[lit-ideas] Re: Of Wine and Scotch (and other stuff too)
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Erin Holder <erin.holder@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:51:33 -0230
Premises:
Here at MUN we have a philosophy reading seminar that meets every Friday, late
afternoon, during terms, to discuss a previously chosen and circulated
philosophical paper. I believe it's the only thing of its kind in N. America.
To date, nobody has ever disproven that claim. Philosophy faculty, undergrads,
grad students and visitors from other Units at the university also attend. We
meet at a pub downtown that is reserved for les philosophes for that time
period. Our sessions last on average a couple of hours, after which we disperse
to pursue our own varying and personal conceptions of the good life in downtown
St. John's. (Philosophy being a public and universalizable pursuit of epistemic
and moral rightness, of course.) Should such pursuits result in incarceration,
we appeal to some relative or other of the offending party who inhabits a
position of enforcement or penile authority, and clemency is granted forthwith.
I dare say, this never happens in Portland or California.
Over the years, it has become patently clear to seminar participants that highly
complex and intricate philosophical arguments gain considerably in clarity and
intelligibility in proportion to the amount of beer
or whiskey (or both) one consumes. Thus it has transpired that our reading
groups have collectively solved countless philosophical conundra, and have
demonstrated conclusively the truth (or, minimally, the necessarily presupposed
status) of a number of metaphysical, moral, and epistemological theses that
over the centuries have been found to be recalcitrant to verification,
justification or deconstruction. Many attribute such successes to the
Newfoundland drink of choice: rum. (Gospodsi, Gospodsi, pomiluy nas.)
Conclusion:
Pour yourself a nice Shiraz (the closest thing in wines to a fine malt, if you
can't afford the latter. But you're swimming in scholarship $, so what's the
problem?) And, presto! All your students ace your course.
Thereby showing that you are an excellent philosophy teacher.
Epistemic Status of Inference:
Highly dubious. Regardless of the truth of the conclusion.
Cheers, Walter
P.S. So does this mean you're not coming to CPA? I promise malts whose tasting
and nosing notes will surpass even the ones in Toronto last year. (Phil's
entry-level assessments notwithstanding, of course. Do Muslim countries permit
the import of malt whiskey?)
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
Quoting Erin Holder <erin.holder@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> >
> > WATER = Poop WINE = HEALTH
> >
> >
> > Hence: It is better to drink wine and talk stupid than to drink
> > water and be full of shit. There is no need to thank me for
> > this valuable information. I am doing it as a public service.
>
>
> Wonderful, Walter. Best news I've heard all day. Maybe a glass of
> wine is a good idea while I mark these papers. Hell, I might even
> start to understand some of them!
> -E
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
