Letter to the Editor: Chuck Norris has a place in academia
Issue date: 4/21/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
A recent editorial in The DePauw contained the following assertion: "Using a Chuck Norris quote in your philosophy paper does not, in fact, make your argument more emphatic." As a philosophy professor, I feel I cannot let this claim pass unchallenged. The fact of the matter is that a well-placed "Chuck Norris quote" (which I assume indicates one of the currently popular "facts" about Chuck Norris) can indeed enhance the quality of philosophical argumentation.
? Suppose, for instance, that you are attempting to describe the concept of teleological explanation, or explanation in terms of goals or purposes. This concept is well-illustrated by the following Chuck Norris "fact": "Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris." Or perhaps your assignment calls for explication of the notion of success terms, terms that may be properly applied only to actions that succeed in achieving their intended aims: "Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting; Chuck Norris goes killing."
? If it's an illustration of the distinction between logical possibility and physical possibility that you're after, the following does the trick: "According to the Laws of Physics, it is impossible for Chuck Norris to build more muscle. Upon realizing thisk Chuck Norris swiftly roundhouse kicked every law of physics known to man, as well as those known only by Chuck Norris. He now has the ability to will his muscles to any level of strength he desires at any given time." Need a nifty illustration of stipulative definition? "Chuck Norris defines 'love' as the reluctance to murder. If you're still alive, it's because Chuck Norris loves you." Is it mathematical puzzles you're after? How about: "Chuck Norris counted to infinity. Twice."
? I could go on, but these simple examples should suffice to establish my point. I hope that in the future the editorial staff of The DePauw will engage in some Chuck-related research before making broad claims about the uses to which "facts" about Chuck Norris can and cannot be appropriately put. In a Chuckshell: If you think Chuck Norris "facts" can't enhance your philosophy paper, then you don't know Chuck.
Erik Wielenberg?professor of philosophy
? Suppose, for instance, that you are attempting to describe the concept of teleological explanation, or explanation in terms of goals or purposes. This concept is well-illustrated by the following Chuck Norris "fact": "Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris." Or perhaps your assignment calls for explication of the notion of success terms, terms that may be properly applied only to actions that succeed in achieving their intended aims: "Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting; Chuck Norris goes killing."
? If it's an illustration of the distinction between logical possibility and physical possibility that you're after, the following does the trick: "According to the Laws of Physics, it is impossible for Chuck Norris to build more muscle. Upon realizing thisk Chuck Norris swiftly roundhouse kicked every law of physics known to man, as well as those known only by Chuck Norris. He now has the ability to will his muscles to any level of strength he desires at any given time." Need a nifty illustration of stipulative definition? "Chuck Norris defines 'love' as the reluctance to murder. If you're still alive, it's because Chuck Norris loves you." Is it mathematical puzzles you're after? How about: "Chuck Norris counted to infinity. Twice."
? I could go on, but these simple examples should suffice to establish my point. I hope that in the future the editorial staff of The DePauw will engage in some Chuck-related research before making broad claims about the uses to which "facts" about Chuck Norris can and cannot be appropriately put. In a Chuckshell: If you think Chuck Norris "facts" can't enhance your philosophy paper, then you don't know Chuck.
Erik Wielenberg?professor of philosophy
Be the first to comment on this story