Seriously, Jon, good storyline. And I narrowly avoided spitting water out my nose at today's strip. ("The Painful Erections" indeed!)

But.... you weren't supposed to reveal the existance of the society. Steps will be taken. Sorry about that.

I'm not sure I can agree with the Socrates reference in the latest strip. The dfinition of a pedant is a person who pays more attention to formal rules and book learning than they merit. Socrates, however, once wrote "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance." If he proclaims himself ignorant then he cannot be paying attention to book-learning and rules to an abnormal extent, because he does not know of them. I rest my case.

In Response to Evander (#1420):

You're over-analyzing. Or was that pedantry by example?

In Response to mea37 (#1423):

The answer should be obvious to any educated person.

In Response to Evander (#1420):

That may be one definition of pedant, but a pedant is also "one who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously [dictionary.com]". Clearly, Socrates was a pedant in this regard.

More pertinently, please note that it was Diablo, not Phillip, that made the Socra-tease invective. Diablo, not being quite pedant material, is not bound to the stringent precepts of pedantry. Finally, Diablo had painful erections on his mind, so it's understandable that his ad hominem might not utilize the apotheosis of pedantry.

In conclusion, the Socrates reference is fully appropriate and you need to spell check your posts.

In Response to Evander (#1429):

So, then... you don't know?

In Response to luvrhino (#1433):

You, sir, are obiviously not one to check your arguments, I can see, because you failed to recognize that the word "ostentatiously" means in a showy manner, much like the pretentious method of giving book learning and rules more importance than they deserve, which just so happens to be my previous point.

As for Diablo, he is, in the strips, wondering why he is not called upon to also join the organization. I was merely helping to point out why it is that Phillip was picked over Diablo.

Finally, I don't spell check my posts because I make most of them in between classes when I'm in a hurry. As for the rest, well, I'm just lazy.

In Response to Evander (#1447):

You, sir, are obiviously not one to check your arguments, I can see, because you failed to recognize that the word "ostentatiously" means in a showy manner, much like the pretentious method of giving book learning and rules more importance than they deserve, which just so happens to be my previous point.

Ahem. There was no such failure on my part. One does not need to pay "more attention to formal rules and book learning than they merit" in order to warrant pedant status. One merely needs to ostentatiously display their knowledge -- knowledge, mind you, that's not necessarily in rule or book form -- even if they pay precisely the proper amount of attention to said knowledge. Despite his alleged modesty, Socrates was quite the cerebral peacock, unfurling his gray mattered finery whenever possible via his famous Socratic dialogs.

If that's not an ostentatious exhibition of learning, i don't know what is.

As for Diablo, he is, in the strips, wondering why he is not called upon to also join the organization. I was merely helping to point out why it is that Phillip was picked over Diablo.

It was my interpretation that you were criticizing Jon for his diction. I'm sorry that you couldn't communicate effectively if this was not your original intent.

Finally, I don't spell check my posts because I make most of them in between classes when I'm in a hurry. As for the rest, well, I'm just lazy.

All the more reason why you are not ILoP material.

In Response to Evander (#1447):

Be warned, Evander: the man with whom you are debating is not all he seems. He is far more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

His true nature will be revealed shortly.

In Response to Evander (#1447):

oh man, you're gonna die.

Word of warning. When you see someone that good don't try and worm your way out...

In Response to luvrhino (#1449):

One merely needs to ostentatiously display their knowledge -- knowledge, mind you, that's not necessarily in rule or book form -- even if they pay precisely the proper amount of attention to said knowledge.

Ah, now, while I agree with your basic premise, I must point out that if one makes a show of one's knowledge, then one certainly is drawing excess attention to said knowledge and so, in a slightly indirect sense, can be said to be paying more than the proper ammount of attention thereto. After all, I cannot make a show of directing your attention to something if I, myself, am not being attentive to it.

I also would like to point out that this matter is moot, as Diablo's comment need not depend upon the premise that Socrates were a pedant. The term Socra-tease can fairly be applied to any member of any group which makes a show of its mental or philosophical bent and then, in elitist form, turns away those whom its displays seek to impress. The term could apply equally with or without the involvement of pedantry, and the reference to Socrates merely indicates that the subject teases his victim with the idea of camaraderie among a philosophical elite.

In Response to mea37 (#1454):

Ah, now, while I agree with your basic premise, I must point out that if one makes a show of one's knowledge, then one certainly is drawing excess attention to said knowledge and so, in a slightly indirect sense, can be said to be paying more than the proper ammount of attention thereto.

