I note that Andy put up some PR on the PT Website about me waxing philosophical here on the blog. So to add validity to his words, I thought I would give it a shot.
I copy from Wikipedia:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία, philos and sophos, “love of wisdom”.
Ah, where to begin? Should we focus on the Skepticism of Pascal, or the rationalism of Descartes? How about the idealism of Kant or Marx, or existentialism of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche or the moral and political approaches of Mann, Aquinas, or Aristotle?
Is there truly a “philosophy of parking?” Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no one there to hear it? What about all those angels cavorting on the head of a pin?
First of all, we know parking exists, except where it doesn’t. It’s transient, not static. It changes, but has a certain constant. Parking is deeply involved in truth and law and language, but singularly, I think, lacking in wisdom.
Since parking is not an object but a series of ideas or concepts, perhaps the rationalism school of philosophy should be considered for parking. Descartes felt that reason alone could yield substantial truths about reality. Well, it makes sense that cars exist, and with the possible exception of Pascal and Hume, most would accept that as fact. Being the case it would seem that reason would indicate that as in “I think therefore I am,” (Descartes), we are moved to consider parking along the lines of “Cars are, therefore they park.”
I think I’m getting a headache, more next time, class
JVH
