Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

The peanut challenge

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» The peanut challenge

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

This problem struck my mind like thunder for some reason, and I thought it would give interesting and funny results to share it here:

How would you convince a normal person (from the general society view) of that you are a peanut?

I think I would try to convince the person of that "person" is one of the meanings of the word peanut Smile

@manored,

It would be easy for me Smile

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk278/DaveBrett99/Mr_peanut-1.png

@Aedes,

Wow, Aedes, you look good enough to eat. I've never noticed it before; this is by far the best picture of you on the forum.

@manored,

Hypnosis is an awesome tool for jobs like this! *__-
Brainwashing works as well. Even better with hypnosis. Talk about 'conversion'!

@nameless,

Sounds like a job for Derren Brown and his Trick or Treat show: 'Today's contestant got a trick card... so I am going to convince him that he is a peanut using a mixture of hypnotism, suggestion and psychology.'

@de budding,

Hypnosis? Good point, Nameless. Though I would extend the idea a little: how about good old torture? Or maybe some better new torture? Somebody remembers "1984"? "How many fingers, Winston?". Yes, 2 + 2 = 5, if Big Brother says so. The Inner Party had its methods...

P.S. The golden dawn rises in my head. Manored, do you happen to know the answer yourself?? Did you give us half-of-a-joke ;-) ? If it's not a joke then it's a koan, or is that the same? Ok, my answer is..

Ask the peanut!

Boinng!!!! Satori! Laughing

@manored,

If someone knew what the word "peanut" meant, and what the word "human" meant, it would seem difficult to convince him that the two could be applied to the same object.

@jgweed,

Ive convinced loads of people im a nutter so it could only be a little step by persuasion for them to agree im a peanutter..

@jgweed,

You could look at the issue through the theory of perception and immaterialist principles by George Berkeley. Berkeley's immaterialism is essentially what Locke's empiricism upheld, which was that all knowledge comes from experience. However, for Berkeley, if we are directly aware of nothing but ideas (which he asserts in Principles of Human Knowledgespirits.

How does this tie into the perception of a person as a peanut? In principle 4 of Principlesmental manufacturing, which can be a combination of mental abstraction. So, the person could have isolated abstract

@VideCorSpoon,

Lets be serious here for a mo ..can you really believe that its possible that if we even tried we could convince anyone other than someone who already thinks he is a peanut..I like experiments but slightly sane ones..

@xris,

Can there be any seriousness in abstraction?

@VideCorSpoon,

Catchabula wrote:

Hypnosis? Good point, Nameless. Though I would extend the idea a little: how about good old torture? Or maybe some better new torture? Somebody remembers "1984"? "How many fingers, Winston?". Yes, 2 + 2 = 5, if Big Brother says so. The Inner Party had its methods...

P.S. The golden dawn rises in my head. Manored, do you happen to know the answer yourself?? Did you give us half-of-a-joke ;-) ? If it's not a joke then it's a koan, or is that the same? Ok, my answer is..

Ask the peanut!

Boinng!!!! Satori!

Ever since I read Douglas Adams, I started to like to present people with absurd problems that are actually intriguing, just like he did so well. And I like joking too Smile

jgweed wrote:

If someone knew what the word "peanut" meant, and what the word "human" meant, it would seem difficult to convince him that the two could be applied to the same object.

Most people dont know about language to be so sure of it... if you presented yourself certain and acknowledged enough, and invented a convincing story to explain how they had never heard about that, I think most people would end up trusting you.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

You could look at the issue through the theory of perception and immaterialist principles by George Berkeley. Berkeley's immaterialism is essentially what Locke's empiricism upheld, which was that all knowledge comes from experience. However, for Berkeley, if we are directly aware of nothing but ideas (which he asserts in Principles of Human Knowledgespirits.

