Maverick Philosopher Humorous Definitions

Nihil philosophicum a me alienum puto

To promote independent thought about ultimates. Philosophy, commentary on the passing scene, and whatever else turns my crank. Since 4 May 2004. By William F. Vallicella, Ph.D., Gold Canyon, Arizona, USA. Motto: "Study everything, join nothing." (Paul Brunton) Latin Motto: Omnia mea mecum porto. Turkish motto: Yol bilen kervana katilmaz. (He who knows the road does not join the caravan.) All material copyrighted.

The Mensa Invitational once again asked members to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.

Here are this year's {2005} winners:

(show)

(link)

Malcolm Pollack (mail):

How can we know that these items, which certainly have the appearance of being truly risible, actually are? Can we reliably trust our sense of humor?

Whoa, relax... Just kidding.

9.9.2005 1:25pm

RJDJR (mail):

Funny post Malcolm. Your post prompted me to give the evolutionary basis of a sense of humor some thought. Below I present my thoughts, hoping they will be received in the same sense as yours above.

Perhaps our sense of humor and the presence of all sorts of evils and misfortunes are inextricably linked and provide a strong rationale for belief in an Intelligent Designer. What "purpose" does humor serve and how has it evolved? What survival benefit does it confer? Perhaps an Intelligent Designer, wishing to design for a creature who can laugh and delight in irony for its own sake, gave us a sense of humor. However, he then also had to create or permit evils and misfortunes so that we would have something to have a sense of humor about!

Bob Doyle

9.10.2005 1:47pm

1. Leaving comments is a privilege, not a right. The site administrator is under no obligation to accept comments at all, let alone from any particular person. And to underscore the obvious: nothing in the nature of a weblog requires that it accept comments from readers.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.

Maverick Philosopher

Nihil philosophicum a me alienum puto

No Adverts, No Tip Jar, No Gimmicks, Nothing that Moves

Site Guidelines

Technical Tool Box

Philosopher's Tool Box

Logician's and Linguist's Tool Box

Categories

Contact

Subscribe

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogroll

Account:
Password: