Philosophers’ Carnival 84

Hello, readers, I bid you welcome!
To this merry carnival
Before continuing I’ll tell you
That there’s no perceivable
Theme for today apart from verses
But I guess this will not hurt you
Though it could be tedious
To navigate, I do insist
You check them out ’cause I requested
In my call for submissions
Ease of access to the laymans
So don’t leave this page unmolested
Whether you’re a specialist
Or layman who’s just curious

There’s those of us who like it feisty
Some of us like to relax
Others are driven activists
Others like to evade their tax
The pseudonymous Sage argues
That a community can’t use
A volunteering only way
Because at the end of the day
Most act against wise calculation
Even if we mean no harm
Sage’s solution will disarm
Those whose quest for satiation
Rapes Gaia, the one who stands
With fate in legislation’s hands

Paul Gowder’s post excites interest
It’s about how a theory
Typically those things that we test
Although he talks of many
Phil-O’Sci is this post’s topic
Or near enough. He begs you stop it
You who say a theory dies
When another theory prescribes
The claim, says Paul, is not worth stating
Though sometimes it’s slightly true
It is only a platitude
‘Comes in a phrase that Paul is hating
Which here I cannot include
Though apologies won’t ensue

Jesus nor Kant were liked by Nietzsche
Shane reconciles these chaps
Though those who’ve Hegel for their teacher
Won’t be pleased ’cause this post taps
Barry’s stoic consideration
Of foes, where others might hasten
To act immaturily
Rather than in civility
Richard said this is no disaster
(The carnival’s founding host)
About Barack he wrote a post
His inclusion of Rick the pastor
Fairly disliked by a lot
But tribalism needs to stop

This edition’s requests were flouted
When a post over my top
Was submitted by Andrew, thou-said
For plural h’nyms we’ll stop
and look, ’cause if we want to figure
Whose arguments, which should trigger
Him and you and I to see
A problem of identity
As nestled within composition
Or the other side would say,
Against the others they’d say nay
Reading this post was quite a mission
But what I accessed seemed good
Though ease of access was a should

We now enter the world of Descartes
Kenny Pearce will take us there
Imagine demons who deceive us
Charlatans who just don’t care
About a form of presentation
Which benevolence would maintain
When they flout veracity
They’re trying to fool you and me
But success they will not encounter
‘Cause Kenny remembers the
Computer-class analogy
His argument could not be sounder
Well actually, yes maybe
I just said that ’cause I’m lazy

A long post by the Sophist Pundit
In which he argues against
Bentham, he wants to put him under
Remove from his glass case
The one we know as hedonistic
Has no place in matters fiscal
Adam tends to disagree
With Bentham’s normativity
But he is not the only Adam
Set up against Jeremy
For this post speaks of the O.G.
Of economics, as it happens
How much do we need J.B?
It’s up to you to click and see

Richard asks what we should value
Perhaps immortality?
Gamble life for this, shall you?
With what probability
would you feel that a coin was worth a
Risk to remove you from Earth when
The other option would mean
That you could live your life in peace
As orginally intended
Then he also muses on
The question, after life lived long
would you feel that your choice was splendid?
‘Cause if so then this would mean
You shan’t pine for eternity

For today that’s all I offer
I hope that you had some fun
While reading posts by philosophers
Also, we are nearly done
with this year, make a resolution!
(I won’t ’cause I am a loser
Who never carries them through
But things might go better for you)
The next edition will be hosted
On January nineteen
By Buffalo Philosophy
Enjoy yourselves? I hope that most did
But if you didn’t then I
Hope you enjoy two-thousand-nine!