Calvin "The King of Casual Reasoning"

Comics, or the “Sunday Funnies” have a way of bringing out poignant observations using a variety of philosophical means. Of the ranks of great philosophers, Socrates, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, is “Calvin:” one of the finest minds to grace the comic strip. Calvin and Hobbes is a comic strip written and illustrated by Bill Watterson. In this popular artistic blend of tomfoolery and philosophical enlightenment the main character, a little kid by the name of “Calvin,” continually engages his stuffed tiger, “Hobbes,” in a dramatic dialogue discussing the aspects of life, aliens, and the fate of snowmen. One of Calvin’s most famous quotes goes, “Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.” In this classic quote Calvin asserts a method of reverse causal reasoning that acts as both humor and a distressing critique of humanity. On the surface the statement is merely an observation of cause and effect: Calvin is stating that because intelligent life has not contacted us, which would be foolish, then it must be smart and therefore its absence is a cause for its existence. The humor comes from the reverse logic of the statement. Most people might say something like; “If intelligent life does exist then it would have contacted us by now.” Thus stating that because there is no effect then there is no overarching being to spur the cause. The distressing critique of humanity comes in by Calvin suggesting that humanity is the cause for the effect of the intelligent life staying away. Perhaps if humanity were better then the effect would be different, as the overarching force behind the causality would think it wise to contact us.

The Unexamined Government is Not Worth Serving.

In the 2008 presidential election for the United States, democratic candidate Barrack Obama used the slogan, “Change we can believe in.” But the age-old call for change is not something new to just Senator Obama. In fact, the message has been one that has been declared in the streets since the time of such famous Greek Philosophers as Plato and Socrates. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates plays the central figure as the advocate for change in the Athenian society. Following Plato’s Socratic model and Obama’s message the position of the Socratic faction in the last week of the PHIL 1102 RPG assemble will be the advancement of change in the Athenian society. We will be pushing the principles of an Academic System that provides education of an intellectual elite. These schools will in turn produce a series of philosopher-kings, or guardians, who will lead Athenians away from the anarchy of a pure democracy to a more organized form of government that serves the people as well as guides them with wisdom. If it is possible to advance the Socratic schools then the next step will be to pass legislation that will allow for only those graduates of the schools to be able to vote in assemble. The great lie will be that anyone can be a part of these schools, including woman, and that this is a way of giving people the right to vote. In truth it will simply be a way of legislating the government so that the people of Athenians will not foolishly govern themselves via the drunken madness of the incompetent masses. The plan is to use a mixture of historical context from the Peloponnesian wars along side a mythological analogy using the story of Bellerophon and the Chimera to argue the need for the Socratic/Platonic Academy. This will be in stark contrast with the Democratic position of the advance of democracy but what good Socratic ever believed in democracy? We need change and we need to change to a society ruled by the just and the wise... not the masses.

Dogbert the Enthymeme Master

(PLEASE CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL COMIC STRIP)

An enthymeme is a stated three-part deductive argument in which the argument contains an assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. An example of an enthymeme would be the famous quote form Mark Twain, “There is no law against composing music when one has no ideas whatsoever. The music of Wagner, therefore, is perfectly legal” (1). This enthymeme states the premise first and then the conclusion but the audience is expected to gather the implicit premise that the musician Wagner has no ideas. In Scott Adams’ October 8, 2008, Dilbert comic strip Dogbert can be found using his own style of enthymeme. The comic strip starts with Dogbert telling the workforce, “There is an ugly rumor that I sold your brains to cannibals and your spirits to demons” (2). While Dogbert is claiming that this new information is just rumor, in reality this information is the premise for his enthymeme and it is followed by maniacal laughter which serves as a conclusion. The implicit premise left for the reader and the workforce is that, “Dogbert is happy about his recent cannibalistic and demonic transaction.” It would have taken away from the punch line of the comic strip if Dogbert had said, “And action this makes me happy,” before laughing. So the implicit premise is implied as he skips that middle part and gets straight to the evil laughing.

(1) Mark Twain: The National
(2) Scott Adams: Dilbert.

Dilbert, Aristotle, Character and Cows?

(PLEASE CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL COMIC STRIP)

Once again I find myself drawn to Dilbert for another example of Aristotelian thought. This time I will be looking at a twisted appeal to character. One of the attributes that Aristotle defines as a character is a person birth. While this trait lies outside of the realm of the person’s influence, it no less has as influence on the person. Aristotle says of birth, “The character of good birth is for the man who has it to be relatively ambitious; for all men, when they have something, are wont to accumulate it, and good birth is the reputation of one’s ancestors” (1). In the September 30th Dilbert comic strip by Scoot Adams, Dilbert and his colleges are faced with a humorous issue of species discrimination. The whole ordeal starts when the Elbonian clients introduce their bovine supervisor into the workforce of the office. While the Elbonian representative assures the workforce that there will be no discrimination from the supervisor, Dilbert, on the other hand, is quick to bring up that the Elbonians already have a biased view of non-Elbonians. It is poignantly observed by Dilbert that non-Elbonians are on a lower social plan due to the nature of being born outside the decadency of Elbonia. Even though there may not be any discrimination from the supervisor, there is already discrimination from those over the supervisor. Thus the issue comes down to the character of birth. The reassurance of Elbonian representative is really a backhanded insult attacking the very character of birth the human workforce. Good ancestry gives a man one up on the competition in that he is already standing in good report solely on the merit of his descendants’ reputation. For Dilbert and the rest of the workforce, just being born non-Elbonian is enough to lower their reputation to that of cattle.

(1) Aristotle: The Art of Rhetoric.
(2) Scott Adams: Dilbert.

