Here's the first:
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 13:26:03 +0100I didn't pay too much attention to this one when I first got it. I thought it was just a return to the simple truths of the earlier emails. I didn't notice the obvious problem until I read the next email:
From: sybil.cumae@googlemail.com
To: sfwc@hotmail.com
Subject: I thought you might want to know...
World peace would be a good thing.
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:13:26 +0000Again, my first reaction (after finding out what the Badshahi mosque is) was to accept this as a standard fact about the world, easily determinable by a wiki-search. Then I changed my mind. After all, whether a building is ugly or not isn't an objective fact; it is subjective. I guess that there are people somewhere who think this mosque isn't all it's cracked up to be. We don't have an objective standard we can go to to show that they are wrong: It's a matter of taste.
From: sybil.cumae@googlemail.com
To: sfwc@hotmail.com
Subject: I thought you might want to know...
The Badshahi Mosque is a beautiful building.
On the other hand, the emails from the sibyl have all been true (I've given up on explaining how) so I'd expect the content of this one to be true as well. Is the accuracy of the emails so far a good reason for me to accept the idea that there is an absolute aesthetic standard? Is it good enough to accept that the Badshahi mosque is (absolutely) beautiful? Is it better evidence than my own direct perception of that beauty in pictures of the mosque?
This train of thought led me to reevaluate my thinking about the previous email. After all, I don't normally ground my moral decisions in an objective moral standard. But for the content of that email to be true there would have to be such a standard. Is this good enough evidence for me to accept that some things are good in an absolute sense, or that world peace is one of those things? Is this a better reason to believe that world peace is good than my own direct perception of that fact?
Things got even worse this morning, when I got the following email:
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:11:19 +0000This is a statement for which (apart from this email) I had negligible evidence. Is the accuracy of the previous emails on matters of fact enough to make this email into good evidence of life after death?
From: sybil.cumae@googlemail.com
To: sfwc@hotmail.com
Subject: I thought you might want to know...
Humans have souls, which survive the death of the body.
I don't know quite how to think about these emails. First, I have no explanation for their earlier accuracy. Second, I have no idea whether or how far it is sensible to extrapolate that accuracy to statements about beauty, morality or spirituality.
5 comments:
i know this is probably a joke but it's pretty fascinating nonetheless. post more.
Do it.
Thanks for the encouragement. There isn't much more to tell. The next email I got from the sibyl had as the main text 'There is no sybil.cumae@googlemail.com. The whole thing was just a flight of fantasy you used to explore an interesting idea.'
Now, I think I can tell the difference between reality and fantasy. It was clear that the sybil had begun to spout utter nonsense. So I wrote a macro to automatically purge all emails from sybil.cumae@googlemail.com from my inbox, and I haven't been troubled by the ravings of the sybil since.
maybe you have been reading too much griffin & sabine?
I hadn't heard of Griffin and Sabine, but it looks interesting. I'm sure there are shared influences for both, though.
Post a Comment