The Blogger Lays His Metaphorical Cards on the Table
by David Kennedy Bird
Abstract: In which The Blogger candidly discusses whether or not this blog is actually about philosophy, or whether it’s just an excuse for some obscure horsing around.
The question has been put, and the battle has been joined: Is this blog really a substantial exploration of philosophical issues? Or is it a floppy monstrosity consisting largely of mostly aimless conversations in which The Good Reader scolds The Blogger for being a conspicuous ass?
As it turns out, quite a catalog of reasons can be assembled in support of either position.
Persons making the accusation against the blog: Sandra, from Kansas City, for instance.
“I’ve been following this blog for a couple of years now… well, i don’t know if ‘following’ is the right way of putting it… i mean, i’ve read the posts, you know… and i have to say it, i just don’t think it’s about anything. I think it’s a bunch of random thoughts that this blogger guy comes up with, and then he tries to make them funny, and he adds in some odd characters, and he writes about them.”
Oh boy. There are some people you just can’t reach.
Persons defending the blog, on the other hand, like… um… uuh… well… aw, gee….
Well, okay, here’s one. Christopher, who lives in the British Virgin Islands. He has this to say in defense of this website:
“Dude, i’m totally all about it. I mean, like Jack! this is some pretty funny material.” He pauses to snicker for a few seconds. “It’s like, how many Scotsmen can you put on a fence? Oh my gosh! This stuff is hilarious! So yeah, i’m totally about this website, as a, you know, way of communicating what–um–philosophy is, and, you know, that kind of thing.”
Well, okay. I reckon we’ll accept our defenses wherever we can find them.
So the sides are defined, and the field is marked. What IS this blog about? Is it, as Sandra avers, a random body of material? Or is Christopher right in averring that it is… well, whatever he seems to have been saying? And in keeping with the philosophical character of the blog (you see what i did there?) we’re going to structure our material as a series of logical arguments.
Let the games begin! Uhm, or something.
This Blog is a Substantial Exploration of Philosophy
The thesis here is that The Blogger is performing a significant public service by serving up generous portions of substantial argumentation in support of important ideas.
Argument #1: Flockbinkers
Oh my word! Do we really need to include anything else in our defense? This blog is all about flockbinkers, and it’s hard to get any more philosophical than that. Flockbinkers are practically the definition of philosophy! They’re what philosophy is all about! Now, in response to the nay-sayers who might claim that flockbinkers don’t exist, our reply is: …well, give us a minute on that one. Scratching our heads here. This one turns out to be a bit of a toughie.
Argument #3: Logical syllogisms
You can’t…and may i emphasize this?… you simply CAN’T chuck a rock around here without hitting a logical syllogism! The joint is veritably stupid with logical syllogisms! Um, if that’s the sort of statement that makes sense. Anyway. It’s just one logical syllogism after another. It’s almost as if they’re following each other to the seaside cliffs in order to hurl themselves off the edge! No, that wasn’t part of the argument. Just a nice image that i suddenly came up with.
Argument #2: Definitions of words
Our final, knockout argument consists in the fact that…Dude. We are constantly defining words around here. This blog is practically about nothing but the definition of words. Spin around blindfolded, and you’ll find yourself pointing at somebody who’s in the process of defining a term. Hey! You there! Little Biffy! Whatcha doin’ over there? What? Defining terms? Ho! I figured as much! Carry on!
The defense rests.
This Blog is a Sad Excuse for a Bunch of Horsing Around
Since this is a position with which i am entirely out of sympathy, i have asked our friend Sandra (from Kansas City) to supply a few insights. Do your best, Sandra! [snicker]
Argument #1: Even an idiot can identify what’s wrong with each post
Oh my word. What a sad assemblage of nonsense, nonsense and more nonsense! Pretty much every single post to this blog is saddled with at least one, if not several, if not a seemingly unending stream of fallacious reasoning and just plain silliness! Sometimes the Blogger sticks something into the post that you’re supposed to find, and that’s not hard at all. On top of that, though, are the myriads of mistakes in reasoning, etc. that tend to clog the place up, apparently through no knowledge of his own. It’s exhausting, really.
Argument #2: At no point are terms like ‘flockbinker’ or ‘wamwam’ ever defined
This blog is built around nonsense words that the blogger never takes it upon himself to define. What do these silly words mean? Does it matter? Do i care? No, in fact, i do not. Neither am i able to take seriously a blog where much of what’s going on is in the form of “cromblasters” and “wigwams” and “Your Mom” and other unintelligible things. If the Blogger wants to talk himself to sleep at night muttering random syllables, why he’s welcome to that, i just wish he wouldn’t call it a website.
Argument #3: The so-called ‘logical syllogisms’ are awful, just awful
In his well-meaning but doomed-to-failure attempts to explore philosophy, The Blogger often sets up logical syllogisms in order to illustrate his points. Oh. My. Word. This guy is trying to teach ME logic? Every time i read this blog, i feel like i know less and less about logic. If i keep it up, i’m afraid that soon i’ll no longer remember how to eat and use the bathroom by myself, and i’ll need to hire a full-time nurse. THAT is how bad this blog is on logic.
The prosecution rests.
The Good Reader: Yawn.
The Blogger: I heard that. You yawned.
The Good Reader: I did! I’m a little tired. And, plus, i don’t think i get the purpose of this post. Sure, you’ve finally admitted that your writing is somewhat pointless and silly, but apart from that, what…?
The Blogger: I’m not sure i understand you. I was clearly the winner of our little debate.
The Good Reader: You’re making a joke.
The Blogger: I flattened her! My arguments made sense, and hers didn’t!
The Good Reader: Hmmm.
The Blogger: I laid forth a coherent body of evidence in favor of the blog, and she had nothing but a handful of sad personal impressions with no logical support whatsoever!
The Good Reader: Ah.
The Blogger: I won! I ran over her like a grocery store shopping cart running over a dried banana peel!
The Good Reader: This is an experience you’ve had before?
The Blogger: Just last week.
The Good Reader: Which grocery store?
The Blogger: Kroger. They’re normally really clean. I’m not sure what that banana peel was doing on the floor.
The Good Reader: Cool. So, to summarize, you’re under the impression that you kicked some serious butt in that little discussion up there?
The Blogger: Absolutely! She was rendered a smoking carcass by the time i finished my remarks. There was nothing left of her. Some smoke and a bit of ash, that’s about it.
The Good Reader: Mm-hmm.
The Blogger: So you agree?
The Good Reader: [smiling] Absolutely. Is there anything to eat around here? I’m suddenly famished.