Once there was a chicken and a duck. The chicken said “Would you like to know the definition of irony?” The duck said “Sure!” So the chicken said “Look it up in the dictionary!”

The duck went to the dictionary. He found the right page. The book slammed shut on his wing.

So the chicken went to the duck and said “Here is a story that could help you understand.” And he started.

“There was once a race of aliens called Ironians. They were odd because whenever they weren’t on a planet, they moved so slowly that what they thought was two seconds was really one million years.”

“One said to the other, ‘I’m hungry. Lets eat someone,’ and the other agreed. So they went down to Earth and met some cavemen. They asked a caveman who they worshipped and the caveman said “Ug.”

They came back in modern times and said “I am the great and powerful UG!” They got laughed in the face. Except they didn’t have faces, so it was impossible, so the universe blew up.”

The duck said “What does that have to do with irony?” and the chicken replied “Well- Hey! Chickens and ducks can’t talk! It’s impossible!”

So the universe blew up.

Except it didn’t.

Because it couldn’t.

Why?

I don’t know. But I do know the difference between a typewriter. They both have a 42.

Come to think of it, the universe did blow up.

Why?

I don’t know. But I do know the difference between a 42. They both have a typewriter.

Why? I’m not a 42ologist. That is a person who studies the behavior of 42s.

Why?

I don’t know. But I am a Kronkzotoligist. Kronkzot blew up with the rest of the universe.

So there is nothing to study about.

So there is not effort.

So everyone is a Kronkzotoligist.

Fortunately, I have salvaged the last Kronkzot. Here it is.

The End

At least he did it succinctly.

How do you soil something beyond repair? The only way I can imagine that happening is if one constructed a club from soil and hit something with it.

The issue of transtemporal identity is one which, much like other important and interesting domains of philosophy, is a highly controversial subject. While two putative models for explaining transtemporal identity have been put forward, the 3-D theory (endurantism) and the 4-D theory (perdurantism), both models have weaknesses that are exploited by theorists of the opposing camp. The exploitations of these problems are of particular value, however, as they raise or cast new light on related, similarly important metaphysical questions. From the onset of the debate, 3-D theory is often attributed with a somewhat large advantage over 4-D theory in that it has the privilege of most closely matching the average person’s pre-philosophical ideas of transtemporal identity; those that attribute this advantage to 3-D theory are thus enabled to place the burden of proof on the side of 4-D theorists for the debate. In other words, if the perdurantists want to depose the endurantists, they must provide a good deal of argumentation in order to convince philosophers of the merits of 4-D theory and of critical flaws in 3-D theory. It is to this end that the perdurantist opponents of 3-D theory probe and pry in order to find logical breaches in the endurantist works; they seek to subtly force philosophers to abandon pre-philosophical common sense and accept an otherwise counter-intuitive explanation for transtemporal identity. Perhaps one of the more damaging attacks on endurantism comes from Mark Heller, in the form of an argument that supposedly leads endurantist theory to lead necessarily to a logical contradiction.

Alternative (E) also is understood to be undesirable, but in a different sense than Log in to see images!, (C), and (D) are. Alternative (E) may seem to be less immediately striking as it does not initially bear any sort of pre-philosophical context, but the transitivity of identity is one of the three core principles of identity conditions (along with symmetry and reflexivity) which are widely held, so if one is forced by Heller to abandon this notion as endurantists, it may become ingreat timesbent upon one to carefully and critically reconsider perdurantism and endurantism once more.

As a last issue to touch upon before exploring Heller’s actual argument, I wish to propose that alternative Log in to see images! to be a non-problematic outcome.

The perdurantist escape from the problem is, however, somewhat problematic in and of itself. The first major problem I wish to address with the perdurantist view is that, like arguments that Dualists might put forward, it entails the inclusion of entities into one’s ontology that are in violation of the empiricist principle; the space-time worm is not an object that is ever wholly present at any given time, and the human perceptive faculties can only directly experience three dimensions. If the perdurantist wants to argue that all that is present of an object at any given time is a four dimensional time slice, I posit that they cannot hold that there is any object continuity and simultaneously hold that they follow the empiricist principle, as the time slices, and not the space-time worm, are what are presented to our perceptive faculties and are what we experience. Again, it seems, Ockham’s Razor may be invoked in the culling of the extra ontological load that perdurantism requires; however even if this is not the case, perdurantism is far from saved.

