The Philosopher’s Attic

Some things do not warrant a discursive answer where we should weigh all the points according to their validity. Sometimes there is no place for argument and earnest dialogue. This is especially true for things and “free opinions”⁽¹⁾ that have only one true goal: insult and belittlement.

Sometimes the only way to reason with malevolent content leads to satire. And satire is what they shall get:

Copyright Notice: I made this picture to show a point. If you want to use it in order to make your own statement, you are free to do so as long as a link points back to this original post. The original picture retains my copyright however and the picture may not be altered otherwise. Thank you.

1. How free is our speech really? Or would anyone have dared to put the ‘Explicit content’ sticker on the Q’ran? [back]

Page statistics have a terrible way of satisfying our voyeuristic needs. But most of the time they also serve a purpose. For instance it has become clear in the last few weeks that most of the new visitors to my site came here while searching for Herbert Grönemeyer. Unfortunately this is not some random music blog and I suppose that there really is no way of tying these readers to my blog in any permanent manner.
And then there was this one Google searcher - let’s call him Lexicographer - that came several times to my blog while looking for “big words that start with s” or “big words that start with c” etc. Unfortunately he didn’t find what he came for, only a post with the title Big words from the wise.
But I wouldn’t be me, if that didn’t give me a brilliant new idea for which I owe my thanks to Lexicographer.

So here starts a new series of random Big Words from philosophy, history, culture and whatnot. (NB: If you have any suggestions or would like to have particular word appear here and be explained, don’t hesitate to drop me a line in the comments or just contact me over Skype.)

Big words that start with… A

Analogy

If you’re trying to say something without saying it directly, but using an example, chances are that a) you’re trying to be polite and b) you’re using an analogy.
Ever heard something like “You talk like an electrical sewing machine…” or “Listening to you is like sticking my head into a microwave oven. It makes me dizzy…” ? Lucky you. It’s the philosopher’s way of insulting anybody that does not share his sense for pertinence.
A basic element of analogies is that they are rarely understood the way they were meant. This is particularly true for such weird ideas like The analogy of being where several philosophers and theologians have asked themselves whether we can say from God or the Angels that they ‘are’ the same way we do it from plants or humans. People that do deal with these questions can be encountered in the wild, but they do fear light and company, so please don’t scare them off.

Absolutes

Someone wise once said: “Only Sith deal in absolutes.” and guess what… he was making an analogy. What he actually meant to say was: “Only Republicans deal in absolutes…”, but that’s another matter.
Absolutes - just like the famous “Never say never…” line - have the bad habit of coming back to bite you somewhere sensible (i.e. where it hurts). And even if black and white are your favourite colours, they’re still absolutes. Try to avoid them. Grey is such a nice colour too.
Right.

Anachronism

Using words like tabernae potoriae minister for Barkeeper or iuvenis voluptarius for Playboy, really are anachronisms in our times. Just as the fact that the Vatican is actually publishing such pieces of anachronisms on their holy page…

Analysis (asked by Juliana)

The basic principle of taking things (hair-dryers, personal computers, texts, poems, arguments, meanings…) apart, giving you the possibility to examine the parts that make up the thing you are willing to take apart. As with all things this procedure requires adequate tools and methods: there are only so many things a drill can do for you and finding logical fallacies for instance is not one of them. So, when analysing anything written or said, apply the folowing basic rules: 1) don’t ask of the text what it is not able to give (Spiderman will not explain the Communist manifest to you. Ever.) 2) Be suspicious of everything. Everybody lies. Everybody. 3) Watch the Code. Not everything that is said is meant and not everything that is meant is spelled out on the page. 4) Do not get intimidated and use a dictionary. Texts are like playground bullies: big words and mostly no muscles, only pure force.
Happy analysing!

Analytical

In 20th and 21st century Philosophy often used as an insult or a nobility claim respectively, depending on where it is uttered (on the continent it’s an insult, in the US of A it’s a noble title). It’s a movement that started out by analysing texts and phrases that are used to describe the world. This analysis was in fact supposed to help get rid of 99% of the problems we have with the world. Unfortunately - like it can happen with any analysis - some of the leaders were sidetracked from the righteous path and somehow fell into Narcissus’ well. This in turn led to Analytical philosophers boldly claiming the supremacy of the argument over the commentary. Thus was born the infamous quarrel between continental and analytical philosophy. You have studied continental Philosophers? Sorry, then all you ever did was produce was commentary. Only analytical philosophers can argue and offer arguments, since explaining Aristotle’s Ethics does not need any argument, only a Cambridge Companion. There you have it.

Anathema (asked by Juliana)

Ever been excluded? Ever been banished from an Internet forum? Then an anathema has been called upon you. Historically speaking the anathema was first neutral or positive even: everything that was set apart and thus special, sacred. It came to a much harsher meaning during Church History and especially Catholic Church History where it names the most extreme act of casting somebody out. Beyond. any. redemption.
But not to worry, anathemata (aha, yes, this is a greek plural) have become quite unpopular and anachronistic. See there.

Arduous

If you feel overworked, overwhelmed or simply overrun by life itself, then arduous is the right adjective to describe whatever you’re battling with. How pale does “It’s hard…” or “It’s heavy work…” sound, compared to “This task is arduous work…”?
Even if you’re dragged down by everything that doesn’t necessarily mean that you cannot have at least a literate description for it, does it?

UPDATE

Aberration (asked by Arsedendi)

According to Murphy’s Law everything that can go wrong, will go wrong. While aberration in general signifies an unintended change of course or a deviation from a generally established plan, the word has also taken a literary - metaphorical - meaning of something being astray, wrong or perverted (in it’s original meaning). A closer look seems to impose itself here: let’s say we have an occurrence of some sort, say the lunar eclipse. We know it’s course, the exact timing when it will start, at which angle the earth will pass between the moon and the sun etc. An aberration would be for instance that instead of taking a regular vector passage, the shadow cast on the moon would all of a sudden stand still, or pass in a line or simply would not happen: a deviation from a normal, calculated way. To go back to Murphy’s Laws, whoever it was that first formulated this law simply elevated the aberration to a general, again foreseeable, course that things take. A contradiction in terms, no? Either we can calculate how things will go when they go right, or we can calculate how they will go when they go wrong, but since things do need to go one way or the other, not both calculations or plans can be right. A brilliant reality paradox, isn’t it? And to complicate things even further, there is a theory called occasionalism which states that every occurrence in the world (physical or metaphysical) is the work of God. I want to raise my arm? Then according to occasionalism, my will is just a mere occasion for God to act and actually make me lift my arm. The theory itself is again based on the principle that in fact God sustains this world, it’s physical laws and all that happens in it at any given moment. God himself created all the laws and he is the one sustaining them, so if he decides in one moment to overthrow the laws of nature, he can. (This principle was thought up to counter the critics of a omnipotent God that could somehow not break his own laws without ending the world in a major contradiction of powers…)
But since all things that can go wrong, will eventually go wrong, who knows if genetic aberrations (mutations) are simply due to God having a small hiccup… now that’s something for the new militant atheist movement to be afraid about, isn’t it?

…To be continued…