A Very Particular Set of Skills: or, What if Liam Neeson Were a Philosopher
by David Kennedy Bird
Abstract: In the film “Taken”, Liam Neeson plays a father whose “very particular set of skills” comes into play as he tracks down his daughter’s captors and rescues her. Which leads to the obvious question: how would this set of skills come into play if the same character were–say–a philosopher?
Imagine with me, if you will, a world in which philosophers were making movies. Ahhh!
Among the current batch of film actors, Liam Neeson is probably–more than most, anyway–associated with a single picture: “Taken.” In this film, Neeson plays a father whose “very particular set of skills” comes into play as he tracks down his daughter’s captors–a ring of sex traffickers–and rescues her.
All of which, quite naturally, leads to the question: how would this set of skills come into play if the same character were, say, a philosopher?
So blissful a thought! Of course, the films would probably be awful, but oh, the ideas! The logical inferences! The conceptual recommendations!
For the benefit of Those Who Do Not Remember, here is the iconic telephone speech that Liam Neeson gives near the beginning of the film Taken:
“I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don’t have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that’ll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don’t, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.”
Of course, a more philosophically-inclined version of the same character, in the same film, might have said something similar… yet different… perhaps along these lines:
“The set of possibilities, of which i am currently cognizant, contained in the sets of (1) ‘who you are’ and (2) ‘what you want’ and (3) ‘how much money i’ve got’ is circumscribed to such a degree as to be essentially irrelevant. I am, however, possessed of [Set A], which for our current purposes may be defined as ‘a very particular set of skills,’ such a set having been acquired across [Set B]: ‘over a very long career,’ the sum of which will inevitably result in the maximal state of unhappiness for you. The possibilities from this point include the following: (A) You let my daughter go now, which will result in [the consequences for you = the Null Set], or (B) Your inevitable and very painful….”
“Hello? Hello?” [shaking telephone] “Hello? Anyone there? Hello?”
Anyway, if we were to imagine such a world, that delightful world in which the action heroes were philosophers, and the philosophers were action heroes,* we might be able to envision a scenario like the following:
“Immanuel Aquinas is having a bad day. To begin with, the guy at the laundry not only messed up his best suit, but he had the nerve to follow that with an absurd line of argumentation, rife with fallacious inferences, in his own defense. Then, Aquinas got stuck in traffic for an hour, and had to endure the pathetic socio-cultural diatribes of the guy in the car next to his. But the worst thing of all? Tom Kant, his nemesis, is about to walk away red-handed with a satchel containing $10,000,000 of the government’s money. The solution? Looks like it’s time for Aquinas to kick some serious conceptual ass.”
–from a film that Liam Neeson has not starred in
…but almost certainly will if the universe is the sort of place i suspect it to be.
I thought that, in this post, it might be worthwhile to imagine some things that Liam Neeson would or would not do, if cast in a philosophical action film. To wit:
Some things Liam Neeson would NEVER do:
- He would never give you up
- He would never let you down
- He would never run around and desert you
- He would never make you cry
- He would never say goodbye
- He would never tell a lie and hurt you
Um. Just a moment. We need to check on something.
Oh, dear. We’re sorry: that wasn’t Liam Neeson, it was Rick Astley. Similar fellows, understandable mistake.
Well, now that we’ve publicly embarrassed ourselves, oops, ha ha, why don’t we move on to the list of things that Liam Neeson would do, ha ha, or skills that he would reveal, as a philosopher? I feel we’re on somewhat firmer ground here.
Here are some things Liam Neeson would do:
He would summarily drop anyone who tried to make a pun on Kant and can’t. I mean, seriously…wouldn’t you?
Logical fallacies would be punished swiftly… dialectically… and permanently.
Wittgenstein’s Language Games… hah! You won’t be playing any with him. Not, that is, if you value your respiratory tractatus. Er, tract.
All flockbinkers may or may not be treadknicious, but you’re about to be.
(Wait. What? Umm.)
Don’t even try coming at him with obtuse, verbally bloated explanations: he will cut you with Occam’s Razor.
The Law of the Excluded Middle…after he’s finished excluding YOUR middle, you won’t have anything left to digest your food with.
He’ll crush your monads (get it? your monads, heh heh), Leibniz to the contrary notwithstanding.
And speaking of notwithstanding… Pythagoras notwithstanding, when Neeson’s through with you the squares of your legs will NOT be equal to the square of your hypotenuse.
Please don’t go on and on about some “Prisoner’s Dilemma”… The only way to act in your own self-interest when dealing with Liam Neeson is to hand over the total and pray that he doesn’t feel like investigating the boundaries of game theory.
Oh dear. Once again, we’re not even sure what this last one meant.
He’ll separate your yin from your yang.
(We thought that last one was pretty funny, and we’re going to repeat it.)
He’ll separate your yin from your yang.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, schmynthesis… The Hegelian Dialectic notwithstanding… among the various other things that are notwithstanding… you’ll find yourself in a world of contradiction if Liam Neeson isn’t pleased with the status of your triads.
He kicked Buridan’s Ass, and he’ll kick yours.
When he’s done with you, you’ll be reduced to a cardboard caricature useful only as a mouthpiece for certain widely dismissed philosophical positions… oh… waittasecond… oops… sorry, there… we kinda got Liam Neeson crossed up with Ayn Rand.
She’ll have to wait for another post to the blog.
* Heh heh. A bit of a nod to Plato, there.