|
|
Post by Shura on Feb 10, 2004 15:58:56 GMT -5
Old thread brought to PADND by Cato, but one that needs to be seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shura on Feb 10, 2004 16:00:43 GMT -5
Theories to Explain Life Around the World
A contest was held for people to submit their theories on ANY subject. Below are the winners:
4th RUNNER-UP (Subject: Probability Theory)
If an infinite number of rednecks riding in an infinite number of pickup trucks fire an infinite number of shotgun rounds at an infinite number of highway signs, they will eventually produce all the world's great literary works in Braille.
3rd RUNNER-UP (Subject: Bio-Mechanics)
Why Yawning Is Contagious: You yawn to equalize the pressure on your eardrums. This pressure change outside your eardrums unbalances other people's ear pressures, so they then yawn to even it out.
2nd RUNNER-UP (Subject: Symbolic Logic)
Communist China is technologically underdeveloped because they have no alphabet and therefore cannot use acronyms to communicate technical ideas a= t a faster rate.
1st RUNNER-UP (Subject: Newtonian Mechanics)
The earth may spin faster on its axis due to deforestation. Just as a figure skater's rate of spin increases when the arms are brought in close to the body, the cutting of tall trees may cause our planet to spin dangerously fast.
HONORABLE MENTION (Subject: Linguistics)
The quantity of consonants in the English language is constant. If omitted in one place, they turn up in another. When a Bostonian "pahks his cah," the lost R's migrate southwest, causing a Texan to "warsh" his car and invest in "erl" wells.
GRAND PRIZE WINNER (Subject: Perpetual Motion)
When a cat is dropped, it always lands on its feet, and when toast is dropped, it always lands buttered side down. It was proposed to strap giant slabs of hot buttered toast to the back of a hundred tethered cats; the two opposing forces will cause the cats to hover, spinning inches above the ground. Using the giant buttered toast/cat array, a high-speed monorail could easily link New York with Chicago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shura on Feb 10, 2004 16:01:39 GMT -5
Are YOU a problem thinker?
It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker.
I began to think alone - "to relax," I told myself. But I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time.
I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself.
I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"
Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's. I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in. He said, "Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job." This gave me a lot to think about.
I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking..."
"I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"
"But Honey, surely it's not that serious."
"It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking we won't have any money!"
"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently, and she began to cry. I'd had enough. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door.
I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche, with NPR on the radio. I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors... they didn't open. The library was closed.
To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night.
As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster.
Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting.
I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just seemed... easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shura on Feb 10, 2004 16:07:16 GMT -5
Solipsism Warning:
The consumer should be aware that he or she may be the only entity in the universe, and therefore that any perceived defects in product quality are the consumer's own fault.
Determinism Safety Advisory:
Every citizen be advised that despite the possibility that his or her acts are all entirely predetermined by the blind mechanical nature of the universe and are therefore unavoidable and inescapable, he or she will still incur a legal responsibility and liability for any torts, violations, misdemeanors, or felonies he or she commits.
Knowledge-Definition Warning:
Because knowledge is defined for the purpose of this product
literature as "justified true belief", the manufacturer cannot prove that they "know" any of the information provided with this product to be true, correct, complete, or consistent because they cannot demonstrate their internal belief states through the principle of Philosphic Privacy.
Cartesian Evil Genius Alert:
The reader is advised that he or she may be subject to an illusion generated by an evil genius, and that his or her "sensory fibers" may be falsely manipulated at any time with neither advance warning nor any possible legal remedy.
Epistemological Denotation Warning:
The consumer must understand that due to the a-priori impossibility of assuring a shared denotation amongst independent agents, none of the advertising material, product literature, instructions, or safety warnings (including this one), associated with this product may contain what the consumer perceives to be factual information.
Non-Universal Ethics Notice:
Due to the possibility that a common notion of ethics are not
universally shared by all sentient beings, and that therefore the
manufacturer may have entirely different concept of "fairness",
"equity", "honesty", and "integrity" than the consumer, the consumer should not expect the product purchased to conform in any way to the advertised properties of the product.
Godelian Product Disclaimer:
As it has been proven that there are many true but unproveable
statements, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for any of its
unsupported product claims.
Penrose Addendum to Godelian Disclaimer:
Despite the above warning, the manufacturer is confident that all its
product claims are true because of its mystically acquired and
computationally unrepudiable organic intuition. Unfortunately, the
manufacturer cannot in any way demonstrate that its intuition is
correct, or indeed that it has an intuition.
Philosopher-General's Existentialist Tobacco Products Label:
Warning! this product has been found to cause cancer and ephysema,
and to lead to increased likelihood of strokes and heart
disease. However, as the Universe is a soulless waste inhabited by
unthinking machines it doesn't matter in the least whether you smoke
or not. Go ahead, light up, it's all the same to me if you live or
die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shura on Feb 10, 2004 16:09:17 GMT -5
The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.
The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong.
How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
> "Hmmm... well there's an interesting question isn't it?"
> "Define 'light bulb'..."
> "How can you be sure it needs changing?"
> Three. One to change it and two to stand around arguing over whether or not the light bulb exists.
How many Hegelians does it take to change a light bulb?
> Two, of course. One stands at one end of the room and argues that it isn't dark; the other stands at the other end and says that true light is impossible. This dialectic creates a synthesis which does the job.
How many Zen masters does it take to change a light bulb?
> Two. One to change it, and one not to change it.
How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb?
> Two. One to change the lightbulb and one to observe how the lightbulb symbolizes an incandescent beacon of subjectivity in a netherworld of Cosmic Nothingness.
How many Kuhnian constructionist philosophers of science does it take to change a light bulb?
