a little philosophy joke.

[Danny Weltman]

That one's traditionally (and dubiously) attributed to Sidney Morgenbesser,
who is the source of most of philosophy's great funny stories. See here:

http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/03/sidney-morgenbesser/

http://jrbenjamin.com/2013/10/10/sidney-morgenbessers-sense-of-humor/

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Douglas Holm <dkholm at mac.com> wrote:

> There is also the famous sarcastic "Yeah, yeah!" call from the audience
> deflating the philosophy prof speaker's notion that one cannot utter a
> negative with two "positive" words.  Can't remember the people involved,
> though I think the anecdote is true and not an academic legend.
>
> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Danny Weltman <danny.weltman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The joke is obscure at best, and to appreciate the full hilarity you've
> got to be steeped in contemporary Anglo-American philosophy (Jerry Fodor,
> the guy from whom the joke is taken, is a preeminent philosopher). In case
> anyone wants the frog dissected:
>
> The basic punchline is that the heckler has failed to consider "naive
> realism," which is pretty much the most basic view in the entire world.
> Anyone who isn't a philosopher is almost certainly a naive realist, because
> why WOULDN'T things be generally as they appear to be? One has to be a
> philosopher or similarly deranged to think otherwise. The history of
> philosophy is filled with views like idealism (everything exists as ideas
> in our heads, and in God's head, not as actual objects) and other wacky
> stuff, and the heckler is so focused on all those obscure philosophical
> views that they have neglected what's right in front of them.
>
> The other source of hilarity for the joke is conventions in philosophy.
> Philosophy is a very predatory sort of field - lots of people treat it like
> one big contest or one big argument, with the idea being that you pounce
> upon any weakness in your interlocutor's position and tear them apart (this
> is what Socrates spent his days doing). So, every philosopher has had the
> experience of someone who's "got your number," so to speak, while you're
> giving a talk. Sometimes it feels like the entire audience has got your
> number. In the joke this is pushed to the point of hilarity, because the
> heckler is objecting after the first sentence of the talk (traditionally
> you're supposed to wait until the end of the talk to raise your objection,
> because it might be covered at some point if you just sit tight and let the
> speaker finish).
>
> We could make the same joke outside the context of philosophy: Once upon a
> time, a visiting linguist presented a lecture on the topic: ‘How many ways
> are there to greet people in principle?’ ‘In principle,’ he began, ‘there
> are exactly 12 ways to greet people.' A voice called from the audience:
> ‘Thirteen.’ ‘There are,’ the lecturer repeated, ‘*exactly *12 possible
> ways to greet people; not one less and not one more.’ ‘Thirteen,’ the voice
> from the audience called again. ‘Very well, then,’ said the lecturer, now
> perceptibly irked, ‘I shall proceed to enumerate the 12 possible ways to
> greet people. The first is to say hello.’ ‘Oh,’ said the voice from the
> audience. Then ‘Fourteen!’
>
> It's less funny, because it's missing the context of philosophers being
> assholes to each other in an effort to emulate Socrates, but you can
> probably get the gist.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> i don't get it
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Perfect...
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I will tell you a philosophical joke. Once upon a time, a visiting
>>>> scholar presented a lecture on the topic: ‘How many philosophical positions
>>>> are there in principle?’ ‘In principle,’ he began, ‘there are exactly 12
>>>> philosophical positions.’ A voice called from the audience: ‘Thirteen.’
>>>> ‘There are,’ the lecturer repeated, ‘*exactly* 12 possible
>>>> philosophical positions; not one less and not one more.’ ‘Thirteen,’ the
>>>> voice from the audience called again. ‘Very well, then,’ said the lecturer,
>>>> now perceptibly irked, ‘I shall proceed to enumerate the 12 possible
>>>> philosophical positions. The first is sometimes called “naive realism”. It
>>>> is the view according to which things are, by and large, very much the way
>>>> that they seem to be.’ ‘Oh,’ said the voice from the audience. Then
>>>> ‘Fourteen!’
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.innergroovemusic.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160314/60659615/attachment.html>