h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

i want to join

If the universe is infinite, then im "a" center, 21+4^1+8+9=42

Roadkill - Unfortunately, I don't know anything.

Please type in your name and a Philosophical Phrase to join.
aixenprov
Are we all philosophers with varying degrees of latency?

Please type in your name and a Philosophical Phrase to join.
aixenprov
Are we all philosophers with varying degrees of latency?

I think that the answer to that question is a resounding "maybe".

Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is invariably fatal.

I'm allergic to latency.
It's the powder, I think.

Right then.

But is life only sexually transmitted? Don't forget the aemoebas!

Why, where did I leave them? (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that.)

But that was a good question, actually ( damn your eyes).

I suppose I COULD change to 'Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is invariably fatal ... unless you're an amoeba' but it sort of loses it's punch, don't you think?

It does. You could modify it, reduce it rather than expand it.

"Life is the only thing that is invariably fatal"

How is that?

Depressing

yes but true i supose.....

The thing is, I rather liked the bit about life being a sexually transmitted disease. I want people to read the statement and say, 'Wow, he's right you know, that's very deep. Must be a clever chap, that Slarvibarglhee,' even if I'm not.

It's an ego thing, ergo I'd like to keep it as it was originally and hope that not too many people will argue the point.

Pay no attention to Roadkill -- just stirring things up to discomfit you. When you say anything beginning 'Life is . . .' people expect you are talking about human life. And even though amoebas are innocent of the highs and lows we are to thank sex for, it still doesn't falsify your statement which can be read as 'life is (among other things) a sexually transmitted fatal disease'.

It's that 'is' again -- slippery character -- sets himself up as though saying that things are all covered, but it ain't necessarily so.

Cheese is made from cows' milk.

True, and also not (exclusively) true. Hah!

Fair enough.

But isn't getting rid of assumption vital to philosophical method? You assume the world exists. You assume effect follows cause. But do you know?

"But isn't getting rid of assumption vital to philosophical method?"

No hope. No need.

"You assume the world exists."

Not required.

"You assume effect follows cause."

No. Given eternal beings, effects can be planted anywhere.

"But do you know?"

Hootoo ergo sum.

Any more questions?

I like the last one.

Perhaps, instead of, "you" I should have written "one".

Though according to your first answer, I would ask whether this means that if I assume that there are, at this moment, only three biscuits in the world. There is no hope no hope of getting rid of this assumption, and also no need. ?

The cogito is not as secure as Descartes would have liked it to be.

"Though according to your first answer, I would ask whether this means that if I assume that there are, at this moment, only three biscuits in the world." - er, yes, what? Didn't your mum ever tell you to always finish your sentences and not leave untidy clauses lying around?

I'm beginning to think that I should try a different assumption. How about this one? "There are two types of people in the world. Those who think there are two types of people in the world, and those who don't."

Now now now! Boys and girls, settle down! This is in danger of turning into a . . . a . . . discussion!

She never told me that, I had to work it out all by myself. There was meant to be something on the end, I just can't remember what it was at the moment.

I like the other assumption.