"The unexamined life...": A Philosophical Blog Reflection

I'd like to begin by dedicating this post to my father, who taught me that a single nitpicking remark can break through a seemingly immovable writer's block.

In this blog posting, I will improve my blog, and in so doing attempt to improve myself, by writing in the style of an academic philosopher. I will accomplish this in three ways: Firstly, I will be sure that the title of the post includes both a quote and a colon. Secondly, I will structure the posting in such a way that I will tell the reader what I am going to do, do it, and then explain what I just did. And finally, I will use a more academic vocabulary, using words such as "therefore" and "thus" more frequently. This also will entail abstaining from the use of slang, contractions, unnecessary adverbs, and unorthodox punctuation, colloquial though it may be.

In this post, I will describe for you several observations I made on my 12-hour drive from New Orleans to my grandmother's* house in Jensen Beach, Fla. These observations are a sign of inadequacies in modes of thinking and communicating through advertising and art.

Though the drive was enjoyable, I found myself getting a little bored after nine hours. To alleviate my boredom, therefore, I started using the seek function on my radio in hopes of discovering something interesting. Thus I was able to hear many ridiculous Christmas commercials to which I might otherwise have remained oblivious. Among the most ridiculous was one that began, "Surprise your pet this holiday season with a gift from PetSmart!" Now, this statement raises a number of questions for the intelligent listener: How can one surprise one's pet in any way other than jumping out from behind something? And even in such instances, do pets experience what we call "surprise" in the same way humans do? Is there perhaps a hierarchy of intelligence and emotional range among species that function as pets in human households, such that a gift might surprise larger mammals (e.g., cats and dogs) and birds, but would mean nothing to smaller mammals (e.g., mice and guinea pigs), amphibians, reptiles, fish, etc. Or maybe rather than separating them by species, one should instead look at the pets on an individual basis, as it is easily observed that some cats are more intelligent than others, and the same with dogs, and so forth. Furthermore, outside of changes in temperature and precipitation, are pets even aware of seasons, holiday or otherwise? Admittedly, my knowledge of biology and animal psychology is insufficient to answer these questions, but that is not the task of this post. I am simply noting that this ad unwittingly raises many questions, thus distracting from its true end, i.e., convincing the listener to buy pet supplies.

Another ad suffering from a similar problem was one for some sort of medication (I cannot remember which), that concluded by telling its listeners that if they still had questions about whether this medicine is right for them, they should "ask someone logical, like [their] healthcare professional." As I said, I cannot even remember the pharmaceutical being advertised, perhaps because I was so distracted by this last line. The advertiser seems to be saying that anyone logical will be able to provide me with information about this product and its implications for my health. I find this irksome because they are implying that (1) I, the listener, am not logical, and (2) a logician can prescribe medication just as well as a physician (in which case again I must not be logical, because it would likely be much cheaper to consult a logician.) In addition, I am not entirely convinced that a healthcare professional needs to be logical in order to be effective. Again, I am not trying to answer these questions. I am just pointing out that this ad was ineffective and even insulting to the intelligent listener. This is an especially unfortunate communication error, given the potential importance of the product.

Finally, I observed with some horror a billboard announcing the upcoming sequel to a film that was itself a sequel to two film series: Alien vs. Predator — Requiem (AVPR). I find the concept of this film problematic. As a general rule of thumb, sequels should be produced either to answer remaining questions from the original film or to develop new facets of characters or ideas that have peaked an audience's interest. For AVPR, however, it is necessarily impossible for either to be the case. The very title of the original movie indicates that it was a battle to the death between the alien from the Alien series and the predator from the Predator films. Presumably, one of them won, in which case there is no need to revisit the original, or else it was a draw, but then what audience would be interested in watching them fight again? I suppose there is a third alternative, which would be that the humans involved somehow won. This seems unlikely, given the sort of audience the producers are trying to attract, but even if that were the outcome, it seems that the obliteration of both lead characters precludes a sequel. I suppose this entire discussion is moot, because the film has already been produced and, as of my writing this, released to poor reviews, but the question remains: Why?

Thus, my twelve-hour drive to Florida occasioned a variety of observations that yielded a number of unanswered questions regarding geography, biology, medical science, language, and art. While I cannot answer those questions, I believe that their existence is significant, in that it points to the inadequacy of existing methods of thinking and communicating.

In this blog posting, I have attempted to improve my blog, and by extension, myself, by writing in the style of an academic philosopher. I structured the posting in such a way that I explained to the reader what I was going to do, did it, and then explained what I just did. I use a more academic vocabulary, using words such as "therefore," "thus," and "hence" with more frequency than in previous posts. In addition, I abstained from the use of slang, contractions, unnecessary adverbs, and unorthodox punctuation.

In conclusion, I would like to apologize to anyone reading this who has taken offense at my blog's stylistic inadequacies. I know there's little I can do to mitigate the suffering I have caused, but perhaps I can prevent further distress by suggesting that you find other reading materials to provide amusement and information. I've heard the Summa Theologiae is a fantastic read...but I have a feeling you're already reading it.**



*Henceforth on this blog, I will refer to my grandmother as None, (pronounced no-nah) in accordance with our family appellation.
**I love you, Dad!