I have a camera full of pictures from the last two weeks that I will upload eventually, though they may or not make it up here. Week before last I had a sick little guy to take care of and ended up working just over 40 hours. Then this week hit and I seem to have come down with some strange stomach problem. After a day between Urgent Care, the ER, hours in several different waiting rooms, a CAT scan, three different x-rays, and being used as a pin cushion five different times by three different nurses, we decided to throw the bag in on the medical system and see if just rest and controlling the pain would help any. Seems to be working so far. I feel more myself today than I have all week, which is good news and progress.
Since I've been resting, Daniel has taken the time to get his new (used) macbook organized. In doing so he found some old files that made us laugh. Mainly one that Daniel put together one day to try to win my affections:
The Definitive Proof of Ashlee’s “Okayness”
A = Ashlee
O = Essential properties exemplifying Okayness
1. A exists (Assumption)
2. There may or may not be persons or objects bearing O (Assumption)
3. Person x bearing O may be said to be “okay.” (Assumption)
4. A bears O. (Provisional Assumption)
5. For a person x to bear O, they must exemplify properties essential to “okayness.” (A clearer restatement of 3)
6. Bear minimum standards to qualify x as humorous, witty, bright, pleasant, and intriging far exceed O.
7. A exemplifies conditions in 6. (PA)
8. A demonstrates the continuing ability to make those with even the most sophisticated senses of humor laugh uncontrollably.
9. A consistently remarks of things exemplifying the universals of truth, goodness, and beauty.
10. Even A on her most difficult days may not drive away those who admire all of A’s qualities.
11. Thus, A exceeds O. (8-10)
12. A bears O. (6,11)
13. Therefore, A is okay. (12)
Note: However, in examining the soundness of this argument, we may induce that Ashlee more than likely may deserve a label that exceeds “okayness” (even far exceeding). In fact, we may reasonably conclude that Ashlee is “preferable” as someone to relate to in the course of human affairs (if even Ashlee thinks she is a difficult person). A human agent x bearing the qualities in 6 must certainly be someone worth even performing propositional logistical tasks as this one. Such philia love certainly exceeds other meanings of the concept “love” that some may ascribe to digital components in one’s life.
After reading over this again over two years later I burst out laughing and looked at my husband, "Were you desperate, or were you just **that** crazy about me?!?"
To which my wonderful husband replied, "I just really love philosophy."
.... then he got smacked, and we laughed together, because I'm pretty sure he was, and still is, just **that** crazy about me. :)
Hmm. . .
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I think your argument would follow in less lines if you adopted the strategy of an indirect proof. However, this would require premise 4 to read, "It is not the case that A bears O."
In this case you face a dilemma: either you pen the words "it is not the case that A bears O", or you add several unnecessary lines to your proof.
A love of philosophy would result in your constructing a short proof.
A love of Ashlee would result in a failure to pen the line, "it is not the case that A bears O".
You did not pen the above line.
Therefore, given a dilemma, your love of Ashlee trumps your love of philosophy.
Therefore, Ashlee's assessment is correct.
(and I think this is intuitively obvious. . . )
Thanks Amy. I'm glad I have more than one philosophy major in my life. :-P
ReplyDelete