Hipster Telephone had a “#” before it was cool.
I need to draw Hipster Telephone.
I was unaware that the term “pound sign” does not usually apply to the symbol “#” outside of the United States—hence my hesitation to use it in my title and confuse people even more than I already do. And I refuse to use the term “hashtag” because I’m too cool for school social media. Also, “hashtag” automatically reminds me of Twitter, and Twitter is my mortal enemy. Here are some things I dislike about Twitter:
- If I only get 140 characters to express my thoughts, you’d best be expecting some snarky rebellion on my part, ‘cause 140 characters ain’t happening. I can’t even voice my dislike of the 140 character limit in 140 characters. I CAN HARDLY EVEN SAY “HELLO” IN 140 CHARACTERS, ARE YOU KIDDING ME.
- “I’mma tweet this” is the most obnoxious phrase to enter the English language in the last 900 years.
- When did we turn into birds, anyway?
- When did we turn into birds that can only “tweet” the length of 140 characters? What if actual birds had this limitation? Imagine the bird version of Shakespeare (heh, “Bird Bard”) dealing with such a thing. Blasphemy.
- Wait, DID BIRDS IMPOSE THIS LIMIT ON US? Is Twitter really some sort of avian takeover of the human race?
- I’m picturing some sort of European Union: Bird Version type thing. “Alright guys, so we tried to give the humans our flu, but that didn’t take ‘em out like we’d hoped. So let’s set up this website—we’ll call it Twitter ‘cause that’s cute and they’re dumb—and give ‘em 140 characters to blather on about their day or their underwear or whatever it is they talk about when we’re not around. Soon their language will devolve into nonsensical 140-character pseudo sentences, which will shortly be taken over by hashtags. THEN WE WILL RISE, BRETHREN, AND TAKE OVER THE SKIES!” #birduprising2015
- The thing that really gets me is when people want to tweet something that’s more than 140 characters, so they just break it up into like 9 separate tweets, each of which is hardly a coherent sentence on its own. Really? Get a blog, long-winded bro! There’s no character limit on a blog! And blogging’s easy, see? Even I can do it!
- The 140-character thing is really what I’m stuck on. SERIOUSLY.
- Can you imagine someone like Descartes trying to use Twitter?
(I just spent five minutes not only looking for a “fake tweet generator” but also finding the smallest pic of Descartes to center in that little box. Good lord.)
- #You #don’t #need #these #buggers #on #every #freaking #word
- I…I just don’t get the appeal, to be honest. If I like someone enough to want to read their thoughts/opinions, I’d probably want to read more than 140-character snippets. Just sayin’.
- (Here’s where I turn into Hypocrite Central and admit with downcast eyes that I do, in fact, have a Twitter account that does, in fact, have more than 0 tweets. DON’T YOU GO SEARCHING FOR IT OR I’LL MAKE #birduprising2015 A THING, I SWEAR TO GOD.)
Wow, this blog took a serious turn into a Twitter rant, didn’t it? I can’t even remember what I was originally going to blog about.
Oops.
That happens sometimes.
(Also, something like a bagel might be more intuitively represented using spherical coordinates rather than Cartesian coordinates. Just sayin’.)
I AM CAKE
I found this site that has t-shirts which feature mash-ups of band logos and scientists/philosophers/great thinkers.
Yeah, I want like twelve of these.
Here are my faves:
Only downside: no Leibniz.
Continental Rationalists to Porn: The Joys of Wikipedia
Here is a new game I propose we start:
Wikipedia: Six Degrees of Separation
Rules:
1. Select a random topic (person, place, thing, whatever) and find its article on Wikipedia
2. Click on a link in the article that leads you to a different page
3. Repeat this process for each new page you are brought to
4. See if you can reach the “Pornography” page in less than or exactly six clicks
5. Write down your starting subject and steps and post them in your blogs
Here’s an example (or examples, I guess) to get you started. Here are my three starting points: Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz, the three Continental Rationalists, and the steps that got me from their articles to the pornography article.
Starting point: Rene Descartes
Click one: Amsterdam
Click two: Red-Light District
Click three: Pornography
(Haha, that was fast, eh? You’re a dirty boy, Rene.)
Starting point: Baruch Spinoza
Click one: Atheist
Click two: Moral Universalism
Click three: Sex
Click four: Sexual Intercourse
Click five: Sexual Arousal
Click six: Pornography
Starting point: Gottfried Leibniz
Click one: Ethics
Click two: List of Ethics Topics
Click three: Family Values
Click four: Pornography
Hahaha, this is awesome. Leibniz to porno in four easy steps! Life is complete.
It’s 4:45 AM…do you know where your daily blog is?
Right here!
