I hate subjunctive history.
It’s absurd; it’s misleading; it’s epistemologically vicious, and it’s stupid. I say trash it, get rid of it, pay a dubious-looking voodoo artist in New Orleans an inordinate sum to push pins through its glassy, grammatical eyes. Anything to make it stop.
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:
Philosopher: You know, you really can’t prove that the external world is not a dream.
Average Allan: Okay. What are the practical implications of that idea?
Philosopher: I dunno.
Inspired by xkcd and a conversation with Ziek.