Mensal's proof of the existence of Rod involves the concept of that which no worse singer can be conceived. Negative modality requires only a centered world including a possible Rod who is so bad as not to be exceeded in bad singing among possible worlds, and that is our actual world. Therefore no other world includes the baddest singer except for the actual world that also includes Rod.
Note: there are those who take the property "bad" and its superlative "baddest" to mean "good" and "best" respectively. Apparently Mensal's brother Anselm begs to differ about conclusions. Some guy named Guano (or some shit like that) took issue however.
Conceptual Truth: If X is an imitation of R, X, qua R-imitation, cannot contain any more badness that inheres in R. So, if X is worse than R on any metric, it is not qua R-imitation. So this guy may be worse than Rod in many ways, but not qua imitator of Rod. Duh.
Wake up, Spiros, I think I got something to say to you. It's mid-January and you really should be back at school. I know I keep you amused, but I feel I'm being used. Oh Spiros I couldn't suck, anymore. Am I as bad as Billy Joel? If so, toss me in a hole Losing my soul is a pain I can live without.
PS It was my birthday yesterday. Thanks for all the good wishes, bitches.
I just came back from an extended holiday with my family. My mother's new husband loves Rod Stewart and he played RS songs constantly. He loves to dance and snap his fingers to his songs. Please give me a reason to go to the Eastern APA this year!
I dunno. I presume this claim is based on the idea that if X were a perfect R-imitation, indistinguishable from R, X would be exactly as bad as R, but it also requires another premise, which is that any badness resulting from the failure of imitation in itself is "washed out" by the loss of fidelity to R's inherent badness. That is, even if it's bad that I'm failing to be a good imitation, in so failing, I likewise fail to convey all of R's badness, and thus am no worse than R.
This, however, assumes that my failure of imitation (which surely counts as part of X qua R-imitation) is no worse than the degree of R's original badness not transmitted due to said failure, which is not apparent. Perhaps I can communicate some significant degree of R's inherent badness while also failing in such a bad way that my total badness is worse than R's badness in itself.
Either way, Rod Stewart makes me want to stomp kittens or write about Derrida (which I take to be equally blameworthy).
Observations from an old cranky jerk who happens to be a professional philosopher. Occasionally philosophical, most often just vulgar. Sometimes focused on sober points of logic and issues in political theory, but more frequently fixed on nonsense. Bad metal bands, crappy guitarists, stupid lyrics, celebrities, pop "culture," telemarketers, irrationality, and other annoyances. Always misanthropic. Anti-religious. Not particularly amusing, either. Some might say insulting. Strange mail. Kook magnet. Doom. Comments from other cranky jerks, young and old.
14 comments:
Yes. Here's my justification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_npj3SI5_xQ
Way better. Rod Stewart has no razzamatazz. Accept no substitutes!
Mensal's proof of the existence of Rod involves the concept of that which no worse singer can be conceived. Negative modality requires only a centered world including a possible Rod who is so bad as not to be exceeded in bad singing among possible worlds, and that is our actual world. Therefore no other world includes the baddest singer except for the actual world that also includes Rod.
Note: there are those who take the property "bad" and its superlative "baddest" to mean "good" and "best" respectively. Apparently Mensal's brother Anselm begs to differ about conclusions. Some guy named Guano (or some shit like that) took issue however.
Conceptual Truth: If X is an imitation of R, X, qua R-imitation, cannot contain any more badness that inheres in R. So, if X is worse than R on any metric, it is not qua R-imitation. So this guy may be worse than Rod in many ways, but not qua imitator of Rod. Duh.
Is the "accept no substitutes" on this guy's page supposed to be a joke, or is he really commanding telling all to not accept him?
Irony: his motto is "Always be Yourself."
Who's Rod Stewart?
Is the real test here whether you have to click the link to figure out the answer to the question?
Is this worse than the Rod Stewart imitator?
http://www.myspace.com/chitownclownscoverband/photos/albums/album/435410
Wake up, Spiros, I think I got something to say to you.
It's mid-January and you really should be back at school.
I know I keep you amused,
but I feel I'm being used.
Oh Spiros I couldn't suck, anymore.
Am I as bad as Billy Joel?
If so, toss me in a hole
Losing my soul is a pain I can live without.
PS It was my birthday yesterday. Thanks for all the good wishes, bitches.
I just came back from an extended holiday with my family. My mother's new husband loves Rod Stewart and he played RS songs constantly. He loves to dance and snap his fingers to his songs. Please give me a reason to go to the Eastern APA this year!
10:09 -
I dunno. I presume this claim is based on the idea that if X were a perfect R-imitation, indistinguishable from R, X would be exactly as bad as R, but it also requires another premise, which is that any badness resulting from the failure of imitation in itself is "washed out" by the loss of fidelity to R's inherent badness. That is, even if it's bad that I'm failing to be a good imitation, in so failing, I likewise fail to convey all of R's badness, and thus am no worse than R.
This, however, assumes that my failure of imitation (which surely counts as part of X qua R-imitation) is no worse than the degree of R's original badness not transmitted due to said failure, which is not apparent. Perhaps I can communicate some significant degree of R's inherent badness while also failing in such a bad way that my total badness is worse than R's badness in itself.
Either way, Rod Stewart makes me want to stomp kittens or write about Derrida (which I take to be equally blameworthy).
Re: YouTube video cited by 6:50 : Yikes! He looks just like my crazy Aunt Vivian. But her voice had just a bit more of a hysterical timber.
Post a Comment