Existence Precedes Essence

I got tired of keeping of appearances on a specific blog and decided to just post on things that I like and what I am interested in.

[ramblingstoic]

[ramblingstoic]

[ramblingstoic]

[ramblingstoic]

[neonarizona]

[ramblingstoic]

[ramblingstoic]

[ramblingstoic]

[ramblingstoic]

[ramblingstoic]

theslittyeye.wordpress.com

[ramblingstoic]

[ramblingstoic]

www.atheistmemebase.com

[lilymaylovelesss]

“Revenge is a poison meant for others that we end up swallowing ourselves. Vengeance is a dark light that blinds all who seek it. The untroubled soul knows there is no justice in revenge. The untroubled soul knows that to seek vengeance is to seek destruction.”

[ramblingstoic]

[philosop-her-blog]

oldie but goodie

[ethicallyimmoral]

wait a second…

If all penguins are black and white that means that all penguins would be some old TV shows. 

I know the penguin is supposed to be using poor logic, but it’d be funnier if his thought contained a single flaw. That way, the joke is clear and the reader isn’t wondering if the second flaw is part of the joke. But maybe that’s just me

[sorinmarkov-deactivated20160628]

But the logic is flawed. Even ignoring the implications of “some,” premise one says “X is Y,” premise two says “Z is Y,” which leads to the conclusion “X is Z.” But you can’t work X —> Y <— Z = X —> Z. You’re suppose to work X —> Y —> Z = X —> Z. (there are official terms for this but my logic textbook is downstairs and it’s late)

[ethicallyimmoral]

I’m pretty sure you’re right, but my point is that one of the flaws is superfluous. The main joke is both the faulty logic and the absurd conclusion that penguins are TV shows, however there’s also the problem that all penguins would be some old TV shows instead of just some penguins. In that case, the faulty logic and conclusion are far less absurd than the main joke, and only serve to confuse the reader and/or marginalize the main joke

[ramblingstoic]

I agree with what is being said here, but I don' think that most people will be confused be the syllogism being skewed slightly. To be honest, I think it would be hard to remedy considering the term "old" when referring to TV shows. How old is old? You could be more specific, but like I said most people get the concept without having to have a perfect syllogism. It also could be said that this goes with the case of poor logic. Anyways, I think the joke works either way.

[victoriousvocabulary]

EXCOGITATE

[verb]

1. to think out; devise; invent.

2. to study intently and carefully in order to grasp or comprehend fully.

[ramblingstoic]

[ramblingstoic]