14 February 2024

Philosophy Funnies

Q: How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Depends on how you define “change”


An engineer, a scientist, a mathematician, and a philosopher are hiking through the hills of Scotland, when they see a lone black sheep in a field.

The engineer says, “What do you know, it looks like the sheep around here are black.” 

The scientist looks at him skeptically and replies, “Well, at least some of them are.” 

The mathematician considers this for a moment and replies, “Well, at least one of them is.” 

Then the philosopher turns to them and says, “Well, at least on one side.”


Descartes is sitting in a French bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would like another. “I think not,” he says … and disappears.


Jean-Paul Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of Being and Nothingness. He says to the waitress, “I’d like a cup of coffee, please, with no cream.” The waitress replies, “I’m sorry, monsieur, but we’re out of cream. How about with no milk?” 

Dean is complaining to the physics department: “Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for laboratories and expensive equipment and stuff? Why couldn’t you be more like the math department – all they need is pencils, paper, and waste-paper baskets. Or even better, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper.”


Final paper, final year for philosophy. Everyone is gathered in the exam hall, heads bulging with volumes read, sweating caffeine, shuffling feet, hands, bags, papers, pens as they sit at their desks.
The lecturer saunters in. A hush falls interrupted only by the clicking of pens and swish of the question sheets being handed out, face down, taunting the awaiting examinees.
The lecturer clears her throat, and announces to the awaiting students: “You may turn over the question sheet.”
The room collectively turns over the question sheet. In the middle of the sheet is written one line:
‘If this is a question, answer it.’
The lecturer continues: “And now you may begin.”
Dumbfounded silence. Nervous side-ways glances.
Followed by a flurry of pens and pages and writing which mutes the muffled thoughts of the many. Is this indeed a question or not? By what logic? By the thoughts of what philosopher?
One student sits back in reflection, taps her pen to on her lips. She transfers her response to paper in a single, meticulously written line:
‘If this is an answer, mark it.’


   Reasons Why God Was Denied Tenure

  • He had only one major publication.
  • And it had no references.
  • It wasn’t published in a refereed journal or even submitted for peer review.
  • And some even doubt he wrote it himself.
  • It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done recently?
  • The scientific community has had a very rough time trying to replicate his results.
  • He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
  • He expelled his first two students for learning.
  • Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed his tests.
  • His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.

  

(Some of these jokes were drawn from a blog by John Messerly: https://reasonandmeaning.com/2024/02/14/short-philosophy-jokes/#more-25014)

24 January 2024

To be or not to be?... a fun question!

Icarus: Is there any meaning to life? Is it not just about birth and death with the middle part being a period of procrastinating on the death part?

Daedalus: Well maybe, but the way I see it, death is worth delaying as much as possible. Are you thinking of opting out?

Icarus: No, not at all. But it is fun to question the meaning of existence. And in that vein, if the fun of life ends with death, what’s the point?

 Daedalus: Hmm, sounds like the argument of an ex-lover who challenged me with the question: ‘What was the point of our relationship if it was simply going to end?’ I contest her assessment that an ended relationship is a waste. Beginnings and ends are inevitable, it doesn’t make the bit in the middle “a waste.” Birth and death are like two tasteless crackers around a lump of tasty cheese. Like two bookends around a long shelf of fascinating books. Like the title credits and end credits that bracket a film. Like the two sheets in which you find your favourite bedmate of the moment. The meaning of life is what we put into it, what we make of the part between the beginning and the end.

Icarus: Yeah, but what’s the point if the middle all disappears at the end? What is the purpose of fun if it ends? If there was a roller-coaster that you could ride but at the end of the ride you forgot about the pleasure it gave you, would you bother riding it?

Daedalus: Yep, I’d ride it even if I ‘forgot’ all about it at the end – just as I would ride it if at the end I disappeared into oblivion and there was no “I” to do the remembering. The enjoyment I experience in the middle is its own end. Life has no meaning other than what you make of it. Why not make it enjoyable?

Icarus: Well good point. But what if you don’t have control over what you get – which arguably you don’t. What if the roller-coaster was not fun? What if it is in fact a torture device – which is not far off what some people think of roller-coasters? What if it is a vile ride and you come out the end in pain.

Daedalus: Life is risky. We make choices. Some outcomes are good, some are bad, and some choices return a bit of both. Over the passage of time – if we survive the bad choices – we will hopefully learn to make choices that return more pleasure than pain.

Icarus: You’re talking about the roller-coaster ride as one of multiple events in life. What if the roller-coaster ride is the whole of your life. Once you board it, you can’t get off it. Given that scenario, what if at the end of the ride you end up with more pain than pleasure? Is it a roller-coaster ride you would board if you knew the final outcome, the final balance, was negative? If death erases what is in the middle, and the middle is pain, then surely death is welcomed?

Daedalus: Hmm, good question and the roller-coaster is a good metaphor for life. Lots of ups and downs, whether you howl with pleasure or pain is really up to you. Ultimately, we choose life hoping it will be pleasurable while having to accept that some parts – and even much of it – may be painful. We learn to accept that the world is not always going to be the way we would wish it to be. In particular, the distribution of ups and downs across people does not seem at all ‘reasonable’ or ‘just’. Some people get an abundance of pleasure, others an abundance of pain. Most of us get a mixture. Most of us aspire to be like those who appear to have a life filled entirely with pleasure. And most of us console ourselves that they too almost certainly have a portion pain in their life.

Icarus: But what you’re really saying then is we have to accept what is coming to us in life. Do we really have a choice? How can you love a life that you don’t get to choose? What if you are visited by a demon who tells you that you have lived this life before. All of it. In particular, he reminds you that each pain-point has been lived before, you’ve already experienced it all. He tells you that there is more to come. You will re-live your life exactly as you did last time. Again and again and again ad infinitum. So, can you embrace that life now? Are you willing to stay in that game if suffering is the bulk of your experience? What if you are Sisyphus, condemned to push a rock up the hill only to watch it roll down again, and required to push it up again? Why do that?

Daedalus: Tough question, but I think we do strive to love that life, the life we get. It is useful to point out however, that the demon is an unreliable informant, even evil. He’s setting you to think about the worst-case scenario which may or may not be so. Will be there some pleasure in it? Will it be like the lives of most people – some pleasure, some pain? Probably. So to hell with the demon, to hell with his focus on the miserable moments of our existence. Even in your scenario of reliving the same life over and over, we don’t know what the future holds. So it is with this life – whether it recurs eternally or not. We seem to be built to rely on hope offsetting our fears.

Icarus: Maybe, but aging is losing in some way. Every step taken is a one step closer to death!

Daedalus: Oh the irony – to be schooled in the challenges of aging by the young! But yes, you’re right, and the irony runs even deeper. You see, the greatest challenge is that just as I think I’ve grasped the idea of living the best life with what I have, I find myself with a little less – less hearing, less taste, less vision, less energy, etc -- and once again striving to live the best life with what I have. Maybe it is the striving itself that is what makes life worth living.

Icarus: So your response to 'one step closer to death' is to embrace it, make that step count, step up, step out -- even if actively towards death?

Daedalus: Precisely. If I have the freedom to choose – and it feels like I do – then I choose to live my life to the fullest that I can. I choose life, I choose to be – until I can’t. Perhaps the ultimate act of free will is to accept that eventually, I will not be at all. Or perhaps I might even choose not to be, the "one truly serious philosophical question" according to Camus.

Icarus: You’re not thinking of opting out are you?

Daedalus: Fear not. It is fun to explore the meaning – or lack of meaning – of existence. So I remain in no hurry to get to the final act – notwithstanding the downhill slide. I plan to hang around until the end comes along and enjoy myself in the interim.

