Philosophy, Short and Tweet
I’m holding a competition for the best Twitter tweet-length philosophical argument. Winner gets their tweet on TAR, and much kudos. Tweet-length means max. 140 characters (that’s characters, not words). The topic is completely open. Originality is great but neat renderings of existing arguments are welcome too!
I’ll choose a winner from among the entries received by noon (BST) a week from today (i.e. Thursday 16th April).
Enter by tweet (@carriejenkins) or to get the full use of your 140 characters enter by leaving a comment here or sending me an email. Anyone at all is welcome to enter. Looking forward to reading yours!
UPDATE: The results are now available!
S told by boss – J will get job. Sees J has 10 coins. Infers job-getter will have 10 coins. S gets job & has 10 coins!!! Knowledge not JTB.
JTB not knowledge, rather. Thanks Carrie
If I didn’t exist, the proposition P that I don’t exist would be true. Then P would exist. If P exists, I exist. So I necessarily exist.
I think, therefore I am.
So maybe Chinese students think names refer descriptively; so what? Alabamans think humans used to hunt dinosaurs.
Let T be sound & code “I’m unprovable in T” by G. T can’t prove G; so G’s true; so T can’t prove ¬G. So if T codes enough it’s incomplete!
Colors?Mary ain’t seen ‘em,but knows everything physical ‘bout seein’ ‘em.Is her knowledge complete?No way!So much the worse for physicalism
God doesn’t exist or everyone has enough to eat. Not everyone has enough to eat; so, God doesn’t exist.
God values rationality, so wants me to apportion beliefs to the evidence. The evidence she exists is weak. So I shouldn’t believe in her.
U helped ur friend because u could and wanted to, not ‘cuz u should? No moral worth! Ur will’s no good. (Reductio by bastardhood.)
Whoa, I sound 13. (One imagines a texting 13-yo girl.) Therefore, there’s an imaginary 13-yo girl texting you. Meinong FTW!
Good because God commands or God commands because good? Morality is independent of God or God could make infanticide moral. Pick a horn.
@johnbasl
If we had ham, if we had eggs, we’d have ham & eggs. Got ham. If we had eggs we wouldn’t; we can’t afford both. Modus ponens refuted!
I’m pink, therefore I’m spam.
1 or 2? 1. EDT fail.
great idea!
Bertrand Russell:
Naive realism (NR) leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that NR is false. Therefore NR, if true, is false; therefore it is false.
Anselm:
Def: God is maximally great. Maximal greatness requires existence. So God exists.
Kant:
Perception reveals only relational properties. Relational properties need intrinsic natures. So there are unknowable intrinsic properties.
Me:
Quantum theory says parallel worlds exist. If so, they’re the best candidates for truthmakers for modal talk. So Lewis was (almost) right.
What? Light through yonder monitor breaks. Holy Shit! Skepticism is false.
I know I have two hands. You have fancy sceptical arguments that “prove” otherwise? Well, they must go wrong! Where? That’s *your* problem!
The proposition (call it N) that abstracta don’t exist is abstract. So N implies N’s non-existence. So, if N exists, N is false.
Ostension presupposes understanding. When you point to objects to teach me color, I may learn some other common concept, e.g. substance.
Things could have had qualities that nothing in this world has. Therefore, there are other great honking concrete worlds.
No collection of concrete things has all its properties necessarily. Therefore, the incredulous stare is justified.
If PA proves p, I will accept p. So, if PA proves 0=1, I will accept 0=1. But I am consistent. Hence, PA is consistent.
Is it possible for there to be something such that possibly absolutely everything is distinct from it? No ways. So necessarily everything necessarily exists.
Ship could’ve had a few other planks, it couldn’t have had a few more. From the of view of having a few, possibly there’s a few more. No S4.
Here is a smiley
. Here is another 
. I am not a smiley. So at least 2 external objects exist.
Why there are no philosophers: anyone smart enough to be one isn’t dumb enough to be one.
A belated cryptic response to dtlocke (as conceived by Andy Egan):
Press (y/n)? n. EDT win!
[...] April 29, 2009 in Uncategorized Well, since I pondered the possibility of combining philosophy and twitter, someone has gone ahead and done it! [...]
Philosophy and Twitter « 40three said this on April 29, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
True arithmetical statements mean numbers exist. Same reasoning: fictional characters exist. Silly? – No. Hamlet abstract; ‘mad’ ambiguous.
There is such a fallacy as begging the question. So, there is such a fallacy as begging the question. So circular arguments can be fruitful.