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

I am drinking without thinking, therefore I am thunk drunk.
squeek.
squeek.

:: not quite yet

You know, if Rolf Harris had said that, I would very nearly have believed it. 8)

And, what may i ask makes you think that it is an unthinkible notion that Rolf Harris may have indeed posted that?

<

Sorry 2 legs, I don't think Rolf Harris has ever been photographed with HIS hair in bunches

SHHHHHHH! so where is the parsnip/turnip going to be?
Tie my kangeroo down sport::
watch my wallaby feed mate,
hay look, they a dangerous breed mate,
.....

Don't know yet, what about the Parsnip at the Printworks?

The Preston Parsnip?
The taunton Turnip?

OK - nothing on this thread for a few days - have the philosophers actually gone on strike then?

176645

We are thinking about it.

ok sorry - think and be. I am therefore I post.

Ahhh... One of us?

Hi there

I know that you guys are thinking about going into a philosophers strike

But I just happened to be talking to another researcher (jwf) about the "I think therefore I am..." quote

I found out that the quote doesn't end just there it keeps going, among many other very interesting things.

The post about this quote is pretty much at the end of the conversation, so you are going to have to scroll down to about post 32 to find it.

The conversation is very long and I learned so much from it, so if you want... give it a try.

I'm not posting the link to the conversation from here because it'll probable get moderated; instead go to my page and click on the "New Philosophical proof of God's existance" conversation.

It's really worth it

Best wishes to all

I see this conversation has brought a lot of philosophers out of the woodwork. Excellent.

Anyway, I'm in the process of starting a University of Life philosophy research project entitled:

Philosophy: The Interesting Bits.

There's some brief info about in the University of Life Philosophy Department discussion forum. Briefly, I think it would be interesting to write about interesting bits of philosphy in an entertaining, informal, and yet informative way. Between all of the philosophy grads that seem to be here, we ought to have enough areas of expertise to put something together.

If you're interested, please drop by the Department and post something on the discussion forum, and give me an idea of what you'd be interested in writing about.

Best wishes

Otto "Bruce" Fisch

I always believed that philosophy degrees taught you what other people thought and why they disagreed with each other.

If, like a good science degree, it teaches you to question, investigate and evaluate I will add it to my list of *Degrees to take for no good reason when I have won the lottery and don't have to work for a living*

H2G2 links don't get moderated, only those to sites outside BBC.

38-J

JOTD: He who laughs last didn't get the joke.

Thanks Jester now I bring you the magic link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F58051?thread=132635&latest=1

The question of the impact of a philosophers strike rather depends on the remit and policy of the union itself - let me explain.

It is reasonable to assume that Philosophers will be divided between those who believe firmly in the Trade Union system, and those who doubt it's credibility - belief and doubt being after all their stock and trade.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that those who join the union will be firm and militant union members and that the organisation will be equally staunch and hard line. Actions taken by said union are likely to be firm, decisive and extreme (though lightening strikes would be eschewed in favour of carefully considered action. It is also reasonable to assume that possible courses of action to foreseeable problems will have been debates and formulated well in advance of the events occurring.

The union is likely then to effect picketing of not only it own members workplaces, but those of "Allied Trades" and non-professional philosophers (many of whom are in fact scabs).

Now if (as is above demonstrated to be likely) the Philosophers chose to picket places where public philosophising occurs (e.g.. Pubs), and to prevent any non professional philosophers from speaking their minds*.

It is important to note that it is the with-holding of ideas, not stifling the creation of new ones that is the philosophers prime weapon. Someone said earlier:

If philosophers went on strike would anyone notice?

It was also been stated earlier that:
>>If it is true, as a well known drunken fart once said: "I think therefore I am" it then follows that "we think, therefore we are"
If our professional thinkers cease to think, we will cease to exist.<<
So no no-one would notice as the universe would cease to exist. In any industrial dispute the failure of anyone, including the members to notice, and any action which negates all action and precipitates Armageddon, must in most cases be seen as counter productive.

Consider also two simultaneous statements:
>>In the beginning was the void. And God said let their be light<<
>>In the beginning was the word, and the word was god and the word was with god<<.
Therefore although the abstract "word" i.e. ideas, exist a priori, independent of the universe, the universe is dependent on the existence of the sentient individual (e.g.. God) to utter and comprehend the world which he creates by philosophising on it. This leads to such phenomena as saying "Let there be life" which then precipitates the spontaneous creation/development of all flora and fauna, or on a more mundane level thinking "I haven't seen Dave in a while" may prompt a further reference to that individual, e.g.. a newspaper article on the discovery of his body in the woods, or finding him in bed with your wife.**

So obviously a cessation of all philosophy would be deployed only as a tactical weapon.

We can see then that, if we were morally pre-disposed, the lack of ALL philosophy would be a 'bad thing'. But were hear so much about moral bankruptcy that perhaps this is not the case. The union sees this as
a problem of demarcation.
In earlier argument the division was made between "theoretical achievement / vocational or problem solving achievement" and "practitioners / theoreticians" and that degeneracy was cased by a lack of fusion of these concepts.

The Union refutes this, but notes its point. Philosophers should not be practitioners, but they should be in a position to tell the practitioners what to do. Practitioners do not need to be theoreticians, they just need to listen to theorisations. The problem then is not civil servants are ill equipped with said hands and torches, but that they are being told how to find their arse by other civil servants who don't know why they started looking for their own in the first place.

Moral and social decline is therefore dependent on the absence of anyone listening to the members, rather than any defect in the members thought. The inefficiency of government can be demonstrated by the lack of anyone who knows what they're talking about. And the intelligence of true philosophers can be demonstrated by their avoidance of government posts.

To go back to the aforementioned Drunk Old Fart...
It was stated that:
>>To take just one example, the philosopher Rene Descartes risked his life and went against the religious dogmatism of his time to present a novel formula for thinking called rational inquiry. This now forms the basis of modern scientific method. It isn't just action that has pragmatic consequences- Ideas are just as powerful<<
And we see great steps forward in science and technology as a result. So why not in morality.

Let us take a popular moralisation:
"Hard work never killed anyone" this is a statement popular with soapbox moralists (often to soap dodging philosophers). However Descartes, during the productive period of his life liked to lie in bed almost all of the morning, philosophising. Toward the end of his life he was summoned to the court of the Queen of Sweden where he was employed to teach her philosophy and was required to rise for the cold, damp court at five in the morning. The resultant stress and fatigue weakened his health and he died soon after. A clear example of hard work killing.

But have the moralists taken on board this practical example of an eminent philosopher - no. And it is this divergence for philosophy with has led to both the world's moral and social decline and to the break between the Philosophers Union and the Moralists Congress (Splitters).

*perhaps by turning up the juke box and playing Travis records endlessly - leaving everyone to stare into their beers silently thinking "Why me".

**Philosophy and wishing are not the same thing, thinking of something does cause an object to appear before you per se. It merely effects the object thought about in line with the uncertainly principle (See the thought "Where the hell are those keys?"

Hey!!! What's PPE!!????