Add “Kennedy” to the list of great philosophers in all 9th grade AP European History textbooks
It’s Sunday, and I usually use this day as one for reflection on my previous weeks of life and keep things tame. This past week has been a roller coaster ride of emotions that surely would induce psychotic breaks in the minds of an average man, but never fear guys, for Kev has it under control. This week I fought with my 51 year old tree hugger roommate a lot, which led me to get blacked out drunk and spill a secret of a dear friend of mine. Oh well LOL. I also went to Bloomington to service the only cock I ever get down with, KOK. I got with a ton of hot babes and got no numbers and they all kind of looked like “Megara” so it was a huge success.
During my thinking today, I came across this dilemma. It has been argued that freedom of thought is a precondition for intellectual progress, because freedom of thought allows thinkers to pursue their ideas, regardless of whom these ideas offend (everyone), in whatever direction they lead (nowhere). However, it is clear that one must mine the full implications of interrelated ideas to make intellectual progress, and for this, great thinkers like Kev need intellectual discipline. Therefore, this argument for freedom of thought is an epic FAIL.
So how do I reconcile this? In the interest of intellectual progress, is it better to go buckwild or have guidelines and constraints? Personally, I think disciplined thinking is like bowling with bumpers: they don’t really do shit. You can still throw the ball like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uw_EGMByGA
Also, my argument relies on the assumption that my free thoughts are offensive to everyone, which I know is a huge joke and probably made you ROTFL but for the sake of debate I put it in there. I think the ultimate answer is to just blame “Megara” for infiltrating my brain so bad this week!
Any way, I’ll leave you with a picture of me with all my intellectual equals taken last spring:
Love with all my heart & hole,