Skip to main content

Pants or shorts?

A Philosophical Look at the Issue The Anal Philosopher asks a question:
A Philosophical Conundrum Philosophical discourse tends to be abstruse, arcane, ethereal, and pedantic. But there’s no reason it can’'t be mundane or quotidian. Philosophy is a set of skills, not a body of knowledge. The skills, —analysis, criticism, argumentation, methodology —can be applied to any topic, from the nature of time and space at the most abstract to the difference between wanting and needing, or being careless and being carefree, or doing something by mistake and doing it by accident. Today I was stumped by the following. I saw a young man on campus who was wearing leg coverings that came to mid-calf. Are they long shorts, I wondered, or short pants? What do you think? Defend your answer.
He gets an answer most interesting (and funny):

We must examine the essential shorts-ness of the form of the "shorts" and the pants-ness of "pants". What makes shorts shorts and pants pants?

There are two main views:

1. Shortsness and pantsness is inherent in a clothing item. It is not relative to whom or what it is placed in or upon. Thus, shorts remain shorts whether around someone's legs or in a drawer, because the very shortsness that defines shorts is inherent in the shorts.

2. Shortsness and pantsness is relative to their position on the legs of a living being or representation of a living being. "One man's shorts are another man's pants," as the ancient Greeks would say. "Shorts" and "pants" refer to the properties of an individual clothing item used a certain way, but not to their substance. An implication of this is that "shorts" in a drawer are not, strictly speaking, true shorts. We only call them such as a matter of convenience.

Some may say that it is the intention of the shorts' or pants' maker that determines whether shorts and pants are shorts or pants; if they were made to be worn as shorts, they are shorts, and so on. However, holders of this view do not merit their own class, as they could be shown in truth to be holding one of the two aforementioned opinions.

The only other views I can think of on this matter, the matter of shortsness and pantsness, are what I call the views of the "shorts atheist" who believes that shorts do not exist, the "shorts pantheist" who believes all are shorts, the "shorts solipsist" who believes that the whole world is the dream of one shorts, and the "shorts agnostic" who believes we can never truly know about shorts.

I myself am a shorts agnostic.

I have read too many books that sound just like that.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi