(01/30/04)
I'm sitting in class, and we're discussing Rene Descartes' fairly famous argument "I think, therefore I am." I find the discussion to be a little bit boring, but God has a way of providing me with entertainment when I least expect it. One of the classmates starts to have a fit about whether thought proves existence. He was actually choking on his spit and waving his arms in excitement. The professor, who is unfortunately young and new to teaching, stares at him with bewilderment.
Jackass - "Well, how can he just say that thought automatically proves existence? I mean, I just don't follow this argument."
Professor - "Can you agree that Descartes knows that he is capable of thought and imagination?"
Ass - "Yes, but I don't see how that means anything."
Prof. - "Well how would you explain thought without first establishing that thought exists?"
Jackass then proceeds to argue incoherently that it doesn't follow. Yeah, jackass, we heard you the first time. You're going to have to explain because the burden of proof is on YOU, the undergraduate philosophy student, not Descartes who is a respected and important figure in not only in philosophy but in mathematics. What amazes me is that he proceeds to criticize Descartes as a very irrational figure and that Descartes would benefit from learning more about analytical logic. I mean, Descartes nearly single-handedly invented the coordinate system and analytical geometry (all your algebra stuff concerning slope of a line, graphing circles, ellipses, parabolas, etc.). It takes him 20 minutes for him to make his weak argument, and the professor grows impatient and just basically tells him that the rest of the class has no problem with this argument and he can try to talk it over with her during her office hours (and you thought the professor was a man, you sexist). This is not a big problem, but like 30 minutes later in the discussion he starts talking out of his ass again, and then offers an even better hypothesis:
"This translation of his work probably doesn't catch what he means because I don't really see what he means."
Ok, so he concedes that maybe everyone who has studied philosophy in the last 400 years has reason to be studying Descartes' skepticism. It must be the translator's fault. After all, the publisher of this textbook probably just went to altavista.com and typed in the original text, chose French to English, then published the results. What other way to explain someone so brilliant as this guy not understanding the text? It couldn't possibly mean...wait, no he's just a moron! That's why he doesn't understand! Ah, it's all clear now.
I'll be honest. I have questioned teachers before. I tore apart my algebra teacher in 10th grade for not understanding basic concepts in probability because she deserved it. She insisted that the probability of flipping a coin and rolling a die and flipping heads on a coin and rolling a 6 was (1/6) and not (1/12). I had no choice but to refute this fallacious argument, and ultimately got my 10 points on the test. However, I don't generally question professors in college because most of them have Ph.D.'s in the subject they're teaching. I certainly don't question Einstein's theory of relativity, Newton's theory of gravity, or anything like that. Philosophy is not a science, but blaming your lack of understanding on the translator of the text is just retarded. He left the class feeling very smug because he felt that he had taken on one of the giants of philosophy and emerged victorious. Moron.
