Three philosophers are sitting huddled together around a small, round table, passionately discussing the meaning of life when suddenly and without warning one of them breaks wind in a thunderous manner.
Lawrence - …
Maurice - …
Constantine - …
Lawrence – Who was that?
Maurice – Was it not Aristotle that said that the one who brings the question to attention is also the one most closely related to it?
Constantine – I believe it was Plato, but there is nevertheless some truth in the proposition, if one believes in the concept of truth, that is... By Kant! This odour is ghastly! Have you no morals whatsoever, Lawrence? Are you a closet-nihilist, mayhap?
Lawrence – In no way am I a nihilist, Constantine. But in this particular case, the case of passing wind, that is, I may actually be the one closest to the phenomenon, but not in the sense you gentlemen accuse me of being. The reason it was I who brought it to attention was most probably because it was me the dastardly odour impinged on most violently, me being the youngest of us and therefore, logically, having a younger and more acute sense of smell.
P2 – Ah, but Lawrence, there is a paradox in your reasoning. If you already had this argument in mind when you brought the... wind to attention, then you can be said to have consciously been the one to first comment on it for the sole purpose of this shifting the blame away from you.
Constantine – What Maurice says is, if not true truth, then at least probable truth. And even if your sense of smell is better than ours, I would argue that your mind is not. Your coming up with a consistent argument of reason before either of us did hints of your guilt, in that you must have started constructing one before we had a chance to. You must in all likelihood have had knowledge of the coming wind before its sound and smell got our minds running.
Lawrence – With all do respect sirs, I would like to propose that my gears may just be a tad better greased, if you pardon my metaphor.
Maurice – Ah, but there you are slightly mistaken. The effectiveness of the neurons in our brains has to do with the synapses between them, not their age, and I dare say that we have had more time to create a fast-working network of connections than you have in your short life.
Lawrence – Maurice, I see that this is getting us nowhere. Could it be that this is one of those questions for which rational thought cannot provide an answer? Maybe a bit of empiric endeavour could be the right solution for our problems?
Constantine – What are you proposing?
Lawrence – Constantine, you know what empiricism is, you have read the works of John Locke, have you not? I suggest we use our olfactory systems to seek out the source of this biological gas leak. What say you?
Maurice – For crying out loud, Lawrence! It was me, okay? I don't want to have your noses up my arse, and much less mine up yours. Couldn't you just take the blame like a good Samaritan?
Lawrence – Veritas vos liberabit, my dear Maurice - the truth shall set you free.
I had a fun time reading about these three gentlemen. I especially like how, after all the pretentious way of speaking, Maurice bursts into "common" language and thereby breaks off the conversation in a very effective way (had he not, they could have continued on for ever). Ending with such a classical quote is also a good move.
SvaraRaderaThe only thing I really have to comment on, is the fact that you change the "indicator" of what each speaker is called, during the dialogue. From P1-3 to their respective names. While it is logical that we should not know their names until they've been told, it's confusing to try and fuse the first three persons to the next three persons, causing the reading to slow down because you have to re-read to catch up.
It was interesting to read what three philosophers are discussing and I can surely see them all in front off me accusing each other.
SvaraRaderaMost parts was read easily, there were I felt a few words that I didn't understand what they meant and there for I had to re-read the part again.
Though I feel that you have captured the English that I believe was spoken by philosophers with words like; ghastly, mayhap and tad.
Overall a good story.