The following is an excerpt from the forthcoming book Till the Skeptical Hypothesis Do Us Part: Philosophical Advice for a Veridical Marriage, by Martha Slattery.
In 2012 Mary Mills learned that Robert, her husband of six years, was a cleverly disguised mule. The surprising discovery was made when Mary and Robert visited a doctor for infertility testing. The doctor checked to see if there was a genetic cause of infertility and sure enough there was. Mary had 46 chromosomes, Robert had 63. They soon divorced.
This tragic outcome could have been prevented. Remember, the key to a successful marriage is being the same natural kind as your partner. Don’t rush things — have that special someone checked out by a good veterinarian before you tie the knot.
Some questions just don’t seem to go away. Why is there something rather than nothing? Do we have free will? How many things are there? In this issue of the Proceedings of the Society of Drinking a Lot of Cough Syrup, we take up this last question and explore an underdeveloped answer. Monism: because counting is hard.
A Simple Argument for Existence Monism
Cameron Domenico Kirk-Giannini and David Black
Some say that there is more than one object. It might seem, for example, that my table is one and my chair is one, so together they are more than one — they are two ones. But suppose for reductio that there is more than one one. Then the ones are not one. But one cannot be not one. So there is only one one.
It’s grad-application season again, so this seems like an appropriate time to share a few words of advice with the next crop of philosophers. And now that I’m a second-year graduate student myself, I think I’m ready to start making sweeping generalizations about the field.
First, philosophy has a bad rap these days. Some say it’s just intellectual masturbation — that you’ll spend your life engaging in an activity that you find stimulating but that will never produce anything of value.
I don’t think that’s right. Typically masturbation stays between you and the occasional family member who’s unfortunate enough to open the door without knocking. Philosophy, by contrast, is meant to be shared.
The following is an editorial by guest author Gerald Mueller, the Strom Thurmond Chair of Conservative Thought at the University of Cascadia.
Last time I wrote about babies. They’re milking this country for all it’s worth and we all know it. But you probably haven’t heard about the second major threat facing our economy: Immigrants. Yes, immigrants. And I’m not talking about the kind that God sends to subdue a wild and fertile continent — those days are over. I’m talking about the kind of immigrant that sneaks across your border and steals your job without so much as asking.
Pretty much everything I said about babies goes for immigrants as well. They steal our jobs, feed at the public trough, and don’t pay taxes. And the worst of them even come over here and make more babies. So I’ll get right to the nub of the issue: What are we going to do about it?
Thanks to a little ingenuity and a lot of plagiarism, the Proceedings of the Society of Drinking a lot of Cough Syrup is back with a second issue. The contents are as follows.
Moving Forward by Reading Backwards and Forwards
Ben Bronner and Simon Goldstein
Wittgenstein said that philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language. We argue that perhaps the most bewitching aspect of our language is its left-to-right structure, which subtly insinuates that the world which it pictures also possesses a left-to-right structure, a privileged direction. The solution, of course, is that philosophy should be written solely in palindromes. Some claim this stricture would inhibit genuinely philosophical discussion, to which we respond: Do geese see God?
I am pleased to announce the first issue of the Proceedings of the Society of Drinking a Lot of Cough Syrup. Interested readers may find the Proceedings wherever philosophy journals are sold. The contents of the first issue are as follows.
Journey to the Center of the Earth
If ghosts exist, then where is the evidence? I answer this question by arguing as follows. If ghosts exist, they are subject to the force of gravity. Since ghosts can pass through walls, they would likewise (under the force of gravity) pass through floors. Where would the ghosts go? Clearly to the Earth’s center of mass. This argument shows that, in a normal Bayesian model, the fact that we don’t see any ghosts actually makes it more likely that there really are ghosts.
[The quotations attributed below to Justice Thomas are genuine (though not the picture caption, obviously). Thanks to Alex Guerrero for the quip which inspired this post and became its title.]
This week’s ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission confirms what many have suspected since 2010’s Citizens United: Justice Clarence Thomas is engaged in an elaborate reductio of the idea that money is speech.
In Citizens United Justice Thomas argued that if political expenditures by corporations and unions are speech (as claimed by the Court), then existing disclosure requirements are unconstitutional. Such requirements, Thomas wrote, would violate the right to anonymous speech.
But Thomas’s position on the matter was too extreme even for Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Alito, leading some to suggest that Thomas had unknowingly produced a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that corporate political expenditures are speech. Others responded that Thomas was well aware of the reductio he had crafted, and the proper interpretation of his intentions remained controversial.