Saturday, February 26, 2005

Gangsta Philosizzle

Via UTI, I came across the hilarious Gizoogle. Feeding it my skepticism overview, it returned a translation that helps clarify the import of this philosophical debate:
The skeptic argues thiznat coz we is unable ta distinguish tha BIV scenario fizzle Realism, we is not justified in assum'n brotha one ta be tha case. Instead, tha skeptic argues, tha rational thing ta do is suspend belief.

In everyday life, this strikes us as a ratha implausible suggestion. As tha Humean response goes, we is 'naturizzles crazy ass nigga. No cracka tha philosophizzle force of skepticism, it is of shawty practical import ta help you tap dat ass.

So very true. (I think it makes my point more strongly than the original essay did!) I also liked their take on the contextualist's 'Gangsta standards':
although we may not kniznow we is not BIVs sippin' ta 'high standards' contexts, we can, contextizzles claim, know our everyday beliefs based on tha 'Gangsta standards' appropriate in those contexts.

Gangsta metaphysics is also pretty cool:
Metaphysizzle realists posit tha existence of universals - multiply-exemplifiable properties thiznat is shared by various particizzles objects . Real niggas recognize the realness.. Their existence is posited primarily ta explain three phenomena: attribute agreement, predicizzles n abstract reference to increase tha peace.
There is problems wit realism, motherfucka. These abstract objects seem very odd; it is difficult ta see precisely how - or where - tizzle is supposed ta exist... Presumably they exist outside of space n time (at least, so sez tha Platonist, who allows fo` tha existence of unexemplified universals, contrary ta tha Aristotizzles) but thizzay how do we interact wit them? This seems ta raise serious epistemic difficizzles.

Furthermizzle it could be argued tizzle tha very notion of unrestricted properties (univizzles) is inherently inconsistent. For bitch tha apparently meaningful property of Being Non-Self-Exemplify'n (BNSE) - tha property whizzich is held by all n only those properties tizzle do not exemplify themselves . Aint no killin' everybodys chillin'. We can ask: is this property itself self-exemplify'n?

Suppose it is. It thus has tha property of BNSE, so it is not (by tha definizzles of tizzle property). Conversizzle suppose it is not ridin'. It thus has tha property of being cruisin' - whizzich is of course precisely tha property required fo` us ta say thiznat it is self-exemplify'n! So gangsta way, there is a contradizzles.

The realist mizzle therefore deny tizzle there is any siznuch property as BNSE. Perhaps exemplifizzles is merely a 'tie', not a relation. But such responses seem implausibly ad hoc n shit.

Indeed they do.


  1. From now on, I'm going to have to call Aristotelians 'Aristotizzles'.

  2. Great stuff Richard; Great stuff! I ran some of my recent posts through the translator and had quite a laugh. I ended up sideblogging my best result (a translation of "Sonny Rollins and the Nature of Improvisation") entitled "S-O-Double-Nizzy Rollins n tha Nature of Improvisizzles."


Visitors: check my comments policy first.
Non-Blogger users: If the comment form isn't working for you, email me your comment and I can post it on your behalf. (If your comment is too long, first try breaking it into two parts.)