The Hazards of Love by the Decemberists
I've been reading Adam Smith and John Locke for the past 24 hours, which is insanity in itself, but when I got to this passage, something odd happened:
This might with Justice be expected from those Men, who lay stress upon this Opinion: and it gives occasion to distrust either their Knowledge or Charity, who declaring, That God has imprinted on the Minds of Men, the foundations of Knowledge, and the Rules of Living, are yet so little favourable to the Information of their Neighbours, or the Quiet of Mankind, as not to point out to them, which they are, in the variety of Men are distracted with. But in truth, were there any such innate Principles, there would be no need to teach them. (Essay Concerning Human Understanding 76)
After reading this, I began to laugh hysterically. See, what it means is that if God was an innate idea, along with all his rules for living, there would be no need for churches to teach us about God because we'd already have that knowledge. Get it? It's hilarious!
So clearly one of two things have happened: Either I am completely ready to write my comps or I've lost my mind entirely. Any philosophy scholars out there want to make a case for Locke's wicked sense of humour?
I thought not. I'll be awaiting the men in white coats, then.
On a slightly saner note, Happy Birthday, Mom. If you could possibly let me know how old I am, that'd be helpful. I haven't been able to remember in a little over a month.