The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong.

Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would like another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.

The French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre was sitting in a cafe when a waitress approached him: "Can I get you something to drink, Monsieur Sartre?"
Sartre replied, "Yes, I'd like a cup of coffee with sugar, but no cream".
Nodding agreement, the waitress walked off to fill the order and Sartre returned to working. A few minutes later, however, the waitress returned and said, "I'm sorry, Monsieur Sartre, we are all out of cream -- how about with no milk?"

The boy picks up his date and they go to a soda fountain. Ice cream sodas in front of them, they stare at each other for a long time, as the boy's nervousness builds. He remembers his father's advice, and chooses the first topic. He asks the girl: "Do you like potato pancakes?" She says "No," and the silence returns.

After a few more uncomfortable minutes, the boy thinks of his father's suggestion and turns to the second item on the list. He asks, "Do you have a brother?" Again, the girl says "No" and there is silence once again.

The boy then plays his last card. He thinks of his father's advice and asks the girl the following question: "If you had a brother, would he like potato pancakes?"

I passed my ethics exam. Of course I've cheated.

Philosophy is a game with objectives and no rules.
Mathematics is a game with rules and no objectives.

A logician's wife is having a baby. The doctor immediately hands the newborn to the dad. The wife says, "Is it a boy or a girl?" The logician says, "Yes."

A renowned philosopher was held in high regard by his driver, who listened in awe at every speech while his boss would easily answer questions about morality and ethics.

Then one day the driver approached the philosopher and asked if he was willing to switch roles for the evening's lecture. The philosopher agreed and, for a while, the driver handled himself remarkably well. When it came time for questions from the guests, a woman in the back asked, "Is the epistemological view of the universe still valid in an existentialist world?"

"That is an extremely simple question," he responded. "So simple, in fact, that even my driver could answer that, which is exactly what he will do."

WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?

Aristotle: To actualize its potential.

Francis Bacon: To retain his own dignity without intruding upon the liberty of others.

Jacques Derrida: (1)What is the difference? The chicken was merely deferring from one side of the road to other. And how do we get the idea of the chicken in the first place? Does it exist outside of language? (2) Any number of contending discourses may be discovered within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial intent can never be discerned, because structuralism is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD.

Rene Descartes: It had sufficient reason to believe it was dreaming anyway.

Diogenes: It was looking for an honest bird.

Epicurus: For fun.

Eric Hoffer: When chickens are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.

David Hume: Out of custom and habit.

Immanuel Kant: (1) Because it was its duty. (2) The chicken, being an autonomous being, chose to cross the road of his own free will.

John Locke: Because he was exercising his natural right to liberty

Machiavelli: (1) So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such a paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely chicken's dominion maintained. (2) The point is that the chicken crossed the road. Who cares why? The ends of crossing the road justify whatever motive there was.

John Stuart Mills: It was a utilitarian function. She had tasks that were better performed on the other side.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road gazes also across you.

Camille Paglia: It was drawn by the subconscious chthonian power of the feminine which men can never understand, to cross the road and focus itself on its task. Hens are not capable of doing this - their minds do not work that way. Feminism tries vainly to pretend there is no real difference between them, falsely following Rousseau. But de Sade has proved....

Plato: For the greater good.

Alexander Pope: To cluck is avian, to cross devine.

Pyrrho the Skeptic: What road?

Jean-Paul Sartre: In order to act in good faith and be true to itself, the chicken found it necessary to cross the road

Socrates: (1) I will think about it. (2) To pick up some hemlock at the corner druggist.

Gottfried Von Leibniz: In this best possible world, the road was made for it to cross.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: The possibility of "crossing" was encoded into the objects "chicken" and "road," and circumstances came into being which caused the actualization of this potential occurrence.

Zeno The Skeptic: Did she really cross the road? How can you be certain?

Did you hear that George Berkeley died? His girlfriend stopped seeing him!

A philosopher went into a closet for ten years to contemplate the question, What is life? When he came out, he went into the street and met an old colleague, who asked him where in heaven's name he had been all those years.
"In a closet," he repied. "I wanted to know what life really is."
"And have you found an answer?"
"Yes," he replied. "I think it can best be expressed by saying that life is like a bridge."
"That's all well and good," replied the colleage, "but can you be a little more explicit? Can you tell me how life is like a bridge?"
"Oh," replied the philosopher after some thought, "maybe you're right; perhaps life is not like a bridge."

Two freshman philosophy students see the following bulletin posted on the wall of their lecture hall:

Student: "Uh...Sir..What does Crash Course in Logical Assumptions mean?"
Professor: "Well, it involves taking information that you have, forming assumptions using logic, and then creating new information. Let me try to answer your question by asking you a question. Do you own a car?"
Student: "Uh...Yes, I do."

Professor: "Well, then I can now logically assume that you drive."
Student: "Yes, I drive. "

Professor: "Then I can logically assume that you drive on weekends."
Student: "Yeah, I drive on weekends, I go out on dates."

Professor: "Then I can logically assume that you have date partners."
Student: "Well, yes, I have a girlfriend."

Professor: "Then I can logically assume that you are heterosexual."
Student: "Uh...hell yes! OK, I think I understand what this course is about now. Thanks a lot for your time."

Once back outside, his friend asks him: "So, what's it all about?"
"Its about using information and stuff...Let me answer your question by asking you a question. Do you own a car?"
"No."
"Uh...Then you're homosexual, dude!"

Don't LOOK at anything in a physics lab.
Don't TASTE anything in a chemistry lab.
Don't SMELL anything in a biology lab.
Don't TOUCH anything in a medical lab.
and, most importantly,
Don't LISTEN to anything in a philosophy department.

The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.

If metaphysics is being qua being;
and if epistomology is knowing qua knowing;
then metaphilosophy must be... qua qua qua.

What's the difference between a philosopher and an engineer?
About 50,000 a year.

Did you hear about the guy who went to the solipsist convention?
Nobody showed up.

Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

A great truth is a truth whose opposite is also a great truth.

How philosophers do it...

Philosophers do it deeper.
Philosophers do it a posteriori.
Philosophers do it conceptually.
Philosophers do it for pure reasons.
Philosophers do it with their minds.
Philosophers think about doing it.
Philosophers wonder why they did it.

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
"It depends what you mean by ‘change’..."
"Hmmm... well there's an interesting question isn't it?"
"Define 'light bulb'..."
"How can you be sure it needs changing?"
"Three. One to change it and two to stand around arguing over whether or not the light bulb exists."

How many Hegelians does it take to change a light bulb?
Two, of course. One stands at one end of the room and argues that it isn't dark; the other stands at the other end and says that true light is impossible. This dialectic creates a synthesis which does the job.

How many Zen masters does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to change it, and one not to change it.

How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to change the lightbulb and one to observe how the lightbulb symbolizes an incandescent beacon of subjectivity in a netherworld of Cosmic Nothingness.

How many Kuhnian constructionist philosophers of science does it take to change a light bulb?
You're still thinking in terms of 'incremental change'--what we really need is paradigm shift...we don't need a bulb with more attributes added on, we need ubiquitous luminescence.