---------------------------------------------------------

Extra Readings

To become mature is to have regained the seriousness one had as a child at play.
-- Nietzsche

Nihilism vs Existentialism: https://study.com/learn/lDaedaluson/nihilism-vs-existentialism.html

Eternal Recurrence / Eternal Return: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

The Myth of Sisyphus, and “the one truly serious philosophical problem… is suicide”: https://www2.hawaii.edu/~freeman/courses/phil360/16.%20Myth%20of%20Sisyphus.pdf

Life is for striving, not achieving: https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2024/01/against-self-improvement-the-negative-capability-of-everyday-life.html

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suit on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life...
-- Mark (Rentboy) Renton, Trainspotting


 

04 August 2022

Cup of tea: a lesson in learning

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868 – 1912), received a university professor who came to enquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. ‘It is overfull. No more will go in!’

‘Like this cup,’ Nan-in said, ‘you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?’

-- Paul Reps, Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, p.17

------------------------------

It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows
  -- Epictetus

Other koans: https://avocastreet.com/koans/Shaseki.pdf

18 April 2022

Who is the better altruist?

Hede: I recently made a donation of $1,000 to a charity and I'm feeling pretty good about it.

Hart: Really? I recently made a donation of $1,000 to a charity too. Which one did you donate to?

Hede: I gave $1,000 to a charity that provides cost-effective treatment against parasitic worms that plague many people in Africa. I did a fair bit of searching for the most effective charity, and chose this one as it has the greatest impact on people's lives per dollar invested. How about you?

Hart: I gave $1,000 to a charity that provides cuddly teddy bears to sick children in hospital. I was watching this documentary about sick kids, and when I saw what this one charity was doing, well, I just cried. I called them immediately after the program ended to make a donation.

[Adapted from a scenario created by Tadeg Quillien 2022]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

 Who is most concerned about the outcomes of her altruistic act, Hede or Hart?

Who is the most genuine in her altruistic intention

Who is the better altruist out of Hede and Hart? Why?

Who is more likeable person? Why?

What are the most important features of 'good' altruism? Effectiveness? Compassion? Something else?

 

EXTRA READINGS

"Is virtue-signalling a vice?" Tadeg Quillien (2022) https://aeon.co/essays/why-virtue-signalling-is-not-just-a-vice-but-an-evolved-tool 

Effective Altruism: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

Ethics of care: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care

Compassion & altruism: Steno (2015) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154615000261  

 

31 March 2022

Idol Words on the meaning of life

Image from Le Magasin Pittoresque, 1839
 

[The following is an extract from "Idol Words" by Scott Alexander at https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/idol-words

"Hello, welcome to the temple of the three omniscient idols, one of which always tells the truth, one of which always lies, and one of which answers randomly. I know you already signed the release form, but I’m supposed to remind you that we are not legally responsible for any consequence of following the false idols’ advice. Do you have a question?”

09 March 2022

Outrage is litter

https://blog.csiro.au/plastic-pollution-on-our-beaches/
 

Outrage is litter 

that sullies the 

moral landscape

 

-- Ssh

02 February 2022

On judging judgments

 

Be gentle on the judgments of others;


And be mindful of your own!

 

  -- Ssh

23 January 2022

Doctors debating vaccination

Dochotomy by MsLil (2021)
 
 
(This article is a L-O-N-G read, and it is incomplete. Constructive comments are welcome.)


The ground rules for the debate

Dr Provax
: Greetings fellow doctor, what do you know?


Dr Novax: Afternoon doctor. What do I know? Not much. Well, not entirely true. There's one thing I know: I'm done with the continual coverage of COVID. It's been two years now.
 
Dr Provax: Agreed. And with the latest variant, and two years to prepare, it is time for nature to show the non-vaccinators the folly of their reasoning.

Dr Novax: Ah, so you're vaccinated?

Dr Provax: Absolutely. You're not?

Dr Novax: No.

Dr Provax: Oh my God, why not? You’re crazy. We need to stop you anti-vaxxers before you kill us.

Dr Novax: Whoa, whoa. We’re friends, so I’m happy to have this discussion, but only if we have ground rules.

Dr Provax: What ground rules?

Dr Novax: Let’s refrain from invoking any unproved metaphysical entities such as God who are unnecessary to the discussion here. No ad hominem -- meaning you can attack the argument, but not the person. Calling me 'crazy' is ad hominem. And try to wind back the hyperbole such as your presumption that I am an 'anti-vaxxer', and your exaggeration that non-vaccinators will kill everyone. Everyone? That seems a lot strong: for one thing, if the vaccine is protective, then the vaccinated ought not be especially threatened by the non-vaccinator’s choice.

