#philosophy shitposts
Someday someone might discover thatP, and I want to get the credit. Therefore P.
Pgives me an “aha!” reaction. Therefore P.
Most philosophers think it is a priori that not-P. Therefore P.
No amount of tub-thumping by dualists (including my past self) carries any weight in establishing that not-P. Therefore P.
Representationalism entails P & not-P. Therefore P & not-P.
I know that P is true because I teach it to my undergraduates. Therefore P.
See my “…” where I argued for P. Therefore P.
Not-P is true from the transparent perspective. But I take the oblique perspective. Therefore P.
Not-P entails that there are sense-data. Therefore P.
Only philosophers would think that not-P. Therefore P.
P is a bold and controversial claim that shatters common-sense intuition. Therefore P.
It’s completely implausible and a violation of common-sense intuition to think that not-P. Therefore P.
To think that not-P is to over-intellectualize. Therefore P.
You don’t think that phenomenology supports that P? Look haaaarder! Therefore P.
Stove’s proof that p:
While everyone knows deep down that p, some philosophers feel curiously compelled to assert that not-p, as a result of being closet Marxists. I shall label this phenomenon “the blithering idiot effect”. As I have shown that all assertions of not-p by anyone worth speaking of, and several by people who aren’t, are due to the blithering idiot effect, there remains no reason to deny p, which everyone knows deep down anyway. I won’t even waste my time arguing for it any further.
Smart:
Dammit all! p.
Plato’s proof that p:
SOCRATES: Is it not true that p?
GLAUCON: I agree.
CEPHALUS: It would seem so.
POLEMARCHUS: Necessarily.
THRASYMACHUS: Yes, Socrates.
ALCIBIADES: Certainly, Socrates.
PAUSANIAS: Quite so, if we are to be consistent.
ARISTOPHANES: Assuredly.
ERYXIMACHUS: The argument certainly points that way.
PHAEDO: By all means.
PHAEDRUS: What you say is true, Socrates.
Goldman’s proof that p:
Several critics have put forward purported “counterexamples” to my thesis that p; but all of these critics have understood my thesis in a way that was clearly not intended, since I intended my thesis to have no counterexamples. Therefore p.
Feyerabend’s proof that p:
The theory p, though “refuted” by the anomaly q and a thousand others, may nevertheless be adhered to by a scientist for any length of time; and “rationally” adhered to. For did not the most “absurd” of theories, heliocentrism, stage a come-back after two thousand years? And is not Voodoo now emerging from a long period of unmerited neglect?
Churchland’s proof that p:
Certain of my opponents claim to think that not-p; but it is precisely my thesis that they do not. Therefore p.
