What would A2K philosophers say while sitting on a bench?

I'm sitting in a chair right now. I'll try to find a bench tomorrow.

This bench, if it was made of wood, I wonder, from what tree the wood would have come from. And just who made this bench anyways. I wonder how many people have sat on this bench and wondered,
"This bench, if it was made of wood..."

Oh! The bench I was thinking of is made of recycled plastic boards.

Hence the "IF" it was wood...

Define "bench".

"Sedeo, ergo sum", i.e. "I sit, therefore I am."

I'm stuck. I should have sat on the only bench in the park that had a "dry paint" sign.

Dammit, the bus is late.

"Goddamn it, I will never get into this game."

Joe(fuming)Nation

I'm not sitting on a bench. This structure which we choose, in this country anyway, to call a bench is supporting my body as I place it in a squatting position. And speaking of ass, holy **** look at the ass on her.

What I actually said was something along the lines of: “I treat the word “know” differently in everyday life…than I do when in a discussion in a philosophy forum.”

I think most people do.

Olivier has been indicating in the other thread where this arose that my thinking on this is very strange…and he is having trouble understanding it.

I have no problem in a everyday context saying, for instance, that I know I am sitting in my den typing on a keyboard.

In a philosophy context, I probably would make some concessions to the notion that what we call “the real world” may be nothing more than an illusion…and/or to the notions of the non-dualists here, who would question whether there actually is an “I” or a “den.”

But as I said, Olivier seems to be having trouble with this. I suspect most people use the word with less “rigor” when using it in everyday conversations…than they would when discussing the esoteric things we discuss in the philosophy threads.

I am reminded at this point of something Richard Feynman said to Bill Moyers or Charlie Rose (don’t remember which one) in a PBS interview before his death. He said a variation of: “We have to be careful when using the word “know”…because to truly “know” something requires a great deal more than most people will bring to the issue supposedly known. Knowing something is a very, very difficult thing to do.”

Now…in everyday conversations, I will seldom take any of that into consideration when saying, “I know I am sitting here in my den and I know I am alive at this moment.” But in a philosophy discussion…I might very well use something more akin to, “It certainly appears that I am sitting here in my den…and it certainly seems to me that I am alive.”

So YES…I do treat the word “know” differently in everyday life than I do when I use it here in a thread with the “philosophy” tag.

I would be interested if others do that also…or if I am the only one who does…as apparently, Olivier seems to think.

I know I'm just a pack of mindless molecules, and that bench is just a pack of mindless molecules too, but then why are my molecules not getting all mixed up with the bench's molecules when I sit on it?

Ok, so your philosophy is a form of rigorous esoterics?

Well, whatd'ye know? heh.

You can understand his frustration, Frank, when the premise of a discussion is "You can't know anything, you can guess, but that's all.", it kind of removes any reason to discuss anything.

Joe(Not that I know anything)Nation

I was able to bench 360 lbs., more than twice my body weight (then). That was more than 40 years ago, though

A philosopher sat on a bench
wrapping his right arm around a sweet wench
"I'm going to give this young lady a go,
though it's something I really can't know,
I'm hoping she'll think I'm a mensch.

Joe( Now you)Nation

My bench (wood and wrought iron) is covered with sticky sap from the Chinese Tallow Tree (common name), which I know as Sapium sebiferum, aka Triadica sebifera, but that other people call the chicken tree or the popcorn tree, though I don't know why they do. I cannot sit on my bench because I am too lazy to clean the sap off. This is probably a philosophical failure of mine, laziness, that is.

The sap is said to be toxic, and I believe that to be true, but am not sure. The tree is not a suitable choice for all landscapes (cite: Sunset Western Garden book, my planting bible, as it were). It should not be planted near wetlands, rivers, or native plant habitats - at the least. It is a self seeding pest in the southeastern U.S. I'm sure of that.

See wiki, if you trust it on this, and in this case I'll trust wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triadica_sebifera
It apparently has its good points too, in that it is a preferred plant for biodiesels, and at first glance from far away, can be considered pretty.



You can tell I'm no philosopher, but I post anyway. I've met the tree personally in an arboretum, if that counts at all re knowing it produces sticky goo.

I know . . . let's ask Santayana!

A bench is a bench of course of course
Unless of course the bench is then a horse
In philosophy microscop-i-sy
Can make it be anything you source