University just gets better and better. We spent an hour in a lecture today debating whether or not Santa Claus exists. The answer is that he does. And he doesn't.
Ah, epistemology, I assume? What I think always needs to follow on from those arguments (the fun ones) is the not-so-fun ones where there is suddenly some deleterious effect on their grade, based on their ability to argue one side of the point. That's the real world, after all: your willingness to defend a belief you yourself cannot demonstrate to others is what faith arguments are about. It would be interesting to see how many people who playfully argued in favour of Santa's existence hang their final grade on their argument, for example.
As a matter of fact, there isn't a single argument I can think of that you can make for Santa's existence that you can't make for God's. Of course, I probably haven't thought of them all...
The question of the portly and generous one was used to illustrate a bigger point, so wasn't an argument in itself, as such. I took a third angle (of course) and suggested that before that question can be tackled we need to decide what we mean by "exists". And, naturally, the two answers differed due to two interpretations of what "existance" is.
The broader point was how meaning is interpreted. If we all can respond to the question of "Who lives at the North Pole, wears a red fur lined outfit and gives gifts to children at Christmas time?" with the answer "Santa Claus", then Santa exists. Why? Because we're not all answering with the same name and meaning nothing at all. The name "Santa" means something, and something quite specific. So, in that sense, Santa exists. And, to follow on from your point, in the same sense "God" exists. And doesn't, in the same sense that Santa doesn't exist in an actual, corporeal form.
I'm sure Philosophy lecturers have some very interesting excuses handed to them for assignments being turned in late.
4 comments:
LOL!! It sounds like a joke, but it's probably someone's actual recollection of a class.
Ah, epistemology, I assume? What I think always needs to follow on from those arguments (the fun ones) is the not-so-fun ones where there is suddenly some deleterious effect on their grade, based on their ability to argue one side of the point. That's the real world, after all: your willingness to defend a belief you yourself cannot demonstrate to others is what faith arguments are about. It would be interesting to see how many people who playfully argued in favour of Santa's existence hang their final grade on their argument, for example.
As a matter of fact, there isn't a single argument I can think of that you can make for Santa's existence that you can't make for God's. Of course, I probably haven't thought of them all...
Epistemology, yes. Of language specifically.
The question of the portly and generous one was used to illustrate a bigger point, so wasn't an argument in itself, as such. I took a third angle (of course) and suggested that before that question can be tackled we need to decide what we mean by "exists". And, naturally, the two answers differed due to two interpretations of what "existance" is.
The broader point was how meaning is interpreted. If we all can respond to the question of "Who lives at the North Pole, wears a red fur lined outfit and gives gifts to children at Christmas time?" with the answer "Santa Claus", then Santa exists. Why? Because we're not all answering with the same name and meaning nothing at all. The name "Santa" means something, and something quite specific. So, in that sense, Santa exists. And, to follow on from your point, in the same sense "God" exists. And doesn't, in the same sense that Santa doesn't exist in an actual, corporeal form.
I'm sure Philosophy lecturers have some very interesting excuses handed to them for assignments being turned in late.
You mean like, "My report exists, just not in corporeal form?"
Post a Comment