19 January 2022

Predicting the future imperfectly



Do humans want to know their future?

Yes, people are interested in knowing their future.

We want to know the future in terms of…

  •  what the weather will be tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after…?
  • whether our new product is likely to be a success in the market or not?
  • whether our large investment will be go up or go down in value?
  • what numbers will win next week’s lottery? 
  • whether or not we will survive the fatal disease we have contracted (with certainty, not a probability)?
  • can modern medicine prevent or cure the fatal disease I have contracted?
  • can we humans live forever?
  • do humans avert their own extinction?
  • what is the human-experience after death (assuming our quest for human-generated eternal life fails)?

Can humans know their future?

The future remains uncertain. No matter how good our prediction skills, the future is uncertain, both empirically and logically.

Empirically, even if we have “big data”, massive computing capacity, and fantastic skills, the weather tomorrow may be as predicted, but it may not. There is no certainty about what the future holds, and complexity and chaos theory ensures that it remains so. 

Logically, even if the world is a series of causes and effects, there is no logic that permits us to say that many previous contingent events will occur again in the future (see Hume). Sure, the sun has ‘risen’ every day for thousands of millennia, but it does not logically follow that it will do so tomorrow. 

Even with “more data” and more skills, some of these questions about the future, especially the ones further down the list above, are likely to always remain beyond us. 

What is the human-experience after death? Who knows? It has not stopped many people developing stories of what they think, even believe, or perhaps wish will happen after death. But the truth is we do not know. And even more, that we are unlikely to ever know.

Do humans avert their own extinction? We might desperately wish it to be so, but humanity does or does not survive remains in the future, and is unlikely to be known. The problem is open-ended for even if humanity survives the current apocalyptic scenarios, the possibility of extinction in some other, currently unseen and perhaps unknown apocalyptic scenario remains.

Can we live forever? It hasn’t happened yet although it is clear that human life has been massively extended beyond the standard “three score years and ten”. Can a human live forever? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Even if we do manage to insert our mental selves into a machine, what happens if the world ends and the machine stops? 

So many unknowns. 

But there are also some confusions that get tangled with the idea of prediction.

The first is confusing possibility with prediction. It is possible that there is life after death, that humans escape extinction and that people get to live forever (or at least 200 years or more). So, yes, these outcomes might be possible, but that is not a prediction. The other outcome is also possible!

Which leads to the related issue of confusing guesses with predictions. Guessing that a tossed coin will come up heads is a guess, not a prediction. If the coin does come up heads, then it was a lucky guess, not a correct prediction.  

Predicting the future is already an uncertain game, but it seems certain that uncertainty will always plague questions about particular futures such as the human experience after death, whether humans avoid extinction, and whether humans can live forever. 

My prediction is that we will only ever be able to predict the future imperfectly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"The history of predicting the future" (Rees 2021, Wired)
https://www.wired.com/story/history-predicting-future/

"Humans are bad at predicting futures that don't benefit them" (Beaton 2017, The Atlantic)
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/humans-are-bad-at-predicting-futures-that-dont-benefit-them/544709/

12 January 2022

Why is time so warped?

Time has a curious essence. Unlike the other three dimensions - length, breadth, depth - we can travel in only one direction through time: from past to future via the present.
 
We cannot visit a moment in time that we have passed.

Despite the past and future being simply two ends of one dimension, we take the past as cast in stone, and the future as unknown.

Travel into the past is impossible, travel into the future a dream.

How well do we ‘know’ our past & our future?

We fool ourselves that we ‘know’ both our past and our future with stories about each.

The story we tell ourselves about our past is called history.

We put a lot of faith into this story in some ways, but it seems unjustified. If history is important because it facilitates learning, how come our own history is full of stories that are like repeats on television where at some point, often much too late, we realize that we’ve seen this before?

