…Or, Proof of the Existence of My Social Life

It is a proven fact of nature that there exist several types of people in this world with whom I do not interact well.  To give a short (but by no means completely exhaustive) list:

  • People who do not know how to cut hair, yet insist on marketing themselves as “barbers” or “stylists”
  • People who wait on the side of a road waiting for the little man to appear when there are no cars coming in either direction.  For miles.
  • People who blog obsessively.
  • People who do not believe philosophy has anything to offer to the development of modern thought. (Hello?!?!  A priori reasoning?!  Anyone?!?!?!)
  • People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures.  
  • The Dutch
  • People who make assumptions

My faithful readers may perhaps criticize this final category as unnecessarily broad; surely I don’t not interact well with everyone I’ve ever met?  Though I grant them the recognition of the category’s rather all-encompassing nature, I deny that it is too broad.  How can I make this assertion?  Via two arguments:

First,

  1. All people I have ever encountered, have made assumptions or will make assumptions in the future.
  2. It is at least metaphysically possible (not to mention actually true) that I do not interact well with anyone who ever has or ever will make an assumption.
  3. Therefore, I do not interact well (i.e. interact poorly) with everyone.

Second,

  1. People who think cell phone radiation is dangerous make at least one assumption
  2. I think people who think cell phone radiation is dangerous are stupid
  3. I do not interact well with people who I think are stupid
  4. Therefore, I do not interact well with people who think cell phone radiation is dangerous
  5. Therefore, I think all people who make assumptions are stupid (by inductive logic)
  6. Therefore, I do not interact well with people who make assumptions
  7. Therefore, I do not have a social live (implied premise: one needs to interact well to make friends)

So we’ve established both that I do not interact well with people who think cell phone radiation is dangerous, or with anyone else.  Excellent.

Counter point: Perhaps cell phone radiation truly is dangerous.  For example, there are the rather disconcertingly mandated government lists of cell phone radiation levels not to mention multiple studies illustrating the potentially disastrous effects cell phone radiation can have on neurons and (God forbid) one’s chances at ever fathering children.  Beyond these hitherto unknown reasons for believing in the dangers of cell phone radiation, it appears there exists a cornucopia of online evidence from reputable sources (ref: here and here) not to mention products that fill the obvious need for cell phone radiation protection.  

With all this undeniable evidence, I must confess I find it rather difficult to maintain that cell phone radiation is not dangerous.  Yes, my friends, I am a take-the-cell-phone-out-of-the-pocket-when-working-at-desk convert.  Don’t believe me?  You explain to my future wife why my future daughters have three legs and one testicle.

As for my pervious arguments, my change of heart may cause us to reconsider premise (2) of my second proof.  As it stands, the premise currently states that I think I am stupid.  I don’t like that idea.  Therefore, I strike this premise from the arguments.  Therefore, the argument is invalid.  Therefore, I can conclude that I really do have a social life.

 

 

No, really.  I swear.  

 

-Ziek

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Caterwauling, Philosophy

4 responses to “…Or, Proof of the Existence of My Social Life

  1. Maia

    INVALID. Inductive logic does not lead to #5. I’ll fight you on this.

  2. Maia

    “…loose like, like a woman who’s had sex FIVE HUNDRED times. Yeah. Yeah, that’s how loose your logic is.”

  3. Ziek

    Oh. Of course. Conclusion (5) is supposed to be bogus; it’s based on inductive logic. The idea is “Well, if it’s true in this case, it must be true in all cases.” It’s supposed to be stupid.

    I was going to write about that, but the post was already long, so I didn’t include the discussion of inductive vs. deductive logic.

    Also, your second comment is crass.

  4. Evelyn

    I read this, laughed and imagined a physicist friend of ours’ head popping off. giggle giggle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s