Meaningless Reflection

I find it necessary to look back upon this past year of Meaningless Arguments and contemplate the lessons we have learned. The entire purpose of philosophy is to discern the truth; even if the truth is totally meaningless. Welcome, therefore, to the Meaningless Reflection.

First, Thomas and I defined, with certainty, food. This is particularly useless because any value the definition of food has is legislative; we are not the legal authority on what food is. Even though our definition may be totally flawless (which it isn’t (hah, Mr. Siuda, I used parentheses)) it will have absolutely no impact on law and isn’t even related to any other field. We also learned that food is food even if nobody will ever eat it. Obviously, this is a necessary truth for everybody to know, because it means that when “children in Africa could have eaten that food,” it remains food, though uneaten.

#foreveruneaten #flossinginclass

Second, we discussed the difference between a room and a hallway. A new word was born: hyper-room. It was a near-meaningless word itself: it meant an area within a building somehow partitioned from the rest of the building. This word was used solely for the purpose of having a set into which both rooms and hallways might be placed. We determined that because there were structural differences between rooms and hallways, terminology was intrinsic and linked to the particular type of hyper-room rather than its present use. We have revolutionized the field of architecture by telling it things it already knows.

Last, we took on a dangerously meaningful topic. We argued about whether eggs are meat or not. This is actually extremely important. Imagine the uproar if the truth came out that vegetarians shouldn’t be allowed to eat eggs! Since we are the most reliable authority on scathing truths such as “the coconut is never getting in” and “it is only somewhat likely that you will choke,” we decided that we simply could not conclude that eggs were meat. Luckily, the evidence was in support.

If knowledge is “justified true belief,” which it isn’t, but that’s about the best definition we have, then why didn’t we bring in experts to justify our statements? This is because it would jeopardize the triviality of the argument. The argument’s triviality is what makes it worthy of our attention. So if it cannot be said that our statements are true, then what has the purpose of this entire column been? Of course, this column is less meaningful than the meaningless, less important than the important, and less useful than that which is totally useless, e.g., first-generation Motorola E smartphones.

I believe that we have achieved success in achieving nothing and that we have satisfactorily been unsatisfactory. [Ed. Note: Does this explain why this article is under word count, too?] 

See you next year.

Cheers,

AJ Daughton

1 Comment

  1. For the sake of all those who are confused when we greet each other with “Thou shalt not eat truth, vegetarians,” I strongly recommend that you publish the Google Translate-d version of this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*