Book Review: Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar

I have finished reading "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar," and can say with 100% certainty that it has both changed my perception of "us," (humans, the universe) and yet it has also made it so much more complex. Although it is an extremely well written book, I have to say that I am slightly disappointed in the end.

The book did an excellent job in teaching the concepts behind philosophy such as idealism and empiricism but it never there was no evidence behind these concepts. I understand that the book was not trying to be bias in it's influence on the reader's personal view, but I think that it would have adequate to include evidence such as scientific evidence behind concepts such as the question of whether or not there is a god. I feel that this would help the reader in their pursuit of finding their own personal philosophy if there was evidence. As for me, I think there will have to be much more reading on the subject in order to fully come to a conclusion on where I stand.

All in all, this is an excellent book for anyone that is willing to do a little extra thinking while reading.

Philosophy of Law

In "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar," the author, Thomas Cathcart, brings up the topic of the purpose of laws. He states the very common theories such as, "codify moral duties" and to "promote the virtuous character." Although these may be true, I think there is a more important theory. As Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian, once said, "the purpose of laws is to produce the best consequences for the greatest number of people." The purpose of law is to in fact, protect the people.

As many can agree, most laws are morally correct. However, what's more important to note is that these laws are created in order to protect the people, not for the sake because it's morally correct. For example, in certain states there is a law where if there is someone on your property, you have the authorization to take disciplinary means. Although this is not morally correct because it allows you to kill someone, it is created for your protection. As I was reading, I was wondering where our morals came from? If you have an idea, please leave a comment.

Reality, or Simple Perceptions

As I continue to read "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar," by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, I find more and more troubling philosophy topics that are very "grey." One of these topics is the concept of idealism, which is defined as, "the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial." Created by George Berkeley, idealism relates to reality and how we perceive it. To state idealism simply, God portrays objects into our mind, and nothing actually exists. However, there are many holes to this topic.

First off, idealism contradicts with empiricism, with is the idea that we gain knowledge through our senses. Most people can agree with this because for the most part this is true. Through our knowledge we are able to make inferences. The book gives a very good example of this: you see a sheep sheared on one side. Through your observations you know that farmers do not usually shear only one side of the sheep. Therefore, you are able to infer that the other side of the sheep is also sheared. So, if nothing actually exists then how are we able to make observations through touch? Although there are many other questions that can disprove Berkeley's theory, Berkeley has an argument that can not go wrong. He says, that if you try to imagine an object, and you think about the properties of that object, you can only think perceive those properties in your head as an idea. Therefore, he states that since we have no evidence of that object besides that perceptions in our head, it does not exist. This I can agree with, however, I do not agree with the idea that God portrays these objects into our head. So what do you think about this?         

Everything Has a Meaning, At Least According to Leibniz

I have recently began reading, "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar" which teaches philosophy through jokes that state philosophical concepts quite clearly. While reading, the book introduced to me Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a rationalist or philosopher who influenced the minds of many people with his ideas. Many of his ideas include religion, stating that everything happens for a reason. As the book states, his theory is the complete opposite of a joke where God is speaking to a man that has recently entered Heaven saying, "It's a bit embarrassing to admit, but everything that happens happens for no real reason."

If everything did happen for a reason, and if somehow the tables were turned and what was supposed to happen didn't, wouldn't we know? Wouldn't there be a series of repercussions resulting from that event? This brought me to the new idea of our own conscience. Throughout the day, we ultimately make our own decisions. We make the decision to wake up at whatever time we please, eat whatever we want when ever we want, and carry out actions of our choice throughout the day until the next. If we make our own decisions, then how is it that there is a more powerful reason behind me buying a small soda at McDonald's rather than a large other than I'm not very thirsty? What is the other reason for a bicyclist getting hit by a taxi other than that the driver was speeding and went through a red? I'm not saying that Leibniz's theory is wrong or that anyone else that is religious and believes in a higher power is incorrect, I simply am just trying to make sense of his approach in a way that I can understand.