Why did the chicken cross the road?
Calvin: Because it was preordained before the foundations of the world - the chicken had no choice.
Plato: For the greater good.
Karl Marx: It was a historical inevitability.
Machiavelli: So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such a paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely chicken's dominion maintained.
Hippocrates: Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its pancreas.
Derrida: Any number of contending discourses may be discovered within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial intent can never be discerned, because structuralism is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD!
Nietzsche: Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road gazes also across you.
Sartre: In order to act in good faith and be true to itself, the chicken found it necessary to cross the road.
Wittgenstein: The possibility of "crossing" was encoded into the objects "chicken" and "road", and circumstances came into being which caused the actualization of this potential occurrence.
Aristotle: To actualize its potential.
Epicurus: For fun.
Hume: Out of custom and habit.
Pyrrho the skeptic: What road?
Zeno: To prove it could never reach the other side.
If you put two philosophers in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Eddy Zemach, in which case you get seven opinions.
Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would like another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.
A Republican, a Libertarian, and a Democrat are seated separately in a restaurant when a poor man walks in; unbeknownst to any of them, it is Jesus.
The Republican summons the waiter and asks him to serve the poor man the best food in the house and put it on his tab; the waiter does so. The Libertarian asks the waiter to please serve the poor man iced tea and to put it on his tab. The waiter does so. The Democrat then asks the waiter to bring the poor man pecan pie with ice cream and to put it on his tab.
When Jesus is finished eating, He goes over to the Republican and says, "I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat. Thank you. I see you are blind." and He touches the man's eye, and it is healed.
Jesus then goes over to the Libertarian and says, "I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink. Thank you. I see you have a bad arm." and He touches the man's arm, and it is healed.
Then Jesus walks over to the Democrat. The Democrat moves far back from Jesus and exclaims, "Don't touch me!! I'm on disability!!"
How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
It depends on how you define “change.”
How many analytic philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
None - It is a pseudo-problem. Light bulbs give off light, hence the name. If the bulb is broken and is not giving off light, it would not be a “light bulb,” now would it?
How many Kuhnian constructionist philosophers of science does it take to change a light bulb?
You are still thinking in terms of “incremental change.” What we really need is paradigm shift. We do not need a bulb with more attributes added on, we need ubiquitous luminescence.
How many Cartesians does it take to change a light bulb?
None - They were so shocked when the bulb blew out that they stopped thinking for a moment, and blinked out of existence.
How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two - One to bemoan the darkness until the other redefines something else as light.
How many Hegelians does it take to change a light bulb?
None - The bulb is at one dialectical pole between “bright” and “dark,” and will eventually synthesize these into a dim glow for us.
How many Humeans does it take to change a light bulb?
None - Since the bulb actually contains a gaseous substance, and thus does not contain any “abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number” nor any “experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence,” it will simply be removed and thrown in the fire.
How many modal logicians does it take to change a light bulb?
In WHICH world?
How many monists does it take to change a light bulb?
Do not be silly, there is only ONE monist.
How many speech act theorists does it take to change a light bulb?
Do you really want to know or are you simply asking me to change it?
Originally posted by Storm
[b]Why did the chicken cross the road?Calvin: Because it was preordained before the foundations of the world - the chicken had no choice.
Plato: For the greater good.
Karl Marx: It was a historical inevitability.
Machiavelli: So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such a paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely chicken's dominion maintained.
Hippocrates: Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its pancreas.
Derrida: Any number of contending discourses may be discovered within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial intent can never be discerned, because structuralism is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD!
Nietzsche: Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road gazes also across you.
Sartre: In order to act in good faith and be true to itself, the chicken found it necessary to cross the road.
Wittgenstein: The possibility of "crossing" was encoded into the objects "chicken" and "road", and circumstances came into being which caused the actualization of this potential occurrence.
Aristotle: To actualize its potential.
Epicurus: For fun.
Hume: Out of custom and habit.
Pyrrho the skeptic: What road?
Zeno: To prove it could never reach the other side. [/B]
Thats great!
Originally posted by Storm
[b]The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.The Second Law of Philosophy: They' re both wrong. [/B]
😂
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
It depends on how you define “change.”How many analytic philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
None - It is a pseudo-problem. Light bulbs give off light, hence the name. If the bulb is broken and is not giving off light, it would not be a “light bulb,” now would it?How many Kuhnian constructionist philosophers of science does it take to change a light bulb?
You are still thinking in terms of “incremental change.” What we really need is paradigm shift. We do not need a bulb with more attributes added on, we need ubiquitous luminescence.How many Cartesians does it take to change a light bulb?
None - They were so shocked when the bulb blew out that they stopped thinking for a moment, and blinked out of existence.How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two - One to bemoan the darkness until the other redefines something else as light.How many Hegelians does it take to change a light bulb?
None - The bulb is at one dialectical pole between “bright” and “dark,” and will eventually synthesize these into a dim glow for us.How many Humeans does it take to change a light bulb?
None - Since the bulb actually contains a gaseous substance, and thus does not contain any “abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number” nor any “experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence,” it will simply be removed and thrown in the fire.How many modal logicians does it take to change a light bulb?
In WHICH world?How many monists does it take to change a light bulb?
Do not be silly, there is only ONE monist.How many speech act theorists does it take to change a light bulb?
Do you really want to know or are you simply asking me to change it? [/B]
hysterical oh my gosh...
Not quite philosophy, but here goes...
How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?
One. But it takes a long time, and the light bulb has to want to change.
Two hydrogen atoms are floating down the street.
The first one says: "Damn! I just lost an electron!"
Second one: "Are you sure?"
First one: "I'm positive!"