I’ll go first!
I have no idea why that link did not work. Google, youtube Kant attack ad."
I’ll go first!
One last attempt, same ad different site!
Pierre Gassendi confronted Descartes with the following criticism: “existence is not a perfection either in God or in anything else; it is that without which no perfections can be present”.
As with most of his replies to Gassendi (whom he regarded as a loathsome materialist and quibbler), Descartes responded somewhat curtly, “I think not.”
At which point he disappeared.
Put together from: Top Ten Philosophy Jokes - not as funny, and Descartes’ Ontological Argument, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - not funny at all, rather dry and boring except for the quote re: Gassendi)
Reminds me of when Descartes was in a bar. The bartender called, “last call. Anyone want a last beer?”
Descartes answered, “I think not” and promptly vanished!
Do you know how to get a philosopher off your porch? Pay for the pizza.
Shows what a degree in philosophy will get ya!
IOn the philosophical point that everything is relative.
A snail got mugged by 2 turtles. The cops showed up and asked, “what happened”?
The snail answered," I have no idea. Everything happened so fast!"
A guy went into a bar with his dog. The bartender said, “hey, no dogs allowed “! The guy answered, " but its my seeing eye dog”!
The bartender answered, “sorry, here is a free beer.” The guy drank it left and when outside saw another guy with a dog. And said,“hey buddy, go into that bar and say that is your seeing eye dog and you will get a free beer!”
The next guy did that. The bartender said,“hey! You can’t have a dog in here!” The next guy answered, “But its my seeing eye dog.” The bartender said, “but its a chihuahua!”
The response,” What!!! They gave me a chihuahua?!!!"
I think I think. Therefore I think I am… I think…
Proofs that p
Davidson’s proof that p:
Let us make the following bold conjecture: p
Wallace’s proof that p:
Davidson has made the following bold conjecture: p
As I have asserted again and again in previous publications, p.
Some philosophers have argued that not-p, on the grounds that q. It would be an interesting exercise to count all the fallacies in this “argument”. (It’s really awful, isn’t it?) Therefore p.
It would be nice to have a deductive argument that p from self- evident premises. Unfortunately I am unable to provide one. So I will have to rest content with the following intuitive considerations in its support: p.
Suppose it were the case that not-p. It would follow from this that someone knows that q. But on my view, no one knows anything whatsoever. Therefore p. (Unger believes that the louder you say this argument, the more persuasive it becomes).
I have seventeen arguments for the claim that p, and I know of only four for the claim that not-p. Therefore p.
Most people find the claim that not-p completely obvious and when I assert p they give me an incredulous stare. But the fact that they find not- p obvious is no argument that it is true; and I do not know how to refute an incredulous stare. Therefore, p.
My argument for p is based on three premises:
q r and p From these, the claim that p deductively follows. Some people may find the third premise controversial, but it is clear that if we replaced that premise by any other reasonable premise, the argument would go through just as well.
Sellars’ proof that p:
Unfortunately limitations of space prevent it from being included here, but important parts of the proof can be found in each of the articles in the attached bibliography.
There are solutions to the field equations of general relativity in which space-time has the structure of a four- dimensional Klein bottle and in which there is no matter. In each such space-time, the claim that not-p is false. Therefore p.
Zabludowski has insinuated that my thesis that p is false, on the basis of alleged counterexamples. But these so- called “counterexamples” depend on construing my thesis that p in a way that it was obviously not intended – for I intended my thesis to have no counterexamples. Therefore p.
Outline Of A Proof That P (1): Saul Kripke Some philosophers have argued that not-p. But none of them seems to me to have made a convincing argument against the intuitive view that this is not the case. Therefore, p. _________________ (1) This outline was prepared hastily -- at the editor's insistence -- from a taped manuscript of a lecture. Since I was not even given the opportunity to revise the first draft before publication, I cannot be held responsible for any lacunae in the (published version of the) argument, or for any fallacious or garbled inferences resulting from faulty preparation of the typescript. Also, the argument now seems to me to have problems which I did not know when I wrote it, but which I can't discuss here, and which are completely unrelated to any criticisms that have appeared in the literature (or that I have seen in manuscript); all such criticisms misconstrue my argument. It will be noted that the present version of the argument seems to presuppose the (intuitionistically unacceptable) law of double negation. But the argument can easily be reformulated in a way that avoids employing such an inference rule. I hope to expand on these matters further in a separate monograph.
Routley and Meyer:
If (q & not-q) is true, then there is a model for p. Therefore p.
It is a modal theorem that <>]p -> ]p. Surely its possible thatp must be true. Thus ]p. But it is a modal theorem that ]p -> p. Therefore p.
P-ness is self-presenting. Therefore, p.
If not p, what? q maybe?
When Voltaire was asked to attend an orgy the second time, he replied: “Once a philosopher, twice a pervert.”
Not a joke but a witticism by Anatole France: “The final judgment day will be a matter of paperwork.”
To be is to do. Socrates
To do is to be. Sartre
Do be a do bee. Miss Francis (of Romper Room)
Do be do be do. Sinatra
Not quite a joke but it should make you smile.
Scoobee Doobie Doo!!!
When Plato first met Socrates,
Plato: “Why don’t you ever have a girlfriend?”
Socrates: “You ask too many questions.”
A boy was feeling very nervous about his first date, and so went to his father for advice.
“My son, there are three subjects that always work with women: food, family, and philosophy.”
The boy picks up his date and they stare at each other for a long time. The boy’s nervousness builds, but he then remembers his father’s advice and asks the girl,
“Do you like potato pancakes?”
“No,” comes the answer, and the silence returns like a suffocating blanket.
“Do you have a brother?”
After giving it some thought, the boy plays his last card: “If you had a brother, would he like potato pancakes?”
Don’t LOOK at anything in a physics lab.
Don’t TASTE anything in a chemistry lab.
Don’t SMELL anything in a biology lab.
Don’t TOUCH anything in a medical lab.
and, most importantly,
Don’t LISTEN to anything in a philosophy department.
Consider the following case:
On Twin Earth, a brain in a vat is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.
On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphans’ bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.
If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, “Leftie” and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, “Leftie” will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation. A further result of “Leftie’s” act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by “Leftie” are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and “Leftie” are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.
Assume that the brain’s choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.
QUESTION: What should the brain do?
[ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLE: Same as above, except the brain has had a commisurotomy, and the left half of the brain is a consequentialist and the right side is an absolutist.]
Copyright, 1988 by the American Philosophical Association
What is Mind? No Matter.
What is Body? Never Mind.
Its mind over matter.
What is mind? Doesn’t matter.
What is matter? Never mind.
But does mind matter?
The brain doesn’t mind if the mind never matters.
If psychiatry speaks only of the brain, it is mindless; seeing only the mind, it is brainless.
As a dualist, I am therefore both mindless and brainless.
Just ask my wife.