it's like eating bad chicken
it was good the first time around, but then i ate the bacteria-ridden leftovers and got sick. was i sick to begin with? there's no way of knowing, other than to assume that since i didn't feel sick after the first portion, it was the bacteria in the second that made me throw up.
one might propose that the first dose was also bad, but didn't hit me till i'd finished the second. one might analyze that to a silly degree, akin to how one might analyze de re and de dicto intensional/extensional beliefs. the end result is the same: the analysis did nothing but state that the whole thing was a mistake. it need not be examined. the chicken was bad, so it made me sick; intensionality/extensionality was a bad idea, so it must be hung out to dry.
using logic, it would be easy to conclude that eating chicken from the panda express location that served me is a bad idea and i should avoid it altogether, or that if i do eat from there, i don't ever let my chicken sit for five hours before finishing it. that second conclusion works with how my heart feels: that i love that chicken, and it's the only chicken for me.
although it makes more sense just never to fuck with panda express again (the service is lousy, it's expensive, and there's usually a long line), instead, should i accept that my heart will never pick another chicken again, i could just eat from there tomorrow. or i could consider what my stomach says. problem there is my stomach says something different every day. see how this has the potential to be dragged out, well, indefinitely?
that goes without even considering that subway's help is consistently fun to talk to, AND their food is consistently better and more varied.
but then there's always woody's oasis: right in the middle and absolutely loyal, despite the fact that i usually eyeball it before deciding i want to go with one of the other two dining options.
so what do i do? of course, i stand and scratch my fucking silly head in the middle of the cafeteria, growing hungrier and more frustrated, till finally, a choice MUST be made because i'm late for class at this point. there's always that looming urgency.
once in a while, when business is slow, i'll let the help from one of the stands call me over. it won't ever happen again with panda express; woody's stands its ground (it could wait forever; it thinks i belong there); subway calls me over, then reams me out for choosing another eatery on my last visit to the cafeteria.
so what do i do? kick subway in the face while contemplating going back to panda express anyway and utterly ignoring woody's.
anyone know why i'm such a hungry piece of shit? makes me wonder if i have it in me to just walk away and find another caf. but why, when panda has my heart, and subway has my tastebuds and attention? and i can't just LEAVE woody's...
p.s. this entry is not about food any more than it is about the philosophy of language.
one might propose that the first dose was also bad, but didn't hit me till i'd finished the second. one might analyze that to a silly degree, akin to how one might analyze de re and de dicto intensional/extensional beliefs. the end result is the same: the analysis did nothing but state that the whole thing was a mistake. it need not be examined. the chicken was bad, so it made me sick; intensionality/extensionality was a bad idea, so it must be hung out to dry.
using logic, it would be easy to conclude that eating chicken from the panda express location that served me is a bad idea and i should avoid it altogether, or that if i do eat from there, i don't ever let my chicken sit for five hours before finishing it. that second conclusion works with how my heart feels: that i love that chicken, and it's the only chicken for me.
although it makes more sense just never to fuck with panda express again (the service is lousy, it's expensive, and there's usually a long line), instead, should i accept that my heart will never pick another chicken again, i could just eat from there tomorrow. or i could consider what my stomach says. problem there is my stomach says something different every day. see how this has the potential to be dragged out, well, indefinitely?
that goes without even considering that subway's help is consistently fun to talk to, AND their food is consistently better and more varied.
but then there's always woody's oasis: right in the middle and absolutely loyal, despite the fact that i usually eyeball it before deciding i want to go with one of the other two dining options.
so what do i do? of course, i stand and scratch my fucking silly head in the middle of the cafeteria, growing hungrier and more frustrated, till finally, a choice MUST be made because i'm late for class at this point. there's always that looming urgency.
once in a while, when business is slow, i'll let the help from one of the stands call me over. it won't ever happen again with panda express; woody's stands its ground (it could wait forever; it thinks i belong there); subway calls me over, then reams me out for choosing another eatery on my last visit to the cafeteria.
so what do i do? kick subway in the face while contemplating going back to panda express anyway and utterly ignoring woody's.
anyone know why i'm such a hungry piece of shit? makes me wonder if i have it in me to just walk away and find another caf. but why, when panda has my heart, and subway has my tastebuds and attention? and i can't just LEAVE woody's...
p.s. this entry is not about food any more than it is about the philosophy of language.