Bluffer's Philosophy

there's this really cheap but really funny book at the withering shelves of national bookstore that's been taking up my time since i bought it. it's called the bluffer's guide to philosophy and man it's funny. it gives you a detour to understanding philosophy: you don't have to study complex bodies of knowledge like epistemology and logic to be a pholosopher. well that's what the book claims. so far im amused by the word antics of the author. i like.

he gives out a really funny history of philosophy (which allegedly was an activity instead of a study)... its really funny. there's a part there that tells about the superman that the famous aristotle was... he created so many things in so many different fields, like the right angle, the system of taxonomy, and the theory of numeric composition... but the author makes it a point that all the greatest men in academic history actually was a product of derisive ignorance. aristotle, with all his very intelligent views of everything, actually is a very poor biologist. he says:

"Snakes have no penis, because they have no legs; and they have no testicles, because they are so long..."
-De Generatione Animalium

...

BWAHAAHHAHAHA!!

he sounds like a very normal child with a normally-growing number of brain cells.

and this, after so long, explains why i always thought logic had some streak of idiocy.. (because its maker is never far from being idiotic himself... hihi)

anyways, philosophy has never been a very interesting field for me, although i sometimes fancy myself a philosopher..

you see unlike aristotle, whose rather sub-intelligent logic makes him a very poor biologist, i have a very brilliant view of biology as a science..

since high school, our science teachers have always delivered the definition of biology as the study of life. i settled in with that definition until dissection came and we had to damage a frogs limbic system before we can study its organs... so in a way i thought biology wasn't actually the study of life, it is the study of death, of lifeless organs, and of post-mortem assumptions... we cut open a frog before we can study it's musculature, by the time we had distinguished each and every cord and muscle, the frog would have either died out of bleeding or mere pain. so that's simply gaining knowledge from the death of a creature, before we can assume facts about the the life of it. so for me, biology is the other way around. it's death we are studying, not life. and it is only acceptable that biology should properly be called necrology, the study of death, as i have explained above... voila!

oh pasado na ba as philosopher???

i hope mum brings home pakaskas... i miss my favorite delicacy. and i especially like mindorenyo pakaskas because the molasse is exceptionally thicker...

lini says she cant go to dinner because she is OT-ing at the office to finish a system.. wow. this gives me a hint of how our future dinners will be interupted by rather serious things such as the corporate world. brrrrr... working is scary.

-i'll keep reading, tim is a very funny guy...-