Why No One Ever Wants To
Play Golf With A Philosopher
Have you ever wondered why no one wants to join you, a philosopher, for a round of golf? The fact of the matter is that, on the golf course, philosophers are a truly tedious lot—always have been!!
No one ever wanted to play with Kant since he was such a stickler about following the rules. He claimed that it was Imperative to do so. Kropotkin, on the other hand, never adhered to any rule. Stories abound about how he teed off from the seventh green, taking aim toward the fourteenth hole. Most golfers considered Kropotkin positively dangerous.
Hearing Thales lament about his lastest round was tiresome. One would think that every hole was nothing but water. Admittedly, Hegel had a more positive frame of mind, but that was no better. He kept claiming that everybodyï¿½s game was constantly improving, approaching an Absolute Ideal. Marx got so tired of hearing this that he turned Hegel on his head.
Sartre was positively annoying . He would pontificate about how a person is only a bad golfer because that is what he chooses to be. That never sat well with anyone who had just finished a bad round. Berkeley was a bit more subtle, but just as damning. He would claim that the game was entirely mental. That sent Malebranch into despair. He felt that it would take an act of God for your mind to be able to control your body. dï¿½Holbach, on the other hand, would attribute his bad rounds on the pre-existing conditions in the universe; he swore that there was nothing one could do to change the outcome.
Philosophers have also managed to take the fun out of any tournament. Hume was skeptical about any reported score. He wanted proof, but would never accept any of the presented evidence as sufficient. Diogenes was just as Cynical, claiming that he had scoured the world looking for an honest golfer. Meanwhile Paley would go around showing everybody this watch he found.
One had to wait endlessly in the clubhouse for Zeno to get started; it seemed like he could never reach the first hole. Abelard was the only one who didn't seem to mind; he was content to sit in the bar and moon over Heloise.
Strangely, though, the philosopher everyone hated the most was Plato. It is not that he ever did anything wrong. In fact, he had perfect Form. People just couldn't stand the fact that he never shot anything but Par.
Proofs 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?
I can entertain an idea of the most perfect state of affairs inconsistent with not-p. If this state of affairs does not obtain then it is less than perfect, for an obtaining state of affairs is better than a non-obtaining one; so the state of affairs inconsistent with not-p obtains; therefore it is proved, etc.
SOCRATES: Is it not true that p?
GLAUCON: I agree.
CEPHALUS: It would seem so.
THRASYMACHUS: Yes, Socrates.
ALCIBIADES: Certainly, Socrates.
PAUSANIAS: Quite so, if we are to be consistent.
ERYXIMACHUS: The argument certainly points that way.
PHAEDO: By all means.
PHAEDRUS: What you say is true, Socrates.
Certain of my opponents claim to think that not-p; but it is precisely my thesis that they do not. Therefore p.