A Philosopher's Blog

An Important Philosophical Question

Posted in Aesthetics, Humor, Philosophy, Running by Michael LaBossiere on December 13, 2012

WTP raised perhaps the most important philosophical question of the 21st century:

How many pictures of a shirtless Mike does the internet actually need?

This question has a clear normative aspect in that it addresses the matter of what the internet needs. This could be taken as a moral question or, more plausibly, an aesthetic question. Taken as an aesthetic question it raises the issue of the aesthetic needs of the internet.

Fortunately, this is one philosophical question that admits of a definitive answer. This answer is, of course, “all of them.”

This answer can be based on numerous theories, since all plausible theories will yield the same answer. For example, the shirtless imperative states that “act in a way such that if a picture of Mike shows him shirtless, then it is posted on the internet.” As another example, the shirtutilitarian theory states  “actions are good as they tend to promote the posting of pictures of a shirtless Mike; wrong as they tend to retard the posting of pictures of a shirtless Mike.” Even the shirtless command theory makes the matter clear: “thou shalt post shirtless pictures of Mike on the internet.”

The Noble Philosophy Prize for this year will be going to WTP for his work on this matter.

Enhanced by Zemanta

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Bob Felton said, on December 13, 2012 at 11:08 am

    “This could be taken as a moral question or, more plausibly, an aesthetic question.” Well … I dunno; you could be getting ahead of yourself. It *looks* like some sort of race, maybe a marathon, but pictures can deceive. Suppose those people in the second picture are actually chasing Mike because he’s been naughty? Then, there might be a police question. And if they are his victims, there might be a privacy angle.

  2. Insoluble conundrums | Civil Commotion said, on December 13, 2012 at 11:16 am

    […] Michael LaBossiere wonders how many pictures of a shirtless middle-aged philosopher the Internet actually needs. […]

  3. WTP said, on December 13, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Gotta do better than that if you want that Noble Sarcasm Prize. Interesting that for someone who has gotten under someone else’s…uh, skin someone seems to be something of a philosophical inspiration. Still not worthy of addressing directly though. And certainly not on more relevant topics.

  4. DickTanner said, on December 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    My theory of aesthetic pollution is as follows: Noise pollution is defined as “excessive, displeasing human, animal, or machine-created environmental noise that disrupts the activity or balance of human or animal life.” It should follow that aesthetic pollution “is excessive, displeasing human, animal, or machine-created images (either reproduced or naturally occurring) that disrupt the activity or balance of human or animal life.”
    The question then becomes- are photographs of shirtless running men disruptive to the activity or balance of human or animal life? A comprehensive environmental study must now be conducted to answer this question and determine the environmental effects of these kinds of photos.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on December 13, 2012 at 5:22 pm

      I did notice that squirrels exposed to the blog images imploded. That clearly has some significance. I plan on marketing this system to disgruntled owners of squirrel ravaged bird feeders.

      Imploded squirrels look rather like furry golf balls and can be used as such in a pinch.

  5. ajmacdonaldjr said, on December 14, 2012 at 12:54 am

    I have a better one for you: how many articles does the internet need which related to professor Adrienne Pine’s breasts? She asked Zach Cohen, editor of the AU Eagle not to post even one. Zach Cohen thought it more important the Eagle post an article related to her breasts than to take into consideration professor Pine’s request not to do so. Zach Cohen also contacted his Zionist media friends so that every media outlet in the American and the world could write an article about Professor Pine’s breast and post them on the internet. professor Pine’s concern, in asking Zach not to post the Eagle article was a professional one: she did not want people who were searching for her or her work to see a link mentioning her breasts… now there are thousands of them, which makes it hard for anyone to find her academic, peace, and justice work. There is of course far more to this incident which may not appear to the uncritical observer: professor Pine’s peace and justice work in Central America is causing problems with the drug trade, meaning she has made some real enemies, because the drug trade has been run by Israeli and US interests in order to financed weapons trafficking as well as destabilization that is created by it, which is what these government entities want. So the word went out: “get rid of – via a smear campaign – that trouble making activist professor at AU”. And the call was place to the Zionist media contact at AU: Zach Cohen. Zach had his Zionist contact at AU who were students in professor Pine classes, telling them to keep a sharp eye out for the least mistake professor Pine might make which could be translated into a smear campaign, which did in fact occur shortly after Professor Pine returned from her summer in Central America, when her baby was sick and she decided it would be more responsible of her to bring her child to class than to allow her assistant to teach the class, the semester having just begun. Spotted breastfeeding her hungry child in class (sans nipple) by a sharp eyed Zionist student, who related the smear worthy incident to Zach, and the rest is history. In short some people wanted no articles on the internet regarding professor Pine’s breasts (professor Pine) and other people wanted thousands (Zach and his fellow Zionists). As professor Pint told Zach before he refused to not publish the Eagle article online regarding “the incident” “There are newsworthy stories the Eagle could be doing, such as DoD and CIA involvement with AU. But of course Zach has no interest in this, because the students at AU are going to be corporate lobbyist for the military-industrial-academic complex, CIA agents, DoD employees, and many will go to work for the many large DoD contractors in the metro area. So “the incident” took priority. Thankfully Zach and the Zionist media, who, under normal circumstances, would have smeared the good professor and gotten away with it scott free, with nary a Gentile saying a mumbling word about it, had a Gentile put the fear of God into Zach via a campaign of intimidating but legal social media blitz, which was stage one, and when stage two hit: me arriving at Zach’s office last week, in person, as I said I would, panic and fear quickly crept into the dark heart of the young junior AIPAC member Mr. Cohen, who promptly – our of fear for his life – called the law on me. Thankfully, being a smart guy, after being forcibly detained, handcuffed, and interrogated for two hours with my hands cuffed behind my back, I was release, because I had done nothing illegal. Zach was told what I had already told him the law would tell him weeks earlier: “You’ve made a dangerous enemy Mr Cohen, considering his record, but he’s not done anything illegal so there is nothing we can do about him. We suggest you watch your back. He’s now banned from the campus, which only does some good if he is caught on campus, but there is nothing keeping him from coming right back here anytime he wants to. We don’t think he is actually interested in doing you any physical harm… he knows he can intimidate you and that you are afraid of him, which is really all he wants. But, like we said, considering his record, one never knows what he might do, so be careful, and watch your back. Good bye”

    • WTP said, on December 14, 2012 at 11:01 am

      Which raises another philosophical question, how much senseless anti-semitism does the internet actually need.

      • biomass2 said, on December 14, 2012 at 4:45 pm

        And another: How much sensible anti-Semitism does the internet actually need?

  6. Giuseppe Alt said, on December 18, 2016 at 8:36 am

    sexy underwear

    • WTP said, on December 18, 2016 at 9:04 pm

      Well, don’t know about sexy, or underwear…but where did the shirtless-Mike pictures go? Not that I missing them or anything but it seems the perspective of this 4 year old post is lost. Imagine how many hours, days, weeks, months, possibly even years that future generations of Internet archaeologists will burn trying to put this post in context?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: