Wednesday, December 18, 2013

The Magnificent Mile

Nothing puts you in the Christmas Spirit more than watching Rich Women in Mink Coats pass by beggars  in bitter cold as if they were completely invisible.  Indifference as towering as the Hancock Building.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Philosopher Equality Now!

Everyone should be allowed to be recognized as a tenured philosophy professor at a public university. One might object that this would entail the re-definition of philosophy, but philosophy has been re-defined all the time from 'love of wisdom' to 'pursuit after the truth' to 'learning how to die' to 'some peculiar language game we play'. You don't even have to advocate philosophy to be a tenured philosophy professor. You can, in fact, make it your job to destroy philosophy (whatever it may be) and STILL have tenure as a philosophy professor. Just ask Rorty and Wittgenstein. But, wait, you say, shouldn't one be able at least to convey his or her philosophy (whatever it may be) clearly and intelligibly to qualify as a tenured philosophy professor? That's never been a qualification for the position historically. Otherwise, Kant, Hegel, Ayer, Davidson, and Rawls would never have been tenured philosophy professors. Well, shouldn't you then at least be expected to publish stuff for peer review? Seriously? Would you then deny Socrates tenure, the patron saint of philosophers?

Philosophy has no definition. It is simply a convention that can be defined however political fiat lists. Since philosophy has no definition, neither can the teaching thereof. Therefore, there can be no reasonable qualifications for being a tenured philosophy professor, save the willingness to be one. Since this is the case, it is simply unfair to limit the honor, prestige, and economic benefits that attend a tenured professorship in philosophy to those few who know how to game the tenure system. Thus, the dictates of equality demand that the position of tenured philosophy professor be made available to all for the mere asking. And if you disagree, then, well, you are a bigot. As vile as any anti-Semite or White Supremacist.

We got the Beat, sonny!

You know you're old and verging on dementia when you wax nostalgic for songs that as a youth you dismissed as insufferable poppy crap.

Jeanne la Pucelle

I am often asked with great bewilderment why in God's name Jeanne la Pucelle, a warrior who led a very bloody war, is my favorite saint? Why would God have a person lead an activity that maims, mutilates, and kills people? And, by the way, am I not supposed to be vehemently anti-war? Yeah, precisely. The Catholic Church won't let me be dogmatically anti-war. I must allow at least for the possibility of a Just War. And the story of Ste. Jeanne tells me exactly what a Just War should look like. It should be one led by a nineteen year old Virgin whose visions have been exhaustively documented by an ecclesiastical consistory and found to be consistent with Holy Doctrine and Writ, and if it's not, then it's evil and I have a sacred duty to protest it. Thanks, Jeanne!


If opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is as evil as anti-Semitism, then anti-Semitism is as evil as refusing to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages. It follows, then, that the Nazis could have saved lots of money on trains, camps, and Zyklon B; they could have killed all the Jews by simply ignoring them. Logical fallacy, you say? Yeah, logic has nothing to do with the surreal, and this debate over ss'm' is so fucking surreal I feel that I am trapped in a Dali Painting.

Just Curious

So, will this precedent allow a Jew to sue a restaurant that refuses to make him Matzah Ball Soup during Passover?