How does this tie into the perception of a person as a peanut? In principle 4 of Principlesmental manufacturing, which can be a combination of mental abstraction. So, the person could have isolated abstract

Nice answer, thought I think most people would refuse to admit they resemble peanuts Smile

I found an answer better than convincing then of that human and peanut can mean the same: Make then read the five book trilogy of douglas adams in one go, then claim my peanutness...

@manored,

D.A.

Oddly enough, the plants last thought was, "Oh no, not again."

Or

Flying is the art throwing yourself at the ground and missing.

By the way. I am going to convince someone that I am actually a peanut. I will share the results when I get around to it.

@Icon,

glory for you." Alice is confused because that is not the context in which glory is used. Humpty replies "I meant there's a nice knock down argument for you!" Of course, we know that that's not what glory means. But Humpty basically replies "glory means whatever I mean it to mean."

Here is where this all addresses your comment. Alice states "The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things." That's the underline issue, which is not resolved as Humpty continues to use words that do not follow their accepted use and Alice gets flustered and leaves. But basically, Humpty Dumpty claims that the meaning of the words he used (i.e. un-birthday, glory, pay-it-forward, etc) are not constrained at all. If you compare that to Jonathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels, where Gulliver goes to the academy, we understand the meaning of an expression by understanding its use.

So jgweed I think underlines a problematic account of semantics and perception.

@VideCorSpoon,

That peanut is obsessing! Did I read badly again? Methinks I didn't saw it mentioned. First thing I thought when I read this posting was actually Shakespeare's famous quote: "What's in a name? That what we call a rose, by another name would smell as sweet". Call a man a peanut, and he may be angry in the beginning, but that's just the old habit. After a while he may be comfortable with the name and there he is: a peanut! (We could call a peanut a man in the same move). But IS he a peanut? Why not? A peanut is an animal on two legs, with the gift of reason. See Aristotle's "On Peanuts". Where's the flaw here?

@manored,

If we apply Aristotle to this, wouldn't it be that a person is a peanut not in virtue of its substantial and predicative attributes but the underlying substrate of peanut?

Would this then mean that it is not being qua being but peanut qua peanut? Simply... peanut as peanut in itself.

@VideCorSpoon,

Is it a salted peanut, roasted on the floor of the cinema,rejected, trampled ,forgotten..it should be the suicide thread.I can see im not really cut out to be a philosopher but then i am a peanut .

@VideCorSpoon,

"So much is admirable, but nothing is more admirable than the peanut" (Sophocles). Isn't it wonderful that we are peanuts and that we can ask Aristotle's questions? Doesn't this proove the dignity of the peanut, his special place in creation? Imho the question remains: how can we convince a peanut that he's a man? The moral of the story being that it may be good for peanuts to compare themselves from time to time to the insignificance of man. "A peanut is a man, the weakest in the world, but he is a man that thinks" (Pascal).

@manored,

xris wrote:

Is it a salted peanut, roasted on the floor of the cinema,rejected, trampled ,forgotten..it should be the suicide thread.I can see im not really cut out to be a philosopher but then i am a peanut .

xcris,

yes you are cut out to be a philosopher... we are all talking about the metaphysical possibilities (and what not) of a peanut. No better place for a philosopher to be than in a bag full of nuts.

Vides comment on the comment: no disrespect philosophyforum.
Philosophyforum's reply: No problems Vide.
Vides reply: You know I'm just joking, right philosophy forum?
Philosophyforum's reply: No problems Vide.
Vides reply: Thanks.

See? Nuts.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

xcris,

yes you are cut out to be a philosopher... we are all talking about the metaphysical possibilities (and what not) of a peanut. No better place for a philosopher to be than in a bag full of nuts.

Vides comment on the comment: no disrespect philosophyforum.
Philosophyforum's reply: No problems Vide.
Vides reply: You know I'm just joking, right philosophy forum?
Philosophyforum's reply: No problems Vide.
Vides reply: Thanks.

See? Nuts.

Ge fanks bros..replies too short so il add this..

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» The peanut challenge

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

The peanut challenge

Quick Links

My Account

able2know