It’s hilarious. Y’all can go from existential crisis to Socrates to is a hotdog a sandwich in a single thread. It’s positively bonkers, and I love it.
1 Like
Does pineapple go on pizza…
or does pizza go under pineapple???
Well, does the pizza come before the pineapple? I believe it does, therefore, pineapple on the pizza.
Now, I raise you this; does the milk come before or after the cereal?
How are you going to say pizza comes before the pineapple when pizza wasn’t even invented until whenever it was invented, and the pineapple therefore definitely preceded pizza? But, maybe, in the “place” prior to the universe (or wherencever the whole universe’s timeline is at), the Grand Diviser co-invented pizza (with and without tense) so the pineapple could be displayed in its proper glory, which would redeem the pizza from its lacking the non-nightshade fruit, or rather, the presence of nightshade fruit? In which case, the pizza and the pineapple are mutually first, but their demonstration had to be in time, or they would’ve never really existed. Neither one of them should think that they are best, for without each other, they are incomplete.
tosses pizza dough into the air, catches it without making holes in it, and tosses it back up again
By the way, there’s a no-nightshade salsa involving pineapple.
The only thing that could make this post better is actual pineapple, and the nonexistence of tomatoes.
Think fast!
tosses pizza dough at Wanderlust
Got pineapple?
There are other diets than grain for mammals, so it’s hard to say, but for adding to a bowl, you must always add the cereal first, because you only have two hands, otherwise you should add both at the same time, so that you never overfill it with either milk or cereal, and it doesn’t overflow. This has been scientifically verified, unless you’re lactose intolerant, which probably means your mom spoiled you as a child.
I’m hungry.
1 Like
I have nothing I can say in response to this that would not sound asinine, and as such, I surrender, as your logic is sound.
I think the moderation is not so strict here as in other places. They let the conversations flow.
While camping, James’s companions got into a heated argument about a live squirrel clinging to the side of a tree trunk. A man is standing on the opposite side of the tree trying to look at the squirrel. As the man moves around the tree, the squirrel moves around the tree to stay hidden, keeping the trunk between them at all times. [1]
The central question causing the argument: "Does the man go round the squirrel or not?
Because the two sides couldn’t agree, William James intervened with the pragmatic method, stating that the answer depends on what you practically mean by "going round’
Bottom LIne: this is a fake question, not a real question. In your own mind you can answer because you decide the definition.
That’s a pretty cool question. Does the man orbit the orbit of the squirrel? Yes. Does the man orbit the squirrel? No.
That’s not even a fake question.
That is the great William James, the father of Psychology in the United States and a philospher and friend of C S Peirce
I always thought of pragmatism as what works… and after having read Adler characterize pragmatism, I’m wondering if I misinterpreted or got a misinterpretation taught to me (or if Adler is wrong). I never studied him in great depth. I’m not familiar with William James very well, so I have no idea if he ever answered that question …or why it would’ve come up (I’m not familiar with a lot of things).
For me, this triggers Wittgenstein more than James, but whatevs.
Rage muting this thread.