> You're still thinking in terms of 'incremental change'--what we really need is paradigm shift...we don't need a bulb with more attributes added on, we need ubiquitous luminescence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shura on Feb 10, 2004 16:11:18 GMT -5
WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
Plato: For the greater good.
Karl Marx: It was a historical inevitability.
Machiavelli: So that its subjects will view it with admiration,
as a chicken which has the daring and courage to
boldly cross the road, but also with fear, for whom
among them has the strength to contend with such a
paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the
princely chicken's dominion maintained.
Hippocrates: Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its
pancreas.
Jacques Derrida: Any number of contending discourses may be discovered
within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and
each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial
intent can never be discerned, because structuralism
is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD!
Thomas de Torquemada: Give me ten minutes with the chicken and I'll find out.
Timothy Leary: Because that's the only kind of trip the Establishment
would let it take.
Douglas Adams: Forty-two.
Nietzsche: Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road
gazes also across you.
Oliver North: National Security was at stake.
B.F. Skinner: Because the external influences which had pervaded its
sensorium from birth had caused it to develop in such a
fashion that it would tend to cross roads, even while
believing these actions to be of its own free will.
Carl Jung: The confluence of events in the cultural gestalt
necessitated that individual chickens cross roads at
this historical juncture, and therefore
synchronicitously brought such occurrences into being.
Jean-Paul Sartre: In order to act in good faith and be true to itself,
the chicken found it necessary to cross the road.
Ludwig Wittgenstein: The possibility of "crossing" was encoded into the
objects "chicken" and "road", and circumstances came
into being which caused the actualization of this
potential occurrence.
Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed
the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.
Aristotle: To actualize its potential.
Buddha: If you ask this question, you deny your own chicken-
nature.
Howard Cosell: It may very well have been one of the most astonishing
events to grace the annals of history. An historic,
unprecedented avian biped with the temerity to attempt
such an herculean achievement formerly relegated to
homo sapien pedestrians is truly a remarkable occurence.
Salvador Dali: The Fish.
Darwin: It was the logical next step after coming down from
the trees.
Emily Dickinson: Because it could not stop for death.
Epicurus: For fun.
Ralph Waldo Emerson: It didn't cross the road; it transcended it.
Johann von Goethe: The eternal hen-principle made it do it.
Ernest Hemingway: To die. In the rain.
Werner Heisenberg: We are not sure which side of the road the chicken
was on, but it was moving very fast.
David Hume: Out of custom and habit.
Jack Nicholson: 'Cause it (censored) wanted to. That's the (censored)
reason.
Pyrrho the Skeptic: What road?
Ronald Reagan: I forget.
John Sununu: The Air Force was only too happy to provide the
transportation, so quite understandably the chicken
availed himself of the opportunity.
The Sphinx: You tell me.
Mr. T: If you saw me coming you'd cross the road too!
Henry David Thoreau: To live deliberately ... and suck all the marrow
out of life.
Mark Twain: The news of its crossing has been greatly exaggerated.
Molly Yard: It was a hen!
Zeno of Elea: To prove it could never reach the other side.
Chaucer: So priketh hem nature in hir corages.
Wordsworth: To wander lonely as a cloud.
The Godfather: I didn't want its mother to see it like that.
Keats: Philosophy will clip a chicken's wings.
Blake: To see heaven in a wild fowl.
Othello: Jealousy.
Dr Johnson: Sir, had you known the Chicken for as long as I have, you would not so readily enquire, but feel rather the
Need to resist such a public Display of your own lamentable and incorrigible Ignorance.
Mrs Thatcher: This chicken's not for turning.
Supreme Soviet: There has never been a chicken in this photograph.
Oscar Wilde: Why, indeed? One's social engagements whilst in
town ought never expose one to such barbarous
inconvenience - although, perhaps, if one must cross a
road, one may do far worse than to cross it as the
chicken in question.
Kafka: Hardly the most urgent enquiry to make of a low-grade
insurance clerk who woke up that morning as a hen.
Swift: It is, of course, inevitable that such a loathsome,
filth-ridden and degraded creature as Man should assume
to question the actions of one in all respects his
superior.
Macbeth: To have turned back were as tedious as to go o'er.
Whitehead: Clearly, having fallen victim to the fallacy of
misplaced concreteness.
Freud: An die andere Seite zu kommen. (Much laughter)
Hamlet: That is not the question.
Donne: It crosseth for thee.
Pope: It was mimicking my Lord Hervey.
Constable: To get a better view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shura on Feb 10, 2004 16:12:12 GMT -5
How many Freudians does it take to change a lightbulb?
Two. One to change the bulb and one to hold the penis... I mean ladder!
How many personality disorders does it take to change a lightbulb?
How many Narcissistic P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?
Just one. To hold the lightbulb but he has to wait for the whole world to
revolve around him.
How many Borderline P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?
Just one. To threaten suicide if you don't change it for him/her.
How many Obsessive-Compulsive P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?
Just one. But he has to check it 100 times, one for each watt.
How many Passive Aggressive P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?
Oops.I can't believe I broke the last one. I guess you'll have to sit in
the dark.
How many Dependent P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?
None, he's still clinging to the old lightbulb.
How many Histrionic P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?
"You want me to change the lightbulb? I could burn my hand! I could be
electrocuted! I could fall off the ladder and be paralyzed for life! You
don't love me anymore!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 10, 2004 16:18:20 GMT -5
All I have to say is: Hehehehehehehehehehe ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 14, 2004 18:39:15 GMT -5
Funny.
I'll try to come up with a Diogenes the Cynic answer to the chicken joke.
|
|