Another particularly vexing problem that arises, if the perdurantists want to allow space-time worm fusion or merging, is that they can hardly hope to argue for transtemporal identity; for it seems that there is nothing precluding an infinite number of space worms replacing one another on a continuous timescale. The scheme I have in mind to elucidate the matter is one in which I perceive a time slice of an object’s space-time worm at one time, and then at in an immediately subsequent time I perceive an otherwise spatially identical time slice of a separate, distinct space-time worm (it is worth noting that this paradigm can operate even under an infinitesimally small amount of time has pbumed). I am certain that I would be incapable of determining whether the two sequential time slices that I perceived belong to the same space-time worm, in which case there would be transtemporal identity, or if there were two worms that had interchanged for one another in between my first and second experiences of the time slices in question. An extension of this problem of overlapping worms is that it may even be possible that at any one time, a particular object being perceived is composed of spatially identical time slices from any number of fused space-time worms; it seems unclear as to whether or not this would be a case of perceiving one object, or of perceiving many spatio-temporally coincident objects, and I do not believe the perdurantists provide sufficient means for determining this matter.

Ultimately, the introduction of worm merging (as accepted in Heller’s conclusions and explored to some depth above) apparently enables one to explode the notion of continuity under perdurantism by simply hypothesizing a multiplicity of similar, successive (or fused) space-time worms. It might be argued that a god’s eye point of view would be capable of distinguishing between space-time worms and could keep track of whether or not transtemporal identity is maintained, but as mere humans would not be privy to such a point of view, such a response would not serve to enable perdurantists to escape their current predicament, nor allow us to have any hope for grounding transtemporal identity in experiences.

A perhaps more interesting problem with the mereological response to Heller’s argument is that the theory is problematically similar to perdurantism. While on the one hand, the perdurantists have individual, four-dimensional time slices aggregating to form a single, transtemporally identical space-time worm, on the other hand, the mereological essentialists have a succession of primary entities aggregating to form a chain of successive entities which, under a colloquial “loose” term, enables one to pick out the transtemporal identity (rather, ‘sameness’) of a ‘thing’. There is something that seems to stand out here, something that makes me suspect that the time slices of the perdurantist do not really differ in any appreciably substantial way in its constitution from the mereological construction. Both theories rely on aggregations of instantaneous parts of a larger whole to enable some form of transtemporal identity; the main difference is simply that the perdurantists will propose that a thing is never wholly present at any given time (unless its worm is of instantaneous time length), while the mereological essentialist will argue that the instantaneous object is wholly present, and the successive chain of similar objects is simply the method for endurance. Bascically, the difference seems almost negligible, and given the problems immediately above, as well as the problems discussed earlier concerning perdurantism, it seems like mereological essentialism holds little hope for saving the endurantist claims of transtemporal identity.

Another putative method for escaping the problem posed by Heller’s argument is perhaps more promising; I have in mind Peter Geach’s denial of the existence of a single, universal type of numerical identity. According to Loux,

…Geach…claims that sentences of the form ‘a is the same as b’ lack a complete sense or meaning. To give such sentences a complete meaning, we need an answer to the question ‘Same what?’ And Geach claims that an answer to that question always requires the appeal to a kind-term or a count-noun…For Geach, every such answer points to a unique identity relation…it is possible for a thing, a, and a thing, b, to enter into the identity relation determined by one kind-concept, but to fail to enter into the identity relation determined by another kind-concept even though the latter kind applies both to a and b. (Loux, 244)

Under Geach’s paradigm then, it becomes possible to convert Heller’s argument to be more precise, enabling the Geachian endurantist to avoid the contradiction. To the Geachian, the argument becomes something like the following:

(I) Descartes at t1 is numerically identical with Descartes at t2; They are the same person

(II) Descartes(-) at t1 is numerically identical with Descartes(-) at t2; they are the same matter (or clump of matter)

(III) Descartes at t2 is numerically identical with Descartes(-) at t2; they are the same matter (or clump of matter)

(IV) Descartes(-) at t1 is NOT numerically identical with Descartes at t1; transitivity of identity cannot operate here, because it is applying transitivity to different kinds of identity.

(V) Descartes(-) at t1 is not numerically identical with Descartes at t1 by the

true Principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals.