The story we tell ourselves about the future is called a prediction. We put less faith into predictions in general, but curiously, we do put a lot of faith into some predictions. We have many imaginings about catastrophic futures – pandemic, climate change, nuclear war, etc.

All are quite possible, but we tend to focus on one at a time, a flavour of the month (or year). While the possibilities for global annihilation are plentiful, even infinite, annihilation by pandemic is the most current scare du jour.

Before death by pandemic was imagined, we feared annihilation by climate change. Before annihilation by climate change, we feared an ending in nuclear war. Before an end in nuclear war was imagined, we feared … and so on back to various doomsday scenarios, secular and religious.

05 January 2022

Outrage ain't right


 
“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”
  – David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (Book 3, Part 3, Section 3)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enough of the outrage!

I hear your passion, your judgment, your indignation, your disgust. All because I'm unwilling to agree with you.

Outrage is easy to hear because it is pure passion speaking out. Loudly.
 

29 November 2021

Do you know what time it is ?

 
Claire asks Tiffany "Do know what time it is?"
 
Tiffany looks around at an old-fashioned clock sitting on the sideboard which shows that the time is 6.56. 

"Yeah, it is four minutes to 7," says Tiffany.
  
Following Tiffany's glance, Claire says, "Oh, that clock doesn't work. It always shows 6.56. So you are mistaken."
 
Tiffany looks at her mobile phone and says "Really? I think you are mistaken as my phone confirms that it is 6.56 at the moment."
 
(Adapted from Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its scope and limits, 1948)

QUESTIONS
 
Does Tiffany have a legitimate claim to "knowing" the time after viewing the stopped clock? 
 
If the time was 6.56, and Tiffany believed it was, and justified that belief by reading the clock, does she have knowledge? 
 
The notion that knowledge is 'justified, true belief' suggests that she does. Perhaps we ought to change the definition of knowledge? How would you change the definition?
 
ADDITIONAL SOURCES

 

31 December 2020

Be who you are

 

Be who you are --
for no-one else can be

Become who you can be --
for no-one else can do it

Ssh

 ----------------

To be what we are,
and to become what we are capable of becoming,
is the only end of life.

Robert Louis Stevenson

----------------

Be who you are and say what you feel
because those who mind don't matter,
and those who matter don't mind.

Dr Seuss

31 October 2020

From impossible to improbable: small step or giant leap ?

Proposition: Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon is a hoax.
 
Impossible? Improbable? 
 
Is the difference a small step or a giant leap
 
Follow this cryptic journey from steps on the moon to the bowels of Christ fuelled by parsnips! 
 
Hang on tight!



Faith: The idea that moon landings are a hoax is simply ludicrous. The moon landings happened, the evidence is incontrovertible.

Skip: What is that evidence?

Faith: This article tells and shows how photographs taken by NASA's reconnaissance lunar orbiter reveal human footprints on the moon.

Skip: OK, but the photographs could be fakes. Or maybe NASA actually landed a mechanical lunar rover on the moon that has two wheels on each side with boots in place of tyre treads, and it was set to "walk" around a bit. Voila! Footprints.

Faith: Aww, come on, that's just stupid.

Skip: Stupid, yes. But possible?

Faith: No way. They have soil and rocks that they brought back from the moon that are not found anywhere on earth.

Skip: Well, that one's easy to challenge. The rocks are found on earth. They're in NASA labs. How can we be sure they are not elsewhere too? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And besides, have you seen these rocks? Are you a geologist? Can you confirm that they absolutely cannot be of this earth?

Faith: No the experts have made this judgment. I trust the experts.

Skip: Sure, I trust experts too. But I also know that it is sometimes wise to ask for a second opinion. Experts do not always get it right, and often disagree. Indeed, it's almost certain that for any expert opinion, you will be able to find another expert who disagrees.

Faith: Oh this is silly. The theory that the moon landings are a hoax is simply impossible.
 
Skip: I'm not asking you to admit that there were no moon landings, or no humans walked on the moon, or even that they are a hoax. I'm asking you whether you might be wrong about man walking on the moon?

Faith: While I acknowledge the points you are making, they 'doth butter no parsnips with me' 😂

Skip: Let me respond to your 17th century idiom about buttered parsnips with a quote from the same century called Cromwell's rule: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken?'  
 
