...or what happens when you have an odd profession with people who have far too much time on their hands. :)
Have been going over some old philosophy humour things, and found some that y'all may be interested in. As a word of warning, each link is somewhat lengthy, but IMO rather entertaining. Americans might find the refutation of the possibility of Al Gore interesting, especially in light of the 2000 Presidential Election.
Of course, there are ethical dilemas, then there are ethical dilemas. Can you solve the dilema of the Brain in a Vat at the Controls of the Runaway Train. Very hilarious parody of one of the standard thought experiments to tease out your values. This one even has a separate page to explain all of the little in jokes.
Perhaps you're more theologically inclined, in which case there is a question Thomas Aquinas should have answered: Is God Made of Soap?
Two final links for those of you who have managed to read this far, and may be most entertained by. Jenny Jones on postmodernism is entertaining; as is the idea of Jerry Springer hosting a philosophical show.
Okay, just one more (because I also have way too much time on my hands). Dr. Alan White of the University of Wisconson has written a number of Philosophy Songs with such numbers as "Solipsism's Painless," "We Didn't Start Enquiry" and "Supererogationisticextraobligation."
Enjoy!
- Login to post comments
Post to Twitter
Strangely enough I read this and thought of Adam...
The following is an actual question given on a University of
Washington chemistry midterm. The answer by one student was so "profound"
that the professor shared it with colleagues via the Internet, which is, of
course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
(gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some
variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need
to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are
leaving.
I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell it will
not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are
entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the
world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member
of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not
belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to
Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of
souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of
change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order
for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of
Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase
until all Hell breaks loose.
2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of
souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell
freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Teresa Banyan during my
freshman year that "...it will be a cold day in Hell before I give you
my number" and take into account the fact that I still have not
succeeded in acquiring her number, then #2 cannot be true, and thus I am
sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.
The student received the only "A."
Philosophical Humour....
How ridiculously clever! Was this a distant cousin of your's Adam? :)
Philosophical Humour....
hehe Yeah, I've seen that one before. It's wonderfully clever. There's a simpler one that was apparently taken from a philosophy exam (something for you to think about for your exams, maybe, Adam).
The final exam had one question on it which was simply, "Why?"
The only student who got full marks was the one who answered, "Why not?"
Philosophical Humour....
LOL! There is also of course, the universal philosophical refutation.
One day, a philosopher was sleeping. Aristotle appeared before him; he asked if this great figure could summarize his system in 15 minutes. Oddly enough, Aristotle gave the clear, lucid summary of his complex system. The philosopher then answered with a single objection, which Arisotle could not answer.
Then Plato appeared before him. Again he asked for the summary, got it, and raised the unanswerable objection. Plato vanished, and soon he was encountering all the greats of philosophy, up through the modern day.
Proud, the philosopher forces himself to awaken long to write down the answer, that objection which can defeat all philosophical systems.
In the morning, he found he wrote the following: "That's what you say."
Philosophical Humour....
Heheheheee, I am gurtly amoosed.
the only thing I can think of that vaguely fits this thread is the exam question that is "Is this a question?"
It has been told to me by various un-reliable sources that the entirety but one of the people sitting the exam wrote huge essays to prove their points. However, one individual wrote one line which got him an A*.
ON his answer paper he wrote "Is this an answer?"
However, in my opinion, i think it is blatently obvious that the exam question is indeed a question, as it has the punctuation of a '?' and is begging for an answer.
In contrast, the student's answer is an answer, and also a question, although it does not actually answer the set exam question and is there for utterly pointless.
I would like to conclude by saying that this entire post was there for pointless, and what ever your response, i would like to quote that wise professor and tell you "thats what you say."
Philosophical Humour....
I was watching a simpsons episode last night (wow! Now thats a rarity! :wink: ) and it was the one where Homer gets put on medicinal marijuana (sp?).
Whilst totally spaced, Homer comes up with a very intriguing question.
Interesting, no?
your opinions?
Philosophical Humour....
As resident theologian I'll tackle the question...
First: Does Jesus own a microwave?
A: Being God his possess of a microwave is ireelevant to the question since as God he has the power of creation and cna therefore create microwaves if he needs them.
Second: Can Jesus heat a burrito beyond his (human) capacity to eat it?
A: Yes. Since this is also withing the realm of human capacity. I can microwave a burrito until it is so hot it bursts into flame and is totally consumed by the heat and is reduced to ash, I have to assume that Jesus can do that too.
Third: Would Jesus demonstrate his divinity by doing the impossible anyway?
A: Only if it served a purpose. All of Jesus' miracles were designed to teach lessons and to further his ministry. If reducing a burrito to inedible mass and then proceeding to feed a crowd of 5000 with it he could bring home his message he would certainly do so.
So, in short, Yes it is possible, but being Jesus he would do it anyway just to prove a point.
Respectfully submitted. Happy Easter
Philosophical Humour....
Hmmm.... Dave, Thomas Aquinas seems to (dis)agree with you. :)
Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 19, Article 13. Whether God can make a burito so Hot he cannot eat it?
