A less-than-enthusiastic, albeit colourful, essay response to my Philosophy class' assigned readings
So here's the deal. I fucking HATE philosophy class, philosophy majors, and basically any such forum whereby a totally arrogant and pompous ass gets to speak his mind to a poor crowd that must listen to his quasi-intellectual excretions. Of course, being the dumbass hypocrite that I am, this semester I signed up for a Philosophy of Minds and Machines class because I needed a credit from some bullshit bird course, and this seemed like the least inane one being offered at the time (of course, as you can see, I lament the decision now). We were assigned readings by these two bigshot philosophers (a whopper of an oxymoron if there ever was one), which I found frustrating beyond belief to read not only because homework is my kryptonite, but because it took both of these fools about 30 pages each to say NOTHING AT ALL. Now, every Friday we're supposed to sit in our Philosophy seminar and write a response to our readings. And every Friday I choose to be a good little hypocrite and write a short but sweet response where I either agree or disagree with their views, but most crucially, my response is concise and to the goddamn point. This week I thought I'd try something different. If they're gonna make me read some long-winded piece of shit, I'm gonna take a VERY long time explaining to my Philosophy prof that I found the assignments to be stupid. May the following short essay be the first of many attempts to demean and derogate the existence of contemporary career philosophers:
“I find it interesting to note that both Searle and Fodor’s arguments touch upon the importance of syntax and semantics, and more crucially, their distinction from one another. They spend so much time discussing the idea that although a statement can be syntactically correct, it does not necessarily follow, in and of itself, that it has any sort of semantic meaning in any context. It’s interesting to me because while both of these pompous old blowhards ramble on with albeit flowery prose and what they believe to be well-conceived thought experiments, parables, and other tawdry offerings of their accumulated “wisdom”, they are instead providing to the reader, unwittingly, a most EXCELLENT example of the distinction between syntactically correct sentences and the word-picture that they paint when strung together in their entirety as a whole: total, utterly meaningless garble that proves nothing more than the fact that these old bastards love nothing more than the sound of their own voices, preaching to an audience that just could not care one iota less than they already don’t. I don’t give a shit that that was a long ass run-on sentence. Now let me break it down to you slowly, using words that can’t confuse anyone but a Philosophy major:
Look, these dudes are really trying to nail down the fact that semantic correctness does not always logically follow from a syntactically correct statement. Check out the following sentence Noam Chomsky was so kind to give us: “Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.” Forget the fact that this sentence doesn’t mean anything to anyone… speaking in terms of syntax, it’s structurally complete. WE GET IT. WE FUCKING GET IT ALREADY.
If I could just get to the crux of my point now, the gooey, marshmellow centre of things, it is this:
It took Searle and Fodor 30 pages each to arrive at their one sole point, which is that syntax and semantics are not the same thing. The part of it that amuses me the most is the fact that in their 30 pages’ worth of sentences and paragraphs, not one of those syntactically correct statements form a cogent or meaningful idea, thus exemplifying to the reader the difference between a good writer and a trained chimp in diapers who knows only how to toot his own horn.
Truthfully, all of this was a painfully exhaustive way for me to prosaically convey to you my opinion of the assigned readings, which, simply put, is that these irritatingly contemptible mongrel pissants’ mouths are flapping, but they ain’t saying shit. In the esteemed opinion of this young, foul-mouthed wiseass, Searle and Fodor could serve the world in a much greater capacity by having opted for much more menial vocations, such as janitorial work or gravedigging. Sure, nobody would be forbidding them from thinking the stupid things that they do, but at least this way they can keep that shit to themselves and spare us the sound of their useless drivel."
Upon reading this, it may occur to you that I am replete with undue rage towards modern-day philosophers, but I would like to think that perhaps it is you that just isn't furious enough. Philosophy is for IDIOTS.
Dream big. Die young.
Goodnight.
“I find it interesting to note that both Searle and Fodor’s arguments touch upon the importance of syntax and semantics, and more crucially, their distinction from one another. They spend so much time discussing the idea that although a statement can be syntactically correct, it does not necessarily follow, in and of itself, that it has any sort of semantic meaning in any context. It’s interesting to me because while both of these pompous old blowhards ramble on with albeit flowery prose and what they believe to be well-conceived thought experiments, parables, and other tawdry offerings of their accumulated “wisdom”, they are instead providing to the reader, unwittingly, a most EXCELLENT example of the distinction between syntactically correct sentences and the word-picture that they paint when strung together in their entirety as a whole: total, utterly meaningless garble that proves nothing more than the fact that these old bastards love nothing more than the sound of their own voices, preaching to an audience that just could not care one iota less than they already don’t. I don’t give a shit that that was a long ass run-on sentence. Now let me break it down to you slowly, using words that can’t confuse anyone but a Philosophy major:
Look, these dudes are really trying to nail down the fact that semantic correctness does not always logically follow from a syntactically correct statement. Check out the following sentence Noam Chomsky was so kind to give us: “Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.” Forget the fact that this sentence doesn’t mean anything to anyone… speaking in terms of syntax, it’s structurally complete. WE GET IT. WE FUCKING GET IT ALREADY.
If I could just get to the crux of my point now, the gooey, marshmellow centre of things, it is this:
It took Searle and Fodor 30 pages each to arrive at their one sole point, which is that syntax and semantics are not the same thing. The part of it that amuses me the most is the fact that in their 30 pages’ worth of sentences and paragraphs, not one of those syntactically correct statements form a cogent or meaningful idea, thus exemplifying to the reader the difference between a good writer and a trained chimp in diapers who knows only how to toot his own horn.
Truthfully, all of this was a painfully exhaustive way for me to prosaically convey to you my opinion of the assigned readings, which, simply put, is that these irritatingly contemptible mongrel pissants’ mouths are flapping, but they ain’t saying shit. In the esteemed opinion of this young, foul-mouthed wiseass, Searle and Fodor could serve the world in a much greater capacity by having opted for much more menial vocations, such as janitorial work or gravedigging. Sure, nobody would be forbidding them from thinking the stupid things that they do, but at least this way they can keep that shit to themselves and spare us the sound of their useless drivel."
Upon reading this, it may occur to you that I am replete with undue rage towards modern-day philosophers, but I would like to think that perhaps it is you that just isn't furious enough. Philosophy is for IDIOTS.
Dream big. Die young.
Goodnight.