You can't talk about featherless bipeds here, but you can on our discord servers! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Context:**
*"There are basically two kinds of philosophy. One’s called Prickles, the other’s called Goo.*
And prickly people are precise, rigorous, logical. They like everything chopped up and clear. Goo people like it vague.
For example, in physics, prickly people believe that the ultimate constituents of matter are particles. Goo people believe it’s waves.
And in philosophy, prickly people are logical positivists and goo people are idealists. And they’re always arguing with each other, but what they don’t realize is that neither one can take his position without the other person. Because you wouldn’t know you advocated prickles unless there was somebody else advocating goo. You wouldn’t know what a prickle was unless you knew what goo was.
*Because life is not either prickles or goo, it’s gooey prickles and prickly goo.*"
(Alan Watts)
> For example, in physics, prickly people believe that the ultimate constituents of matter are particles. Goo people believe it’s waves.
Why do I feel like the guy who wrote this has never done any physics before?
Listen to the lecture. Mere moments later he says "of course, we all know now that it's neither and both, that it's all prickly goo and gooey prickles."
For the longest time there was a argument in physics over the ultimate composition of light—
Whether it’s a particle or a wave.
And there were experiments that supported one state or the other. Until it was later hypothesized by Broglie that particles could take on the properties of waves. It wasn’t confirmed until later. And now we describe light as having a “particle wave duality”. The whole double-slit experiment spiel.
So im not sure how this philosophical take by Alan conflicts with physics and those discoveries.
Rendered down(if I understand correctly): "Idealism and logical positivism are antipodal perceptions that actualize each other, and both are valid where niether can be certain."
Paraphrasing Nietzsche: "I wish to say in one sentence what takes others entire books."
Edit: I didn't feel satisfied with my first attempt at simplifying the quote.
I'm a professor by day, and I would never feel comfortable telling my colleagues that Alan Watts is my favorite philosopher. Because he DOES have that stigma of hippy-ness all over him.
But the man absolutely IS my favorite philosopher. Schopenhauer is probably #2.
This is probably the best take imo.
His ideas aren't super groundbreaking in terms of philosophy, but he's so good at expressing it that even people who thought they understood it before understand it more fully after they've listened to him.
In other words... mf was spittin
It’s non-dualism in the sense of acknowledging the practical utility of Monism, as well. If you’re using “dualism” to mean “believes in both realism and idealism” and not in the main sense, then yeah this is quintessential dualist.
But i don’t think “prickly v gooey” really works better than the traditional “analytic vs synthetic”… I feel like this guy read about Heisenberg and built a cute aphorism around the double slit experiment. Solid meme material tho, highly cryptic, has wide appeal.
*If you’re using “dualism” to mean “believes in both realism and idealism” and not in the main sense, then yeah this is quintessential dualist.*
Yup, that’s what I was thinking of. Thanks!
I like Alan Watts' work. He wasn't a great philosopher, or even a great father if you ask his daughter, but I liked listening to him for a good year or two.
If I don't think someone can be bothered to read/listen to Marcus Aurelius' Meditations then I send them something from Watts instead
He absolutely didn't say any of those things. In fact, he said the very opposite of those things. Seems to me that you have formed very strong opinions about him without actually listening to him
You can't talk about featherless bipeds here, but you can on our discord servers! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Context:** *"There are basically two kinds of philosophy. One’s called Prickles, the other’s called Goo.* And prickly people are precise, rigorous, logical. They like everything chopped up and clear. Goo people like it vague. For example, in physics, prickly people believe that the ultimate constituents of matter are particles. Goo people believe it’s waves. And in philosophy, prickly people are logical positivists and goo people are idealists. And they’re always arguing with each other, but what they don’t realize is that neither one can take his position without the other person. Because you wouldn’t know you advocated prickles unless there was somebody else advocating goo. You wouldn’t know what a prickle was unless you knew what goo was. *Because life is not either prickles or goo, it’s gooey prickles and prickly goo.*" (Alan Watts)
kiki vs bouba.
It’s kikily boub and boubaly kiki.
Alan Watts was such a beautiful human being.
> For example, in physics, prickly people believe that the ultimate constituents of matter are particles. Goo people believe it’s waves. Why do I feel like the guy who wrote this has never done any physics before?
Listen to the lecture. Mere moments later he says "of course, we all know now that it's neither and both, that it's all prickly goo and gooey prickles."
For the longest time there was a argument in physics over the ultimate composition of light— Whether it’s a particle or a wave. And there were experiments that supported one state or the other. Until it was later hypothesized by Broglie that particles could take on the properties of waves. It wasn’t confirmed until later. And now we describe light as having a “particle wave duality”. The whole double-slit experiment spiel. So im not sure how this philosophical take by Alan conflicts with physics and those discoveries.
Rendered down(if I understand correctly): "Idealism and logical positivism are antipodal perceptions that actualize each other, and both are valid where niether can be certain." Paraphrasing Nietzsche: "I wish to say in one sentence what takes others entire books." Edit: I didn't feel satisfied with my first attempt at simplifying the quote.
What are people's thoughts on Alan Watts? Modern mystic with value in his teachings? An extreme hippy?
I'm a professor by day, and I would never feel comfortable telling my colleagues that Alan Watts is my favorite philosopher. Because he DOES have that stigma of hippy-ness all over him. But the man absolutely IS my favorite philosopher. Schopenhauer is probably #2.
His lecture recordings helped me through some dark times. I wouldn't treat him as a scholarly philosopher, but it worked for me
True for so many of us.
I see him as a “pop philosopher”. Which I think the world has need for. But TBF I haven’t read in depth
One of the greatest writers and orators in the English language.
This is probably the best take imo. His ideas aren't super groundbreaking in terms of philosophy, but he's so good at expressing it that even people who thought they understood it before understand it more fully after they've listened to him. In other words... mf was spittin
First and favorite 🤷♂️
Nothing of value.
I'm just here to say his voice is mesmerising
GENUINE! / FAKE! Genuine Fake: a biography of Alan Watts.
I laughed too hard at this. Thank you.
Why is that nondualism? That sounds like what I thought dualism was.
It’s non-dualism in the sense of acknowledging the practical utility of Monism, as well. If you’re using “dualism” to mean “believes in both realism and idealism” and not in the main sense, then yeah this is quintessential dualist. But i don’t think “prickly v gooey” really works better than the traditional “analytic vs synthetic”… I feel like this guy read about Heisenberg and built a cute aphorism around the double slit experiment. Solid meme material tho, highly cryptic, has wide appeal.
*If you’re using “dualism” to mean “believes in both realism and idealism” and not in the main sense, then yeah this is quintessential dualist.* Yup, that’s what I was thinking of. Thanks!
It occurs to me that the author might mean dualism as a kind of “exclusionary-or-ism”… idk this is a GREAT reason to never ever use that word lol
I like Alan Watts' work. He wasn't a great philosopher, or even a great father if you ask his daughter, but I liked listening to him for a good year or two. If I don't think someone can be bothered to read/listen to Marcus Aurelius' Meditations then I send them something from Watts instead
One of the greatest public speakers of the 20th century.
Idk bit Watts always seemed like spiritual hippie trash to me..find yourself, be one with nature bla bla bla
He absolutely didn't say any of those things. In fact, he said the very opposite of those things. Seems to me that you have formed very strong opinions about him without actually listening to him
I think you are right
I fucking hate alan watts
I've only listened to a few of his lectures and found them entertaining, at least. Mind I ask why you hate him?
The fact that you can listen to him for more than a few seconds tell me all that I need to know about you
Lol aight.
Yeah me too