asking us to believe whatever he tells us and understood the student's answer as complying, whereas I envisioned it as refusing to comply with the falsehood. Trump is (a) unfortunately not fictional but certainly (b) a jerk. I believe we should all turn his lies back on him. (E.g., what are the actual statistics on immigrants committing crimes?)
To be tiresome, I will also contest your version of the Gordian Knot. It's a myth. Of course heroes solve insoluble problems or they wouldn't be heroes. The story postdates Alexander's being a hero, and remember, the story begins with the people making their king the next man to ride in on an ox-cart.
The car washing question was way too simplified. Too many factors. If the temperature stays below freezing, car washes tend not to operate and, no, I’m not running a bucket of hot water from my house to toss on my cold car.
If the weather report calls for rain, why bother? If it turns really warm, snow melt is going to put more road spray on a newly washed car.
Well reasoned. My choice assumed a good time to wash.
One might argue that Trump was showing respect in the photo. He had the decency to pull his head out of his ass as Jimmy Carter's casket went by.
I also noticed the photo of Trump not putting his hand on his heart as the flag draped coffin passed by. But in another photo where everyone else had their hand over their heart I noticed that Trump had his firmly planted on his rather large belly. Does that mean his heart is in his stomach?
I can't tell where Melania's hand rests in the photo.
Not could I, but it definitely was not on her heart.
I saw another view of the same event. It was on her heart.
I think something was blocking that view in the first photo.
Melania has a heart?
I am sure she loves her son.
Certainly you've heard that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. I suppose creatures who think they are men could believe that too.
Or maybe he just had a touch of indigestion.
I think I can smell it from here 😆
Denial is my state of residence for the next four years.
Here is my big thinking: Starting a blog on Substack, that I call “Interesting Times.”
Trump may or may not follow through on his plan to arrest people who oppose him. I figure that, if he does, the really well-known opponents will be first — people in politics and the press who make clear their disgust with Trump. I’m thinking of people like Joe Biden, Liz Cheney, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris, Dan Rather, Anthony Fauci, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and the other most famous MSNBC commentators — folks whose names and faces are well-known to Americans.
The second tier will consist of lesser-known people who may or may not be able to walk down the street unrecognized but who are doing their part to challenge Trump, and whose names are reasonably well-known, although not necessarily household words. These folks will become targets when the first tier members are carted off to jail or Guantanamo. This tier consists of journalists and politicians, such as Gene Weingarten, the rest of MSNBC and most CNN on-air personalities, Democratic Senators and House Members, and the women in charge of Planned Parenthood.
We could have numerous other tiers, but let’s assume just three. I figure that my anti-Trump Substack blog, which , for now, I’m distributing at no cost, puts me in tier three. But, whether I eventually charge for a subscription or not, other tier three writers and I will be there to keep supporting the First Amendment and the resistance, even if tiers one and two have been carried off.
If Darth Vader and crew get disgusted enough with us, we may have to make sacrifices akin to those that the better known resistors are forced into. But I’m 70 years old and have lived most of my life. I owe a great deal to the pre-45-47 United States, including that it allowed my parents to immigrate, saving them from the Nazis. If I have to sacrifice to help save the USA, so be it. Oh, and please subscribe to “Interesting Times.”
Don't think it's denial so much as it is avoidance coping and purposeful distraction. As for the cult members themselves, they have built houses of cards using lies and disinformation. The truth or acceptance of another point of view would send them tumbling down and with them, self-esteem.
So, I wanted to find out the specifics of "death by roo-roo," so I followed the link. And found that I could only read it if I re-subscribed to WaPo. Is Bezos holding Rachel prisoner until you drum up 1000 new subscribers?
The Choice
To a savage land two men of God did travel.
They sought to give to heathens Christian voice.
Their mission soon most gravely did unravel
For seized they were, and given a grim choice:
“You may choose roo-roo,” said the village chief
Or, in its stead, take sudden, instant killing.
The first man said, “The first,” with slight relief:
Whatever roo-roo was, it seemed less chilling.
But tied he was, face first, to a big tree,
And, at the hands of tribesmen, he was toast:
His nethers suffered gross indignity,
Till, hours later, he gave up the ghost.
The second man was given the same choice:
And from his colleague’s trial he quite took heed,
He said he wanted death — then, with rejoice:
“I ask it done right now, with all due speed.”
The chief responded wisely, like a guru:
“As you wish — but first ... a little roo-roo.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25486132-report-of-special-counsel-smith-volume-1-january-2025/
Link to Smith J/6 election subversion report.
The parable reminded me of Vladimir Nabokov's novel, "Invitation to a Beheading." I read it decades ago, and the only thing I remember about it is that, as in the parable, the protagonist is not told the date of his execution. But Wikipedia fills us in:
While confined, Cincinnatus is not told when his execution will occur. This troubles him, as he wants to express himself through writing "in defiance of all the world's muteness," but feels unable to do so without knowledge of how long he has to complete this task. Indifferent to the absurdity and vulgarity around him, Cincinnatus strives to find his true self in his writing, where he creates an ideal world. Taken to be executed, he refuses to believe in either death or his executioners, and as the axe falls the false existence dissolves around him as he joins the spirits of his fellow visionaries in "reality."
The Wikipedia article on the novel has a lot more, if anyone is interested.
Here's a great summary of why I don't read Nabokov. :)
I’ve spent the last 10 winters in Florida. So channeling your philosophy exam story, my response to Poll #1 would be, “What snowfall?”
My thoughts exactly!
None of the choices in the car washing question work for me. We have three vehicles: a new one, a 13 year-old one and a 17 year-old one. The new one definitely will go the car wash as soon as the snow has melted. The other two will get washed....in time.
I have yet to figure out when the real-time chat starts. That doesn't seem to be posted anywhere. I'm left with the feeling that I missed a meeting, which is the feeling life has been giving me since at least junior high school.
The "real time" chat exists only now, on Thursdays at 11 oclock. The Substack model is that newsletters occur when they occur -- I still take and respond to questions and observations, but seldom in real time; usually, just a day delay.
I own a piece of you? Sweet! You should be very afraid! Mwah ha ha ha ha ha!
So now we have "Roo-roo: The Undead." When we last encountered roo-roo as a punchline in these here parts, it was being badly beaten about its existence and mercifully (I thought) left for dead, assuring it would never again be found even amusing, let alone guffaw- or chortle-worthy.
Apparently, I was wrong. "It's alive, it's alive."
Ha. You said "parts."