Shakespeare’s Shylock character was an intended subversion of an ethnic stereotype that was entirely lost on his audience. It’s, in fact, incredibly ironic that ‘Shylock’ has been diminished to a racial slur when, in fact, the actual play was significantly more complex.
Shakespeare was gay.
Most ghosts are racist.
Rousseau, the social contract theorist and breast milk enthusiast, had a live in maid that would, almost without fail, get pregnant with his child every nine months. This child would then be immediately delivered into an orphanage and the maid would get three-to-four days off work. The child would never be heard from again.
Machiavelli was gay.
Michealango was gay.
Walden, by Henry David Thoreau, was, in fact, an elaborate ruse-he entertained guests and did not live solely off his own labour. This kind of makes his entire conceit about radical self-reliance seem kind of empty, doesn’t it?
Gertrude Stein was gay.
Plato openly admitted that his republic was not a feasible concept. Rather, the entire text is an allegory for gaining a personal sort of unity, for instituting a justice within yourself, for being at peace, in the world, as you should be.
Plato was gay.
Kierkegaard was pro-infanticide but anti-parricide.
Marxist Theory is founded on the notion that all of ‘history’ is class struggles beginning and subsuming one another before beginning a new. Each society is a sort of ‘thesis’ which, in turn, begets a cultural ‘antithesis’. These forces meet and the result is the generation of a sort of ‘synthesis’ which, in turn, marks the birth of a new society.
There’s an epistemological problem inherent in subjectivity. Everyone perceives of the world in their own seperate way-what you or I perceive as ‘true’ may not be recognized as an objective truth in the eyes of another functioning agent. And if they refuse to recognize the truth-value of a statement then, within the parameters of their own subjectivity, it doesn’t exist (in a Sartresian sort of way). How, then, can we decipher a coherent ordering of values if everyone (all functioning agents that do not share a mind nor perceive things in the same way) cannot find a common epistemological basis?
It’s still cheating if you have sex with a ghost.
Emotivist Ethical Theory reduces complex ethical problems to subjective reactions. You can’t really say anything is good or bad, you can only say ‘X stimulus provokes Y response in me’ which, in effect, precludes value judgement.
Emotivist Ethical Theory is bullshit.
Dating Ayn Rand is like having sex with a haunted stapler on Spring Break. In hell.
Prison doesn’t exist if you refuse to recognize (again, in a Sartresian way) as an element of your own subjectivity. Neither does Medicine. Or depression.
I’m depressed. Sometimes.
It doesn’t count as a threesome if you tell your girlfriend/boyfriend that ‘midway through you felt the presence of a spirit’.
I know, it’s bullshit. Ghosts either count or they don’t, right?
Nip/Tuck was an inaccurate representation of the realities of plastic surgery.