I beg to differ. I, for one, have a slight inclination to ostentatiously exhibit my extensive learning. However, it'd be a fallacy to claim that i pay "more attention to formal rules and book learning than they merit." I pay formal rules and book learning exactly the appropriate amount of attention. It's just that my natural ostentation readily identifies me as a pedant.

To further back my claim, the lexicographers deemed there suitable difference between "one who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules" and "one who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously" to warrant separate entries for pedant. If they were truly equivalent, there would be no such need.

Semantics aside, we agree on crux of the matter...that it Diablo's use of Socra-tease was apt and that Evander owes Jon an apology...an apology in donation form [paypal.com].

Jon, I accept your warning, however I do not care who he is. I am only a college student, and never really expected to win any discussion with people as experienced as the rest of you. However I have been having trouble finding How-To books on becoming a pedant (my college library is out of "Pedantry For Dummies" and the secret "Physics-major-only" reading room doesn't have it either) so I am forced to go to experience, rather than book learning, for this issue. This also explains why I rush off before spell checking my entries. To become a real pedant I need to focus more on my book learning right now, being a Physics major Math minor is not easy work, not that I cannot do it. I may just be a pissant pedant right now, but I have time to grow.

Anyway, getting back to Socrates (pronounced with a soft 'a' and a hard 'e' at the end, unlike the hard 'a' used in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure") and his controversial status as a pedant (for the time being). I took the liberty of looking up the definition of pedant in my "Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition"(R) and found that the first definition was "a male school teacher". Socrates did teach pupils, and you could even argue that he taught a school of thought, which might make him eligible for this definition, but there is a flaw there. You see, the word pedant dates back to the year 1588. It comes from the Middle French, which was in turn taken from the Italian pedante. The words pedantic and pedantry soon followed in the years 1600 and 1612 respectively. (I feel it necessary here to mention that the actual year for pedantic is uncertain, and that the dictionary actually lists it as "ca. 1600", but the sentence flowed better, according to my writing handbook, if I took that part out.) Because of this date and location we can conclude that the meaning of a school in those times was far different from the meaning of the equivalent word from Socrates time. (Please excuse the fact that I do not know the word, I went to a Jewish high school and had to take Hebrew and Yiddish because they did not offer any of the ancient languages.)

The next definition has three parts. The first one is "one who makes a show of knowledge". This is the one that we are currently disputing, so, in the interest of saving time for anyone who does not wish to read through my entire post (and shame on you for not caring); I will put this definition off until the end.

The second part of said definition is "one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge. This was the first one that I covered, but in the interest of covering my own ass, I will briefly go over it again.

Firstly, Socrates was a philosopher, which disproves the unimaginative aspect of the definition, philosophy being a more abstract form of knowledge that requires thought and common sense, rather than close-mindedness. Next is the aspect of unduly emphasizing minutiae. Fortunately for my argument the topic of philosophy disproves this definition when applied to Socrates once again, since philosophy deals with macro concepts, lack solid facts, and therefore does not have the minutiae that Socrates would have had to have access to in order for him to unduly emphasize them. Just thinking of Socrates emphasizing non-existent minutiae is enough to make me laugh, but I am getting off track. Have prove both of the first two clauses of this definition, the end clause of "in the presentation or use of knowledge" no longer means anything, so I will not deal with it, so as not to make this post too long.

The third part of the second definition is "a formalist or precisionist in teaching". Once again philosophy was hardly a formally taught subject, and even as formal as it may have been, a teacher telling his pupils that he knows nothing is far from formal (a teacher saying the student knows nothing, however, can be quite common in some of the classes I've been in.) As for precisionist, that was cover...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to Evander (#1463):

Setting aside your tangential logorrhea, i must contest your imputation that i'd coin definitions to suit my needs:

The issue here is simply a matter of how you define such a phrase as "making a show of". Personally I have always seen that phrase as synonymous with "flaunting", but if Mr. Rhino wishes to create a new definition for the term, saying that it merely means "using in front of others" I have no way of stopping him. However, the seemingly baseless creation of new definitions for old terms is surely not an acceptable behavior for anyone claiming to be a pedant, so I will make the assumption that, unless he can find some way to prove his definition, he will be withdrawing it shortly.

There will be no such premature withdrawal on my part. In no way, shape, or form did i imply that ostentatious merely meant "using in front of others." However i understand why you have chosen to disingenuously thrash this distortive strawman...like the French, you have no defense.

