A philosophical dialogue on the essence of 'essence ' DOOFUS:
Socrates, Ignoramus is at it again. SOCRATES:
What did he say this time? DOOFUS:
We were by the lake, watching the ducks, and all I did was exclaim “What
beautiful ducks!” But Ignoramus, seemingly incapable of appreciating the
ducks for what they are, started questioning what they were. SOCRATES:
Well, let’s see. Tell me, Doofus, is the duck a duck? DOOFUS::
I would say so. SOCRATES:
And was the duck a duck? DOOFUS:
I gather. SOCRATES:
So you agree that what the duck was, is what the duck is—namely, a duck? DOOFUS:
You say it most excellently, Socrates. Your mind is far-reaching. SOCRATES:
Then, if Ignoramus questioned what the ducks were,
is this not the same as asking what the ducks are? DOOFUS:
I suppose… IGNORAMUS:
Brilliant! SOCRATES:
Ducks then… DOOFUS:
Yes… SOCRATES:
Where were we? DOOFUS:
I just wanted to say that those were very nice ducks. IGNORAMUS:
But how do you know that those are ducks? DOOFUS:
What? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck! Surely
this is evident. IGNORAMUS:
Not so fast. Maybe they just look
like ducks. SOCRATES:
Tell me Doofus, can a man not learn to walk and talk like a duck? DOOFUS:
He can. SOCRATES:
Once he has learned, is he no longer a man? Is he now a duck? DOOFUS:
He is still a man, but— IGNORAMUS:
He is still a man! There, he has
proved it! DOOFUS:
What on Earth did he prove? IGNORAMUS:
That if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a man. SOCRATES:
Interesting conclusion, Ignoramus. So you would say that Doofus, by the
lake, was in fact appreciating the beauty of men? IGNORAMUS:
I can see no other argument. DOOFUS:
This is utter nonsense. Those were ducks! IGNORAMUS:
You refuse to reason. SOCRATES:
Well, actually, we still need to do some thinking here. IGNORAMUS:
Tell us, Socrates. SOCRATES:
Why don’t you tell us, Doofus, why the man that walks like a duck and
talks like a duck is a man and not a duck? DOOFUS:
Why, because he doesn’t have feathers! SOCRATES:
Could we not cover him in feathers? DOOFUS:
Yes, but he wouldn’t have a beak. Look: I only said ‘walks like a duck
and talks like a duck’ as a figure of speech. There are many things that
make up a duck. A beak, three-claws on the feet, wings, feathers, a certain size,
etc. A man could never have them all. Why is this not obvious? SOCRATES:
Is everything obvious true? DOOFUS:
No…I guess not. SOCRATES:
So everything obvious is not true. Do you agree? DOOFUS:
Yes, I suppose I agree. SOCRATES:
And so anything obvious is false. IGNORAMUS:
He has proved it! DOOFUS:
Um… SOCRATES:
But if something is obviously false, then it must be true. For the truth
of its falsity is obvious, and so false, and consequently true. DOOFUS:
This is very productive but I’d like to get back to the ducks. IGNORAMUS:
A one-track mind. SOCRATES:
Let us get back to the ducks, then. Suppose that I plucked all the
feathers from a duck. DOOFUS:
Let us suppose that. SOCRATES:
It has happened. DOOFUS:
Yes, I have heard. SOCRATES:
Is the featherless duck still a duck? DOOFUS:
Yes, I would say that it is. SOCRATES:
Now suppose that this featherless duck was born without one leg. Is this
duck still a duck? DOOFUS:
I think so, yes. SOCRATES:
So a thing can be a duck despite not having feathers and lacking one leg. DOOFUS:
I see. IGNORAMUS:
Tremendous! SOCRATES:
Now, what do you call a man with only one leg? IGNORAMUS:
With feathers, Socrates? SOCRATES:
Well, no. IGNORAMUS:
A duck, then! DOOFUS:
Try to be quiet there, Ignoramus. I guess I would also call him ‘a
man’, Socrates. SOCRATES:
And do you agree then, that outward properties are neither necessary nor
sufficient to make either a man or a duck what they are? DOOFUS:
It must be true. SOCRATES:
Therefore, being a human or a duck must be about something deeper. DOOFUS:
It cannot be otherwise. SOCRATES:
But this is obvious. DOOFUS:
True. SOCRATES:
And so it must be false. IGNORAMUS:
We are done! DOOFUS:
You are driving me crazy! How is it false? SOCRATES:
Does a man have duckness or humanity? DOOFUS:
Why, humanity! SOCRATES:
Yes, and so a man who dons feathers and wears a beak, even if he walk and
talk like a duck, and make himself as small as a duck, is still not a duck
because he lacks duckness. Is this not so? DOOFUS:
It must be so. But duckness is precisely that deeper thing that makes
something a duck. And you just told me that this way of reasoning is
obvious and therefore false. SOCRATES:
It must be, Doofus. DOOFUS:
I cannot see why. SOCRATES:
Duckness is the essence of duck, do you agree? DOOFUS:
It can hardly be otherwise. SOCRATES:
And it appears that the essence of duck is what makes something a duck. DOOFUS:
It would appear so. SOCRATES:
But the essence of duck is the ‘ness’ in ‘duckness’, otherwise we
just got ‘duck’, correct? DOOFUS:
Very correct. SOCRATES:
But in order to get ‘duck’, must we not remove the ‘ness’ from
‘duckness’? IGNORAMUS:
We must! DOOFUS:
Uh… SOCRATES:
And since ‘ness’ is the essence, we see that to get ‘duck’ we must
remove the essence of duck, which is duckness. Therefore, there cannot be
any duckness in a duck. IGNORAMUS:
Eureka! SOCRATES:
And so I am forced to conclude that if it walks and talks like a duck, it
may be a duck, but then again it may not. It could be human. It could also
be a rare Madagascar Lemur. In any case what matters is that it not have
any duckness. If it does, it cannot be a duck. DOOFUS:
Wow! It all seemed so simple at first. So, what did I see by the lake? SOCRATES:
Probably some hippopotami. DOOFUS:
It must be so, Socrates. Your infinite wisdom triumphs again! IGNORAMUS: Hooray!
. . . by Francisco Gil-White |