Dissolving the Paradox

Some seem to think that one of the major goals of philosophy is to dissolve dilemmas. That is, to reform terms and questions such that whatever problem is at hand no longer seems intelligible (or at least relevant/urgent). I, however, take a different tack. I prefer to fabricate problems and opponents that I may rant endlessly on them, eventually building up my supposed enemies such that I may tear them down, spit on the rubble and crown myself the victor.

It's kind of like talk radio. Or politics.

With that in mind, I would like to enter into a discussion upon the very idea of 'phallic imagery.' This notion has entered the public consciousness to such an extent that it is commonly used to demean those who own fast cars or build tall buildings by those who are envious of people who build tall buildings or own fast cars. "They are just compensating for their small penises," the doubters say, ignoring the fast that they themselves are probably among that class.

As a matter of fact, there are very simple, practical reasons why people engage in the cannonical examples of 'phallic enhancement.'

1.) Sports cars: Face it, fast cars are just downright cool. They are really fast and that is fun as hell. I have only ridden in a couple of legit fast cars, and the experience is exhilarating in ways that have nothing to do with the penis, or even really the libido.

Furthermore, it has always been the opinion of this commentator that the most attractive sports cars tend to have curves more closely resembling those of a woman than anything masculine.

2.) Tall buildings: Tall buildings, quite simply, offer lots of floorspace while taking up relatively small amounts of land. This is why they are found in cities, where floorspace and land are both at a premium. Consider: if skyscrapers were really about extending one's penis in some metaphorical sense, then they would be built in suburban and rural areas, where the lack of competition would make their size that much more impressive.

It should not be forgotten that a tall and famous buildings provide an instantly recognizable symbol, and thus free advertsing, for your brand/corporation/company . . . whatever.

3.) Bombes/missiles ect: This one, I cannot touch. For to argue otherwise would be to contradict George Carlin. Gerorge Carlin is a saint and untouchable. It's not that I think I am a competing comedian, its just that much of what i write is probably perceived as being so stupid and/or inane that I must see myself as such. But that is your problem.

That's basically it. I am going to have some bourbon.