Objection 1. It seems that "With God, all things are possible." Thus, God can create a burrito as hot as He likes. However, if he creates the burrito this hot, there is then something God cannot do, namely, to eat the burrito.
Objection 2. God being all powerful, he can Eat a burrito containing any level of Hotness he likes. However, if a burrito has infinite hotness, He then Cannot eat it, for the hotness of the burrito can never be exceeded by God's power to eat it.
ON THE CONTRARY, I answer that, when we speak of "possibility," we speak of things possible in only a certain sense. There is, firstly, that which is humanly possible, that a ball when released should fall to the ground. There is second, that which is within in the realm of possibility but we cannot do because we lack ability, such as to breathe underwater. Though we cannot breathe underwater on our own, we could nevertheless create certain devices, or have our bodies altered to include gills.
There is finally, as the Philosopher says, a realm in which things are not possible but display no lack of power. This is that realm in which we involve a contradiction, and we must contradict ourselves to say that the power of an omnipotent being exceeds its own power; for the power of any being cannot be in excess of its own power, only in excess of the power as yet displayed.
Reply Objection 1. You are impious to even suggest that God's power is exceeded by God's power. Shame on you.
Reply Object 2. All things are hot in relation to the form of heat. For something to of infite hotness, it must be the form of heat, which is itself never fully instantied to an object. Thus, God does not create a burrito of infinite hotness, since he would then eat the form of heat, and have to rob all other things of heat in the process.
(See also the age old question, Is God Made of Soap?)
Philosophical Humour....
But the question was not could GOD heat the burrito but could JESUS. Jesus was fully human although he was of the the same substance as God. Therefore he could exceed his HUMAN capacity quite easily.
He would just have to compensate for the damage and consequences of doing so. It stand to reason that the term 'eat' means to consume. Therefor if the heat of the burrito consumes him first, then he cannot eat it.
Humans have a very high flash point (at least as high as the burrito one must assume) so the burrito to remain a burrito cannot have a flash point hight than a human otherwise he cannot consume it.
If he were to heat it to that point, it would be unconsumable and therefore too hot for him to eat.
I submit (as counter) that Jesus has the POWER to heat it so that he (as human) cannot eat it.
Philosophical Humour....
Aw, Dave.... some days you take all the fun out of parodying the premier theologian of the Catholic Church. :)
Philosophical Humour....
Maybe I need to illustrate my point another way (and since it is Easter its a good day to do it).
If Jesus were to attempt to consume the infinitely heated burrito it would kill him since he is human.
God (as the Father) would have to ressurect him to prove he is God
Therefore jesus has attempted to consume an infinately hot burrito and failed but God has alloed him to do that to prove that humans are fallible but he forgives them for that.
Frankly it would have been more entertaining than the dying on a cross thing if you ask me...
Philosophical Humour....
ummm question! If you heat the burrito tointense intense INTENSE heat...wouldn't it just go "POOF!" and disintegrate? Thus no burrito to consume?
Philosophical Humour....
Maybe, but think of the problems that would cause - I mean, the Gospels would be several pages shorter, and what would Caiaphus, Annas, and Pilate have to do? Then again.. just imagine the book of John.
And Caiaphus brought Jesus before Pilate, and Pilate said, "They say that you are King of the Jews. Is this true?"
"That's what you say," replied Jesus. "I look for truth, and find that I get damned."
"But what is truth?" asked Pilate.
"Truth," said Jesus, "is that if I eat this hot burrito, I shall combust."
"Let us see it, then." And Jesus did eat the Burrito of God, and the Burrito did Jesus eat. Combusting before Pilate and scaring Caiaphus, he turned to ash; and was immediatly resurected.
"I am sorry," said Jesus. "Dad enjoys showing off some days."
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm bored and procrastinating. :)
Philosophical Humour....
Not to mention the book of Acts...
"And a wind moved among them and they knew that someone else had eaten a burrito."
Or the The Last Supper:
"Who ordered Mexican?"
And then there are the Letters of Paul:
"If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not lunch, I gain nothing."
Sort of makes Taco Bell sound like an orgainzed religion doesn't it?
Philosophical Humour....
A man walking along a California beach was deep in prayer. All of a
sudden he said out loud, "Lord, grant me one wish." The sky clouded above his
head and in a booming voice, the Lord said, "Because you have tried to be
faithful to me in all ways, I will grant you one wish." The man said, "Build a
bridge to Hawaii so I can drive over any time I want."
The Lord said, "Your request is very materialistic. Think of the enormous
challenges for that kind of undertaking. The supports required to reach
the bottom of the Pacific! The concrete and steel it would take! I can do it,
but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things. Take a
little more time and think of another wish, a wish you think would honor
and glorify me."
The man thought about it for a long time. Finally he said, "Lord, I wish
that I could understand women. I want to know how they feel inside, what
they are thinking when they give the silent treatment, why they cry, what
they mean when they say 'nothing', and how I can make a woman truly
happy."
The Lord replied, "You want two lanes or four lanes on that bridge?"
Philosophical Humour....
*with crossed arms and tapping foot* What is that suppose to mean?
wink, wink
Philosophical Humour....
The Kant Song
N.B. that there is an MP3 present on this site of the song....