Faith: What?
 
Skip: Cromwell's rule says that anyone who is 100% adamant about their view is in trouble for two reasons: (a) they might be wrong and (b) they are blind to this possibility.
 
Faith: Ah, OK, I think I can see that. That the moon landings are a hoax is highly improbable but possible. I can't make the claim that the hoax is impossible.
 
Skip: Yes, exactly. It's a small step with enormous implications.
 
Faith: But you have to make a giant leap to get over a problem that remains. Your view presents an absurdity, namely that the impossible is not possible at all? 😂 
 


Course it's possible. I don't reckon it's likely but.
 -- words spoken by Jasper Jones in Jasper Jones, Craig Silvey
 
Induction is the glory of Science, and the scandal of Philosophy
   -- C.D. Broad, Commemorative Address at The Bacon Tercentenary, (1926)

Words are but wind that do from men proceed;
None but Chamelions on bare Air can feed;
Great men large hopeful promises may utter;
But words did never Fish or Parsnips butter
   -- John Taylor, Epigrammes (1651)
 
I never made a mistake in my life.
I thought I did once,
but I was wrong.
  -- attributed to Charles M. Schulz, creator of Peanuts

29 October 2020

Excuse, pardon, or forgive others ?


What does it take for me to excuse, pardon, or forgive others?
 
Well, it depends!
 
Beer Spills
 
If someone is pushing past me in a pub on their way to the bar or to the toilet, that person may say to me as they bump into me, "excuse me" or "pardon me."


S/he, the bumper, is asking to be excused or pardoned for a minor infraction, namely endangering or even manifesting a beer spill. 
 
While it is technically a question (will you excuse/pardon me?), it is typically offered more as a declarative statement in which the bumper expects me to excuse or pardon him or her. 
 
In fact, I might even be considered rather rude if I did not excuse or pardon someone who made me spill my beer, especially after s/he asked to be excused/pardoned.
 
Sometimes, if I'm minding my own business drinking a beer, and someone bumps into me without saying anything and spills my beer, I might get irritated enough to bump back by saying "excuse me?" or "pardon me?". In this context, my words are offered as a gentle, ironic rebuff. The double irony is that my words mark some disinclination to excuse or pardon the bumper.

In this beer-spilling sense, excusing and pardoning and even forgiving someone are synonymous. To excuse or pardon someone who causes a beer spill is little more than a politesse. And a rebuke by the bumpee with an "excuse me?" or "pardon me?" is a reminder to the perhaps thoughtless bumper of the need for this politesse.
 
Big Spills
 
But how about the situations in life where the bump is something rather more substantial than a beer spill? Maybe an oil spill with economic, financial and ecological consequences. Or a physical assault perhaps resulting in a literal blood spill. Or maybe something more emotional as in matters of the heart in which tears are spilled.

13 August 2020

Do prayers get results ?

 Two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness.

One of the guys is religious, the other's an atheist.

The two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer.

The atheist in a fleeting moment of vulnerability says "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from camp in that terrible blizzard and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing and it was 50 below and so I tried it. I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh God if there is a god I'm lost in this blizzard and I'm gonna die if you don't help me now.'"

In the bar the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled: "Well then you must believe now" he says "after all here you are alive."

The atheist just rolls his eyes: "No man, all that happened was a couple of Inuit happened to come wandering by and they showed me the way back to camp."

(From David Foster Wallace, Commencement Speech, Kenyon College, 2005, https://youtu.be/OsAd4HGJS4o?t=161)

QUESTIONS 

Does the atheist's experience in the blizzard prove that prayers are answered or not?

How can the same experience mean totally different things to the atheist and the believer?  

Is it possible that belief, meaning & interpretation actually precede the evidence?

23 July 2020

History - true or false or irrelevant ?

A brand new school opens freshly painted doors to welcome its first students to their first classes.

An enthusiastic history teacher, Anna Chronism, arrives to face her first students in her first class ever.

In her defence, she considers that she is not simply teaching history, but helping to make history.