It becomes evident here, under Geach’s understanding of identity, that by carefully specifying what type of identity relationship is being investigated, one can negate the problem raised by Heller and soundly defeat the attempt at forcing the endurantist into a contradiction. Another aspect of Geach’s paradigm that appears somewhat appealing is that I posit that the Geachian framework might be able to handle change in parts (or personality traits, etc.). Since not all parts of a person are essential under Geach’s paradigm, it seems unproblematic to suggest that so long as some certain types of identity conditions are met over time, a person could undergo some certain drastic changes but still maintain transtemporal identity. Whether there is some critical set of specific types of identity conditions that must be met, or some sort of equilibrium that must be maintained, I cannot see any logic for at precluding the possibility, and this additional putative functionality would even further bring Geach’s paradigm into agreement with some pre-philosophical notions of transtemporal identity.

There are two commonly raised problems with Geach’s view: it is problematic because it divests philosophers of the notion of a singular, universal identity condition that some argue is necessary, and it may be interpreted by some to suggest that spatially coincident physical objects can exist and are unproblematic. I would suggest, however, that in neither case is the problem so severe as to merit the outright abandonment of Geach’s view; unlike the perdurantist or mereological view, no grand flaw is immediately available for dismantling Geach’s framework. In fact, I suggest that there is a pre-philosophical inclination to believe that there are different types of identity, that there is an important distinction between asking if ‘Clark Kent and Superman are the same person’ and asking if ‘Clark Kent and Superman are the same type of person’. To respond to the camp that suggests Geach’s view leads us to have to accept spatially coincident objects, I refer to my earlier treatment of Heller’s undesirable alternative Log in to see images!, or the problem of arbitrary undetached parts. If one simply rejects the counter-intuitive view that all of me except for my left hand is an object that is distinct from all of me, and instead accepts the more commonsense notion that all of me except for my left hand is simply a fraction of the whole me, Geach’s treatment of the argument simply cannot lead one into a problem with having spatially coincident objects. Further, consideration of the problems elucidated above for the other putative solutions to Heller’s argument makes me suspect that perdurantism or mereological essentialism would get closer to allowing for spatially coincident objects than Geach’s framework allows.

tl;dr: SPACE-TIME WORMS ARE A SRZ BIZNESS IN PHILOSOPHY STORIES

Log in to see images! DOPE-HARDCORE-0 edited this message on 06/22/2008 12:20PM

Tangolho Posted:

Something_witty will love this one

Btw, I didnt wrote this…

“John Freeman who was Gordon Freemans brother was one day in an office typing on a computer. He got an email from his brother that said that aliens and monsters were attacking his place and aksed him for help so he went.

John Freeman got his computer shut down and wet on the platform to go up to the roof of the building where he left his motorcycle and normal people close because he was in his office lab coat. John Freeman got on his motorcycl and said “its time for me to live up to my family name and face full life consequences” so he had to go.

John Freeman ramped off the building and did a backflip and landed. He kept driving down the road and made sure there was no zombies around because he ddint have weapon.

The contrysides were nice and the plants were singing and the birds and the sun was almost down from the top of the sky. the mood was set for John Freemans quest to help his brother where he was. John Freeman looked around the countrysides and said “its a good day to do what has to be done by me and help my brother to defeat the enemys”.

John Freeman was late so he had to drive really fast. A cop car was hiden near by so when John Freeman went by the cops came and wanted to give him a ticket. Here John Freeman saw the first monster because the cop was posessed and had headcrabs.

“I cant give you my lisense officer” John Freeman said

“Why not?” said the headcrab oficer back to John Freeman.

“Because you are headcrab zombie” so John Freeman shot the oficer in the head and drove off thinking “my brother is in trouble there” and went faster.

John Freeman had to go faster like the speed of sound and got there fast because Gordon needed him where he was. John Freeman looked at road signs and saw “Ravenholm” with someons writing under it saying “u shudnt come here” so John Freeman almost turned around but heard screaming like Gordon so he went faster again.

John Freeman drove in and did another flip n jumped off his motorbike and the motor bike took out some headcrab zombies infront of John Freeman. John Freeman smiled and walked fast. John Freeman then looked on the ground and found wepon so he pickd it up and fired fast at zombie goasts in front of a house.

