Philosophical Referee Symbols
April 19, 2011 7:12 AM Subscribe
I love Q.E.D.
posted by Ickster at 7:28 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Ickster at 7:28 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
Heh. The sign for naturalistic fallacy is clipping.
And a 15 yard penalty, I assume.
posted by three blind mice at 7:32 AM on April 19, 2011
And a 15 yard penalty, I assume.
posted by three blind mice at 7:32 AM on April 19, 2011
Personally, I would prefer a system on referees on the field giving out cards. The possibility of having someone banned from the argument (and possibly from future arguments) is far more of a deterrent than some conversational yardage penalties....
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:38 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:38 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
Surely in this context "Personal Foul" should be "Ad Hominem"
posted by Jakey at 7:40 AM on April 19, 2011
posted by Jakey at 7:40 AM on April 19, 2011
or "Put that Poker Downiem"
posted by Jakey at 7:43 AM on April 19, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Jakey at 7:43 AM on April 19, 2011 [3 favorites]
This is all kinds of awesome.
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:51 AM on April 19, 2011
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:51 AM on April 19, 2011
My advisor in undergrad told me that the way to guarantee yourself a career in academic philosophy was to come up with a theory which was interesting, compelling, and obviously wrong, yet subtle enough so that the reasons why it is wrong are less obvious. One could then spend the next thirty or forty years in a vigorous but gradually losing battle defending it against up and coming graduate students. This, of course, would require a certain degree of intellectual masochism and/or cynicism, but we are talking about academic philosophy, so those seem to go with the territory.
One can only imagine how much more entertaining such a career would be if one were to employ these signals.
posted by valkyryn at 8:03 AM on April 19, 2011 [11 favorites]
One can only imagine how much more entertaining such a career would be if one were to employ these signals.
posted by valkyryn at 8:03 AM on April 19, 2011 [11 favorites]
Personally, I would prefer a system on referees on the field giving out cards.
Archimedes out to Socrates, Socrates back to Archimedes, Archimedes out to Heraclitus, he beats Hegel. Heraclitus a little flick, here he comes on the far post, Socrates is there, Socrates heads it in! Socrates has scored! The Greeks are going mad, the Greeks are going mad. Socrates scores off a beautiful cross from Archimedes! The Germans are disputing it- Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant, via the categorical imperativ,e is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx is claiming it was offside.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:02 AM on April 19, 2011 [14 favorites]
Archimedes out to Socrates, Socrates back to Archimedes, Archimedes out to Heraclitus, he beats Hegel. Heraclitus a little flick, here he comes on the far post, Socrates is there, Socrates heads it in! Socrates has scored! The Greeks are going mad, the Greeks are going mad. Socrates scores off a beautiful cross from Archimedes! The Germans are disputing it- Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant, via the categorical imperativ,e is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx is claiming it was offside.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:02 AM on April 19, 2011 [14 favorites]
Is there some sort of utilitarian argument for Comic Sans? There may be some hard distinction between signifier and signified, but for Comic Sans, the medium is always the message.
posted by FatherDagon at 9:14 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by FatherDagon at 9:14 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
I love how the actual penalties match up to their philosophical equivalents.
Examples:
Delay of Game = Can you state that claim more concisely
1st Down (allowed to stay on offense) = Premise Accepted
Touch Down (score) = Q.E.D.
Illegal Motion = Non-sequitur
False Start = Please let me finish before you object
Safety (you created a score for the other team) = I believe that claim actually supports my position
etc.
posted by forforf at 9:35 AM on April 19, 2011 [4 favorites]
Examples:
Delay of Game = Can you state that claim more concisely
1st Down (allowed to stay on offense) = Premise Accepted
Touch Down (score) = Q.E.D.
Illegal Motion = Non-sequitur
False Start = Please let me finish before you object
Safety (you created a score for the other team) = I believe that claim actually supports my position
etc.
posted by forforf at 9:35 AM on April 19, 2011 [4 favorites]
They're missing the "Your argument rendered in Comic Sans, undermining your status," gesture.
posted by chairface at 9:41 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by chairface at 9:41 AM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
They missed "Your argument is invalid" and "That word does not mean what you think it means."
posted by Billiken at 9:53 AM on April 19, 2011
posted by Billiken at 9:53 AM on April 19, 2011
I find this very charming*. We need a fantasy football philosophy league to go with it.
* Awesome!
posted by safetyfork at 11:09 AM on April 19, 2011
* Awesome!
posted by safetyfork at 11:09 AM on April 19, 2011
I've seen this before (made the rounds a few years ago) and it's definitely enhanced if you have someone around who knows the actual ref signals, as forforf notes.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:54 PM on April 19, 2011
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:54 PM on April 19, 2011
Oh also worth noting, these are by Landon Schurtz, a philosophy PhD student at the University of Oklahoma.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:57 PM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:57 PM on April 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
Far too obvious, I know, but let's have an instant replay of TheWhiteSkull's comment, if that's okay:
Monty Python - The Philosophers' Soccer Match.
posted by ovvl at 4:58 PM on April 19, 2011
Monty Python - The Philosophers' Soccer Match.
posted by ovvl at 4:58 PM on April 19, 2011
One could then spend the next thirty or forty years in a vigorous but gradually losing battle defending it against up and coming graduate students.
The real beauty is, at the end of those forty years, you finally come out and admit you're wrong, yielding you considerable respect from both your peers and the next few generations for your maturity and intellectual honesty.
posted by meese at 5:04 PM on April 19, 2011
The real beauty is, at the end of those forty years, you finally come out and admit you're wrong, yielding you considerable respect from both your peers and the next few generations for your maturity and intellectual honesty.
posted by meese at 5:04 PM on April 19, 2011
yielding you considerable respect from both your peers and the next few generations for your maturity and intellectual honesty.
And by the time you're completely forgotten, you're long dead. Win-win.
posted by valkyryn at 7:11 PM on April 19, 2011
And by the time you're completely forgotten, you're long dead. Win-win.
posted by valkyryn at 7:11 PM on April 19, 2011
This, of course, would require a certain degree of intellectual masochism and/or cynicism, but we are talking about academic philosophy, so those seem to go with the territory.
This reads as super-weird to me, by the way. The academic philosophers I know are immensely careful thinkers who spend all their time poking and prodding at their own arguments to test their strengths and merits.
I mean, I can certainly see the scenario in which a philosopher came up with an argument that seemed completely correct and yet led to absurd or unpleasant conclusions. And then that philosopher might well spend a long time trying to figure out what was wrong with the argument, possibly without success. And this philosopher might well spend time arguing against graduate students whose counterarguments were subtly wrong -- and which the philosopher had already considered, held out hope for, but finally rejected.
So yeah, I can see this happening -- but what's cynical about it?
posted by escabeche at 7:33 PM on April 19, 2011
This reads as super-weird to me, by the way. The academic philosophers I know are immensely careful thinkers who spend all their time poking and prodding at their own arguments to test their strengths and merits.
I mean, I can certainly see the scenario in which a philosopher came up with an argument that seemed completely correct and yet led to absurd or unpleasant conclusions. And then that philosopher might well spend a long time trying to figure out what was wrong with the argument, possibly without success. And this philosopher might well spend time arguing against graduate students whose counterarguments were subtly wrong -- and which the philosopher had already considered, held out hope for, but finally rejected.
So yeah, I can see this happening -- but what's cynical about it?
posted by escabeche at 7:33 PM on April 19, 2011
« Older "Thou wilt fall backward when thou hast more wit." | 'Star Wars' Producer Gary Kurtz Reflects Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by .kobayashi. at 7:23 AM on April 19, 2011 [4 favorites]