She arrives to find three young women sitting in a row, all have their heads bowed down, each is reading a book.

She is a bit surprised to observe that the covers of the three books are exactly the same.

"Morning everyone," says the teacher. "Enjoying your book?"

"Yes Ma'am" the three say in unison as they look up.

She gasps. The three girls are dressed quite differently and yet appear to be physically identical. The first has baggy cargo shorts, loose top and tattoos on her arm, the one next to her has a pleated skirt, a fitted black T-shirt, loose blouse over it, and prominent crucifix showing at her neck, and the third is dressed in a long pants and a jacket with a belt at the waist. Despite the variation in what they are wearing, the three girls appear to be physically identical: same eyes, same nose, same hair, same height, same build.

As she seeks to calm herself, Anna asks the three girls what book they are reading.

The girl with the tattoos responds first: "I dunno!"

Anna asks her her name, she responds: "People call me Mysteryy. That’s with an extra ‘y’ at the end."

Nodding, Anna asks, "So Mysteryy, aren't you interested in the book, its name, its author?"

"Yes, yes, I am interested in the book, it is a great book, I'm really enjoying it. But I judge a book by the contents, not by the cover, not by the title, not by the author."

The wearer of the crucifix raises her hand offering her explanation, "Excuse me Miss, it is a book called Silas Marner by George Eliot."

And what's your name" she asks?

"I'm called Faith."

She turns to the third one wearing a jacket, and remarks: "You appear to be reading the same book. What do you think of it?"

"Well, not exactly the same book, because we each have our own copy. But yes it appears to be the same book that Mysteryy and Faith are reading. Its proper title is Silas Marner: the weaver of Ravelhoe, and the author's name was Mary Anne Evans, but she published under the name George Eliot."

The teacher is impressed. The other two young women are not.

"And your name?"

"I’m Verity."

"And all three of you are from the one family?" Anna asks.

The girls laugh out loud.

"Not likely" says Faith responding to the confusion showing in the teacher's eyes.

"Forgive me my presumption. But you all look very similar. Perhaps if you each tell me a little about your history. Who wants to start?"

Mysteryy says: "Well, my history is unknown. I was a foundling left on the doorstep of a kindly couple. There was no information left with me, I don't know where I was born, I don't know when I was born, I don't know my parents. And I don't know much beyond the names of the couple that raised me for the first five years as they then died in a car accident. I was then transferred to another couple who have looked after me for the last ten years. So I don't know my early life, but it doesn't seem that important to know it. I'm here and I'm happy. That's what counts, right?"

"Well yes, I'm glad to have you here today, and yes, I guess that is what counts," admits Anna.

Mysteryy nods and smiles.

Faith follows: "Well, I know my history perfectly. My parents tell me that I was conceived through the grace of God on the day of St Peter and St Paul which is June 29, and I was born nine months later on 1 April 2006 which was a Saturday. This was a sign of God's blessing because it would have been awkward if Mum had laboured on Sunday. God has commanded that we must not labour on the Sabbath in recognition of His act of creation, and His resting on the seventh day."

Verity, flicking her long blond hair with a hand, and offers her own thoughts: "Actually, Saturday is the Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week."

The teacher delicately intervenes, "Yes, there are a variety of views. It’s Verity, right? What’s your story?"

"I was given up for adoption by my mother who was a drug addict, and she died of an overdose shortly after my birth. My father was incarcerated before my birth, and died in prison without ever seeing me. I was one of three identical girls, but we were separated at birth and I ended up with a couple of lawyers, Marie & David. She’s now a judge, he’s a retired lawyer and they’ve looked after me all my life. So that's my history."

----------------------------------

QUESTIONS

Which of the three girls is happier? Why?

How important is history?

Is it important for history to be true?

Will false history serve just as well as ‘true’ history?

Is it better to have a history, even false, than none at all?

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The celebrated case of the ‘three identical strangers’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Identical_Strangers) provides a factual - even historical - basis for this "thought-story" (as pictured at the right). 

 

The image at the opening of this thought-story shows the Levesque triplets: https://levesquetriplets.com/