Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus:Tips for the Top: how to be a philosopher
« on: 2005-07-23 13:29:54 » |
 |
[Blunderov] You too can practice this heavy hitting racket. In just 7
days you will amaze your friends and confound all philistines. Logical
operators are standing by to take your call.
Best Regards.
http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/article.php?id=540
Tips for the Top: how to be a philosopher
Brook Sadler
Technique 1
Begin by making a spurious distinction. Befuddle the reader with your
analytic wizardry. The reader will enter a logical trance, from which
she will be unable to recall the initial spurious distinction and will
feel strangely compelled to accept your conclusions.
Technique 2
Think of a matter of great importance to life. Reduce it unequivocally
to three concepts. Enumerate them. Analyze each concept by
distinguishing two independent notions in each. Continue with further
analysis (preferably speculative) until you have developed a maze of
distinctions that bear no resemblance to any topic of any importance to
life at all. The use of logical notation at this point will evoke deep
feelings of insecurity and uncertainty in the reader - use this to your
advantage. Use the word reductio at least once. Conclude by
congratulating yourself on having advanced our collective human
understanding of a topic of great importance by making it completely
unrecognisable as such.
Technique 3 (Advanced)
Sit in front of a computer. Have a thesaurus nearby. Smoke up. Proceed
to pronounce on anything that happens to come to mind. Use a tone that
is urgent and highfalutin. Avoid the use of punctuation and use periods
as infrequently as possible. French and German phrases should appear
with regularity. When in doubt, make hasty references to Foucault,
Heidegger, or Derrida. Take great pains not to explain what you mean.
Abandon all reason.
Technique 4
Single-handedly develop your own jargon. It should include an
exceedingly hard-to-follow extended metaphor of dubious relation to the
topic under discussion. Persist in using the metaphor to ground your
arguments. Stick to it at all costs, even if it seems to run your
argument into blatant dead-ends or outrageous contradictions. To give
the appearance of profundity, insert paragraph breaks at random. Then
number every paragraph. (The reader will simply divine the appropriate
relations between paragraphs, sub-paragraphs, and sub-sub-paragraphs.)
Technique 5
Think of a famous example from a twentieth-century philosopher. Think of
a pun based on that example. (e.g., What is it like to be a rat? zit?
phat?) Use the pun to develop a catchy new example of your own. Explain
your example at length. Say nothing of genuine importance. By all means,
do not advance philosophical discussion one iota. Conclude with more
puns.
Technique 6
Respond to an article or book that you have not read. Be relentless.
Technique 7
Read an enormous mass of empirical data. Cite all of it and conclude
that it is right. Overlook statistical ambiguities and incongruities. By
all means, do not deign to interpret the data. Continue on like this for
as long as you can (it may require stamina). The goal is to bore the
reader into submission before the flood of facts. Try not to
problematise anything (that only makes it harder).
Technique 8
Do some serious research. Do not rest until you have found a really
obscure text. Reject this text. Continue to search until you find
something truly obscure and completely unknown. In your first paragraph,
state something of interest that you have discovered from reading this
obscure text. Go on for many, many pages detailing the seemingly trivial
and inconsequential insights of the obscure text. Repeatedly affirm what
you said was interesting in the first paragraph, taking care not to
expand upon what you said there. Conclude by reminding the reader that
the point is so terribly obscure and so minimally interesting that if
you had not written about it, no one would have.
Technique 9
Discuss a controversial and extremely interesting topic. Show great
skill in handling the complexities of the topic, treating the arguments
with care and subtle attention to important details and distinctions.
Carefully trace out the implications of the different positions. But
(and this is the hard part) refuse to be identified with any of the
available philosophical positions. In fact, it is best never to let on
that you have an opinion of your own. Always seek to evade the
possibility that someone might reference your argument as your actual
view. Use the elusive phrase 'One might argue' as often as possible to
escape detection as a philosopher who is committed to something ... to
anything.
Technique 10
Spend some time - one or two seconds - concocting the most outrageous
ethical conundrum possible. It should involve Nazis in some way. For
example: What should person B do if confronted by person A, disguised as
a Nazi, but not really currently a Nazi, but who used to be a Nazi, and
who is threatening to kill B, who does not know whether A is or ever was
a Nazi, and who is known as having a penchant for torturing small
children, though only Nazi children, just for fun, but who has a special
relationship with A's child, who is not a Nazi, but who will enlist in
the Nazi party if A harms B in any way or if B lies about his/her
penchant for torturing Nazi children? Just when you think that the
conundrum is complete, add in the possibility of saving one's wife from
a dire predicament, just to throw off the reader's intuitions.
Technique 11
Using a style that is lively and congenial, make a promissory note. Say
a bit. Make another promissory note. Say a bit more. Make another
promissory note. Say a bit less. (You should be getting tired about
now.) Say something - anything at all. Don't worry about relevance -
that's overrated. Make a point about something wholly beside the point.
Promise to return to the initial topic. Do not fulfill any of the
promissory notes. End with a promise to take up another topic in a
future paper. (An existent unpublished paper will do at a pinch.)
Technique 12
Set out not to solve any problems. Do this in spades.
Note
Naturally, these techniques are not recommended for amateur use and
should not be attempted without the supervision of a full professor.
These philosophical techniques are for use only by professional
philosophers who have had years of specialised training. The author is
not responsible for any non-sequiturs, invalid arguments, fallacies,
digressions, existential malaise, mid-life crises, or career changes
that may result from the use of these techniques. Anyone who feels chest
pain, constriction in the throat, reddening of the face, or clenching of
the fists upon reading these techniques should be treated immediately
for anautoscopsis (an inability to laugh at oneself), a potentially
lethal condition.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Author
Logged