John Freeman said “Zombie goasts leave this place” and the zombie goasts said “but this is our house” and John Freeman felt sorry for them becaus they couldnt live there anymore because they were zombie goasts so he blew up the house and killed the zombie goasts so they were at piece.

Then John Freeman herd another scream from his brother so he kept walking really faster to get where he was. Ravenholdm was nothing like the countrysides there was no birds singing and the pants were dead and teh dirt was messy and bloody from headcrabs.

When John Freeman got to where the screaming was started from he found his brother Gorden Freeman fightin the final bosss and Gordon said “John Freeman! Over here!” so John Freeman went there to where Gordon Freeman was fighting. John Freeman fired his bullet from teh gun really fast and the bullets went and shot the final boss in the eyes and the final boss couldnt see.

Gordon Freeman said “its time to end this ones and for all!” and punched the final boss in the face and the final boss fell. John Freeman said “thanks i could help, bro” and Gordon Freeman said “you should come here earlier next time” and they laughed.

The laughed overed quickly though because John Freeman yelled “LOOK OUT BRO!” and pointed up to the top of the sky. Gordon Freeman looked up and said “NOO! John Freeman run out of here fast as you can!” and John Freeman walked real fast out.

John Freeman loked back and saw Gordon get steppd on by the next boss and he was mad and angry.

“I’ll get you back evil boss!” John Freeman yelled at the top of lungs.

to be continued..?”

Most orignal story I’ve ever seen.

Once upon a time there was a little girl called May.

May was a very good girl, and always listened to what her mother said. Unfortunately for May, her mother was a drunken crack-whore, and so most things she told her daughter to do were not good for her to say the least.

–

One day, May was on her way back from the corner store where she’d stolen some smokes and cheap booze for her mother as she’d been instructed to do, when she saw a large, black cat sitting on a wall. The cat was staring directly at her, it’s eyes cloudy and bloodshot. May turned away and continued on her way back home, trying to shake the thought of the strange cat from her head. She’d never seen the cat around before, and wondered where it could have come from.

As she made her way down the street though, she got a strange feeling, as though someone was watching her. She turned to look around and saw the cat, sitting on the corner of the wall at the end of the street, staring at her. A shiver ran down her spine and she turned away once more, picking up the pace as she continued down the street.

As she reached the end of the road, she turned the corner, glancing back to see if the cat was still watching. To her horror, not only was the cat still staring at her, but it had moved to sit on a fence halfway down the street. May broke out into a run as she turned to corner, and increased in speed even more as she went down the street. Every now and then she’d look back, and every time she saw the cat, staring right into her eyes, following her down the streets.

Eventually, after running a few blocks, May looked back and saw that the cat was no longer following her. She stopped, panting heavily as she tried to regain her breath. Perhaps it had all been in her head, and the cat was just making it’s way back home slowly and found an interest in her since she was the only other thing around, so it had watched her? Either way, it didn’t matter now; the cat was gone, and she was only two blocks away from the broken down apartment block where she and her mother lived.

Having caught her breath, May began to walk slowly down the street. She no longer felt the strange sensation that someone else’s eyes were upon her. Sadly though, this did not last long.

–

As she turned the corner to walk down the street to her apartment, she felt the presence of the horrid cat once more. She froze, slowly turning her head to look over her shoulder. The cat wasn’t there though. Maybe she’s just been imagining it? She was a little jumpy after all.

She turned to walk the last short distance to her home, but as she did so she was horrified to see the cat, sitting on the wall just outside her apartment block. She tried to tell herself that it was just a cat, that there was nothing to be afraid of, but she felt a strange aura around this creature. It was disturbing.

She gritted her teeth and and bravely stepped forwards, walking towards her apartment. She walked up to the cat… and past it. It did nothing. She stood only a few feet away from it now. The apartment doors were so close. But May couldn’t help but feel the urge to turn back around and take one last look at the cat.

She turned to face it. It was still staring off in the direction it had been before. It was only now that it occurred to her for the first time, that maybe the cat’s eyes were the way they were because it was blind. Maybe it hadn’t even been watching her all this time, but had just been staring off ahead of itself because it had nothing to look at.

She took a step forwards toward the cat. Something felt like it was drawing her in, and despite her best judgement, she reached out to place a hand upon it’s head.