Dilbert, Aristotle, and Fear

(PLEASE CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL COMIC STRIP)

According to Aristotle fear is, “a kind of pain or disturbance resulting from the imagination of impending danger, either destructive or painful” (1). The 9/20/2008 Dilbert strip is a perfect example of the Aristotelian definition of the emotion of fear. In the comic the character of Dilbert is looking for some kind of emotional persuasion to compensate for the lack of the energizing boost of coffee. Dilbert comes to his boss and states the premises that, “We’re out of coffee” (2). Then he asks, “Can you give me a false sense of urgency and some unnecessary stress to compensate?” (2). This quote is practically a paraphrase of the Aristotelian definition. Simply replace “false sense of urgency” with “imagination of impending danger” and the same request is being made. The pointy haired boss does not disappoint with his reply and immediately he gives Dilbert something to fear by saying, “Finish your project before our CEO stops by on Tuesday” (2). This fits the criteria of fear in a multitude of ways: (a) It is threat of “hostility and anger from one capable of taking some action,” namely the CEO (1). (b) “Those who are fearsome for one’s superiors; for they would be able to harm us, if they could harm even them” (1). It is interesting to note that the pointy haired boss, being Dilbert’s superior, is not the one to threaten Dilbert but that he actually uses his superior, the CEO, to threaten Dilbert. The reason for this shift in power is that most of the daily comics show that Dilbert and his colleagues do not actually fear the pointy haired boss. Even though he is a superior in rank, he is often viewed as an idiot by his underlings. Thus it is necessary for the pointy haired boss to reach beyond his emotion persuasion to someone who is really capable of causing impending danger. This impending danger is of course the loss of a job, which, as implied in the comic, Dilbert fears the possibility of being fired at any time for not performing to the CEO’s liking.

(1) Aristotle: The Art of Rhetoric.
(2) Scott Adams: Dilbert.

Colbert, O'Reilly, and an Abuse of Language

O'REILLY: It is tough being me. Is it tough being you?
COLBERT: It's hard for me to be you. I'll tell you that much.
O'REILLY: It is? It is? Don't you owe me an enormous amount of money?
COLBERT: Well, if I were imitating you I would, Bill. But there's a difference between imitation and emulation. Let me tell you the difference. OK? If you imitate someone, you owe them a royalty check. If you emulate them, you don't. There's a big difference. Check your lawyer.

Colbert, O’Reilly, and an Abuse of Language

One of the many things that makes Stephen Colbert so funny and Bill O’Reilly so irritating to many people is their flagrant abuse of language. In a January 18th, 2007, interview on the O’Reilly Factor, the king of conservative talk shows and the court jester of the biased media faced off in a discussion where their stapled use of abused language went head-to-head in a hilarious shootout. One of the best examples of the kind of equivocation that goes on in these exchanges comes right between 2:00-2:27 in the video where O’Reilly asks Colbert if it is tough to be him. Colbert fires back and says that it is tough for him to be O’Reilly and O’Reilly responds by asking if Colbert owes him a lot of money. Then comes the equivocation from Colbert, "if I were imitating you I would, Bill. But there's a difference between imitation and emulation. Let me tell you the difference. OK? If you imitate someone, you owe them a royalty check. If you emulate them, you don't. There's a big difference" (1). Colbert's premises are that (A) emulation and imitation are not the same thing, (B) imitation warrants legal royalties and (C) emulation does not warrant legal royalties. Therefore, Colbert’s conclusion is that he does not owe O’Reilly royalties due to his emulating rather then imitating. The problem with Colbert’s equivocated argument is that he uses a synonym to change the meaning of the subject matter. He draws a distinction between two words that share the same definition, "an effort or desire to equal" (2). Rather then imitation or emulation, the best word for Colbert would be "mockery," for that is what his argument is truly achieving. However, the intention and purpose of such an equivocated answer is to more make fun of O’Reilly, and other talk show hosts, in the same style in which they themselves argue. Equivocations are bandied about frequently by a verity of talk show host and Colbert is simply capitalizing on the abuse of language by repeating the procedure in a farcical way.

(1) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244882,00.html
(2) Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Deductive and Inductive Arguments in Poetry

Deductive and Inductive Arguments in Fictional Literature

This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.
- William Blake

At three, I had the feeling of
Ambivalence towards my brothers,
And so it follows naturally
I poisoned all my lovers.
But I am happy; now I’ve learned
The lesson this has taught;
That everything I do that’s wrong -
Is someone else’s fault.
- Anna Russell

Art is one of the most powerful psychological methods of argument. Through such forms as poetry and literature arguments have made themselves manifest in the most unlikely ways. One such argumentative comes from William’s Blake’s unnamed poem on the eye. In this poem Blake uses deductive reasoning and poetic verse to state the premise that (A) only people who use reason, “through the eye,” can govern themselves with moral conduct, or see an “undistorted heaven.” However, (B) people can use sense “with the eye,” rather then reason. Although, (C) senses confuse the moral will, “dim the soul,” and (D) make an individual more accessible to wrong thinking, “lies.” Therefore, when one uses the senses rather then reason they become more acceptable of immorality.
In contrast Anne Russell uses a farcical inductive argument to move the reader towards the two-sided truth of her conclusion. In the poem she states two premises:
(1) The speaker claims ambivalence towards her brothers
(2) And it follows naturally that she poisoned all her lovers.
Thus it is through the premises that the speaker draws the probable conclusion that all wrongs committed by one are really someone else’s fault. While it seems at first that this kind of argument comes across as rather speculative, in reality the implied argument against psychology is that of a scathing critique. Anne Russell is creatively mocking the Freudian methodology of inductive reasoning by stating it in such a flippant way. However, in doing so she acutely uses the methodology of inductive argument by stating that: If (A) someone wrongs me and (B) I wrong someone else, then (C) It is A’s fault. She is hoping that her premises are so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.