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

Ah, Finally a page for us philosophers to skulk moodily in. As this is a softball club, I'd like to compile a list of Softball philosophies. I'll start: "you win some, you lose some. But mainly you lose 'em"

Any others?

Also, As team philosopher, I think "I think therefore I am" is a bit strong. I'm much more of a vague philosopher. Can we change the heading to "I think, therefore, I, Ummmm......."??

Coming right up!

It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.
BULLSHIT. Cheat, fight, spit on them, throw dirt in their eyes. WIN AT ALL COSTS, DO YOU HERE ME, WIN AT ALL COSTS

....and never bend over to tie your laces when any member of the opposite sex is within reach......or is that not really philosophy....just common sense

Thanks for that, Shazz.. More common sense that only slightly relates to softball: "Do unto others before they do it unto you". I dunno, maybe it relates to stealing bases or something....

Perhaps on a par with*Look before you leap*

PAr? Isn't that golf?

Philosophy in its entirety is Bollocks.

How about "cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum"--"I think that I think, therefore I think that I am."

How so?

Philosophy is the art of saying absolutly everything about absolutly nothing until absolutely everyone cares absolutely nothing about what you are saying. That coupled with the fact that there are no true absolutes about says it all.

That's not true. Philosophers will always care about what other philosophers are saying...and as for everyone else, if they don't care then who needs them?

Philosophers only care about what they think about what others think. Why not just cut out the middle man?

That's because most philosophers are increadibly vain.

Whence this inappropriately mean-spirited argument, might I ask? Even if it were true that philosophers only care about etc, etc, why on earth would that justify doing away with them? Perhaps _you_ don't happen to think they serve any useful purpose, but that's just you, now isn't it?

Are you saying that's just what I think?
Or is that what you think I think?
Is this my philosophy or yours?
If you are commenting on what you think I think
then using the previous arguement...
that's just what you think with the middle man removed.

That makes my head hurt.

All right. First of all, of course I can't know what you think, but you notice I don't presume to. And you do give an impression of what you think by presenting an argument; the argument you present, furthermore, is all that anyone can comment on. Thus I am commenting on the argument you present, which is in a sense the impression you give of what you think; if it isn't really what you think, then we would seem to be in agreement and there's nothing more to argue about; if it is what you think, then where's the problem?

Is this my philosophy or yours, you ask? Obviously I am presenting my philosophy and you are presenting yours, and we are then commenting on each other's.

Perhaps my commenting on my perception of your thoughts is indeed just me presenting my own views. I'm not sure if you mean you are the middleman, but if so, then it seems you're saying that there's no point in your having said anything since I would be saying the same thing whether you had or not. This isn't quite true, since it took your stimulation to make me say it; it is true that I would still think it, but whether I think it or not really isn't relevant to anything if I don't say it, or at least that's the impression I have. Thoughts about things like this aren't important until a situation arises that warrants the airing of those thoughts; but there are many such situations in life and they're surely not irrelevant to human affairs.

>Thoughts about things like this aren't important until a situation >arises that warrants the airing of those thoughts; but there are >many such situations in life and they're surely not irrelevant to >human affairs.

Very well said! Compliments are in order.

/F