Her fingertips were only inches away from the animal’s head when it turned suddenly to face her. She jumped and pulled her hand back. The cat narrowed it’s eyes, and slowly, everything around her began to turn black. The whole city was disappearing into nothingness. She dropped her bag, a bottle rolling out along the pavement and becoming engulfed by the spreading shadows. They moved closer to her, and the cat opened it’s mouth, revealing a red vortex in the back of it’s throat. She let out a scream, and in a moment, the shadows had swallowed her.

______________________________________

May awoke in what seemed like a garage. It was dark, only a single light bulb overhead, swinging gently back and forth. She tried to move her hand to shield her eyes as it flashed across her face, but found that she was unable to move her arms. She turned her head only to find that she was tied up; her wrists and her ankles tied to a table.

“Ah, so you are finally awake, young one?” Came a calm, deep voice. She tried to look but the light from the bulb blinded her.

“What…what’s going on? Where am I?”

“Calm yourself child.” A being that looked like the cat came to stand beside her. But it was different now, taller, it’s head was bigger. It placed a paw upon her arm, and to her horror, it had fingers. It wasn’t a paw at all, it was a hand. A shade was placed around the light bulb, and she saw that it was not the same cat. It’s eyes were yellow, and it appeared to be much younger. She looked down to it’s hand, only to find that the creature was wearing clothes. It had the body of a human, and was the size of a fully grown man.

“Who are you?!” She cried, staring at the hideous creature in disgust. “What are you?!”

“I cannot tell you my name, little one,” came the cat’s reply, “My name is impossible for a human to understand. You do not have the vocal chords to speak it yourself, why, the mere mention of it would cause your head to explode.”

“But… I don’t understand,” came her trembling voice. “Why am I here?”

Suddenly lights flickered on all around her. She was in an enormous room filled with hooded figures, and there, sitting on a throne slightly uplifted from the ground, was the cat she’d seen in the street. It was now also anthropomorphic, and wearing a long cloak and a crown. It’s cold, dead eyes stared at her, and it lifted it’s sceptre. The creatures removed their hoods. They were all different sorts of hideous anthropomorphic animals; cats, dogs, foxes, horses, squirrels; all manner of urban animals.

“Now,” said the cat that stood beside her, “it is time for the initiation process. Get into your groups!” The animals shifted and moved around, gathering into groups with one another. “Group one, begin.” The cat lowered his head and held out an arm in invitation to them, backing slowly into the shadows beside the throne.

A large horse creature stepped forwards. He looked down at her. He only had tiny pupils, a large portion of the whites of his eyes showing. His nostrils flared as he bent down, taking in the scent of the young girl. She whimpered and recoiled as best she could. The horse lifted his gaze to hers. “Why, ain’t you a sweet little thing? There won’t be much left of you once I’ve had my way.”

Tears began to stream from her eyes as the horse stepped back, grasping the robe he wore and removing it in one feel swoop. May screamed in unbridled* terror as she stared at the huge, throbbing member of the monstrous being before her.

A fox from the crowd thrust a fist in the air and called out “YIFF!” The rest of the hoard immediately began to chant “YIFF! YIFF! YIFF! YIFF!” A large grin spread over the horse’s grotesque face and it took a step forwards. “Now honey, it’ll probably hurt more if y’ fight it… but by all means, go right ahead and scream and thrash as much as you want. You resistance will only make my male reproductive organ harder.**”

Eyes wide and pouring with tears, May stared up into the evil eyes of the horse. As he leaned down, she caught a glimpse over his shoulder of the cat overlord on his thrown. The corners of his lips curved slightly into a small smile, and she knew it was over for her.

_____________________________________________

-THE END?-

*You see what I did there? Bridle? Horse? Oh ho ho. I didn’t even notice.

**Obligatory.

Yeah, I just made this **** up as I went along. I don’t even know what it is. THIS IS HOW BORED I TRULY AM. Log in to see images! ENJOY!

Perhaps I should continue this with how they turn her into a furry or a slave…or both… or some ****. Perhaps…it is best left alone as it is. A STEAMING PILE OF HORRIFIC ****.

OH AND I DIDN’T PROOF READ THIS **** BECAUSE IT’S HONESTLY NOT ****ING WORTH IT, SO ENJOY THE BAD EVERYTHING.

This is truly how much time I have on my pitiful hands. Also, Log in to see images!

Edit: k lol, fix’d a couple things I just noticed fer the hell o’ it.