THE GREAT PHILOSOPHER SPEAKS

A man stands before a tree. He is approached by a "professional philosopher;" a truly informed academic. This great doctor of philosophy says to the man who is standing before the tree:

"Determinism has brought you here, I suspect you are a kind of perspectivalist. Surely this must be the case because your empiricism is rank. You ought to be honest with your existential leanings... leave all true philosophy to the foundationlists. There is a decompositional analysis which evades you. Have you never heard of the categories of subject and predicate which are joined by the copula? We really must find out where you stand. Are you a coherentist? (Surely this cannot be the case our else you would not be a foundationalist). We have deductive reasoning in part by inductive reasoning (not to forget the possibility of ontological relativity). Are you an internalist to the tree or an externalist? Even so, this says nothing about your doxastic state. Do you know that yellowness is the property of objects putatively presented to subjects when those objects look yellow? Yes this is very much true... the property of objects putatively presented to subjects when the objects look yellow is at least a normal cause of their looking yellow. Metaphysics are renewed; all things are renewed (it is simply a matter of accepting the language). But here the methodological naturalist is deluded, it would seem he is too focused on his materialism. Indeed there have been some fine egoists in the past, but whether they embraced a form of realism or anti-realism who is to say? If your non-cognitivism, or panpsychism is a feature of all things, then what is a tree? Let fall your Cartesian skepticism! It would seem that phenomenology does not suit you. Surely you would not give us a lecture on pragmatism or structuralism? It would seem you are totally ignorant of ethnomethodology, and here we can see your consequentialism come crashing through. But the more we analyze the more we realize that there is too much conventionalism in what you say. Your intentionalism is quite apparent. Your modality is simply juvenile.; what we might call paraconsistency or dialetheism. You really should leave these kind of questions to professional philosophers. Without these men and women you would simply suffocate under the sophistication of the hermeneutic. Your intersubjectivity is simply not intelligent enough to comprehend their equations, such interactionism lies beyond you. For even if you could put forth the hypothetical imperative, you could not put forth the categorical imperative. I suspect this is because your logic is heuristic."
 
The man plucks a leaf and walks away...

-
-
-