http://www.philosophersguild.com/index. ... philosophy

I was given a box of EnlightenMints today.
As follows:

"EnlightenMints


Engenders epiphanies and other related phenomena*


*this may not be true"

As I noted the Hindu goddess that served as background for the mintbox's title verbiage, he said, grinning in some small victory or another of his own:
'it reminded me of you'

And then, to illustrate just how, he gestured to the back of the box where it went as follows:

Presents of Mind from:
THE UNEMPLOYED
PHILOSOPHERS GUILD
www.philosophersguild.com

He then patted me on the shoulder, chuckled, and walked off while I tried a peppermint bit of wisdom.

So, for our resident philosophers, Regal and Bo and others I'm sure, you have a home to buy wacky sh*t.
Great.

[note] i'm not a philosopher. imo anyone who claims to be and who hasn't actually published a book is just being pretentious. whether i'm being pretentious myself here, well, iunno. or care, particularly.[/personal prejudice]

but to return the favour;

http://dotnetrix.co.uk/nothing.html

i found the freudian slippers to be hilarious, though.

Not so fast - sarcasm doesn't actually associate you with them.
I wouldn't be so pretentious as to call you so pretentious as to claim to be pretentious.




I enjoyed the Vanishing Civil Liberties mug.
Or the Mad Hatter pillbox.
Heh.

kee.. i like the paper section. sticky notes mainly... but you can dress up a notable figure with stickers ^___^ whee.


... and they had such obscure plushies. <3

I am a philosopher, I have not published a book, and I do not see any of my being pretentiousness as a necessary logical conclusion of an argument based on the premises that I assert that I am a philosopher or that I have not published a book.

But I also embrace your perspective in first person and understand that as those seem to be relevant criteria to you, they do provide that conclusion as the result of a type of modal logic which seems valid to you, thus making them valid in AN existential domain.

Now to speak freely sarcastically, "yeah, publishing a book makes you a philosopher. Oh yeah, it also means you aren't pretentious!"

EDIT because i felt like being clearer to hopefully avoid further misunderstanding.

my opinion is... not exactly the one implied from what i said, it was more of a gesture for NLY's benefit and because while i knew he said it in sarcasm, i didn't want any passers by reading it and inadvertently thinking i was (overlooking the fact that we are all but students and) considering myself as a 'philosopher' and of course in doing so being something of a pretentious fool (remember that i am in rather close contact with a rather high density of philosophical types, so i have seen an interesting proportion of the new generation of fools. trust me; it's cool to be 'a philosopher. i've stopped telling people i meet my degree now wherever possible, because it actually carries negative connotations in most eyes, imo rightly so).

But you might as well take me as an idiot/straw man/w/e, for as already stated;

i don't care. ^_^

...

i'd love wisdom, on a tangential note, if there were any to love. the closest things to wisdom i've found to date are those mittens with the string between them, i mean that's smart.

but now i'm being facetious. ^____^

btw, does one refer to those in the singular or the plural, in that context? do i say 'the closest thing i've found to date is those mittens', or state it as i have done?

*doublepost*

and now back to the topic?

@ Regal
"are" mittens..."are those mittens" is what I would think. If you said "is mittens", mittens becomes a singular essential entity, but since you are referring to more than one sample of mittens that have the string, I think you are referring to objective mittens rather than mittens subjectively.

I don't want you to be confused about what I said. I don't care "much" (as I am being honest and accurate) that you don't care, but I do not not care either.

The whole essence of any philosophy that I do is that it is essentially ANONYMOUS, but I'd hate a reader to appreciate the tradition of meritocracy simply because it is a tradition.

This sounds like something that one who would love widsom would not necessarily and maybe not likely maintain. But I wouldn't rule it out either.

I assert for argument (and unlike all those out there who hide behide the text, it is not IMHO) that ruling out anything necessarily, including wisdom IS foolish, but not in the it's WISE to be a fool (or idiot) kind of way.


and NOW back to the topic...

((@ Bo - yeah, 'are those' seems reasonable.

... how did i know i was going to get a 'and NOW back to the topic reply'?

some things are depressingly predictable. i don't expect you to care or not care, of course, but i still expect you to reply. maybe you are a philosopher after all.

^_^ no worries.))

Freudian Slippers.

John, you cannot possibly love wisdom until you've tried it in peppermint.

[spoiler]The only philosopher who came to any logical conclusion in terms of the actual operation of the world was Hume, though Aristotle and Kant were tie for second and Kierkegard and Nietzche I will include as arbitrarily as this list is.
The most interesting writers are those take the world in panoply rather than in so incomplete a measure as taking it holistically; such as Montaigne, Bacon, Emerson, DeBorges, etc. Essayists intrigue me.
As well, only in select philosophers and essayists do you not find a reiteration of past conceptualizations.
This intrigues and entertains me.

I am now, as I often do, wandering from my own initiation, which was the point that Hume was the first philosopher who noted that, at the end of the day, this is all bunk anyway: have a cheeseburger and chill.


I really didn't wander, I merely wanted to take advantage of the fact that I am an unemployed 'philosopher', and therefore am never off topic in this topic.
In America most people don't know what philosophy actually is, and possess only vague notions of statues punching themselves in the chin and old men in togas pointing at the heavens and looking far too serious.
Therefore being a philosopher is essentially equally as despicable a thing to be, merely for entirely contrary reasons.
I certainly do not wish to imply, what's more, that by being unaware of philosophy their lives are wanting in value or relevancy. Only that by being aware of philosophy the value and relevancy of my life appears to drop exceedingly. Which is really not so very odd, when I consider this post.
Cheeseburger?[/spoiler]

Walt Whitman silk tie.

you know, if they were punching themselves in the chin, it'd explain a lot.

Especially why it's difficult to chew my cheeseburger.
*shrug*
I believe I've run out of ways to demean philosophy at this point.
I have to admire you, though, John, as it's something you are always up to the task on.
And I say that without sarcasm.