Freddy Purcell –
After including a cellist in his Phil on Tap last year, we would have expected Adrian to push the boundaries of what can be done at Philsoc. Philosophical improv was enough of a shift to induce an existential crisis. What is Philsoc? What is Phil on Tap?? These are some questions that we may not have security in answering from now on, but at least we will have fond memories of a fun talk to comfort us in these dark times.
In classic improv format, Adrian asked a full cellar in the White Hart for a noun and a verb that he would then do some philosophy about. The audience would then vote about whether they thought this was philosophy. Note that the philosophy being “about” these two things instead of “of” provides essential lenience that allowed Adrian’s arguments to stray into the loosely adjacent while still meeting the criterion for success (credit to Amelia Woods for pointing this out).
- Gum throwing-Adrian made heavy use of the unforgettable Iris Marion Young’s famous paper, Throwing like a Girl. Young (1980) argues that as they grow up, girls acquire habits of “feminine bodily comportment” that mean they grow up learning to walk, talk, sit, etc. in a particular way. This includes throwing in a weaker way and generally adopting a form of bodily timidity that fits into patriarchal expectations. Having explained this, Adrian then moved to comment that an act like chewing gum doesn’t appear to be gendered in the same way as throwing is. This suggests that gender divides are expressed and enforced through specific activities, rather than being a deeper sort of division.
The audience generally voted in favour of this being philosophy, with some making the of/about objection mentioned above. Other votes against might have been freshers regretting their degree choices.
- Alcohol singing-This prompt centred around the age-old question of whether alcohol makes you a better singer. Adrian argued that this all depends on the performance context, with karaoke likely enhanced by alcohol while choral singing would almost certainly be hindered. An aesthetic judgement must therefore be context dependent rather than referring to any sort of objective quality marker.
This one was unfortunately difficult to argue with, so raised no objections from the audience as a piece of philosophy. Maybe they learned that protest was futile. We also got a performance of the Monty Python drunk philosopher song which was a bonus.
- Shoelace painting-The stakes were rising at this point. Surely he couldn’t keep getting away with it? At shoelace painting it seemed like Adrian had run out of luck. Unfortunately he found a way out by arguing that our material environment constrains our ability to make art, as different conventions on instrument usage do not disqualify a product as art. In fact, a paintbrush is only an object with which paint is brushed, meaning that with a certain motion (brushing) a shoelace must qualify as a paintbrush (mind. blown.).
The audience did have some objections, arguing that this was more theory of art than philosophy. Although of course some suggested that this was just an intersection between the two disciplines.
- Brick scuba-diving-I think everyone thought this would be impossible. A long pause suggested that Adrian was finally stumped. But then Adrian started speaking about how penguins are unique amongst birds in lacking the hollow pneumatised bones that allow most species to fly. This is an intrinsic property for penguins. However, if you took a sparrow and attached it to a brick before throwing it into a body of water (preferably in the southern hemisphere), then the sparrow appears more like a penguin. Yet still if you attached a less brutal weighting system and give it a means of underwater propulsion. Adrian argues that therefore see that while we categorise animals by intrinsic properties, we really define their natures (and therefore make similarity claims) based on extrinsic features and capacities.
Many were unconvinced, with one person claiming that Adrian had just gone on a ramble and worse, that he hadn’t actually mentioned scuba-diving. Adrian tried to save this by saying that a human becomes more penguin-like with scuba-diving gear, but it may have been too late. Maybe you can’t do philosophy about anything after all.
It was a really fun talk, so thank you Adrian for brightening up our evenings! Amongst the fun and silliness, it was also enjoyable to see the possible breadth of philosophy. I think this is the main reason why many people are attracted to the subject. The talk also raised interesting questions of why we feel like some arguments are more philosophical than others. Is it a feeling of being profoundly moved or is it based on how an argument fits around an established canon of philosophy? I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below, as well as whether you’re convinced by any of Adrian’s philosophical improv.
Bibliography:
Young, I.M. (1980) ‘Throwing like a Girl: A Phenomenology of Feminine Body Comportment Mobility and Spatiality’, Human Studies, Vol.3, No.2, pp.137-156.