So I’m done with all the actual tests for finals week, but I still have my written final for Modern Philosophy due tomorrow. Or today. Whatever the hell you qualify 5 in the morning as.
Yes, I stayed up this late (early) ‘cause I had basically NO TIME to write this final until about 4 this afternoon, and, me being me, I procrastinated until about 11. The essay on Hume I cranked out in like 15 minutes, but I’ve been slowly and painfully churning out this damn Berkeley essay for the past six hours.
But now I’m done! DONE WITH FINALS WEEK! So of course, since I did my Modern final tonight, I felt it necessary to list the philosophers we covered in order from my favorite to my least favorite. Hmm, what will my #1 be…?
1. Leibniz
I LOVE THIS MAN WITH ALL MY SOUL. I really, really like the way he works through the logic of his philosophy, even though his writing style basically looks down its nose at you, insulting you under its breath because it’s not totally obvious to you right away. But yeah, this guy has taken over my life.
2. Kant
Kant freaking rocks, and not just because his name can be used in a lot of stupid puns. I loved the way he demonstrated that math is not something of which we have a priori knowledge, and I just love the way he basically redefined how we should go about doing philosophy.
3. Hume
I like Hume, but I’m not a fan of the way he argued his way down to that there is no such thing as causality (cause and effect…if I hit the billiard ball with the stick, it will move forward), but because that’s the only way we can get around in the world, we can rely on it. But he does aggressively argue against something that we all take for granted to be true.
Take that, causality!
4. Berkeley
Berkeley interests me, and I don’t really know why. I think it’s because I totally disagree with his “to be is to be perceived” idea, and therefore I want to argue against it. So Berkeley would be in pretty good standing on this list, except for the fact that I had to write something like this at 4:30 in the morning because of him:
“The ‘common sense’ factor of Berkeley’s philosophy is explained as this: it is not simply the lack of direct perceptions of material substance that causes the belief that it doesn’t exist—it’s also the fact that there is no way to explain its existence. There is no reason for the material to exist if perceptions are sensory and can be linked to something that already has reason to exist, like the mind. Qualities do not need something on which they must be projected if they already exist in and out of the senses and are perceived that way. The absence of the material world preserves the parsimony Berkeley so strongly desires.”
5. Spinoza
AAAH SPINOZA! Despite the fact that I don’t know what to think of his philosophy (his logic works out so that his philosophy proves itself), he’s a cute, innocent looking little guy who was excommunicated ‘cause of what he believed. Poor little Spinoza. I sympathize for him.
6. Descartes
I love Descartes. Descartes is great. He’s the founder of modern philosophy, guys! But the reason he’s so far down on this list is because of his whole “evil deceiver” thing. Yes, the extreme doubt is good, but seriously, Rene…the evil deceiver? Ah, well. He had to get his ideas past the church somehow. Sneaky little guy.
7. Locke
Locke bothers me. I don’t really know why; I didn’t really pay that much attention those few days we were covering him. They were right before Spring Break. Haha.
So there you go.
Tautologies are really unnecessary. Indeed, tautologies are quite superfluous.
(Really, stop me if my titles get too “out there.”)
World, I present to you a new metaphysical theory on God and the universe.
In a sentence:
It is through Ren’s boobs that God is represented.
Elaboration:
We looked at this through three different philosophical viewpoints (actually I did, everyone else there extrapolated, laughed, or was like “Claudia, what the hell?”)—Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz (the Rationalists!).
Descartes
We have to establish some sort of dualism. This task is easily accomplished, due to the fact that there are two boobs. One boob is to represent the substance “mind,” and the other boob is to represent the “material” substance. “I think therefore I’m Ren’s boobs.”
Spinoza
We are Ren’s boobs, and Ren’s boobs are us. Everything is Ren’s boobs. Ren’s boobs are the cause of all things. There is no dualism; the boobs themselves are of the same substance. Oh, and Ren’s boobs can indeed be perceived and understood.
Leibniz
Ren’s boobs are the best of all possible boobs. They are perfectly omnipotent, omnipresent, and good. Ren’s boobs created the world. Therefore, it is because of Ren’s boobs that we live in the best of all possible worlds. There is no other and better world, just as there are no other and better boobs.
Yeah.
I Heart Descartes
I’m not usually the type of person who goes around saying, “I heart [insert name here],” but I found it necessary in this case, seeing as how it rhymes. Anyway…
Huttah!
I totally own the Enlightenment (well, I owned our test on the Enlightenment)!
I love the Enlightenment, but I’m not so enthused about Romanticism. It’s boring and nature-y. Blah.
And here’s something else…I just realized that I have a really violent name. I have the “claw” in Claudia and the “maul” in Mahler. It would be a rockin’ name if I become a serial killer someday. Bwahahaha…
Eigenblogger 