News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
My former colleagues at another university in Middle East have also been moved to online teaching indefinitely, with the students…
If much of the interest of high-quality papers lies between the lines—in the metaphorical fire that a paper lights in…
I would also recommend that potential grad students make inquiries into how far the compensation package actually goes towards cost…
It’s a mix. I’m still in the UAE with my family, and we feel safe. But some students and faculty…
In the above comment, Michel wrote: “As an aside, every once in a while I check out how the chatbots…
I could imagine LLMs having saved me a *ton* of time in graduate school–e.g., by having supplied reasonable answers to…
The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…
According to Norman Malcolm’s memoir,
Wittgenstein once said that a serious and philosophical work could
be written that would consist entirely of jokes (without being facetious).
Ray Monk wants to know if Wittgenstein ever wrote this down himself; and Tim Madigan, in Philosophy Now, wonders what he meant by it. I’m curious whether anyone has ever tried such a thing–I mean the "of jokes" part, not the "without being facetious."
George Boolos' little paper on Godel's Theorem (done in words of one syllable) was pretty funny and serious. Although this reminds me a bit of the film _Raising Arizona_, where you would have to think round balloons are instances of balloons that come in funny shapes. Come to think of it.
I hadn't thought of these as Wittgenstinian exercises, but I suppose all of the following count:
Roy Sorensen, "A cure for incontinence!" (Mind, October 1997). Available at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2346/is_n424_v106/ai_20035458
Tamar Szabo Gendler: "Continence on the cheap – response to Roy Sorensen" (Mind, October 1998)
Available at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2346/is_n428_v107/ai_21248798
And, in more extended fashion: Tamar Szabo Gendler and John Hawthorne, "The Real Guide to Fake Barns: A Catalogue of Gifts for your Epistemic Enemies" Philosophical Studies Volume 124, Number 3 (June 2005): 331-352. Available through the Phil Studies web site, or in pre-print at http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tsg3/barnsfinal.pdf
I visit Leiter Reports for the political and social commentary and generally skip over the philosophy related posts. Your last two light hearted entries about the causes of death of famous philosophers and the philosophy jokes were wonderful fun for non-philosophers such as myself. Thanks.
I have had the good fortune to have known several philosophers, students and teachers of philosophy – most of them older relatives within my own family. They were contentious folks but far from dour. If it is at all reassuring to know, they all died at a ripe old age of natural causes – none, I am happy to say, "overpowered himself / herself."
Will you now tell us how many philosophers it takes to screw in a light bulb? (None, I would guess. With so many bright minds in a room, who needs a light bulb?)
I've always been partial to Josh Parsons' paper "The Eleatic Hangover Cure" which is a funny and clever discussion of the supertask problem. Undergrad students get a kick out of it. You can find it on his personal website:
I don't know whether this is relevant but I remember reading long time ago some comments of Wittgenstein vis-a-vis the Liar paradox (or its variants). He said something along the lines, "when faced with something like this [the paradox], one can only laugh, because it resembles a joke, etc., etc.". Judging by the amount of ink spilt analyzing the paradox, I would say that a book of the sort Wittgenstein imagined might still be a very serious book.
BTW, I would appreciate any leads re where he says this. (Maybe I am wrong; maybe I read a second-hand account of this, viz. by someone like Drury.)
I just read Gerald Sacks' "Formal Losses" essay in the Juliet Floyd collection Future Pasts dedicated to Prof. Dreben. With respect to the fundamental question (is the essay itself an instance of a serious philosophy paper or a humorous takeoff), my intuitions are that it is both. Very clever piece.
I remember the Wittgenstein quotation being used in J. A. Paulos' popular philosophical joke book I Think, Therefore I Laugh, but don't know if there's any official citation.
Leave a Reply