How 67 is destroying most western philosophy
What would Socrates do?
Socrates would look at 67 and think: “What is 67?”, however just like how he struggled with justice in the past, he won’t have much success actually figuring it out.
You can take a look at the history of 67, the song by Skrilla and the 67 kid. You could then figure out that Skirlla probably refereed to the police code 10-67, which indicates death, this however still does not explain the use of 67, that we see in ordinary language. 67 is meant to be something funny, a inside joke, most people won’t be thinking about death or sadness. Compare this to it’s less developed sibling, 69, which to some extend has some function associated with classical humor, as it refers to something sexual, that could be funny in a unexpected mention. 67 does not have this, there is no object of 67, 67 itself is only a command. “LAUGH NOW”. This is no definition, Socrates would not be happy.
There is no perfect idea of 67.
There is no being of 67, there are no accidents.
There is no thing-in-itself.
How will western philosophy recover from 67?
Wittgenstein, the savior of 67
Ludwig Wittgenstein, a philosopher born in Austria 130 or so years ago, is the only one that can help us in this situation.
In his second and last book, Philosophical Investigations, he brings up the idea of the beetle box.
Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a “beetle”. No one can look into anyone else’s box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. –Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. –But suppose the word “beetle” had a use in these people’s language? –If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty.
The beetle in this case is 67 itself. Multiple people will give you a different story on 67, however most people will say it’s empty. What the contents of 67 truly is, is unimportant to the function of language. 67 makes you laugh, and it fulfills it’s job.
Brainrot is a function of language, you could even say it’s primary foundation, not an error.