The Tribulations of a Philosopher

By -
I was having lunch at a local pub, and got up to go to the gents’ room. There are two at this establishment, but both were occupied, so I took up a position midway between them, in order to grab whichever one opened first. While I was standing there, the owner approached me and asked, “Do you need anything?” (Since I was midway, it wasn’t clear I was waiting for a restroom to become free.)

I responded, “Oh, both bathrooms are in use, so I’ve just positioned myself to move in whatever direction nec…”

I then came to a complete halt. I was thinking, “Is it really right to regard my choice as ‘necessary’? Couldn’t I choose to head to the toilet that freed up second? But, by necessity, perhaps I mean ‘rationally necessary,’ and my freedom of will actually consists in embracing the commands of reason as those of my own will?”

After a couple of seconds, I noticed the owner was staring at me, and I said, “necessary.”

This really happened. Such are the woes of thinking philosophically.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy7:09 PM

    I think he was staring at you because you spelled the first syllable as "necc."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more