Oh great and powerful Oracle, I submit this question to you...

What does Aeschylus' "The Oresteia" say about politics and how they should be run? What does the tragedy genre as a whole teach us that philosopher's might somehow overlook?

I thank you in advance oh speckless one.

Ok, you, oh oracle, have proven yourself worthy by correctly demonstrating knowledge on the great Douglasadamsian branch of philosophy. Without a doubt, the greatest of all branches.

Therefore I submit to you one of the questions that have cost me endless hours of fruitless pondering...I would appreciate any light you could shed on this subject, oh great SoC Oracle:

Why oh why the flying FUCK did Donald Duck wear a towel on his waist after leaving the shower if he otherwise never ever wore any kind of....pants---icular....clothing!?!? WHY!?!?!!


Thank You.

((oh, and to add to the pedantry...Polar Bear fur is not really white....it seems white from a distance, but if you were to examine it closely you'd discover its actually closer to...transparent...helpful in trapping sunlight and creating a miniature greenhouse effect in every hair))

*The Oracle set himself to pondering the following*

[quote:c00c266e92="Kahn"]Why oh why the flying FUCK did Donald Duck wear a towel on his waist after leaving the shower if he otherwise never ever wore any kind of....pants---icular....clothing!?!? WHY!?!?!![/quote:c00c266e92]

You've seen a wet t-shirt contest right? Haha... great fun for all the lads getting an eyefull of bouncy titties barely concealed through now largely transparent cloth.

Take that concept an apply it to Donald. White feathers, wet water, transparency.. *shudders* Let's just not go there...

ooooh master of knowledge..


How fast does the earth spin on its axis.
how fast does it go around the sun.
how fast does it go around the universe.
ect..ect


sitting here at my computer still as can be.. how fast am i currently moving.

*The Oracle noted Gabriel trying to avoid doing his own homework, with the following*

[quote:c5f1b9d2a5="Gabriel"]What does Aeschylus' "The Oresteia" say about politics and how they should be run? What does the tragedy genre as a whole teach us that philosopher's might somehow overlook?[/quote:c5f1b9d2a5]

Politics, Philosophy? *yawn*

We must call attention to an interpretative problem that frequently (too frequently) crops up with the Oresteia, especially among students, namely, the desire to treat this work as if it were, first and foremost, a philosophical investigation into concepts of justice rather than a great artistic fiction, a poetic exploration.

[size=9:c5f1b9d2a5]Why is this important? Well, briefly put, treating the play as if it were a rational argument on the order of, say, a Socratic enquiry, removes from our study of it the most important poetic qualities of the work. We concentrate all our discussions on the conceptual dimensions of the play, attending to the logic of Agamemnon's defense of his actions, or Clytaemnestra's of hers, or the final verdict of Athena in the trial of Orestes at the end, and we strive, above all, to evaluate the play on the basis of our response to the rational arguments put forward.[/size:c5f1b9d2a5]

[size=7:c5f1b9d2a5]This approach is disastrous because the Oresteia is not a rational argument. It is, by contrast, an artistic exploration of conceptual issues. What matters here are the complex states of feeling which emerge from the characters, the imagery, the actions, and the ideas (as they are expressed by particular characters in the action). What we are dealing with here, in other words, is much more a case of how human beings feel about justice, about the possibilities for realizing justice in the fullest sense of the word within the human community, than a rational blueprint for implementing a new system.[/size:c5f1b9d2a5]

Gah... yadda yadda etc.....

Anyway, the whole thing is pointless to explore without reference to the derivative works, by the great author Frank Herbert. In his "Dune" series, the House of Atreus has become the House of Atreides. Paul in his visions, still hears the words of Agamemnon in his past life memory. Perhaps the lessons to be learned are that despite all we think we have learned, still the future is the haves and the have nots, the great houses endlessly feuding, so that there ever will be a Paris to defend the walls and a Meneleus to knock them down.

In conclusion: The Oracle is not here to write your paper for you.

*The Oracle summoned his musicians and answered the following through the medium of song*

[quote:e2746bc262="Drain"]How fast does the earth spin on its axis.
how fast does it go around the sun.
how fast does it go around the universe.[/quote:e2746bc262]

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Oooooh thank you thank you great Oracle!

[size=7:2a05f6d7fa][/size:2a05f6d7fa]what a rip off...[size=12:2a05f6d7fa][/size:2a05f6d7fa]

*The Oracle levied his response to the following criticism*

[quote:60cc84528a="Gabriel"]Oooooh thank you thank you great Oracle!

[size=7:60cc84528a]what a rip off...[/size:60cc84528a][/quote:60cc84528a]

Rip off? This is a free service. You want your paper writing? Please mail your International Money Order for $3141 to

"The Oracle's Paper Elves
Delphi
Greece"

Next question please...

If a tree falls in the woods, and there are no living organisms able hear it, does it make a sound?

*The Oracle gave it's undivided attention to the following paradox*

[quote:6e887c01d8="Eveshka"]If a tree falls in the woods, and there are no living organisms able hear it, does it make a sound?[/quote:6e887c01d8]

I have given considerable thought to this particular paradox, an ancient one and given particular weight by the precise exclusion of living beings to hear the tree falling.

