How do I stir up the Cambridge Philosophy budget scoffers?

Cardiac ?

Ah ! is Mathos in a more benevolent mood she considers !
Better like this, she smiles.
And Spenius, he gets very, no !!! extremely jealous.

Think though Lola, what if Mathos is testing you?
What motives would Mathos possess to torment ! have simple sport ! ;-?

Is he having fun, when his work is done?
A happy song, a cheering glass,
Are never easily won;
But when we reach our farewell pledge
Is pleasure fraught with pain ?

So say we, Happy to meet happy to part, and happy to meet again.

A propitious consideration indeed Spendius.

The most sensible supplication you have ever made in my book.

Well done 'Old Chap'

Mathos:-

Not at all.Just a trifle that.

The most sensible thing I have posted is my recommendation of celibacy.

Don't think I haven't noticed the recent avoidance of that topic when it percolated that I might have a few arguments in reserve which the rammers are frit of hearing.I haven't even rolled Germaine Greer out yet and she's not that conclusive.

Roll er on out, Spendi. Let's see what you've got.

Lola:-

Take care babe.It can geld them.Just like that!

True.......so you should be careful with whom you are exposing them. Family jewels are to be protected, that's for sure. However, in the metaphorical sense, you're only as gelded as you allow yourself to be.

Lola:-

Wait a minute Lola.They don't even use these techniques in Cambridge!

You said "roll 'em out" or something goading me to produce my pro-celibacy position.I was the one who backed off having threaders sensitivity in mind and they can be very sensitive on this issue for obvious reasons.Then YOU tell ME to "be careful".I was being careful.I was moving towards a position which sought to show that non-celibates can't be philosophers because philosophers can't have arguments which are in the world big time that they are doing the Ostrich Tango with.That's all.Of course non-celibates can masquerade as philosophers but that's theft if they get any "good" out of it.Surely you see the point.There is another topic they dance around as well but I won't mention that.They end up with an exclusive form of control talk just like all the other interest groups.It goes back to shamans.
We are on a philosophy thread aren't we?These areas I am referring to are not off limits to proper philosophers.In fact the positions are on sale in shops round here.

As a matter of principle should any area be off limits to philosophers and especially two which are well known and right out in the open.

See how tied up you get? Are you trying to impress us like Houdini, or do you just like it this way?

Lola:-

That is a first rate example of Mathosianism.

Assertions of a derogatory nature to deal with something simple and obvious which one doesn't care to deal with properly.

So maybe we have the mystery solved. Maybe I'm Mathos.......

Considering we are sexual creatures.......what's more we are motivated by the wish to gratify sexual desires, how competent can a celebate philosopher be? It seems he would be leaving out the whole question of human motivation. Or at least, his musings would be deficient.

No chance.

And why exactly is there no chance?

Because I can tell from the words.The style.The giveaways that slip in.I thought once you might be soozoobe (if I have it right).

A celibate might not always have been.I don't think there is anything I don't know about the non-celibate state.If there is I will listen to an expert.

One needs a watertight definition.

Well, there is nothing about sex that prevents a person from thinking clearly or being committed to philosophizing. Lack of it can produce wild distortions. Frustration does not promote anything but a need.

Lola:-

It is not so simple I'm afraid.I think the confusion may arise because philosophy is elitist and one can think oneself a philosopher by going on a philosophy thread which ,of course,is completely ridiculous but it does give one a false impression that one is a bit of a philosopher which is,of course,totally ridiculous and ridiculous or not one might feel oneself to be a member of an elite.The real elite control the decisive operations and they can't afford any self-serving subjectivity which is automatic in a ram.

I might add that intimate relations with ladies do not constitute a breech in celibacy rules.I have previously suggested that you grapple with the Malleus Malificarum and the Mysteries of Eleusis.

Or even Germaine Greer who keeps it fairly simple.

Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves, (SARAH P Pomeroy)

Basically you can take your pick of any or all of the above titles Lola. Mathos? No Dear Lady.

Is there a desire within the sacred repository of your heart and soul to be Mathos. Or, would you just enjoy being Mathosised? Tis plain to see the frustration which our 'Dear Friend Spendius' allocates you, and you such a desirable 'chick' too.

Spendius, as you no doubt observed earlier on is back on 'The Celibacy Channel' I rather thought Hitchcock had expunged his abnormalities, No matter Spendius, I shall treat you cordially for the present, let me see if I can remove this bone of contention between ourselves. It will make for much better atmosphere, The Lady Lola will be satisfied, I am sure.

.

First sentence-incorrect and slippery.The 2 ideas are not necessarily connected.The guys I see with sex on their mind are only thinking clearly from a female point of view.Being committd to philosophising means nothing.It isn't actually philosophising unless everybody qualifies.Plus we haven't a definition of sex or of thinking clearly.
The 2nd sentence is rendered meaningless by the "can" and even then we have no idea what "lack of it" means.On a non-philosophical reading an astronaut would not be thinking clearly.
And "wild distortions" is totally subjective and in essence political which then suggests that philosophy is an arm of politics which is serious stuff indeed.
And the "frustration" is just blithely assumed and once again serves the female interest.How can a need exist when a free choice has been made that it doesn't.A vegan has no need of meat because he has chosen so not because he can't get meat.
The whole argument depends on evidence from weak or misguided males and if it was applied to soaps could be used to prove their artistic superiority and the same with tabloids.

Now Lola-let us not indulge in diversions because diversions are the sworn enemy of philosophy.Philosophy consists in worrying ideas to the last shred.Diversions prove a lack of committment to philosophy which is a system of deep thought designed to provide guidance on the crucial areas of national life and what could possibly be more crucial than fertility rates.And anything to do with the gonads which does not have fertility possibilities can only be called sex by those who have a need so to do and that is likely to be self-serving and thus,once again,nothing to do with philosophy.

We are badly in need of clarity and anyone who seeks to obfusticate is NOT a philosopher and is,in fact,anti-philosophy.It may well be fun and it may make the time more easy passing but it sure as hell ain't philosophy.

Are we defining sex as male orgasm under certain conditions;the conditions being determined by those who wish to define the word the way they want to define it which,once again,is not philosophy.
My friend Vic from the pub said that the first time the earth moved for him he was shinning up a lampost.One could move from there to shinning up a blow-up doll and then to shinning up Elton John.
Where is the line drawn.I will forbear finer distinctions for now if my readers will accept that the only meaningful line is when a fertility possibility exists and that is the basic position of the Roman Catholic church so I am not that far out on a limb not with a billion of the faithful and the recent events in Rome being given blanket coverage on the news.