There has to be a reason… or, at least, that’s what we tend to think.
After all, there is the fact of the kitchen I am standing in, unless Descartes’ demons are playing games with me again… like that time with the shop assistant, the water pistol and the melon.
But this is not the place to go into that… as the shop manageress said at the time.
However, I was a regular there and they did offer to overlook the incident and wipe it from their CCTV cameras, after I’d explained about the demons.
Although, since then both the shop assistants and the manageress have tended to keep a close eye on the baked goods aisle, even after I did offer to pay for the doughnuts damaged in what they liked to call The Incident.
That is the trouble with allowing a bit of philosophy into your life, even if only the life of the mind, and trying to apply it outside of the confines of its academic milieu.
Especially that bit from Wittgenstein about not speaking about what we don’t know – Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence…
It can get you some funny looks from people asking for directions. Also not talking about what you don’t know anything about makes pub conversations a bit stilted. It also makes online social media interactions almost impossible, unless you stick to talk of cute cats. Even instagraming your breakfast can become problematic if you don’t know what that blob of red stuff in the corner of the plate is.
As for Kant, his is a name best avoided, especially on visits to London and its environs, if only to avoid any misunderstanding.
Taxi drivers there don’t tend to like it if you call them ‘a bit of a Kant’. Especially if they feel it is somewhat merited. As for the categorical imperative, it is best not to apply it to any motoring activity as these days road rage is an ever-growing problem, especially when you and the other motorist you are disputing over who has the right of way cannot agree on who of the two of you is more of a Kant.
Well, at least that’s what I thought he said.
As for Russell’s paradox, it is best kept out of domestic disputes, epically when you confront your beloved about the illogicality of her claims of your idleness.
As for Berkeley and his If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Yes, it is now an established logical fact that a man is still be wrong even when there isn’t a woman around to observe him.
Marriage too is a rather post-modernist experience where the truth of a situation is dependent on whether it is the wife describing the situation or the husband. As we know, the husband is always wrong due to male privilege, and unequal societal power structures that make the wife always the one who both suffers the most under his cruel tranny and yet has the power to banish him to his shed.
As for those communistic self-criticism sessions, she always insists upon as before the plates are cleared from the evening meal – just don’t admit your errors too soon. Otherwise, she will have to spend more time finding out what else you’ve done wrong, and that could prove that time is relative, and what is worse end up with her inviting her relatives round for the rest of the evening.