The first element of the paradox are the proverbial woods. It has, to my satisfaction, been proven that plants react to sound. Some plants grow better in the presence of soothing music, for example. Therefore, we must assume that the whole forest is dead and the falling tree is one of a number which will fall. We may be better addressing ourselves to the ecological concerns of vast swathes of dead woodland and the causes thereof, however I will work from the purely hypothetical standpoint of the tree which cannot be heard.

The science of the scenario is clear. The tree falls, potential energy is converted into kinetic energy and from there to heat and sound waves. The purely scientific synopsis might therefore be that yes, it makes sound regardless.

I believe however that this misses the point. Excluding non-contextual definitions such as a body of water, or solid construction, let us discuss the following question: What is the definition of sound?

Websters online dictionary suggests the following:

1. The particular auditory effect produced by a given cause; "the sound of rain on the roof"; "the beautiful sound of music".

2. The subjective sensation of hearing something; "he strained to hear the faint sounds".

3. Mechanical vibrations transmitted by an elastic medium; "falling trees make a sound in the forest even when no one is there to hear them".

4. The sudden occurrence of an audible event; "the sound awakened them".

5. The audible part of a transmitted signal; "they always raise the audio for commercials".

I would contend that defintion 3 refers to sound waves, rather than sound, which to my thinking is an object of perception. There may be vibrations in the air, but sound is a product of the perception of those vibrations. What we perceive as noise is a creation of our brains. To bolster my argument, I cite the unusual disorder of synaesthesia, where the senses overlap - in one particular case, the patient reports that names all have flavours, for example "Derek" tastes of earwax (poor Derek!). Others report seeing colours for words or sounds, eg "Wednesday" is red. It's all about perception. If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to taste it does it have flavour?

So, my final conclusion must be a simple one. Sound is a matter of perception and in fact the whole question is flawed.

A falling tree makes no sound. What we understand as sound is generated in the brain, our interpretation of vibrations in the air. Does the falling tree make those vibrations, yes. Does it make a sound? No, not even if there's an audience. It never, ever makes a sound.

Humm... I dont know if I'm satisfied with my Donald Duck question's answer, oh Great Oracle....for the wet-tshirt contest effect is something I had pondered already and had thoroughly dismissed with the fact that Donald Duck is, indeed a DUCK and ducks are aquatic birds with hydrophobic feathers that dont really absorb water....

But, if we want to argue that he, being an animated duck, might not have the qualities of real life aquatic ducks...then why did this transparency effect not work when Donald was wettened (yeah, that's a word!) outside of his shower and NOT wearing pants?...this happened very often, indeed. Chip and Dale used to dump buckets on him all the time, and he had a way of finding himself thrown into various bodies of water. We saw him wet with no pants on several ocassions, oh oracle, and no transparency was revealed whatsoever.

Then...WHY THE TOWEL AROUND THE WAIST WHEN LEAVING THE SHOWER!?!?!?

*The Oracle argued the following point*

[quote:f87802225a="Kahn"]But, if we want to argue that he, being an animated duck, might not have the qualities of real life aquatic ducks...[/quote:f87802225a]

*sighs*

Do you really want me to get into this, a sensible and correct answer?

That's a route I am willing to go down, if pushed, but it will make cartoons forever broken.

i was just making my statement cover all ases, you can ignore that part, continue with unbroken cartoons, and still the answer is lacking!!

[quote:de99d19b8b="The Oracle"]I cite the unusual disorder of synaesthesia, where the senses overlap - in one particular case, the patient reports that names all have flavours, for example "Derek" tastes of earwax (poor Derek!).[/quote:de99d19b8b]

Um... [i:de99d19b8b]Derek[/i:de99d19b8b] actually tastes like oatmeal. Really. I find that names have tastes. Mental flavors, to me, at least.


[quote:de99d19b8b="The Oracle"]Others report seeing colours for words or sounds, eg "Wednesday" is red. It's all about perception. If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to taste it does it have flavour?[/quote:de99d19b8b]

In a word, [b:de99d19b8b]NO[/b:de99d19b8b]! There's because there [b:de99d19b8b]IS NO ONE[/b:de99d19b8b] there to taste it, you fool!! Didn't anyone ever tell you that bark has a very dry flavor to it? Lots of protein tho'.

*The oracle proceeded to break cartoons, forever, for everyone*

Cartoons aren't real. Ducks don't wear towels after the shower, or little sailor suits for that matter. Cats eat mice... the mice are actually onto a loser in the cat vs mouse stakes. None of it is real, it's all make believe.

The whole Donald Duck, shower, towel thing is just a gag that the cartoonist thought was funny, or maybe as one of the Oracular Elves suggests, it pandered to the morality of the time and stuck. It's not real. Donald Duck is not real. The guy at disney world is just some poorly paid schmuck in a duck costume.

So that's it, that's the real answer, you forced it out of me. Happy now?

Next you'll be wanting me to lay into Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy.

Criminey... suspend your disbelief for but a moment and see the world as a more colourful place.

Next Question Please...