Eschewing the logic your strawhouse of cards, which has come tumbling down at the slightest breeze, let's consider the salient point of whether or not Socrates was ostentatious in his exhibition of scholarship and learning. Or to keep it simple, "showy." I contend that the Socrates that has come down to us from the annals of history most certainly was showy. A perusal of Plato's dialogs depicts a Socrates that took great joy in publicly rhetorically twisting the elite's logic into a Gordian Knot of befuddlement. In fact, one could argue that the elite sought to unravel this Gordian Knot brought on by Socrates ostentation, sorry, showiness via the swift sword (i.e. Socrates hemlock episode). Had Socrates not been so showy in his ridiculing of the elite's brainpower would they have imposed his autoexecution? I think not.

Was Socrates showy? Cleary, yes. I'd argue that he was the philosophical predecessor of Liberace, with his public flaunting of his intelligence and complete lack of tact. Gaudy questions taking the place of gaudy diamonds.

Was, then, Socrates pedantic? Clearly, yes.

As for PayPal donations, I assure you that the only reason I have not yet done that anyway is the fact that I am a college student of meager funds.

Perhaps if you spent more time getting a job and less time writing loquacious diatribes to the internet you'd have the money to donate to Goats [goats.com].

In Response to luvrhino (#1461):

To further back my claim, the lexicographers deemed there suitable difference between "one who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules" and "one who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously" to warrant separate entries for pedant.

Certainly, but when lexicographers draw such distinctions, they are merely being pedantic.

Semantics aside, we agree on crux of the matter...that it Diablo's use of Socra-tease was apt and that Evander owes Jon an apology...an apology in donation form

Quite right. Nothing says "I'm sorry" like a boatload of cash.

In Response to Evander (#1463):

Anyway, getting back to Socrates (pronounced with a soft 'a' and a hard 'e' at the end, unlike the hard 'a' used in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure")

The 'a' used in the Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure pronunciation of Socrates was in fact long, not hard. I realize the two can be somewhat synonymous in certain contexts, but this is not one of those cases.

philosophy deals with macro concepts, lack solid facts, and therefore does not have the minutiae that Socrates would have had to have access to in order for him to unduly emphasize them

It is true that philosophy tends to stray from the physical minutia of the layman's day-to-day world, but philosophy is laden with its own minutia. Every body of knowledge has minutia; pedantry isn't so much about what you study as it is about how you approach the material of that study.

In Response to luvrhino (#1473):

I don't believe we have sufficiently proved the existance of Socrates as anything other than a pedagogical fiction of Plato's to be able to conclusively decide after the fact the measure of his pedantry.

In Response to mea37 (#1478):

What's interesting about being a pedant is the over-attention that such people give to book learning, etc. In a sense you could say that they fetishize book learning, by giving an object, however abstract, more attention and value then it inherently possess. So, really, pedents are just fetishists and the attention that Evander and Luvrhino are paying to an ever-spiraling dialogue of more-or-less inanity proves that they are fetishists and thus, both pedants. Congrats to you both.

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#1480):

Welcome to the joke.

In Response to zamphir (#1479):

Have we, for that matter, proven the existance of Plato? As far as I know, the only philosopher whose existance has been proven is Descartes.

In Response to mea37 (#1484):

What joke is this now?

In Response to luvrhino (#1491):

I think it's the one about three ducks who walk into a bar.

Mr. Rhino, I may not post my reply to your statements for a few days, mainly because of heavy drinking, but I want to let you know that when I finnally sober up, I will be back with a counter point. Don't misinterpret my silence as submission.

In Response to mea37 (#1485):

The only philosopher? Sure philosophers since Descartes's times can be proven to exist, though not as neatly as Descartes proved his own existence. Take, for example, modern philosophers. Would you dispute their existence?

In Response to Id_42 (#1497):

My keyboard seems to have gotten ahead of me. In my own defense, preemptively, I meant to say "surely".

In Response to Id_42 (#1497):

Just to clue in the forum members who haven't been following any philosophical developements in the last three hundred years, Descarte's proof of his existence has been exposed as merely a piece of a finely polished system, not a definitive certain proof in relation to reality, as he and others mistakenly supposed it to be. Furthermore, that system itself (which features the Correspondence Theory of Truth, the individuated rational self, and the quest for certainty as some of its key elements, but extends far beyond these) has been rejected by almost all current respected philosophers. Hegel destroyed the Cogito Ergo Sum, it has been dead on the continent ever since, and even the Americans finally figured out it was indefensible about fifty years ago (Quine's Two Dogmas).

In conclusion, Id_42, modern philosophers would be quite a bit more likely than Descartes was to dispute their own existence, if you forced them to use his standards of argument, which is one of the many reasons his standards and methods have been abandoned.

I apologize for lack of pleasing sublety. Class me more with those who practice "pedantry with a hammer" to twist a Nietzschean phrase to my own low purposes.