Gwnewch y pethau bychain

Reasons I adore , #2,991,322 in an ongoing series

Online conversation from today, discussing potentially problematic questions on an exam she’d given:

autographedcat: Bonus question #2: “What do they mean, ‘if a woodchuck could chuck wood’. Is there any point in calling it a woodchuck if it can’t? Defend your answer, quote Sartre if necessary.”
autographedcat: (i have no idea what class you’re teaching right now. I’m just feeling exceptionally silly)
catalana: Logic
catalana: 🙂
autographedcat: Well, there you go, then. The Woodchuck question is completely applicable.
catalana: Sartre believes that existence precedes essence, i.e., that we can create ourselves into whatever we wish to be. Hence he would be perfectly fine with a woodchuck existing even if it couldn’t chuck wood.
catalana: Aren’t you glad you asked? 🙂


Happy Birthday!


In honour of today’s weather…


  1. That’s one brilliant conversation 🙂

  2. Is there any point in calling it a woodchuck if it can’t?

    Certainly. The name “would chuck” clearly speaks to M. monax‘s intent, not its actual capability.

    A “can chuck” plays hockey for Vancouver.

  3. Other great philosophers weigh in:

    Decartes: I chuck, therefore I would.

    Yoda: Chuck or chuck not, there is no would.

    Jesus: Turn the other chuck.

  4. Hahahah 🙂 This is why I adore you *both* :))

  5. I’m glad you asked. 😀

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén