Creativity: Two Existentialists Walk Into A Bar . . .

Professor Phyllis Dornberger – my PhD thesis adviser – and I certainly had our share of disagreements.  About everything.

I could have been intimidated.  I mean, here was a lady who read the dictionary on her lunch hour like it was People Magazine.

But I was confident and stood my ground, with naïve posturing that was equal parts youthful impudence and iconoclastic exuberance.

Dornberger was a logical positivist.  I'm an existential relativist.

It should have been no contest.

Indeed, it wasn’t.

Yes, in the end, she got the best of me.  The price for my impatience, my lack of self-control, my smug display of tactlessness, my colossal tactical faux pas in the requisite art of jockeying for advantage – which is really all philosophical discourse is about anyway – was asymmetrical in the extreme, with no room for negotiation, no room for remediation, no recourse or appeal.  Philosophers don’t mess around.  Especially logical positivists.

My comment was innocent enough.

But what floats frivolously in casual repartee bubbles like the caustic acid of vitriol and mockery on a
page – especially an intra-departmental memo.
What can I say in my defense?

Too much bubbly spirits is sometimes a good excuse.  But in this case, a roll of duct tape with the Kölsch pale ale would have helped to mitigate my infantile error in judgment.  Hindsight is so powerful but ultimately useless.

I now know . . .

I never should have called Professor Dornberger an insatiable proof sucker searching for the perfect syllogism, if only she could figure out how to deep throat a syllo.

Yes, this was the shameful closing scene of my career as a philosopher . . .





[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]





Creativity: Two Existentialists Walk Into A Bar . . .

Just a little . . .

 

Language is a funny thing.  It admits for all sorts of sins.  At the same time, it offers lush alternatives when making and rationalizing important decisions.  Naturally, we like to hedge our bets, walk a fine line.

We always cover our asses. 

At the same time . . .

Can you be just a little married?
Can you be just a little pregnant?
Can you be just a little upside-down?
Can you be just a little vaporized?
Can you be just a little raped?
Can you be just a little castrated?
Can you be just a little dead?
Can you be just a little extinct?
Can black be just a little black?  If so, what's the rest?  Still black but not black?
Can white be just a little white?  Is the part that's just a little white still white?
Can a 'yes' be both 'yes' but just a little 'no'?
Can a 'no' be both 'no' but just a little 'yes'?

Despite the headache you might now be experiencing, often there's more at stake.  Every game is a thing but not everything is a game.

In these instances we need to be a little more precise . . .

s war inevitable?
Is war good or bad?
Does might make right?
Are all humans created equal?
Is good health a basic human right?
Are food and water basic human rights?
Does a woman have the same rights as a man?
Can an individual be owned by another individual?
Do property rights take precedence over human rights?
Can any man claim life or death authority over another man?
Does the law of a higher power take precedence over human law?
When a person surrenders autonomy to the state, can he take it back?
Is freedom a natural and absolute fact or an artificial and relative artifact?
Are citizens answerable to governments or governments answerable to citizens?

How about this? . . .

Can humankind survive if there's a limited nuclear war?

Assuming we're in favor of the survival of the human species . . .

How much nuclear war is just the right amount?

Humans are very smart creatures.  We know this from telling it to ourselves all the time.

 

So to figure out how much nuclear war the "good guys" should inflict on the "bad guys", factoring in the carnage that will inevitably be experienced by a number of people who don't precisely fit in either the 'good guy' camp or the 'bad guy' camp -- these indeterminate types are sometimes called 'collateral damage' or more descriptively 'innocent victims' -- using cost/benefit analysis and predictive models, we can fairly accurately determine exactly what level of nuclear war, rationally looking at the big picture, is most efficacious and productive.

You know . . . the right balance.

Fine tune it.  Don't go overboard.

Just a little . . . nuclear war.

Is my sarcasm showing?

 

It's easy to scoff at my asking questions like these, then commending them as some sort of pseudo-philosophical exploration.  You might judge this as a thinly-disguised exercise in self-promotion, an attempt to portray myself as some deep thinker.  You might feel my frustration and empathize with my isolation and relative impotence, yet still dismiss all of this as the nonsensical ruminations of a confused and deluded faux-intellectual -- a Jean Paul Sartre wannabe.

You might have decided that this whole business of blogging is an unflattering display of infantile neediness, that the urgent, aching lust for attention, which has lingered on from early childhood, being unflattering and obnoxious even back then, but now nauseating at best and infuriating at worst -- I'm not sure I can put up much of a defense against any of these insinuations -- is both pathetic and pathological, in spite of being a common feature of our selfie-driven, self-obsessed times.

Or more innocently . . .

You may think that I have way too much time on my hands.

Frankly, I think time is running out.

Granted, some of the above are mental exercises.

But others are arguably very important questions.

Existential questions!

Am I so off-base?


We need answers!

Do you have the time?

Just a little?




[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]



Just a little . . .