Stephen Colbert and Philosophy
Roben Torosyan, you might want to re-read your essays before they are published. Even if they are published in a pop-philosophy book. Unless you are trolling so hard.
"I used to hate guys like me. And then I became a guy like me and now I like guys like me." - Stephen Colbert
Torosyan argues that this shows a circular argument. Now I have a few issues, but the main one is this isn't a circular argument. This isn't an argument, it's a statement. Torosyan seems to be assuming that there is more to this statement. Or at least is interpreting it in a very different way to what I would say is the way it was intended/meant (read on).
This isn't an argument, it's a statement of how things are. At most he is assuming some argument that is backing up doing this. But this one statement doesn't give the reasons and it';s a fallacy to think that it is meant to contain them.
I admit, perhaps there is some background to this statement that might somehow make this an argument but in a PHILOSOPHY BOOK it is remiss to not include anything (at all) that supports the statement.
Also the most important part is that Torosyan is taking this statement a certain way.
That 'guys like me' means two different things in the statements (guys like him in the past, and guys like him now). The statement is too ambiguous.
I think the main reading is that "I used to hate guys (who are like what I am now) and then I became a guy (like I am now) and now I like guys (who are like me now)". I think this is the better reason because his entire audience is liberal and he is saying "look I used to be like you, now I am like me and I like me". I would say it's pure speculation but it's not because I am part of his audience etc. But you know.
Anyway, fuck that in a pop-philosophy book, even if it is pop philosophy.
"I used to hate guys like me. And then I became a guy like me and now I like guys like me." - Stephen Colbert
Torosyan argues that this shows a circular argument. Now I have a few issues, but the main one is this isn't a circular argument. This isn't an argument, it's a statement. Torosyan seems to be assuming that there is more to this statement. Or at least is interpreting it in a very different way to what I would say is the way it was intended/meant (read on).
This isn't an argument, it's a statement of how things are. At most he is assuming some argument that is backing up doing this. But this one statement doesn't give the reasons and it';s a fallacy to think that it is meant to contain them.
I admit, perhaps there is some background to this statement that might somehow make this an argument but in a PHILOSOPHY BOOK it is remiss to not include anything (at all) that supports the statement.
Also the most important part is that Torosyan is taking this statement a certain way.
That 'guys like me' means two different things in the statements (guys like him in the past, and guys like him now). The statement is too ambiguous.
I think the main reading is that "I used to hate guys (who are like what I am now) and then I became a guy (like I am now) and now I like guys (who are like me now)". I think this is the better reason because his entire audience is liberal and he is saying "look I used to be like you, now I am like me and I like me". I would say it's pure speculation but it's not because I am part of his audience etc. But you know.
Anyway, fuck that in a pop-philosophy book, even if it is pop philosophy.